California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 49 — Development: expedited permit review.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

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

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 commercial or industrial 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. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 6). Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  8. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  9. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  10. Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and NAT. RES.

  11. From printer. May be heard in committee January 6.

  12. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Gatto · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Gatto

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Subjects

public-safety housing environment labor transportation
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 AB 49 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 commercial or industrial 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 AB 49?
AB 49 is sponsored by Gatto.
What is the current status of AB 49?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 AB 49?
Track AB 49 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 49

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 AB 49

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →