BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Bill No: |AB 2180 |Hearing |6/22/16 | | | |Date: | | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Author: |Ting |Tax Levy: |No | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Version: |3/31/16 |Fiscal: |Yes | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Favorini-Csorba | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Land use: development project review Shortens deadlines for approval or disapproval of certain residential and mixed use developments under the Permit Streamlining Act. Background Planning and Zoning Law. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws, known as the police power of cities." It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out the intensity (density) and location for planned uses in the area covered by the plan. Cities' and counties' major land use decisions-including development permitting-must be consistent with their general plans. Local zoning laws and building codes specify where housing may be built, as well as its density, quality, and style. Housing developers must obtain building permits from city and county planning departments and typically must gain approval from local planning commissions and city councils or AB 2180 (Ting) 3/31/16 Page 2 of ? county boards of supervisors. Permit Streamlining Act. The 1977 Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. It covers state agencies, cities, charter cities, counties, special districts, and other political subdivisions of the state. The act requires public agencies to compile lists of information that applicants must provide and explain the criteria they will use to review permit applications. Public agencies have 30 days to determine whether applications for development projects are complete; failure to act results in an application being "deemed complete." However, local governments may continue to request additional information, potentially extending the time before an application is deemed complete. Once a complete application for a development project has been submitted, the act requires public officials to act within a specific time period after completing any environmental review documents required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, local governments that serve as lead agencies under CEQA must act within: (1) 60 days after completing a negative declaration or determining that a project is exempt from review, or (2) 180 days after certifying an environmental impact report (EIR). However, shorter deadlines apply to certain affordable housing developments. A lead agency must decide within 90 days of certifying an EIR for a residential or mixed use development that meets all of the following conditions: Residential units make up at least half of the square footage; Any commercial space is reserved for small-scale businesses that primarily serve local residents and are located on the first floor of a building; At least 49% of the units are affordable to low- or very low-income households; and The developer has applied for tax credits or other financial assistance that is necessary to build the unit and has provided confirmation of the application before the EIR is certified. The Permit Streamlining Act also sets deadlines for responsible agencies, as defined by CEQA, to act. These agencies are public AB 2180 (Ting) 3/31/16 Page 3 of ? agencies that are not the lead agency but have a role in approving a permit or other authorization for some aspect of the proposed project. For example, local agency formation commissions are often responsible agencies on new development projects because they must approve necessary boundary changes. Responsible agencies rely on the lead agency's CEQA documentation to issue permits and make decisions. The Permit Streamlining Act requires responsible agencies to approve or disapprove the development project within 180 days of the date that either the lead agency approved the project or deemed the application complete, whichever is longer. If the public agency fails to approve or disapprove the application in the relevant time period, the application is deemed approved and the applicant may sue to order the local government to issue the permit. Upon mutual agreement between the government and the applicant, the deadlines may be extended once for up to 90 days. Housing Costs and Needs. Housing prices in many parts of California-particularly in cities along the coast-vastly outstrip prices in other states. While the causes of these high housing prices are complex, studies have shown that a major factor is the undersupply of housing. Local governments looking to preserve the character of their neighborhoods or keep home values high have found novel ways to slow, modify, or halt new development that might otherwise lower prices. These tactics include prohibiting the construction of second units, imposing low-density zoning, or implementing explicit policies that limit growth. In addition, local government revenue streams have been limited by constitutional amendments, leading them to incentivize commercial development that uses fewer services and produces sales tax revenue over residential development that needs more services but produces limited amounts of property tax revenue. Some organizations want to expedite public agency decisions on residential and mixed use developments. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 2180 shortens timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act for a public agency to approve or disapprove AB 2180 (Ting) 3/31/16 Page 4 of ? certain types of development projects. Specifically, AB 2180 requires a lead agency to approve or disapprove an application for a residential or mixed use development that devotes at least half of its square footage to residential units and only includes small-scale commercial enterprises, within 120 days of certifying an EIR for the project. AB 2180 also requires responsible agencies to approve or disapprove those projects within 90 days of the date that either the lead agency approved the project or deemed the application complete, whichever is longer. State Revenue Impact No estimate. Comments 1. Purpose of the bill . California is in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis caused by a severe lack of new housing construction, both market rate and affordable. Unfortunately, the local and state approval processes for new housing construction are frequently slow and cumbersome. AB 2180 takes a modest but important step towards speeding those approvals by encouraging public agencies to act more quickly on residential and neighborhood-scale mixed use developments, while preserving all public notice and appeals requirements in current law. AB 2180 will ensure that badly needed housing projects move through the building approval process faster, thus reducing costs and other delays that can be associated with a lengthy approval process. 2. Sure, but will it work ? In practice, it can be hard to take advantage of the "deemed-approved" remedy in the Permit Streamlining Act. The Act doesn't apply to general plan amendments or zoning ordinances that are prerequisites to permitting any sort of development. And creative local governments have continued to develop new ways to slow or block dense residential or mixed use development that they fear would reduce housing prices, such as providing vague lists of required information. AB 2180 may expedite some approvals in communities that are already favorably inclined towards development, but stronger intervention in local planning and zoning may be needed AB 2180 (Ting) 3/31/16 Page 5 of ? to truly accelerate the construction of new housing and address high housing costs. 3. Newer isn't always better . Scholars agree that building more housing will, over time, reduce housing costs. But new housing does not necessarily mean more housing. While the state's "no-net-loss zoning" statute makes it more difficult for local governments to reduce the density of housing development, it by no means ensures high density development. Furthermore, there is significant disagreement over the effects of new market-rate housing on low-income residents. A March 2016 study by UC Berkeley researchers found that affordable housing units did significantly more to protect low-income households at the regional level and found that at the neighborhood level market-rate housing may simply encourage wealthier individuals to move into newly attractive neighborhoods. AB 2180 expedites reviews for residential and mixed use developments without regard to density or affordability. Should the Legislature be encouraging all new development, or is a more targeted approach necessary to ensure that help goes to those Californians that struggle to pay their rents? 4. Coastal Act . The California Coastal Act prohibits development in the "coastal zone" along California's coast without a coastal development permit from the Commission or a Commission-certified local agency. Permitting is performed by local agencies in the vast majority (87%) of the coastal zone. But in the remaining 13% of the coastal zone, the Commission issues permits in the remaining area, making it a responsible agency. Commission staff argue that the deadlines in the bill for responsible agencies will make it difficult for them to perform thorough work and provide adequate public notice for project approvals. Should they be subject to different timelines for approval than other public agencies? AB 2180 (Ting) 3/31/16 Page 6 of ? 5. Mandate . The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel's Office, AB 2180 creates a new state-mandated local program because it increases the duties of local officials. AB 2180 disclaims this liability by stating that no reimbursement is required under the Constitution because local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to cover the cost of the increased services. Assembly Actions Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0 Assembly Appropriations Committee: 20-0 Assembly Floor: 67-0 Support and Opposition (6/16/16) Support : California Apartment Association; California Association of Realtors; California Building Industry Association; California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce. Opposition : Unknown. -- END --