Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07281998 - C45 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSC}Sta FROM: TRANSPORTATION QCounty COMMITTEE DATE: July 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Adopt Oppose Position on AB 2621 (Cardoza): "Least Burdensome Alternative Standard" for Development Conditions, and authorize Chair, Beard of Supervisors,to send oppose letter to the author of the legislation SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt an oppose position on Assembly Bill 2621 (Cardoza)which would require that public agencies select the "least burdensome alternative"for an applicant when imposing and obligation, condition, or exaction as a condition of a permit, approval, or entitlement and authorize Chair, Board of Supervisors to send oppose letter to the author of the legislation. FISCAL IMPACT' If enacted, AB 2621 could have a negative fiscal impact because it would make it more difficult to secure project mitigations and both monetary and non-monetary developer contributions or dedications toward adequate public facilities and infrastructure. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AB 2621 (Cardoza) seeks to establish a new standard when public agencies;impose conditions, obligations, or exactions as a condition of a permit, approval, or entitlement. As recently amended, Assembly 2621 would require that public agencies select the "least burdensome alternative"for an applicant when imposing an obligation, condition, or exaction as a condition of la permit, approval, entitlement, or benefit under the Subdivision Map Act, Planning and Zoning Law, and California Environmental Quality Act. Assembly Bill 2621 defines "least burdensomealternative" as the condition that is least costly to the applicant or most consistent with the applicant's development objectives. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ CX RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER . N �Don SIGNATURES : s - anciamilla, Chair erber ACTION OF BOARD ONAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED � i VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ►/UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD-TPD (510/335-1242) ATTESTED cc: CA State Leg. Delegation for CoCo Co. PHIL AT LOR, CLERK OF D.J. Smith, Smith & Kempton THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Les Spahn,Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahn COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Assemblyman Cardoza BY EPUTY TC/PR:h:proch/legislation/ab2621 Adopt Oppose Position on AS 2821 (Cardoza) July 28, 1 998 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) If enacted,AB 2621 would go well beyond the"rough proportionality"test for development exactions, as established under recent Federal and State Supreme Court decisions (Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich), and the "reasonable relationship„ test for development fees provided under California's Mitigation Fee Act. Until amended in the Senate during the month of June, AB 2621 would have directed the state Department of Conservation to complete soil surveys needed to map productive farmlands. The June amendments gutted the bill and inserted language that had been in the author's AB 2488, which was referred(but never heard by)the Assembly Local Government Committee. It is noted that earlier this year the Board of Supervisors adopted an oppose position on AB 2488 (Cardoza). The recently amended version of AB 2621 has remained in the Senate Committee on Local Government for further hearings due to strong opposition from groups, such as the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and California League of Cities. Although AB 2621 is effectively on hold for this legislative year, the Senate Committee on Local Government has indicated that a hearing(s)on this bill will be scheduled sometime during the remaining period of this session so that all interested parties may air their concerns about this legislation. The Transportation Committee recommends the Beard of Supervisors adopt an oppose position and authorize the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to send an oppose letter to the author of AB 2621 (see attached draft letter, marked as Exhibit"A"). Copies of the opposition letter would be sent to the Chair, Senate Committee on Local Government and to members of Contra Costa's state legislative delegation. __._..... ......... . .._...._ _..._.... ....... . _ ..... ......... ......... ....... ........ ..._..... ......... ............_....... _.. ..__..... _. The Board of Supervisors Contra F%11 OWN" and County Adtnlnisfttlon BulldtngCosta �,tY Adarir*refar 651 Pine Stnot,Room 106 (510)3361-19W Martinez,California 94553.1293 County Jae Rovere,1st Didrid ftv%a.U""W 2nd 0401a Donne lolm 3rd DirttW Not Dam~,4th[)fluid Joe Dtr+walrrx+ille,5th Di�ict °" "::° July 28, 1998 Honorable Dennis Cardoza 26th Assembly District California State Assembly P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 Subject: Opposition to Assembly Bill 2621 Dear Assemblyman Cardoza: I am writing on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to add our voices to the numerous public agencies who have come out in opposition to Assembly Bill 2621. As recently amended,Assembly Bill 2621 would require that public agencies select the"least burdensome alternative" for an applicant when imposing an obligation, condition, or exaction as a condition of a permit,approval, entitlement, or benefit under the Subdivision Map Act, Planning and Zoning Law,and California Environmental Quality Act. Assembly Bull 2621 defines"least burdensome alternative" as the condition that is least costly to the applicant or most consistent with the applicant's objectives. We are opposed to this bill because it would set a new standard for public agencies that goes well beyond the"rough proportionality"test for development exactions, as established under recent Federal and State Supreme Court decisions(Nollan,Dolan,and Ehrlich), and the"reasonable relationship"test for development fees provided under California's Mitigation';Fee Act. Assembly Bill 2621 appears to be a solution in search of a problem. What problem is Assembly Bill 2621 attempting to solve? Numerous decisions and statutes have clearly set out the standards that public agencies must follow when imposing conditions, exactions,or fees on developers. It seems to us that Assembly Bili 2621 is really an attempt to reverse 50 years of court decisions and statutes that have set the rules for the bargaining relationship between California public agencies and developers in placing conditions,exactions, and fees on private development. Phu The Board of Supervisors Centra Em"T" CW*of M ftwd d cwnty AC#7tiY4L-&atlon ElwWlty Costa �(5 0)335-19W 651 Pine Street,RooC[! 106 CountyMartinez,California 94553-1293 &M ft"M,ist ftbi t Gaylo 8.UM MM,2nd District Donut OwbMr,3rd District f ,, i Mak Drf$sutnisr,4th DWrict Joe CMnciatttttts,Stn District rr'cburtr' July 28, 1998 Honorable Dennis Cardoza 26th Assembly District California State Assembly P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 Subject: Opposition to Assembly Bill 2621 Dear Assemblyman Cardoza: 1 am writing on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to add our voices to the numerous public agencies who have come out in opposition to Assembly Bill 2621. As recently amended, Assembly Bill 2621 would require that public agencies select the"least burdensome alternative" for an applicant when imposing an obligation, condition, or exaction as a condition of a permit, approval, entitlement,or benefit under the Subdivision Map Act, Planning and Zoning Law, and California Environmental Quality Act. Assembly Bill 2621 defines "least burdensome alternative"as the condition that is least costly to the applicant or most consistent with the applicant's objectives. We are opposed to this bill because it would set a new standard for public agencies that goes well beyond the "rough proportionality"test for development exactions, as established under recent Federal and State Supreme Court decisions(Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich),and the"reasonable relationship" test for development fees provided under California's Mitigation Fee Act. Assembly Bill 2621 appears to be a solution in search of problem. What problem is Assembly Bill 2621 attempting to solve? Numerous decisions and statutes have clearly set out the standards that public agencies must follow when imposing conditions,exactions,or fees on developers. It seems to us that Assembly Bill 2621 is really an attempt to reverse 50 years of court decisions and statutes that have set the rules for the bargaining relationship between California public agencies and developers in placing conditions,exactions,and fees on private development. _. _._.... ......... ...._.__.._.. ..._. ......... . . ......... .. ........ ....... ........ .......... Ltr. to Assemblyman Cardoza 7128/98 Page Two The public interest Would not be well served by applying the"least burdensome alternative" standard, as proposed in Assembly Bill 2621, to secure developer contributions or dedications (both monetary and non-monetary) for public facilities and infrastructure and specific project mitigation measures as a condition for project approval. We ask that you reconsider this piece of legislation because it will upset fifty years of established procedures under California's local planning and development process. Sincerely yours, Jim Rogers, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc: Chair,Senate Committee on Local Government Contra Costa Co. State Legislative Delegation CSAC D.J. Smith,Smith& Kempton Les Spahn, Heim,Noack,Kelly,&Spahn bc: C.Van Marter,CAO D.Barry,Comm.Dev.Dept. M.Watford,Public Works Dept.