Asm. Buffy Wicks

Existing law relating to housing development approval requires a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. Existing law establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant and consequences for a local agency that fails to meet that timeline, as provided. Existing law defines "postentitlement phase permit" to, among other things, include a range of permits issued by a local agency. This bill would require a state agency to comply with the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits applicable to a local agency. The bill would require a state agency to make the information list, as described above, and the above-described examples of a complete, approved application and a complete set of postentitlement phase permits available on the agency's internet website by January 1, 2026. The bill would deem a postentitlement phase permit approved, and all related reviews complete, if a state agency fails to meet the time limits for review of an application for that permit. The bill would revise the definition of "postentitlement phase permit" for purposes of these provisions to, among other things, include permits issued by a state agency and any postentitlement review by a state agency that is necessary to begin construction of a development that is intended to be at least 23 residential, excluding certain discretionary and ministerial permits and reviews and subject to specified exceptions, and would define the term "state agency" for these purposes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a county's or city's governing body to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law. This bill, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, would require a county or city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website, if the county or city prescribes residential building permit fees. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. This bill would remove the above-described requirement for a county or city to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans when the building department takes more than 30 days to complete the plan check. Until January 1, 2036, the bill would instead, upon an application for a residential building permit being deemed complete, as provided, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which the city or county will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. The bill would authorize an applicant to retain a private professional provider, as defined, to perform the plan check, if the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days or the city or county has not determined the completed application is compliant within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. The bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. The bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit or notify the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency received the application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time periods. Existing law requires the local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal a finding that the application for a postentitlement phase permit is incomplete or noncompliant, as provided. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would deem the local agency to be in compliance with the above-described requirements governing applications for postentitlement phase permits as those requirements pertain to the residential building permit. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, the bill would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any residential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the planning agency of the county or city, after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, to submit an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1 of each year that includes, among other things, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. This bill, beginning April, 1, 2027, and until January 1, 2036, would require a city or county to include in the above-described annual report the number of residential building permits reviewed by the city or county, the number reviewed by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions, as described above, and the number of full-time equivalent staff members directly involved in the processing of residential building permits, as provided. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 specified reasons. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from issuing a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. This bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would require a local agency to issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in a county that is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the Governor on or after February 1, 2025, even if the primary dwelling has not yet been issued a certificate of occupancy, if certain requirements are met, including that the primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a permitting agency to either approve or deny an application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. Existing law deems the application approved if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days. Under existing law, if the permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay approving or denying the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency approves or denies the permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, as provided. The California Coastal Act of 1976, which is administered by the California Coastal Commission, requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit from a local government or the commission, except as provided. Existing law specifies that the laws governing accessory dwelling units do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the act, except as specified. This bill would create an exception to the above provision by requiring a local government or the commission, as specified, to either approve or deny a coastal development permit application for an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. The bill would, notwithstanding that 60-day time limit, authorize the commission, if a coastal development permit application to create or serve an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a coastal development permit application to create or serve a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, to delay approving or denying the coastal development permit application for the accessory dwelling unit until the commission approves or denies the coastal development permit application to create or serve the new single-family or multifamily dwelling. Under the bill, and except under the circumstance described above, if the commission has not approved or denied a completed application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a development project within specified time periods. The act requires a public agency that is a responsible agency for specified development projects to approve or disapprove the project within 90 days of the date on which the lead agency has approved the project or within 90 days of the date on which the completed application has been received and accepted as complete by the lead agency, whichever is longer. This bill would reduce the time period that a responsible agency is required to approve or disapprove a project, as described above, from 90 days to 45 days, except as provided. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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.

Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency to determine whether an application for a development project is complete within specified time periods, as specified. The act requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove that project within specified time periods. Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, among other things, authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or city and county to proclaim a local emergency under certain circumstances, as specified, and grants political subdivisions various powers and authorities in periods of local emergency. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to approve or deny a complete application, within 10 business days of receipt of the application, for a building permit or an equivalent permit for any of the specified structures intended to be used by a person until the rebuilding or repair of an affected property is complete. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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.

Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law authorizes local governments to enact ordinances or regulations that make building standards amendments to the California Building Standards Code, as specified. This bill would establish a streamlined approval process for a local permit for a tenant improvement, as defined, relating to a restaurant. In this regard, the bill would require a local building department, upon the request and at the expense of the permit applicant, to allow a qualified professional certifier, defined as a licensed architect or engineer who meets certain requirements, to certify that the plans and specifications of the tenant improvement comply with all applicable building, health, and safety codes, as specified. The bill would require a qualified professional certifier, or the applicant, as applicable, to prepare certain affidavits related to the tenant improvement under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application and would deem the plan approved for permitting purposes if the local building department does not approve or deny the application within that timeframe. The bill would also authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, would limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and would require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. The bill would require each local building department to conduct audits of tenant improvements submitted for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt additional qualifications or requirements for qualified professional certifiers, including penalties or reasonable administrative fines for certain actions. The bill would make qualified professional certifiers liable for any damages arising from negligent plan review. The bill would also require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under the above-described provisions. Existing law establishes the California Architects Board and the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists to administer the licensure and regulation of architects and engineers, respectively. Existing law specifies grounds for disciplinary action by the boards. This bill would deem making a false statement in a certification described above to be grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee who serves as a qualified professional certifier. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of a permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions. The California Retail Food Code requires a person proposing to build or remodel a food facility to submit complete, easily readable plans drawn to scale, and specifications to the enforcement agency for review, and to receive plan approval before starting any new construction or remodeling of a facility for use as a retail food facility. The California Retail Food Code requires the plans to be approved or rejected within 20 working days after receipt by the enforcement agency and, unless the plans are approved or rejected within 20 working days, deems those plans approved. A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. This bill would require that a tenant improvement plan for a restaurant be deemed approved for permitting purposes if the enforcement agency does not approve or deny the application within 20 business days of receiving a complete plan. The bill would also authorize the applicant to resubmit a corrected plan addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, would limit the enforcement agency's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and would require the enforcement agency to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days. Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review processes established by the bill would apply to final, discretionary approval of a tenant improvement, the bill would exempt those projects from CEQA. This bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the review and approval of tenant improvements for restaurants, and by expanding the scope of various crimes related to these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 specified reasons.

(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and regulates the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. The act requires the department to make and prescribe rules to carry out the purposes and intent of existing state constitutional provisions on the regulation of alcoholic beverages, and to enable the department to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred upon it by the state constitution and the act, not inconsistent with any statute of this state. The act makes it unlawful for any person other than a licensee of the department to sell, manufacture, or import alcoholic beverages in this state, with exceptions. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, established prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. Existing law authorizes the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. Existing law makes these provisions effective only until July 1, 2026, and repeals them as of that date. This bill, instead, would make those provisions operative until January 1, 2029, repeal those provisions on that date, and make conforming changes. The bill would also prohibit the department from issuing any new COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorizations on or after January 1, 2027. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances that regulate zoning within its jurisdiction, as specified. Under that law, variances and conditional use permits may be granted if provided for by the zoning ordinance. Existing law, to the extent that an outdoor expansion of a business to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on indoor dining interferes with, reduces, eliminates, or impacts required parking for existing uses, requires a local jurisdiction that has not adopted an ordinance that provides relief from parking restrictions for expanded outdoor dining areas to reduce the number of required parking spaces for existing uses by the number of spaces that the local jurisdiction determines are needed to accommodate an expanded outdoor dining area. Existing law makes these provisions operative only until July 1, 2026, and repeals them on that date. This bill, instead, would make those provisions operative indefinitely. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties for an extended period, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities. Existing law provides that these standards are primarily enforced by local enforcement agencies. Existing law restricts satellite food service to limited food preparation in a fully enclosed permanent food facility that meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a permanent food facility, before conducting satellite food service, to submit to the enforcement agency written operating standards. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, authorizes a permitted food facility within any local jurisdiction that is subject to retail food operation restrictions related to a COVID-19 public health response to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service without obtaining a separate satellite food service permit or submitting written operating procedures. With regard to those provisions that authorize a permitted food facility to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service, this bill, instead, would make those provisions operative indefinitely. (4) Existing law requires permanent food facilities to be fully enclosed in a building consisting of permanent floors, walls, and an overhead structure that meet prescribed minimum standards. This bill would, notwithstanding the requirements described above, authorize a restaurant to operate using open windows, folding doors, or nonfixed store fronts during hours of operation if the restaurant develops, and submits to the enforcement agency for approval, an integrated pest management and food safety risk mitigation plan and meets certain requirements, as specified. The bill would require the plan to be documented in writing, made available upon request to local environmental health enforcement officers, and updated annually or whenever there is a change to the facility or operation. The bill would require the restaurant to self-close upon observation of vermin activity inside the facility and remain closed until all vermin are eliminated. The bill would prohibit a local enforcement agency from unreasonably withholding approval of a proposed pest management and food safety risk mitigation plan and would require approval to be granted unless unique circumstances exist such that no reasonable conditions or measures can sufficiently mitigate a significant risk to public health or safety. (5) 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.

(1) Existing law, the California Nutrition Monitoring Development Act of 1986, requires the State Department of Public Health to assess the availability and adequacy of existing state and local food and nutrition data systems. The act requires different state departments, including the State Department of Education, to provide to the State Department of Public Health, upon request, nutrition-related data collection forms, documentation, and reports of various programs. This bill would define "ultraprocessed food" for certain school-related purposes and would require the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define "ultraprocessed foods of concern" and "restricted school foods," as specified. The bill would require the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether, based on reputable peer-reviewed scientific evidence, a substance or group of substances are linked to health harms or adverse health consequences, as specified. The bill would require schools, as defined, to begin to phase out restricted school foods and ultraprocessed foods of concern by no later than July 1, 2029. Beginning July 1, 2032, the bill would prohibit a vendor from offering restricted school foods and ultraprocessed foods of concern to a school. This bill, on or before February 1, 2028, and on or before February 1 of each year thereafter through February 1, 2032, would require a vendor to report specified information to the State Department of Public Health for each food product sold to a school in the past calendar year, including, among others, the total quantity of food product sold to schools and whether that food product is an ultraprocessed food, a restricted school food, or an ultraprocessed food of concern. The bill, on or before July 1, 2028, and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter through July 1, 2032, would require the State Department of Public Health, in consultation with the State Department of Education, to submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report that contains, among other things, a summary and analysis of the information reported to the State Department of Public Health by vendors and recommendations for state and local legislative actions that could reduce the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, restricted school foods, and ultraprocessed foods of concern in schools. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to consult with the State Department of Education regarding compliance training and technical assistance for school food service and procurement staff for these purposes and would require the State Department of Public Health to establish a structure to deliver training and technical assistance to local educational agencies. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Education to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school lunches and breakfasts, and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses, consistent with the requirements for a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch. Existing law defines a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch for these purposes to mean those that qualify for reimbursement under the most current meal pattern for the federal School Breakfast Program and the federal National School Lunch Program, respectively. Existing law requires a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to make available a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch, free of charge, during each schoolday to any pupil who requests a meal without consideration of the pupil's eligibility for a federally funded free or reduced-price meal. Existing law authorizes a school operated and maintained by a school district or county office of education, from the midnight before to 30 minutes after the end of the official schoolday, to sell food and beverages other than meals reimbursed by specified federal nutrition programs, only if the food or beverages meet dietary guidelines, as specified, depending on grade level. This bill, beginning July 1, 2035, would prohibit a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, from offering a nutritionally adequate breakfast or lunch that includes restricted school foods or ultraprocessed foods of concern, as provided, and would prohibit a school operated and maintained by a school district or county office of education from selling food or beverages, except for food items sold as part of a school fundraising event, containing those restricted school foods or ultraprocessed foods of concern, as provided. (3) To the extent this bill would impose additional requirements on public schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires state agencies, boards, and commissions that collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for each major Asian and Pacific Islander group and to include that data in every demographic report published on or after July 1, 2012, as specified. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2028, require state and local agencies, as defined, that collect demographic data as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians to use separate collection categories and tabulations for major Middle Eastern or North African groups, as specified, and, with certain exceptions, to include that data in every demographic report published on or after January 1, 2029, and to make the aggregated data available to the public. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The Outdoor Advertising Act regulates placement of advertising displays adjacent to and within specified distances of highways that are part of the national system of interstate and defense highways and federal-aid highways. The act prohibits a person, as defined, from placing an advertising display within the areas affected by the act without a permit. The act authorizes the Director of Transportation to adopt regulations for the enforcement of the act. Pursuant to that authority, existing regulations only require the Department of Transportation to process an application for placing a new advertising display along a new alignment of an interstate or primary highway if the application is accepted on or after the date that the department accepts the highway project for the new alignment as complete. This bill would prohibit the department from denying or delaying the acceptance of a permit application for a new advertising display along a portion of a new alignment of an interstate or primary highway on the basis that the highway project has not been accepted as complete if the section of highway is open to the use of the public for vehicular travel within 1,000 feet of the location specified in the permit application.