California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: To Executive 1 D cosponsors

SB 959 — Development: expedited permit review.

Last action — Died on file.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) The Permit Streamlining Act requires 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. The act also requires any state agency which is the lead agency for a development project to inform the applicant that the Office of Permit Assistance has been created to assist, and provide information to, developers relating to the permit approval process. This bill would require the office to provide information to developers explaining the permit approval process at the state and local levels, or assisting them in meeting statutory environmental quality requirements, as specified, and would prohibit the office or the state from incurring any liability as a result of the provision of this assistance. The bill would require the office to assist state and local agencies in streamlining the permit approval process, and an applicant in identifying any permit required by a state agency for the proposed project. The bill would authorize the office to call a conference of parties at the state level to resolve questions or mediate disputes arising from a permit application for a development project. The bill would require that the office be located exclusively in Sacramento, and to consist of no more than 4 personnel through 2013. This bill would require the office to develop guidelines providing technical assistance to local agencies for the establishment and operation of an expedited development permit process, and would require the guidelines to contain specified components. The bill would also require the office, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide grants and technical assistance to cities and counties for the establishment of an expedited development permit process according to the guidelines. The bill would further require a city or county that receives 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. This bill would also require the office, 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. The bill would require the form to collect sufficient information to allow the office to determine the state agencies that have permitting requirements applicable to the development project for which the form was submitted. This bill would authorize the office to charge the applicant fees for the above-described services, not to exceed the estimated reasonable cost of their provision, and would require the office to adopt or amend regulations to provide for these fees prior to charging or levying them. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county with a population of 100,000 or more, upon the request of an applicant, to designate an administrative entity, as defined, 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. The administrative entity would be required to provide the applicant information regarding the status of, and to coordinate the review and decisionmaking process with respect to, the applications and permits required by the local agency for the development project. The bill would require the administrative entity, upon the request of the applicant, to coordinate with the office regarding any applications or permits required by the state for the development project. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to charge a fee to defray costs incurred by the administrative entity in providing the above-described services to the applicant. By establishing a new requirement on specified local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Died on file.

  2. In Senate. To unfinished business. (Veto)

  3. Vetoed by Governor.

  4. Enrolled. To Governor at 11:45 a.m.

  5. Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 30. Noes 4. Page 4884.) To enrollment.

  6. In Senate. To unfinished business.

  7. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 77. Noes 1. Page 6364.) To Senate.

  8. Read second time. To third reading.

  9. Read second time. Amended. To second reading.

  10. (Heard in committee August 12.)

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.)

  12. Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  13. (Heard in committee on June 28.)

  14. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. (Heard in committee on June 28.)

  16. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  17. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  18. Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 5726.)

  19. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  20. To Coms. on L. GOV. and NAT. RES.

  21. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  22. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 31. Noes 3. Page 3740.) To Assembly.

  23. Read second time. Amended. To third reading.

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 3. Page 3669.)

  25. (Suspense - for vote only.)

  26. Set for hearing May 27.

  27. Placed on APPR suspense file.

  28. Set for hearing May 3.

  29. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  30. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3299.)

  31. Set for hearing April 19.

  32. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on EQ.

  33. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on EQ. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3102.)

  34. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  35. Set for hearing April 7.

  36. To Coms. on L. GOV. and EQ.

  37. Read first time.

  38. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 8.

  39. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Ducheny

Co-sponsors (1)

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Unfinished Business SB959 Ducheny Urgency Clause

Passed 31 Yea · 4 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 29305
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 31405
% of votes cast 78%10%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Cogdill — Yea
Florez — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wright — Yea
Yee — Not Voting
Hollingsworth — Not Voting
Oropeza — Not Voting
Wiggins — Not Voting
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Leno — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

SB 959 Ducheny Third Reading Urgency By CABALLERO

Passed 89 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 83101
Democratic 3000
Republican 3000
Total 89101
% of votes cast 98%1%0%1%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Charles — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Huber — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bass — Yea
Beall — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Norby — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Yamada — Not Voting
Silva — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Yea
Adams — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hill — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nava — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Villines — Yea
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 18000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Conway — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Huffman — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Norby — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB959 Ducheny Urgency Clause

Passed 32 Yea · 3 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 29304
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 32304
% of votes cast 82%8%0%10%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Nay
Cedillo — Yea
Florez — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Harman — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Correa — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Not Voting
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Huff — Yea
Liu — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 7 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7301
Total 7301
% of votes cast 64%27%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Leno — Yea
Cox — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Denham — Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Alquist — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cox — Yea
Denham — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing environment labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 959 do?
(1) The Permit Streamlining Act requires 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. The act also requires any state agency which is the lead agency for a development project to inform the applicant that the Office of Permit Assistance has been created to assist, and provide information to, developers relating to the permit approval process. This bill would require the office to provide information to developers explaining the permit approval process at the state and local levels, or assisting them in meeting statutory environmental quality requirements, as specified, and would prohibit the office or the state from incurring any liability as a result of the provision of this assistance. The bill would require the office to assist state and local agencies in streamlining the permit approval process, and an applicant in identifying any permit required by a state agency for the proposed project. The bill would authorize the office to call a conference of parties at the state level to resolve questions or mediate disputes arising from a permit application for a development project. The bill would require that the office be located exclusively in Sacramento, and to consist of no more than 4 personnel through 2013. This bill would require the office to develop guidelines providing technical assistance to local agencies for the establishment and operation of an expedited development permit process, and would require the guidelines to contain specified components. The bill would also require the office, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide grants and technical assistance to cities and counties for the establishment of an expedited development permit process according to the guidelines. The bill would further require a city or county that receives 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. This bill would also require the office, 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. The bill would require the form to collect sufficient information to allow the office to determine the state agencies that have permitting requirements applicable to the development project for which the form was submitted. This bill would authorize the office to charge the applicant fees for the above-described services, not to exceed the estimated reasonable cost of their provision, and would require the office to adopt or amend regulations to provide for these fees prior to charging or levying them. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county with a population of 100,000 or more, upon the request of an applicant, to designate an administrative entity, as defined, 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. The administrative entity would be required to provide the applicant information regarding the status of, and to coordinate the review and decisionmaking process with respect to, the applications and permits required by the local agency for the development project. The bill would require the administrative entity, upon the request of the applicant, to coordinate with the office regarding any applications or permits required by the state for the development project. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to charge a fee to defray costs incurred by the administrative entity in providing the above-described services to the applicant. By establishing a new requirement on specified local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Who sponsors SB 959?
SB 959 is sponsored by Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic) and Ducheny.
What is the current status of SB 959?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 959?
Track SB 959 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 959

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 959

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →