BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 959|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 959
Author: Ducheny (D), et al
Amended: 8/16/10
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/7/10
AYES: Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/19/10
AYES: Simitian, Runner, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal,
Pavley, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-3, 5/27/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Denham, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox
SENATE FLOOR : 31-3, 6/2/10
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Calderon, Cedillo,
Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, DeSaulnier, Ducheny,
Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff,
Kehoe, Leno, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley,
Price, Romero, Runner, Steinberg, Strickland, Wolk,
Wright, Wyland
NOES: Denham, Walters, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu, Oropeza, Simitian, Wiggins,
Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-1, 8/19/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Development: expedited permit review
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
2
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill recreates the Office of Permit
Assistance under the Governors Office of Planning and
Research in order to help facilitate state and local level
review of commercial and industrial development projects.
Assembly Amendments add the requirement for the Office of
Permit Assistance to develop specified guidelines in
providing technical assistance to local agencies.
ANALYSIS :
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 the
California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]).
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, and creates the
Office of Small Business Advocate within the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) with various
responsibilities.
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
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
3
permit for certain projects.
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.
This bill 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:
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.
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
4
B. A referral process that may do any or all of the
following:
(1) Refer the applicant to the appropriate
local agencies and local agency officials to
resolve problems and to fulfill requirements.
(2) Refer the applicant to cities within
the county which have review, comment, or
conditional permit power over the proposed
project.
(3) 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.
H. A variety of administrative mechanisms that
describe the least costly approaches for
implementing these guidelines in a variety of local
circumstances.
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
5
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.
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
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
6
state shall incur any liability as a result of the
provision of 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.
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
7
21.Requires the administrative entity to provide the
applicant information regarding the status of, and
coordinate the review 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.
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 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,
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
8
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
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.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/10)
California Apartment Association
California Realtors Association
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/20/10)
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
9
Department of Finance
League of California Cities
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De
La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gatto, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu,
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning,
Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson,
Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, John A. Perez
NOES: Gaines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Yamada, Vacancy
AGB:do 8/22/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
SB 959
Page
10
**** END ****
CONTINUED