Amended in Senate May 21, 2013

Amended in Senate April 15, 2013

Senate BillNo. 673


Introduced by Senator DeSaulnier

February 22, 2013


An act to add Section 65957.6 to the Government Code, relating to land use.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

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.

begin insert

This bill would specify that it would not be construed to create a private right of action in any civil litigation.

end insert

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:

P2    1

SECTION 1.  

Section 65957.6 is added to the Government
2Code
, to read:

3

65957.6.  

(a) (1) Prior to approving or disapproving a permit
4for the construction of a retail or other commercial facility project
5estimated to receive one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more in
6subsidies, a city, county, or city and county shall cause to be
7prepared a cost benefit analysis.

8(2) For purposes of this section, “subsidy” means any
9contribution made by the state or local government to a project
10considered to be in the interest of the public, including, but not
11limited to, tax credits, low-interest loans, state or federal grants,
12land donations or acquisitions, or remediation or environmental
13cleanup activity.

14(b) A city, county, or city and county may prepare the cost
15benefit analysis required by this section, or contract for its
16preparation with a private entity, other than the permit applicant,
17or another public agency. The private entity or public agency shall
18be qualified by education, training, and experience to conduct cost
19benefit analyses.

20(c) The applicant for the development project shall pay the city,
21county, or city and county, for the costs of preparing or contracting
22for the cost benefit analysis.

23(d) The cost benefit analysis shall include, but is not limited to,
24all of the following:

P3    1(1) A projection of the costs of public services and public
2facilities resulting from the construction and operation of the
3proposed development and the incidence of those costs.

4(2) A projection of the public revenues resulting from the
5construction and operation of the proposed development and the
6incidence of those revenues.

7(3) The cost of subsidies provided by a city, county, or city and
8county.

9(4) An assessment of the effect that the construction and
10operation of the proposed development will have on the ability of
11the city, county, or city and county to implement the goals
12contained in its general plan, including, but not limited to, local
13policies and standards that apply to land use patterns, traffic
14circulation, affordable housing, natural resources, including water
15supplies, open-space lands, noise problems, and safety risks.

16(5) An assessment of whether the effect of the construction and
17operation of the proposed development will be consistent with the
18general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable
19policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable
20communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which
21the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to Chapter 2.5
22(commencing with Section 65080), has accepted a metropolitan
23planning organization’s determination that the sustainable
24communities strategy or alternative planning strategy, if
25implemented, would achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction
26targets.

27(6) An assessment of whether the development would require
28the demolition of housing or any other action or change that would
29result in a decrease or negative impact on the creation of extremely
30low, very low, low-, or moderate-income housing.

31(7) An assessment of whether the development would result in
32the destruction or demolition of park or other green space,
33playgrounds, child care facilities, or community centers.

34(8) An assessment of whether the development would result in
35any other adverse or positive economic impact or blight.

36(9) An assessment of whether the proposed development would
37adversely impact a state transportation facility, including to what
38extent it would degrade services of that facility.

P4    1(10) 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
8located.

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
13commercial facilities.

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.

begin insert

20(e) This section shall not be construed to create a private right
21of action in any civil litigation.

end insert
22

SEC. 2.  

 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
23Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
24a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
25charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
26level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
2717556 of the Government Code.



O

    97