Solar Fee and Permitting

AB 2135 (Blumenfield) – Support if Amended 
As Amended June 11, 2012

AB 2135, by Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield, would require the Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development, in cooperation with the State Fire Marshall, to develop a guidebook to assist cities and counties in implementing building standards and permitting processes for residential and commercial solar. In addition, the bill states that those jurisdictions that adopt policies from the guidebook would receive preference or priority from Air Resources Board (ARB) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) for grant funds. 

CSAC is supportive of residential and commercial solar as a means to be more energy efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, we have a few technical issues with the bill which we are discussing with the author’s office. This bill will be heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on Wednesday, June 26th. 

SB 1222 (Leno) – Oppose
As Amended June 19, 2012

SB 1222, by Senator Leno, will be heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on June 27, 2012. As previously reported, this bill would cap the permit fee that local agencies are allowed to charge on rooftop solar installations for residential solar at $400. Recent amendments would allow for an additional $15 per kilowatt for each kilowatt above 15kW for residential rooftop solar energy systems, and $1,000 plus $7 per kilowatt for each kilowatt between 51kW and 250kW, plus $5 for every kilowatt above 250kW, for commercial rooftop solar energy systems.

CSAC, along with the League of California Cities, the Regional Council of Rural Counties, the American Planning Association-California Chapter, the California Building Officials and the Urban Counties Caucus all oppose this bill because we do not believe it is the role of the state to undermine local decisions by setting the level of the fee in statue without regard to individual city or county costs. In addition, under the existing Mitigation Fee Act, when a local government imposes a fee, it may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing a service for which the fee is charged. CSAC asks that counties that have taken an oppose position send their letters of opposition to the author.

AB 1801 (Campos) – Support if Amended
As Amended June 18, 2012

AB 1801, by Assembly Member Nora Campos, would enhance the current law with regard to residential solar panel building fee permits. This bill prohibits cities and counties from using the valuation method to calculate their fees, such as charging fees based on the solar energy system’s valuation, the value of the property, materials, labor, or any other factor not directly associated with the cost to review and inspect the installation of the solar energy system. 

CSAC has requested amendments that would delete the language specifying “actual cost” and replace it with “estimated reasonable cost.” Under existing law, as noted above, local governments are not allowed to exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service. However, if local governments are required to charge “actual cost” for the permit fee, we will be required to figure out the actual cost for each individual permit, and then after the service has been provided retroactively bill or refund the homeowner for the permit charges. This is significantly more burdensome than the current practice of “estimated reasonable costs” which is a standard method of collection under the Mitigation Fee Act. This bill will is currently on the Senate Third Reading File. 

Flood Protection/Land Use

SB 1278 (Wolk) – Support
As Amended June 12, 2012

SB 1278, by Senate Lois Wolk, is the legislative vehicle for proposed changes to SB 5 (Machado, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007), one of a six-bill flood protection package signed into law in 2007. SB 5 requires each city and county in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to comprehensively address flood management and flood risk issues within their general plans and zoning ordinances following the adoption of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). The law also prohibits, after the CVFPP takes effect, a city or county in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement, approving any permit, entitlement or subdivision map in a flood zone unless the city or county makes a finding that ensures the attainment of, or progress towards, a 200-year level of flood protection.

SB 1278 would address significant implementation challenges associated with SB 5 including:

Lack of Information Needed by Cities and Counties to Comply with the Law
The draft CVFPP does not include sufficient information to allow cities and counties to begin the planning, permitting and zoning requirements. Local jurisdictions will need detailed technical map information for both project and non-project levees to determine exactly which properties would be subject to the SB 5 permitting and building restrictions. 

SB 1278 would address this issue by correlating the deadlines for general plan amendments and changes to zoning ordinances with the availability of draft 200-year floodplain maps for areas protected by the State Plan of Flood Control. To ensure that these maps are scientifically or technically correct, SB 1278 would require the Department of Water Resources to make the draft maps available for public comment and would establish a process for submitting scientific or technical appeals and protests to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. The bill would also establish a process for addressing areas outside of the State Plan of Flood Control where undetermined risks may exist.

Interior Drainage

As DWR is currently interpreting the law, all areas, including those not protected by levees, will have to demonstrate 200-year protection. Tying all of the SB 5 planning, zoning and permitting restrictions to areas subject to potential flooding from interior drainage areas is an extremely broad interpretation of the law, and it would greatly expand the universe of impacted property owners and substantially increase mitigation costs, staff time and planning costs. 

SB 1278 would address this issue by clarifying that the permitting restrictions of SB 5 apply to leveed riverine systems. This clarification is achieved by amending the definition of “urban level of flood protection”.

Given the June 12 amendments CSAC moved from a “support if amended” position to a position of “support”. SB 1278 is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on Wednesday, June 27.