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 --