BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 673|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 673
Author: DeSaulnier (D)
Amended: 5/21/13
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 4-2, 4/24/13
AYES: Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Liu
NOES: Knight, Emmerson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Land use: development project review
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires a city or county to have a
cost-benefit analysis prepared for any retail or commercial
facility that receives $1 million or more in subsidies, as
defined. This bill also specifies 10 components that must be
included in a cost-benefit analysis.
Senate Floor Amendments of 5/21/13 add language prohibiting the
bill's provisions from being construed to create a private right
of action in any civil litigation.
ANALYSIS : Existing law bans counties and cities from
subsidizing big box retailers or vehicle dealers to relocate
within the same market area (SB 114 (Torlakson), Chapter 781,
Statutes of 2003).
CONTINUED
SB 673
Page
2
In efforts to promote dense, walkable communities, mass transit,
and greenhouse gas emission reductions, the Legislature enacted
the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375
(Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and the Global
Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 (Nuñez), Chapter 488, Statutes of
2006).
This bill requires a city, county, or city and county, including
a charter city, to have a cost benefit analysis prepared before
approving or disapproving a permit for construction of a retail
or other commercial facility project estimated to receive over
$1 million in subsidies. This bill defines "subsidy" as any
contribution made by the state or local government to a project
considered to be in the interest of the public, including tax
credits, low-interest loans, state or federal grants, land
donations or acquisitions, or remediation or environmental
cleanup activity.
The cost-benefit analysis . This bill authorizes a city, county,
or city and county to prepare the cost-benefit analysis or
contract for its preparation with a private entity, other than
the permit applicant, or a public entity. The private entity or
public agency must be qualified by education, training, and
experience to conduct cost-benefit analyses.
This bill requires the development project applicant to pay the
city, county, or city and county, for the costs of preparing or
contracting for the cost-benefit analysis.
This bill requires the cost-benefit analysis to include:
A projection of public costs, resulting from the proposed
development's construction and operation, and the incidence of
those costs;
A projection of the public revenues from the proposed
development's construction and operation, and the incidence of
those revenues;
The cost of subsidies provided by a city, county, or city and
county;
An assessment of the proposed development's construction and
CONTINUED
SB 673
Page
3
operation impact on the city, county, or city and county's
ability to implement its general plan goals;
An assessment of whether the proposed development's
construction and operation will be consistent with policies
specified for the project area's sustainable communities
strategy or alternative planning strategy.
An assessment of whether the development would require housing
demolition, or would decrease or negatively impact extremely
low, very low, low-, or moderate-income housing creation;
An assessment of whether the development would destroy or
demolish parks, green space, playgrounds, child care
facilities, or community centers;
An assessment on whether the development would create adverse
or positive economic impact or blight;
An assessment of whether the proposed development would
adversely impact a state transportation facility, and the
extent it would degrade the facility's service; and,
An assessment of any available measures to mitigate any
material adverse economic impact, as identified by the
applicant.
This bill contains three legislative findings and declarations
to support its purpose. This bill also provides that the review
and regulation of retail and commercial facilities is a matter
of statewide concern, so charter cities must comply with
requirements set forth in this bill.
This bill prohibits its provisions from being construed to
create a private right of action in any civil litigation.
Related Legislation
SB 469 (Vargas, 2011) would have required cities and counties to
have economic impact reports on permits for superstores.
Governor Brown vetoed the bill, citing local governments
existing ability to assess whether these projects are in a
community's best interests.
CONTINUED
SB 673
Page
4
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1056 (Alarcón, 2004) and SB
1523 (Alarcón, 2006), which would have required a city or
county, including a charter city, to have an economic impact
report prepared, prior to approving a superstore development.
SB 1641 (Alarcón, 2004) would have required a city or county to
contract with a private entity or public agency to prepare a
business impact report on a proposed big box retail development.
The bill died in the Senate Local Government Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/22/13)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Professional Firefighters
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/22/13)
American Council of Engineering Companies, California
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Association for Local Economic Development
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Retailers Association
Cities of: Agoura Hills, Colton, Concord, Culver City, Cypress,
Del Mar, El Centro, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Highland,
Lakewood, Norwalk, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cordova,
Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Selma, South San
Francisco, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Upland and Vista
Construction Employers' Association
International Council of Shopping Centers
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities
National Association of Industrial Office Parks of California,
Commercial Real Estate Development Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, this
bill helps communities better understand the costs and benefits
of businesses coming to their city or county by requiring an
independent cost benefit analysis on development projects that
CONTINUED
SB 673
Page
5
will receive a subsidy valued at over $1 million. The
independent analysis will be paid for by the business seeking to
come to the city or county. This bill requires the cost benefit
analysis to include: (1) an assessment on whether the
development would adversely impact a state transportation
facility, and the extent it would degrade the facility's service
and (2) an assessment of any available measures to mitigate any
material adverse economic impact, as identified by the
applicant. By providing local government decision makers with
an independent cost benefit analysis as part of the land use
planning process, this bill will ensure that cities and counties
have the information necessary to make more informed and
knowledgeable decisions.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opposition states that local
governments are currently able to make decisions regarding such
projects in a well-informed way. The analysis required by this
bill is already required under the California Environmental
Quality Act and/or can be required by the local government
approving the project. This bill will increase expenses for
local governments and make it more difficult for the private and
public sectors to work together. By adding redundant and/or
unnecessary steps for a local government to approve development
and infrastructure projects, this will add to the already
uncompetitive regulatory environment we have in California and
make it more difficult for local governments to provide livable
communities and induce much needed job creating development and
infrastructure projects.
AB:nk 5/22/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED