California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1084 — Local planning: development projects: fees.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 507, Statutes of 2009.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 27, 2009. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law extends by 24 months the expiration date of any tentative or vesting tentative subdivision map or parcel map, as the case may be, for which a tentative or vesting tentative map has been approved that had not expired as of July 15, 2009, and that will expire before January 1, 2012. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring as a condition to the issuance of any building permit or equivalent permit for single- or multiple-family residential units conformance with or the performance of any conditions that the city, county, or city and county could have lawfully imposed as a condition to the previously approved tentative or parcel map for a period of 3 years following recordation of the final map or parcel map for the subdivision. This bill would maintain this provision but recast it within the Government Code. (2) Notwithstanding the above provision, existing law provides that a city, county, or city and county is not prohibited from levying a fee or imposing a condition that requires the payment of a fee upon the issuance of a building permit or after the issuance. This bill would delete this provision and instead provide that, for purposes only of a tentative subdivision map or parcel map that is extended by 24 months pursuant to a specified law, a city, county, or city and county is not prohibited from levying a fee or imposing a condition that requires the payment of a fee, including an adopted fee that is not included within an applicable zoning ordinance, upon the issuance of a building permit. (3) The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency to hold a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting prior to adopting an ordinance, resolution, or other legislative enactment adopting a specified type of new fee or approving an increase in a specified type of existing fee. The act also requires the local agency to publish, in accordance with a specified provision of law, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered. The act provides that any cost incurred by a local agency in conducting the hearing may be recovered as part of the fees which were the subject of the hearing. This bill would additionally require a city, county, or city and county to mail notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a statement that specified data is available, at least 14 days prior to the first meeting to any interested party who has filed a written request with the city, county, or city and county for mailed notice of a meeting on a new or increased fee to be enacted by the city, county, or city and county. The bill would authorize the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county to establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. The bill would also authorize the legislative body to send the notices electronically. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the public facilities and the revenue sources anticipated to fund those public facilities, including general fund revenues. The bill would also require any new or increased fee adopted by a city, county, or city and county to be effective no earlier than 60 days following the final action on the adoption or increase of the fee, unless the city, county, or city and county follows specified procedures. By adding to the duties of cities, counties, and cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county that receives a request for mailed notice pursuant to the above provision, or a local agency that receives a request for mailed notice pursuant to another specified provision, to provide notice via electronic mail for those who specifically request electronic mail notification. The bill would specify that this electronic mail notification operates as an alternative to the mailed notice required by the above provisions. (4) Existing law authorizes any person to request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product or service provided by the local agency. If a person makes that request, the legislative body of the local agency is authorized to retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit to determine whether the fee or charge is reasonable. The local agency is authorized to recover the cost of having the audit conducted by an independent auditor from the person who requests the audit, and the audit is required to conform to generally accepted auditing standards. This bill would additionally authorize any person to request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any public facility, as defined, provided by the local agency. The bill would also require the local agency to retain an independent auditor only if the person requesting the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the agency's reasonable estimation of the cost of the audit. The bill would require the local agency to adjust the amount of any fee or charge to the extent it determines that the fee or charge does not meet specified requirements. By adding to the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) 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. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 507, Statutes of 2009.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 3162.)

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 3152.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 10 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 2164.)

  8. Read second time. To third reading.

  9. Read third time, amended. To second reading.

  10. Read second time. To third reading.

  11. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  12. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  13. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 17).

  15. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  16. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  17. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  18. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1630.)

  19. Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

  20. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 13).

  21. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 29).

  22. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  23. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  24. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  25. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  26. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  27. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  28. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  29. Read first time.

  30. From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.

  31. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Adams · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Adams

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 89 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 83002
Democratic 3000
Republican 3000
Total 89002
% of votes cast 98%0%0%2%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Charles — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Davis — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
Furutani — Not Voting
Duvall — Not Voting
Logue — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Bass — Yea
Nava — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Villines — Yea
Adams — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Knight — Yea
Ma — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Silva — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Tran — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34004
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 37004
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (41)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Hollingsworth — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Leno — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Liu — Yea
Maldonado — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Ashburn — Yea
Benoit — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wiggins — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Cogdill — Not Voting
Correa — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 89 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 81003
Democratic 5000
Republican 3000
Total 89003
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Bill — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Evans — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Charles — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Gaines — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Duvall — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Price — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Audra — Yea
Saldana — Not Voting
Fuentes — Not Voting
Nava — Not Voting
Bass — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Villines — Yea
Adams — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Tran — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Eng — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 21 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 19000
Democratic 1000
Republican 1000
Total 21000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (21)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Charles — Yea
Harkey — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Audra — Yea
Duvall — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Miller — Yea
Price — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1084 do?
(1) Existing law extends by 24 months the expiration date of any tentative or vesting tentative subdivision map or parcel map, as the case may be, for which a tentative or vesting tentative map has been approved that had not expired as of July 15, 2009, and that will expire before January 1, 2012. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring as a condition to the issuance of any building permit or equivalent permit for single- or multiple-family residential units conformance with or the performance of any conditions that the city, county, or city and county could have lawfully imposed as a condition to the previously approved tentative or parcel map for a period of 3 years following recordation of the final map or parcel map for the subdivision. This bill would maintain this provision but recast it within the Government Code. (2) Notwithstanding the above provision, existing law provides that a city, county, or city and county is not prohibited from levying a fee or imposing a condition that requires the payment of a fee upon the issuance of a building permit or after the issuance. This bill would delete this provision and instead provide that, for purposes only of a tentative subdivision map or parcel map that is extended by 24 months pursuant to a specified law, a city, county, or city and county is not prohibited from levying a fee or imposing a condition that requires the payment of a fee, including an adopted fee that is not included within an applicable zoning ordinance, upon the issuance of a building permit. (3) The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency to hold a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting prior to adopting an ordinance, resolution, or other legislative enactment adopting a specified type of new fee or approving an increase in a specified type of existing fee. The act also requires the local agency to publish, in accordance with a specified provision of law, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered. The act provides that any cost incurred by a local agency in conducting the hearing may be recovered as part of the fees which were the subject of the hearing. This bill would additionally require a city, county, or city and county to mail notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a statement that specified data is available, at least 14 days prior to the first meeting to any interested party who has filed a written request with the city, county, or city and county for mailed notice of a meeting on a new or increased fee to be enacted by the city, county, or city and county. The bill would authorize the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county to establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. The bill would also authorize the legislative body to send the notices electronically. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the public facilities and the revenue sources anticipated to fund those public facilities, including general fund revenues. The bill would also require any new or increased fee adopted by a city, county, or city and county to be effective no earlier than 60 days following the final action on the adoption or increase of the fee, unless the city, county, or city and county follows specified procedures. By adding to the duties of cities, counties, and cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county that receives a request for mailed notice pursuant to the above provision, or a local agency that receives a request for mailed notice pursuant to another specified provision, to provide notice via electronic mail for those who specifically request electronic mail notification. The bill would specify that this electronic mail notification operates as an alternative to the mailed notice required by the above provisions. (4) Existing law authorizes any person to request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any product or service provided by the local agency. If a person makes that request, the legislative body of the local agency is authorized to retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit to determine whether the fee or charge is reasonable. The local agency is authorized to recover the cost of having the audit conducted by an independent auditor from the person who requests the audit, and the audit is required to conform to generally accepted auditing standards. This bill would additionally authorize any person to request an audit to determine whether any fee or charge levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of any public facility, as defined, provided by the local agency. The bill would also require the local agency to retain an independent auditor only if the person requesting the audit deposits with the local agency the amount of the agency's reasonable estimation of the cost of the audit. The bill would require the local agency to adjust the amount of any fee or charge to the extent it determines that the fee or charge does not meet specified requirements. By adding to the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) 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. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 1084?
AB 1084 is sponsored by Adams.
What is the current status of AB 1084?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 27, 2009. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1084?
Track AB 1084 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1084

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 1084

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →