HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-21; City Council; 8966; Correction to Automatic Approval Law.-,
'
z
0
~
..J
0 z :::,
8
AB# 9''!4, ~
MTG. 4/21/87
DEPT, __ C_A_
-en 'OF CARLSBAD -AGEND.-BILL
TITLE: CORRECTION TO AUTOMATIC
APPROVAL LAW
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT.HD.-
CITY ATTY"\JfA
CITY MGR.~
That the City Council authorize the Mayor to write a letter in
support of Assembly Bill 1486.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The so-called "Permit Streamlining Act" provides that if the City
misses a deadline in processing a development it can be automatically
approved. That could result in a project inconsistent with the
City's growth control program getting approved without giving any
affected members of the public a chance to be heard. Keeping track
of the one year deadline is also an administrative burden on the
planning department. In the past the City Council has approved
joining as arnicus curiae in a case seeking to limit the effect of
this law. Those efforts were not successful. Attached is a copy of
the letter dated March 25, 1987 from Assemblyman Sher asking our
support for AB 1486. A copy of the bill is also attached. The
League of California Cities has taken a position in support. The
bill would not repeal the automatic approval law but it would
require the developer to at least give notice to the City and the
public before the automatic approval could take place, giving us a
chance to react. The bill would also only allow those portions of
the project to be approved that are otherwise consistent with
applicable City ordinances. If the Council wishes to take a
position in support your action is, by motion, to authorize the
Mayor to write a letter on behalf of the City asking that the bill
be adopted.
EXHIBITS
Letter from Assemblyman Sher
Assembly Bill #1486
.
• MEMBERS
r11cc Harvey
,-
CONSULTANTS:
\'tea Ct,airrna11
Tom Bates Qralifnrniu 11Itgtaluturt
.Anstmbltt Natural
i!lcnnurccs Qtnmmitt.ec
Kip Lipper
Lloyd Connelly
Sam Farr
Jellrey P Shellito
Paut D. Thayer
Bev Hansen
Marian la Follelte
8111 Leonard
COMMITTEE SECRETARY:
Ann E Boone
Mike Roos
Jackie Speier
Stan Statham
Maxine Waters
Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr.
City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, cA 92008
Dear Mr. Biondo:
BYRON D. SHER
CHAIRMAN
March 25, 1987
STATE CAPITOL
PO BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249·000i
...--11&.~~TE~LEPHONE (916) 445•9367
The provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act (AB 884) have recently been upheld
by an appeals court in Palmer v. Ojai (i78 Cal .App.3d 280), and the Sta.te
Supreme Court has refused to review the case. Section 65956 of the Government
Code (which was added by the Act) requires that a permitting agency act on a
permit application within one year of the date of application and provides that
the permit is approved by operation of law if no action is taken within the
year. Arguably, the net effect of this is that projects inconsistent with
zoning ordinances and other law may be approved without the accordance of due
process to affected members of the public. While not directly addressed in
Palmer, the possibility has been raised that agencies that fail to act within
the one year deadline have deprived the public of notice and hearing of these
permit applications and may thus be exposed to civil liability.
I have recently introduced AB 1486 (copy enclosed) to address these issues.
AB 1486 preserves the one year deadline while 1) requiring that the permit
applicant to provide public notice of a proposed project; and 2) providing that
approval of the permit application pursuant to Section 65956 is only applicable
to those portions of a proposed project which are consistent with law.
I am writing to you because your participation in the amicus brief filed by
San Francisco in the Palmer case )ndicates to me that you share our concerns.
The bill will be set for ,ts first committee hearing next month1 and I expect
that we will encounter opposition. To counter this, it is important that we be
able to show that there is broadbased support for the bill. Therefore, I would
very much appreciate a letter of support from your city. It would also be
helpful if you could let your Assembly Member and State Senator know of your
position.
--.-..
Please let me know if you would like any additional information on this measure. Thanks for your help.
Yours truly,
~l?~
Assembly Natural Resources Committee
BDS:ps
Enclosure
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIJRE-1987-88 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1486
Introduced by Assembly Member Sher
March 4, 1987
An act to amend Section 65956 of, and to add Section 65958
to, the Government Code, relating to development projects.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1486, as introduced, Sher. Jevelopment projects.
( 1) Existing law requires a public agency which is a lead
agency, as defined, to approve or disapprove a development
project within one year from the date an application
:,-. requesting approval is received and accepted as complete by
the lead agency and requires a responsible agency, as defined,
to approve or disapprove development projects within 180
days of the date the lead agency talces action or within 180
r days of the date on which the application is received and
accepted as complete. In the eve.at that a lead agency or
responsible agency fails to meet these time limits, the failure
is deemed to be approval of the development project under
existing law.
This bill would provide that the constructive approval
under existing provisions does not extend to those portions of
the project for which the permitting agency is required by
state or local law to deny approval. The bill would also provide
C that the project shall be deemed approved only if the permit
\ applicant has met prescribed public notice requirements, and
ftled a copy of the public notice and all drawings and maps•,
as specified, with the permitting agency.
In addition, the bill would require, that the permitting
agency issue a permit for the project within 60 days after a
development project has been deemed approved pursuant to O these procedures. The permit could not extend to those
99 50
AE 1486 -2-
portions of the project for which the permitting agency is
required by state or local law to deny approval, although the
permitting agency would be required to attach reasonable
terms and conditions to permit if they would enable the
project to be brought into conformance with state or loca] law.
These provisions would create a state-mandated local
program by imposing new requirements upon a local agency
which is a permitting agency.
(2) 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, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other
procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $500,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to those statutory procedures c:1nd, if the statewide
cost does not exceed $500,000, shall be made from the State •
Mandates Claims Fund. • 'J
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows: ..._
1 SECTION 1. Section 65956 of the Government Code
2 is amended to read:
3 65956. (a) If any provision of law requires the lead
4 agency or responsible agency to hold a public hearing on
5 the development project and the agency has not held
6 such hearing at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the
7 time limits established by Sections 65950 and 65952, the
8 applicant or his or her representative may file an action
9 pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure
10 to compel the agency to hold such hearing and the court
11 shall give 9tleft the proceedings preference over all other
12 civil actions or proceedings, except older matters of the
13 same character.
14 (b) In the event that a lead agency or a responsible
99 70
0
-3-AB 1486
1 agency fails to act to approve or to disapprove a
2 development project within the time limits required by
3 this article, ~ the failure to act shall be deemed
4 approval of the development project. This approval shall
5 not extend to those portions of the project for which the
6 permitting agency is required by state or local law to
7 deny approval. Further, the project shall be deemed
8 approved only if, during the period between 90 and 120
9 days prior to the expiration of the time limit, the permit
10 applicant has done all of the following:
11 (1) Provided public notice as follows:
12 ( A) To all landowners and residences of property
13 located within 300 feet of the parcel upon which the
14 development is proposed.
15 (B) By posting notice in at least three public places
16 within the boundaries of the local agency.
17 (C) By posting notice at a conspicuous place, where
18 the notice can be easily read by the public and is located
19 as close as possible to the site of the proposed
20 development.
21 (D) To the Staie Clearing House.
22 (E) By advertisement in a newspaper of general
23 circulation serving the area in which the project
24 development is proposed. The advertisement shall
25 include the location and a general description of the
26 project, and information as to how a person may obtain
27 complete information about the project.
28 (F) With the exception of the newspaper
29 advertisement required by this subdivision, the notice
30 shall include:
31 (i) A complete description of the project proposed in
32 the permit application.
33 (ii) The date upon which the time limit for permit
34 action will expire.
35 (iii) The name of the agency where the permit
36 application was filed.
31 (iv) A statement that the project will automatically
38 receive a permit if the agency does not act by the
39 expiration of the time limit.
40 (2) Filed a copy of the public notice required by this
99 90
AB 1486 -4-
1 section with the permitting agency.
2 (3) Unless already accomplished as part of the permit
3 application, filed with the permitting agency drawings
4 and maps showing all details of the pl'Oposed project,
5 including elevations and plans for any structure, signed
6 by an architect or engineer registered to practice in the
1 State of California.
8 (c) Failure of an applicant to submit complete or
9 adequate information may constitute grounds for
10 disapproving a development project.
11 ( d) Nothing in this section shall diminish the
12 permitting agency's legal resonsibility to provide, where
13 applicable, public notice and hearing before acting on a
14 permit application.
15 SEC. 2. Section 65958 is added to the Government
16 Code to read:
17 65958. Within 60 days after a development project has
18 been deemed approved pursuant to Section 65956, the
19 permitting agency shall issue a permit for the
20 development project. The permit shall not extend to
21 those portions of the project for which the permitting
22 agency is required by state or local law to deny approval,
23 although the permitting agency shall attach reasonable
24 terms and conditions to the permit if they will enable the
25 project to be brought into conformance with state or local
26 law.
27 SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the
28 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
29 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
30 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
31 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
32 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
33 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
34 claim for reimbursement does not exceed five hundred
35 thousand dollars ($500,000), reimbursement shall be
36 made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
0
99 120