SB 673, as introduced, DeSaulnier. Land use: development project review.
The Permit Streamlining Act requires the lead agency that has the principal responsibility for approving a development project, as defined, to approve or disapprove the project within 60 days from the date of adoption of a negative declaration or the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, unless the project proponent requests an extension of time.
This bill additionally would require a city, county, or city and county, including a charter city or charter city and county, prior to approving or disapproving a proposed development project that would permit the construction of a retail or other commercial facility project, as specified, to cause a cost benefit analysis to be prepared, as specified, which would be paid for by the project applicant. This bill would provide that the cost-benefit analysis would include specified assessments and projections including, among other things, an assessment of the effect that the construction and operation of the proposed development will have on the ability of the city, county, or city and county to implement the goals contained in its general plan.
By increasing duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
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.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 65957.6 is added to the Government
2Code, to read:
Prior to approving or disapproving a permit for the
4construction of a retail or other commercial facility project
5estimated to receive over $1 million in subsidies, a city, county,
6or city and county shall cause to be prepared a cost benefit analysis.
7(a) The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) may prepare
8the cost benefit analysis or contract for its preparation with a
9private entity, other than the permit applicant, or another public
10agency. The private entity or public agency shall be qualified by
11education, training, and experience to conduct cost benefit analyses.
12(b) The applicant for the development project shall pay the OPR
13or state agency, or the city, county, or city and county, for the
costs
14of preparing the cost benefit analysis.
15(c) The cost benefit analysis shall include, but is not limited to,
16all of the following:
17(1) A projection of the costs of public services and public
18facilities resulting from the construction and operation of the
19proposed development and the incidence of those costs.
20(2) A projection of the public revenues resulting from the
21construction and operation of the proposed development and the
22incidence of those revenues.
23(3) An assessment of the cost of incentives by a city, county,
24or city and county.
25(4) An assessment of the effect that the construction and
26operation of the proposed development will have on the ability of
27the city, county, or city
and county to implement the goals
28contained in its general plan, including, but not limited to, local
29policies and standards that apply to land use patterns, traffic
P3 1circulation, affordable housing, natural resources, including water
2supplies, open-space lands, noise problems, and safety risks.
3(5) An assessment of whether the development would require
4the demolition of housing or any other action or change that would
5result in a decrease or negative impact on the creation of extremely
6low, very low, low-, or moderate-income housing.
7(6) An assessment of whether the development would result in
8the destruction or demolition of park or other green space,
9playgrounds, child care facilities, or community centers.
10(7) An assessment of whether the development would result in
11any other adverse or positive economic impact or
blight.
12(8) An assessment of whether any measures are available that
13may mitigate any materially adverse economic impact identified
14by the applicant.
15(d) (1) The Legislature finds that the construction and operation
16of retail and commercial facilities has land use, environmental,
17economic, fiscal, and social equity effects that extend beyond the
18boundaries of the city, county, or city and county in which it is
19located.
20(2) The Legislature finds that it is essential for the statewide
21public health, safety, and welfare to require cities, counties, and
22cities and counties to understand the potential spillover effects of
23approving the construction and operation of these retail and
24commercial facilities.
25(3) The Legislature further finds and declares that the review
26and regulation of
retail and commercial facilities is a matter of
27statewide concern and not merely a municipal affair, as that term
28is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
29Therefore, this section shall also apply to charter cities and to
30charter cities and counties.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
32Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
33a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
34charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
35level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
3617556 of the Government Code.
O
99