Environmental quality: development projects: mineral deposits.
Summary
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA requires that all public agencies adopt by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, objectives, criteria, and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations pursuant to the act. This bill would require a lead agency, if a proposed residential, retail, or commercial development project would preclude or substantially and directly impede the present or potential future use of lands for mineral extraction in an area that has received a specified classification by the State Geologist as containing mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance, to determine whether those impacts may have a significant effect on the environment, including, but not limited to, any significant effect on air quality. By imposing new duties on a lead agency with respect to determining whether certain development projects may have a significant effect on the environment, the 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, 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 these statutory provisions.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Jun 2010
Assembly Passage
May 2010
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 8, 2010
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Assembly May 20, 2010
How they voted
59–0
Passed · 10 other
Total votes 69
May 20, 2010
D
Democratic42
92% Yea
I
Independent1
0% Nay
R
Republican26
76% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
14
Key actions
4
Committee
6
Amendments
2
Aug 19, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jun 3, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
May 20, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (59-0-10)
assembly
Apr 21, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 1.) (April 21).
lower
Apr 15, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 14, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 6, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 13. Noes 1.) (April 5).
lower
Feb 18, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on TRANS.
lower
Feb 9, 2010
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 11.
lower
1 primary · 2 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Cathleen Galgiani
DDemocratic
Co
BL
Bonnie Lowenthal
DDemocratic
Co
JS
Jose Solorio
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1747
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1747. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline