BILL ANALYSIS
SB 959
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 959 (Ducheny)
As Amended August 16, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :31-3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0 NATURAL RESOURCES 8-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Smyth, Caballero, |Ayes:|Chesbro, Gilmore, |
| |Arambula, Bradford, Coto, | |Brownley, |
| |Davis, Knight, Logue, | |De Leon, Hill, Knight, |
| |Monning | |Logue, Skinner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, | | |
| |Bradford, Huffman, Coto, | | |
| |Davis, De Leon, Gatto, | | |
| |Hall, Harkey, Miller, | | |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Skinner, | | |
| |Solorio, Torlakson, | | |
| |Torrico | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Recreates the Office of Permit Assistance (OPA) under
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in order to
help facilitate state and local level review of commercial and
industrial development projects. Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes OPA under OPR.
2)Requires OPA to be located in Sacramento, and consist of no
more than four personnel through 2013.
3)Requires OPA to develop guidelines providing technical
assistance to local agencies for the establishment and
operation of an expedited development permit process.
4)Requires the guidelines to include, but not be limited to, all
of the following components of a local permit process:
SB 959
Page 2
a) An administrative entity in each city or county with a
population of 100,000 or more that shall serve as an
applicant's single point of contact with the city or county
with respect to all applications and permits required by
the city or county for the applicant's commercial or
industrial development project;
b) A referral process that may do any or all of the
following:
i) Refer the applicant to the appropriate local
agencies and local agency officials to resolve problems
and to fulfill requirements;
ii) Refer the applicant to cities within the county
which have review, comment, or conditional permit power
over the proposed project; or,
iii) Assign the local agency's administrative entity, or
another individual or entity designated by the local
agency, to be responsible for guiding the applicant
through all local permitting requirements;
c) A consolidated project information form that will
collect the information required to complete all permits
for the development project;
d) A method for tracking the progress of development permit
applications through the permitting process that may
include the identification of a staff person responsible
for monitoring permits;
e) A process for determining whether the consolidated
project information form is complete upon its submission;
f) Timetables for action on specified types of permit
applications;
g) An expedited appeal process to ensure fair treatment to
the applicant using existing agencies, staffs, commissions,
or boards, where possible; and,
h) A variety of administrative mechanisms that describe the
SB 959
Page 3
least costly approaches for implementing these guidelines
in a variety of local circumstances.
5)Requires OPA, in developing the guidelines, to recognize local
variations in population, rate of growth, types of proposed
development projects, geography, and local government
structure.
6)Specifically states that the guidelines developed by OPA are
advisory in nature and are not a mandate on local agencies.
7)Provides that upon appropriation by the Legislature, OPA shall
provide grants and technical assistance to cities and counties
for the establishment of an expedited development permit
process.
8)Requires any city or county receiving a grant to enact an
ordinance adopting an expedited development permit process
according to the guidelines within 10 months of the date of
receipt of the grant.
9)Specifies that a city or county who does not receive a grant
is not prohibited from developing and establishing its own
expedited development permit process.
10)Requires OPA to ensure that all state agencies comply with
applicable requirements of this measure.
11)Requires OPA to do all of the following:
a) Provide information to developers explaining the permit
approval process at the state and local levels, or
assisting them in meeting the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b) Assist state and local agencies in streamlining the
permit approval process at the state and local levels; and,
c) Assist an applicant in identifying any permit required
by a state agency for the proposed project.
12)Specifies that the assistance provided by OPA on CEQA is
purely technical in nature, and neither OPA nor the state
shall incur any liability as a result of the provision of
SB 959
Page 4
assistance.
13)Authorizes OPA to call a conference of parties at the state
level to resolve questions or mediate disputes arising from a
permit application for a proposed development project.
14)Authorizes OPA to charge an applicant for a development
project a fee not to exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the services performed.
15)Requires OPA, prior to levying or charging a fee, to adopt or
amend regulations to provide for the fee in accordance with
the Administrative Procedure Act.
16)Requires OPA, upon request, to make available data indicating
the cost, or estimated cost, of providing the services
performed and the revenue sources anticipated to cover the
cost of performing the services, including any general or
special fund revenues.
17)Requires OPA, in consultation with the Natural Resources
Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency, to
develop a consolidated project information form to be used by
applicants for development projects.
18)Requires the form to collect sufficient information to allow
OPA to determine the state agencies that have permitting
requirements applicable to the development project for which
the form was submitted.
19)Defines "administrative entity" as a person or agency
designated by the legislative body of a city, county, or city
and county.
20)Requires, upon the request of an applicant, a city, county,
or city and county with a population of 100,000 or more to
designate, and provide for, an administrative entity to serve
as the applicant's single point of contact with the local
agency with respect to all applications and permits required
by the local agency for the applicant's commercial or
industrial development project.
21)Requires the administrative entity to provide the applicant
information regarding the status of, and coordinate the review
SB 959
Page 5
and decision making process with respect to, the applications
and permits required by the local agency for the development
project.
22)Requires, upon the request of the applicant, the
administrative entity to coordinate with OPA with respect to
any applications or permits required by the state for the
development project.
23)Authorizes a city, county, or city and county to charge a fee
to defray costs incurred by the administrative entity that are
directly attributable to the services it provides to an
applicant.
24)Authorizes a city, county, or city and county to adopt, by
resolution or ordinance, procedures for the implementation of
this measure.
25)Contains an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates the Permit Streamlining Act (Act).
2)Requires, under the Act, each state agency and local agency to
compile one or more lists that specify in detail the
information that will be required from any applicant for a
development project, and requires a public agency that is the
lead agency for a development project, or a public agency
which is a responsible agency for a development project that
has been approved by the lead agency, to approve or disapprove
the project within applicable periods of time.
3)Requires, under the Act, any state agency which is the lead
agency for a development project to inform the applicant that
OPA has been created to assist, and provide information to,
developers relating to the permit approval process.
4)Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that there is
a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific
requirements which must be met in connection with the approval
of development projects and to expedite decisions on such
projects.
SB 959
Page 6
5)Defines "development project" as any project undertaken for
the purpose of development.
6)Specifies that "development project" includes a project
involving the issuance of a permit
for construction or reconstruction but not a permit to operate.
7)Specifies that "development project" does not include any
ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by
public agencies.
8)Prohibits a public agency, after it accepts an application for
a development project as complete, from subsequently
requesting of an applicant any new or additional information
that was not specified in the list of the information required
from a project applicant as part of its statement of
application for a development project.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Establishment of the OPA would result in an annual cost of
about $600,000 for additional personnel and overhead. Partly
offset by fees charged to applicants.
2)Unknown, additional costs for grants to local governments,
depending on future actions of the Legislature.
3)The provision requiring cities and counties with population of
more than 100,000 to establish a single point of contact would
result in significant administrative costs to local agencies,
not state-reimbursable.
COMMENTS : Existing law requires, under the Act, each state
agency and local agency to compile one or more lists that
specify in detail the information that will be required from any
applicant for a development project, and requires a public
agency that is the lead agency for a development project, or a
public agency which is a responsible agency for a development
project that has been approved by the lead agency, to approve or
disapprove the project within applicable periods of time.
In addition to mandating criteria and setting deadlines, the Act
previously required the Governor's OPR to coordinate the state
SB 959
Page 7
government's help to applicants. OPR set up the OPA in 1977
which the Legislature later codified [SB 992 (Garamendi),
Chapter 1263, Statutes of 1983]. The Legislature moved OPA to
the State Trade and Commerce Agency [AB 2351, (Assembly Ways and
Means Committee), Chapter 56, Statutes of 1993]. The California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) set up regional Permit
Assistance Centers which the Legislature institutionalized in
1999 [AB 1102 (Jackson), Chapter 65, Statutes of 1999]. In
2003, the Legislature repealed the requirements for CalEPA's
permit assistance centers and abolished the State Technology,
Trade, and Commerce Agency [AB 1756, (Assembly Budget Committee,
Chapter 228, Statutes of 2003]. Although the OPA no longer
exists, the Act still requires agencies to adopt criteria and
meet statutory deadlines.
This bill recreates the OPA under OPR in order to help
facilitate state and local level review of commercial and
industrial development projects. OPR already serves as the
coordinating agency for statewide planning efforts and as a
clearinghouse for all CEQA related documents so adding back the
additional duty of serving as a one-stop-shop for coordinating
the state and local level review of specified development
projects would be appropriate.
Support Arguments: According to the California Realtors
Association "SB 959 would greatly benefit not only business but
also governments by creating a consolidated and streamlined
system by which businesses would seek permits and approvals.
The increased certainty in the project approval process and
timing is certain to result in a better business climate that
will help boost California's economy."
Opposition Arguments: The League of California Cities argues
that "there is a role for streamlining when multiple departments
or agencies are involved in a project. But imposing this
requirement on the 70 cities with populations over 100,000 at
the option and expense
of the applicant does not guarantee this result. California's
cities are working double-time to find job creation solutions
that do not always easily avail themselves to this
one-size-fits-all approach."
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
SB 959
Page 8
319-3958
FN: 0006041