HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Fixed Fee Residential Building Permits
CITY CLERK
File # Drn[!f][l2J-[ZJ~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3,2006
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
~.........
RECOMMENDATIONS: r(Y/ 1)
//LN 2)
/ \ 3)
-.~ 4)
5)
6)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
COpy TO: In-House Distribution
File
J:\Agendas\2006\Solar Fees\Solar Panel StaffReportDOC
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Fixed Fee for Residential Building
Permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and a Fixed Fee for
Residential Building Permits for Solar Pool Heating Systems.
Report Prepared by: Clyde Stevens, Contract Building Inspector~/
1) Resolution adopting a Fixed Fee for Residential Building
Permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and a Fixed Fee
for Residential Building Permits for Solar Pool Heating
Systems
2) City Council Agenda Statement for August 15,2006 for Solar
Energy Building Permit Fees
3) City Council Minutes for August 15,2006 Meeting
Open Public Hearing;
Receive Staff Report;
Receive Public Testimony;
Close Public Hearing;
Deliberate; and
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Fixed Fee
for Residential Building Permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic
Solar Panels and a Fixed Fee for Residential Building Permits
for Solar Pool Heating Systems.
A $250.00 fixed fee for residential Rooftop Photovoltaic Panel
Systems will result in the City of Dublin subsidizing this fee by
approximately $ 400. A $100 fixed fee for residential Solar Pool
Heating Systems will result in the City of Dublin subsidizing this fee
by approximately $80.00. The total amount subsidized by the
General Fund will depend on the number of each type of permit
issued.
Page 1 of3
ITEM NO. ~. f
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
On July 18, 2006, the City of Dublin received a request from Mr. Tom Roberts, Energy Sub-Committee
Member, Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter, for a formal review of the permit fee and the process
for rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panels. The letter states that the City of Dublin is one of the more
expensive cities for permits compared to the 48 jurisdictions surveyed in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin
and San Francisco counties.
On August 15,2006 the City Council received a presentation from Staff which included an analysis and
supporting attachments of facts detailing actual average cost of solar permits, the Tri-Valleypermit
averages, and permit fees in the North/East San Francisco Bay Area (Attachment 2). City Staff also
included in their analysis the fees and the inspection expenditures associated with residential solar water
heating panels building permits. The City currently imposes permit fees for Residential Building Permits
for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and Solar Pool Heating Systems based on valuation, pursuant to the
fee schedule of April 18, 2006 (City Council Resolution No. 49-06). The current permit fee structure
based on valuation renders Residential Building Permit fees for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and
Solar Pool Heating Systems in excess of the Tri-Valley average for similar fees.
At the August 15,2006 meeting, the City Council decided to establish a fixed fee approach for residential
building permits for both Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panel Systems and Solar Panel Pool Heating
Systems (Attachment 3). The City Council decided to establish fees for each permit that are below the
Tri-Valley average of$374.62 for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panel Systems and $147.00 for Solar Panel
Pool Heating Systems. The City Council recognized this approach as consistent with the City's
philosophy for promoting Green Building efforts and promoting the use of Alternative Energy.
The City Council directed Staff to provide a fee resolution which would establish a fixed fee for
residential building permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panel Systems of $250 and a fixed fee for
residential building permits for Solar Panel Pool Heating Systems of $1 00 (Attachment 1).
Refund of Solar Energy Residential Building Permit Fees
Additionally, the City Council requested Staff to research the possibility of refunding building permit fees
paid by individual applicants this fiscal year for solar panels in excess of the proposed decreased permit
fees. Such refunds would go to individual building permit applicants who have already installed solar
panels pursuant to their permits. However, based on the legal analysis provided by the City Attorney's
office, the refund of lawfully imposed permitting fees would likely constitute an unconstitutional gift of
public funds.
The California Constitution prohibits cities from making a gift of public funds, which results when an
expenditure of money is not used for a public purpose. Generally speaking, the City's promotion of solar
panels through a reduction of applicable building permit fees serves several public purposes, including
promotion of alternative sources of energy. However, it is difficult to identify a public purpose for
refunding permit fees to individual applicants who have already installed solar panels. Since the
applicants have paid the permit fee and installed the solar panels, the refunds would not serve to create an
incentive to encourage the installation of solar panels, and there is no further public purpose served by
refunding the permit fees to such individuals.
Page 2 of3
Staff recommends that no refunds for permits already issued be considered at this time because such
refunds most likely constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open Public Hearing, 2) Receive Staff Report, 3) Receive
Public Testimony, 4) Close Public Hearing, 5) Deliberate, and 6) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1)
approving a Fixed Fee for Residential Building Permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and a Fixed
Fee for Residential Building Permits for Solar Pool Heating Systems.
Page 3 of3
1~~5
RESOLUTION NO. - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*****************************************
APPROVING A FIXED FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS FOR ROOFTOP
PHOTOVOTAIC SOLAR PANELS AND A FIXED FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
PERMITS FOR SOLAR POOL HEATING SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (the "City") currently imposes permit fees for Residential
Building Permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and Solar Pool Heating Systems based on
valuation, pursuant to the fee schedule of April 18, 2006 (City Council Resolution No. 49-06); and
WHEREAS, the current permit fee structure based on valuation renders Residential Building
Permit fees for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels and Solar Pool Heating Systems in excess of the Tri-
Valley average for similar fees; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin's City Council wishes to continue promoting Green Building and
Alternative Energy measures, and to establish fixed fees below the Tri- Valley average for such fees; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.28.430 of the Dublin Municipal Code provides that the City Council shall
adopt a schedule of fees for building permits by Resolution; and
WHEREAS, at its August 15, 2006 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Fixed
Building Permit Fee for Residential Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar Panels in the amount of $250.00 and a
Fixed Building Permit Fee for Solar Pool Heating Systems in the amount of$100.00; and
WHEREAS, the fixed fees for Residential Building Permits for Rooftop Photovoltaic Solar
Panels and the fixed fees for residential building permits for Solar Pool Heating Systems would go into
effect December 4, 2006, which is 60 days from the adoption of this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Dublin adopts a
fixed residential Building Permit fee for Photovoltaic Solar Panels of $250.00 and a fixed residential
Building Permit fee for Photovoltaic Solar Pool Heating Systems of$100.00.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\Agendas\2006\Solar Fees\Leah's comments\Reso Solar energy Building Permits.DOC
ro, I (O/?~/o
Attachment 1
CITY CL~RK
File # D~~[O]-l:lJ[Q]
~b3~
\of.:'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 15,2006
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
~
2)
3)
~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Solar Energy Building Permit Fees: Request by the Sierra Club to
review the permit fees for rooftop photovoltaic solar panels.
Report Prepared by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official ~
1)
2)
3)
Letter from Tom Roberts, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay
Chapter.
Letter from Lois Wolk, Assembly Member, Eighth District.
A Comparative Study of Solar Electric Permit Fees in the
North / East S.F. Bay Area. Prepared by Carl Mills and
provide by the Sierra Club.
4)
Receive the Staff Report;
Receive public comment;
Direct Staff to return with a flat fee approach for both PV
systems and solar pool heating systems based on the Tri Valley
average; or
Provide Staff with other direction.
Building permit fees for solar permits are based on full cost recovery
that is permitted by law. Full cost is defined as including both the
indirect or administrative cost and the direct cost of the service. It is
estimated that the average amount for a photovoltaic permit is $644.
On July 18,2006, the City of Dublin received a request from Mr. Tom Roberts, Energy Sub-Committee
Member, Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter, for a formal review of the permit fee and the process
for rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panels. The letter states that the City of Dublin is one of the more
expensive cities for permits (Attachment 1).
ANALYSIS:
There are two different types of Solar Energy Systems: 1) photovoltaic or PV for production of electrical
energy; and 2) solar heating panels used for the heating of water; this type of system is commonly used for
swimming pools. Although the request by the Applicant was to review the costs and fees with PV
COpy TO: Sierra Club S.F. Bay Chapter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G:\Agendas\2006\Solar Fees\Solar Fee Review CCSR-8-IS-06.doc
Page 1 of 4
Attachment 2
systems, Staff has also reviewed costs and fees for solar water heating panels used in conjunction with
swimming pools. 3Pf,\ '35
,,#
Photovoltaic (PV) Systems:
The frequency of permits requested for PV systems is increasing. For example, from FY 1999~2000 - FY
2004-2005 the City issued a combined total of seven permits. However, in FY 2005 - 2006 seven permits
were issued in that year alone. In FY 2005-2006, PV systems ranged in valuation from $5,000 to $54,000.
The following table outlines the statistics on the seven permits issued during FY 2005-2006:
Kilo- Valuation *Estimated Estimated Plan (Over) / Percentage of
WaUs City Hours City Costs Check Under Permit Fees
on Project (Current and Collected to Project
hourly Rate Permit Valuation
of $123.52) Fees
Collected
2.9 $17,000 5 $617.60 $540 $77.60 3.2%
3.5 $19,536 5.5 $679.36 $600 $79.36 3.1%
3.5 $16,000 4.5 $555.84 $520 $35.84 3.2%
4.5 $27,000 5 $617.60 $740 ($122.40) 2.7%
10.26 $54,000 6 $741.12 $1248 ($506.88) 2.3%
3.5 $20,000 5 $617.60 $600 $17.60 3.0%
4.5 $5,000 5.5 $679.36 $250 $429.36 5.0%
Average 5.2 $644.07 $642.57
Table One
City of Dublin PV Permits
2005- 2006
*Estimated hours include permit technician review to determine a complete application and the minimal information required
for review by the electrical plan checker, plan check time, permit issuance time, and inspection time (inspection time includes
travel time, review of permit and plans on site, and inspection of system).
The Sierra Club recommends "$300 as a reasonable maximum for solar permit fees." The Sierra Club
states "This amount would cover most or all of the services a city must perform to ensure that a PV
installation meets engineering and safety standards, as it normally takes between 2 to 5 hours to permit
and inspect a residential PV system" (Section 3.2 of Attachment 3).
As noted above, the average City time spent on each PV solar panel system is 5.2 hours at a cost of
$644.07 per permit. Therefore, if the City were to establish a flat fee, $644 should provide for full cost
recovery. However, as contractors become more proficient in the permit process and the installation of
PV syst~ms, a reduction in City Staff time may be realized.
To follow up on the Sierra Club's research, Staff contacted seven of the cities listed in the survey and
asked the same question listed in the Sierra Club survey. Table Two, below, summarizes the results of the
City's survey. The survey found that the average building permit fee on PV systems for the Tri-Valley
(Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville) is $374.62.
Ci
Pleasanton
Table Two
Com arison of Surve
Sierra Club Surve
$200
Results
Ci of Dublin Surve
$138.50 ($23.50 permit fee, $30.50 for the disconnect,
$30.50 for the inverter and $3.00 per panel- Staff assumed 18
anels for a 3kW s stem
$276 (if less then 1 hour of inspection time, additional
charges for time and material for any inspection time over the
first hour
$283.97
$800
$532.31
$430.35
$2.70 (City Council has waived all City fees to promote
solar anels, the $2.70 fee is a state mandate fee
J4V[,31J
Livermore
$280
San Ramon
Danville
Concord
San Leandro
Mill Valley
$285
$850
$600
$1,100
$3
ossible reduction of the fee to $400
Water Heating Systems:
During FY 2005-2006, the City of Dublin issued two building permits for solar pool heating systems that
were not part of a new swimming pool installation; both systems were valued at $3,000 with a permit fee
of $170. Staff estimates that 1 ~ hours of City time was spent on the processing and inspection of each
system, at a cost of $185.28 per permit.
Between fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2004-2005, sixteen permits for solar pool heating systems were
issued by the City. The valuations of these systems ranged from $2,479 to $5,565 and permit fees ranged
from $170 to $250. Staff did not review solar heating panels that were permitted at the same time as the
swimming pooL When solar heating systems are installed at the same time as the swimming pool, the
extra inspection time and permit fees are minimal. Table Three, below summarizes the results of the
City's survey:
Surve
Ci
Pleasanton
Livermore
San Ramon
Danville
Concord
San Leandro
The above survey found that the average building permit fee on swimming pool solar water heating panels
for the Tri- Valley (Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville) is $147.00.
Based on the information above, it is recommended that the City Council direct Staffto develop flat fee
permits for both PV systems and solar pool heating panels based on the Tri-Valley average. As noted 5"'.fb~?
above, the average permit for PV systems in the Tri-Valley average is $375 for PV systems and $147 for
pool heating systems. If the flat fee permit approach is the City Council's direction, Staff would return
with a draft ordinance at a future City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive public comment, and 3)
Direct Staff to return with a flat fee approach for both PV systems and solar pool heating systems based
on the Tri Valley average; or 4) Provide Staff with other direction.
" SIERRA
CLUB
~'Z11 '3;;
RECE~\/ED
C~ !i .~{ .DUE3Llt~
FOUNDED 1892
f.~
"J
San Francisco Bay Chapter
Serving the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco
CITY MAr~AGER'S OFFICE
July 17, 2006
Richard Ambrose
City Manager
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Request that you formally review the permit fee/process for rooftop photovoltaic (PV)
solar panels
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
We are vmting to inform you that Dublin might be overlooking an opportunity to increase its
supply of renewable energy. Our study on solar permit fees in 48 jurisdictions (in Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, and San Francisco counties) indicates that Dublin is one of the most expensive for
homeowners who wish to install rooftop solar panels (see enclosed comparative chart). For a 3kW
solar system valued at $27,000 before the California Energy Commission rebate, your staff
informed us that Dublin charges $740 for the permit as of Summer 2006, compared to $3 in Mill
Valley. (This assumes a professionally installed system that is mounted flush to the roof, is 320
square feet, and has a weight load of3 pOlmds per square foot.)
The importance of renewable, locally produced energy is self-evident in light of recent events.
Consider PG&E's 71% increase in natural gas rates as of October 1,2005, over 12% increase in
residential electric rates on January 1, 2006, and California's rolling blackouts in 2001, etc.
California generally, and our region specifically, faces rising energy demand, diminishing in-
state/regional generation, and increasing dependence on fossil fuel imports from unstable SOlEces.
Citizens are increasingly aware that rooftop solar panels are an obvious means to alleviate these
problems. A Field Research Institute poll of 954 Califol1.1ians done in June 2005 found that 77%
support increasirig the state's investment in solar energy.
Several municipalities in our region are contributing their part to promote the installation of
solar systems. For example, Mill Valley and Dublin issue solar permits over-the-counter, and are
among the twenty-four jurisdictions in our survey with fees under $300. We ask that you consider
the recommendations in our study to reduce permitting fees and delays. You can dovvnload a full
copy of the study from:
http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/ global_ wanning/artic1es/pv -permit_study _NE _ Bay.pdf
(Continued on reverse)
I 0' /f,.-I /'
51 . Co II':;) ({)fo
2530 San Pablo Ave" Suite I, Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel. (510) 848-0800 E-mail: sa11lrancisco-bc~y.chaJ.
Attachment 1
fi~3
Our recommendations in brief are as follows:
. Reduce solar pennit fees to $300 or less for standard residential PV installations to make
such installations more feasible for middle-income homeovvners.
. Use the flat-fee method instead of the valuation-based method to assess solar permit fees.
The time and resources required to review and inspect standard residential PV
installations are similar regardless of the installation's cost, size or output.
. Streamline the process for reviewing solar applications and inspecting solar installations.
A process that is quicker for solar customers is also cheaper for your city.
. Revise permit fees downward to account for the new California Solar Rights Act, which
makes prohibitions based on aesthetic concerns illegal. (see attached letter from
Assembly member Lois Walk on this issue). AB 2473 became law in California on
January 1, 2005. It expressly declares the state legislatures intent that solar energy
system permitting costs shall be minimized.
California Government Code section 66005 (a) specifies, "[development pernut] fees or
exactions shall not exceed the estimate reasonable cost of providing the service. . ." On December
22, 2005 the California State Supreme Court upheld this statute.
To permit and inspect a typical residential PV system normally takes between 2 to 5 hours
(regardless of size, since the amount of work is essentially the same). Thus we recommend that an
appropriate fixed fee for a PV permit that is based on the actual time and effort needed to permit
and inspect a PV system be no more than $300. We base this recommendation on extensive
reviews of solar permitting costs for many local jurisdictions that have much experience with PV
installations.
We appreciate your consideration of our request and welcome the opportunity to meet with you
to discuss implementation of our recommendations. If you have any questions about the report,
please feel free to contact me, Tom Roberts (415-203-2781), or Stan Van Velsor (650-390-8441). I
look forward to hearing from you soon. We will be following up with your head building official
on this issue in the near future.
Sincerely,
-7~. ..I/~
/~ ..~.
~ #
Tom Roberts
Energy Sub-committee Member
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 1
Berkeley, CA 94702
AVERAGE I
PV Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area as of 07/13/2006
'$475 :
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
, I
San Francisco J"W""'Al $85 I
San Pablo ~ $93 I
Ross ',,"(dli"'\>if'i $125
Alba ny'i'!#ifil<l\^"'iW< ,I,." $183
":' ',~' .~ ml,.,. ~,~ j
Marin County "i\'%n,'q,tM<<"~" 1$190
Contra Costa County ";,"Ir",~.l. ,':1' 1\,1 $195
Oakland L~kl},' 'li",; $199
Pleasanton !'i<f,Wf.l,~;\~,i1,.~i~ $200
Clayton '>\.w, ,.'," "w" , $230
Pittsburg i'dc~ 'x"', $250
Orinda $250
Moraga $250
Lafayette "'t'l'ilii'" ';II~, $250
Brentwood 'f',W",WI""~"\;;)"'~"'" $250
Berkeley .H;!:;,^q'im\\'~';;;;1!,~Wg";1 $261
Newark $267
Live'rmore ,I,'^,\\,,,.,{I';;,C,-!l,' ",,,,,,,,,,;:~ I, $280
San Ramon i,~t"~ '" 'if!.' ,;' ' $285 i
Martinez J I I $3031
, San .Rafael I I $386
Alameda County! I $458
sa:~:~~: 1 II ~~~~
Concord I J $600
Oakley j I '650
Corte Madera " : i $660
Eme,,''''e I , ' I $674 I
Antioch ~ " " , '. ,.', ,'" ",,'.', ,.,; $690 i
Richmond '~",\\ll!'jl!;'lll'.~fJ[(ljX1i'ii1'~ll\WJiI!l\liIf~lr""I~1.\!I;~!!\~/'jf.JlllM!i ';}i\~1 $7:B5
. - I I )
N~~:~: ~=::~:=~;;;::~:;;t~3 ,
L;:~::~ 1==:+:~~~:=~~=~r;:13 j
Da""'"e ~'85D i
~=:~$1'OOC
Piedmont _. "'--_~'_;_!$1,003
U~i~e;:'~~~~'~,
San Leandro ~~1MI'1Ul se\'.l1:l!lll-"'--~-'~ ~__._ ..dWIi_ftJlIlW_.u~~J1 $1,100 :
1- I I I I ) I . 1
City of Alameda ~~-~-~--__._... "~~-Jl.1$1,458!
Mill Vailey
Tiburon
Pieasant Hill
Walnut Creek
Beivedere
San Anselmo
$0
$200
$"400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1 ,200
$1,400
.::;r~
'#
-,
I
[1$0-300
0$301-500
0$501-700
[]j$701-900
1$901+
$1,600
..\r .
.q
.~
f ..,.. i
Chair'
Water, F'a.'ksand Wildlife
Committees
Sudgel
Natural Resources
Local Government
Subcommittees
Budget Subcommittee on
Transportation ana Information Technology
Select CommIttees
Biotechnology
Domestic Violence
Chlidren's School Readiness and Health
GroWih and Infrastructure
Ports
Rural Economic Development
Water, InfrastrUcture and the Economy
Wine
El oards
Public Ubrary Construction and Renovation
Wildlife Conservation
State Capitol
P.O, Sox 1342849
Sacramento, CAS4249'.0008
(916) 319-2008 .
Fax (916) 319.2108
District Office
555 Mason Street, Suite 275
Vacaville, CA 95688
(707) 455.8025
Fax (707) 455-0490
E-mail
assemblymember.wolk@assembly.ca.gov
Website
www.assembly.ca.govlwolk
'!tss~1Uhhl
illalifllrnht I4~Bislafur~
LOIS WQLK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER,'EIGHTH DISTRICT
June 7,2006
TO: All California City Attorneys and City Planners
All County Counsels and County Planners
FR: Assembly Member Lois Wolk
RE: Solar Energy System Perqiit Fees - Legislative Intent
Dear Friends,
As you may know, I have had the honor of refining and expanding the California Solar Rights
Act as the author of Assembly Bi111407 (Chapter 290, Statutes of2003) and AB 2473 (Chapter
789, Statutes of2004). During the last year I have received many calls from solar contractors
and local government staff regarding the intent of this legislation. I thought it might be helpful
to spell things out in more practical terms for everyone's benefit. Thus, this memorandum.
My intent in authoring this legislation was to establish a consistent set of standards for the review
and approval of solar energy systems and to eliminate unreasonable barriers to the installation of
solar energy systems, including, but nbt limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes. In
addition, AB 2473 expressly declares the Legislature's intent that costs of permitting solar
energy systems be minimized.
It has come to my attention that a number of quite different approaches have been taken in the
design-review of solar energy systems and in the process of establishing the costs of issuing a
permit for the installation of a solar energy system.. Some of these approaches appear to be
inconsistent with the intent of my legislation amending the California Solar Rights Act. The
purpose of this letter is to clarify the Legislature's intent with respectto design review for
aesthetic purposes and the assessment offees for the permitting of solar energy systems.
Design-Review For Aesthetic Purposes May Not Restrict Installation of Solar System~
Under the provisions of AB 2473, permitting of all types of solar systems "s'hall not be wiltjully
avoided or delayed." AB 2473 requires a city or county to permit the installation of a solar
energy system by right if the system meets specified requirements. Among other things, ~y
intent in enacting AB 2473 was to establish the principle that any application of a design review
process for aesthetic purposes that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a
solar energy system is void and unenforceable. AB 2473 expressly provides that a local agency
may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless the local
agency finds a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.
~""'-..
-'-'l':-:Ml!'
-...
Printed on Recycled Paper
Attachment 2
to ~5
--
AB 2473 amended California Civil Code Section 714(d)(l) so as to specifically limit restrictions
imposed on photovoltaic systems to those that cost less than $2,000, and prohibit any restrictions
that are based on aesthetics alone. In addition, AB 2473 recast Section 65850.5 of the
Government Code and Section 17959.1 of the Health and Safety Code to limit a building
official's review of installations to those items that relate to specific health and safety
requirements ofloca!, state and federal law.
These Sections of California law apply to current and future permitting, designJreview, and
approval processes, and also to review of existing permit applications.
Permit Fees Must Be Reasonable
As I am sure you are aware, California Government Code section 66005 (a), provides that
"[ development permit] fees or exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service..." On December 22,2005 the California State Supreme Court upheld this
statute by ruling that building permit fees must be based on the "estimated reasonable costs of
pro viding the services fm' which the fees are charged" (Barratt v. C. of Rancho Cucamonga,
Ct.App. 4/2 E032578),
I have been advised by industry experts that the average time spent by local jurisdictions to
permit and inspect a solar system is between 2 and 5 hours. A fixed fee method to compute
solar permit fees has been shown to be an appropriate method of establishing solar permit fees,
since it takes about the sam~ amount of time to permit a 2 kilowatt photovoltaic system, a 6
kilowatt system, or a residential or commercial solar water heating system. A permit fee
computation methodology that is based on the monetary valuation of the system or its sales price,
ratherthan the estimated reasonable costs of providing the permit service is inconsistent with the
intent of AB 2473 as well as the Supreme Court case cited above and may unnecessarily
discourage the installation of solar energy systems.
On December 12,2005 the California Public Utilities Commission approved the California Solar
Initiative, reflecting the will of the Governor and the Legislature to establish the largest publicly
supported solar energy program in the world. One purpose of this letter is to ask local
governments to consider their role in achieving this major state goal by looking carefully at how
you assess fees for the permitting of solar energy installations and, in so doing, encourage the
utilization of solar technologies by minimizing the obstacles to their use.
I respectfully request that all local permitting agencies enact reasonable permitting policies that
encourage affordable solar energy system installations (including over~the-c6unter permits,
permit fees based on the permitting agency's actual costs, and cessation of design reviews for
aesthetic concerns).
Sincerely,
~
. olk
blywoman, 8th District
Attached: AB 1407 (Chapter 290, Statutes of2003), AB 2473 (Chapter 789, Statutes of2004)
\ I en ??;~
.<
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
\ S.......I,E.....RRA..' ..,.......
'CLUB
FO\JNPED IM:1
SOLAR ELECTRIC PERMIT FEES IN THE NORTH/EAST
S.F. BAY AREA
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
By Carl Mills @ copyright 7/17/2006
1 Executive Summary
Federal and state incentives, such as the California Solar Initiative, and net metering laws in
California take much credit for making photovoltaic (PV) energy systems (solar panels) more
affordable to middle-income homeowners. But few realize pennit fees at the local level also
make a difference.
All cities charge PV installers a permit fee. The fee' covers services that cities perform to ensure
installations meet engineering and safety standards. Solar contractors bill homeowners for this
fee as part of the installation cost. Cities whose inspectors are most knowledgeable about PV
systems usually cover their permitting expenses with a fee of $300 or less for standard, average-
sized systems.* Unfortunately, most cities are not so familiar with PV, and charge far more.
This study compares the progress of 48 cities in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San
Francisco counties in making PV permit fees affordable. The goal is to persuade local
governments with high fees to follow the example that our region's most solar-friendly cities
have set.
2 Study Parameters
· Counties surveyed: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco
· Customers: Residential single family homeowners (business installations are NOT
included)
· Survey period: Spring-Summer 2006 (Note that the data in this document are continuously
updated to reflect changes and corrections to the fees that the jurisdictions originally
reported. )
· PV system design: Some cities charge higher fees for installations that require more time
and resources from the permitting authority. This study assumes the following specifications
to equalize the comparisons across jurisdictions:
. A "siandard, average-sized system" here denotes the PV system described in the Study Parameters section.
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 1 of 16
A ++nn).,.........."'1t1l+ '1
\'2O"h
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
· A licensed solar contractor installs the system.
· The contractor mounts the system flush to the roof using industry-standard mounting
techniques.
· The contractor installs the system on a composite-shingle roof with one layer of roofing
and a PV system roof load of 3 pounds per square foot.
· The system has a valuation, before the California Energy Commission (CEC) rebate*, of
$27,000.
· The system is 3kW (peak AC rating) in output size and covers 320 square feet.
· Survey question: "What is the total cost for a permit to install a 3kW solar electric system
on a composite shingle roof of a single story residence in your jurisdiction (assuming the
system cost is $27,000 before the California Energy Commission rebate and $18,600 after
the rebate)?" Note: the system will be professionally installed, 320 square feet in size, and
mounted flush to the roof with a weight load of 3 pounds per square foot.
3 Findings Summary
3.1 Permit Fee Variation
As of July 9, 2006, the permit fees varied from $3 to $1,458, or 0.02% to 7.8% of the total
post-rebate cost ($18,600) in the 48 surveyed jurisdictions. The average permit fee was $475,
or 2.6% of the average total post-rebate cost. Twenty-four jurisdictions had fees under $300
and six had fees $1000 or more.
3.2 Permit Fee Ceiling
After surveying various city permit processes and costs, we recommend $300 as a reasonable
maximum for solar permit fees. This amount would cover most or all of the services a city
must perfonn to ensure a PV installation meets engineering and safety standards, as normally
is takes between 2 to 5 hours to permit and inspect a residential PV system. The following
sections describe the context of our recommendation.
. The California Energy Commission (CEC) offers cash rebates on grid-connected renewable energy electric-generating
systems through its Emerging Renewables Program.
Page 2 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
I....,
,~ -
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
4 Background
California gets more sunshine hours than any state besides Arizona.1 As such, PV systems here
have tremendous potential for harnessing this inexhaustible energy source. Conversely, we have
much to lose by ignoring solar power, due to our state's soaring demand for energy, rising fossil
fuel prices, and dependence on offshore energy imports. The following subsections explain the
factors that contribute to these trends.
4.1 Economic Growth
The products in which Silicon Valley specializes are energy intense. Internet traffic,
computers, and computer-related products have huge electric appetites. As Silicon Valley's
economy grows, so will its output of such products and their demand for electricity.
The following chart shows the correlation between California's economic growth and
electricity consumption over a 40-year period.2 Obviously, our economy cannot continue
evolving unless we increase electricity production commensurably.
California Electricity Consumption from 1960-2000
150000
50000
300000
250001)
2OO00(}
{j
'1961) 1002 1964 1966 1968 197U1972197l!, '1976 '1978 19S0 19821984 1986 19$8 1:990 H192 '1004 1996 1900 2000
4.2 Population Growth
As our population grows, so does energy demand. California's population is expected to grow
51 % between 2000 and 2040. The population for our surveyed counties is forecasted to grow
42% between 2000 and 2040.3 .
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 3 of 16
, LJ.r-'1
~"
e..)<'
, '
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
4.3 Reliance on Imports
The following chart shows how much California depends on energy imports.4
California Energy Sources (2005)
j:I1iHmpor1:S IliHn.$tate 1
I
.:i
Petroleum
Electricity
These imports are only as reliable as the states and countries that provide them. Those
providers are subject to political, economic, and even climatic conditions that can interrupt
our supply unpredictably.
This also applies regionally. A CEC study indicates Silicon Valley produces only about 15
percent of its power, making it California's most energy-deficient area.
A Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group study says the area might need more energy than it
can import by 2010.5 The Group estimates that its nearly 200 members lost over $100 million
dollars in just one day of rolling blackouts in June 2000.6 Our transmission system's inability
to import enough electric power to the San Francisco Bay Area caused the first rolling
blackouts that year. 7
Page4 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
,1.5~ah
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
Locally, electric demand increased 6% from 2001 to 2005. The following chart shows this trend
from 2001 (the year of California's last energy crisis) through 2005.8
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco Counties:
'. '.' .. ~nnual.E!e,~tricitPro~ucti~n,Con~um tion.and*.lnlorts
~':Pow~r;iPIl1n.tiii!!!\ti()~;~P. ).J oJ ....... ~CCl..n.s. u. flj$... (:i:py. '."C.'.(j.r:lS... umers -"-lmpoi'te(hin~o
.' . ,. ,.. .
300 I
..26~
25.0
......... .
20.0
:c
~
III
5
,g 15.0
5.0
,~
-
..
;s:
E
.,
I-
10.0
0.0
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
. The Imported Into Region data reflect imports from both in-state and out-of-state sources.
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 5 of 16
/(P~
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
4.4 Dirty Energy
Of the electric energy that California generates for itself, only 11 % is from renewable
sources (solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass and wind) as of 2005. As the
following chart shows, 58% is from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas).9
California In-State Electricity Sources in 2005
Renewables
11%
Large Hydro
17%
Natural Gas
38%
As natural gas supplies dwindle, fossil fuels that create even more greenhouse gas poilution
(e.g. coal) could fill the gap. Fossil fuels and nuclear energy have health consequences and
risks beyond all economic considerations, both for individuals and our environment.
Moreover, energy from all non-renewable sources becomes more expensive over time due to
growing demand and finite supply. In contrast, costs for renewable energy technologies are
dropping as supply and economies of scale are increasing.
4.5 The Solar Solution
Solar electricity is a clean, reliable, and renewable solution that can alleviate much of our
state's energy problems. Local sunlight and available roof space are plentiful, so only the
number of installations can limit PV energy's potential. Moreover, PV virtually eliminates
long-distance electric transmission losses (which are around 7%) because the individual
home is both the source and destination of the energy. Best of all, once a PV system is
installed, it generates energy for free, requires minimal maintenance, and can last 35 years or
more. This makes PV a fantastic long-term financial investment for homeowners.
Awareness of solar energy's advantages is growing. A Roper surveylO of 1,004 adults
conducted in May 2006 showed:
Page 6 of16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
('
11,*,3'-:,
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
· 79 percent of Americans want homebuilders to offer solar power as an option for all new
homes.
· 84 percent of Americans ages 25-49 supported solar on new homes; 69 percent of those
over 65 years agree.
· After being told that solar homes have a proven higher resale value, 64 percent would be
willing to pay more for home with a solar system!
· 73 percent believe that solar energy technology is more important today than ever.
· 42 percent say that saving money on monthly utility bills is the most compelling
argument for installing solar power. Other respondents indicated it was to decrease the
nation's dependence on oil (31 percent) or reduce environmental pollution (18 percent).
In response to this popular momentum, some cities are installing PV systems on municipal
buildings and reducing or eliminating PV permit fees. Other cities still charge fees that make
the PV industry less competitive with polluting energy sources, especially imports.
5 A Typical Case History
Marilyn Thomas of Mill Valley experienced her PV purchase as so many do: as an opportunity
and a frustration.
"My fIrst motivation was to save the planet and number two was. .. my [ utility] bill would be less
expensive," Thomas said of her reasons for going solar. Seven months after Cooperative
Community Energy (CCE) installed her 3.3 kW system, she was more .than satisfIed with its
performance. "I've been paying about $5 dollars a month [ for electricity]. "
However, she cited a long wait and high price as the primary hurdles. "Malee it easier for people
to get solar and... even subsidize it," Thomas advised governments.
Fortunately, her city has heard and answered such pleas. Starting in 2006, Mill Valley reduced its
permit fee for standard PV systems to a flat $3.29--one of the cheapest PV fees anywhere. And
it now issues permits over-the-counter for systems that meet its design guidelines.
"City Council... has an interest in green building and encouraging alternative forms of energy,"
said Elise Semonian, Associate Planner for the City of Mill Valley. Over-the-counter permitting
there means about 15 minutes for the permit application review. The post-installation inspection
also takes about 15 minutes. "We hope that it [low fees and quick permitting] is encouraging
people to install." Echoing Marilyn Thomas, Semoman attributed a rising interest in PV systems
to rising energy costs.
So did Chester Nakahara, an inspector at the City of Piedmont Building Department. "Over the
last couple of years, there has been a defmite increase in interest." Like Mill Valley, Nakahara
estimated that post-installation inspections take 15 minutes. Unlike Mill Valley, Piedmont takes
about two weeks to process most solar applications. Unfortunately, time is money: solar
customers pay $816 for a permit in Piedmont. The difference in fees might also reflect the cities'
valuation methods. In contrast to Mill Valley's flat fee, Piedmont bases its PV permit fee on the
value of the installation.
However, Piedmont's fee is still far better than the $1,458 that the City of Alameda charges for
the same system. Permit fees are one of many cumulative costs for a PV system that make
potential customers think twice. Jason Jackson, President of Solaris Solar (a PV installationo
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 7 of 16
1"
" 3~.:>
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
company), expressed his customers' viewpoint: "I'm already spending all this money on solar,
I'm trying to reduce my impact on the planet, I'm trymg to help out the city and myself and the
environment, and I'm being penalized for it... Most people don't complain if it's under $500.
When it's... over $1,000, there are customers who are appalled."
Gary Gerber, President of Sunlight and Power (another PV installation company), described the
opportunity and frustration that solar customers face. "People are [installing PV systems] for the
pure, straight economics of it. I still get comments like... I want to get away from PG&E. As
long as energy [prices] keep going up, it's hitting people in the pocket-book." On the other hand,
many customers wait weeks, or even months, before their city processes the solar permit. "When
people make the purchase decision, the mental clock starts," said ,Gerber. "They don't want to
keep waiting... They want their system tomorrow."
Jackson of Solaris Solar said these frustrations are having an impact on the PV industry. "When
you are depending on things going quickly and smoothly to make the finances work in a small
[solar] company, I think it does hurt a lot of people."
Jackson singled out San Ramon as having one of the worst permitting processes-an opinion
other solar contractors share. It's worth noting that while a city might have a low up-front fee,
permitting complications and delays can otherwise make solar installations more expensive or
even impossible. "It's a full day for one person to deal with the permit office at very least," said
Jackson. "It just translates into that much more money for the client to spend."
By contrast, both Jackson and Gerber credit Berkeley and the County of Contra Costa for having
excellent permitting processes.
, ~ 6 Why Cities Require Solar Permits
Cities require solar permits to ensure PV installations meet safety and engineering standards. All
utilities require a signed-off building permit before officially authorizing a PV system's
operation. The California Energy Commission requires the permit before a PV system owner can
qualify for the rebate.
Installing systems that generate electricity and connecting them to the transmission grid is
potentially dangerous. The installations must be safe for homeowners, contractors, grid
technicians, and firemen. They must also be safe for the transmission grid itself. Therefore, cities
pay staff or outside consultants to inspect PV plans and installations to verify they meet code and
safety standards. Poor installations can cause electrocution or fires, and are vulnerable to power
surges during blackouts. A safe backflow of power into the grid is important both for the PV
owner and for the community that relies on the grid.
Local permitting authorities must verify the homeowner's roof has sufficient load-bearing
capacity to support a PV system and that the PV system's rack and roof attachments meet site-
specific wind load requirements. The system must also meet building and electrical code
requirements.
Page 8 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
l~tlh "3S;:
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
7 Permit Fees: Comparison by City
The following chart shows the permit fee that each surveyed city charges for a PV system with the
specifications described in Section 2 . The fees are ranked from lowest to highest, with the average
listed first.
AVERAGE
PV Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area as of 07/13/2006
$475
Mill Valley $3
Tiburon Ji'W'$35 .
Pleasant Hill e' ""'$,5"5,,
Walnut Creek a: .\$65
Belvedere "''I, '$73
San Anselmo ;.$80
San Francisco " "1$85
San Pablo '. '$93
Ross ,1$1 5
Albany . ',.' 1'83
Marin County \; _1111.....- .,.$190
Contra Costa County "$195
Oakland "'. .. .':$199
Pleasanton "w_ IC&WO :'$200
Clayton '" . ", ~JrN!J,'" '$230
Plttsburg "'''''~.. . ;M~:$25{)
Orinda ..1:1 ..,. ,tHO! "$250
Moraga ,,' "'~I ,.. '''$250
Lafayette ",.$250
Brentwood '$250
Berkeley $261
Newark ,$267
Livermore """.. ,.' .' ' ':$280
San Ramon J1JA~~:1F"",1!I.~m~j\'!l;11 '$285
Martinez . .. '" I $303
.1
San Rafael
Alameda County
Pinole
Sausalito
Concord
Oakley
Corte Madera
Emeryvllle
Antioch
Richmond
Dublin
Novato
Fairfax
Larkspur ,
Danville ;'\it.'"Jlt';'. :~',W,i1>M.tr#~I'~''''W..;l'l?(!W'i'P,:",.!i-J;:~lI'!:l'i'"' " I-,t
Fremont f,. ml,"ro!mii!l~"".~"~ IP.'W&'I~Jiil\'i1 ~~ ~;', t
Hercules \.llW ~"F" _..'J~. l/i.i!' "I;W! ..~:' -'~
Hayward
Piedmont
Union City
EI Cerrito
San Leandro
City of Aiameda
1I$Q.,3(iO
[J~1-'&lO
!i)$501-'-700
~$70HOO
II ~S01+
386
$458
50
52
$600
I
l{~ '~..r'j'~
6
;'mo,'$81'3
, .. $850
. $850
,,, >,' .$894
$1 ;000
$1,003
$1',07
$1,08
$1',1 0
".'..'1
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1.000
$1,200
$t-;458
$1,400 $1,600
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 9 of 16
:;Ogt-); t;'
'-"" Vi
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
The following traits are typical of cities with permit fees under $300:
· Progressive attitude in city council with regards to promoting renewable energy. For
example, Mill Valley reduced its permit fee for the express purpose of encouraging
alternative forms of energy.
· Streamlined permitting process for PV installations. Municipalities like Novato issue solar
permits over-the-counter without delays.
· Staff trained to inspect PV systems. Inspectors in municipalities like Berkeley can check
solar installations quickly and thoroughly because they have substantial experience with and
knowledge of PV technology. Inspectors can acquire such expertise in solar workshops,
which typically take from half a day to one full day (see Section 11.3 for more information).
8 Permit Fee Assessment Differences
A city's fee assessment method, its required safety/engineering reviews, and the training of its
inspectors have a critical impact on solar permit fees and processing times.
8.1 Fee Assessment Method
Cities use either flat fees or valuation-based fees for solar permits. The flat-fee method
applies the same fee regardless of system cost. The valuation method usually bases .fees on
the pre-rebate cost of a PV system: the more solar panels one purchases, the higher the fee. A
consequence of the valuation method is that the more a homeowner contributes to a city's
renewable energy supply, the more that homeowner must sacrifice fmancially.
Compared to other home improvement projects, material costs for PV systems are high
relative to installation costs. However, those material costs have little bearing on the
resources a city must devote to review PV systems of different sizes. Though Piedmont bases
its fees on the valuation method, Chester Nakahara, an inspector for the city, acknowledged
that large residential systems typically do not take longer to review or inspect than small
ones. Dan Martin, a Building Department official at Mill Valley, said a system with 24
panels would take no longer to inspect than a system with 6 panels.
California law compels cities to exempt PV systems when assessing a home's value for
property taxes. This makes PV more affordable as a home improvement project. Perhaps
cities can apply the same rationale in computing solar permit fees. Traditionally, many
building departments base permit fees for any project on its valuation. However, for the
aforementioned reasons, this approach isn't fair when applied to PV systems.
The state government has already passed legislation with the intent to limit the permit fees
for solar. California Government Code section 66005(a), states: "[development permit] fees
or exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service..." On
December 22, 2005 the California State Supreme Court upheld this statute by ruling that
building permit fees must be based on the "estimated reasonable costs of providing the
services for which the fees are charged" (Barratt v. C. of Rancho Cucamonga, Ct.App. 4/2
E032578). For legal citations on recently enacted Solar Rights Act state legislation in
California see information at the end of this report.
Therefore, we recommend that all cities adopt the flat-fee method for assessing solar permit
fees. This would reduce the average permit fee for all PV systems but would still cover the
Page 10 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
""'), .,,'
"'" t) I
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
cities' review and inspection costs. It would also encourage homeowners to install larger
systems that contribute more t6theirconihiuiiities' clean, sustainable energy supply:
8.2 Safety and Engineering Reviews
Each city has its own set of engineering and safety reviews for solar permits. The expensive
services tend to be pre-installation reviews of the PV system plan and installation site.
Arguably, some such services are unnecessary. For example, the flush-mounted PV systems
that most homeowners install have a low-enough weight/area ratio that they cannot overload
standard roofs. "They're designed so that most roofs will hold them," said Dan Martin, a
Building Department official at Mill Valley. Thus, extensive reviews of such PV systems for
load-bearing criteria might be unnecessary. Cities with the most experience in processing
solar permits tend to put less emphasis on such reviews and more emphasis on the post-
installation inspection.
Perhaps the biggest improvement municipalities can make to the review process is to
standardize it. Gary Gerber, President of the solar contracting fIrm Sunlight and Power, said,
"A good process would involve some sort of guidelines... preferably something that is done
on a state-wide basis." It would also help if all municipalities used the same National Electric
Code (NEC), instead of using versions published in different years. The guidelines that
Brooks Engineering developed might be a good starting point for standardizing PV permit
requirements:
}}ttp:! !www.irecusa.org!atiicles!static! 1 /binaries/lnsnectorGuidelinesDraft9. pdf.
Some commonly used review criteria are now illegal. The California Solar Rights Act was
updated in 2005 to prohibit permitting authorities from restricting PV systems based on
aesthetic considerations (i.e. the "look" of the system). California Government Code,
Section 65850.5(a) states: "It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt
ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems,
including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes... " For details on this
issue, see the end of this study for the letter of intent about solar permit fees authored by
Assembly Member Lois Walk that was emailed to all California Cities on June 7, 2006.
It follows that cities now have less need for exhaustive plan checks as this applies to visual
impacts. A less exhaustive plan check should be less expensive. Therefore, we recommend
that cities requiring plan checks revise their permit fees downward to account for the new
law.
In sum, a streamlined permit process is also a cheaper process for cities and for solar
customers. We recommend that all. cities consider how to streamline their solar permit
processes to reduce costs. For cities with less experience in processing solar permits, this
might entail sending relevant staff to a half- or one-day solar workshop. These workshops
would clarify what is and isn't necessary to evaluate PV systems.
8.3 Inspector Training
Inspectors who review PV systems on-site after installation usually charge cities by the hour
for their services. Cities pass on those charges to the solar installer, and ultimately to the
customer. Therefore, a cheap inspector is a fast inspector. To be fast and thorough, an
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 1.1 of 16
;:?J "'t'"
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
inspector must be knowledgeable about PV systems. An inspector's PV -specific expertise
might be the most critical factor controlling both the perm.it cost and safety of a solar
installation.
Solaris Solar president Jason Jackson said, "Most of the permit offices are seeing enough [PV
applications] that their education level as to what they're asking for has increased."
Nevertheless, he added, IIEvery day we run into inspectors who have no idea what they're
looking at." By contrast, Jackson praised Berkeley's inspectors as particularly sharp. "They
know exactly what they're looking at.1I
Various organizations sponsor workshops for solar inspectors, including solar
contractors/manufacturers, building departments, and the International Association of
Electrical Inspectors (IAEI) (see Section 11.3 for more information).
8.4 Permit Process Delays
Customers expect prompt installation when they purchase PV systems. Many people buy
them in spring and summer in hopes of activating the systems in time for the year's peak
sunshine hours. PV systems activated during these seasons generate proportionately more
electricity during peak electric demand times. When the electric meter spins backwards on
summer afternoons, money is credited to the PV owner's bill at twice the rate of night-time
usage in PG&E service territory: Thus, customers have a financial incentive to capture peak
summer sunlight. Removing bureaucratic hurdles would encourage timely PV installations
that coincide with peak summer electric demand periods, and thereby increase customers'
satisfaction with the installation process.
Many cities understand this financial impact of permit process delays. Mill Valley, Novato
and the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa all issue solar permits over-the-counter
without delays. Unfortunately, some cities require such lengthy review times that a customer
who buys PV in the summer can miss that season entirely before the system is permitted,
installed, and activated.
Worse, a really complicated permitting process can make some solar projects impossible.
Solaris Solar president Jason Jackson said of one installation that San Ramon IIdidn't want to
see this happen at all and just put so many ridiculous restrictions in the way in hopes that we
would just give up."
Often high permit fees and slow permitting processes go hand-in-hand. Sunlight and Power
president Gary Gerber said, "We've had a few disgruntled customers for whom the permit
process was a problem. Mostly it's the people who end up paying a very high permit fee."
8.5 Permit Fee Ceiling
After studying and comparing solar permit processes in different cities, we have determined
that ordinary rooftop PV installations need the following reviews to ensure they meet safety
and engineering standards:
. PG&E's Net Energy Metering Program lets owners ofPV systems connect to PG&E's grid and earn credit for extra
power generated during the day.
Page 12 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
. ""
-.
>
..,
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
. Solar application processing-Permit department staff who have received basic
instruction in solar technology can usually review a standard, residentialPV system
application in minutes to ensure the plan complies with standard requirements. Cities like
Novato have over-the-counter permit options for such PV systems.
. Post-installation system inspection-A trained inspector in Mill Valley can usually
inspect a standard, residential PV system in 30 minutes or less.
After reviewing what the cities with the most experience in processing solar permits spend on
these services, we recommend $300 as a reasonable ceiling for permit fees.
9 Recommendations
We recommend that all cities reduce their solar permit fees to $300 or less for residential PV
systems that are flush-mounted to rooftops, since permitting and inspecting a residential PV
system should take permitting authorities between 2 to 5 hours. This amount is typical of the
cities with the most PV experience and streamlined processes in our region. We recommend the
following measures for cities that currently charge over $300:
Use the flat-fee method instead of the valuation-based method to assess permit fees.
It takes about the same amount of time to permit a small or large residential PV system.
Thus, the flat-fee method enables the city to recover its costs and be fair to the solar customer
too.
Streamline permit processes to reduce costs and delays. Half- to one-day solar
workshops for relevant staff can make a critical difference in process expenses. Various
organizations sponsor these workshops, including solar contractors/manufacturers, building
departments, and the International Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI) (see Section
11.3 for more information).
Revise permit fees downward to account for the new California Solar Rights Act,
which requires minimal permit fees for solar energy systems and makes prohibitions based
on aesthetic concerns illegal. This applies to cities that currently require plan checks with
aesthetic criteria. See the end of this study for the letter of intent from Assembly Member
Lois Wolk that was sent to all California cities and counties on June 7,2006.
We recommend the following measures for all cities regardless of their current permit fees and
processes.
· Standardize permit requirements among California's municipalities. This would erase
numerous bureaucratic hassles for permitting departments and the PV industry, as it would
make it easier for the latter to comply with the former's expectations.
· Show permit fees and requirements on the city website to facilitate the application
process for solar contractors and for customers who install their own systems.
· Consider fast-tracking applications for solar contractors who have reliable track
records for PV installations. Delays can discourage customers, as well as undermine the
ability of solar contractors to compete with non-renewable energy providers.
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 13 of 16
'.Y.Oh
l-
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
10 Conclusion
Currently, Silicon Valley has a massive and growing need for clean, renewable, locally produced
energy. Solar electricity is an obvious and fast-growing solution. Federal and state governments
recognize this and have passed legislation to encourage the trend. Cities can contribute too, and
several have. After we published a similar study on PV permit fees for the permitting authorities
in San Benito, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, 14 of the 42 surveyed towns found ways to
reduce their fees. Over an 8-month period, the average fee in those counties fell 40 percent from
$652 to $3901
PV permit fees and processing delays can make a critical difference to some buyers. Much of the
costs and delays involved in processing permits reflect misunderstandings about PV systems
rather than the realities of installing and inspecting them. Cities can reduce costs and delays for
themselves, solar contractors and PV customers by streamlining processes, using a flat-fee
permit valuation method, training permit department staff, and standardizing permit
requirements.
A permit fee of $300 is a reasonable amount to cover.the reviews and inspections a city performs
to ensure a standard, flush-mounted, residential PV system meets safety and engineering
standards. Reducing fees to this level or lower would persuade more buyers to invest in solar
electric technologies. We ask that all cities consider the recommendations in this study to
encourage an energy trend that contributes so much to the health and energy security of our
communities.
11 References
11.1 Contacts
Feel free to contact the creators of this study for more information:
· Richard Hughes, Email: rlhU!!hes@kmabvovo.com. Phone: 510-396-1207
· Carl Mills, Email: car1.mil1s(o).earthlinknet. Phone: 408-586-8761
· Kurt Newick, Email: KurtNewick(ii!vahoo.com. Phone: 408-370-9636
· Tom Roberts, Email: tc.robertsiZV.mindspring.com. Phone: 415-203-2781
11.2 Study Download
You can download this study as a PDF from:
http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/global warnlin2:/articles/pv nennit studv NE Bay.pdf
11.3 More Information About...
.
Workshops for reviewing and inspecting PV systems
o International Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI), Northern California Chapter
http://www.iaei.org/ -
Dave Roybal
2637 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
Phone 925-454-3754
Page 14 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
--- ..... r
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Chapter
Published 7/17/2006
Fax (925) 454-3755
Email DavidDRoybaWueaton.col11.
o Southwest Technology Development Institute (STDI), New Mexico State University
hllP-:/ /www .NMSU.Edu/~tdi
John C. Wiles, Program Manager
3705 Research Drive
Box 30001/MSC 3 SOLAR
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001
Phone 505-646-6105
Fax 505-646-3841
· Guidelines for reviewing and inspecting PV systems:
l1J.1J4LL::W\LwjTeg.YB.~.Qlg/~lrti c; le$/ sib:!:!;i c/ 11l)il}f!,Ii.~&Jmm~Q1Q1'.QJ!j~I~Jin.~'iJ2nlf1:.9-J.?~lf
· How the National Electric Code (NEC) applies to reviewing and inspecting PV
systems
o "PV Power Systems and the National Electrical Code: Suggested Practices"
http://www.n1118u. edu/~tdi/rosweIJ-80l21d2df
o "Permitting or Inspecting a PV System?"
hitp:/ /www.n1118u.edu/-tdi/pdf-resources/IAEl- 5t06-05 .pdf
o "Photovoltaic Power Systems: What Inspectors Should Know"
hlIP...;! Iww\v. nm~u. edul ~tdi! 12cif- reso}J-rces/IAEI- 3 to4-04.~p-df
· A checklist for PV installations, based on the general requirements found in the 2005
National Electric Code (NEC), Article 690:
http://www.nll1su.edu/.~tdi/pdf-resources/lNSPECTOR CHECKLIST 5-05 ~'o20 I .pdf
· PV system design and installation
httg;//www.energv.ca.gov/reports/200 1-09-04 500-01-020.PDF (California Energy
Commission: A Guide to PV System Design and Installation)
· Solar technology, organizations, resource links, news, etc.
http://www.norcalsolar.org (website of the Northern California Solar Energy Association)
· California solar access laws as of 2005
http://w\Vw.2:osolarnow.com/imaQ:es!pdfYo20files/CASolarAccessLaws . pdf
· California's Emerging Renewables Program
bJ:!Q:/ /}VWW .consP1w;~renerg'icenter. O).:g! erprebate/
· Electric power data for California
http://www.energy.:~ (California Energy Commission; contact: Andrea Gough
(email: a!!ou2:h(G)energy.state.ca.us; phone: 916-654-4928)
11.4 Revision History
· Initial publication: 07/17/2006
11.5 Endnotes
1 USA Today (ht1.l..1:!!wvvw.usarodav.coll'Jweatlwr/news!2004-06-21-fJa-sunshiDe x.btm) referring to National Weather
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
Page 15 of 16
Published 7/17/2006
Sierra Club-San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Service data
2 CEC 2002 _ 2012 Electricity Outlook Report (http://enel'gy.ca.gov/reports/2002-06-1O 700-01-004F exe.httl1l)
1 California Department of Finance
(httn://www.dof.ca.govIHTMLlDEMOGRAP IDRU Pub] ications/Proiections!P-l Tab les.xIs)
4 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2005 data (http://wvv\.v.ellel.gy.ca.gov/htmlienel.{!vsoul.ces.html)
5 Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (hUr:1 /vrww .biziourna]s.com/saniose/stories/2004/06/l4/storv6.html?page:'.])
6 White House National Energy Policy website (http://v,lN'w.whitehouse.!mv/energv/Chapter2.pdt)
7 Sil!con Valley Power (httn:l/w\vw.cmua.org/5 05news svp.pdD
8 California Energy Commission (CEC) CEC-1304 and CEC-1306 database 011JP:/lwwlV.energy.ca.govL)
9 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2005 data (b1l;,Q://encrqv.ca.!!ov/e]ectricitv/gross system power.himl)
10 Realty Times (http://realtvtimes.comlrtcnages/20060622solaremergencv.htm)
Page 16 of 16
Solar Electric Permit Fees in the North/East S.F. Bay Area
~ 7.1('11
Chair,
Water. Parks and Wildlife
Committees
BUdget
Natural Resources
Local Government '
Subcommittees
Budget Subcommittee on
Transportation and Information Technology
Selecl Committees
Biotechnology
Domestic Violence
Children's School Readiness and Health
Growth and Infrastructure
Ports
Rural Economic Development
Water, Infrastructure and the Economy
Wine
Boards
Public Library Construction and Renovation
Wildlife Conservation
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0008
(916) 319-2008
Fax (916) 319-2108
District Office
555 Mason Street, Suite 275
Vacaville, CA 95688
(707) 455-8025
Fax (707) 455-0490
E-mail
assemblymember.wolk@assembly.ca.gov
Webslle
www.assembly.ca.goYlwolk
~ssrlUhl1J
dIalifnrnht ~rgislafurr
LOIS WOLK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, EIGHTH DISTRICT
June 7, 2006
TO: All California City Attorneys and City Planners
All County Counsels and County Planners
FR: Assembly Member Lois Wolk
RE: Solar Energy System Permit Fees - Legislative Intent
Dear Friends,
As you may know, I have had the honor ofrefining and expanding the California Solar Rights
Act as the author of Assembly Bill 1407 (Chapter 290, Statutes of2003) and AB 2473 (Chapter
789, Statutes of2004). During the last year I have received many calls from solar contractors
and local government staff regarding the intent of this legislation. I thought it might be helpful
to spell things out in more practical terms for everyone's benefit. Thus, this memorandum.
My intent in authoring this legislation was to establish a consistent set of standards for the review
and approval of solar energy systems and to eliminate unreasonable barriers to the installation of
solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes. In
addition, AB 2473 expressly declares the Legislature's intent that costs of permitting solar
energy systems be minimized.
It has come to my attention that a number of quite different approaches have been taken in the
design-review of solar energy systems and in the process of establ.ishing the costs of issuing a
permit for the installation of a solar energy system. Some of these approaches appear to be
inconsistent with the intent of my legislation amending the California Solar Rights Act. The
purpose of this letter is to clarify the Legislature's intent with respect to design review for
aesthetic purposes and the assessment of fees for the permitting of solar energy systems.
Design-Review For Aesthetic Purposes May Not Restrict Installation of Solar Systems
Under the provisions of AB 2473, permitting of all types of solar systems "shall not be willfully
avoided or delayed." AB 2473 requires a city or county to permit the installation of a solar
energy system by right if the system meets specified requirements. Among other things, my
intent in enacting AB 2473 was to establish the principle that any application ofa design review
process for aesthetic purposes that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a
solar energy system is void and unenforceable. AB 2473 expressly provides that a local agency
may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless the local
agency finds a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.
~-~:;-:.-
Printed on Recycled Paper
~
AB 2473 amended California Civil Code Section 7l4(d)(1) so as to specifically limit restrictions
imposed on photovoltaic systems to those that cost less than $2,000, and prohibit any restrictions
that are based on aesthetics alone. In addition, AB 2473 recast Section 65850.5 ofthe
Government Code and Section 17959.1 of the Health and Safety Code to limit a building
official's review of installations to those items that relate to specific health and safety
requirements oflocal, state and federal law.
These Sections of California law apply to current and future permitting, design/review, and
approval processes, and also to review of existing permit applications.
Permit Fees Must Be Reasonable
As I am sure you are aware, California Government Code section 66005 (a), provides that
"[development permit] fees or exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service..." On December 22,2005 the California State Supreme Court upheld this
statute by ruling that building permit fees must be based on the "estimated reasonable costs of
providing the services for which the fees are charged" (Barratt v. C. of Rancho Cucamonga,
Ct.App. 4/2 E032578).
I have been advised by industry experts that the average time spent by local jurisdictions to
permit and inspect a solar system is between 2 and 5 hours. A fixed fee method to compute
solar permit fees has been shown to be an appropriate method of establishing solar permit fees,
since it takes about the same amount of time to permit a 2 kilowatt photovoltaic system, a 6
kilowatt system, or a residential or commercial solar water heating system. A permit fee
computation methodology that is based on the monetary valuation of the system or its sales price,
rather than the estimated reasonable costs of providing the permit service is inconsistent with the
intent of AB 2473 as well as the Supreme Court case cited above and may unnecessarily
discourage the installation of solar energy systems.
On December 12, 2005 the California Public Utilities Commission approved the California Solar
Initiative, reflecting the will of the Governor and the Legislature to establish the largest publicly
supported solar energy program in the world. One purpose of this letter is to ask local
governments to consider their role in achieving this major state goal by looking carefully at how
you assess fees for the permitting of solar energy installations and, in so doing, encourage the
utilization of solar technologies by minimizing the obstacles to their use.
I respectfully request that all local permitting agencies enact reasonable permitting policies that
encourage affordable solar energy system installations (including over-me-counter permits,
permit fees based on the permitting agency's actual costs, and cessation of design reviews for
aesthetic concerns).
Sincerely,
;t
Loi olk
Ass blywoman, 8th District
~
Attached: AB 1407 (Chapter 290, Statutes of2003), AB 2473 (Chapter 789, Statutes of2004)
f ~
v
Assembly BiU No. 1401
CHAPTER 290
performance, or that allow for an alternative system d comparable C:06t,
efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
(c) (1) A solar energy system shall meet applicable slandards and
requirements imposed by stale and local permitling authorities.
(2) A solar energy system for heating W8ler shall be certified by the
Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or otber nationally
recognized certification agencies. SRCC is a nonprofit third party
supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification
shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation.
(3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall also meet all
applicable safety and performance standards established by the Natiooal
Electrical Code, the lnstihlle of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
and accruIlted testing laboratories sucb as UnderwriterS Laboratories
and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission
regarding safety and reliability.
(d) For the purposes d this section:
(1) "Significantly" means an amount exceeding 20 pm:ent of the
cost of the system or decreasing the efficiency of the solar eneIg)' system
by an amount exceeding 20 percent, as originally specified and
proposed.
(2) "Solar energy system" bas the same meaning as defined in
Section 80L5.
(e) Whenever approval is required for the installation or use d a solar
energy system. the application for approval shall be processed and
approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an
application for approval d an architectural modification to the property.
and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed.
(f) Any entity, other than a public entity, that willfully violates this
section shall be liable 10 the applicant or other party for actual damages
occasioned CheId>y, and shall pay a civil penalty to the applicant or other
party in an amount not to exceed one tbousand dollars ($1,000).
(g) In any action to enforce compliance with this section. the
prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees.
(h) (1) A public entity that fails to comply with this section may DOl
receive funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar
energy. A public entity shall certify its compliance with the requirements
of this section when applying for ftmds from such a grant or loon
progmm.
(2) A local public entity may not exempt residents in its jwisdiction
from the requirements of this section.
An act to amend Section 714 of the Civil Code, relating to solar
energy.
IApproved by Governor Sepcember 3. 2003. Filed
with Seaetary c( Stale Seplember 4. 2003.}
LEGISlMIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AD 1407. Walk. Solar energy systems.
Existing law provides that any covenant, restriction, or condition
contained in any deed, contract.. security instrument, or other instnnnent
affecting real property. as specified, that prohibits or restricts the
installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenfon:eable.
Existing law requires that solar collectors meet the standards and
requirements imposed by state and local penniUing authorities, as
specified.
This bill would specify that a public entity may not re<:eive fwtds from
a state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar energy jf it fails 10
comply with these requirements and would require a public entity to
certify that it is meeting these requimnents when applying for these
granlS or loans. This bin would prohibit a local public entity from
excepting residents in its jurisdiction from these requirements. The bill
would also establish the particular standaJds that solar energy systems
for beating water and producing electricity must meet, and would make
a clarifying cbange.
1M people oj the State oj Califvrnia do enact as follows:
SECTION t. Section 7140f the Civil Code is amended to read;
714. (a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any
deed, contract. security instrument, or other instrument affecting the
tranSfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property that effectively
prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is
void and unenforceable.
(b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable
restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy d the state
to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove
obstacles thereto. Ac:oordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy
system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost
of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified
""
j^
.d!
,....
l
Assembly Bill No. %473
CHAPTER 789
An act to amend Section 714 of the Civil Code, to repeal and add
Section 65850.5 of the Government Code, and to repeal and add Section
17959.1 of the Health and Safety Code. relating to solar energy.
(Approved by Governor September 24, 2<X>>. filed
with ~ d SIBle Sepember 25, 2004.J
LE01SLJiIlVE COUNSEJ.:S DIGEST
AD 2473, WoIk. Energy systems: local regulations.
( I) Existing law provides that any covenant, restriction. or condition
contained in any deed, contract. security instroment, or other instrument
affecting property, as specified, that prohibits or restricts the installation
or use of a solar enetgy system is void and unenforceable. Existing law
permits reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system that do not
"significantly," as defined. increase the cost of the system or decrease
its efficiency or specified performance.
This bill would redefine the term "sigoificandy" with regard to the
restrictions imposed on solar domestic water heating systemS or
swimming pool beating systems and photovoltaic systems, as specified.
(2) Existing law prohibits the legislative body of any city or county
from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or unreasonably restricts the
use of solar eoelgy systems other than for the preservation or protection
of the public health and safety.
This bill would revise and recast those provisions to require every city,
county, or city and county to approve the installation of a solar energy
system. as defined, through the issuance of specified permits. The bill
would declare that the implementation of consistent statewide standards
to achieve'the timely and cost-effective inslallation of lIOlar energy
systems is a matter of statewide concern.
The bill would require solar energy systems to meet specified
standards. The bill would also require the issuance <i a use permit by a
city or county to install a solar energy system unless it makes specified
written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that tile
pl'O(X)Sed installation would bave a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health (lC safety. The bill would provide for appeal ~ that decision
to the planning commission. as specified. The bill would further make
specified findings and declarations in that regard.
Because the bill would impose additional duties on local employees.
the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
a~es and .school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbutsement.
This bill woold provide that no reimbursement is required by Ibis act
for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION I. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all d the
following: .
(1) According to the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, California could face a shortage of reliable
electricity and naturtll gas supplies within the next few years.
(2) The State of Calif-ornia bas a longstanding policy of encoumging
the constroction of clean, renewable, and distributed energy systetns, as
evideaced by its investment of $135 million in renewable electrical
generation resowces through the Reliable Electric Service Investments
Act (Article IS (eommencing with Section 399) of Cbapter 2.3 of Part
1 of Division I of the Public Utilities Code). and enactment into law of
Section 2S619of the Public ResoIIKes Code. wbich authorized funds for
a solar water beating grant program in the 1999-2000 Regular Session.
The state bas set a statewide soaJ ~ increasing renewable generation
sources so that 17 peo:eot of total electricity generation originates from
renewable ene:r>> (Section 383.5 of the Public Utilities Code).
(3) The 2003 Enet3Y Actioo Plan jointly prepared and adopted by the
State Energy Resources Conservation and Devel<lpll1cnt Commission
and the California Public Utilities Commission strongly promotes
customer owned electricity generation and renewable resources. Solar
thennaI energy technologiQ that reduce the consumption of natural gas
or electricity will play an increasingly prominent role in California's
elIeli)' portfolio future.
(4) The Legislature. the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Devdopment Commission. and the California Public Utilities
Commission recognize solar energy technologies as abundant.
renewabie, and nonpolluting energy resources that reduce California's
dependence on nonrenewable energy while reducing air and water
pollution resulting from fossil fuel-b8sed SOUIttS. Solar energy systems
enhance the refiability and power quality of the electrical grid. reduce
peak power demands. increase in-state electricity genemtion, libemte
natural gas supplies for electricity generation purposes. diversify the
state's energy supply portfolio. and make the electricity supply market
more oompetitive by promonng consumer choice.
~
--~.,.~
'+J
U\.
(5) The ins~lIatiOll and operation of solar energy systems do not
create adveae Impacts on bealth, safety, or noise in areas where those
systems are installed. In some jurisdictions, however, overly onerous
and bunIensome mJes, regulations. or ordinances make lbe approval and
installation of solar eDet1Y systems UJleCQl1OII1ic because of
time-consuming processes that frequently result in lbe denial of project
approval due solely to aesthetic ooncems.
(6) In light of existing state policies that promote the utilization of
renewable energy resourees in order to prevent future dectricity and
natural gas sl1ort1lses, which have been enacted in order to protect the
environment by ellCOUJ1lling the increased use of noopolluting energy
.resources, it is Ibe intent of the Legislature lbat local agencies do not
adopt on:Iinances that create unreasonable bllnim to the installation d
solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for
aesthetic pwposes, and do not unreasooabJy restrict the ability of
homeowners, agricultural concerns, and business roocerns to install
solar energy systems. It is the policy of the state to promote and
encourage the use of solar energy systems and to limit obstacles to their
use.
(b) The implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve
the timely and cost effective installation of solar energy systems is not
a municipal affJdr, as that ternI is used in Section S of Article XI of the
California Constitution, but is iostead a matter d statewide concern. It
is the intent of tile Legislat.uretbat local governments comply not only
with the language of this act. but also the legislative iutent to encowage
the installation of solar energy systems by mnoving obstacles to, and
minimizing costs of. permitting for such systems.
SEC. 2. Section 714 d the Civil Code is amended to read:
714. (a) Any CIOVenaIlt, restriction. or coodition contained in any
deed, COIltmct. security instrument, or other instrument affecting the
transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property that effectively
prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is
void and unenforceabI.c.
(b) This section does not apply to provisioos that impose reasonable
resbictioos on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy d the state
to promote and encourage the use of lKlIar energy systcm9 and to remove
obstacles therdo. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy
system are those restrictions that do not significandy inctease the cost
d the system or significantly decrease its effIciency or specified
perfOlDlllllCe, or dlat allow for an alternative system of oompambIe oost,
efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
{c} (I) A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety
standards and ~uirements imposed by state and local permitting
authorities.
(2) A solar energy system for heating water ahaIl be certified by the
Solar Rating Cutificaaion Corpomtion (SRCC) or other natiooaIly
recognized certifICation agencies. SRCC is a nonprofit third party
suppcxted by the United Slates Depamnent d EneIJY. The certification
shall be for the entire solar enellY system and installation.
(3) A solat" energy system for producing dectrlcity shall also meet all
applicable safety and pcrfOlll18DCe smndaJds established by the National
Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and .Ekx:tronics Engineers.
and accredited testing laboratories sucb as Underwriters Labonttories
and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission
regarding safety and reliability.
(d) For the purposes of this section:
(I) (A) For solar domestic waIeI' heating systems or solar swimming
pool beating systems that comply with state and federal law,
"significantly" means an amOunt exceeding 2Open:entd theC09tdthe
system or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an
amount exceeding 20 pen:eut, as originally specified and proposed.
(B) For photovoltaic systems that comply with state and fedtrallaw,
"significantly" means an amount net to exceed two thousand dollars
($2,000) over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a
deaeasc in system efficiency d an amount exceeding 20 percent as
originally specified and proposed.
(2) "S<JIar encray system" bas the same meanin& as defined in
parasrapbs (I) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5.
(e) Whenever-approval is required for the installation or use of a solar
ebelJ.)' system, the application for approval shall be processed and
approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an
application for approval eX an an:hitectund modification to the property,
and shall oot he willfully avoided or delayed.
(f) Any entity, other than a public entity, that willfully violates this
section shall be Hable 10 the applicant or odter party for actual damages
occasioned tbenroy, and sball pay a civil penalty to Ibe applicant or otber
party in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(g) In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the
prevailing party shall be awarded masonabIe attorney's fees.
(h) (I) A public entity that fails to CIOIllply with this section may DOt
receive funds from a stale-sponsored grant or loon pro8J'lUIl for solar
CDeIJY. A public entity shaIJ catify lIB c:ornpIi8l1CC with dte requjrements
of this section when applying for funds from a state-spollSOlCd grant or
loan program.
,
(2) A local public entity may not exempt ~idents in its jurisdiction
from the requirements of this section. i
SEC. 3. Section 65850.5 of the Oove~nt Code is repealed.
SEC. 4. Section 65850.5 is added to the povernment Code. to read:
65850.5. (a) The implementation c:l ~istent statewide standards
to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of solar energy
systems is not a municipal affair. as that ~ is used in Section 5 of
Anicle XI of the California Constitution. t is instead a matter of
statewide concern. It is the intent of Ihe Le islature that local agencies
not adopt ordinances that create unreasonabl barriers to the installation
of solar energy systems, including, but not li~ted to, design review for
aesthetic purposes, and not Wl~ restrict the ability of
bomeowners and agricultural and busi3 concerns to install solar
energy systems. It is the policy of the state promote and enoourage the
use of solar energy systems and to limit tacles to their use. It is the
intent of the Legislature that local agenciel\ comply not only with the
language of this section, but also the legislative intent to encourage the
installation of solar energy systems by ~moving obstacles to, and
minimizing costs of, pennitting for such sy~tems.
(b) A city or county shall administrativtIy approve applications to
install solar energy systemS through the i~ of a building permit or
similar nondiscretionary pennit. Review of! the application to install a
solar energy system shall be limited to the ~i1ding official '$ review of
whether it meets all health and safety req~'rements of local, state, and
fedeml law. The requirements of local la shall be limited to those
standards and regulations necessary to sure that the solar energy
system will not have a specific. adverse imiPoct upon the public health
or safety. However, if the building official I of the city or county has a
good faith belief that the solar energy s~ could have a specific,
adverse impaa upon the public health and sft:ety, the city or county may
require the applicant to apply for a use pe~t.
(c) A city or county may not deny an application for a use pennit to
install a solar energy system unless it mak.eSL~~~~rmdings based upon
substantial evidence in the record that the propuscu installation would
have a specific, advesse impact upon the ~ic health (X' safety. and there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mi~gate or avoid the specific,
adverse impact. The findings sball include llie basis for the rejection of
potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact..
(d) The decision of the building dficial pursuant to subdivisions (b)
and (c) may be appealed to the planningl commission of the city or
count~ .
\.
(e) Any cooditions imposed on an apptication to install a solar eoergy
system shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon
the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible.
(f) (I) A solar energy system shall med applicable health and safety
standards and requiremenlS imposed by state and local permitting
authorities.
(2) A solar energy system {or heating water shall be certified by the
Solar Rating Certification Corponuion (SRCC) or other nationally
recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit third party
supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification
shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation.
(3) A solaf energy system for producing electricity sball meet all
applicable safety and perfOll118fl(:C standards established by die National
Ekctrica1 Code, the Institute of FJectrlcal and Electronics Engineers.
and accredited testing laboratories such as Unde1writelS Laboratories
and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission
regarding safety and reliability.
(8) The following definitions apply to this section:
(I) .. A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific,
advase impact" includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective
method, condilion. or mitigation imposed by a city or coumy on another
similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a
permit. A city or ooonty shall use its best efforts to ensure that the
seledc:d method. ronditi()D, or mitigation meets the conditions of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (I) of subdivision (d) of Section
714 of the Ow Code.
(2) "Solar energy system" has the same meaning set forth in
peragrapbs (I) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section BOl.S of the Civil
Code.
(3) A "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable illlJl8lCl, based on objective, identified. and
writkn public health or safety staodaJds, policies. or conditions as they
existed OIl the date the appliattion was deemed cootpIete.
SEC. 5. Section 17959.1 d. the Health and Safety Code is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 179S9.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
179S9.1. (a) A city or county shalJ administratively approve
applications to install solar energy systems though the issuance of a
building permit or similar nondiscretionary pennil However, if tbe
building UBcial ci the city ()f 00UDl)' bas a good faith belief that the solar
energy system could have a specific.. adverse impact upon the public
health and safety, the city or county may require the applicant to apply
for a use permit.
\)J
\-oJ
~
\r\
(b) A city Of c:ounty may not deny an application for a use permit to
Install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings baAed upon
subsrantial evidence in the record that the proposed insrallation would
have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific,
adverse impact. This finding shall include the basis for the rejection of
potential feasible allemIllives of preventing the adverse impact.
(c) Any (lOOditioos imposed on an application to install a soIarc:nergy
system must be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon
the public health and safety at the lowest cost possible.
(d) (l) A solar energy system shall meet appIkable health and safety
standaJds and requirements imposed by state and local permitting
authorities.
(2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the
Solar Rating Certification Corpomtion (SRCC) or other nationally
recognized certification agency. SRCC is a nonprofit third party
supported by the United States Dc:partmentrl Energy. The certification
shall be for the entire solar enetBY system and installation.
(3) A solar el1et8Y systeni for producing electricity shall meet all
applicable safety and perforDllUK'C standanIs established by the National
Electrical Code, the Imtitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories
and, where applicable, roles of the Public Utilities Commission
regardin, safety and reliability.
(e) The following definitions apply to this section:
(I) "A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific,
adverse imptet" includes, but is not limited to. any cost effective
method, oonditioo. or mitigation imposed by a city or CXlUIIty on another
similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a
pmniL A city or county lIba1l use its best efforts to ensure that the
selected method, condition, or mitigatioa meets the ronditions d
subparagraphs (A) and (8) dparagmph (I)d subdivision (d) CJfSectiOll
714 of the Civil Code.
(2) "Solar mergy system" has the meaning set forth in paragraphs (I)
and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 8OI.S d the Qvit Code.
(3) A "specific, adverse impact" means a aianificant. quantifiable,
. direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and
written public health Of safety standards. policies. or conditions as they
existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
SEC. 7. No reimbursement is required by this act pUrsuant to
Section 6 d Article XIII B rl the California Constitution because a local
agency or school district bas the authority to levy servire charges, fees,
or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of servire
mandated by this act. within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code.
\)J
,.}J
""
V"
[
l
t>*n~)S
Approved (4.1) Minutes or Regular Meeting of July 18,2006;
Accepted (4.2 600-35) improvements under Contact No. 06-05, 2005-2006 Annual
Slurry Seal Program, and authorized release of retention after 3$.~ys if no subcontractor
claims received;
Adopted (4.3 600-30)
RESOLUTION NO. 154-t16
APPROVING AGREE~ENT WITH
HARDISON, KOI\1ATSlJ, IVEL~Crr" AND TUCKER (HKI&T)
FOR 1VIAINTENANCE FACmfTY'f1,ROGR.A.IVrMING STUDY
Adopted (4.4 600-40)
RES@}LUTION NO. 155.:.06
AUTHORIZING CITY ~t\.NAGERmO EXECUTE AGREEMENT V\TITH
CITY OF LIVERlvl0RE FOR HORIZONS FAlv1ILY COUNSELING
Authorized (4.5 600..;4!;~~ iCity Attorney to seCure appra,isail services for Dublin Square
Shopping Center, and approved ,Budget Change in the amount of $17,500;
Approved (4.6 300-40D'the Warrant Register in.the amount of $1,533,461.86.
...
WPJ'I'TEN COMMUNICATIONS
Solar Ene;;-.gy Building Pe~it Fees: iRequest by
Sierra Cltiv\to Review Permit Feesior RooftoP Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Panels
7:48 p.m. 5.1(440-20)
Building Official Gregory Shreeve presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
Council would review a written request by the Sierra Club regarding the City's current
practice of charging a building permit fee based on the City's cost of reviewing and
inspecting solar energy systems. Staff recommended that the Council direct Staff to
return with a flat fee approach for both PV systems and solar pool he~ting systems based
on the Tri - Valley average or provide Staff with other direction.
IvHN{JTES
VOLU1\1E 25
REGULAR MEETING
Au.gust 15, 2006
PAC~ 1"71
"'" .i.-~:ili.'';..j;'.ii..:..< .,. ;' ~.
Attachment 3
3€)Cib3~
Cm. McCormick stated that there should be a flat fee to show Dublin's commitment to
energy conservation. This should also be carried further and used as a marketing tool to
show there was an incentive to go solar.
Mayor Lockhart agreed that the information should go on theCity-'s website, as well as a
brochure developed to encourage alterative energy sources.
The Council agreed that Dublin should set the exa1']1!ple fOlJ,\@flergy conservation and
discussed the flat fees. By consensus the Council agree(trtthat the'\RWr~ystem rate should be
$250 and the solar pool heating system rate shqlifl:(i.;!;\i3e $,100. Tne;flat fee information
should be included oil the website and brochures as a incentive device to encourage
people to become more energy efficient.
,I "
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Vm.~Q)ravetz<B;lld by unanimous vote, the
Council directed Staff to prepare a Resolution for CotH:1cil consideration using the flat fee
approach for PV systems at $250 anilisolar pool heating systems at $100.
..
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearing
Proposed OrdinanoeDeclanng::;SecondhandJSmoke a Nuisance
7:57 p.m. 6.1 (560390)
Mayor Lo6Kharlopened thepu.blic hearing.
.A,.ssIDciate Attorney Leah Peachey presented the Staff Report and advised that, at its June 6,
2006 meeting, the City C~~ncil directed Staff to return to Council with an Ordinance
declarings~90ndhand tobaQQo sm@ke a nuisance and providing for abatement of the
nuisance bY"~;2private partY. This Ordinance provided solely for a private right of
enforcement, w1'l.ich invo1veclno cost to the City.
Bruce Fielder, Dublin .;resident, stated that he was pleased that the City Council was
considering action to combat secondhand smoke. If the statistics in the Staff Report were
correct, secondhand smoke would kill six persons in Dublin during the next 12 months.
He encouraged unanimous support for the health of Dublin citizens.
John T. Collins, Sr., Dublin resident, indicated that the Surgeon General's Report stated
that if a person worked for 40 years in an enclosed 8' x 12' x '12 room with a person
D. ! TRL; ~l\%! ('fT\l r.'n1rTT~'T("'IL" f>i;;'!fl;I\H lTF'~
_ . ......J..ji:...<W .!.,~., '__,-" ffi ~. l!, ""-, '-^' '".l..) j 'tlf "'......... jf:. '~.VJiJL. -_.....j ft. .~h;
VOLUME 25
REGULAR MEETING
August 15, 2006
P"L\GE 272