HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 LEGISLATIVE REPORTS SB1627 & AB2197 04-17-06
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 17,2006
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
SUMMARY:
Attached are two Bills for discussion by the City Council.
. Senate Bill 1627 (SB1627) was introduced by Kehoe regarding wireless
telecommunication facilities; and
. Assembly Bill 2197 (AB2197) was introduced by DeVore regarding
redevelopment project areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Maria R. Huizar
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2006
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORT - SENATE BILL (SB) 1627 (KEHOE)
SUMMARY
SB 1627 (Kehoe) would require a city or county to administratively approve an
application to collocate a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined, through the
issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Current process for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for wireless
telecommunication facilities are applicant initiated and fees are based on cost recovery.
DISCUSSION:
At the April 3, 2006, meeting, Councilman Bone requested that Senate Bill (SB) 1627 be
agendized for the Council's consideration. SB 1627 can be summarized as follows:
. Directs cities and counties to administratively approve through the issuance of a
building permit or other nondiscretionary permit applications to place
telecommunications equipment on existing structures where such equipment
already exists.
. Limits local officials' reviews of these applications to the building official's review
of whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal
law.
. A review of the environmental affects of radio frequency emissions is limited to
applicable provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act or Section 332
(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
City Council Report
SB 1627
April 17, 2006
Page 2
. Defines the terms "wireless telecommunications facility" and "collocation" as
follows:
"Collocation" means the placement or installation of wireless facilities,
including antennas, and related equipment, on existing structures such as
towers, buildings, utility poles, and water tanks upon which wireless
telecommunications facilities and equipment already exist.
"Wireless telecommunications facility" means equipment and network
components such as antennas, transmitters, base stations, and
emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless
telecommunications services.
. "Development project" is modified to include wireless telecommunication projects
involving issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but not a permit
to operate as follows:
"Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of
development. "Development project" includes a project involving the
issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but not a permit to
operate. A development proiect for a wireless telecommunications facilitv.
as defined in Section 65850.6. shall not be subiect to a permit to operate.
"Development project" does not include any ministerial projects proposed
to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
. Requires a city or county to approve or disapprove an application for
development of a wireless telecommunications facility within the following
period:
90 days after certifying an EIR for a wireless telecommunications facility.
60 days after completing a Negative Declaration.
60 days after determining that a project is exempt.
. Prohibits cities and counties from:
a) Requiring escrows or sureties for removal of telecommunications
equipment;
b) Placing unreasonable limits on the duration of permits (limits of less than
10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent compelling land use or
public safety reasons);
c) Limiting telecommunications facilities to certain geographic areas or sites
owned by particular parties within the city or county's jurisdiction; or,
City Council Report
S8 1627
April 17, 2006
Page 3
d) Conditioning approval of a permit on an agreement to reserve space on
the facility for the telecommunications needs of the city or county.
Staff has identified the following concerns regarding SB 1627:
. By limiting the review of applications to "collocate" wireless equipment to the
consideration of health and safety issues, SB 1627 eliminates local discretion
over the placement of antennas and related equipment on existing structures.
. SB 1627 does not provide a clear definition whether collocation on existing
structure(s) would require the existing facility to maintain its current height and
bulk or would allow placement of any antennas and/or equipment on existing
structures without regards of height and bulk of the new antennas and/or related
equipment.
. SB 1627 failed to consider that in order to collocate, existing pole/structure(s)
would need to be modified to accommodate a new carrier Le., enlarge or
reinforce pole where existing antennas are located, enlarge equipment
compound/room to accommodate new equipments, etc. which could impact
parking, circulation, accessibility, etc. which could necessitate a variance or other
discretionary permit approval.
. SB 1627 would substitute the state's preference for more wireless facilities for
local officials' judgments about their neighborhoods. Local communities would
not be able to consider whether adding additional equipment to an existing tower
could harm local aesthetics or property values.
. By requiring a local decision on applications for construction of a new wireless
telecommunications structures within 90 days, SB 1627 places those projects in
a special category which current law reserves for affordable housing projects.
SB 1627 would consider telecommunications structures are as deserving of
expedited review as affordable housing projects.
Justina Willkom
Senior Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
Attachment: Senate Bill 1627
S:\CcktCCAEPORT\S81627.doc
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 29, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 27, 2006
SENATE BILL
No. 1627
Introduced by Senator Kehoe
February 24, 2006
An act to amend Sections 65928 and 65950 of, and to add Sections
65850.6 and 65964 to, the Govemment Code, relating to
telecommunications.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1627, as amended, Kehoe. Wireless telecommunication
facilities.
The Planning and Zoning-htw Law authorizes the legislative body of
any county or city to adopt ordinances that, among other things,
regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry,
business, residences, and open space.
This bill would require a city, including a charter city, or county to
administratively approve an application to collocate a wireless
telecommunications facility, as defined, through the issuance of a
building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit, as specified.
The Permit Streamlining Act requires a public agency that is the
lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a
development project within a specified number of days from the date
of certification by the lead agency of an environmental impact report,
if the report is prepared pursuant to specified provisions.
This bill would require a lead agency to approve or disapprove a
development project that is a structure primarily designed to support a
wireless telecommunications facility, within 90 days from the date of
97
SB 1627
-2-
certification by the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if
certain conditions are met.
The act defines the term "development project" to include projects
involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction
but not a permit to operate.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from taking certain actions
as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for
construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless
telecommunications facility, and would specify that a development
project for a wireless telecommunications facility is not subject to a
permit to operate.
By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact asfollows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 65850.6 is added to the Govemment
2 Code, to read:
3 65850.6. (a) A city, including a charter city, or county shall
4 administratively approve an application to collocate a wireless
5 telecommunications facility through the issuance of a building
6 permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Review of the
7 application shall be limited to the building official's review of
8 whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state,
9 and federal law. With respect to the consideration of the
10 environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, the city's or
11 the county's review shall be limited to that authorized by Section
12 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
13 (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions
14 apply:
97
-3-
SB 1627
1 (1) "Collocation" means the placement or installation of
2 wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on
3 existing structures such as towers, buildings, utility poles, and
4 water tanks upon which wireless telecommunications facilities
5 and equipment already exist.
6 (2) "Wireless telecommunications facility" means equipment
7 and network components such as antennas, transmitters, base
8 stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to
9 providing wireless telecommunications services.
10 (c) The Legislature finds and declares that the collocation of
11 wireless telecommunications facilities, as defined in this section,
12 has a significant economic impact in California and is not a
13 municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of
14 the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern.
15 SEe. 2. Section 65928 of the Govemment Code is amended
16 to read:
17 65928. "Development project" means any project undertaken
18 for the purpose of development. "Development project" includes
19 a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or
20 reconstruction but not a permit to operate. A development project
21 for a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section
22 65850.6, shall not be subject to a permit to operate.
23 "Development project" does not include any ministerial projects
24 proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
25 SEC. 3. Section 65950 of the Govemment Code is amended
26 to read:
27 65950. (a) Any public agency that is the lead agency for a
28 development project shall approve or disapprove the project
29 within whichever of the following periods is applicable:
30 (1) One hundred eighty days from the date of certification by
31 the lead agency of the environmental impact report, if an
32 environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to Section
33 21100 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code for the
34 development project.
35 (2) Ninety days from the date of certification by the lead
36 agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental
37 impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of
38 the Public Resources Code for the development project and all of
39 the following conditions are met:
97
SB 1627
-4-
I (A) The development project is affordable to very low or
2 low-income households, as defined by Sections 50105 and
3 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, respectively.
4 (B) Prior to the application being deemed complete for the
5 development project pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with
6 Section 65940), the lead agency received written notice from the
7 project applicant that an application has been made or will be
8 made for an allocation or commitment of financing, tax credits,
9 bond authority, or other financial assistance from a public agency
10 or federal agency, and the notice specifies the financial assistance
11 that has been applied for, or will be applied for, and the deadline
12 for application for that assistance, the requirement that one of the
13 approvals of the development project by the lead agency is a
14 prerequisite to the application for or approval of the application
15 for financial assistance, and that the financial assistance is
16 necessary for the project to be affordable, as required pursuant to
17 subparagraph (A).
18 (C) There is confirmation that the application has been made
19 to the public agency or federal agency prior to certification of the
20 environmental impact report.
21 (3) Ninety days from the date of certification by the lead
22 agency of the environmental impact report, if an environmental
23 impact report is prepared pursuant to Section 21100 or 21151 of
24 the Public Resources Code for a development project that is a
25 structure primarily designed to support a wireless
26 telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, and
27 there is confirmation that the application has been made to the
28 city or county prior to the certification of the environmental
29 impact report.
30 (4) Sixty days from the date of adoption by the lead agency of
31 the negative declaration, if a negative declaration is completed
32 and adopted for the development project.
33 (5) Sixty days from the determination by the lead agency that
34 the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
35 Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
36 Resources Code), if the project is exempt from the California
37 Environmental Quality Act.
38 (b) Nothing in this section precludes a project applicant and a
39 public agency from mutually agreeing in writing to an extension
97
-5-
SB 1627
1 of any time limit provided by this section pursuant to Section
2 65957.
3 (c) For purposes of this section, "lead agency" and "negative
4 declaration" shall have the same meaning as those terms are
5 defined in Sections 21067 and 21064 of the Public Resources
6 Code, respectively.
7 SEC. 4. Section 65964 is added to the Govemment Code, to
8 read:
9 65964. As a condition of approval of an application for a
10 permit for construction or reconstruction for a development
11 project for a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in
12 Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the
13 following:
14 ( a) Require an escrow deposit or surety requirements for
15 removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any
16 component thereof.
17 (b) Umeasonably limit the duration of any permit for a
18 wireless telecommunications facility. Limits ofless than 10 years
19 are presumed to be unreasonable absent compelling land use or
20 public safety reasons.
21 (c) Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be
22 limited to certain geographic areas or sites owned by particular
23 parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.
24 (d) Condition approval ofa telecommunications facility on the
25 agreement by the applicant to reserve space at, or on, the facility
26 for the telecommunications needs of the city or county.
27 SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
28 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
29 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
30 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
31 4 of Title 2 of the Govemment Code.
o
97
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2006
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORT-ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2197
SUMMARY:
Assembly Bill 2197 has been introduced by Assemblyman De Vore and is undergoing
Assembly Committee review and recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Could be dramatic on proposed Redevelopment Project areas and could also prevent
amendments were necessary to meet local redevelopment objectives.
BACKGROUND:
When a Redevelopment Agency amends or merges project areas, the base tax is
frozen. Any increases in the valuation of property "tax increment" is diverted from other
local taxing authorities in order to payoff a portion of the debt incurred to finance or
refinance redevelopment. This money is diverted from monies that would have gone to
other taxing agencies Le. county, school districts, and special districts. Under current
legislation, Redevelopment Agencies are allowed to merge or amend a plan by
ordinance without considering other local authorities and how they will be affected.
AB 2197 would require any redevelopment agency considering the merger or
amendment to a plan that provides for the use of tax-increment financing to first receive
approval from the County Board of Supervisors. Within 60 days of receiving the City's
request, the Board would be required to hold a hearing regarding the plan and is
required to invite all affected school districts and special districts, and the State
Treasurer. The hearing would provide all invitees with an opportunity to provide either
written or verbal testimony. If the plan is not approved, a Redevelopment Agency has
the opportunity to submit an appeal. If the plan is still not approved, a Redevelopment
Agency would have one year to resubmit the plan.
The Health and Safety Code would read: a redevelopment plan shall not be amended
in a manner that would decrease the amount of property tax revenues received by a
county unless the county board of supervisors reviews and approves of the plan.
Argument For:
In cases where plans have been amended, such amendments may create additional
fiscal impacts on counties, school districts, and special districts. The counties, school
districts and special districts affected by such action, should be granted an opportunity
to provide input before a decision is made that impacts their funds.
Argument Against:
County governments should not be given this type of power over redevelopment
agencies; legislation should not be created which would permit one local authority to
exercise extraordinary power over another. Counties also have redevelopment areas
and could end up approving their plans while not approving plans submitted by city
government. In addition, there are no procedures that have been developed for the
county to follow. Under comprehensive redevelopment legislation adopted in 1994 (AB
1290), Redevelopment Plans are subject to automatic pass-throughs of revenues to
other taxing agencies, significant oversight is required, and thoughtful procedures that
were negotiated over several years with local taxing agencies on a state wide basis.
Under AB 1290 school districts are backfilled by the State (e.g., Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF)) and therefore not affected by tax increment financing.
Status: 3/2/06 - referred to the Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee and the Local Government Committee.
4/5/06 - reviewed and recommended to pass as amended, re-referred to the
Committee on Local Government - the bill is being reworded - removing the language
giving the Board of Supervisor's authority - adding a discussion section calling for a
study to be done: (1) study abuse in redevelopment agencies (2) study on how other
states are conducting oversight of redevelopment agencies. A time frame has not been
set at this time. The notion there is "abuse" by redevelopment agencies has been
examined for years and was one basis for enactment of AB 1290.
Registered Support/Opposition:
Support: Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, Chris Norby (Sponsor),
Orange County Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Opposition:
California Redevelopment Association, Culver City Redevelopment Agency, Cities of
Bellflower, Concord, Lakewood, Livermore, Salinas, San Jose, and San Pablo, League
of California Cities, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
Page 3
Christine A. Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-200s-06 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 2197
Introduced by Assembly Member DeVore
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Haynes, Maze, Strickland, and
Wyland)
February 22, 2006
An act to add Sections 33363.6, 33455.5, and 33486.5 to the Health
and Safety Code, relating to redevelopment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2197, as introduced, DeVore. Redevelopment: plans:
tax-increment financing.
(1) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the
establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities in order to
address the effects of blight, as defined, in those communities and
requires those agencies to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and
approve a redevelopment plan for each project area. Existing law
requires a redevelopment plan to describe generally the proposed
method of financing the redevelopment of the project area.
Existing law authorizes redevelopment agencies to pay the principal
of, and interest on, indebtedness incurred to finance or refinance
redevelopment, from a portion of property tax revenues diverted from
other taxing agencies. The portion of taxes diverted is the amount
attributable to increases in assessed valuation of property in the
redevelopment project area subsequent to the establishment of the
project area. This method of financing is commonly known as
"tax-increment" financing and is specifically authorized by Section 16
of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a redevelopment
agency by ordinance to amend a redevelopment plan and to merge
99
AB 2197
-2-
project areas under the jurisdiction of a redevelopment agency without
regard to the contiguity of the areas.
This bill would prohibit a legislative body from adopting a
redevelopment plan that provides for the use of tax-increment
financing, amending a redevelopment plan in a manner that would
decrease the amount of property tax revenues received by a county, or
merging redevelopment project areas unless the county board of
supervisors reviews and approves of the plan, amendment, or merger.
The bill would require the county board of supervisors to hold a public
meeting for the purposes of reviewing and approving the action within
60 days of receiving a request and to deliver its decision regarding
approval within 90 days of receiving that request. The bill would
require all affected school districts, special districts, and the state
Treasurer to be invited to the public meeting and to present written or
verbal testimony. The bill would allow a redevelopment agency to
appeal a negative decision and, if appeal does not result in approval of
the plan, to renew its request for approval after a year has elapsed.
By requiring county boards of supervisors to review and approve
these actions of redevelopment agencies, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
I SECTION 1. Section 33363.6 is added to the Health and
2 Safety Code, to read:
3 33363.6. (a) A legislative body shall not adopt a
4 redevelopment plan that provides for the division of property tax
5 revenues pursuant to Section 33670 unless the county board of
6 supervisors reviews and approves of the plan.
99
-3-
AB 2197
I (b) The county board of supervisors shall hold a public
2 meeting for the purposes of reviewing and approving a
3 redevelopment plan pursuant to this section within 60 days of
4 receiving a request for review and approval and shall deliver its
5 decision regarding approval within 90 days of receiving that
6 request. The county board of supervisors shall invite all affected
7 school districts, special districts, and the state Treasurer to attend
8 the public meeting and provide them with an opportunity to
9 present written or verbal testimony at the meeting.
10 (c) A redevelopment agency may appeal a negative decision
11 by the county board of supervisors and request a rehearing,
12 which shall be granted. If the appeal and rehearing does not
13 result in approval of the plan, the redevelopment agency may
14 resubmit the plan after a year has elapsed.
15 (d) The county board of supervisors may waive the public
16 meeting required pursuant to this section.
17 SEC. 2. Section 33455.5 is added to the Health and Safety
18 Code, to read:
19 33455.5. (a) A redevelopment plan shall not be amended in a
20 manner that would decrease the amount of property tax revenues
21 received by a county unless the county board of supervisors
22 reviews and approves of the amendment.
23 (b) The county board of supervisors shall hold a public
24 meeting for the purposes of reviewing and approving a
25 redevelopment plan pursuant to this section within 60 days of
26 receiving a request for review and approval and shall deliver its
27 decision regarding approval within 90 days of receiving that
28 request. The county board of supervisors shall invite all affected
29 school districts, special districts, and the state Treasurer to attend
30 the public meeting and provide them with an opportunity to
31 present written or verbal testimony at the meeting.
32 (c) A redevelopment agency may appeal a negative decision
33 by the county board of supervisors. If the appeal does not result
34 in approval of the plan, the redevelopment agency may resubmit
35 the plan after a year has elapsed.
36 (d) The county board of supervisors may waive the public
37 meeting required pursuant to this section.
38 SEe. 3. Section 33486.5 is added to the Health and Safety
39 Code, to read:
99
AB 2197
-4-
1 33486.5. (a) The merger of project areas shall not occur
2 unless the county board of supervisors reviews and approves of
3 the merger.
4 (b) The county board of supervisors shall hold a public
5 meeting for the purposes of reviewing and approving a merger
6 pursuant to this section within 60 days ofreceiving a request for
7 review and approval and shall deliver its decision regarding
8 approval within 90 days of receiving that request. The county
9 board of supervisors shall invite all affected school districts,
10 special districts, and the state Treasurer to attend the public
11 meeting and provide them with an opportunity to present written
12 or verbal testimony at the meeting.
13 (c) A redevelopment agency may appeal a negative decision
14 by the county board of supervisors. If the appeal does not result
15 in approval of the merger, the redevelopment agency may
16 resubmit the proposal after a year has elapsed.
17 (d) The county board of supervisors may waive the public
18 meeting required pursuant to this section.
19 SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
20 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
21 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
22 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
23 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
o
99