BILL ANALYSIS
SB 959
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 959
AUTHOR: Ducheny
AMENDED: April 13, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 19, 2010
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : PERMIT ASSISTANCE
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), sets time limits
relating to determining the completeness of applications
and reaching decisions on development projects. A lead
agency for a development project must approve or disapprove
a project within specified time periods (for example, 180
days from the date the lead agency certifies an EIR (except
90 days for a very low or low income housing project under
certain conditions), 60 days from the date of adopting a
negative declaration or determining that a project is
exempt from CEQA). (Government Code 65920 et seq.).
2) Requires each state agency to consolidate its existing
staff functions relating to contract opportunities for
small business into a single point of contact for small
businesses and designate a small business advocate as a
liaison to small business suppliers (14846), and creates
the Office of Small Business Advocate within the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) with various responsibilities.
(65054 et seq.).
3) Under the Environmental Protection Permit Reform Act of
1993, requires the Secretary for Environmental Protection
to establish an administrative process that may be used at
the request of a permit applicant for the designation of a
consolidated permit agency to administer the processing and
issuance of a consolidated permit for certain projects.
(Public Resources Code 71000 et seq.).
SB 959
Page 2
4) Requires the Secretary for Environmental Protection to
establish an electronic online permit assistance center
through the Internet that must be available for use by any
business or other entity subject to a law or regulation by
a board, department, or office within the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA). The program
must be called the California Government On Line to
Desktops (CALGOLD) program and must provide software and
other online resources to streamline and expedite
compliance with laws and regulations implemented by
entities within Cal-EPA. The CALGOLD program must, to the
extent feasible, incorporate permit assistance activities
of local, state, and federal entities into its operations.
(71040).
This bill :
1) Requires OPR to develop guidelines to provide technical
assistance to counties and cities in establishing and
operating an expedited permit process, recognizing certain
local factors. The guidelines must include, but not be
limited to:
a) A central contact point with a public agency where
applications can be filed and permit requirement
information can be obtained.
b) A referral process that provides for certain elements
(e.g., refers applicant to appropriate functional area
for resolution of problems, assigns an individual from
the local government to be responsible for guiding the
application through all local permit bodies).
c) A master permit document covering permits for all
functional areas that could be used for obtaining
approvals.
d) A method of tracking progress on various permit
applications.
e) A determination as to the completeness of the master
permit document.
f) Timetables for action on individual permits.
SB 959
Page 3
g) A variety of administrative mechanisms that will
describe the least costly approaches for implementation
in a variety of local circumstances.
2) Requires every city or county to provide for coordination
of review and decisionmaking and information regarding the
status of all applications and permits by a single
administrative entity. A city or county may adopt
procedures for implementing these requirements. At the
request of the applicant, the administrative entity may
coordinate the review and decisionmaking process with
affected special districts to provide concurrent processing
within those jurisdictions.
3) Contains an urgency clause.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "any applicant
for a new development project must submit multiple
applications and permit requests to multiple agencies as
well as county and city entities before beginning a new
development project. After submission, the applicant must
wait for each agency and entity to review and approve the
applications and permits and often this can take a
significant amount of time."
The author also notes that SB 959 "would attempt to streamline
and expedite the current application and permitting process
for new development projects."
2) State permit assistance efforts . AB 884 (McCarthy) Chapter
1200, Statutes of 1977, established Permit Streamlining Act
requirements, and required OPR to ensure that state
agencies comply with the act. SB 992 (Garamendi) Chapter
1263, Statutes of 1983, created the Office of Permit
Assistance (OPA) within OPR and delegated various permit
assistance responsibilities (e.g., providing information to
developers on local and state permits, mediating disputes
involving local and state permits) to OPA.
The Assembly Local Government Committee and Assembly Natural
Resources Committee held a joint hearing regarding state
SB 959
Page 4
permit streamlining activities on March 16, 1992, due to
concerns that other state agencies were also involved in
permit assistance activities. For example, the California
Department of Commerce (which later became an agency)
established an "Environmental Assistance Team" and a Small
Business Development Center Program was established in the
Office of Small Business. Cal-EPA was also meeting with
various groups in an effort to streamline permits in the
state.
AB 2351 (Committee on Ways and Means) Chapter 56, Statutes of
1993, created the Department of Permit Assistance within
the Trade and Commerce Agency, which replaced OPA and
assumed OPA's functions and duties.
AB 1102 (Jackson) Chapter 65, Statutes of 1999, required the
Secretary for Environmental Protection to establish permit
assistance centers throughout the state to provide
assistance in complying with Cal-EPA laws and regulations.
AB 1102 also created the CALGOLD program and required the
Secretary to annually report to the Legislature on various
permit assistance matters.
AB 1756 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 228, Statutes of 2003,
repealed requirements for the permit assistance centers and
the annual reporting requirements, while retaining the
CALGOLD program. AB 1757 (Committee on Budget) Chapter
229, Statutes of 2003, abolished the Technology, Trade, and
Commerce Agency, transferred certain agency duties to other
state agencies, and repealed permit assistance
responsibilities.
3) Background on SB 959 provisions . AB 2320 (McCarthy)
Chapter 1152, Statutes of 1980, added Government Code
65913.3 in a manner that is similar to 65913 in SB 959
relating to a local single administrative entity for
permits, except that AB 2320 required the process to be
established by January 1, 1983, at the request of a
developer, applied only to residential developments,
prohibited the requirement from requiring delegation of
development review functions performed by the legislative
body pursuant to any other provision of law, and provided
fee authority to cities and counties to review applications
by the single administrative entity. AB 941 (McCarthy)
SB 959
Page 5
Chapter 846, Statutes of 1981, repealed the condition that
this provision be at the request of a developer, provided
that the requirement is for coordination of review and
decisionmaking (and repealed the legislative body
delegation provision), and authorized implementation of the
requirements by resolution or ordinance. AB 992
(Garamendi) Chapter 1263, Statutes of 1983, which created
OPA, also amended 65913.3, by repealing the January 1,
1983, deadline and applying the requirement to commercial
and industrial developments. AB 2270 (Ferguson) Chapter
1430, Statutes of 1987, authorized the administrative
entity to coordinate the review and decisionmaking process
with affected special districts to provide concurrent
processing with those jurisdictions, required OPA to
evaluate the extent to which this requirement resulted in
an expedited development permit process, and sunset this
special district provision January 1, 1991.
AB 1151 (Roos) Chapter 1207, Statutes of 1979, added
provisions that are similar to those of 65922.3 in SB 959
relating to guidelines, except AB 1151 was subject to the
availability of appropriated funds and provided that the
guidelines must be advisory and cannot constitute a mandate
on cities and counties to take any of the actions. AB 1151
also required OPR to provide grants to cities and counties
to establish an expedited permit process, subject to
appropriated funds, and required a city or county receiving
such a grant to enact an expedited process within 10
months. (former 65050, 65051.1, and 65051.2). Permit
assistance provisions were recodified in AB 992 (Garamendi)
Chapter 1263, Statutes of 1983, as 65922.3, 65922.5, and
65922.7. AB 558 (Cortese) Chapter 1599, Statutes of 1985,
clarified that OPA must prepare the guidelines. (former
65040.9).
As noted above, AB 2351 (Committee on Ways and Means) Chapter
56, Statutes of 1993, created the Department of Permit
Assistance within the Trade and Commerce Agency, which
replaced OPA and assumed OPA's functions and duties (with
65913 recodified as 15399.51, and 65922.3, 65922.5, and
65922.7 recodified as 15399.50, 15399.52. and 15399.53).
AB 1788 (Brewer) Chapter 717, Statutes of 1995 clarified
15399.50 and 15399.53. All of the above provisions were
subsequently repealed by AB 1756 (Committee on Budget)
SB 959
Page 6
Chapter 228, Statutes of 2003, when the Technology, Trade,
and Commerce Agency was abolished.
4) Technical issues . Clarification is needed to: a) provide
local government fee authority to implement the single
administrative entity requirements, and b) clarify that the
OPR guidelines are advisory and cannot constitute a mandate
upon cities and counties. These amendments would also be
consistent with similar provisions previously in state law
as described above.
5) OPR and permit assistance . Due to concerns over the need
for permit assistance relating to local and state permits,
mediating disputes, and related matters, the Legislature
enacted AB 884 in 1977, SB 992 in 1983, and other bills as
noted above. These functions, previously with OPA (within
OPR) and then the Technology, Trade, and Commerce Agency,
were repealed when the Agency was abolished.
OPR, however, continues to have important responsibilities.
These include, for example, formulating long-range land use
goals and policies, helping state departments with
functional plans, resolving conflicts with state agencies,
assisting the Department of Finance to integrate state
plans and the Budget, coordinating statewide environmental
monitoring, coordinating environmental review of
development projects, coordinating state research on growth
and development, coordinating state departments' technical
planning assistance, managing state planning grants,
developing long-range growth and development policies,
encouraging local and regional planning, adopting and
updating the General Plan guidelines, adopting and updating
the CEQA guidelines, operating the State Clearinghouse,
coordinating state agency environmental justice activities,
and preparing the state Environmental Goals and Policy
Report.
Despite these OPR responsibilities, Governor Schwarzenegger
expressed concerns about OPR in June 2009, while calling
for its elimination in the 2010-11 Budget. Moreover, the
Governor announced a new Office of Economic Development
(GoEd) despite other permit assistance and small business
responsibilities under current law (see existing law
above).
SB 959
Page 7
Abolishing OPR - which is part of the Governor's office - and
eliminating or scattering OPR responsibilities to other
state agencies and departments while creating yet another
economic development entity, however, discourages
coordination in local and state planning and permitting
matters.
If the author is concerned about ensuring better coordination
of state planning and permit matters, and improving
coordination on these and other matters with local
governments, maintaining OPR - while adding previously
repealed OPA functions - responds to those concerns. If
the Governor believes that OPR responsibilities should not
be within the Governor's office and should be eliminated,
then the Legislature could also consider creating a state
planning entity with those responsibilities along with a
director subject to Senate confirmation.
SOURCE : Senator Ducheny
SUPPORT : California Apartment Association
OPPOSITION : American Planning Association (California
Chapter), California State Association of
Counties, League of California Cities, Madera
County Board of Supervisors, Regional Council
of Rural Counties