Common interest developments: artificial turf.
Summary
Existing law requires a local agency to adopt a specified model ordinance regarding water-efficient landscapes or a water-efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the model ordinance. Existing law allows certain water providers to take specified actions regarding water conservation. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments. That act provides that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common interest development is void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of low water-using plants as a group, or if it has the effect of prohibiting or restricting compliance with a local water-efficient landscape ordinance or water conservation measure, as described above. This bill would provide that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common interest development shall be void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass. This prohibition would not prohibit an association from applying landscape rules and regulations established in governing documents that establish design standards and quality standards for the installation of artificial turf, or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass, to the extent the rules and regulations do not prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Jun 2011
Senate Passage
Apr 2011
Assembly Passage
Jul 2011
Vetoed
Jul 2011
Introduced Feb 18, 2011
Vetoed Jul 15, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Apr 25, 2011 · Assembly Jul 5, 2011
How they voted
29–6
Passed
Total votes 35
Apr 25, 2011
D
Democratic23
100% Yea
R
Republican12
50% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
21
Key actions
4
Committee
5
Feb 2, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
upper
Jul 15, 2011
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Jul 13, 2011
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Jul 5, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (56-11-5)
assembly
Jun 15, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 15).
lower
May 9, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
lower
Apr 25, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (29-6)
senate
Apr 13, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 644.) (April 12).
upper
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.
upper
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 18, 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
Ted Lieu
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 759
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 759. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline