BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 375|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 375
Author: Steinberg (D)
Amended: 8/22/08
Vote: 21
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/23/07
AYES: Simitian, Florez, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Steinberg
NOES: Runner, Aanestad
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-6, 5/31/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Yee
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Dutton, Runner, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Battin
SENATE FLOOR : 21-15, 6/7/07
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Kehoe,
Kuehl, Lowenthal, Migden, Oropeza, Padilla, Perata,
Ridley-Thomas, Romero, Scott, Simitian, Steinberg,
Torlakson, Vincent, Wiggins, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Cogdill, Cox,
Denham, Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Maldonado,
Margett, McClintock, Runner, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ducheny, Florez, Machado, Negrete McLeod
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-22, 8/25/08 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Transportation planning: travel demand models:
sustainable
communities strategy
CONTINUED
SB 375
Page
2
SOURCE : California League of Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
DIGEST : This bill requires metropolitan planning
organizations to include sustainable communities
strategies, as defined, in their regional transportation
plans for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates
specified incentives for the implementation of the
strategies.
Assembly Amendments made substantive changes to the Senate
version. The intent of the bill remains the same as it
passed out of the Senate. (See Analysis section for
specifics of the bill.) This bill is a compromise between
the building industry, environmental groups, and local
governments.
ANALYSIS : According to the author's office, this bill
provides a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases from the
single largest sector of emissions, cars and light trucks.
The environmental organizations sponsoring this bill
maintain that changes in land use and transportation policy
must be made to achieve the goals of AB 32 (Nunez and
Pavley), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006. 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 (MPOs) to develop regional transportation
plans (RTPs) must assess the effects of land use decisions,
transit service, and economic incentives. According to the
author's office, this bill will help implement AB 32 by
amending programs that are beyond the current authority of
the Air Resources Board (ARB). This bill integrates and
aligns planning for housing, land use, transportation and
greenhouse gas emissions for the 17 MPOs in the state
through amendments to provisions in existing law in three
major areas.
Existing law (1) requires certain transportation planning
activities by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and by designated regional transportation planning
SB 375
Page
3
agencies, including development of an RTP, (2) authorizes
the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in
cooperation with the regional agencies, to prescribe study
areas for analysis and evaluation, (3) requires a lead
agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared,
and certify the completion of, an environmental impact
report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or
approve that may have a significant effect on the
environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds
that the project will not have that effect, and (4)
requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative
declaration for a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment if revisions in the project would
avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial
evidence that the project, as revised, would have a
significant effect on the environment.
This bill:
1. Makes findings and declarations concerning the need to
make significant changes in land use and transportation
policy in order to meet the greenhouse gas reduction
goals established by AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley), Chapter
488, Statutes of 2006.
2. Requires the CTC, in consultation with the ARB and
Caltrans, to maintain travel demand models used in the
development of RTPs by federally designated MPOs.
3. Requires ARB, no later than January 31, 2009, to appoint
a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (Committee) to
recommend factors to be considered and methodologies to
be used for setting greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets for the affected regions, and specifies the
composition of the Committee, including, but not limited
to, local transportation agencies.
4. Requires the Committee to transmit a report with its
recommendations to ARB no later than December 31, 2009,
and requires ARB to consider the report prior to setting
targets.
5. Provides that, in recommending factors to be considered
and methodologies to be used, the Committee may consider
SB 375
Page
4
any relevant issues, including, but not limited to, data
needs, modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the
impacts of regional jobs-housing balance on
interregional travel and greenhouse gas emissions,
economic and demographic trends, the magnitude of
greenhouse gas reduction benefits from a variety of land
use and transportation strategies, and appropriate
methods to describe regional targets and to monitor
performance in attaining those targets.
6. Requires that, prior to setting the targets for a
region, ARB exchange technical information with
Caltrans, the MPO, and the affected air district, which
may include a recommendation for a target for the
region.
7. Requires the MPO to hold at least one public workshop
within the region after receipt of the report from the
Committee.
8. Requires ARB to update the regional greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets every eight years consistent
with each MPO's timeframe for updating its RTP under
federal law until 2050.
9. Authorizes ARB to revise the targets every four years
based on changes in specified factors, and requires ARB
to exchange technical information with the MPOs, local
governments, and affected air districts and engage in a
consultative process with public and private
stakeholders prior to updating these targets.
10.Requires the RTP for specified regions to include an
SCS, as specified, designed to achieve certain goals for
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
automobiles and light trucks in a region.
11.Specifies how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
and the Association of Bay Area Governments are to
collaborate in the preparation of the SCS.
12.Specifies how the sub-regional councils of governments
within the Southern California Association of
Governments will be involved in the preparation of an
SB 375
Page
5
SCS.
13.Requires each MPO to conduct at least two informational
meetings in each county within the region for members of
the board of supervisors and city councils on the SCS
and alternative planning strategy (APS), if any, subject
to specified conditions and exceptions.
14.Requires each MPO to adopt a public participation plan
for development of the SCS and an APS, as specified.
15.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.
16.Requires that, if an SCS is unable to reach the ARB
target, the MPO prepare an APS to the SCS, as a separate
document from the RTP, showing how those greenhouse gas
emission targets would be achieved through alternative
development patterns, infrastructure, or additional
transportation measures or policies, as specified.
17.Requires that, prior to starting the public
participation process, the MPO submit a description to
ARB of the technical methodology it intends to use to
estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from its SCS and,
if appropriate, its APS, and requires ARB to respond to
the MPO in a timely manner with written comments about
the technical methodology, including specifically
describing any aspects of the methodology that will not
yield accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions,
and suggested remedies.
18.Requires that, after adoption, an MPO submit an SCS or
an APS, if one has been adopted, to ARB for review,
including the quantification of the greenhouse gas
emission reductions the plan would achieve and a
description of the technical methodology used to obtain
that result.
19.Limits ARB review to acceptance or rejection of the
MPO's determination that the strategy submitted would,
SB 375
Page
6
if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets, and requires ARB to complete its
review within 60 days.
20.Requires that, if ARB determines that the strategy
submitted would not, if implemented, achieve the
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the MPO
revise its strategy or adopt an APS, if not previously
adopted, and submit the strategy for review.
21.Requires, at a minimum, that the MPO must obtain ARB
acceptance that an APS would, if implemented, achieve
the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
established for that region.
22.States that:
A. An SCS or APS does not regulate the use of land,
nor shall it be subject to any state approval other
than the ARB action referred to above.
B. Nothing in an SCS or APS shall be interpreted as
superseding or interfering with the exercise of the
land use authority of cities and counties within the
region.
C. Nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to
authorize the abrogation of any vested right whether
created by statute or by common law.
D. Nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to limit
ARB's authority under any other provision of law.
E. Nothing in this bill requires a city or county's
land use policies and regulations, including its
general plan, to be consistent with the RTP or an
APS.
F. Nothing in this bill requires an MPO to approve an
SCS or APS that would be inconsistent with specified
federal regulations.
G. Nothing in this bill relieves a public or private
entity or any person from compliance with any other
SB 375
Page
7
local, state, or federal law.
H. Nothing in this bill requires a transportation
sales tax authority, as defined, 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.
23.Requires certain transportation planning and programming
activities to be consistent with the SCS in order to
obtain funding, but states that certain transportation
projects programmed for funding on or before December
31, 2011, are not required to be consistent with the
SCS.
24.Creates a mechanism by which an MPO, or regional
transportation agency not within an MPO, that is
currently on a five-year RTP cycle may elect to adopt an
RTP on a four-year cycle in order to conform with the
other provisions of this bill.
25.Authorizes MPOs in specified Central Valley counties to
work together to develop and adopt multi-regional goals
and prepare multi-regional SCS.
26.Adds areas designated for agricultural uses and
agricultural elements of general plans to the definition
of "resource areas."
27.Defines "consistent" as having the same meaning as in a
specified provision of federal law, and defines
"internally consistent" as meaning that the elements of
the RTP must be consistent with one another.
28.Requires that, prior to and after the adoption of
specified forms, the housing element portion of the
annual progress report of a planning agency on
implementation of its general plans must include a
section that describes the actions taken by the local
government towards completion of the programs and status
of the local government's compliance with the deadlines
in its housing element.
29.Changes the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)
SB 375
Page
8
cycle from five years to eight years.
30.Requires that rezoning of sites needed to meet RHNA
requirements, including adoption of minimum density and
development standards, shall be completed no later than
three years after either the date the housing element is
adopted or the date that is 90 days after receipt of
comments from the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), whichever is earlier, unless this
deadline is extended, as specified.
31.Requires a local government that has failed to adopt a
housing element within 120 days of the statutory
deadline for doing so to complete the rezoning of
sufficient RHNA sites no later than three years and 120
days from the deadline to adopt its housing element.
32.Allows the deadline for completing required rezoning to
be extended by one year if the local government has
completed rezoning at densities sufficient to
accommodate at least 75 percent of the sites for each
income group and if the legislative body at the
conclusion of a public hearing determines, based upon
substantial evidence, makes specified findings.
33.Prohibits a local government that fails to complete the
rezoning by the deadline, as it may be extended, from
disapproving a housing development project, or requiring
a conditional use permit, planned unit development
permit, or other locally imposed discretionary permit or
condition that renders the project infeasible, if the
housing development project is proposed to be located on
a site required to be rezoned pursuant to the program
required by that subparagraph and complies with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards
and criteria, including design review standards,
described in the program required by that subparagraph.
34.Provides that any such subdivision of sites shall be
subject to the Subdivision Map Act but shall not
constitute a "project" for purposes of CEQA.
35.Provides that a local government that fails to complete
its rezoning may disapprove a housing development only
SB 375
Page
9
if it makes written findings supported by substantial
evidence on the record that the housing development
project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety unless the project is
disapproved or approved upon the condition that the
project be developed at a lower density, and that there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval of
the housing development project or the approval of the
project upon the condition that it be developed at a
lower density.
36.Permits the applicant or any interested person to bring
an action to enforce these provisions, and specifies
that if a court finds that the local agency disapproved
a project or conditioned its approval in violation of
these provisions, the court shall 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, the
court may issue further orders to ensure that the
purposes and policies of this paragraph are fulfilled.
37.Provides that, in an action brought against a local
government for failing to complete rezoning, the burden
of proof shall be borne by the local government.
38.Defines "housing development project" as a project to
construct residential units if the project developer
provides sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate
local agency to ensure the continued availability and
use of at least 49 percent of the housing units for very
low-, low-, and moderate-income households at monthly
housing costs with an affordable housing cost or
affordable rent, as defined, for the period required by
the applicable financing.
39.Specifies that rental units shall be affordable for at
least 55 years, and that ownership units shall be
subject to resale restrictions or equity sharing
requirements for at least 30 years.
40.Requires that a council of governments provide HCD with
SB 375
Page
10
data assumptions about the relationship between jobs and
housing in the region, if available, to assist HCD in
determining the region's RHNA.
41.States legislative intent that:
A. Housing planning be coordinated and integrated
with the RTP.
B. To achieve this goal, the allocation plan shall
allocate housing units within the region consistent
with the development pattern included in the SCS.
C. The final allocation plan shall ensure that the
total regional housing need, by income category, is
maintained, and that each jurisdiction in the region
receive an allocation of units for low- and very
low-income households.
D. The resolution approving the final housing need
allocation plan shall demonstrate that the plan is
consistent with the SCS in the RTP.
42.Directs a court that finds that a city, county, or city
and county has failed to complete the required rezoning,
as that deadline may be extended, 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 in place at the
time the action was filed and the overall equities of
the circumstances as presented by all parties, 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 ordering that any required rezoning be
completed within 60 days or the earliest time consistent
with public hearing notice requirements, and may impose
sanctions on the city, county, or city and county,
taking into account the overall equities of the
circumstances presented by all parties.
43.Permits any interested person to bring an action to
compel compliance with the specified deadlines and
requirements, and specify that in any such action, the
SB 375
Page
11
city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden
of proof.
44.Requires a local government that does not adopt a
housing element within 120 days of the statutory
deadline for the adoption of the housing element to
revise its housing element as appropriate, but not less
than every four years, rather than eight years.
45.Requires all local governments within an MPO in a
non-attainment region, other than those within the
jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG), to adopt the fifth revision of their housing
elements no later than 18 months after the adoption of
the first RTP to be adopted after September 30, 2010.
46.Requires local governments within SANDAG to adopt their
fifth revision no later than five years from the fourth
revision, and their sixth revision no later than 18
months after the adoption of the first RTP to be adopted
after the fifth revision due date.
47.Requires local governments within an MPO that has
elected to move from a five-year to a four-year RTP
cycle to adopt an eight-year RHNA cycle and to adopt
their next housing elements 18 months after the adoption
of the first RTP after the election.
48.Defines "planning period" as the time period for
periodic revision of a jurisdiction's housing element.
49.Specifies that, with one exception, the Implementation
of the Sustainable Communities Strategy chapter of CEQA
applies only to a transit priority project 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.
50.Requires a transit priority project to (a) contain at
least 50 percent residential use, based on total
building square footage and, if the project contains
SB 375
Page
12
between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a
floor area ratio of not less than 0.75, (b) provide a
minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per
acre, and (c) be within one-half mile of an existing or
planned major transit stop, as defined, or high-quality
transit corridor, as defined, as set forth in the
applicable RTP.
51.Specifies that, for purposes of defining a transit
priority project, all parcels within the project have no
more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half
mile from a transit stop or corridor and that no more
than 10 percent or 100 residential units, whichever is
less, are less than one-half mile from a transit stop or
corridor.
52.Provides that no additional review is required pursuant
to CEQA for a transit priority project if the
legislative body of a local jurisdiction finds, after
conducting a public hearing, that the project meets
specified criteria and is declared to be a sustainable
community's project.
53.Requires that in the initial study for a sustainable
communities environmental assessment or EIR for a
transit priority project that has met specified
criteria, the lead agency shall determine whether
cumulative impacts have been both adequately addressed
and adequately mitigated in prior certified EIRs.
54.Authorizes the legislative body of a local jurisdiction
to adopt traffic mitigation measures for future
residential projects that meet specified criteria, and
exempts such a residential project seeking a land use
approval from compliance with additional measures for
traffic impacts, if the local jurisdiction has adopted
those traffic mitigation measures.
55.Specifies that, if a residential or mixed-use
residential project is consistent with the 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 the MPO's
determination that the SCS or the APS would, if
SB 375
Page
13
implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets and if the project incorporates the
mitigation measures required by an applicable prior
environmental document, any findings or other
determinations for an exemption, a negative declaration,
a mitigated negative declaration, an EIR, or addenda
prepared or adopted for the project pursuant to CEQA
shall not be required to reference, describe, or discuss
growth inducing impacts or any project specific or
cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips
generated by the project on global warming or the
regional transportation network.
56.Specifies that any EIR prepared for a project described
above shall not be required to reference, describe, or
discuss a reduced residential density alternative to
address the effects of car and light-duty truck trips
generated by the project.
57.Defines "regional transportation network" as all
existing and proposed transportation improvements,
including the state transportation system, that were
included in the transportation and air quality
conformity modeling, including congestion modeling, for
the final RTP adopted by the MPO, but shall not include
local streets and roads.
58.Specifies that nothing in the foregoing relieves any
project from a requirement to comply with any
conditions, exactions, or fees for the mitigation of the
project's impacts on the regional transportation network
or local streets and roads.
59.Defines a "residential or mixed-use residential project"
as a project where at least 75 percent of the total
building square footage of the project consists of
residential use or a project that is a transit priority
project.
60.States that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the
state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to
applicable sections of the Government Code.
SB 375
Page
14
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1. Substantial costs to MPOs to incorporate sustainable
community strategies into their RTPs. MPOs have
authority to use federal funds to cover planning costs,
as well as to charge member local governments to cover
costs, but total costs and composition of funding
sources are unspecified.
2. Unknown net cost impact on cities. Aside from potential
charges from MPOs, cities would also face higher costs
related to (a) the increased complexity of general plan
housing elements, (b) the requirement that cities rezone
land within three years after the housing element is
adopted, and (c) the likelihood that they will receive
additional requests for amendments to their general
plans to accommodate developments consistent with
sustainable communities strategies (costs for granting
these requests can be charged to the developer).
Offsetting these costs is the shift from a five-year to
an eight-year regional housing needs planning cycle,
which implies less frequent updates to housing elements.
The bill states that if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the bill contains local costs
mandated by the state, reimbursements will be provided.
3. Preliminary estimates from ARB indicate that it will
incur one-time costs of $740,000 and ongoing costs of
approximately $440,000 relating to setting regional
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the auto
and light truck sector, and reviewing MPO's sustainable
communities strategies. Costs are for two new positions
($340,000 annually) and contracts with the University of
California for technical assistance ($400,000 one-time
and $100,000 ongoing).
4. CTC would incur one-time costs of approximately $200,000
for the adoption of modeling guidelines, and potential
minor ongoing costs associated with updating guidelines
and reviewing regional models.
SB 375
Page
15
5. The Office of Planning and Research would incur one-time
costs of approximately $86,000 to update general plan
and CEQA guidelines.
6. HCD, which is responsible for reviewing housing elements
of local general plans, would face both costs and
savings under the bill, which it believes would be
largely offsetting. Increased complexity of local
housing elements would result in added time and expense
associated with each plan review. However, this will be
offset by less-frequent revisions (from once every five
years to once every eight years) of local general plans'
housing elements, and a consequent reduction in the
number of reviews that it must perform each year.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/08)
California League of Conservation Voters (co-source)
Natural Resources Defense Council (co-source)
Business
Alpine Meadows
Bay Area Council (in concept)
California Building Industry Association
California Major Builders Council
Chrysler Corporation
Douglas Emmett, Inc.
Environmental Entrepreneurs (197 business leaders)
Ford Motor Company
Fulcrum Properties
General Motors
Homewood Mountain Resort
JMA Ventures
Moller International
New Voice of Business
PG&E
Sacramento Metro Chamber
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Toyota Motor Corporation (in concept)
Labor
California Professional Firefighters
Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522
SB 375
Page
16
State Association of Electrical Workers
State Building and Construction Trades Council
State Pipe Trades Council
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Government
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area Rapid Transit
California Association of Local Area Formation Commissions
California State Association of Counties
Cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom, Huntington Beach,
Roseville and Sacramento
Counties of Los Angeles, Napa (with amendments) and
Sacramento
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Metropolitan Transportation Commission of San Francisco Bay
Area
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento Regional Transit District
San Diego Association of Governments
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Affordable Housing
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Housing California
Non Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Health
American Lung Association of California
Breathe California
California Nurses Association
Health Officers Association of California
Merced/Mariposa County Asthma Coalition
Environmental
American Farmland Trust
Audubon California
California Council of Land Trusts
California League of Conservation Voters
Coalition for Clean Air
SB 375
Page
17
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Transportation and Land Use Coalition
Trust for Public Land
Planning
California Association of Environmental Professionals (if
amended)
California Chapter, American Planning Association
Congress for a New Urbanism
Miscellaneous
California Interfaith Power and Light
League of Women Voters
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/25/08)
Associated General Contractors of California
Automobile Club of Southern California
CalCOG (unless amended)
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Contract Cities Association
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Center for Biological Diversity
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 Business Council
Orange County Transportation Agency
Resource Landowners Coalition
San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission
San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council
SB 375
Page
18
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
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Arambula, Beall, Berg, Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Coto, De La Torre, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hancock, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Horton, Houston, Huffman, Jones, Karnette,
Krekorian, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Mendoza, Mullin,
Nava, Nunez, Parra, Plescia, Portantino, Price, Ruskin,
Salas, Solorio, Swanson, Torrico, Wolk, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Benoit, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Huff, Jeffries, Keene, La Malfa,
Maze, Nakanishi, Niello, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer,
Strickland, Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Davis, De Leon, Garcia, Laird, Ma,
Sharon Runner, Saldana, Soto, Tran
TSM:mw 8/27/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****