Legislation to Expedite Sustainable Transportation Projects Passes Senate Environmental Quality Committee

by The Vanguard Staff

Sacramento, CA – Legislation that would accelerate transit, bike and pedestrian projects and allows infrastructure funds to be deployed more quickly passed a key Senate Committee on Monday.  SB 922, sponsored by Senator Scott Wiener now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 922 extends and improves upon his previous legislation (SB 288, 2020) to expedite bike, pedestrian, light rail, and bus rapid transit projects by exempting these environmentally sustainable projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 922 will accelerate approval of sustainable, climate-friendly transportation projects.

“Given the recently approved and historic infrastructure investments at the federal and state levels, SB 922 will help us get projects up and running in record time,” a release from Senator Wiener’s office said. “This is an important moment to quickly and decisively make use of transformational funds and expand our transportation infrastructure across the state. We cannot allow sustainable transportation projects to get bogged down in years of unnecessary and expensive administrative delays when we could be revitalizing California’s transportation landscape now.”

“With massive federal and state investment in transportation and infrastructure, California must do everything it can to quickly deploy this funding to create new sustainable transportation projects across the state,” said Senator Wiener. “More sustainable transportation projects means cleaner air, lower emissions, healthier people, and more jobs. With the success of SB 288, we’ve seen just how beneficial these projects have been for communities across the state. SB 922 ensures these projects will continue to be streamlined and get built more quickly.”

Wiener’s office noted, “In the short time – just over a year – that SB 288 has been in place, 10 projects have been streamlined in various parts of the state. Another 20 projects are currently under consideration for streamlined treatment.”

Transit agencies from around the state, including the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, AC Transit, and CalTrain, have invoked this streamlining.

Other transit agencies that have made use of SB 288 include: Yuba-Sutter Transit, Tahoe Transportation District, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Rosa CityBus, Fairfield and Suisun Transit, Monterey-Salinas Transit District, Culver City CityBus, Long Beach Transit, and Riverside Transit Authority. Streamlined projects include protected pedestrian walkways and bike lanes, bus rapid transit projects, electric vehicle charging for buses, and more.

“Without an extension of SB 288, these projects may no longer be viable for these agencies. Whether it’s the significant time and cost to work through CEQA, or the concerns around possible years-long lawsuits and appeals, without this statutory exemption, California will miss out on the necessary changes we need to reduce emissions and provide sustainable transportation options for communities across the state,” Senator Wiener’s office said.

SB 288 sunsets on January 1, 2023, and SB 922 will extend this law for seven years, so that cities and counties across the state can continue to cut down on approval time and costs for sustainable transportation projects. SB 922 will also modify the types of projects eligible for streamlining.

Specifically, projects that apply must now meet one of the following requirements:

  • Make streets safer for walking and biking
  • Speed up bus service on streets
  • Make it possible to run bus service on highways
  • Expand carpooling options
  • Build new, or modernize old light rail stations
  • Support parking policies that reduces drive-alone trips & congestion
  • Improve wayfinding for people using transit, biking or walking

Additionally, to ensure that the exemption is not misapplied to projects with detrimental impacts, these projects must also:

  • Be located in an existing public right of way
  • Must not add new auto capacity
  • Must not demolish affordable housing
  • Must use a skilled and trained workforce or have a project labor agreement in place.

“SB 922 will also ensure California invests in equitable transportation projects. In cases where projects are estimated to cost over $100 million, the lead agency or project sponsor must expand public participation requirements so they occur early in a project when input can be most meaningful,” the released stated.

“They also must complete a project business case to evaluate benefits and costs so communities can shape the project early in the planning. And finally, a lead agency or sponsor must complete racial equity and displacement analyses and suggest mitigations to address any disproportionate impacts.”

The release explained, “Building more sustainable transportation is key to addressing climate change and environmental concerns. When more people use alternatives to cars – like transit, walking and biking – greenhouse gas emissions go down. Projects like these will ensure that investment in our infrastructure and economy doesn’t come at the expense of our environment, and in fact helps lower carbon emissions and lessen our cities’ carbon footprint.”

CEQA is an environmental law that requires state and local agencies to evaluate and disclose the significant environmental impacts of projects they approve and to avoid or mitigate those impacts if possible.

The evaluation is the basis for many state and local approvals needed to deliver a sustainable transportation or public transit project.

“CEQA is a critically important law for protecting the environment from projects – such as refineries – that pollute natural resources and jeopardize health, especially for historically marginalized and underserved population,” the release said.

However, the release noted, that each step of the CEQA process is subject to appeals and lawsuits that can increase project costs and create delays.

“It’s not unusual for it to take three to four years and millions of dollars to resolve a single lawsuit, while appeals regularly take six months to resolve,” Senator Wiener’s office said. “When CEQA is misused as a tool to delay or halt critically needed projects, it has real consequences for California – making it more difficult to build the sustainable transportation projects that will result in a safer, healthier, and more equitable future for all Californians.”

SB 922 is sponsored by SPUR, the Bay Area Council, the California Transit Association and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) is a principal co-author of SB 922, and Senator Josh Becker (D-San Mateo) is a co-author.

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

17 Comments

  1. Keith Olson

    exempting these environmentally sustainable projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 922 will accelerate approval of sustainable, climate-friendly transportation projects.

    So bypassing the California Environmental Quality Act will lead to quicker climate-friendly projects?  

    Oh the irony.

      1. Keith Olson

        How did you get that I was defending CEQA out of what I wrote?  Projecting again?

        I just thought it was so laughable, that bypassing the environmental watchdog CEQA will lead to quicker climate-friendly projects.

        Maybe Democrats should also use SB 922 to accelerate the Bullet Train to Nowhere because they’ve done such an amazing job with that transportation project.

        1. David Greenwald

          The problem with CEQA is that it has morphed from protecting the environment to protecting homeowners from new development. I don’t find anything ironic about it, it often happens with laws that were adopted for one purpose to get coopted by another.

        2. Keith Olson

          LOL, so CA is passing laws in order to bypass other CA laws.  Why not just change the law instead of having to legislate around it?  You don’t find that ironic?

          1. David Greenwald

            That’s how legislation actually works in the real world. A new law amends and updates an old law.

    1. Alan Miller

      I saw the irony, KO, even if DG did not.

      There is actually much more going on here, and unfortunately, it is once again one of those things where all the right words are said, but the result is far too much money spent in all the wrong places regarding actually improving transportation.  It does not surprise me that Weiner’s name is attached once again.

  2. Bill Marshall

    The problem with CEQA is that it has morphed from protecting the environment to protecting homeowners from new development.

    You’re forgetting the interim “morph” of being a bludgeon for anyone opposed to anything…

    Intended to be a tool for information, disclosure, rational thought, it has morphed into a weapon to either attack, or support, public/private projects… as a weapon it has been used with two edges…

  3. Ron Oertel

    SB 922, sponsored by Senator Scott Wiener now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

    This guy keeps chipping-away at CEQA.

    An exemption here, an exemption there.

    All with an underlying intention to bypass local control and force more development.

    Must use a skilled and trained workforce or have a project labor agreement in place.

    SB 922 is sponsored by SPUR, the Bay Area Council, the California Transit Association and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) is a principal co-author of SB 922, and Senator Josh Becker (D-San Mateo) is a co-author.

    There’s your “key”. Without support from the construction industry (and other business interests), it goes nowhere.

    1. Keith Y Echols

      This guy keeps chipping-away at CEQA.
      An exemption here, an exemption there.

      It’s like going on a diet and adding more and more cheat days.

      I’m starting to wonder if a more Republican/local solution to all of this is best.  Do away with statewide CEQA all together.  Maybe CEQA type legislation and enforcement and degree should be done at the local level.  Let counties and cities decide if they want to be rural backwaters (Davis) or sprawling paved over urban wastelands (Natomas, Elk Grove) and everything in between.

      There’s your “key”. Without support from the construction industry (and other business interests), it goes nowhere.

      Well, obviously it has to have the support of the construction industry.  The whole point is to get more housing built.  Can’t build without the construction industry.  But it also has the support of all those people looking to buy a home or rent one at a reasonable rate (even though many of them won’t qualify because new homes are expensive and won’t bring down home prices and affordable homes are priced below most middle class people).

      1. Ron Oertel

        I’m starting to wonder if a more Republican/local solution to all of this is best. 

        Wiener is implementing a “Republican solution”.  Or more accurately, “Republican Lite”.

        The whole point is to get more housing built.

        Certainly Wiener and Newsom’s goal.  I don’t think it has as much support as they believe.  Unfortunately, it’s hard to dislodge them, given the business/industry support that they receive.

        And, given the lack of real choices – due to the corruption of the political system in the first place.

        Also the reason that local governments become corrupted, as well.

        1. Ron Oertel

          I don’t think it has as much support as they believe.

          I take that back.

          More accurately – they’re fully-aware of opposition, but don’t care.

        2. Keith Y Echols

          Wiener is implementing a “Republican solution”.  Or more accurately, “Republican Lite”.

          Laws on top of laws telling local government what it can and can’t do is a classic (or stereotypical….take your pick) Democrat move.

           I don’t think it has as much support as they believe.  Unfortunately, it’s hard to dislodge them, given the business/industry support that they receive.

          There are more people looking for homes to buy and for affordable rent then home owners.  Home owners tend to be more influential…especially at the local level of government…..but I think the pro-housing group have the numbers.

        3. Ron Oertel

          Laws on top of laws telling local government what it can and can’t do is a classic (or stereotypical….take your pick) Democrat move.

          And Wiener is attempting to “undo” those laws, with some success already.

          There are more people looking for homes to buy and for affordable rent then home owners.  Home owners tend to be more influential…especially at the local level of government…..but I think the pro-housing group have the numbers.

          I don’t know “which” group has the numbers, nor do I think that they’re necessarily “separate” groups.

          There’s also more support for rent control among the renter populace, vs. what you see from the state’s leaders.

          But more-and-more, I’m seeing people question *how* this occurs (e.g., pursuit of businesses, such as the technology industry which supports continued growth). Of course, it is starting to spread-out to other areas now, which is causing prices to rise there. (Much faster housing price increases in those places, vs. California.)

           

      2. Craig Ross

        Do away with statewide CEQA all together.  Maybe CEQA type legislation and enforcement and degree should be done at the local level.

        Seems like the cure would be worse than the disease.  Putting CEQA in the hands of the very entities abusing it is a recipe for a worse housing crisis.

  4. Bill Marshall

    Laws on top of laws telling local government what it can and can’t do is a classic (or stereotypical….take your pick) Democrat move.

    Interesting… my experience has been different… my experience would suggest it is both Democrat and Republican classic/stereotypical moves…   depending who has the power/votes at the time…

    All about seeking to control others to fit their ‘view of life’… their preferences…

    Classic Democrat… classic Republican… classic politician… classic wannabe tyrants… always wanting to KO their opponents, those who think differently… have different values…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for