Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Position on legislation pending as recommended (23)
041-) Council/Agency Meeting Held: i Deferred/Continued to: 4App ved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Jerk' Signat Council Meeting Date: 05/18/2009 Department ID Number: AD 09-09 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Jill Hardy, Council Member, Chair on behalf of Intergovernmental Relati ' Committee Members Mayor Keith Bohr, and Councilman Don Hansen PREPARED BY: Patricia Dapkus, Department Analyst, SeniorC SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON LEGISLATION, A REGULATION OR BUDGET ISSUES PENDING BEFORE A FEDERAL, STATE, OR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (IRC) Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Approval of a City Council position on legislation, a regulation, or budget issues pending before a federal, state, or regional government as recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC). Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. SUPPORT AB 12 (Huffman) - Substance Abuse: Adult Recovery Maintenance Facilities as Introduced 2. SUPPORT SB 2 (Harman)—Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery Facilities as Introduced 3. SUPPORT SB 696 (Wright) —Air Quality CEQA Exemptions: Emission Reduction —as amended 05/05/09 4. OPPOSE AB 1192 (Strickland) - Cities: powers — Creating an Entity for the Purpose of Issuing Debt as Amended 04/20/09 5. OPPOSE AB 66 (Jeffries) —Sale_s and Use taxes: Consumer Destination Management as Introduced Alternative Action(s): Do not take the recommended action on one or all of the above and provide direction to staff on a possible city position. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 09-09 Analysis: 1. SUPPORT AB 1284 (Huffman) - Substance Abuse; Adult Recovery Maintenance Facilities Under existing law, the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs licenses adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. Existing law permits a license to be issued to programs that meet criteria that include the filing of an application and an approved fire clearance. Existing law allows the department to issue a license to a facility wherein separate buildings or portions of a residential facility are integral components of a single alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility and all of the components of the facility are managed by the same licensee if the applicant meets specified requirements. This bill would require the Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs provide specified notice to a city planning agency if a license is issued to a substance abuse facility that has the same owner as a similar facility within 300 feet and is operated as an integral component of the proposed facility. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending the City Council support AB 1284 in its current form. 2. SUPPORT - SB 268 (Harman) —Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery Facilities — Existing law provides for the licensure, certification, and regulation of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities serving adults, administered by the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Under existing law, an applicant for a license is required to submit to the department, among other things, a completed written application and an approved fire clearance. This bill would require the application to include a certification that the facility complies with local zoning ordinances. It would also require the department to verify this certification. This bill would make an approved fire clearance valid only for the duration of the 2-year term of the license. An applicant for license renewal would be required to obtain a new fire clearance, as prescribed. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending the City Council support SB 268 in its current form. 3. SUPPORT -SB 696 (Wright)—Air Quality CEQA Exemptions: Emission Reduction — Due to a state court CEQA decision, the South Coast District has since November 3, 2008, been unable to issue any permits to facilities that rely on the District's internal bank to offset their emissions as required by the Clean Air Act. The proposed legislation would provide an exemption to the moratorium if discretionary projects using the credits were subject to CEQA, or covered by an existing exemption. Also, the legislation requires the Air Quality Management District's (the District) rules to provide stringent requirements to limit emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, and requires the District to account for the use of these credits in its air quality plan, and demonstrate that such use will not interfere with attainment of the air quality standards. The affected facilities include essential public services, such as sewage treatment plants, hospitals, schools, and landfill gas renewable energy which would generate about 150 megawatts. In addition, affected facilities include those that are exempt from the requirement to provide private ERCs, where the District's internal bank provides the needed offsets. There will likely be over a thousand permits -2- 5/6/2009 2:15 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 09-09 that will not be able to be issued, or may not even be submitted to the District, if the District has to wait another year before issuing any permits. In addition, the court order invalidated the District's rule which made credits available to new power plants under certain narrow circumstances.r Unlike the other facilities, the power plants had been required to pay substantial mitigation fees ($92,000 per pound for PM2.5) in order to access District credits. The District rule limits access to these credits to those power plants that have a contract from the electric utility, or are municipal plants serving only their native load. Obtaining credits on the open market is not an option. All the private PM10 credits in existence in the District would supply less than half the needs of just the three power plants that have obtained contracts with SCE as of today. A small municipal plant recently paid $300,000 per pound of credit. Moreover, many of the power plants in the District are aging and should be replaced with new, clean facilities. And additional peaking power will be needed to support the increased wind and solar power that will help the state meet AB32 and renewable portfolio goals. Further information on the consequences of this moratorium can be found in material from the South Coast Air Quality District (Attachment 4). The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending the City Council support SB 696 in its current form. 4. OPPOSE AB 1192 (Strickland) - Cities powers —Creating an Entity for the Purpose of Issuing Debt Existing law authorizes a board of trustees, city council, or other governing body of a city, defined as a legislative body, to pass ordinances not in conflict with state or federal law and the state or federal constitution. This bill would prohibit a legislative body from selling or leasing any existing public improvement to a private or public entity, including any entity controlled by the city, for the purposes of renting or leasing back, or repurchasing through installment payments that existing public improvement. This bill would also declare that this prohibition is a matter of statewide concern, thus making it applicable to charter and general cities. At a time of economic crisis, with over 11 percent unemployment, and when "shovel ready" infrastructure and other public works projects are viewed as critical our recovery, it difficult to comprehend such a proposal. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending the City Council oppose AB 1192 in its current form. 5. OPPOSE -AB 676 (Jeffries)—Sales and Use taxes: Consumer Destination Management Existing Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. That law, with certain exceptions, defines a retailer as a seller who makes any retail sale of tangible personal property and as a person who makes more than 2 retail sales of tangible personal property during any 12-month period, and defines a retail sale as a sale of tangible personal property for any purpose other than resale in the regular course of business. This bill would provide that a qualified destination management company is a consumer, and not a retailer, of tangible personal property it provides to its clients pursuant to a qualified contract for destination management services, so that the sale of the tangible personal property to the destination -3- 5/6/2009 2:15 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/18/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 09-09 management company is the retail sale subject to tax. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that this act is declaratory of existing law The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City Council oppose AB 676 in its current form. Strategic Goal: Action on this legislation meets the strategic goal under City Services of providing quality public services with the highest professional standards to meet community expectations and needs, assuring that the city is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall. Environmental Status: NA Attachment(s): PaigePity lerk's • . best'ription .. 1. AB 1284 (Huffman) -Substance Abuse: Adult Recovery Maintenance Facilities 2. SB 268 Harman —Alcoholism or Dru Abuse Recove Facilities 3. SB 696 (Wright)—Air Quality CEQA Exem tiow Emission Reduction 4. South Coast Air QualityManagement District information on SB 696 T: 5. AB 1192 (Strickland) - Cities: powers— Creating an Entity for the Purpose of Issuing Debt 6. O ostion Letter on AB 1192 sent by the League of California Cities �., 7. AB 676 (Jeffries) —Sales and Use taxes: Consumer Destination Management -4- 5/6/2009 2:15 PM io s yy 4 AB 1284 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 1 of 2 BILL NUMBER: AB 1284 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Huffman (Coauthor: Assembly Member Lieu) (Coauthor: Senator Harman) FEBRUARY 27, 2009 An act to amend Section 11834.03 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1284, as introduced, Huffman. Substance abuse: adult recovery maintenance facilities. Under existing law, the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs licenses adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. Existing law permits a license to be issued to programs that meet criteria that include the filing of an application and an approved fire clearance. Existing law allows the department to issue a license to a facility wherein separate buildings or portions of a residential facility are integral components of a single alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility and all of the components of the facility are managed by the same licensee if the applicant meets specified requirements. This bill would require the department to provide a specified notice to a city or county planning agency if the approval of a license would result in the licensure of a facility that has the same owner or manager as an existing facility that is within 300 feet of, and is operated as an integral component of, the proposed facility. The bill would authorize the department to, among other things, impose specified health and safety requirements or deny licensure based upon overconcentration of facilities or conditions of local need. The bill would enact procedures permitting the city or county to file objections to approval of the license. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 11834 .03 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 11834 .03 . (a) Any person or entity applying for licensure shall file with the department, on forms provided by the department, all of the following: (a) (1 ) A completed written application for licensure. () (2) A fire clearance approved by the State Fire Marshal or local fire enforcement officer. -- (e) (3) A licensure fee, established in accordance with Chapter 7.3 (commencing with Section 11833 .01) . http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1251-1300/ab_1284 bill_20090227_introduce... 5/6/2009 AB 1284 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 2 of 2 (b) If the approval of a license would result in licensure of a facility that has the same owner or manager as an existing facility licensed under this chapter and that is within 300 feet of, and is operated as an integral component of, the proposed facility, the department shall, prior to issuing a license, provide notice by registered mail of receipt of the application to the appropriate city or county planning agency that has jurisdiction over the area where the proposed facility is located. The city or county planning agency shall have not more than 30 days to provide the department with any objections to the issuance of the license. Upon completion of that 30-day period, the department may, consistent with federal law, do any of the following: (1) Issue the license without conditions. (2) Impose requirements for the health and safety of the residents of the proposed facility as a condition of licensure. The requirements may include compliance with federal and state requirements for accessibility by a person with a disability. (3) Deny licensure of the proposed facility if the location of the proposed facility would result in or exacerbate the overconcentration of facilities within a particular area or when the numbers and types of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities are sufficient to be commensurate with the local need. (c) If a city or county has filed objections pursuant to subdivision (b) , and the department has approved the proposed facility's license, the city or county may appeal the issuance of the license within 30 days of the decision. If the city or the county can demonstrate that the department did not adequately address the lawful objections to the issuance of the license raised by the city or county, the department shall reconsider those objections. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1251-1300/ab_1284 bill_20090227_introduce... 5/6/2009 f SB 268 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED Page 1 of 1 BILL NUMBER: SB 268 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Senator Harman FEBRUARY 24, 2009 An act to amend Section 11834.03 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to alcohol and drug programs. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 268, as introduced, Harman. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities : licensing. Existing law provides for the licensure, certification, and regulation of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities serving adults, administered by the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Under existing law, an applicant for a license is required to submit to the department, among other things, a completed written application and an approved fire clearance. This bill would require the application to include a certification that the facility complies with local zoning ordinances. It would also require the department to verify this certification. This bill would make an approved fire clearance valid only for the duration of the 2-year term of the license. An applicant for license renewal would be required to obtain a new fire clearance, as prescribed. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 11834 .03 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 11834 .03 . Any person or entity applying for licensure shall file with the department, on forms provided by the department, all of the following: (a) A completed written application for licensure that includes a certification by the applicant that the facility complies with local zoning ordinances. The department shall verify this certification before approving the application . (b) A fire clearance approved by the State Fire Marshal or local fire enforcement officer. This clearance shall be valid for the two-year licensure term and shall expire at the conclusion of the term. Any license renewal shall include a fire clearance approved by the State Fire Marshal or local fire enforcement officer based on building codes in place at the time of the applicable license renewal. (c) A licensure fee, established in accordance with Chapter 7.3 (commencing with Section 11833 .01) . http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_268_bill_20090224_introduced.... 5/6/2009 rf. Sc Op 3 ✓5' }\ .3i: � 3 s4�Y� f � lk I i SB 696 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 5 BILL NUMBER: SB 696 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 5, 2009 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2009 INTRODUCED BY Senator Wright FEBRUARY 27, 2009 An act to add Sections 40440.12 and 40440.13 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air quality, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 696, as amended, Wright. Air quality: CEQA exemptions: emission reduction credits. (1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts certain specified projects from its requirements. Under existing law, every air pollution control district or air quality management district in a federal nonattainment area for any national ambient air quality standard is required to establish by regulation, a system by which all reductions in emissions of air contaminants that are to be used to offset certain future increases in the emission of air contaminants are banked prior to use. Pursuant to this requirement the South Coast Air Quality Management District (district) promulgated various rules establishing offset exemptions, providing Priority Reserve offset credits, and creating or tracking credits used for offset exemption or Priority Reserve projects. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792) , the superior court found the promulgation of certain of these district rules to be in violation of CEQA. This bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA the adoption and implementation of specified district rules, and the creation or the use of specified credits pursuant to district rules by a thermal powerplant when certain conditions are satisfied. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether the use of the credits qualifies for an exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) to adopt, on a biennial basis, an integrated energy policy report to include an assessment and a forecast of the need for resource additions, efficiency, and conservation that considers all aspects of energy industries and markets. This bill would require the Energy Commission to perform a needs http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_696_bill_20090505_amended se... 5/6/2009 SB 696 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 5 assessment for a thermal powerplant proposed to be located in the district. (3) This bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature concerning the need for special legislation. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2/3 . Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Because of the superior court decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792) holding the South Coast Air Quality Management District (district) violated the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) in the promulgation of certain district rules, the district is unable to issue over a thousand pending permits that rely on the district' s internal offset bank to offset emissions. (2) The superior court decision also required the district to set aside several thousand permits that were previously issued in reliance on the district's internal offset bank. These permits have been subject to analysis performed pursuant to CEQA that the lead agency has deemed appropriate. (3) If prompt legislative action is not taken to correct this situation, projects will be stopped from going forward or frozen in place, representing significant losses to the economy, as well as numerous well-paying jobs. The impact of approved projects not going forward will dramatically impede any economic recovery in southern California and contribute to another state deficit as a result of lower tax revenues. (4) Affected projects include equipment replacement to reduce air emissions, plus projects for essential public services such as hospitals, schools, landfills, sewage treatment plants, renewable energy projects, and small sources, including small businesses that are unable to locate or afford credits on the open market. With time, many other similar projects will have to be placed on hold, or have their application withdrawn. (5) The superior court decision also prohibits the district from issuing air credits from its Priority Reserve to thermal powerplants that are needed to meet the current and future projected electricity needs of the region and to prevent blackouts during peak demand periods. (6) Without corrective legislation, the district cannot improve air quality by allowing the existing older and higher emitting and less efficient powerplants to be replaced with new cleaner and more efficient powerplants. Fifty percent of available total power in the region is generated from powerplants that are 40 years or older. (7) Failure to correct this problem will mean the district cannot help meet the mandates set forth in the California Global Warming http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_696 bill_20090505_amended_se... 5/6/2009 SB 696 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 5 Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25 .5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code) if it cannot issue permits to provide necessary peaking power to support increased reliance on renewable energy as will be required by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. (b) It is therefore necessary that legislation be enacted to allow the district to resume issuing permits and to abrogate the superior court decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792) . SEC. 2 . Section 40440.12 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 40440 .12 . The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to either of the following: (a) (1) The adoption or implementation of rules by the south coast district establishing offset exemptions, providing Priority Reserve credits, or creating or tracking the credits used for offset exemptions or Priority Reserve projects, if the discretionary projects that use those exemptions or credits are subject to this division or are exempt from this division pursuant to a categorical or statutory exemption and all of the following are satisfied: (A) South coast district rule requires the use of the best available control technology, as defined in Section 40405, and air quality modeling to ensure the source will not cause a violation, or make significantly worse an existing violation, of any ambient air quality standards as defined in district rule 1303, unless exempted from modeling pursuant to district rule 1304, as amended June 14, 1996, for each new, relocated, or modified source with an emissions increase of one pound per day or greater of any air contaminant. (B) South coast district rule prohibits the construction of any new, relocated, or modified permitted unit if the emissions of any toxic air contaminant, as listed by the district board, exceed a cumulative increase in maximum individual cancer risk at any receptor location of greater than one in one million if the permitted unit is constructed without best available control technology for toxic air contaminants, or greater than 10 in one million if the permitted unit is constructed with best available control technology for toxic air contaminants or exceeds a chronic or acute noncancer health effect hazard index of 1.0. (C) The south coast district accounts for the use of offset credits pursuant to this subdivision as part of the district's state implementation plan submissions and demonstrates that the use of the offset credits will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. (D) South coast district rules 1304, 1309.1, and 1315, as specified in this subdivision, have been submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and have not been disapproved by that agency. (2) The exemption provided in this subdivision applies to offset exemptions pursuant to south coast district rule 1304, as amended June 14, 1996, Priority Reserve credits pursuant to south coast district rule 1309.1, as amended May 3, 2002, and the adoption and implementation of south coast district rule 1315, as adopted September 6, 2006, and readopted August 3, 2007 , including any amendments to those rules required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for approval . (3) Upon the satisfaction of conditions specified in _______-__-_-___ paragraph (1) , the exemption provided in this mph- subdivision http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_696 bill_20090505_amended se... 5/6/2009 SB 696 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 4 of 5 applies to all action taken pursuant to the south coast district rules specified in paragraph (2) on and after September 6, 2006. (4) The holding in Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792) is hereby abrogated. (5) This subdivision does not provide any exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) for the issuance of any permit. (b) The adoption of south coast district rule 1309.1 and the creation or use of Priority Reserve credits pursuant to south coast district rule 1309.1, as amended August 3, 2007, including any amendments to those rules required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for approval, by a thermal powerplant that is subject to this division or to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 25500) of Division 15 of the Public Resources Code if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) South coast district rules include the requirements and prohibitions specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) . (2) The thermal powerplant emissions comply with the requirements for best available control technology, air quality modeling impacts, toxic impacts, and emissions levels as specified in south coast district rule 1309.1, as amended August 3, 2007. (3) The thermal powerplant has entered into long-term contracts with Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, or the State of California to provide electricity in southern California, or is a powerplant owned by a local publicly owned utility that is designed and constructed not to exceed that utility's native demand load projections, or the use of the credit is otherwise allowed by the south coast district board pursuant to south coast district rule 1309.1. (4) The south coast district accounts for the thermal powerplants' use of Priority Reserve credits pursuant to this subdivision as part of its state implementation plan submissions and demonstrates that the use will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. (5) South coast district rule 1309.1, as amended August 3, 2007, and south coast district rule 1315, as adopted September 6, 2006, and readopted August 3, 2007, have been submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and have not been disapproved by that agency. (6) The State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission has conducted a needs assessment that has determined that the thermal powerplant is necessary to meet future energy needs in southern California or the south coast district, and has determined it is necessary for the thermal powerplant to be located in the south coast district. (7) (A) The thermal powerplant pays a mitigation fee for the Priority Reserve offset credits obtained that shall be at a minimum the amount set forth in south coast district rule 1309.1, as amended August 3, 2007. (B) The south coast district board may by amendment to that rule, after a public hearing, increase the fees without affecting the applicability of this paragraph. (C) The south coast district shall, to the extent technically and economically feasible, use the mitigation fees to mitigate emissions of the relevant pollutants or its precursors in the area impacted by emissions from the thermal powerplant, with a minimum of one-third to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_696_bill_20090505_amended_se... 5/6/2009 SB 696 Senate Bill - AMENDED Page 5 of 5 be used for installation of renewable or alternative sources of energy. Up to 10 percent may be used by the district for administration of the mitigation program. (8) This subdivision does not provide any exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or from Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 25500) of Division 15 of the Public Resources Code, for the issuance of any permit, license, or certification. SEC. 3 . Section 40440.13 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 40440.13 . (a) The State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission shall perform a needs assessment considering the issue specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 40440.12 for a thermal powerplant proposed to be located in the south coast district, whether or not the thermal powerplant is subject to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 25500) of Division 15 of the Public Resources Code. (b) (1) For the purposes of this section, "thermal powerplant" means any stationary or floating electrical generating facility using any source of thermal energy and any facilities appurtenant to the facility. Exploratory, development, and production wells, resource transmission lines, and other related facilities used in connection with a geothermal exploratory project or a geothermal field development project are not appurtenant facilities for the purposes of this section. (2) "Thermal powerplant" does not include any exclusively wind, hydroelectric, or solar photovoltaic electrical generating facility. SEC. 4 . The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of unique circumstances concerning the South Coast Air Quality Management District. SEC. S. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. SEC. 6. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: Due to the court decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792) , the South Coast Air Quality Management District is unable to issue over a thousand pending permits that are either exempt from offset requirements or qualified to use offset credits from the district's Priority Reserve and is required to set aside thousands of permits already issued; therefore it is necessary for this measure to take effect immediately to allow the district to issue permits in an expeditious manner and to validate previously issued permits called into question by the superior court's decision. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_696_bill_20090505_amended_se... 5/6/2009 �' t�� �� b � �x � ��� f � I � d � kl 7 1 � - \ k Z K ; \ , SB 696 (WRIGHT) EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS Problem Due to a state court CEQA decision, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has been forced to stop issuing any permits relying on the District's internal offsets accounts. Over a thousand are already on hold. The decision also required the District to set aside over 2,000 permits already issued while the lawsuit was pending. Affected businesses include essential public services, such as sewage treatment plants, hospitals, schools, fire and police stations, and landfill gas to energy projects. Also, small businesses such as gas stations, dry cleaners, auto body shops, printers, and food manufacturers are unable to expand or open their doors because they cannot locate or cannot afford credits on the open market. Facilities cannot relocate, replace their equipment to modernize and reduce pollution, or install emergency equipment such as backup generators. Credits on the open market are unaffordable, with estimated costs of$234,000 for a gas station, $1.6 million for a tortilla fryer and oven, and $115 million for a landfill gas to energy project. In addition, the SCAQMD cannot issue any offsets to thermal power plants, including the three that already have contracts with Southern California Edison. All the private market credits in existence would supply less than half the needs of just these three plants. Power plants are unable to address the state's once-through cooling limitations, and cannot replace the region's 50% of capacity that is already 40 years old with newer, cleaner projects. Power companies cannot build additional peaking capacity to support renewables and comply with AB 32 and the state's renewable power goals. This bill: SB 696 would provide a limited CEQA exemption for implementation of specific SCAQMD rules creating or providing offsets from the SCAQMD's internal bank. Individual permits would not be exempted from CEQA. The bill would require SCAQMD rules to apply stringent best available control technology, air quality impact modeling, and air toxics limits. The SCAQMD must account for the use of these offsets in its air quality management plan, and the rules must be submitted to EPA and not disapproved. (Two of the rules have already been formally approved by EPA, and EPA has granted its preliminary approval to the SCAQMD's offset tracking rule.) For power plants, in order to obtain offsets, they must have a contract with the applicable utility, or be municipal projects serving only their native load. They must pay mitigation fees, at a minimum cost of$92,000 per ton fo PM10. The fees must be used to reduce pollution in the areas impacted by the power plant. The plants must meet stringent limits, with stricter requirements in areas of higher pollution. Finally, for a plant to purchase offsets from SCAQMD, the California Energy Commission must have found that the plant is necessary and must be located within the District. Background Under the Federal Clean Air Act, air pollution agencies must adopt programs to require that major new or modified sources of contaminants for which the area has not attained the federal standards must provide emissions offsets for their emissions increases. They must also meet stringent emission limits .requiring the best available technology. Offsets are equivalent emission reductions from other sources that go beyond legal requirements, and are usually generated from equipment shutdowns. Offsets can be either privately owned "Emission Reduction Credits", where the source shutting down or overcontrolling applies to the SCAQMD for a credit. Alternatively, if a source fails to apply for an Version 3/ ERC, the SCAQMD claims the offsets as "orphan shutdowns" and deposits them in its internal bank. The SCAQMD uses these offsets to supply the needed offsets for essential public services and for projects that are exempt from offsets under SCAQMD,primarily small facilities, including small businesses, and equipment replacements, relocations, and pollution control projects, as well as emergency equipment. In addition, in 2006 SCAQMD amended its rules to allow power plants meeting specified requirements, and paying significant mitigation fees, to access the SCAQMD bank. This was necessary because all the privately-owned PM10 credits in existence would supply less than half the needs of just the three proposed power plants that have contracts with Southern California Edison. Moreover, a small municipal power plant recently paid over$300,000 per pound for offsets on the private market. The environmentally-protective provisions of the SCAQMD's rules have been incorporated into the proposed legislation. In addition, the legislation would not allow a proposed power plant to purchase offsets from the SCAQMD's internal accounts unless the California Energy Commission had found that the plant was necessary and that it needs to be located within the SCAQMD. Certain environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the SCAQMD's rules under CEQA, as well as arguing the SCAQMD had intruded into the exclusive jurisdiction of the CEC. Both the CEC and Cal-ISO attempted to file briefs supporting the SCAQMD, but the court declined to receive them. Ultimately,the court ruled that the SCAQMD's CEQA document was inadequate. In particular, the court ruled that SCAQMD must assume that all the offsets in the SCAQMD's internal bank were actually "in the air", and resulting in pollution, although that was contrary to SCAQMD's experience. As mentioned earlier, the court ordered the SCAQMD to stop issuing permits relying on the internal bank, and to set aside several thousand permits already issued. As a result, SCAQMD is operating under a"permit moratorium". Legislation is needed to correct the situation. Economic devastation would result if the moratorium must remain in effect for the many months it would take to re-adopt the rule with additional CEQA analysis, and to resolve the inevitable litigation. Moreover, it is uncertain how readopting the rule would help those projects whose permits have been ordered to be set aside. Legislation provides the needed certainty. Version 3i LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL (4/6/09) Companies Blow Their Caps Over Pollution Rule EMISSION: Moratorium on permits blocks upgrade, expansion plans. By HOWARD FINE Los Angeles Business Journal Staff Hundreds of local businesses are steaming mad over a court-imposed freeze on permits issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for new or expanded facilities that add emissions into the atmosphere. The freeze, which could last through the end of this year, affects smaller businesses that need to buy credits in order to obtain permits for additional equipment or new facilities. Because the companies couldn't afford the credits, with prices as high as $2 million for a single piece of equipment, the AQMD set up a bank that distributed the credits free or at deep discounts. The freeze began in November after environmental groups prevailed in a lawsuit and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Jones ordered the district to stop issuing discounted pollution credits under the cap-and-trade program. Environmental groups had contended that handing out discounted credits defeated the purpose of the cap-and-trade program, which was to force the cost of credits to rise to the point where making the emission reductions would be cheaper. Facilities that received free or discounted credits,they argued, were getting a free ride and being allowed to pollute without paying the full cost. The lawsuit itself stemmed from a 2001 decision by the air district to include power plants in the discounted credits program; this step was taken at the height of the state's power crisis when then-Gov. Gray Davis lifted environmental barriers to the construction of new power plants. Jones' ruling blocked permits for hundreds of facilities that were seeking to upgrade equipment or expand. Those facilities range from print shops seeking to install new presses to auto body shops looking to add spray paint booths. And because construction contractors were also denied new permits, some public sector projects have also faced delays. "The result has been devastating, far beyond what we believe Judge Jones intended," said Bill LaMarr, executive director of the California Small Business Alliance, which represents several trade organizations in their dealings with state and local elected officials and regulators. "I've got members who are telling me that they've had to place upgrades on hold; some have even laid people off because of this." One alliance member, William McKenna of G.M. Platinum Coachworks, an auto body shop in Covina, said Jones' ruling wasn't reasonable. "This ruling appears to have not been carefully considered as to the ripple effect it will cause through not only my industry, but many similar industries, and the overall economy,"he wrote to the AQMD AQMD moratorium places hold on new public facilities, small business plants By Mike Sprague, Staff Writer Posted: 03/29/2009 07:03:39 AM PDT Don't plan on seeing the opening of any new public facilities or for that matter new small businesses which have generators or other polluting devices. Local government and others can't get the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District due to a November court decision that many are just learning about. If this issue is not resolved, it could mean that the Whittier police station or a Los Angeles County fire station on the border of La Mirada and Habra - both under construction - can't open. Both have small emergency generators and need permits from AQMD. Construction on both is expected to take another year. "It compromises the level of public safety," La Mirada City Manager n + a� r c r- m tt 8 " Hs y a �t f Con_acto,S cant! ur t., st. J•>' J f:t rnollf T,ufiding Proje,,,L ai the:.wner of'vv S `1 t a:•. 26, T,,, 55,t;00 sq.tas`C-foct poick bu_;1ir � is pr�,�€�t9 ]vEw Tom Robinson said of the moratorium established by the AQMD. Other types of new businesses affected are auto body shops, service stations, printers, and even car dealerships. "It's safe to say that cities throughout Southern California are very concerned about the moratorium," Robinson said. "Everybody else in the country is trying to put people to work and here's a ruling that's going to put people out of work." The fight stems over how new pollution-generating facilities are allowed in Southern California. Before any such plant can be opened, emission credits to offset the anticipated pollution from the new building or facility are needed, said David Pettit, director of the Southern California Air Program. "Valid emission credits are created from shutdowns of older facilities or reductions at existing facilities and require proof that the decrease in emissions is real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable," Pettit said. "The whole point of the offset process is to ensure no net increase in pollution levels and air quality is upheld across the region." But AQMD also has credits from its internal bank that it made available free to public agencies and small businesses, instead of making them be purchased on the open market. The open market can be expensive, with costs ranging from $140 million for a landfill gas project with five turbines to$2 million for a food manufacturer with a tortilla chip fryer and oven to$500,000 for an auto body shop's spray booth. The AQMD issued these permits free for facilities that produced less than four tons per year of pollutants. But several years ago citing the energy crisis,AQMD decided it also wanted to make them available for power PHOTO GALLERY MF L� e \ 5 x .tea.. AQMD Moratorium on Public Projects plants, said Sam Atwood, AQMD spokesman. "(The board) felt it would would be prudent under a temporary basis to allow power plants access - in this case to purchase emission credits at$92,000 per pound,"Atwood said. Four environmental groups sued - Natural Resources Defense Council,Communities for a Better Environment, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and California Communities Against Toxics- saying these credits were going to go to polluters at too low a cost. "What the district has done is sold these scarce credits to facilities that earn millions of dollars,"said Tim Grabiel, staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "These credits should be considered a public good and should be reserved for essential public services, such as police stations and fire houses," Grabiel said. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann I.Jones in November 2008 struck down two AQMD rules, one allowing the issuance of credits to power plants and another its credit-tracking system. Jones ruled that AQMD hadn't done an adequate job of environmental analysis. "Her ruling not only made it impossible for the power plant to get these credits, but for the AQMD to provide them for all public facilities and businesses,"Atwood said. Atwood said AQMD plans to readopt its rule on the tracking system minus the power plant provision. That could take nine to 12 months to do and would allow them to be issued to the same low-polluter facilities. However, it appears some environmental groups will oppose the current AQMD plans. "It won't result in a functioning program where the district can give out permits to essential services," Grabiel said in explaining his group's opposition. The word is just now getting out to local cities and others. Some still aren't even aware of it. "Right now it's extraordinarily chilling,"Whittier City Manager Steve Helvey said. "If a small business is trying to set itself up, it could end up in bankruptcy waiting to start." A San Gabriel Valley official said the moratorium is the last thing needed in these tough times. "The timing is horrible,"said Bob Machuca, regional manager of economic development for the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership and Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. "We have a bad economy and this is counterproductive to what we're trying to do," Machuca said. "A lot of businesses are being wooed by other states. What will happen is they will look elsewhere." mike.sprague@sgvn.com (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3022 y. AB 1192 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 2 BILL NUMBER: AB 1192 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2009 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Audra Strickland FEBRUARY 27, 2009 An act to add Section 37113 to the Government Code, relating to cities. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1192, as amended, Audra Strickland. Cities: powers. Existing law authorizes a board of trustees, city council, or other governing body of a city, defined as a legislative body, to pass ordinances not in conflict with state or federal law and the state or federal constitution. This bill would prohibit a legislative body from -p�rssrx� an ordinance creftt�ng &n entity fcr the purpose nf having 'cite eiTt4tY isstte debt to fttnd a Public improvemenle project with the legisiettive tliat are used ttn repety the entity' s debt— selling or leasing any existing public improvement to a private or public entity, including any entity controlled by the city, for the purposes of renting or leasing back, or repurchasing through installment payments that existing public improvement . This bill would also declare that this prohibition is a matter of statewide concern, thus making it applicable to charter and general cities. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 37113 is added to the Government Code , to read: 37113. The legislative body of a city, including a charter city or city and county, shall not sell or lease any existing public improvement to a private or public entity, including an entity controlled by the city, for the purposes of renting or leasing back, or repurchasing through installment payments that existing public improvement. SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that the usual purpose of those arrangements is to evade the constitutional requirement of voter approval for new debt. The Legislature further finds and declares that increasing the debt to be serviced by California taxpayers without their approval impairs the financial health of cities, and the state as a whole, and therefore, this act pertains to an issue of statewide concern and is not purely a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Sovernment e(Dde, to read. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1192 bill_20090420_amended... 5/6/2009 AB 1192 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 2 purpose CE itaving eite entity issue bonds er a" other debt instrurnent making lease pe7nents or other periodic pa7ments to the ent!+ty thett are t1sed to repay the bc�nds or debt instrtment. -- sEe the l health l L the state as et vqhc5le, and iL_-__L_-__ this act pertains tqn -- I ---- of statewide cencern and does ntnt -relate to mi-irticipal affairs, an that term is used in seet+on 5 ef �1` 'Ye4ae �Ei e f Cite i_n= !E(nrnie http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab—I 151-1200/abI 192—bill-20090420—amended... 5/6/2009 O"N IN, MW 'no t 01' CA l hOPNiA 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org April 27, 2009 Assembly Member Audra Strickland State Capitol, Room 4208 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 1192 (Strickland): Funding Local Public Improvements NOTICE OF OPPOSITION Dear Assembly Member Strickland: The League of California Cities regrets that it must oppose your AB 1192,which prohibits a city from selling or leasing a public improvement to a public or private entity for the purpose of renting, leasing back,or repurchasing through installment payments that existing public improvement. This bill, in effect, would prohibit what is a long used and popular form of financing infrastructure and other public improvements in California. Moreover, it seeks to repeal the holdings of the California Supreme Court which have repeatedly upheld and validated this form of public financing, including City of Los Angles v. Offner(1942), Dean v. Kuchel(1950), and Rider v. City of San Diego (1998). At a time of economic crisis, with over 11 percent unemployment, and when"shovel ready" infrastructure and other public works projects are viewed as critical our recovery, it is difficult to comprehend such a proposal. The infrastructure projects that would be halted,the construction jobs that would be lost, and many negative impacts that would occur to our struggling economy are simply staggering. For the above reasons,this measure should be immediately rejected. If you have any questions, or if I can be of assistance, please call me at (916) 658-8222. Sincerely, Daniel Carrigg Legislative Director, League of California Cities Cc: Honorable Members of the Assembly Local Government Committee Jennifer Klein, Associate Consultant, Assembly Local Government Committee Cynthia Bryant, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Michael Prosio, Legislative Affairs Secretary, Governor's Office William Weber, Principal Consultant,Assembly Republican Caucus ����,�y m y:����:y,�y��< ��»� �; �y �m���;�m ..:�« :���. ���©Q �����» C���\ �: «�» , ��/ . \ . § ; ����» ��y: . . . ��\\� « � : \�» » �� ::� �/�� } �<���\ \ \ � a \ / �}�: \ � ° ^� \ t \ � \ ! v .:2w ���\ �\�\ � » \ \ {� ` \ \��\ \ � ^ \ %:�6 . �y: . , � . . : � . v �:w. �a � �� \ ,����� � � �� \ <» �<�f ��������, _ �:�����: �.» � � : § � �� . . ���\� � �! � / ������\ - :,��z � -a �.:.�___«m.», . � �J �.���;�����& .wa . z /m� �. : a ���2©� :�����:. � �a �_�, ��mav�« � �w��m.;/ AB 676 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 1 of 3 BILL NUMBER: AB 676 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Jeffries (Coauthor: Assembly Member Galgiani) FEBRUARY 25, 2009 An act to add Section 6018.9 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation, to take effect immediately, tax levy. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 676, as introduced, Jeffries. Sales and use taxes : consumer: destination management company. The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. That law, with certain exceptions, defines a retailer as a seller who makes any retail sale of tangible personal property and as a person who makes more than 2 retail sales of tangible personal property during any 12-month period, and defines a retail sale as a sale of tangible personal property for any purpose other than resale in the regular course of business. This bill would provide that a qualified destination management company is a consumer, and not a retailer, of tangible personal property it provides to its clients pursuant to a qualified contract for destination management services, so that the sale of the tangible personal property to the destination management company is the retail sale subject to tax. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that this act is declaratory of existing law. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales ans Use Tax Law, and the Transactions and Use Tax Law authorizes districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law. Exemptions from state sales and use taxes are incorporated in these taxes. Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that the state will reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 6018.9 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read: 6018.9. (a) A qualified destination management company is a consumer of, and shall not be considered a retailer of, the tangible http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_676 bill_20090225_introduced.... 5/6/2009 AB 676 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 2 of 3 personal property it provides to its client pursuant to a qualified contract for destination management services. (b) For the purposes of this section: (1) "Destination management services" means the provision of four or more of the following services: (A) Transportation. (B) Entertainment. (C) Meals. (D) Recreational activities. (E) Tours. (F) Registration. (G) Staffing. (2) "Qualified destination management company" means an corporation that meets all of the following: (A) Is substantially engaged in the business of providing destination management services. For purposes of this subparagraph, "substantially" means that 80 percent or more of the gross sales are derived from the business of providing destination management services. (B) Is not doing business as a caterer. (C) Maintains a permanent nonresidential office in California which the destination management services are provided. (D) Has three or more full-time employees. (E) Expends 1 to 3 percent of its gross revenue annually to market California and local destinations for tourism. (F) Does not own any equipment used to provide destination management services, including, but not limited to, dance floors, decorative props, lighting, podiums, sound or video systems, stages, or equipment for catered meals. This condition shall not apply to office equipment used in the conduct of the destination management company' s business. (G) Does not provide services for weddings. (3) "Qualified contract" means a contract between a qualified destination management company and its client for destination management services that meets all of the following conditions: (A) The client is a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trade association, or other business entity principally located outside of the county in which the destination management services are provided. The client is not an individual, social club, or fraternal organization. (B) The client is responsible for paying the qualified destination management company for all the destination management services provided to the client. (C) The qualified destination management company is responsible for paying all the vendors that sell or lease tangible personal property to the qualified destination management company for the contract services, including vendors ' charges for sales tax reimbursement or collection of use tax. (D) The destination management services occur in part, or all, of two or more consecutive days. SEC. 2 . Notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made by this act and the state shall not reimburse any local agency for any sales and use tax revenues lost by it under this act. SEC. 3 . It is the intent of the Legislature that this act is declaratory of existing law. SEC. 4 . This act provides for a tax levy within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_676_bill_20090225_introduced.... 5/6/2009 AB 676 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 3 of 3 http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_676 bill_20090225_introduced.... 5/6/2009 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Relations Recommendations COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 18, 2009 RCA ATTCHiVIIENT $, r STATUS` .. Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR ISSI,NG`ATTACH EIVTS 8 . REVIEWED -RETURNED FOR` AE�D°" Administrative Staff ) Assistant City Administrator Initial ' City Administrator Initial ) City Clerk ) EXP LAN ATIQN FOR RETURN OF IT is RCA Author: Dapkus