BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                SB 303
                                                                       

                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
                        Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
                              2007-2008 Regular Session
                                           
           BILL NO:    SB 303
           AUTHOR:     Ducheny
           AMENDED:    April 18, 2007
           FISCAL:     Yes               HEARING DATE:     April 23, 2007
           URGENCY:    No                CONSULTANT:       Randy Pestor
            
           SUBJECT  :    PLANNING, CEQA, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

            SUMMARY  :    
           
            Existing law  :

           1) Under the California Constitution, authorizes a city or  
              county to "make and enforce within its limits all local,  
              police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not  
              in conflict with general law."

           2) Under Planning and Zoning Law, requires cities and counties  
              to adopt a general plan that includes seven mandated  
              elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation,  
              open space, noise, safety), and creates special  
              requirements for housing elements.  It also requires cities  
              and counties to adopt zoning ordinances regulating, for  
              example, the use of buildings, structures, and land.

           3) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),  
              requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility  
              for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary  
              project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated  
              declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this  
              action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA  
              includes various statutory exemptions, as well as  
              categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines).

           4) Under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), requires a lead  
              agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a  
              project within specified time periods (for example, 180  
              days from the date the lead agency certifies an EIR (except  
              90 days for a very low or low income housing project under  









                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 2

              certain conditions), 60 days from the date of adopting a  
              negative declaration or determining that a project is  
              exempt from CEQA).
            This bill  :

           1) Under Planning and Zoning Law, requires the general plan to  
              encompass a 20-year planning period (except for the current  
              requirement to update the housing element to cover a 5-year  
              period) and requires each general plan element to be  
              updated as necessary not less than every 10 years.  Under  
              Planning and Zoning Law requirements for the housing  
              element, this bill:

              a)    Requires the housing needs quantified objectives to  
                 "establish," rather than "estimate," the maximum number  
                 of housing units to be constructed and rehabilitated for  
                 certain income categories over a 10-year period, rather  
                 than the current 5-year period requirement.   
                 (65583(b)(2)).

              b)    Requires a city council or board of supervisors to  
                 designate in its housing element sufficient land and to  
                 zone sites for residential use to accommodate the  
                 jurisdiction's 10-year housing need.  The obligation to  
                 designate sites for the region's 10-year lower income  
                 household housing need must be satisfied to allow the  
                 minimum number of units per acre, as specified.  The  
                 local government must prepare an EIR in connection with  
                 the designation of sites.  (65583.3(a)).

              c)    Requires actions to be taken to make sites available  
                 with appropriate zoning during the "first year of the  
                 planning period" (rather than for the housing element  
                 planning period) for the jurisdiction's share of the  
                 regional housing need for each income level.   
                 (65583(c)(1)(A)).

              d)    Requires the housing element program to identify  
                 sites that "shall be made available" (rather than "can  
                 be developed") during the "first year of the planning  
                 period" (rather than the housing element planning  
                 period). 65583(c)(1)(C).  The program must also specify  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 3

                 the date by which each action in the program must be  
                 implemented.  (65583(c)(7)).

              e)    Requires sites to be identified for lower income  
                 households that meet certain densities (rather than  
                 current provisions where these densities are "deemed  
                 appropriate" and must be based upon an analysis of such  
                 factors as market demand and financial feasibility).   
                 This bill also requires that these sites are not planned  
                 for nonresidential development or development with  
                 housing for non-lower income households.  65583.2(c)(2).

              f)    Requires the rental housing "by right" provisions to  
                 apply "during the first year of the planning period"  
                 (rather than during the housing element planning  
                 period).  (65583.2(h)).  "By right" means the local  
                 agency's review of a residential use cannot require a  
                 discretionary review or approval that constitutes a  
                 project under CEQA.

              g)    Prohibits a zone change for residential use without  
                 the consent of the project applicant, except by a 4/5  
                 vote of the city council or board of supervisors when a  
                 complete application has been submitted to develop a  
                 project and the project is consistent with zoning  
                 applicable to the site.  An abstention cannot count as  
                 an affirmative vote.  (65583(c)).

              h)    Requires a court, if the court finds that a local  
                 government failed to comply with the requirements of  
                 65583(a), to retain jurisdiction of an action and issue  
                 an order requiring compliance with 65583(a) within 120  
                 days, or a lesser period if the court determines that a  
                 lesser period is appropriate.  (65583(d)).

              i)    Requires a city or county, within one year after the  
                 date of revising the housing element, to submit written  
                 documentation to the Department of Housing and Community  
                 Development (HCD) regarding actions to comply with the  
                 one-year zoning requirements in this bill, and HCD must  
                 review the submittal and report its written findings to  
                 the jurisdiction within 30 days.  If HCD finds that the  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 4

                 jurisdiction failed to substantially comply with the  
                 one-year zoning requirement, then HCD must notify the  
                 jurisdiction that its housing element does not comply  
                 with the requirements.  Legislative intent declares that  
                 these findings be given substantial deference and weight  
                 by courts regarding noncompliance with housing element  
                 requirements.  (65585).

              j)    Changes deadlines for revising housing elements, with  
                 unspecified dates, by requiring the five-year update to  
                 include amendments to ensure sites are designated and  
                 zoned to accommodate the jurisdiction's 10-year housing  
                 need.  (65588).

              aa)   Provides that all deadlines in the housing element  
                 law are mandatory and not directory.  (65588.2).

              bb)   Provides that nothing in the housing element  
                 requirements can be interpreted to affect current law  
                 with respect to planning, use, or development of areas  
                 outside designated and zoned housing sites, or to  
                 establish any presumption regarding the appropriate  
                 designation or use of those sites.  (65588.3).

              cc)   Requires any approval in connection with a project  
                 that is consistent with the zoning designation, or  
                 identified in an inventory or subject to the "by right"  
                 provisions, is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act.   
                 (65583.3(b)).

           2) Requires a zoning ordinance to be consistent with a city or  
              county general plan if certain conditions are met, such as  
              the zoning ordinance "allows development at the density  
              range without the need for any additional land use approval  
              that is legislative or quasi-legislative in nature."   
              (65860(a)(3)).

           3) Authorizes a property owner to bring an action requiring  
              that zoning its property be made consistent with the  
              general plan.  (65860(b)).

           4) Requires zoning consistency requirements to apply to  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 5

              charter cities (Los Angeles is the only charter city  
              subject to the consistency requirement under current law).   
              (65860(c)).

           5) Provides legislative intent that the Court of Appeal  
              opinion in  Mira Development Corporation of San Diego v.  
              City of San Diego  (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, is  
              inconsistent with the Legislature's intent that:  a) the  
              phrase "health and safety" be narrowly construed, and b)  
              substantial evidence in support of a health and safety  
              finding be of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in  
              nature, credible, and of solid value in light of all of the  
              evidence in the record.  (SEC. 12).

            COMMENTS  :

            1) Purpose of Bill  .  According to the author, the main reason  
              for a lack of housing is a local government planning  
              process that is broken, and this bill "would require every  
              California city's general plan to encompass a planning and  
              projection period of 20 years and set aside enough land  
              with appropriate zoning to supply housing at all income  
              levels for the projected population growth."

            2) Zoning requirements  .  SB 303 requires local agencies to  
              designate and zone sites to accommodate housing for ten  
              years (although there is a conflict in this bill regarding  
              a 10-year or 5-year period on page 16, lines 9 to 19).   
              This bill also requires a local agency to zone sites for  
              residential uses within one year, rather than for the  
              housing element planning period, and requires the zoning  
              consistency under current law to apply to charter cities.   
              Requiring zoning to occur within one year is likely  
              infeasible, and may exceed planning resources, for many  
              local governments.

           This bill should provide for the zoning requirement to:  a) be  
              done over the 5-year housing element period to enable  
              phasing; and b) provide a shorter period for subsequent  
              housing element updates, such as 3 years, while also  
              allowing for phasing of development in those areas.











                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 6

           Charter cities that have not been subject to the requirement  
              for zoning consistency and are likely to have many infill  
              opportunities, should be given additional time during the  
              first five-year planning period to meet the zoning  
              requirement

           Other provisions of SB 303 relating to this one-year period,  
              such as "making sites available," application of "by right"  
              requirements, and similar references, need to be consistent  
              with the above changes to the zoning provisions.

           Finally, it would be inappropriate to enable property owners  
              to bring actions requiring zoning on their property to be  
              made consistent with a general plan, as provided under this  
              bill, given the above time constraints.

            3) Location of housing  .  Assuring adequate housing for  
              California's future is a worthy goal; the issue is where  
              should such housing be located and how should the need for  
              housing be balanced against other worthwhile goals (for  
              example, preservation of land for agriculture, an important  
              element of California's economy, and open space)?

           This bill should be amended to specify that, in making the  
              designations required by SB 303, local agencies must give  
              preference to locating housing on infill, redevelopment,  
              and brownfield sites before looking to open space and  
              greenfield sites as a source of land to satisfy the state's  
              projected housing needs.  Moreover, it should be these  
              preferred locations for housing that receive the  
              preferential treatment contemplated by SB 303, not  
              greenfield sites.
            
            4) Supermajority voting requirement  .  SB 303 prohibits a zone  
              change for residential use without the consent of the  
              project applicant, except by a 4/5 vote of the city council  
              or board of supervisors when a complete application has  
              been submitted to develop a project and the project is  
              consistent with zoning applicable to the site.  SB 303  
              further requires that any zone change can only be done  
              after making findings that are very difficult to make.  An  
              abstention cannot count as an affirmative vote.










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 7


           This provision is problematic and should be stricken because:   
              a) there is no known requirement for a 4/5 vote in Planning  
              and Zoning Law and this may also be interpreted to be  
              undemocratic; b) the project applicant is subject to a  
              majority vote; c) it would not be possible to rezone the  
              property for subsequent housing element updates; and d) a  
              local official can be legally disqualified within the  
              meaning of the Political Reform Act, which may be an  
              additional hurdle to change zoning.

            5) Financing  .  Updating a general plan every 10 years involves  
              considerable expense for local agencies.  For example, the  
              League of California Cities estimates that the cost of this  
              process is likely to exceed $300 million per cycle in  
              today's dollars.  SB 303 proposes that this cost be  
              recouped through fees imposed at the local level, which  
              require their own costly process to document the requisite  
              relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of  
              the service being provided.

           If the purpose of this bill is to promote the construction of  
              low and moderate income housing (or at least not to further  
              deepen affordability challenges), the financing mechanism  
              should be structured so it is not passed through to lower  
              income housing purchasers.  One mechanism is to impose the  
              fee on those that generate the need for additional housing,  
              similar to the approach upheld in  Commercial Builders of  
              Northern California v. City of Sacramento  (9th Cir. 1991)  
              941 F.2d 872, which conditioned development of  
              non-residential property on payment of a fee to offset the  
              costs of providing affordable housing to those who will  
              work there.  HCD could be tasked with documenting the  
              required nexus between non-residential development and  
              housing demand to support this fee (which would cost less  
              and be more efficient than having all local jurisdictions  
              undertake such studies).

           Another funding mechanism would be parallel to the Strong  
              Motion Instrumentation and Seismic Hazards Mapping  
              programs, where cities and counties collect a fee from each  
              building permit applicant to fund programs for installing  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 8

              strong motion instruments on structures and to develop  
              hazard mapping.

            6) The general plan as an integrated and comprehensive  
              document  .  SB 303 creates a series of stringent protections  
              for land designated for housing.  A general plan, however,  
              represents a comprehensive vision for the community,  
              including for example, the value of preserving some lands  
              for conservation and open space.  The various protections  
              SB 303 affords for lands designated for housing in an  
              agencies' planning documents should be also extended to  
              lands designated for conservation, open space, and  
              agriculture, and related uses.

           To ensure that there is parity between the general plan  
              housing element requirement and those for a local agency's  
              conservation and open space elements, SB 303 would need  
              several amendments, including:  a) a requirement to update  
              conservation and open space elements every 5 years; b) a  
              program to identify the regional need for open space,  
              parks, agriculture, and similar uses; c) a requirement to  
              analyze open space and park needs for lower income  
              households, and to provide open spaces and parks for these  
              households; and d) a requirement to identify policies and  
              incentives that promote and protect open space, parks,  
              agriculture and similar uses.  If requirements remain in  
              this bill for supermajority voting, residential uses  
              without any further legislative or quasi-legislative  
              action, and increased state oversight, then comparable  
              amendments for conservation and open space actions would  
              also be needed.  If a financing provision is added to this  
              bill, then a similar funding mechanism would need to be  
              provided for conservation and open space related  
              requirements.

            7) Consistency Requirements  .  SB 303 provides that a zoning  
              ordinance is consistent with a general plan in the case of  
              residential uses if the zoning ordinance "allows  
              development at the density range without the need for any  
              additional land use approval that is legislative or  
              quasi-legislative in nature." (65860(a)(3)).  This is  
              inconsistent with current law where zoning is consistent  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 9

              with the general plan when "various land uses authorized by  
              the [zoning] ordinance are compatible with the objectives,  
              policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the  
              plan" (65860(a)), and would thereby preclude a local  
              government from considering policies relating to, for  
              example, certain environmental and infrastructure issues.

           This is a significant conflict with current law and should be  
              stricken.

            8) Limiting land available for workforce housing  .  Section  
              65583.2(c)(2)'s requirement that "sites identified to  
              accommodate housing for lower income households shall be  
              sites that are not already planned for nonresidential  
              development or development with housing for non-lower  
              income households . . ." creates a significant impediment  
              to zoning for affordable housing by taking sites that are  
              planned for non-residential and market-rate housing out of  
              consideration for designation as workforce housing.  This  
              seems fundamentally inconsistent with state policies  
              promoting affordable housing for California's workforce.   
              It also appears to create a policy that segregates  
              workforce housing from other forms of housing and  
              development.

            9) Increased reporting and oversight functions  .  Current law  
              requires local governments to provide an annual report to  
              the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD regarding  
              certain general plan matters, including a requirement for a  
              housing element portion of this annual report (Government  
              Code 65400).  SB 303 adds additional reporting  
              requirements that must be provided to HCD one year after  
              revision of the housing element (Government Code 65585).   
              HCD must review the report within 30 days, receive written  
              comments from other agencies or persons, and determine  
              whether the local government has substantially complied  
              with certain housing element requirements.

           Because the one year zoning requirements under this bill are  
              infeasible (see Comment #2), any reporting requirement  
              should be at a later date.  There should also be an  
              opportunity for the local government to respond to HCD's  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 10

              findings.

            10)Affecting CEQA  .  SB 303 limits application of CEQA by, for  
              example:  a) requiring zoning to allow development in the  
              specified density range "without the need for any  
              additional land use approval that is legislative or  
              quasi-legislative in nature;" b) requiring changes to be  
              subject to written findings pursuant to 65589(d) or (j);  
              c) requiring a supermajority 4/5 vote to change zoning; d)  
              limiting the holding in the  Mira  case (see Comment #12);  
              and e) the limited one-year zoning requirement.

           To ensure that application of CEQA to the planning process is  
              not limited or affected, provisions such as those cited  
              above, must be stricken (and in the case of the one-year  
              zoning requirement, extending that period as provided under  
              Comment #2).

            11)Permit Streamling Act amendments  .  Time limits in the PSA  
              relate to determining the completeness of applications and  
              reaching decisions on development projects.  Time limits  
              have also been enacted under CEQA for completing  
              environmental documents and executing contracts for their  
              preparation.  PSA deadlines do not apply to certain  
              actions, such as legislative actions (adoption or amendment  
              of a general plan or zoning ordinance) legislative actions  
              that are combined with adjudicatory permits, compliance  
              with federal requirements with longer time schedules, and  
              certain other actions (administrative appeals, applications  
              to appropriate water).

           SB 303 requires any approval in connection with a project that  
              is consistent with the site designation and zoning to be  
              subject to the PSA, as well as zoning sites during the  
              bill's one-year period and "by right" zoned sites process.   
              This change is inappropriate because:  a)  it has been held  
              in  Landi v. County of Monterey  , 139 Cal.App.3d 934, 937  
              (1983), that the PSA was not meant to impose a rigorous  
              timetable on a local government's exercise of its  
              policy-making "legislative" powers, but only the exercise  
              of its "adjudicatory" powers; and b) other actions involved  
                                                   in the amendment are initiated by the local agency, not by  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 11

              an applicant.

           Therefore, the PSA provisions in this bill should be stricken.

            12)Overturning Mira  .  Section 12 of the bill appears to be an  
              effort to overturn at least a portion of the court's  
              holdings in  Mira Development Corporation of San Diego v.  
              City of San Diego  (1988, reported at 205 Cal.App.3d 1201),  
              a nearly 20-year old case that upheld a local agency's  
              denial of a rezoning application because of school  
              overcrowding concerns.  This bill apparently wants to  
              prevent such decisions in the future by:  a) expressing  
              legislative intent that the phrase "health and safety"  
              should be construed narrowly, and b) creating an uncodified  
              standard for substantial evidence when making health and  
              safety findings ("substantial evidence in support of a  
              health and safety finding be of ponderable legal  
              significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid  
              value in light of all of the evidence in the record").   
              There are problems with this provision because:

              a)    Case law that says that legislative expressions of  
                 the intent of an earlier legislative act (in this case,  
                 the 1982 Legislature's act in adopting Government Code  
                 section 65589.5) are not binding on the courts.  See,  
                 for example,  Parnell v. Adventist Health System/West,  
                  (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 595 (citing  Eu v. Chacon  (1976)), 16  
                 Cal.3d 465;  Del Costello v. State of California  (1982)  
                 135 Cal.App.3d 887, 893 (finding the Legislature has no  
                 authority to interpret a statute or declare what it did  
                 mean; instead it must define the meaning of statute by  
                 present statutory enactment).  This is consistent with  
                 the California Constitution's requirement that a statute  
                 may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as  
                 amended.  See Cal. Const. art. 4,  8.  If the bill's  
                 proponents want to clarify the standards for health and  
                 safety and substantial evidence for purposes of  
                 Government Code section 65589.5, they should do so  
                 explicitly in that section's definitions section  
                 (subdivision (h)).

              b)    It is not clear what this new standard of substantial  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 12

                 evidence means.   Some courts have already used the  
                 standard articulated in the bill as a definition of  
                 substantial evidence for purposes of administrative  
                 mandamus and CEQA review.  See  American Canyon Community  
                 United for Responsible Growth  (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th  
                 1062, 1069-70 ("Substantial evidence is evidence of  
                 ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature,  
                 credible, and of solid value, evidence that a reasonable  
                 mind might accept as adequate to support a  
                 conclusion.").  A legislative declaration that such a  
                 definition of substantial evidence only applies with  
                 respect to health and safety findings creates the  
                 inference that such a definition is not a valid  
                 definition of substantial evidence generally.  Is this  
                 the argument that the bill's sponsors want to make?   
                 Even if they do, saying so in such an indirect fashion  
                 and in an uncodified section is likely to invite  
                 litigation.

              c)    Most importantly, there is also the policy issue of  
                 whether the Legislature should further erode local  
                 agencies' consideration of health and safety factors,  
                 including school overcrowding, in determining whether to  
                 rezone property (the situation in  Mira  ).  By declaring  
                 that  Mira  "is inconsistent with the Legislature's  
                 intent," the Legislature would further limit local  
                 government's ability to direct where development should  
                 occur in a jurisdiction.

              To ensure that project impacts are properly mitigated, this  
                 provision should be stricken (as also noted under  
                 Comment #10).

            13)Where's the state plan  ?  AB 857 (Wiggins/Sher) Chapter  
              1016, Statutes of 2002, requires the Governor to annually  
              submit (with the Budget) a proposed five-year  
              infrastructure plan.  The plan must include criteria and  
              priorities used to identify and select the infrastructure  
              proposed for funding and must specify sources of funding,  
              an evaluation of the impact of new state debt on the  
              state's existing overall debt position, and recommend  
              specific projects for funding.  These state planning  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 13

              priorities are intended to promote equity, strengthen the  
              economy, protect the environment, and promote public health  
              and safety by:  1) promoting infill development and equity,  
              2) protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and  
              3) encouraging efficient development patterns.

           Current law requires the Governor to prepare an Environmental  
              Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) that is an overview of  
              "state growth and development and a statement of approved  
              state environmental goals and objectives, including those  
              directed to land use, population growth and distribution,  
              development, the conservation of natural resources, and air  
              and water quality."  The EGPR must also serve as a guide  
              for state expenditures.

           Although the EGPR must be revised, updated, and transmitted by  
              the Governor to the Legislature every four years, the EGPR  
              has not been revised since 1978 (under Governor Jerry  
              Brown) - almost a 30-year old plan.

           Local governments have long been concerned that the state  
              consistently adds new local planning requirements, yet  
              without an updated EGPR sends mixed signals to local  
              governments by, for example, its uncoordinated  
              transportation, prison, higher education, farmland  
              protection, and housing policies and actions.

           Is it time to focus on ensuring that the state implements AB  
              857 planning priorities and has an updated EGPR before  
              enacting major changes to housing element requirements?

            SOURCE  :        California Major Builders Council  

           SUPPORT  :       Access to Independence, AFSCME, Allied Housing,  
                          Alvarado & Associates, LLC, Asian Law Alliance,  
                          Asian Pacific Islander Small Business Program,  
                          Barratt American, Inc., Bethel Missionary  
                          Baptist Church, Beyond Shelter, Brehm  
                          Communities, BRIDEGE Housing, California  
                          Association of Realtors, California Black  
                          Chamber Foundation, California Building  
                          Industry Association, California Business  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 14

                          Roundtable, California Chamber of Commerce,  
                          California Coalition for Rural Housing,  
                          California Federation of Teachers, Council for  
                          Environmental and Economic Balance, California  
                          Council of Churches Impact, California Housing  
                          Consortium, California State Firefighters  
                          Association, Calistoga Affordable Housing,  
                          Inc., Cal-Nevada Conference of Operating  
                          Engineers, Coalition of Women from Asia and the  
                          Middle East (CWAME), Communities Actively  
                          Living Independent & Free, Congress of  
                          California Seniors, Corman Leigh Communities,  
                          Delco Builders & Developers, Father Joe's  
                          Villages, HomeAid Northern California, Housing  
                          California, Loaves and Fishes, Los Angeles  
                          Conservation Corps, Martha's Village & Kitchen,  
                          Inc., National AIDS Foundation, Josue Homes,  
                          Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County,  
                          Peace Officers Research Association of  
                          California, Ponderosa Homes II Inc., Sacred  
                          Heart Parish, Saint John Missionary Baptist  
                          Association, Samaritan Reach, San Diego Housing  
                          Federation, San Diego Regional Chamber of  
                          Commerce, San Diego Urban Economic Corporation,  
                          Self Help for the Elderly, Signature  
                          Properties, Solari Enterprises, Inc., St.  
                          Vincent de Paul Village, The John Stewart  
                          Company, Toussaint Youth Villages - Toussaint  
                          Teen Center, Tri-City Homeless Coalition,  
                          United California Mortgage and Financial  
                          Services, West Bay Housing Corporation 

            SUPPORT IF AMENDED  

           Planning and Conservation League
            
           OPPOSITION  :    Cities:  Alhambra, Antioch, Arroyo Grande,  
                          Barstow, Bell, Bellflower, Belmont, Beverly  
                          Hills, Bishop, Brea, Buena Park, Burbank,  
                          Burlingame, Campbell, Carmel by the Sea,  
                          Cerritos, Chino, Chino Hills, Claremont,  
                          Clovis, Colton, Commerce, Compton, Daly City,  










                                                                SB 303
                                                                 Page 15

                          Diamond Bar, Emeryville, Fairfield, Fontana,  
                          Fortuna, Garden Grove, Goleta, Hermosa Beach,  
                          Hesperia, Highland, Huntington Park, Inglewood,  
                          La Habra, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lafayette,  
                          Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lakewood,  
                          Lancaster, Latino Caucus, League of CA Cities,  
                          Livermore, Long Beach, Marysville, Monrovia,  
                          Montclair, Monte Serano, Moorpark, Moreno  
                          Valley, Mt. Shasta, Murrieta, Norwalk, Ontario,  
                          Palo Alto, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera,  
                          Poway, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Palos Verdes,  
                          Redlands, Redondo Beach, Rohnert Park City  
                          Council, Roseville, Sacramento, San Bernardino,  
                          San Buenaventura, San Mateo, San Rafael, Santa  
                          Clara, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Maria, Santa  
                          Rosa, Scotts Valley, Seaside, Sebastopol,  
                          Signal Hill, Solvang, South San Francisco,  
                          Sunnyvale, Temple City, Torrance, Tustin,  
                          Vacaville, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut Creek,  
                          Watsonville, Westlake Village, Windsor,  
                          Whittier  

            American Planning Association, California League of  
                          Conservation Voters, California State  
                          Association of Counties (concerns), Contra  
                          Costa County, Environment California, League of  
                          California Cities, Monterey County Mayors'  
                          Association, Natural Resources Defense Council,  
                          Regional Council of Rural Counties, Sierra Club  
                          California