BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: SB 959 HEARING: 4/7/10
AUTHOR: Ducheny FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/5/10 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATIONS (URGENCY)
Background and Existing Law
The Legislature passed the Permit Streamlining Act (AB 887,
McCarthy, 1977) after the Dow Chemical Company dropped its
plans to build a $500 million plant in Solano County.
Dow's project needed 65 separate permits, but the company
quit after spending $4.5 million and getting four permits
in four years.
With few exceptions, the Act requires state agencies and
local governments to compile lists of the information that
they require from the applicants for development permits.
These lists must include the criteria for determining when
applications are complete. Once a public agency receives a
development permit application, officials have 30 days to
determine if it's complete. If the application is not
complete, the agency must explain what's missing. If the
agency fails to determine an application's completeness,
the Act declares that the application is deemed complete.
The Act sets time limits to act on development permit
applications, after environmental review.
In addition to mandating criteria and setting deadlines,
the Act also required the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to coordinate the state government's help to
applicants. OPR set up an Office of Permit Assistance in
1977 which the Legislature later institutionalized (SB 992,
Garamendi, 1983). The Legislature moved OPA to the State
Trade and Commerce Agency (AB 2351, Assembly Ways and Means
Committee, 1993). The California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA) set up regional Permit Assistance Centers
which the Legislature institutionalized in 1999 (AB 1102,
Jackson, 1999). In 2003, the Legislature repealed the
requirements for CalEPA's permit assistance centers (AB
1756, Assembly Budget Committee, 2003) and abolished the
State Technology, Trade, and Commerce Agency (AB 1756,
Assembly Budget Committee, 2003). Although the Office of
Permit Assistance no longer exists, the Permit Streamlining
SB 959 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 2
Act still requires agencies to adopt criteria and meet
statutory deadlines.
OPA issued its California Permit Handbook in 1980 and 1991
while under OPR. In 1994, while under the California Trade
and Commerce Agency, OPA issued a new edition. Although
promised, the 2000 edition never appeared. Some applicants
want the state government and local agencies to set up a
central point of contact for information and help about
development permits and applications.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 959 requires the Governor's Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to consult with the State Natural
Resources Agency and the California Environmental
Protection Agency to develop a consolidated information
form and a consolidated application form for use by
applicants for development projects. Applicants can submit
the consolidated information form to OPR which must send
copies to the state agencies that have permit
responsibilities for development projects. Each agency has
30 days to tell OPR whether or not it will require a
permit. If so, the agency must forward the permit
application forms to OPR which has 15 days to tell the
applicant which state agencies require permits. OPR must
send the applicant the appropriate permit application
forms. OPR may adopt formal regulations and charge fees to
recover these costs.
SB 959 requires OPR to develop technical assistance
guidelines for counties and cities for establishing and
operating expedited development permit processes. OPR's
guidelines must include:
A central contact point.
A referral process.
A master permit document.
A permit application tracking method.
A determination of applications' completeness.
Timetables for permit actions.
Administrative mechanisms that describe least
costly approaches.
The bill requires every city and county to set up a single
administrative entity to coordinate the review and
decisionmaking and information about the status of
SB 959 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 3
applications and permits for residential, commercial, and
industrial developments. If the applicant asks, this
administrative entity may coordinate the review and
decisionmaking process with special districts and other
local administrative entities.
Comments
1. California means business . State departments, regional
agencies, and local officials aren't shy about using their
authority to regulate private development proposals. The
result, applicants say, is a regulatory process that's
complex, time consuming, frustrating, and costly. Faced
with similar criticisms in the late 1970s, the Legislature
required transparent permit processing, imposed deadlines,
and set up an Office of Permit Assistance. Although the
processes and deadlines remain on the books, the
Legislature did away with the unit that used to help
applicants find their way through the regulatory labyrinth.
SB 959 reestablishes a single point of contact within
state government for information and assistance with
development permits.
2. What's the problem ? Overlapping government agencies
with multiple permits restrict entrepreneurial creativity
and job creation. Applicants don't need a new map to help
them find the maze's path as much as they need pruning
shears to cut through the regulatory hedges that limit
economic progress. Air and water quality regulations,
energy standards, and land use controls are important, but
too many permits can hold back investment in California's
future. Instead of spending state funds to help builders
and other applicants sort out the regulatory puzzle,
legislators should instead reduce the number and complexity
of state and local permits.
3. Location, location, location . Like SB 959, the 1977
McCarthy bill and the 1983 Garamendi bill assigned the
permit assistance function to the Governor's Office. As
one commentator noted, "As an arm of the Governor's office,
OPA can bring considerable pressure on state agencies."
Moving OPA from OPR to the State Trade and Commerce Agency
in 1993 diluted the function's influence and probably led
to its demise in 2003. Many state departments have
regulatory roles --- some are within the California Natural
SB 959 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 4
Resources Agency, some are within the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency, and some are within the
California Environmental Protection Agency. If legislators
are serious about getting results, they need to make sure
that the state office that coordinates information and
provides permit assistance can speak with authority to all
state agencies and departments. That function belongs in
the Office of the Governor.
4. Now you see it. Now you don't ? In June 2009, Governor
Schwarzenegger called OPR "a total waste," adding that "The
Office of Planning and Research ought to be about planning
and research to come up with great policy answers, which
this office doesn't do." The Governor's 2010-11 Budget
calls for OPR's elimination, reassigning some of its
functions to other state entities. However, the
Administration has yet to say what should become of OPR's
land use and technical assistance duties. SB 959 recreates
OPR's permit assistance function, but by 2011 there may not
be an OPR to accept that duty.
5. Avoid redundancy . SB 959 requires OPR and state
agencies to come up with both a consolidated project
information form and a consolidated project application
form. The bill sets new deadlines for state agencies to
review permit applications and tell OPR about the
requirements for their permits. The existing Permit
Streamlining Act, however, already requires state and local
agencies to create and update lists of their permit
requirements and criteria (Government Code 65940, 65941,
& 65942). The existing Act already imposes a 30-day time
limit on state and local officials to review permit
applications and explain what's missing (65943). Further,
public officials must tell applicants about these time
limits (65941.5). The Committee may wish to consider
whether existing law already requires the actions called
for in SB 959. The Committee may wish to consider
amendments that delete the proposed Section 65946.
6. Drafting improvements . SB 959 proposes to add two new
sections to the Government Code which are nearly identical
to the language enacted in 1983, but repealed in 2003. The
Committee may wish to consider technical amendments that
restore this language to their original statutory
locations. In other words, the proposed 65947 should be
65922.3, and the proposed 65948 should be 65913.3.
SB 959 -- 4/5/10 -- Page 5
Support and Opposition (4/1/10)
Support : California Apartment Association.
Opposition : American Planning Association-California
Chapter, California State Association of Counties, League
of California Cities, County of Madera.