HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegislative Review - State and Federal Legislation CITY OF PALM DESERT
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVE THE PALM DESERT LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION FOR PROPOSED STATE & FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
DATE: September 25, 2014
CONTENTS: 1. Legislative Analysis
2. Draft Correspondence
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve the recommended letters of support for (1) AB 380 (Dickinson) and
(2) SB 1129 (Steinberg) and the recommended letters of opposition for (1) FCC Title II
Regulations concerning the Internet and (2) AB 2188 (Muratsuchi).
Commlttee Recommendation
At their September 12, 2014, meeting, the Palm Desert Legislative Fteview Committee
recommended that the City Council approve letters of support and opposition for the following
legislation: (1) AB 380 (Dickinson), (2) SB 1129 (Steinberg), (3) FCC Title II Regulations
concerning the Internet and (4) AB 2188 (Muratsuchi).
Backaround
At their September 12, 2014, meeting, the Palm Desert Legislative Review Committee
recommended that the City of Palm Desert send correspondence indicating its support and
opposition position on the following legislation:
A. AB 380 (Dickinson)-SUPPORT
AB 380 (Dickinson) requires rail carriers to submit specific information regarding
the transport of hazardous materials and Bakken oil to the California Office of
Emergency Services (OES) for the purposes of emergency response planning.
The bill will require railroads to report to the state OES, information about
hazardous materials including crude oil related cargo transported in this state by
a rail carrier. Rail carriers shall also provide their Hazardous Materials
Emergency Response Plans to OES. The bill would also require rail carriers to
maintain a live 24 hour communications line which local emergency response
dispatchers can contact to obtain information about hazardous cargo, including
crude oil, being transported on a train which has experienced a critical incident,
such as a derailment.
A hazardous material release is identified as a local hazard in the City's Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Staff respectfully recommends the City Council authorize
a letter of support be sent for this bill. The legislation was passed by the
Assembly and Senate and is before the Governor for his consideration. The
League of California Cities supports this bill
Staff Report: Position Statements & Legislation
September 25, 2014
Page 2 of 4
B. SB 1129 (Steinberg)- SUPPORT
AB 1129 (Steinberg) amends several statutes governing redevelopment
agencies' (RDAs) dissolution. Among other things, this bill (1) authorizes an
RDA successor agency to use the proceeds of bonds issued in 2011 for the
purposes for which the bonds were sold, if those purposes are consistent with a
specified sustainable communities strategy (SCS); (2) deems an agreement
entered into by an RDA prior to June 30, 2011 that commits funds to state
highway infrastructure improvements as an enforceable obligation; and (3)
revises the process for disposal of former RDA properties through a long-range
property management plan (LRPMP) by eliminating a requirement for
compensation agreements governing the distribution of property proceeds.
While some of the bill's provisions do not have a direct impact to the City of Palm
Desert, the City does benefit from the following provisions:
• Requires the state Department of Finance (DOF), prior to the rejection of
an enforceable obligation from a Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule (ROPS) for a successor agency that has received a finding of
completion from DOF, as specified, to submit the proposed rejection to the
oversight board for review and approval, whose determination shall be
final and conclusive without further review by DOF.
• Places a time limit of 45 days for DOF to provide written confirmation, if an
enforceable obligation provides for an irrevocable commitment of property
tax revenue and where allocation of such revenues is expected to occur
over time and the successor agency has petitioned DOF to provide written
confirmation that its determination of such enforceable obligation as
approved in a ROPS is final and conclusive, as specified.
• Specifies that provisions of law that require a city, county, or city and
county that wishes to retain any property or other assets for future
redevelopment activities, funded from its own funds and under its own
auspices, to reach a compensation agreement with the other taxing
entities to provide payments to them in property to their shares of the base
property tax, as specified, for the value of the property retained, shall not
apply to the disposition of properties pursuant to a Long Range Property
Management Plan (LRPMP).
• Requires, if the oversight board finds that a loan is an enforceable
obligation, that the accumulated interest on the remaining principal
balance of the loan shall be calculated using the interest rate eamed by
funds deposited into the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) in effect on
the date of loan origination, and as adjusted quarterly thereafter. Requires
the remaining balance of the Ioan and the accumulated interest to be
repaid to the city, county, or city and county in accordance with a defined
schedule over a reasonable term of years at an interest rate not to exceed
the interest rate earned by funds deposited in the LAIF as the rate is
adjusted on a quarterly basis.
Staff Report: Position Statements & Legislation
September 25, 2014
Page 3 of 4
• Specifies that DOF shall only consider whether a LRPMP makes a good
faith effort to address the requirements set forth in the existing law that
specifies what the LRPMP shall do.
• Specifies that actions relating to the disposition or property after approval
of a LRPMP shall not require review by DOF.
Staff respectfully recommends the City Council authorize a letter of support be
sent for this bill. The legislation was passed by the Assembly and Senate and is
before the Governor for his consideration. The League of California Cities
supports this bill
C. FCC Title It Regulations Concerning the Internet-OPPOSE
The Internet has been one of the fastest advancing technologies in history. A
proposed FCC Title II Regulations on the Internet will likely have a significant
impact on past and future innovation and opportunities in the broadband
marketplace. The Intemet is the world's biggest driver of economic development.
Congress should act to protect against calls for utility-like common carrier
regulation that may threaten demand for Internet infrastructure, reduce incentives
for investment, hinder innovation and jeopardize current and future success. Staff
respectfully recommends the City Council authorize a letter of opposition be sent
for this matter.
D. AB 2188 (Muratsuchi)- OPPOSE
AB 2188 (Muratsuchi) requires every city and county on or before September 30,
2015, to adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited permitting process for
small, residential rooftop solar energy systems, alters the definition of what is a
reasonable restriction on a solar energy system, and makes additional changes
to the Solar Rights Act. The major provisions of this bill:
a) Require ministerial approval of permit applications for small, residential
rooftop solar energy systems if they meet a checklist of system
requirements that is developed by each local agency;
b) Require inspections for these systems "in a timely manner," and
generally require only one inspection, with specified exceptions;
c) Require, before a city or county may require a use permit for a solar
energy system, a finding based on "substantial evidence," rather than the
existing law requirement of"a good faith belief;" and,
This bill also contains a number of conforming and updating changes. The
provisions of this bill would apply to all cities and counties in Califomia, including
charter cities. Rushing the local permitting process for this one technology sets
up a poor precedent and could present public safety concerns. The permitting
process involves decisions which, in part, avoid safety hazards and allow proper
Staff Report: Position Statements & Legislation
September 25, 2014
Page4of4
compliance with applicable building codes by ensuring that solar panels are
properly designed and installed to different types of structures.
This bill establishes a "one size fits all" approach to solar roof permits irrespective
of workload, level of staff, or unique aspects of the building or structure where the
panel is to be placed. Ensuring public safety and proper review and oversight
should not be rushed because one commercial product has gained in popularity.
While the City remains supportive of expanding access to renewable energy
resources, including residential solar, staff does not believe that the rigid solar
permit and inspection process as mandated in AB 2188 is the right approach.
Staff respectfully recommends the City Council authorize a letter of opposition be
sent for this bill. The legislation was passed by the Assembly and Senate and is
before the Governor for his consideration. The League of California Cities
opposes this bifl
Fiscal Analvsis
There is no fiscal impact related to the City's opposition or support of these legislative matters.
Submitted By:
-� �
a �—
Stepheri Y.�" ryan, Ri5(c Manager
Approval:
/ �Q� ✓ �floh+LA�IuTH
Rudy A osta, A/City Manager
*Item I removed for separate discussion, then
APPROVID 4-0, as amended, with staff directed to
take a further look at the issue and draft letter
regarding FCC. title II Regulations concerning
the Intemet, based on the point raised in the �
letter received from Mr. Alden. CTTY COUNCILAC�'iiQN
Ai'PROVF,D � �� DFNiF,D
RCCEIVED OTHER
M[?CTING DATE �`�'��. -
AY[?S:�'1�,DYl, �ni KF IA� +^ �GrYtt'1(L�
Nors: ��
a�scNT: Sn��iel _
A13STAIN:
V�RiT1Ell BY: ��(��� -
Original on File with City Clerk's Office ,
September 25, 2014
Honorable Jerry Brown, Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 380 (Dickfnson)
Signature Request
Dear Governor Brown:
The City of Palm Desert respectfully requests your signature on Assembly Bill 380, which will require rail
carriers to submit to the Office of Emergency Services (OES) commodity flow data for a specified period,
by county and track route for the 25 largest hazardous material commodities moved through the state. It
further specifies that the data must include tank cars loaded with petroleum oil.
Most significantly for local governments, the bill requires the OES to disseminate information necessary
for developing emergency response plans to each unified program agency, including designated local
public agency first responders.
There is an urgent need for such coordination in light of the increased number of oil spills in California
since 2013, triggered in part by the dramatic increase in the transport of petroleum oil and other
hazardous substances by rail. This measure helps to address a significant deficiency in local agency
emergency preparedness in regard to accidents involving hazardous materials, specifically spills and
other accidents associated with the transportation of petroleum oil by rail.
For these reasons, the City of Palm Desert supports this measure and respectfully urges you to endorse
it. If you have questions, or if we can be of assistance, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager,
at (760) 346-0611. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: Ciry Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseC�cacities.orq
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, ponsalvesC�ponsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Rudy Acosta, Assistant City Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
AB 380
Page 1
(Without Refere�ce to F�1e)
CONCURRINCE IN SINATE ANIEIVDMEIVTS
AB 380 (Dickinson)
As Arnended August 21, 2014
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: 53-23 (May 29, 2013) SENATE: 28-4 (August 25, 2014)
COMMITTEE VOTE: 6-0 (August 29, 2014) RECOMMENDATION: concur
(E.S.&T.M.)
Origfr�al Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SLJMMARY: Requires ra1 carriers to submit specific information regarding the transport of
hazardous materials and Bakken o� to the O�ce of F�nergency Services (OFS) for the purposes of
emergency response plaiu�ing.
The Senate amendmetrts delete the Assembty version of this b�71, and instead:
1) Requ�e, no later than January 31, 2015, and every three rr�rnths thereafter, a ra� carrier to
prepare and submrt to OES coirnr�odity flow data for the prior three morrths broken down by
cowrty and track route rekvant to the 25 )argest ha�rdous material corrnn�drties transported
through the state, inchxling tank cars baded with oil cargo.
2) BegIIming January 31, 2015, reqtrires a ra� carrier to prospectively estar�ate and submrt to OES
norification of the weekly rrovemerrts of tra�s through a coucrty, inch�ding, but not limited to,
track route and volurryes of shipments of Bakken o� in amowrts equal to or greater than one
�nllion galbns per train consist. Defines 'Bakken oil" as "petroleum crude o�7, Class 3, soi,u�ced
from the Bakken shale formation in the Williston Basin," which is bcated 'm eastern Montana,
westem North Dakota, South Dakota, and southern Saskatchewan. Requffes a ra7 carrier to
update the notification, as specified.
3) Require OES to disserrrinate inforrrration necessary for devebping emergency response plans
from the reports to a certified wufied program agency (CUPA) when OES deternvnes a CUPA
area of respons�bility may be impacted by a hazardous material or o�7 cargo sp�7L
4) Require each ra�7 carrier to rrraintain a response managemerrt corrmnuiications cerrter, which is
requued to provide real-tune infnrmation to an authori�ed public safety answermg pom�t or 911
emergency response cerrter about the train consist mvolved 'm a ha��rdous material, or o�7 cargo
spiQ or other critical incident.
5) Require each ra� carrier to provide OES with a si,mm�ary of the ra�7 cairier's haaardous materials
emergency response plan (Sturm�ary). Prohibits the ra� carrier's haaardous rrraterials emergency
respor�se plan from being posted on a pubfic Internet Web site or subject to pubfic agency or
public review and approval processes. Requrt�es OES to provide a copy of each Slmm�ary to each
CUPA when OES determines a CUPA area of responsibility rrray be IInpacted by a ra�1 carrier
spill of hazardous material or oil cargo.
AB 380
Page 2
6) RequQe disclosiue and dissemination of inf+�rmation in the hazardous material ra1 reports to
assist with emerger�cy respor�se planning.
EXISTTNG LAW:
1) Pursuant to federal law, requires each state to have a State Emerge�cy Response CorrnYrission
(SERC) to coord'mate and supervise federal progratr�s rehted to l�az�rdous material emergencies
and ensure public ava�ability of appropriate chernical inf�miation. (OES is the chair of the
Cakfornia SERC.) Ptu�suarnt to state law, requires OES to assist local goverrnr�ents in theff
emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and haa�rd �uti�ation efforts.
2) Pursuank to federal law, requaes that laws related to railroad safety be nationally wvf+�rm "to the
exterrt practicable" and allow the state to adopt an additional or rr�re stringent law under certa�
condrtions when not preempted by the federal ac�
3) Pursuant to a United States (U.S.) Departrr�errt of Transportation order,requires each ra�7road
carrier provide the SERC for each state in which it operates trains transporting or�e m�7lion
�albns or more of Bakken cnxie o�, notification regarding the expected rmvemerrt of such trains
through the courrties in the state.
AS PASSED BY TI� ASSEMBLY, this b�l estab}ished tmiform procedi.u�es for electronic postmg
of Cal�ornia Envuonmental Quality Act documerits by cow�ty clerks and the Offce of Plaimmg and
Research.
FISCAL EFFECT: Accord�g to the Serrate Appropriations Corrnrmtee, minor and absorbable costs
to the General Fi.md for OES to review ar�d disserivnate appropriate information to unified program
agencies.
COMMENTS: Trvs b�l was substantially amended 'm the Senate and the Assembly approved
provisions of this biIl were deleted.
Need for this bill: According to the author, "AB 380 w�71 ensure state and bcal ernergency response
agencies are best prepared to respond to a ra�1 mishap when ra7 cargo consists of hazardous materials
mch�ding crude o�. The b�71 w�71 requffe ra�7roads to report to the state Office of Emerge�y Services
(OES), informati�n about hazardous materials inctuding crude o� related cargo trar�sported in this
state by a ra1 carrier. Ra� carriers shall also provide their Haz�rdous Materials Emergency Response
Plans to OES. The bill would also require rail carriers to maintain a live 24 hour corrnrnuiications
line wiuch bcal '911' emergency response dispatchers can corrtact to obtam mformation about
hazardous cazgo, inchading crude o�, being transported on a train which has experienced a critical
incident, such as a deraihY�ent. Finally, AB 380 would specify the mformation about hazardous
rrraterial and crude oil cargo be dissen�inated to bcal emergency response agencies including the�
l�rdous material response plans."
There has been a dramatic increase in the amQunt of o�7 trarLsported by ra�1 m the coimtYy: U.S.
freight ra�roads carried rnore than 400,000 carbads (or 280 m�lion barrels) of cnxie oil in 2013,
compared to just 9,500 carbads (or 6.65 m�lion barrels) in 2011. The hydraulic fracturing boom �
other areas of the cowmy, particularly North Dakota with its Bakken o� shale forn�ation, has been a
rrrajor reason for the mcrease.
AB 380
Page 3
Linked to this rise � crucie-by-rail has been an mcrease m o�1 sp�ls. In 2013, the courrtry
experienced more o� sp�7led from tra�s than m the previous 37 years comb�ed. Moreover, in the
]ast year, there have been several major crude-by-ra� acciderrts m Canada ar�d the U.S. that �lustrate
how vuhierable the envfforunent and public are to these types of ever�tss. One of the most serious
acciderrrtss was the Lac-Megantic dera�merrt that occurred 'm the town of Lao-Megantic, Quebec on
Juty 6, 2013. In this acciderrt, a 74-car freigl�rt train carrying cnxie o� from the Bakken formation
dera�ed 'm the downtown area, k�ling 47 people and destroying rnQre than 30 bu�dings when
rmahiple tank cazs exploded and btmied. In addi�ion, the Chaudiere River was contamn�ated by
26,000 gallons of cn�de o�. Most recently, on Apn1 30, 2014, in dowrrtown Lynchburg, Virginia, a
tram canymg crude o�1 dera�ed and bi.u�st �to 8ames, with several tank cars sp�ling into the James
River and releas�g 30,000 �llons of o�. The resutting fae and spill prompted the crt.y manager to
declare an emergency and temporanly evacuate part of dowrrtown. There have been spc other major
crude-by-ra�1 accidentss m the last year, �cluding the December 30, 2013, dera�nent in North Dakota
(which sp�7led 400,000 g�llons, ignited a fire, caused the evacuation of 1,400 people, and led to $8
million � damages) arxi the November 8, 2013, dera�ment in A]abama (which sp�7led oil mto
wetlands, caused a large fire, and led to $3.9 mllion in damages).
According to the California F.ner� Com�russion, Califnrnia is already e�eriencing the effects of
mcreased cnade-by-ra� transportation due to the North American hydraulic fract�ing boom In
2012, Calif+�rnia rroved 1.1 m�lion bairels of o� by ra�7; � 2013, that number rose to rr�re than s�
m�lion, wrth a significant amQiurt com�g from North Dakota. For the first six rr�ntl�s of 2014,
cn►de-by-ra7 numbers were up 66.1%compared to the first six rrorrths of 2013 (3.1 m�lion bazrels
versus 1.9 m�lion barrels).
There currerrtly are at least a half do�en plaruied 'mfiastructure projects statewide that would fac�lrtate
greatly e�anded o� by ra� sh�ments, either refinery e�ansions and retrofrts allowing for
processing of rrv�re imported o�, such as from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota, or
expansion of ra� tenr�mal fac�ities.�
Location Fac�iky Ra1 Caz Volume
Balcersfield Plan�s All American (wxier 90 cars per day
cor�struction
Pittsburg WesPac Eriergy Project 70 cars per day
(plaruied)
Benicia Valero (planiyed) 100 cars per day
Bakersfield Alon (plaiu�ed) 200 cars per day
W�nin on Valero larmed 85 cars er da
Sarrta Maria Philli s 66 larmed
Supporters of this bill, include League of Califomia Cities, have pointed out the need for coordination
in light of the mcreased number of o�7 sp�71s in Califi�mia since 2013,triggered 'm part by the dramatic
�crease in the transport of petroleiun oil and other har�rdous substarices by ra�7. This measure helps
to address a significant deficiency in bcal agency emergency preparedness � regard to accidents
� Interagency Rail Safety Working Goup, Oil bv Rail Safety in CaGfornia: Preliminary Findings and Recorrvnendations
State of Califomia. June 10, 2014.
AB 380
Page 4
involving haTardous materials, spec�ically sp�71s arrd other acciderrts associated with the
tiansportation of petroleiun o� by ra�.
Opponer�ts of this b�l, including the Cal�ornia Sierra Ctub, aze concerned that the 1'nnitation on
public disclosiue of ra� safety data w�71 impose new restrictions on the public's ab�7rty to access
information needed to protect people, comrrnnuties, and the environment
Analvsis Prepared by: Bob Fredenburg /E.S. &T.M. / (916) 319-3965
FN: 0005553
September 25, 2014
Honorable Jerry Brown, Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 1129 (Steinberq)
Signature Request
Dear Governor Brown:
The City of Palm Desert respectfully requests your signature on SB 1129 (Steinberg). This measure
would address severa! important issues affecting redevelopment dissolution including:
• Providing a solution to the issue of unspent bond proceeds that are currently sitting when they
could be put to work to implement important projects and create high-wage construction jobs. The
funds would be carefully spent as long as they are used for their initial purpose, are approved by
the successor agency's oversight committee, and as long as its determined by the oversight
board that the use is consistent with the sustainable communities strategy.
• Addressing key concerns about the long range property management plan (LRPMP) by making
changes to streamline the process and more quickly get projects into motion.
• Providing new benefits and flexibility for agencies with a finding of completion so that they can
move forward with projects without delay.
This measure will free-up available funding to produce quality projects with high-paying construction jobs,
expedite the approval and implementation of long range property management plans enabling affected
communities to complete local projects, and provide additional certainty for agencies receiving a finding
of completion.
For these reasons, the City of Palm Desert supports this measure and respectfully urges you to endorse
it. If you have questions, or if we can be of assistance, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager,
at (760) 346-0611. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 6740184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseC�cacities.orp
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, QonsalvesC�Qonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Rudy Acosta, Assistant City Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 1129
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
UNFIr]ISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1129
Author: Steinberg (D), et aL
Amended: 8/22/14
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMIVIITTEE: 4-2, 4/9/14
AYES: Wolk, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
NOES: Knight, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beall
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS CONIlViITTEE: 5-2, 5/23/14
AYES: De Leon, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SENATE FLOOR:27-8, 5/28/14
AYES: Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, Correa, De Leon, DeSaulnier, Evans,
Galgiani, Hancock,Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,Lara, Leno, Lieu,
Liu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Fuller, Gaines, Morrell, Nielsen, Vidak, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Corbett, Knight, Wright, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-17, 8/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Redevelopment: successoragencies to redevelopment agencies
SOURCE: Author
DI_: This bill amends several statutes governing redevelopment agencies'
(RDAs) dissolution. This bill makes several changes to the statutes goveming the
dissolution of RDAs. Among other thu�gs, this bill (1) authorizes an RDA
successoragency to use the proceeds ofbonds issued in 2011 for the purposes for
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 2
which the bonds were sold, if those purposes are consistent with a specified
"sustainable communities strate�y" (SCS); (2) deems an agreement entered into by
an RDA prior to June 30, 2011 that commits funds to state highway infiastructure
improvements as an enforceable obligation; and (3) revises the process for disposal
of former RDA properties through a long-range property management plan
(LRPMP)by eliminating a requirement for compensation agreements governing
the distnbution of properiy proceeds.
Assembiv Amendments allows success agencies oversight boards to appoint an
alternate representative to serve on the oversight board;revise provisions dealing
with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); add Iegislative intent; add double-
jointing language with SB 1404 (Leno) and AB 2493 (Bloom); and make
clarifying revisions.
ANALYSIS: Until 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) allowed
local officials to set up RDAs, prepare and adopt redevelopment plans, and finance
redevelopment activities. As a redevelopment project area's assessed valuation
grew above its base-year value, the resulting properly tax revenues —the property
tax increment —went to the RDA instead of going to the underlying local
governments. The RDA kept the property tax increment revenues generated from
increases in property values within a redevelopment project area.
Citing a significant state General Fund deficit, Governor Brown's 2011-12 Budget
proposed eliminating RDAs and returning billions of dollars of property tax
revenues to schools,cities, and counties to fund core services. Among the
statutory changes that the Legislature adopted to implement the 2011-12 Budget,
AB 26X1 (Blumenfield, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session)
dissolved all RDAs. The California Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in California
RedevelopmentAssociation v. Matosantos upheld AB 26X1, but invalidated AB
27X1 (Blumenfield, Chapter 6, Statutes of 2011, First Extraordinary Session),
which would have allowed most RDAs to avoid dissolution.
AB 26X1 established successoragencies to manage the process ofunwinding
former RDAs' affairs. With the exception of seven cities that chose not to serve as
successoragencies, the city or county that created each former RDA now serves as
that RDA's successoragency. Each successoragency has an oversight board that
is responsble for supervising it and approving its actions. The Department of
Finance (DOF) can review and request reconsideration of an oversight board's
decisions.
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 3
Enforceable obli�ations and findin� of completion. One of the successoragencies'
primary responsibilities is to make payments for enforceable obligations entered
into by former RDAs. The statutory definition of an "enforceable obligation"
includes bonds,specified bond-related payments, some loans, payments required
by the federal government, obligations to the state, obligations imposed by state
law, legally required payments related to R.DA employees,judgments or
settlements, and other legally binding and enforceable agreements or contracts.
Each successor agency must, every six months, draft a list of enforceable
obligations that are payable during a subsequent six month period. This
"Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule" (ROPS)must be adopted by the
oversight board and is subject to review by DOF. Obligations listed on a ROPS
are payable from a Redevelopment Properly Tax Trust Fund, which contains the
revenues that would have been allocated as tax increment to a former R.DA.
If a successor agency complies with state laws that require it to remit specified
RDA property tax allocations and cash assets identified through a "due diligence
review" process,it receives a "finding of completion" from DOF (AB 1484,
Assemb�y Budget Committee, Chapter 26, Statutes of 2012). Approximately 300
successoragencies have received a find'mg ofcompletion.
This bill makes various changes to provisions of law governing former RDAs.
Specifically, this bill:
1. Clarifies that the provision contained in CRL that prolubits an agency or
community officer or employee who in the course of his/her duties is required
to participate in the formulation of, or to approve plans or policies for, the
redevelopment of a project area from acquiring any interest in any property
included within a project area, does not prolubit any agency or community
officer or employee from acquiring an interest in property within a former
redevelopment project area of a dissolved RDA.
2. Specifies, for the existing requirement that the State Controller review the
activities of RDAs in the state to detetmine whether an asset transfer has
occurred after January 1, 2012, between the city or county, or city and county
that created an RDA or any other public agency, and the RDA, that that review
shall be completed no later than January 1, 2016.
3. Allows an agreement entered into between an RDA prior to June 30, 201 l, to
be an enforceable obligation, if the agreement relates to state highway
infrastructure improvements to which the RDA committed funds pursuant to
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 4
provisions in CRL related to properiy disposition, rehabilitation and
development.
4. Allows, for oversight boards,each appointing authority identified in existing
law to appoint an alternate representative to serve on the oversight board as
may be necessary to attend any meeting of the oversight board in the event that
the appointing authority's primary representative is unable attend any meeting
for any reason.
5. Provides, if the alternate representative attends any meeting in place of the
primary representative, that the a�ternative representative shall have the same
participatory and voting rights as all other attending members of the oversight
board.
6. Requires the successoragencyto promptly notify the DOF regard'mg the
appointment of any alternate representative to the oversight board.
7. Requires DOF, prior to the rejection of an enforceable obligation from a ROPS
for a successor agency that has received a finding of completion from DOF, as
specified, to submit the proposedrejection to the oversight board for review
and approval, whose determination shall be final and conclusive without
fiu-ther review by DOF.
8. Places a time limit of 45 days for DOF to provide written confumation, if an
enforceable obligation provides for an irrevocable commitment of property tax
revenue and where allocation of such revenues is expected to occur over time
and the successoragency has petitioned DOF to provide written confirmation
that its deterniination of such enforceable obligation as approved in a ROPS is
fmal and conclusive, as specified.
9. Specifies that provisions of law that require a city, county, or city and county
that wishes to retain any property or other assets for future redevelopment
activities, funded from its own funds and under its own auspices,to reach a
compensation agreement with the other taxing entities to provide payments to
them in property to their shares of the base property tax, as specified, for the
value of the property retained, shall not apply to the disposition of properties
pursuant to a LRPMP.
10. Revises provisions in statute that apply to any successoragency that has been
issued a finding of completion by DOF pertaining to loans made to an RDA by
the city, county, or city and county that created the RDA, as spec�ed.
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 5
11. Requires, if the oversight board finds that a loan is an enforceable obligation,
that the accumulated interest on the remaining principal balance of the loan
shall be calculated using the mterest rate eamed by funds deposited into the
LAIF in effect on the date of loan origination, and as adjusted quarterly
thereafter. Requires the remaining balance of the loan and the accumulated
interest to be repaid to the city, county, or city and county in accordance with a
defined schedule over a reasonable term of years at an interest rate not to
exceed the interest rate earned by funds deposited in the LAIF as the rate is
adjusted on a quarterly basis.
12. Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments specified in
#10 and#11 above, made by this bill, are clarifying.
13. Allows, if the successoragency has received a finding ofcompletion, as
specified, the successor agency to enter into, or amend e�sting, contracts and
agreements, or otherwise administer projects in connection with enforceable
obligations approved pursuant to existing law related to the ROPS approval
process, including the substitution of private developer capital in a disposition
and development agreement that has been deemed an enforceable obligation, if
the contract, agreement, or project will not commit new property tax funds, and
will not otherwise reduce property tax revenues or payments made to the
taxing agencies, as spec�ed.
14. Prolubits DOF, as part ofthe approval of a LRPMP,from requiring a
compensation agreement or agreements as described 'm existing law t11at
specifies which actions ofthe successoragency must first obtain approval by
the oversight board that requires a city, county, or city and county that wishes
to retain any properiy or other assets for future redevelopment activities,
funded from its own funds and under its own auspices,to reach a
compensation agreement with the other taxing entities to provide payments to
them in property to their shares of the base properly tax, as part of the approval
of a LRPMP.
15. Specifies that DOF shall only consider whether a LRPMP makes a good faith
effort to address the requirements set forth in the existing law that specifies
what the LRPMP shall do.
16. Requires DOF to approve a LRPMP as expeditiously as possble.
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 6
17. Specifies that actions relating to the disposition or property after approval of a
LRPMP shall not require review by DOF.
18. Contains chaptering out amendments to deal with conflicts between this bill
and SB 1404 (Leno) of the current legislative session and AB 2493 (Bloom) of
the current legislative session.
Comments
Purpose of the bill. Local officials have identified ambiguities and obstacles m
current law which prevent them from completing vital economic development
projects that began before RDAs were dissolved. Because state law does not
provide successoragencies any flexibility to adjust contracts for enforceable
obligations in ways that do not affect tax increment, successoragencies may be
unable to finance or complete long-term phased development projects that are
already underway. State law offers successoragencies no good options for
disposing of billions of dollars of unspent RDA bond proceeds. If the interest rates
that a successoragency earns on securities it buys to defease bonds are
significantly lower than the interest payments on the bonds,the agency will lose
money on the transaction. As a result, successoragencies may chooseto retain
hundreds of millions of dollars of bond proceeds for extended periods of time,
while paying debt service, without producing any new infiastructure or economic
development. Some local officials see the requirement to enter into compensation
agreements with other taxing entfties for real property retained by a successor
agency as an impediment to their ability to use these publicly owned properties for
economic development purposes. By eliminating these types of ambiguities and
obstacles,this bill will supportthe completion of numerous development projects
that have already received millions of dollars of public investments, support state
policy goals, and benefrt residents throughout California.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Loca1: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
• Unknown General Fund (GF) losses, in the millions or tens of millions, over
several fiscal years, to the extent this bill allows successor agencies to use the
proceeds of bonds issued in 2011 for redevelopment activities, and prevents the
DOF from denying enforceable obligations without oversight board approval.
Both of these provisions will reduce the amount of residual property tax
revenues directed to schools,the magnitude of which is unknown.
Approximately 50% of ta�c increment revenues necessary to pay offthe debt
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 7
used for contmued redevelopment activity will be diverted from schools. In
general, any property tax proceeds diverted from schools results in an
equivalent GF cost,pursuant to Proposition 98's minimum fund'mg guarantees.
• Unknown GF losses,perhaps in the hundreds of thousands,by specifying that
RDA agreements entered into prior to June 30, 2011 that include highway
improvements are legitimate enforceable obligations. Former RDA revenues
dedicated to such a project will not be distributed to local taxing agencies,
includ'mg schools,pursuant to the dissolution process. In general, any property
tax proceeds diverted from schools results in an equivalent GF cost,pursuant to
Proposition 98's minimum funding guarantees. The number of projects to
which this provision will apply is unknown, but staffassumes there will be few.
• Revisions to the process fordisposing of former RDA properties through the
LRPMP process,particularly the deletion of requirements for compensation
agreements, will result in benefrts for some local governments at the expense of
other local governments that will have otherwise received a portion of proceeds
from the sale of former RDA properties, potentially including schools. The
magnitude of these revenue shifts among local agencies is unknown, but l�cely
substantiaL As noted above, any losses to schools will have a correspond'mg
increase in state GF spending pursuant to Proposition 98.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/14)
California lnfill Builders Federation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Cities of Buena Park, Camarillo, Compton,Culver City, FoLsom, Fountain Valley,
Fremont, Garden Grove, Glendale, Highland, Huntington Beach, La Mirada,
Lemoore, Pasadena, Redd'mg, Redwood City, Ridgecrest, Santa Cruz, Santa
Monica, Selma, Sonoma, Tulare, Vista, West Hollywood, and Westminster
Fremont SuccessorAgency
Glendale City Employees Association
Glendale SuccessorAgency
Housing California
Inland Action
League of California Cities
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Organization of SMLTD Employees
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Western Center on Law and Poverty
CONTINUED
SB 1129
Page 8
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/14)
California Professional Firefighters
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Urban Counties Caucus
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The City of Ridgecrest states this bill "will free-
up available funding to produce quality projects with high-paying construction
jobs,expedite the approval and implementation of LRPMPs enabling affected
communities to complete local projects, and provide additional certainty for
agencies receiving a finding of completion."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSTTION: The California State Association of
Counties states this bill "seeks to make changes to three components of the
dissolution process: enforceable obligations, long range property management
plans and compensation agreements, and use of bond proceeds for debt issued in
2011. Because each of these directly affects the allocation of property tax
revenues and we know that the allocation of properiy tax revenues is a zero-sum
game, SB 1129 will have fiscal consequences for affected taxing entities, including
counties."
ASSEMBLYFLOOR: 58-17, 8/27/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford,
Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Chau, Chesbro,Cooley, Dababneh, Daly,
Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gray, Hall, Roger Hernandez, Holden, Jones-Savryer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Perea, John
A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Chavez, Conway, Dahle, Donnelly, Fo� Beth Gaines,
Grove, Hagman, Jones,L'mder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Patterson,
Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos,Gorell, Harkey, Pan, Vacancy
CONTINUED
September 25, 2014
The Honorable Raul Ruiz, M.D.
United States House of Representatives
1319 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Ruiz:
On behalf of the City of Palm Desert, I wish to comment on the proposed Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Title II Regulations on the Internet. The Palm Desert City
Council has made a commitment to our community of ensuring economic vitality for local
businesses, residents, and visitors. We also strive to make Palm Desert a better place to live all
around.
The proposed FCC Title II Regulations on the Internet will likely have a significant impact on
past and future innovation and opportunities in the broadband marketplace. The Internet is the
world's biggest driver of economic development. Congress should act to protect against calls for
utility-like common carrier regulation that may threaten demand for Internet infrastructure,
reduce incentives for investment, and hinder innovation.
Proposals to reclassify broadband Internet access as a `Title II" service threaten to remove
incentives to invest in broadband growth and improvement. The Federal Communications
Commission's determination to leave Internet access services largely unregulated incentivized
both investment and innovation and the Internet's potential as a mechanism for economic
growth was realized.
I urge you as our Congressional representative to oppose Title II Regulations on the Internet
during the FCC's review process. Thank you for your consideration on this very important issue
affecting us all.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
Will Hixson, FSB Core Strategies willC�fsbcorestrategies.com
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseC�cacities.oro
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, ponsalvesC�gonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Rudy Acosta, Assistant City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
September 25, 2014
Honorable Jerry Brown, Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2188 (Muratsuchi)
Veto Request
Dear Governor Brown:
The City of Palm Desert is writing to express our opposition to AB 2188. This measure
would, among other things, require cities and counties to adopt a new, costly ordinance
that would essentially create a separate permitting and inspection process specifically
for residential solar installations of less than 10 kilowatts.
While we remain supportive of expanding access to renewable energy resources,
including residential solar, we do not believe that the rigid solar permit and inspection
process as mandated in AB 2188 is the right approach. Requiring local jurisdiction to
uniformly issue solar permits and inspect solar installations in the requested time
periods would be very problematic for many local governments still recovering from the
historic economic downturn. A local jurisdiction's ability to process a permit application
and complete an inspection in an expedited manner is largely driven by available
funding and trained staff.
Importantly, AB 2188 could pose a significant threat to public safety. During the permit
review process, many cities perform an onsite inspection, prior to issuing the permit, to
ensure structural soundness. This most often occur when a city lacks adequate building
records of the dwelling. AB 2188 eliminates the review process for solar permits and
instead requires local jurisdictions to issue the permit in a ministerial manner upon
receipt of a completed application. Due to this measure's permit approval mandate,
local fire departments may no longer have the ability to participate in the "plan check"
phase of the permit approval process to verify that no fire hazards are present and the
installation complies with all applicable fire codes.
Building permits and inspections are required by state law, regulations, and local
ordinances to help ensure public safety. By enforcing these laws, local governments
essentially act as a consumer protection agency. AB 2188 could jeopardize this proven
process by forcing cities and counties to potentially overlook shortcomings in solar
permit applications or installations in order to comply with the bill's highly restrictive
approval timeline
AB 2188 (Muratsuchi)
September 25, 2014
Page 2 of 2
For these reasons, the City of Palm Desert strongly opposes AB 2188 and respectfully
requests your veto. If you have any question regarding this correspondence, please
contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager, at (760) 346-0611. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
Sincerely,
VAN G. TANNER
MAYOR
cc: City Council
The Honorable Brian Nestande, California State Assembly, (760) 674-0184
Erin Sasse, League of California Cities, esasseC�cacities.orq
Anthony Gonsalves, Gonsalves and Sons, gonsalves C�qonsalvi.com
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Stephen Y. Aryan, Risk Manager
Rudy Acosta, Assistant City Manager
Russell Grance, Director of Building and Safety
Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works
Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development
Martin Alvarez, Director of Economic Development
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
AB 2188
Page 1
CONCURRINCE IN SINATE ANIINDMINTS
AB 2188 (Mi.u�atsuchi)
As Amended August 14, 2014
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: 58-8 (May 27, 2014) SINATE: 22-6 (August 20, 2014)
Ori�nal Corrrruttee Ref�rence: L. GOV.
SUNIIVIARY: Requires every city or county to adopt an ordu�ar�ce that creates an e�edited
pernritting process f�r small, residernial rooftop solar energy systems, alters the definrtion of
what is a reasonable restr�crion on a solar eriergy system, and makes additiorral ct�anges to the
Solar Riglrts Act of 1978.
The Serrate amer�dmerrts:
1) Specify that a city or a county consutk with the local fire departir�errt or district and the ut�ity
d'rrector, if the city or courrty operates a uh7ity, � adopt�g the ordirrarice requffed by this b�11.
2) Specify that an application that satisfies the information requ�ements in the checklist
requQed by this b�l, as determir�ed by the city or counky, shall be deemed co�lete.
3) Require a city or coiurty to approve an application and issue all requmed pem�uts or
authorizations, upon confirmatiQn by the city or coiurty of the application and support�g
doctm�errts be�g complete and rneeting the requirements of the checklist, and cor�sisterrt with
the ordirrance.
4) Require, upon rece�t of an incomplete application, a city or county to issue a wrrtten
correction notice deta�7ing all deficiencies m the application and any additional inf�rmation
requffed to be eligible for e�edrted pemrit issuarice.
5) Specify that the checklist and requffed pernritting docwnentation shall be published on a
pubficly access�le Web srte only if the city or county has a website.
6) Require a city or cow�ty to state, in the ord�ance required �der this b�71, the reasons for its
inability to accept electronic signat�es.
7) Provide that acceptance of an electronic signature shall not be requaed, �a city or cowrty
determines that it is unable to authoriae the acceptance of an ekctronic signature on all
forms, applications, and other docim�errts in lieu of a wet signature by an applicant.
8) Requ�e a crty or cotmty, in developmg the ord�e required by this b�l, to substantially
conform its e�edited, streamlir�ed pernutting process with the recorrm�endations for
e�edited pem�Rting, inchxiing the checklists and star�dazd plans, cor�ained 'm the rmst
currerrt version of the Calif�rnia So}ar Pemritting Guidebook (Gu�debook) ar�d adopted by
the Govemor's Office of Planning and Research. A city or courty may adopt an ord'nrratice
that rmdifies the checklists and standards fowxi in the Gu�debook due to wvque clIInactic,
geological, seisrr�bgical, or topographical condrtans.
AB 2188
Page 2
9) Delete language requ�g a s�gle inspection within five business days, and �stead require
an inspection to be done in a tnnely maimer.
10)Albw a consolidated inspection, except that a separate fire safety inspecrion may be
perf+�rmed 'm a crty or coiu�ty that does riot have an agreement with a bcal fire authority to
conduct a fae safety inspection on beha}f of the authorrty.
11)Delete language allowing a crty or coimty that deteriruryes that rt is imable to provide an
inspection within five busmess days to hold a public hear�g and adopt an ord'mance or
resolution provid�g for a diff'erent t�ne period or diff'ererrt means for scheduling a�spections.
12)Delete language reqia�g, � the case of a fa�led inspection, subsequerrt �spections to
conform to this bi1Ps requfrements for an in�ial �spection and instead specify that
subsequerrt inspecrions need not conform to this b�l's requffemerns for an inrtial inspection.
13)Require solar ener�y systerrn used for heating water � single fairuly residerices arxi solar
collectors used for heat�g water in conmyercial or swurnning pool applications to be
certified by an accredrted listing age�y as defined 'm the Ph.unbing and Mechanical Codes.
14)Make technical and cl�ar�ying changes.
EXISTTNG LAW:
1) Provides that the IInplementation of consisterrt statewide star�dards to achieve the timely and
cost-effective installation of solar energy systerrn is not a rmu�icipal a�'air, as that term is
used 'm the California Constitution, but is instead a rrratter of statewide concem
2) Provides that it is the m�ent of the Legislature that local agencies rwt adopt ordinar�ces that
create urn�easonable barriers to the �stallation of solar eryergy systems, including, but not
limrted to, design review for aesthetic pi.u�poses, and r�t unreasonably restcict the ability
of homeowners and agricutti.u�al and business concerns to install solar energy systerrn.
3) Provides that it is the poficy of the state to promote and encoi.u�age the use of solar energy
systerr�s and to limit obstacks to their use, and that it is the mtent of the Legislature that bcal
agencies comply not only with specified provisions of]aw, but also the legislative mterrt to
er�courage the installation of solar energy systerrn by rermving obstacles to, and maumizing
costs o� pem�rtting for such systems.
4) Requires a city or coimty to admmistratively approve applications to mstall solar energy
systerrn through the issuance of a bwlding permit or snnilar nondiscretionary permit.
5) Requ�es review of an application to �stall a solar energy system to be limited to the bw7ding
o�icial's review of whether it meets all health and safety requiremerrts of bcal, state, and
federal ]aw.
6) Requires the requuements of bcal law to be }united to thpse standards and regulations
necessary to ens�e that the solar ener�y system will not have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public healthh or safety.
asziss
Page 3
7) Allows a crty or cowrty to requ�e an applicazrt for the installation of a solar energy system to
apply for a use pemrit if the bu�ding offic'ral of the city or county has a good farth belief that
the solar ener� system could have a specific, adverse ur�pact upon the public health and
safety.
8) Prolubits a c�y or cowity from derrymg an applicatiQn for a use pem�rt to install a solar
energy system unless rt makes written findings based u�on substarrtial evidence in the record
that the proposed installation wouki have a specific, adverse nnpact upon the public heatth or
safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mfigate or avoid the specific, adverse
impact. The fmdings crn�st include the basis for the rejection of poterrtial feas�ble ahematives
of preventing the adverse irr�pact.
9) AIlows the decision of the building ofl'�cial regarding bwlding or use permrts for solar energy
systerr�s to be appealed to the planning conm�ission of the crty or coucrty.
10)Requires arry conditions m�posed on an application to �stall a solar energy system to be
designed to rnrtig�te the specific, adverse IInpact upon the public health and safety at the
lowest cost poss�bk.
11)Requires a solar energy system to meet appficable health and safety standazds and
requa�emerrts imposed by state arxi local pemiittting authorities.
12)Requffes a solar ener� system for heat�g water to be certif�ed by the Solar Ratings and
Certification Corporati�n (SRCC) or other nationally recogniaed certdication agency, as
specified, and requires the cerdfication to be for the errtire sohr energy system and
u�stallatio n.
13)Declares that any covenani, restriction, or condition corita�ed in any deed, cor�ract, security
�strumerrt, or other instrument a�'ecting the transfer or sale o� or any �terest �, real
property, aryd any provision of a goveming doctm�errt, as specified, that e�'ectively prolvbrts
or restricts the mstallation or use of a solar ener� system is void and tuienforceable.
14)Provides that the provisions of 13)above, do not apply to provisions that impose reasorrable
restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy of the state to prormte and
encoi.u�age the use of solar energ,y systems and to remove obstacles thereto. Accordingly,
reasonable resiricrions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significarrtly
increase the cost of the system or signif'�carrtly decrease its efficiency or specified
perfomrance, or that allow for an ahernative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and
energy conservation benef�ts.
15)Provides that, for solar domestic water heata�g systems or solar swunming pool heating
systerrn that comply with state and federal law, "significantly" means an amoimt exceed�g
20%of the cost of the system or decreas�g the efficiency of the solar energy system by an
armwrt exceed�g 20%, as originally specified and proposed.
16)Provides that, for photovoltaic systems that comply wrth state and federal law, "significantly"
means an arr�i,u�t not to exceed $2,000 over the system cost as originally spec�ied and
proposed, or a decrease in system e�,ciency of an amoturt exceeding 20%, as originally
specified and proposed.
AB 2188
Page 4
17)Requires, whenever approval is required by the covenarrts, condrtyons, or restrictions
(CC&Rs) for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the appficatan for approval
shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approv�g errtrty � the same manc�er as
an application for approval of an archrtectural rrodification to the property, and shall not be
w�7lfully avoided or delayed. If an application is not denied in writing within 60 days from
the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unkss that
delay is the resu� of a reasorrable request for addrtional information.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this b�l:
1) Requ�ed, on or before September 30, 2015, every crty, cowity, or city and county to adopt an
ord'mance that creates an e�edrted, streainlined pern�Rting process for small residerrtial
rooftop solar ener� systems, consisterrt with the goals and 'mtetrt of eaasting law governing
the implemerrtation of statewide standards to achieve tnnely and cost-eflective installation of
solar energy systems (corrnmnly referred to as the Solar Riglrts Act).
2) Required each city, co�ty, or city and courrty, m developing an e�edrted perir�R,ting
process, to adopt a checklist of all requaements withh which small rooftop solar energy
systems shall comply to be elig�ble for e�edrted review.
3) Requaed an application that meets the requffemerrts in the checklist specified 'm 2)above, to
be deemed approved upon recey�t of the completed application submittaL
4) Required the checklist spec�ed 'm 2) above, and requffed permitting doc�.nnentation to be
published on a pubfically accessble Intemet Web site.
5) Required a c�y, coimty, or crty and county to albw for electronic submittal of a permit
application and associated documentation, and to authorize the electronic signature on all
forms, applications, and other documentation m lieu of a wet signature by an applicar�k..
6) Required a city, county, or crty and cowrty, in developing the ord�ance specified 'm 1)
above, to strive to conform with standazdiaed checklists based on e�sting statewide solar
perm�ting guidelines or best practices, including those developed through the Unrted States
Departirerrt of Eriergy's SunShot Inidative.
7) Required, for a small residerrtial rooftop solar energy system elig�b�e for e�edrted review,
only one �spection and requires that or�e inspection to be scheduled within frve busmess
days of a request, if the request is received during busmess hours. If the request is received
after bus�ess hours, the inspection must be scheduled within five busmess days of the
beginning of the next busmess day after receipt of the reques� If a city, county, or city and
co�ty determines that rt is unable to provide an inspection within five business days of a
request, the city, coimty, or crt,y and county may hoki a public hear�g and adopt an
ordinance or resohation providing for a di$'erent t�r�e period or di$'ererrt rreans for
scheduling inspections. If the small residential rooftop solar energy system fa7s inspection, a
subsequern inspection shall also conform to the requffements of this provision.
8) Prolubited a city, coi.mty, or crt.y arxl cotmty from conditioning approval for any solar energy
system permit on the approval of a solar energy system by a nonprofit corporation or
AB 2188
Page 5
wuncorporated associat�on created it�r the p�pose of rr�anaging a comrmn interest
devebpment.
9) Requ�ed a frr�ding, based on substarrtial evidence, bef+�re a city or coiurty may require
applicatio n for a use permrt f�r a solar energy system, rather than the e�sting ]aw
requiremeirt of a good firth belie£
10)Provided that existing law requiring a solar energy system to meet applicable health and
saf�ty starxiazds and req�emer�ts imposed by state arxi local perrrutting authorities sha�l be
cor�sisterrt with the Solar Riglrts Act.
11)Required every solar energy system for heating water to be certified by an accredrted listing
agency as de&ned by this b�71, rather than SRCC or other nationally recogni�ed cert�cation
agencies, and deletes language req�ing the cert�ication to be fior the errtire solar energy
system and �stallation.
12)Provided, for the purposes of reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems � CC&Rs
corr�t�ained in specified instruments a$'ecting the sale or transfer of real property, that for solar
domestic water heating systerrn or solar swirrnning pool heating systerrn that comply with
state and federal hw, "significantly" means an arm�urt exceed�g 10%of the cost of the
system, but in no case rr�re than $1,000, or decreasing the efliciency of the solar er�ergy
system by an amourrt exceeding 10%, as originally specified and proposed.
13)Provided, for the p�poses of reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems in CC&Rs
corrta�ed 'm specified instruments afl�cting the sale or transf�r of real property, that f�r
photovoltaic systems that comply with state and federal hw, "significantly" means an
amount nat to exceed $1,000 over the system cost as originally spec�ed and proposed, or a
decrease m system efficiency of an armtu�t exceeding 10% as origu�ally specified and
proposed.
14)Reduced, from 60 days to 3Q days, the period diu�ing which an app�cation requ�ed by
CC&Rs fi�r the installation or use of a solar energy system shall be deemed approved, imless
that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional inf�rmation.
15)Defrned "accredited listing agency" to mean a standazds or test�g org�nization that evaluates
solar energy systems accord'mg to specified, independent crrteria and allows rts rrrark to be
used on qualifying systerrn as a stamp of approval, such as the Arr�erican National Starzdards
Instih,rte or the Ar�erican Assoc'ration for Laboratory Accreditation.
16)Defined "electronic submrttal" to mean the uh7ization of email, the Internet, or ficsunile.
17)Defined "small residential solar ener�y system" to mean all of the following:
a) A solar energy system that is no larger than 10 k�owatts alternating currerrt narr�eplate
rating or 30 k�owatts thermal;
b) A solar energy system that conforms to all appficable state fire, structtu�al, electrical, and
other bwlding codes as adopted or ameryded by the city, coturty, or city and coimty and
specified provisions of existing law, as speci6ed;
AB 2188
Page 6
c) A solar ener� system that is irLstalled on a single or duplex family dwelling; and,
d) A solar panel or module array that does not exceed the irraximum ]egal bu�7ding height.
18)Made fi�dings and declarations re�rd'mg the state's distnbuted generation and solar energy
policies, and makes updatuig ar�d confornung changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Accord�g to the Senate Appropriations Corrnrul,tee, pursuarrt to Senate Rule
28.8, neglig�ble state costs.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of this bill. This b�t requires every crty and couirty to adopt an ord�ance that
creates an e�edrted percr�xing process for small, resider�tial rooftop solar energy systems,
a�ers the definition of what is a reasonable restrictyon on a sohr energy system, and makes
addrtional changes to the Solar Rights Ac� The major provisiorn of this b�l:
a) Require m�isterial approval of permrt appfications ft�r sma11, residenlial rooftop solar
energy systems if they meet a checklist of system requirements that is devebped by each
bcal age�cy;
b) Requae inspections for these systems "� a timely mazmer," and generally requffe onty
one inspection, with specified exceptions;
c) Require, before a crty or coiurty rrray requfre a use permrt for a solar energy system, a
fimding based on "substantial evidence," rather than the e�sting law requirerrent of"a
good firth befie�" and,
d) Reduce the threshold urrler which restrLctipns on solar ener� systerr�s are considered
reasonable tmder CC&Rs, and reduce, from 60 days to 30 days, the period during which
an application requffed by CC&Rs for the �stallation or use of a solar ener� system
shall be deemed approved, wiless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for
addrtional 'mformation.
This b�l also corrtains a rnmiber of confornung and updating changes. The provisions of this
b� would apply to all crties and cowrties in California, inch�ding charter crties. This b�71 is
author-sponsored.
2) Author's statement. According to the author, "Currerrtly, Calif�rnia's solar permrtting
structure is a patch work of various regulations and requiremerrts that vary from crty to city
and cotmty to cou�rty. This resuhs in a lack of certainty and hmders the abilrty of companies
to scale and reduce costs. Requirements � one city can differ drast�cally from a neighboring
city even though the same solar system is be�g �stalled on a snrrilar home.
"Several jurisdictions, such as the Citiies of Los Angeles, San Jose, Richirond, Oakland, and
San Diego Cow�rty have already developed streaml'u�ed pernritting requQemerrts for small
residerrtial projects that meet certam crrteria. �Ihese local govemmerits have demonstrated
that we can reduce pern�rtting timeframes wh�7e ma�taining important safety protections.
AB 2188
Page 7
'By improving the efficiency of solar permrtting statewide, AB 2188 w�71 help bwer the cost
of solaz a�stallations ard fiuther e�and the accessibilrty of solar to rr�re California
homeowners who want to coritrol the� electricity b�ls and ge�erate theff own clean ener�.
In addition, mak�g solaz rmre affordable w�l he}p the state reach rts renewable energy and
greenhouse g�s reduction goals, aryd create rr�re jobs wh�7e maIIrtaining the safety of solar
systems.��
3) Background. The Cal�'ornia Legislature enacted the Solar Righ�s Act in 1978 to protect a
homeowner's right to �stall a solar energy system by limrting a hpmeowner association's
ab�7ity to object to such �stallatiQns through its CC&Rs. The Solar Riglrts Act allows
CC&Rs to mclude provisions that m�pose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systerr�s.
Reasonable restrictions include those that: do not significantly increase the cost of the sohr
system; do not signi.ficarrtly decrease the system's efficiency or specified perfornr�rice; and,
allow for an ahernative system of comparable cost, effciency and benefrts. 'Significant" is
further defined as those restrictions that increase the system's cost by more than 20%or
decrease the system's e�ciency by more than 20%.
AB 2473 (WoIlc), Chapter 789, Stattrtes of 2004, updated the Solar Rights Act by specifying
star�dazds for what constrttrtes "significant" increases � solar ener�y system costs or
decreases in those systeirn' efficiency. The b�l also declared that solar energy system
u�stallation is a matter of statewide concern, and r�de a bcal government's gant of
pemrission to install a solar energy system ma�ister'ral rather than discretionary wiless the
pernlrtting agency has good cause to believe doing so would create an adverse impact on
public heahh or safety, in which case an application for a discretionary permrt may be
required. The local govemment carn�ot refuse to approve that appficatipn imless rt makes
deta�ed written fmdings based on substantial evidence that granting the pemrit will create
specific adverse impacts on public health or safety. If conditions aze placed on an approval
to mrtigate public health or safety irnpacts, the requffed mitig,ation imist be desigiied to
accomplish its goal at the lowest poss�ble cost.
4) Solar Energy Initiative. In 2005, the California Public Utilities Con�mrission through
regulations established subsidy prograins for the installation of solar photovo�aic systerm
adm�ustered by the California Energy Commission These prograins, known coIlectively as
the Calif+ornia Solar Infiative (CSI), provide $3.2 b�ion in subsidies through rebates for the
installation of photovohaic projects. In 2006,the Legishture passed SB 1 (Murray), Chapter
132, Stahrtes of 2006, the Governor's M�lion Solar Homes Prograrn, which established the
goal of mstalling 3,000 megawatts of solar generation capacity, establishing a self-sufficient
solar industry, and placing photovoltaic systerrn on 50%of new homes in 13 years.
5) Arguments in support. The City of Oakland, in support, states, 'Recently, costs related to
solar materials and components have fillen drairratically, thus expanding access to solar
energy. The rerrraming IInpedirr�ent to access remains the local permitting process that may
be long, costly or difficult to navigate. AB 2188 would establish a means for rn�.micipalities
to detem�e rrranageable criteria for firture solar energy penrutting applications in a timely
manner. In the bili's currerrt form we believe there is ample flexibility fi�r both rramicipalities
arxl individuals to file and respond to permitting requests electronically, which only fiuthers
the state's env�onmental efforts."
AB 2188
Page 8
6) Arguments in opposition. The Cal�rnia Mun�cq�al Ut�7ities Association, m opposntion,
writes, "While the b�l has been arnended to provide greater flelability on l�w each bcal
jurisdiction can comply with an expedited permR process, the rrature of the legislation fivors
one product over all others that are pending a permrt review. Addrtionally, the b�l fa�s to
recogni� that not all crties receive the same magnitude of sunshine. Some jurisdictions
abng the coast are at their most cbudy d�g peak times, wh�1e other ji.u�isdicti�ns are
siurounded by tall trees. AB 2188 requ�es every crty and county to comply, irrespective of
any evidence derronstrating delays in small solar �stallation pernirts."
Analvsis Prenazed by: Angeh Mapp/L. GOV. /(916) 319-3958
FN: 0004859
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
To: Members of the Palm Desert City Council
Dear Council,
In the matter of Consent Calendar item "I" (Sept 25, 2014); a proposal to send
a letter to our congressman asking him to oppose so-called Title II Regulation
of the Internet...
I know something about the Internet. When I moved to Palm Desert 19 years
ago I represented AT&T within the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). I
started the national ISP for the Federated States of Micronesia. I have worked
for three companies in West Africa building Satellite, Mobile, Fiber, and VOIP
networks. In the late 1990's I worked with the Digital Village Foundation in
Marin County dealing with municipal telecommunications regulatory policy. I
also worked with a similar group in the City of Palo Alto.
Today I manage software engineers all over the world. My job depends on the
Internet. I manage a team of engineers in Ukraine that develops the cable box
software for the world's largest cable TV and home ISP. I manage a team in
Islamabad, Pakistan who develop software used to design data networking
circuits. Intel, AMD, Analog Devices; in fact, most of the major semiconductor
companies use that product.
The letter our Legislative Review Committee has drafted for Mayor Tanner
asks the FCC to preserve the status quo Internet in America. The entire
Council should enquire as to how they arrived at this viewpoint.
The status quo means an Internet speed rank of 31st in the world for America.
Our rankings on other metrics are even worse. In 1995, the year I bought my
home in Palm Desert, the only option for a decent Internet connection was to
Alden to Palm Desert City Council, Wednesday, September 24, 2014 page 1 of 2
pay GTE $350 per month for an ISDN line. 1995 was also the year Armenia
became an independent state, free of the Soviet Union. Today, I manage an
engineering team in Armenia. They have Internet connections twice as fast as
what I have, for 1/3rd the cost. Understandably Armenia is still a laggard. My
colleagues in India and Pakistan have connections that are 10 times faster
than mine; at 1/5th the cost.
From time to time it is appropriate for local government to reach out to
legislators in Washington; but this is not the right time nor the right issue.
Telecommunications policy is a national security and global competitiveness
matter. It is not a state or local matter.
The sad truth is, towns like ours are a significant part of the problem. The
decades old practice of local cable television franchising is precisely what has
led us to the sorry state we are in today. Small town government, having no
subject matter expertise, is easily fooled by the lawyers and representatives
of giant telecom monopolies. Legislative lobbying groups, paid for by these
same monopolies, operate openly and behind the scenes. The letter before
Mayor Tanner is a perfect example. It shamelessly cc's three such lobbyists,
and contains nothing but talking points borrowed from the Internet.
The present matter, an obscure federal regulatory action, is part of a long
running chess game between the FCC, the telecom monopolies and giant
actors like Google and Netflix. The letter in question does not represent the
best interests of the citizens of Palm Desert, nor does it contribute anything
of substance to the debate. We will be best served if you do not send it.
Roland Alden
74741 Candlewood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260
ralden@ralden.com
Alden to Palm Desert City Council, Wednesday, September 24, 2014 page 2 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Rachelle,
Roland Alden [ralden@ralden.com]
Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:01 PM
Klassen, Rachelle
Letter re: Consent Calendar item "I" on tomorrow's agenda
city of PD-04.pdf
I am wondering if you can distribute the attached letter to the councilmembers
before they vote on the consent calendar tomorrow? I just cannot spare the time
tomorrow to show up and wait; but I did not want to let the matter pass without
comment.
1