SB 469 California Senate · 2011-2012 Regular Session

Land use: development project review: superstores.

Summary
(1) The Permit Streamlining Act requires the lead agency that has the principal responsibility for approving a development project, as defined, to approve or disapprove the project within 60 days from the date of adoption of a negative declaration or the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, unless the project proponent requests an extension of time. This bill would, in addition, require a city, county, or city and county, including a charter city, prior to approving or disapproving a proposed development project that would permit the construction of a superstore retailer, as defined, to cause an economic impact report to be prepared, as specified, to be paid for by the project applicant, and that includes specified assessments and projections including, among other things, an assessment of the effect that the construction and operation of the proposed superstore retailer will have on retail operations and employment in the same market area. The bill would also require the governing body to provide an opportunity for public comment on the economic impact report. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the lead agency to approve or disapprove the project within 180 days from the date of certification of an environmental impact report and approval of an economic impact report, or within 60 days from the date of adoption of a negative declaration and approval of an economic impact report or the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approval of an economic impact report. (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.
Bill status vetoed 4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Aug 2011
Senate Passage
May 2011
Assembly Passage
Sep 2011
Vetoed
Mar 2012
Introduced Feb 17, 2011 Vetoed Mar 1, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly Sep 1, 2011

How they voted

3926
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 70
Sep 1, 2011
D Democratic44
39 Yea 1 Nay 4
88% Yea
R Republican26
25 Nay 1
96% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
28
Key actions
6
Committee
6
Amendments
2
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Veto sustained.
upper
Mar 1, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Oct 9, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Oct 9, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Sep 1, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (39-26-5)
assembly
Aug 26, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (August 25).
lower
Aug 17, 2011
Lower · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jun 23, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) (June 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 9, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and NAT. RES.
lower
May 23, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
May 9, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 855.) (May 2).
upper
Apr 11, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on E.Q. (Ayes 6. Noes 3. Page 559.) (April 6).
upper
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and E.Q.
upper
Feb 17, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
JV
Juan Vargas
DDemocratic
CA
40