Beverly Hills Liaisons Oppose Prop. 45 Over Review Limits

Beverly Hills' legislative liaisons recommended opposing Proposition 45 on October 6, citing concerns that tighter development review deadlines would put additional pressure on planning staff and limit the time available to examine projects.

Councilmembers Friedman and Pynoos reached the same position during the City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee meeting. Their recommendation was for consideration by the full City Council under the process described in the meeting packet.

The statewide ballot measure would create an optional review process for qualifying projects, including housing, water systems, health facilities, public safety facilities, schools and certain transportation projects. It would change procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA, as well as permitting and court review.

According to the official voter guide's Legislative Analyst analysis, the proposal would establish more binding deadlines for agencies, allow applicants to develop a single project alternative and limit how long agencies could accept public comments. Eligible applicants could choose the new procedures or use existing ones.

At the meeting, Community Development Project Manager Edgar Arroyo said his preliminary review indicated the measure would preserve the city's ability to review projects while requiring faster processing of certain applications. He identified staffing and compliance with review deadlines as practical concerns.

Friedman questioned how much further review periods could be compressed before other planning work faced delays. He expressed concern that the department's limited time would force difficult choices between reviewing qualifying projects and handling other applications.

Pynoos raised concerns about further restrictions on local control, the reasonableness of the proposed timelines and whether staffing changes would be needed. She recommended opposition, followed by Friedman.

Arroyo also described scheduling problems that already arise under state housing requirements. He said housing applications receive priority in planning agendas and that, in some cases, required action deadlines do not align with scheduled Planning Commission meetings.

In those situations, he explained, staff request additional time from applicants so a hearing can take place. He cited the AB 130 process and the timing of action following consultation as an example of the mismatch between statutory deadlines and available meeting dates.

The city's staff memorandum raised a broader concern about the accumulated effect of project exemptions and separate review procedures. Staff said another set of deadlines and limitations would make environmental review more complicated to administer and leave the city less time to comment on certain outside agencies' utility projects affecting local infrastructure.

The measure would not remove all project review authority. The Legislative Analyst describes changes to the review process and deadlines, including a 365-business-day limit for completing an environmental impact report. Its analysis also identifies possible longer-term benefits from faster construction, alongside possible costs from adverse environmental impacts.

The committee's opposition recommendation reflected concern about how those procedures would work locally. The meeting packet calls for staff to bring recommended ballot positions to a future City Council agenda for concurrence.