California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 362 — Agriculture: victory garden growers.

Last action — From Assembly without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

Existing law provides for the direct marketing of agricultural produce, including through certified farmers' markets, field retail stands, or farm stands, subject to specified conditions. This bill would authorize a victory garden grower, as defined, that files a notice with, and pays a $50 filing fee to, the county agricultural commissioner to sell fruits, nuts, or vegetables that he or she grows in his or her garden directly to the public, including at a farmers' market, or to a retailer or distributor or others, within a 15-mile radius from the garden. The license would be effective upon the filing of the notice and payment of the fee and would be renewable annually. A licensed victory garden grower would be subject to applicable state and local laws and ordinances, except as provided. Because this bill would impose new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. A violation of any of these provisions would be a misdemeanor. Because this bill would create a new crime, it 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Assembly without further action.

  2. From committee without further action.

  3. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  4. Set, first hearing. Held in committee and under submission.

  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  6. (Heard in committee on June 10.)

  7. From committee: Be re-referred to Coms. on AGRI. and RULES. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  8. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  9. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  10. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.

  11. Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. Reconsideration granted.

  12. To Com. on AGRI.

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

  14. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 24. Noes 12. Page 1143.) To Assembly.

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

  16. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 5. Page 1070.)

  17. (Suspense - for vote only.)

  18. Set for hearing May 28.

  19. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 1036.)

  20. Placed on APPR suspense file.

  21. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. Set for hearing May 26.

  23. Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  24. Set for hearing May 11.

  25. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  26. Set for hearing May 4.

  27. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 582.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  28. Set for hearing April 21.

  29. To Com. on F. & A.

  30. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 28.

  31. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Florez · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Florez

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

Be referred to Committee on Agriculture.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Davis — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Silva — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Adams — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB362 Florez

Passed 24 Yea · 13 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211303
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 241303
% of votes cast 60%33%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cedillo — Not Voting
Florez — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Runner — Yea
Cogdill — Nay
Harman — Yea
Hollingsworth — Nay
Negrete — Nay
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Nay
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Nay
Benoit — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wiggins — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Maldonado — Nay
Oropeza — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wright — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Correa — Nay
Cox — Nay
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 · 5 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7501
Total 7501
% of votes cast 54%38%0%8%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Runner — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Wolk — Not Voting
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wyland — Nay
Cox — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 13000
Total 13000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Runner — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Leno — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

agriculture
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 362 do?
Existing law provides for the direct marketing of agricultural produce, including through certified farmers' markets, field retail stands, or farm stands, subject to specified conditions. This bill would authorize a victory garden grower, as defined, that files a notice with, and pays a $50 filing fee to, the county agricultural commissioner to sell fruits, nuts, or vegetables that he or she grows in his or her garden directly to the public, including at a farmers' market, or to a retailer or distributor or others, within a 15-mile radius from the garden. The license would be effective upon the filing of the notice and payment of the fee and would be renewable annually. A licensed victory garden grower would be subject to applicable state and local laws and ordinances, except as provided. Because this bill would impose new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. A violation of any of these provisions would be a misdemeanor. Because this bill would create a new crime, it 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 362?
SB 362 is sponsored by Florez.
What is the current status of SB 362?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 362?
Track SB 362 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 362

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 362

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →