BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1084|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1084
Author: Adams (R)
Amended: 9/1/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/17/09
AYES: Wiggins, Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/21/09 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Local planning: development projects: fees
SOURCE : California Building Industry Association
DIGEST : This bill clarifies that an audit of local
developer fees and charges can also cover the cost of
public facilities, as defined by existing law. This bill
tells local officials that they dont have to conduct an
audit if an audit has been performed on the same fee within
the previous 12 months. If the audit shows that the fee or
charge doesn't meet the statutory requirements, local
officials must adjust the fee accordingly.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/1/09 allow email notices and
clarify statutory drafting.
ANALYSIS : The Mitigation Fee Act governs how cities and
CONTINUED
AB 1084
Page
2
counties impose fees on development, both fees for
processing permits and fees that impose exactions on
development projects. Processing fees for zoning changes,
use permits, building permits, and other development
applications shall "not exceed the estimated reasonable
cost of providing the service for which the fee is
charged." Cities and counties can impose exaction fees as
a condition of approving a development project to pay for
the cost of public facilities that are directly related to
the project.
Before cities and counties impose exaction fees they must:
1.Identify the fee's purpose.
2.Identify the public facilities for which the fee will be
used.
3.Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use
and the development project.
4.Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for
the public facility and the development project.
Developers, planners, and their legal advisors call this
statutory requirement the "nexus test," because there must
be a connection between the fee and the project.
To levy fees, there must be a public meeting, noticed 14
days in advance. Local officials must mail notices to
anyone who files a written request and pays a reasonable
annual charge. Cost data must be available 10 days before
the meeting. Local officials must adopt their fees by
resolution or ordinance which can't take effect for 60
days, unless the officials adopt urgency measures. There
is a 120-day deadline for filing lawsuits to challenge the
resolution or ordinance. In a lawsuit, the local agency
--- not the plaintiff --- has the burden of proof.
This bill clarifies that an audit of local developer fees
and charges can also cover the cost of public facilities,
as defined by existing law. This bill tells local
officials that they don't have to conduct an audit if an
audit has been performed on the same fee within the
AB 1084
Page
3
previous 12 months. If the audit shows that the fee or
charge doesn't meet the statutory requirements, local
officials must adjust the fee accordingly.
This bill also requires cities and counties to mail public
notice of the time and place and a general explanation of a
public meeting on new or increased fees to any interested
party who files a written request and pays a reasonable
annual charge. This bill allows cities and counties to
substitute mailed notice of the public hearing with
electronic mail notification to those who specifically
request notices in that format. They must mail or
electronically send the notices 14 days before the meeting.
Cost data must be available 10 days before the meeting.
Local officials must adopt their fees by resolution or
ordinance which can't take effect for 60 days, unless the
officials adopt urgency measures. These requirements don't
apply to:
1.Water or sewer connection fees.
2.School developer fees.
3.Water, sewer, or electrical rates.
4.Fees that are already covered by existing notice and
hearing requirements.
Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, spells out the
duration of subdivision tentative maps, vesting tentative
maps, and parcel maps for which there are tentative maps or
tentative vesting maps during which the subdivider must
comply with the city's or county's conditions of approval.
After those statutory time periods, a subdivison map
expires.
This bill inserts July 15, 2009, as the date on which
subdivision maps must be pending in order to qualify for
the time extension.
Comments
Before the recession started, demand pressures in the
global economic markets resulted in higher costs for the
AB 1084
Page
4
materials needed for public works projects. Some cities
and counties raised their exaction fees to cover the higher
costs of cement, asphalt, steel, wiring, and pipes. Demand
pressures in local real estate markets resulted in
escalating prices for the land needed for parks, fire
stations, sewer plants, and other public facilities. Now
that these prices are starting to fall, builders want to be
sure that they can ask local agencies to audit their fees.
This bill clarifies that the current opportunities for
audits apply to exaction fees for public facilities. The
bill also clarifies that when costs fall, exaction fees
should follow.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/2/09)
California Building Industry Association (source)
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
International Council of Shopping Centers
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu,
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson,
Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuentes, Nava, Saldana
AGB:do 9/2/09 Senate Floor Analyses
AB 1084
Page
5
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****