Senator Wiener’s Bills To Boost Housing Production and Transit, Cyclist, & Pedestrian Infrastructure Head to the Governor (original) (raw)

SACRAMENTO – The Legislature passed Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) Senate Bills 312, 937, 951, 960. SB 937 bill provides flexibility for builders amid challenging market conditions.

“Tackling our housing crisis means undoing over 50 years of barriers that obstruct homebuilding,” said Senator Wiener. “We need to build housing for students, housing in parts of our coastal zone, and housing in places where the market is tough to substantially reduce housing costs for Californians. I’m thrilled to send another batch of strong housing bills to Governor Newsom to continue the progress of the past several years.”

SB 312

SB 312 passed the Assembly 66-0 and the Senate . It heads next to the Governor for a signature.

SB 312 will resolve an issue with SB 886 (Wiener, 2022) that prevents universities from utilizing the bill to streamline student and faculty housing.

SB 886 provides a CEQA exemption for student housing projects. However, one of the qualifications for these projects to utilize SB 886 is a requirement for all buildings to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certification. Platinum is the highest level of LEED certification, and as such includes numerous requirements to determine if a building qualifies for certification. Some of these determinations, however, cannot be made until the building is occupied. Given this, SB 886’s requirement to certify LEED Platinum prior to being granted the CEQA exemption and the certificate of occupancy simply isn’t possible.

SB 312 addresses the LEED timing issue by requiring that these buildings qualify for LEED Platinum certification, rather than receive the certification, which can be achieved prior to occupancy. The bill also makes several technical changes.

The bill is sponsored by California YIMBY, the UC Student Association, Student HOMES Coalition, and GENUp.

SB 937

It passed the Assembly 63-1 and the Senate 30-1, and now heads to the Governor.

Cities vary widely in the development fees they charge for new homes in California, often for reasons that can seem arbitrary. Los Angeles reports a multifamily development fee of 12,000perunit,whileFremontreports12,000 per unit, while Fremont reports 12,000perunit,whileFremontreports75,000. The state contains more than its share of cities charging high development fees, with the six jurisdictions charging the highest recorded fees in the nation all located in California.

Some cities have deferred the collection of development fees during periods of economic hardship to prevent housing production from grinding to a halt. During the Great Recession, Fremont was one of many cities that deferred fees, and in 2023 it announced it would revive the program. With today’s high interest rates and rising costs driven by COVID-related inflation, developers are facing a similar challenge to make projects pencil. Developers need the flexibility of both fee deferrals and entitlement extensions to meet state housing goals amid challenging market conditions.

SB 937 builds on these efforts by delaying the payment of development fees imposed by a local government until the certificate of occupancy is issued. Local governments may not charge interest rates on any deferred fees.

SB 937 passed out the Assembly with amendments to: 1) add a 5-year shot clock for developers to start construction before losing their fee deferral, 2) remove provisions of the bill related to housing entitlement extensions, 3) narrow when local governments can require impact fees to be paid earlier if the funds will pay for specified infrastructure or public improvements, and 4) give developers the option of providing a bond or letter of credit as a fiscal surety, and if the developer does not pay the impact fees at the time of certificate of occupancy, then the unpaid fees will constitute a lien on the property.

Senate Bill 937 is sponsored by the California Housing Consortium, California YIMBY, and the Housing Action Coalition. It is co-authored by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord).

SB 951

SB 951 passed 76-0 and the Senate 38-0 and now heads to the Governor for a signature.

While housing unaffordability is an issue throughout California, the added layers of discretionary permitting in the Coastal Zone have made the problem especially acute near the coast. This affordability crisis has had profound racial and economic impacts on these communities. According to a Stanford Environmental Law Journal report, within one kilometer of coastal access, white populations increase by 25 percent, while Hispanic and Latino populations fall 52 percent, and Black populations fall 60 percent. Coastal communities also have, on average, 18 percent fewer households below the poverty line.

Additionally, according to a Legislative Analyst Office’s Report in 2015, the lack of affordable housing means workers in coastal communities often commute 10 percent further each day than their inland counterparts. Transportation is the leading source of carbon emissions in California, and these extra long commutes threaten the very coastal resources the Coastal Act was passed to protect by exacerbating the climate crisis.

SB 951 will aid housing production in the Coastal Zone - and driving emissions reductions - by clarifyings that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to appeal projects that are within the permitted uses for a specific parcel where there is an LCP in place. Given these uses were present in the LCP when the Commission granted approval, projects that fall within these established parameters should not be worthy of an appeal, solely on the basis of the new use of the parcel. In addition, This appeal authority was intended to protect rural counties, however, this authority currently applies to San Francisco given their status as both a city and a county. It is clear that this provision was not intended for urbanized cities, and as such, SB 951 adjusts this authority to treat San Francisco like the city it is.

SB 960

SB 960 passed the Assembly 58-17 and passed the Senate on a 31-9 concurrence vote. It is headed to the Governor for a signature.

In transportation planning, “Complete Streets” is an approach to designing and operating roads and the surrounding infrastructure that accounts for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders. It also accounts for the needs of communities that have been systematically ignored in the design of the built environment, including the disability community, the aging community, those without access to vehicles, and communities of color.

Complete Streets elements can include sidewalks, bike lanes, bus-only lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and safe crosswalks, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes, and more.

In California, most surface roads maintained by the state do not have infrastructure to protect the full range of road users. Most (55%) projects in Caltrans’s biggest road maintenance program, the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) have no complete streets elements. Many state-owned roads currently have no or deficient sidewalks, minimal crosswalks, no bike lanes, or any safe facilities for vulnerable road users. The result is that state roads are inaccessible or dangerous to many potential users.

In 2019, the Legislature passed SB 127 (Wiener), which required Caltrans to prioritize safe and connected facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders on all SHOPP projects and in the asset management plan. Such improvements are consistent with recommendations outlined in the State’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI). Governor Newsom vetoed the bill but implemented many of its provisions in watered-down form through executive order.

SB 960 codifies the Department’s commitment to implement complete streets by requiring Caltrans to improve oversight and investment practices for the implementation of safe, convenient, and connected facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on all SHOPP projects.

SB 960 requires Caltrans to include complete streets facilities - including transit priority facilities - in the asset management plan and set targets and performance measures for complete streets facilities in the state highway system management plan. The bill requires Caltrans to increase its oversight of the implementation of complete streets facilities and also requires the department to set 4-year targets for the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that make consistent, proportional progress towards the 10-year targets that Caltrans already sets. SB 960 further requires the Department to establish a streamlined process for the approval of pedestrian facilities, traffic calming improvements, bicycle facilities, and transit priority treatments at locations where state-owned facilities intersect with local facilities.

Prioritizing Transit

Buses and some other modes of public transportation are often stuck in traffic, creating a slow, frustrating, and stressful experience for riders and making transit less attractive. Planners can improve this experience by designating certain roads to be transit priority roads, which could include adding features like a rapid bus lane.

Caltrans has engaged in preliminary stakeholder engagement to develop a transit priority policy. The timeline for development of this policy – or its specific objectives – is currently unclear. Amidst a backdrop of transit ridership struggling to rebound and car ownership costing more than it ever has, it is imperative that this process proceed swiftly.

SB 960 directs Caltrans to develop – by January 1, 2026 – a transit priority policy as well as transit priority facility design guidance by July 1, 2028 to help improve transit travel time reliability, speeds, reduced transit and rider delay, and improved accessibility at stops, stations, and boarding facilities. Further, SB 960 requires Caltrans to implement transit priority facilities in all SHOPP projects as appropriate and feasible, in collaboration with local transit agencies.

Senate Bill 960 is sponsored by Calbike, SPUR, Streets For All, AARP California, KidSafe SF, and Walk SF.