California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 789 — California Environmental Quality Act: sports and entertainment project.

Last action — From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

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 2017-2018 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

(1) 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 (EIR) 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 also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA establishes administrative procedures for the review and certification of the EIR for a project and judicial review procedures for any action or proceeding brought to challenge the lead agency's decision to certify the EIR or to grant project approvals. This bill would establish specified administrative and judicial review procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the EIR and approvals granted for a project related to the development of a specified sports and entertainment project in the City of Inglewood. Because the lead agency would be required to use these alternative procedures for administrative review of the EIR if the project applicant so chooses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA a guideway project intended for development with the specified sports and entertainment project. Because a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that certain impacts shall not be considered as having significant environmental impacts if certain conditions are met. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Inglewood. (3) 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 committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  2. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  3. September 8 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 5.) Reconsideration granted.

  4. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 54. Noes 24. Page 2999.)

  5. Re-referred to Coms. on NAT. RES., L. GOV., and APPR. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  6. Ordered to third reading.

  7. Read third time and amended.

  8. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From inactive file.

  10. Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Calderon.

  11. Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Bonta.

  12. From consent calendar on motion of Assembly Member Bonta.

  13. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  14. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (June 28).

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  16. Referred to Com. on L. & E.

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

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 799.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  21. Set for hearing April 17.

  22. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 626.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Set for hearing April 5.

  24. Referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

  25. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

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

Sponsors

  • Bradford · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Bradford

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

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government]

Failed 4 Yea · 5 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3301
Democratic 0200
Republican 1000
Total 4501
% of votes cast 40%50%0%10%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Eggman — Yea
McCarty — Nay
Chau — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Travis Allen — Not Voting
Limón, Monique Democratic Nay
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

environment
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 789 do?
(1) 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 (EIR) 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 also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA establishes administrative procedures for the review and certification of the EIR for a project and judicial review procedures for any action or proceeding brought to challenge the lead agency's decision to certify the EIR or to grant project approvals. This bill would establish specified administrative and judicial review procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the EIR and approvals granted for a project related to the development of a specified sports and entertainment project in the City of Inglewood. Because the lead agency would be required to use these alternative procedures for administrative review of the EIR if the project applicant so chooses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA a guideway project intended for development with the specified sports and entertainment project. Because a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that certain impacts shall not be considered as having significant environmental impacts if certain conditions are met. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Inglewood. (3) 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 SB 789?
SB 789 is sponsored by Bradford.
What is the current status of SB 789?
This bill died with 2017-2018 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 789?
Track SB 789 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 789

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 789

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →