BILL ANALYSIS
SB 375
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 9, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Pedro Nava, Chair
SB 375 (Steinberg) - As Amended: June 27, 2007
SENATE VOTE : 21-15
SUBJECT : Transportation planning: travel demand models:
preferred growth scenarios
SUMMARY : Links transportation planning and funding to general
land use planning and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations relative to greenhouse gas
emissions, the emissions that are attributed to the
transportation sector, and the expanded uses for planning
models and analytical techniques to effect policy choices.
2)Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in
consultation with the California Air Resources Board (ARB), to
adopt travel demand model guidelines by April 1, 2008, for
mandated use by the federally-designated metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) of which there are 18 within the state,
county transportation agencies in areas that have been
designated as nonattainment areas under the federal Clean Air
Act, and the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) - that includes the Counties of Imperial, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Requires CTC
to form an advisory committee and to hold workshops. Requires
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to
assist CTC in preparing the guidelines upon CTC's request.
3)Requires the guidelines to account, at a minimum and to the
extent practicable, the following:
a) The relationship between land use density and household
vehicle ownership and vehicle miles traveled.
b) The impact of enhanced transit service levels on
household vehicle ownership and vehicle miles traveled.
c) Induced travel and induced land development resulting
from highway or passenger rail expansion.
SB 375
Page 2
d) Mode splitting that allocates trips between automobile,
transit, carpool, and bicycle and pedestrian trips.
4)Requires specified regional transportation planning agencies
(RTPAs) and public transportation entities to disseminate the
methodology, results, and key assumptions of the travel demand
model usable and understandable to the public. Encourages,
but does not require, other RTPAs (primarily representing the
smaller, rural areas) to use the travel demand models in the
development of their regional transportation plans (RTPs).
5)Requires specified RTPAs to report to CTC on how the travel
demand model supports corridor planning and small area
planning at the time the RTP is submitted to CTC and Caltrans.
6)Requires RTPs to include preferred growth scenario (PGS) that:
a) Identifies areas within the region that are sufficient
to house all the population of the region for all income
categories over the course of the planning period;
b) Identifies a transportation network to service the
transportation needs of the region;
c) Identifies significant resource areas and significant
farmland;
d) Excludes from development all publicly-owned parks and
open space, open space or habitat areas protected by a
habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plans,
lands subject to conservation easements or Williamson Act
contracts, and, except in specified conditions, open space
lands, endangered plant or animal species habitat, habitat
blocks, linkages, or watershed units, floodplains, and
"significant farmland," defined as farmland classified as
prime or unique farmland, or farmland that is of statewide
importance and located outside all existing spheres of
influence; and,
e) Allows the regional transportation plan to comply with
specified provisions of the federal Clean Air Act.
SB 375
Page 3
7)Requires ARB, by an unspecified date, in consultation with the
affected transportation agencies and after at least one public
workshop, to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
from the automobile and light truck sector for each region, to
be achieved by 2020 and 2035. Requires ARB to update the
regional targets consistent with each agency's timeframe for
updating its regional transportation plan under federal law
until 2050.
8)Requires a preferred growth scenario (PGS) to be consistent
with the state planning priorities established by AB 857
(Wiggins), Chapter 1016, Statutes of 2002.
9)Requires an RTPA to prepare a supplement to a PGS showing how
those greenhouse gas emission targets could be achieved
through additional transportation investments, land use
incentives, or other programs and incentives if the PGS is
unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the
targets established by ARB.
10) States that a PGS does not regulate the use of land, nor
shall it be subject to any state review or approval, and that
nothing in a PGS shall be interpreted as superseding or
interfering with the exercise of the land use authority of
cities and counties within the region.
11)Requires that, on and after January 1, 2009, projects and
improvements to be funded from the regional transportation
improvement programs shall be consistent with the RTPs, but
exempts projects programmed for funding on or before December
31, 2011, which are not required to be consistent with the PGS
if they are contained in the 2006 or 2008 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program or are funded pursuant to
Proposition 1B.
12)Defines the phrases "consistent with the preferred growth
scenario" or "consistent with the regional transportation
plan" to mean that the capacity of transportation projects and
improvements does not exceed that which is necessary to
provide reasonable service levels to the preferred growth
scenario.
13)Requires that, before an RTPA can identify a significant
resource area or significant farmland as a development area,
SB 375
Page 4
it must make findings that the area is adjacent to urbanized
areas or located on infill sites; the area is served by
necessary utilities; there is no feasible alternative; the
loss of resource area is fully mitigated; and the land is
efficiently used with a minimum of 10 units per acre.
14)Requires the following projects to be consistent with the
preferred growth strategy for the region:
a) Projects to implement a regional transportation plan;
b) Establishing corridors of statewide or regional
priority;
c) As of January 1, 2009, projects and improvements funded
in the five-year STIP; and,
d) Congestion Management Plans.
15)Authorize exemptions from specified California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for certain projects within an
eligible local jurisdiction that has amended the general plan
so that the land use, circulation, housing, and open space
elements are consistent with the PGS. The CEQA "relief":
a) Applies to cities and counties who have amended their
general plans (land use, circulation, housing and open
space elements) to be consistent with the PGS in the
region.
b) Allows a shortened review for eligible residential and
residential/mixed use projects on infill sites
(environmental document need only examine project specific
impacts if environmental impact reports (EIRs) have
previously been certified on the PGS and the general plan
amendments).
c) Exempts "sustainable communities" projects designated by
legislative body after public hearing.
16)Establishes criteria for sustainable communities project to
include:
a) Utilities adequate.
SB 375
Page 5
b) In lieu or development fees paid.
c) No wetlands, riparian areas, habitat value, harm to
protected species.
d) No hazardous waste.
e) No effect on historical resources.
f) No wildland fire risk, seismic, landslide, flood, etc.
g) Complies with local "green" building standards.
h) Located on an infill site.
i) Residential or residential/mixed use.
j) Not more than 8 acres.
aa) Not more than 200 units.
bb) No loss in affordable housing in the project area.
cc) No single level building over 75,000 square feet.
dd) Consistent with general plan.
ee) Meets specified affordability criteria, or located
within mile of a major transit stop, or provides public
open space of at least 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
17)Authorizes legislative bodies of urban cities and counties to
adopt traffic mitigation measures that apply to all future
residential projects at least 10 units per acre. If adopted,
individual projects are relieved from requirement to comply
with any additional traffic mitigation measures (except for
impacts on pedestrian or bicycle safety). Requires local
review of the traffic mitigation measures and upgrade if
necessary at least every five years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Under Federal law, 23 United State Codes Section 134, requires
an MPO to be designated for each urbanized area with a
population of more than 50,000.
SB 375
Page 6
2)Requires each RTPA to adopt and submit to CTC and Caltrans an
updated RTP every three years in urban regions and every four
years in non-urban regions. Sets forth, as part of the
regional transportation planning process, development of a
regional transportation plan (RTP). RTPs are to reflect the
mobility goals and objectives of the region and be 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. RTPAs and
MPOs are encouraged to include in their RTPs a discussion on
transportation demand management (TDM), which consists of
managing how, when, and where people travel. TDM programs
include carpools, vanpools, guaranteed rides home,
park-and-ride lots, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, public
transit, telecommuting, and trip reduction strategies. The
RTP must contain a policy element, an action element, and a
financial element and is the source for projects programmed in
the RTIP.
3)Requires CTC, in cooperation with RTPAs and Caltrans, to
prepare RTP Guidelines.
4)Requires Caltrans to prepare various transportation plans,
including the California Transportation Plan and the Federal
Transportation Improvement Plan.
5)Requires CTC to adopt the 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 the
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) and
the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs)
developed by 48 RTPAs. 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.
6)Authorizes a city or county to designate an infill opportunity
zone that must be consistent with any general plan and
specific plan.
7)Exempts a residential project, not exceeding 100 units, with a
minimum residential density of 20 units per acre and within
SB 375
Page 7
one-half mile of a transit stop, on an infill site in an
urbanized area, if certain other conditions are met, from the
requirements of CEQA.
8)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).
9)Provides ARB, the State Energy Commission, and the California
Climate Action Registry with responsibilities with respect to
the control of emissions of greenhouse gases, and the
Secretary for Environmental Protection is required to
coordinate emission reductions of greenhouse gases and climate
change activity in state government.
10)Requires ARB to require the reporting and verification of
statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce
compliance with this program, as specified. Requires ARB to
adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to
the statewide greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990 to be
achieved by 2020; AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley) Chapter 488,
Statutes of 2006.
11)Enacts Proposition 1C, the Housing and Emergency Shelter
Trust Fund Act of 2006, approved by the voters in the November
2006 general election, authorizes the issuance of $2.85
billion in general obligation bonds for various existing
housing programs, capital outlay related to infill
development, and other purposes.
12)Enacts the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006,
approved by the voters as Proposition 84 in the November 2006
general election. Authorizes the issuance of $5.388 billion
in general obligation bonds for various public resources
projects, including $90,000,000 for planning grants and
planning incentives for the development of regional and local
land use plans that are designed to promote water
conservation, reduce automobile use and fuel consumption,
encourage greater infill and compact development, protect
natural resources and agricultural lands, and revitalize urban
SB 375
Page 8
and community centers.
13)Enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality,
and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as
Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006. Provides nearly $20
billion for transportation and air quality improvements as
well as capitol funds for port and transit security.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations:
1)CTC costs associated with the adoption of guidelines would be
in the range of $200,000.
2)Caltrans costs for participating in the process for adopting
guidelines for travel demand models would be absorbable.
3)ARB would require three positions at a cost of $330,000 and
approximately $300,000 in contracted work to develop regional
targets and complete site-specific modeling work in order to
implement the provisions of this bill.
4)By requiring larger regional planning entities to apply the
specified travel demand models to their regional
transportation plans, and requiring all RTPAs to include a
preferred growth scenario in regional transportation plans,
this bill would result in a reimbursable state mandate of
unknown significant costs, potential in the range of several
million dollars.
COMMENTS :
Purpose: According to the author, SB 375 provides a mechanism
for reducing greenhouse gases from the single largest sector of
emissions, cars and light trucks. The environmental
organizations sponsoring this legislation maintain that changes
in land use and transportation policy must be made to achieve
the goals of AB 32. Although greenhouse gas emissions can be
reduced by producing more fuel efficient cars and using low
carbon fuel, reductions in vehicle miles traveled will also be
necessary. Thus, the travel demand models used by metropolitan
planning organizations to develop regional transportation plans
must assess the effects of land use decisions, transit service,
and economic incentives. This bill will help implement AB 32 by
amending programs that are beyond the current authority of ARB.
SB 375
Page 9
It creates new provisions for the preparation of regional
transportation plans and it creates a new subchapter in CEQA to
encourage the implementation of plans for greenhouse gas
reductions at the local level.
Accordingly, this bill contains three principal provisions:
1)The regional transportation plans for each region that will
include a PGS in which growth is located where it will achieve
greenhouse gas reduction targets set for the region by ARB.
The author and sponsors have been at pains to state that the
RTPs have no regulatory power over land use.
2)Local governments would have fiscal "incentives" to implement
SB 375. This bill provides that future transportation
projects would have to be consistent with the PGS. When local
governments make land use decisions that implement the PGS,
they will be rewarded with transportation funding. Existing
transportation projects in the funding pipeline through 2011
will not be affected.
3)Local governments would have regulatory incentives to
implement SB 375. Those local governments who choose to amend
their land use plans to conform to the PGS, will be authorized
to utilize new provisions of CEQA which are designed to assist
in implementing the PGS, while preserving public participation
and transparency.
Preferred Growth Scenario (PGS): According to the author, the
PGS will be adopted by all regional transportation planning
agencies using the procedures now utilized for the adoption of
RTPs. These procedures include local government participation
and extensive public outreach. Each region will have the
flexibility to design the PGS that best meets its needs within
four general parameters set by the state. First, each PGS must
identify housing sites for the region's population, including
all economic segments of the population and including all the
population growth. Second, the housing sites must be located to
achieve that region's share of the greenhouse gas reduction
targets. Third, the housing sites must avoid significant
natural resource areas unless certain orderly growth findings
are made. Fourth, the housing sites must avoid significant
farmland unless certain findings are made. Each region must
attempt to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets
established by ARB to the greatest extent feasible. If,
SB 375
Page 10
however, a region cannot design a preferred growth scenario that
will accomplish the necessary reductions, the region must
prepare a supplement that will identify how that region could
achieve the targets if it had additional resources or programs.
The author maintains that the PGS is an evolutionary step beyond
the regional blueprints or visions that have been adopted in
some regions. Regional blueprints in Los Angeles and Sacramento
suggest that future growth could meet these criteria of the PGS
with about 50% of new housing being constructed on infill sites
and about 50% being constructed in greenfield subdivisions.
These new subdivisions tend to be closer to the urban core and
slightly more dense. These designs will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by resulting in shorter vehicle trips and increased
transit use.
In their letter of concern, Housing California indicates that a
major concern centers on "how the PGS will interact with the
statutorily-mandated housing element. Will the PGS reflect
important factors that currently apply to the housing needs
allocation process, including reducing income
segregation/increasing integration? What measurement of housing
need will the PGS be based on? If it uses the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment numbers produced by the Department of Housing
and Community Development every five years, how will they sync
up with the four-year RTP schedule?"
This bill requires that the regional transportation plans
include a preferred growth scenario and that the regional
transportation improvement programs be consistent with the
regional transportation plans in order to receive state
transportation funds. The bill further requires that only the
18 metropolitan planning organizations, counties within air
quality non-attainment areas, and SCAG use the travel demand
computerized models that are essential in the development of
PGSs. However, the smaller rural areas in the state that are
currently in air quality attainment areas are not required to
use the computerized travel demand models. Accordingly, could
an adequate PGS be developed by these rural entities without the
use of the travel demand models and still meet the test of
regional transportation improvement program conformity with the
regional transportation plan to the extent that state
transportation funding would not be curtailed? The committee or
author may wish to consider amending this bill to exclude these
SB 375
Page 11
rural areas from the provisions of the bill or to allow
participation on a voluntary basis and, if an entity options to
participate in the development of a PGS, then the applicable
provisions on funding restrictions would apply.
On the matter of locally-funded transportation projects, as
approved by the local voters, should such projects be exempt
from the bill's provisions and treated currently in the same
manner as projects funded by Proposition 1B or identified in the
current or 2008 federal transportation improvement program?
CEQA incentive: SB 375 enacts a new subchapter to CEQA,
"Implementation of the Preferred Growth Scenario." The
provisions of this subchapter apply to land use decisions within
local jurisdictions that have amended their general plans to
conform to the PGS. There are three new provisions. First, if
a residential or mixed use project can satisfy the environmental
and land use criteria on a sustainable communities checklist, it
does not have to engage in any further compliance with CEQA.
Second, for projects that do not qualify as sustainable
communities projects, those projects will only have to analyze
their project specific impacts under CEQA. Third, local
governments will be authorized to establish traffic mitigation
polices for residential projects in advance. Developed as
"incentives" the CEQA exemptions and streamlining provisions
appear overly prescriptive and unworkable. The author may wish
to amend the bill to have its CEQA exemption provisions be less
prescriptive, especially as CEQA currently allows for limited
infill exemptions, in order to actualize such incentives.
Greenhouse gas emissions: SB 375 is one of the first attempts
in the post-AB 32 world to attempt to implement programs to
achieve that landmark bill's goals. It chooses to do so through
the regulation of land use. While the sense of urgency
underlying the rapid development of this bill is understandable,
the Committee may wish to consider some of the serious policy
implications of its provisions, and whether rushing forward
without taking at least a little more time to work through some
of these implications is a prudent course, given the potentially
profound impacts SB 375 would have, especially in terms of the
mandate placed upon ARB to develop emission targets for each
region by the proposed amended date of June 30, 2008. The
author or the committee may wish to clarify whether the
"targets" carry the same connotation as statewide greenhouse gas
"limits" that are required to be adopted by ARB by January 1,
SB 375
Page 12
2008, pursuant to AB 32?
Coordination or impacts upon other local and state plans:
1)Strategic Growth Plan (SGP) calls for a $222 billion
infrastructure improvement program to fortify the state's
transportation system, education, housing, and waterways. The
SGP includes a historic and comprehensive transportation
investment package designed to decrease congestion, improve
travel times, and increase safety, while accommodating future
growth in the population and the economy. The SGP deploys
demand-management strategies, such as dedicated truck lanes
and high occupancy toll lanes, and builds new capacity. It
will enable more traffic to move through existing roadways,
rehabilitate thousands of lane miles of roads, add new lanes,
and increase public transportation ridership. This requires
innovation in transportation planning, construction and
management, sustained coordination between regional
transportation agencies and the state, and dedicated funding.
The SGP, however, does not include specific considerations for
greenhouse gas emission and criteria air pollutant reductions.
2)The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is
engaged in a land use/growth plan entitled "The Compass
Blueprint 2% Strategy." It is a guideline for how and where
SCAG can implement the growth vision for Southern California's
future. The strategy calls for modest changes to current land
use and transportation trends on only 2% of the land area of
the region - the 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas. The 2%
Strategy proposes increasing the region's mobility by:
a) Encouraging transportation investments and land use
decisions that are mutually supportive.
b) Locating new housing near existing jobs and new jobs
near existing housing.
c) Encouraging transit-oriented development and promoting a
variety of travel choices.
1)MTC: According to MTC, "Proposition 1C (the statewide housing
bond) contains $850 million for a "Regional Planning, Housing
and Infill Incentive Account" while Proposition 84 (the park
bond) includes $90 million for planning grants and revolving
SB 375
Page 13
loan funds for local and regional agencies to reduce
automobile use, among other goals. In coordination with the
Joint Policy Committee, MTC will work to ensure that
legislation adopted to guide the distribution of these funds
complements and rewards the region's ongoing smart growth
efforts, such as our Transportation for Livable Communities
and Housing Incentive Program, our Transit Oriented
Development Policy, and the Focusing Our Vision effort
spearheaded by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
2)California Transportation Commission: The CTC has recently
initiated efforts in June 2007 to update the RTP guidelines to
incorporate meeting AB 32 greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets and to enhance the use of regional blueprint plans.
According to CTC, "Senator Perata has requested that CTC
report back its findings and recommendations to the
Legislature by the end of 2007."
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "Current
planning models used for transportation decisions and air
quality planning must be improved to assess policy choices.
This includes encouraging more compact development patterns,
expanding transit service, creating walkable communities, and
providing incentives. It is also necessary to achieve
significant greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use
patterns and improved transportation to meet AB 32 standards."
The author notes that "transportation and CEQA incentives are
needed for greater housing choices, shorter commutes, reduced
climate emissions, less air pollution, less fossil fuel
consumption, and greater conservation of farmlands and habitat."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to numerous groups opposed
to this bill, "SB 375 could seriously compromise the existing
long-term funding rules for a broad spectrum of state and local
transportation programs and projects including critical
long-term funding through the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
"SB 375 changes the well-established criteria for funding
transportation projects through the STIP by imposing new,
limiting criteria to determine if a project qualifies for
funding. That new criteria focuses primarily on the location of
a project. If a project is located within a preferred growth
are it will likely qualify for funding. If the project is
SB 375
Page 14
outside of a preferred growth area it doesn't even qualify to be
considered for funding.
"The most recent amendments to SB 375 acknowledge the impact on
STIP funding by modestly exempting projects programmed to be
funded in the 2006 and 2008 STIP. Beyond this narrow band of
exempted projects, projects included in the 2010 STIP (and
beyond) must comply with the requirements of SB 375."
According to the Department of Finance they state that "This
bill could result in a potentially costly reimbursable state
mandate by requiring local agencies to either alter existing
travel models or acquire new travel models to include new
assumptions. Few or none of the existing models currently in
use by RTPAs could comply, so most or all would need to either
reprogram existing models or develop new models. It is possible
that substantial data collection would be required in order to
develop the new formulas in these models and to populate them
with data on local attributes. Development of improved models
is underway by Caltrans and several other agencies. There is no
accepted best practice at present and further research efforts
are needed before any new modeling technique is mandated."
Author's amendments: The author proposes the following
amendment to allow the individual counties within the SCAG area
to develop transportation objectives to serve their own county
residents, providing an option to having the preferred growth
scenario independently developed through SCAG's regional
governance perspective:
Within a multi-county regional transportation agency, a
county and the cities within the county may propose to the
regional transportation agency a preferred growth scenario
for that county. The regional transportation planning agency
may adopt the county preferred growth scenario as part of
the region's preferred growth scenario provided that the
region's preferred growth scenario is consistent with the
other provisions subparagraph (b)(2).
Related bills: AB 842 (Jones) 2007, would provide implementing
language for the expenditure of funds from Proposition 1C
(Regional Planning, Housing, and Infill Incentives Account and
the Transit-Oriented Development Account) and Proposition 84
(funds earmarked for local and regional planning). Among its
other provisions, would require CTC to update its RTP guidelines
SB 375
Page 15
to include a requirement that each RTP provide for a 10%
reduction in the growth increment of vehicle miles traveled.
The bill is a two-year bill.
AB 665 (DeSaulnier) 2007, would require the Governor's Office of
Planning and Research to review and provide comments on existing
and future regional transportation plans. That bill passed out
of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and has been
referred back to the Senate Rules Committee.
AB 867 (Davis) 2007, would require MPOs and most RTPAs when
preparing an RTP, to factor the mobility of low-income and
minority residents into the travel demand forecast underlying
the RTP. That bill passed out of the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee as amended and is scheduled for hearing in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 303 (Ducheny) 2007, would require the housing element of the
general plan to identify land to accommodate a 10-year supply of
housing, requires local governments to zone for five years of
housing within one year of adopting the housing element, changes
requirements related to the conservation and open-space elements
of the general plan, and specifies that all other general plan
elements be updated every 10 years. That bill was held in
Assembly Local Government Committee.
AB 1020 (Hancock) 2006, would have required the CTC to adopt
guidelines related to the travel demand models used by RTPAs in
the development of regional transportation plans. The travel
demand models would be capable, to the extent practicable, of
evaluating a number of specified policy choices related to land
use decisions, transit use, and economic incentives on travel
demand. The Governor vetoed that bill indicating that the bill
would impose costly and unnecessary requirements upon the CTC,
Caltrans, and RTPAs. Further, he indicated that his
administration is already moving forward with a comprehensive
approach to integrating land use and transportation planning
through the Strategic Growth Plan.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California League of Conservation Voters (co-sponsor)
Natural Resources Defense Council (co-sponsor)
SB 375
Page 16
American Farmland Trust
American Lung Association of California
Breathe California
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Council of Land Trusts
California Nurses Association
Coalition for Clean Air
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
New Voice of Business
Planning and Conservation League
Southern California Association of Governments
Trust for Public Land
Opposition
Asphalt Pavement Association of California
Associated General Contractors of California
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Major Builders Council
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
County of San Diego
Department of Finance
Housing California (concerned)
Inland Empire Transportation Council
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Authority
Resource Landowners Coalition
Transportation California
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093