Sustainable California Legislative Update - End of Session 2009

The following is the status of legislation related to Sustainable California’s interests at the end of the 2009 legislative session.

Legislation Signed by the Governor

SB 392 (Liu) California Transportation Plan
SB 392 requires an update of the State Transportation Plan. Requires the plan to address how the state will achieve maximum feasible emissions reductions to order to attain a statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emission to certain levels by 2020 and 2050 and to identify the statewide integrated multimodal transportation system needed to achieve these results. Requires the Transportation Commission to submit a report providing information on sustainable communities and alternative planning strategies.

SB 790 (Pavley) Stormwater Resource Planning
AB 790 amends the Watershed, Clean Beaches, and Water Quality Act. Authorizes grants for projects designed to implement or promote low impact development for new or existing developments that will contribute to the improvement of water quality or reduce stormwater runoff and for projects designed to implement specified stormwater resource plans. Authorizes a city, county, or special district to develop, jointly or individually, stormwater resource plans that meet certain standards.

SB 575 (Steinberg) Sustainable Communities Strategies, Housing Elements, Strategic Growth Council
SB 575 requires metropolitan planning organizations to have meetings to discuss the sustainable communities strategy and alternative planning strategy. Requires certain local governments to adopt the 5th revision of the housing element after a specified date. Specifies the schedule for all local governments to review and adopt revisions of the housing element. Requires the Department of Transportation to publish a schedule of transportation plan adoption dates. Provides for open meetings

Pending Legislation

AB 1405 (de Leon) Community Benefits Fund
This bill would establish the Community Benefits Fund where an unspecified percentage of the funds collected pursuant to AB 32 would be deposited. Funds in the Community Benefits Fund would be used for competitive grants for projects in the most impacted and disadvantaged communities that reduce GHG emissions or help adapt to climate change.

AB 49 (Huffman, Feuer) Water Conservation
This bill promotes increased water use efficiency by requiring a reduction in per capita urban water use and requiring implementation of efficient water management practices by agricultural water suppliers. The Bill would require a 20% reduction in statewide urban per capita water use by 2020.

AB 231 (Huffman) Climate Protection Trust Fund
This bill would create a state treasury account for AB 32 generated revenues and establishes parameters for the investment of these funds for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mitigating the impacts of climate change, and generally assisting the state in meeting AB 32 Scoping Plan goals.

Vetoed Legislation

SB 391 (Liu) California Transportation Plan
SB 391 would have required an update of the State Transportation Plan. The plan would have to address how the state will achieve maximum feasible emissions reductions to order to attain a statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emission to certain levels by 2020 and 2050 and to identify the statewide integrated multimodal transportation system needed to achieve these results. The plan would require the Transportation Commission to submit a report providing information on sustainable communities and alternative planning strategies.

SB 406(DeSaulnier) Funding Sustainable Communities Strategies and Blueprints
SB 406 would have authorized municipal planning organizations, councils of governments, or county transportation commissions and subregional councils to impose surcharges on motor vehicle registration to be expended to develop and implement sustainable communities strategies, per SB 375, and regional blueprint plans.

AB 338 (Ma) Transit Village Developments: Infrastructure Financing
AB 338 would relate to transit village plans for transit village development districts. It would have recast the area that shall be included in a transit village plan. It would have provided that the need for voter approval of the formation of an infrastructure financing district, adoption of a financing plan, and an issuance of bonds for implementing a transit facility would be eliminated. It would have established public and affordable housing requirements, including that a percentage of property tax increment revenues be dedicated to affordable housing.