BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 469
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 25, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 469 (Vargas) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires a city or county to prepare an economic
impact report before it approves or disapproves the construction
or conversion of superstore retailers. Specifically, this bill:
1)Establishes the required contents and scope of the economic
impact report.
2)Authorizes a city or county to prepare the economic impact
report themselves or contract with a private entity, other
than the permit applicant, or with another public agency for
the preparation of the report and requires the applicant for
the development project to pay for the costs of preparing the
economic impact report.
3)Requires city and county governing bodies to provide the
opportunity for public comment on the economic impact reports
and their findings at regularly scheduled meetings at least 30
days before a decision or action.
4)Add the requirement for approval of an economic impact report
to the required timelines that govern the actions of a lead
agency, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
so that a lead agency must to approve or disapprove a project
within 180 days from the certification of an environmental
impact report and approval of an economic impact report,
within 60 days from the adoption of a negative declaration and
approval of an economic impact report, or within 60 days from
the determination by the lead agency that the project is
exempt from CEQA and approval of an economic impact report.
SB 469
Page 2
5)Makes findings and declarations that the measure applies to
charter cities and charter counties because the effects of
superstore retailers are a matter of statewide concern that
extend beyond local boundaries.
FISCAL EFFECT
By requiring cities and counties to prepare economic impact
reports on superstore projects, SB 469 creates a new state
mandate. The bill disclaims the state's responsibility for
reimbursing local government, citing local officials' ability to
charge processing fees that will offset their costs. If the
local charges for the new economic impact reports don't exceed
the reasonable costs of preparing and using those reports, those
charges will be permissible local fees that can be adopted
without a vote of the electorate.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, this measure "offers the
public and local policymakers an opportunity to learn about
the potential impacts of a superstore on other retail options
in the area, as well as effects on housing, parks, traffic and
jobs. The heart of the concept stems from proactive
recommendations by a superstore company's (Wal-Mart)
representative as a compromise to an ordinance in Los Angeles
between an outright ban and no thoughtful oversight." The
author states that the "goal of this bill is to create
financial accountability and the transparency that local
communities need to make land use decisions about the impact
giant supercenters have on existing businesses, jobs, public
services and neighborhoods.
2)Background . At the core of the debate over superstores,
indeed retail in general, is the issue of fiscalization of
land use. Uses that generate sales tax for local governments
have become more important over the years as the state and
federal government cut financial support for local agencies.
As a result, cities and counties compete to attract land uses
that generate local revenues and shun land uses that need
expensive public services. This fiscalization of land use
distorts local land use decisions by emphasizing sales tax
revenues while discounting traffic problems, air quality, open
SB 469
Page 3
space, and affordable housing.
3)Background-CEQA . CEQA requires lead agencies with the
principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative
declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact
report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt
from CEQA. SB 469 creates an economic impact report, not
entirely dissimilar to the environmental impact report
required by CEQA, which local governments may be required to
prepare before approving or disapproving a development project
that includes a superstore retailer. Unlike CEQA, this bill
creates no requirement that a local government base or
condition its decision to approve or disapprove the project on
the results of the economic impact report. Almost no one
disputes the wisdom of knowing about a project's environmental
effects before local officials make a decision, but many
builders and developers complain about CEQA and EIRs. They
say that opponents who can't convince public officials to deny
projects turn around and file lawsuits over CEQA and these
attacks slow down development and result in higher costs.
4)Local government response . At least a half-dozen cities and
one county already use their land use authority to require
specialized economic impact reports before they act on
superstore permits. Some communities have general plan
policies and land use ordinances that ban big box developments
or impose regulatory and design standards that make them
infeasible. Many cities and counties require urban decay
analyses in the EIRs they prepare for superstore projects
which look at the impacts on existing development.
5)Support. Supporters, including the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, state that "SB 469
does not limit local control; it empowers local governments to
make the best decisions for their own constituents?.There is
no down side to increased information and well-informed
decision making." According to the United Domestic Workers of
America AFSCME Local 3930/AFL-CIO "Studies have shown
superstores to have devastating impacts on small businesses,
neighborhood grocery stores, tax revenues, property values,
traffic, local wages and jobs."
6)Opposition. Opponents, including the California Chamber of
Commerce, argue that "SB 469 takes away the power of a
SB 469
Page 4
community to build itself and is a heavy handed mandate on
local government." Opponents also believe that the bill
creates another layer of bureaucracy to local governments
making it more difficult to bring new jobs. According to the
League of California Cities, "Cities are neither pro nor
anti-big box retail, but each of the State's 481 diverse
cities must maintain the ability to make decisions which best
fit their community. By singling out a specific type of large
retailer, SB 469 fundamentally undermines local land use
discretion and authority."
7) Previous legislation . SB 1641 (Alarc�n, 2004) died in the
Senate Local Government Committee. Governor Schwarzenegger
vetoed SB 1056 (Alarc�n, 2004) and SB 1523 (Alarc�n, 2006),
both of which would have required a city, county, or city and
county to prepare an economic impact report prior to approving
or disapproving a proposed superstore retailer project.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081