SB 673, as amended, 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
4for the construction of a retail or other commercial facility project
5estimated to receive
begin delete over $1 millionend delete in subsidies, a city, county, or city and county
7shall cause to be prepared a cost benefit analysis.
14(a) The Office of Planning and Research (OPR)end delete
15 may prepare the cost
16benefit analysis or contract for its
17preparation with a private entity, other than the permit applicant,
18or another public agency. The private entity or public agency shall
19be qualified by education, training, and experience to conduct cost
22 The applicant for the development project shall pay the
begin delete OPR city, county, or city and county, for the costs
23or state agency, or theend delete
24of preparing the cost benefit analysis.
26 The cost benefit analysis shall include, but is not limited to,
27all of the following:
28(1) A projection of the costs of public services and public
29facilities resulting from the construction and operation of the
30proposed development and the incidence of those costs.
P3 1(2) A projection of the public revenues resulting from the
2construction and operation of the proposed development and the
3incidence of those revenues.
begin deleteAn assessment of the cost of incentives end deleteby a city, county, or city and county.
6(4) An assessment of the effect that the construction and
7operation of the proposed development will have on the ability of
8the city, county, or city and county to implement the goals
9contained in its general plan, including, but not limited to, local
10policies and standards that apply to land use patterns, traffic
11circulation, affordable housing, natural resources, including water
12supplies, open-space lands, noise problems, and safety risks.
25 An assessment of whether the development would require
26the demolition of housing or any other action or change that would
27result in a decrease or negative impact on the creation of extremely
28low, very low, low-, or moderate-income housing.
30 An assessment of whether the development would result in
31the destruction or demolition of park or other green space,
32playgrounds, child care facilities, or community centers.
34 An assessment of whether the development would result in
35any other adverse or positive economic impact or blight.
P4 1 An assessment
of whether any measures are available that
2may mitigate any materially adverse economic impact identified
3by the applicant.
4(d) (1) The Legislature finds that the construction and operation
5of retail and commercial facilities has land use, environmental,
6economic, fiscal, and social equity effects that extend beyond the
7boundaries of the city, county, or city and county in which it is
9(2) The Legislature finds that it is essential for the statewide
10public health, safety, and welfare to require cities, counties, and
11cities and counties to understand the potential spillover effects of
12approving the construction and operation of these retail and
14(3) The Legislature further finds and declares that the review
15and regulation of retail and commercial facilities is a matter of
16statewide concern and not merely a municipal affair, as that term
17is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
18Therefore, this section shall also apply to charter cities and to
19charter cities and counties.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
21Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
22a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
23charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
24level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
2517556 of the Government Code.