BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 375
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Steinberg
VERSION: 8/22/08
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: August 29, 2008
SUBJECT:
Transportation and land use planning and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
DESCRIPTION:
This bill 1) requires the Air Resources Board to provide each
region with greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the
automobile and light truck sector; 2) requires a regional
transportation plan to include a Sustainable Communities
Strategy designed to achieve the targets for greenhouse gas
emission reduction; 3) requires the California Transportation
Commission to maintain guidelines for travel demand models; 4)
requires cities and counties, in general, to revise their
housing elements every eight years in conjunction with the
regional transportation plan and complete any necessary
rezonings within a specific time period; and 5) relaxes CEQA
requirements for housing developments that are consistent with a
Sustainable Communities Strategy.
ANALYSIS:
AB 32 and greenhouse gas emission reductions
In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32 (Nu?ez), Chapter 488, the
Global Warming Act of 2006, which requires the Air Resources
Board (ARB) to establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions
limit such that by 2020 California reduces its greenhouse gas
emissions to the level they were in 1990. Thereafter, ARB must
adopt the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions for sources subject to the Act. One of
the potential strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 2
is to promote more compact land use that reduces the number and
length of vehicle trips.
This bill requires ARB, by September 30, 2010, to provide each
region that has a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) with
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and
light truck sector for 2020 and 2035, respectively.
Specifically, the bill:
Requires ARB, no later than January 31, 2009, to appoint a
Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC), as specified, to
recommend factors to be considered and methodologies to be
used for setting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for
the regions.
Requires the RTAC to transmit its recommended factors and
methodologies to ARB no later than December 31, 2009.
Requires ARB, prior to setting the targets for a region, to
exchange technical information with the MPO, the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and the local air district.
Requires the MPO to hold at least one public workshop within
the region after the RTAC makes its recommendation to ARB.
Allows an MPO to recommend a target for the region.
Requires ARB to release draft greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets for each affected region by June 30, 2010
and final targets by September 30, 2010 for the automobile and
light truck sector for 2020 and 2035, respectively.
Requires ARB to take into account greenhouse gas emission
reductions that will be achieved by improved vehicle emission
standards, changes in fuel composition, and other measures it
has approved or plans to approve that will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in the affected regions from other sources.
Requires ARB, after exchanging technical information with
Caltrans, the MPOs, local governments, and affected air
districts and engaging in a consultative process with public
and private stakeholders, to update the regional greenhouse
gas emission reduction targets every eight years consistent
with each MPO's timeframe for updating its regional
transportation plan under federal law until 2050.
Regional transportation plans
Current law requires the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) to adopt the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP),
which lists all capital improvement projects that are expected
to receive an allocation of state transportation funds from CTC
during the following five fiscal years. The STIP includes both
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 3
the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) and
the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs)
developed by federally-designated MPOs. Seventy-five percent of
STIP funding is programmed by the regions through the RTIPs.
Twenty-five percent of STIP funding is programmed by Caltrans
through the ITIP.
Current law also requires the MPOs to adopt regional
transportation plans (RTPs) directed at achieving a coordinated
and balanced regional transportation system, including, but not
limited to, mass transportation, highway, railroad, maritime,
bicycle, pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities and
services. The RTP must contain a policy element, an action
element, and a financial element and is the source for projects
programmed in the RTIP.
This bill requires that an RTP include a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) designed to achieve the ARB targets for
greenhouse gas emission reduction and that the SCS and all other
elements of the RTP be internally consistent. Specifically, the
bill:
Requires that an SCS:
? Identify the general location of uses, residential
densities, and building intensities within the region.
? Consider the state housing goals and identify areas
within the region sufficient to house all economic segments
of the population over the course of the planning period,
including areas sufficient to house the eight-year
projection of the regional housing need for the region.
? Identify a transportation network to service the
transportation needs of the region.
? Consider the best practically available scientific
information regarding resource areas and farmland in the
region.
? Consider spheres of influence that have been adopted by
the local agency formation commissions within the region.
? Set forth a forecasted development pattern for the
region, which, when integrated with the transportation
network and other transportation measures and policies,
will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles
and light trucks to achieve, if feasible, the greenhouse
gas emission reduction targets approved by ARB.
? Be internally consistent with other elements of the RTP.
? Allow the RTP to comply with the federal Clean Air Act.
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 4
Requires the MPO, prior to starting the public participation
process, to submit a description to ARB of the technical
methodology it intends to use to estimate the greenhouse gas
emissions from its SCS and requires ARB to respond to the MPO
in a timely manner with written comments about the technical
methodology.
Requires each MPO to conduct at least two informational
meetings in each county within the region to solicit and
consider the input and recommendations of local elected
officials on the SCS.
Requires each MPO to adopt a public participation plan for
development of the SCS that includes at least one public
workshop and, depending on the size of the region, two or
three public hearings.
Requires an MPO to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions projected to be achieved by the SCS and set forth
the difference, if any, between the amount of that reduction
and the target for the region established by ARB.
Requires the MPO, if an SCS is unable to reach the ARB target,
to prepare an alternative planning strategy (APS) identifying
the principal impediments to achieving the targets through the
SCS and showing how the ARB targets would be achieved through
alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or
additional transportation measures or policies. The APS shall
be a separate document from the RTP.
Requires the MPO, after adoption, to submit the SCS or APS,
including the quantification of the greenhouse gas emission
reductions the plan would achieve, to ARB for review.
Requires ARB to complete its review within 60 days and limits
ARB review to acceptance or rejection of the MPO's
determination that the strategy submitted would, if
implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets.
Requires the MPO, if ARB determines that the SCS would not
achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, to
revise its strategy or adopt an APS and submit the new
strategy for review.
Requires an MPO, at a minimum, to obtain ARB acceptance that
an APS would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets established for that region.
States that an SCS or APS does not supersede or interfere with
the land use authority of cities and counties, does not
require a city or county's land use policies and regulations
to be consistent with the SCS or APS, and does not limit ARB's
authority under any other provision of law.
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 5
Provides that an SCS or APS shall not affect any
transportation project programmed for funding on or before
December 31, 2011, if it is contained in the 2007 or 2009
STIP, funded through the Transportation Congestion Relief
Program, or specifically listed in a local transportation
sales tax ballot measure approved prior to December 31, 2008.
Nor does an SCS or APS require a transportation sales tax
authority to change the funding allocations approved by the
voters for categories of transportation projects in a sales
tax measure adopted prior to December 31, 2010.
Allows an MPO, or regional transportation planning agency not
within an MPO, that is currently on a five-year RTP cycle to
elect to adopt an RTP on a four-year cycle.
Requires an MPO or county transportation agency to consider
financial incentives for cities and counties that have
resource areas or farmland and, in counties with policies to
direct new growth towards cities, for counties to address
countywide service responsibilities.
Specifies how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
the Association of Bay Area Governments are to collaborate in
the preparation of the SCS for the Bay Area.
Specifies how the sub-regional councils of governments within
the Southern California Association of Governments will be
involved in the preparation of the SCS for the region.
Authorizes MPOs in San Joaquin Valley counties to work
together to develop and adopt a multi-regional SCS.
Travel demand models
Travel demand models are statistical and algorithmic attempts to
model human travel behavior. They endeavor to forecast potential
outcomes of various transportation and land use policy options.
In developing their RTPs, MPOs use travel demand models to
forecast future vehicle and transit usage and associated air
quality impacts.
This bill :
Requires the CTC to maintain guidelines for travel demand
models used in the development of regional transportation
plans that, to the extent practicable, account for all of the
following:
? The relationship between land use density and household
vehicle ownership and vehicle miles traveled.
? The impact of enhanced transit service levels on
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 6
household vehicle ownership and vehicle miles traveled.
? Changes in travel and land development likely to result
from highway or passenger rail expansion.
? Mode splitting that allocates trips between automobile,
transit, carpool, and bicycle and pedestrian trips. Speed
and frequency, days, and hours of operation of transit
service.
Requires CTC, before revising these guidelines, to form an
advisory committee and hold at least two public workshops on
the guidelines.
Requires MPOs to disseminate the methodology, results, and key
assumptions of whichever travel demand models they use in a
way that would be useable and understandable to the public.
Housing element law
The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities and counties to
prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element to
guide the future growth of a community. Cities and counties
must revise their housing elements every five years, following a
staggered statutory schedule. Before each revision, each
community is assigned its fair share of housing for each income
category through the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA)
process. A housing element must identify and analyze existing
and projected housing needs, identify adequate sites with
appropriate zoning to meet its share of the RHNA, and ensure
that regulatory systems provide opportunities for, and do not
unduly constrain, housing development. To the extent that a
city or county does not have adequate sites within its existing
inventory of residentially zoned land, then it must adopt a
program to rezone land at appropriate densities to accommodate
the jurisdiction's housing need for all income groups. The
rezonings that a city or county commits to in its program often
occur after the housing element is adopted and reviewed by HCD,
sometimes years into the planning period.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
reviews both draft and adopted housing elements to determine
whether or not they are in substantial compliance with the law.
Each year, every city and county must submit to HCD a housing
element progress report that includes the number of housing
units constructed by income category and the progress in
implementing programs within the element.
This bill requires cities and counties, in general, to revise
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 7
their housing elements every eight years in conjunction with the
region's RTP, identify in the housing element specific sites to
be rezoned, and complete any necessary rezonings within a
specific time period, generally three years. Specifically, the
bill:
Changes the RHNA cycle from five years to eight years for
regions that adopt an RTP every four years. The RHNA will
remain a five-year cycle in regions that adopt an RTP every
five years. Notwithstanding these deadlines, a city or county
that does not adopt a housing element within 120 days of the
regional housing element revision deadline must revise its
housing element every four years.
Requires that a council of governments (COG) provide HCD with
data assumptions about the relationship between jobs and
housing in the region, if available, and requires that HCD's
determination of the aggregate regional RHNA reflect the
achievement of a feasible balance between jobs and housing
within the region.
Allows a COG to request that HCD use population and household
forecast assumptions from the region's RTP.
Requires that a COG's allocation of the RHNA to individual
cities and counties be consistent with the SCS, provided that
the aggregate regional RHNA is maintained and that every
jurisdiction receives an allocation of housing need for very
low- and low-income households.
Requires a city or county to establish for each program in its
housing element a timeline for implementation, such that there
will be beneficial impacts of the program within the planning
period.
Requires a city or county to include in its annual housing
element progress reports a description of actions taken by the
local government to implement the element's programs by the
specified deadlines.
Requires a city or county, to the extent that rezoning of
sites is needed to accommodate its RHNA allocation, to
identify in the housing element the specific sites to be
rezoned.
Requires a city or county under an eight-year planning period
to complete the rezoning of any sites needed to accommodate
the RHNA no later than three years after either the date the
housing element is adopted or the date that is 90 days after
receipt of HCD's comments on the draft element, whichever is
earlier, except that in no case shall the rezonings be
completed later than three years and 120 days from the
regional housing element revision deadline. To the extent
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 8
that the city or county needs to rezone sites to accommodate
its very low- and low-income need, these sites must still be
zoned to permit multifamily residential use by right.
Allows the deadline to complete rezonings to be extended by
one year if the local government has completed rezonings at
densities sufficient to accommodate at least 75% of the RHNA
need for the very low and low-income categories and makes
specified findings.
Provides that a city or county that fails to complete the
rezonings by the deadline may only disapprove or otherwise
render infeasible any housing development that is at least 49%
affordable to low- and moderate-income households, located on
a site required to be rezoned, and in compliance with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards by
making a finding that the housing development project would
have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. This provision is known
as the builder's remedy.
Permits the developer or any interested person to bring an
action to enforce the builder's remedy, places the burden of
proof on the city or county, and specifies that if a court
finds that the city or county disapproved the project or
conditioned its approval in violation of these provisions, the
court must issue an order or judgment compelling compliance
within 60 days, retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order
or judgment is carried out, and, if it determines that its
order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days,
issue further orders to ensure that the purposes and policies
of the law are fulfilled.
Permits any interested person to bring an action to enforce
the requirements and deadlines associated with rezonings or
the removal of governmental constraints at any time during the
planning period, provided that the party provides the city or
county with notice at least 60 days prior to filing the
action, and specifies that the city or county shall bear the
burden of proof.
Requires a court, if it finds that a city or county has failed
to complete the required rezoning by the deadline, to issue an
order or judgment compelling the local government to complete
the rezoning within 60 days or the earliest time consistent
with public hearing notice requirements, to retain
jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried
out, and, if the court determines that its order or judgment
is not carried out, to issue further orders, including
sanctions, to ensure that the purposes and policies of the law
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 9
are fulfilled.
Generally requires all regions on an eight-year housing
element cycle, other than SANDAG, to begin the next planning
period no later than 18 months after the adoption of the first
RTP to be adopted after September 30, 2010. SANDAG will move
to the eight-year cycle after completing the planning period
that is just about to begin.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires that local government conduct an analysis of the
environmental impacts associated with projects, including
private housing developments subject to a discretionary review.
In cases where a full analysis is required, the local government
must certify an environmental impact report (EIR).
CEQA provides, among others, for a limited statutory exemption
for qualified infill housing or mixed-use housing developments.
To qualify for the exemption, a project must meet all of the
following criteria:
Be on an infill site in an urbanized area within mile of a
major transit stop,
Be consistent with any applicable general plan, specific plan,
and local coastal program.
Be on a site for which a community-level EIR has been
certified within the previous five years.
Meet various criteria intended to ensure that the project has
no apparent significant environmental impacts.
Include specified percentages of affordable housing.
Be on sites of no more than 4 acres or include no more than
100 units.
Attain a density of at least 20 units per acre, or 10 units
per acre if that is greater than the average density of other
housing within 1500 feet.
CEQA regulations also provide for a categorical exemption for
infill housing unless the project creates a reasonable
possibility of a project-specific impact or leads to a
significant cumulative impact. To qualify for the exemption,
the project must be located within city limits, be substantially
surrounded by urban uses, and meet the following criteria:
Be consistent with the general plan and zoning.
Can be adequately served by all utilities and services, has no
value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species,
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 10
is not a brownfield, would not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality, and does not affect historical resources.
Be no more than five acres.
Current law allows local governments to adopt specific plans,
which identify the distribution, location, and extent of the
uses of land within the area covered by the plan, and
establishes standards and criteria by which development will
proceed. Within a specific plan area, any residential
development project that is consistent with a specific plan for
which an EIR has been certified is exempt from further review
under CEQA unless substantial changes have occurred or new
information has become available since the EIR was certified.
This bill relaxes CEQA requirements for housing developments
that are consistent with an SCS or APS. Specifically, the bill:
Defines a "transit priority project" as one that:
? Is consistent with the general use designation, density,
building intensity, and applicable policies specified for
the project area in either an SCS or an APS, for which ARB
has accepted an MPO's determination that the SCS or APS
would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets.
? Contains at least 50% residential use, based on total
building square footage and, if the project contains
between 26% and 50% nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio
of not less than 0.75;
? Provides a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling
units per acre; and,
? Is located within one-half mile of an existing or
planned major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor
included in the RTP.
Exempts a transit priority project from CEQA if all of the
following conditions are met:
? The project site is not more than eight acres in total
area.
? The project does not contain more than 200 residential
units.
? The project does not result in any net loss in the
number of affordable housing units.
? The project does not include any single level building
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 11
that exceeds 75,000 square feet.
? Any applicable mitigation measures or performance
standards set forth in prior environmental impact reports
will be incorporated into the project.
? The project is determined not to conflict with nearby
operating industrial uses.
? The project and other approved projects can be
adequately served by existing utilities, and the project
applicant has committed to pay all applicable in-lieu or
development fees.
? The site of the project does not contain wetlands or
riparian areas and does not have significant value as a
wildlife habitat, and the transit priority project does not
harm any protected species.
? The project is not located on developed open space.
? The project does not have a significant impact on
historical resources.
? The site of the project is not included on any list of
contaminated facilities and sites.
? A preliminary endangerment assessment has been prepared
for the site and any hazardous substances have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
? The site is not subject to unusually high risk of fire
or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby
properties, risk of an excessive public health exposure, or
unmitigated wildland fire, seismic, landslide, or flood
risk.
? The project provides one of the following: 1) At least
20 percent of the units affordable to moderate income
households, at least 10 percent of units affordable to low
income households, or at least 5 percent of units
affordable to very low income households, or the developer
will pay an equivalent amount of in-lieu fees; or 2) public
open space of at least five acres per 1,000 residents of
the project.
Provides that a transit priority project that has incorporated
all feasible mitigation measures and performance standards set
forth in prior applicable EIRs may be reviewed through a
sustainable communities environmental assessment that
identifies, analyzes, and mitigates to a level of
insignificance all potentially significant environmental
effects. In the event of a challenge, a court shall review
the local government's decision to review a transit priority
project with a sustainable communities environmental
assessment under the substantial evidence standard.
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 12
Provides that a transit priority project that has incorporated
all feasible mitigation measures and performance standards set
forth in prior applicable EIRs may be reviewed by an EIR that
identifies and mitigates to a level of insignificance all
potentially significant environmental effects other than
growth inducing impacts and cumulative impacts from vehicles
on global warming or the regional transportation network. Such
an EIR need not analyze off-site alternatives to the transit
priority project.
Authorizes a city or county to adopt special traffic
mitigation measures for transit priority projects and exempts
projects that implement these measures from complying with any
other mitigation requirements related to traffic impacts of
the project on intersections, streets, highways, freeways, or
mass transit.
Provides that any residential development, or any mixed-use
development that devotes at least 75% of the square footage to
residential uses, that is consistent with an ARB-approved SCS
or APS and incorporates the mitigation measures required by an
applicable prior environmental document need not describe or
discuss in any CEQA document growth inducing impacts, any
project specific or cumulative vehicle impacts on global
warming or the regional transportation network, or a reduced
residential density alternative to vehicle impacts.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, this bill will
help implement AB 32 by aligning planning for housing, land
use, transportation, and greenhouse gas emissions for the 17
MPOs in the state. The environmental organizations sponsoring
this legislation maintain that AB 32 goals cannot be met
without changes in land use. Fuel-efficient cars and
low-carbon fuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but
reducing driving by building housing closer to jobs, schools,
and shopping venues will also be necessary.
This bill seeks to change land use practices in California by
giving each region a greenhouse gas emission reduction target
and requiring the regions to adopt regional growth strategies
that can achieve these targets. The regions will then assign
housing needs to cities and counties under housing element law
in a manner consistent with the growth strategy and ensure
that regional transportation spending plans are consistent
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 13
with the strategy. While local governments are not required
to implement the growth strategy directly, they will be
required to rezone land needed to accommodate their housing
needs within three years of the beginning of the housing
element planning period. Lastly, the bill facilitates infill
development by granting CEQA relief to housing developments
that are consistent with the growth strategy.
2.Going on faith . The ultimate success of this bill in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions depends on two things: 1) the
aggressiveness and appropriateness of the targets set by ARB,
and 2) the degree to which cities and counties conform their
land use decisions to the regional growth strategy.
While the bill establishes a process for ARB to use in setting
its regional targets, it does not establish any standard that
the targets must meet. If the targets are set too high,
regions will not be able to develop consensus and the SCS
process will either fall apart or fail to meet the target. If
the targets are set too low, however, the regions will not be
required to alter the status quo much. This bill is built on
faith that ARB will be able to set aggressive and appropriate
targets.
In general, cities and counties are not obligated to follow
the SCS. The fact that a region's RHNA allocation will
reflect its SCS means that cities and counties slated for
growth in the SCS will be required to zone additional land for
housing. This could help implement the SCS, but because
cities and counties maintain discretion over how and where
they zone additional land, this new capacity ultimately may or
may not be consistent with the SCS. Moreover, cities and
counties may continue to approve large job centers, megamalls,
and other large trip generators far from residential centers.
They may also continue to approve low-density subdivisions far
from job centers and outside the SCS footprint. This bill is
also built on faith that cities and counties will voluntarily
implement the SCS or at least respond to regional political
pressure to do so.
3.Concurrence hearing . This bill was referred to the committee
under Senate Rule 29.10 in order for the committee to review
the significant amendments taken in the Assembly. On a
concurrence hearing such as this, the committee may only take
one of two actions: 1) hold the bill; or 2) return the bill to
the Senate Floor for concurrence in Assembly amendments.
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 14
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 49-22
Appr: 11-4
Local Gov: 5-1
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before 9 am on Friday
August 29, 2008)
SUPPORT: California League of Conservation Voters
(sponsor)
Natural Resources Defense Council (sponsor)
Alpine Meadows
American Farmland Trust
American Lung Association of California
Association of Bay Area Governments
Audubon California
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Rapid Transit
Breathe California
California Association of Local Area Formation
Commissions
California Business Industry Association
California Chapter, American Planning Association
California Council of Land Trusts
California Interfaith Power and Light
California League of Cities
California Major Builders Council
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State Association of Counties
Chrysler
City of Citrus Heights
City of Folsom
City of Huntington Beach
City of Roseville
City of Sacramento
Coalition for Clean Air
Congress for a New Urbanism
County of Los Angeles
County of Napa
County of Sacramento
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 15
Defenders of Wildlife
Douglas Emmett, Inc.
Endangered Habitats League
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Entrepreneurs
Ford Motor Company
Fulcrum Properties
General Motors
Health Officers Association of California
Homewood Mountain Resort
Housing California
JMA Ventures
League of Women Voters
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Merced/Mariposa County Asthma Coalition
Metropolitan Transportation Commission of San
Francisco Bay Area
Moller International
New Voice of Business
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California
PG&E
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522
Sacramento Metro Chamber
Sacramento Regional Transit
Sacramento Regional Transit District
San Diego Association of Governments
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
South Coast Air Quality Management District
State Association of Electrical Workers
State Building and Construction Trades Council
State Pipe Trades Council
Toyota
Transportation and Land Use Coalition
Trust for Public Land
Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers
OPPOSED: Associated General Contractors of California
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Association of Councils of Government
AB 375 (STEINBERG) Page 16
California Association of Realtors
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Contract Cities Association
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of
California
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
County of Orange
Department of Finance
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Inland Empire Transportation Coalition
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Merced County Association of Governments
Orange County Transportation Authority
Orange County Business Council
Resource Landowners Coalition
San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission
San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council
Self-Help Counties Coalition
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
Southwest California Legislative Council
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Ventura Council of Governments
Western Riverside Council of Governments