California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 667 — Land use: development project review: superstores.

Last action — From Senate committee 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 Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

The Permit Streamlining Act within the Planning and Zoning Law requires the lead agency that has the principal responsibility for approving a development project, as defined, to approve or disapprove the project within a specified number of days from the date of certification of an environmental impact report, the date of the adoption of a negative declaration, or the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This bill in addition, would 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, or where a superstore would be the recipient of over $100,000 in financial assistance, 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 proposed superstore will have on designated economic assistance areas, and an assessment of the effect that the proposed superstore 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. The bill would define certain terms for these purposes. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally find and declare that these provisions are an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair. 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 Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  3. In committee: Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.

  4. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  5. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 41. Noes 31. Page 1676.)

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (May 24).

  9. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 4.) (May 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

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

  14. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  15. From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

  16. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

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

AB 667 HERNÁNDEZ Assembly Third Reading

Passed 41 Yea · 31 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 362606
Democratic 5101
Republican 0400
Total 413107
% of votes cast 52%39%0%9%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Nay
Linder — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Williams — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chesbro — Not Voting
Buchanan — Yea
Stone — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Rendon — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Campos — Yea
Ting — Yea
Brown — Yea
Logue — Nay
Daly — Nay
Gorell — Nay
Gray — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Perea — Nay
Hall — Not Voting
Salas — Nay
Chávez — Nay
Holden — Not Voting
Conway — Nay
Bradford — Not Voting
Cooley — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Not Voting
Maienschein — Nay
Medina — Not Voting
Morrell — Nay
Dickinson — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Not Voting
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 5 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10501
Democratic 1000
Total 11501
% of votes cast 65%29%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Ammiano — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Linder — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Gomez — Yea
Hall — Not Voting
Campos — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Weber — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing labor
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 667 do?
The Permit Streamlining Act within the Planning and Zoning Law requires the lead agency that has the principal responsibility for approving a development project, as defined, to approve or disapprove the project within a specified number of days from the date of certification of an environmental impact report, the date of the adoption of a negative declaration, or the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This bill in addition, would 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, or where a superstore would be the recipient of over $100,000 in financial assistance, 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 proposed superstore will have on designated economic assistance areas, and an assessment of the effect that the proposed superstore 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. The bill would define certain terms for these purposes. By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally find and declare that these provisions are an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair. 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.
Who sponsors AB 667?
AB 667 is sponsored by Roger Hernández.
What is the current status of AB 667?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 667?
Track AB 667 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 667

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 667

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →