I introduced CEQA legislation (SB 607) to avoid CEQA being used to stop new housing & make other smart changes to aspects of CEQA that turn it into a process nightmare that doesn’t always help the environment. SB 607 will help create abundance of the things that make life better & more affordable:🧵 - ThreadSky

scottwiener.bsky.social • 1 day ago

I introduced CEQA legislation (SB 607) to avoid CEQA being used to stop new housing & make other smart changes to aspects of CEQA that turn it into a process nightmare that doesn’t always help the environment.

SB 607 will help create abundance of the things that make life better & more affordable:🧵

Comments

vinayt.bsky.social•21 hours ago

You should run for Governor! We are at a time where we need a governor who pushes for boldly building up CA infrastructure and reducing CA cost of living. I have been following your advocacy for building. I would vote for you!

dollymad1812.bsky.social•1 day ago

We need this in San Diego badly. Some of my low income senior patients are waiting up to 18 years for Section 8 HUD housing!
It’s ridiculous & pushing more seniors into homelessness!

scottwiener.bsky.social•1 day ago

SB 607 does 5 things:

1. SB 607 requires that an existing CEQA exemption removing infill projects from CEQA (Class 32) be strengthened & made fully usable. Bottom line, new development in existing urbanized areas, particularly housing, is environmentally sustainable & shouldn’t be subject to CEQA.

timstein.bsky.social•1 day ago

Any chance you can make exemptions obligatory? As in if you qualify the city/county can only use the CE and not require an ND? Also, cities don’t understand what exempt means. Some will require technical studies beyond what’s required in order to “prove” a CE is the proper review.

timstein.bsky.social•1 day ago

For example, they might require a GHG analysis or testing for soil contamination prior to allowing a CE, essentially requiring a mini IS to determine if a CE is appropriate, which is completely backward. The allowed test for exemption should be spelled out. I went round with LA for weeks

timstein.bsky.social•1 day ago

when they thought soil contamination at a site meant that it couldn’t be exempt. They would not accept the letter of the law that not being on the cortese list is the test and that soil contamination is a standard regulatory issue.

scottwiener.bsky.social•1 day ago

2. It exempts from CEQA any re-zoning that’s simply complying with a Housing Element. After a city’s housing element is approved, it has to re-zone to conform with that plan. Ridiculously, the re-zoning is subject to CEQA & opponents use CEQA to gum up the re-zoning. We’re putting a stop to that.

scottwiener.bsky.social•1 day ago

3. Currently, if a project mostly but not fully meets the elements of a CEQA exemption, the project is kicked out of the exemption & has to do a full environmental impact report as if the exemption didn’t exist. Under SB 607, EIRs will be limited to elements of the exemption the project didn’t meet.

scottwiener.bsky.social•1 day ago

4. When a city prepares the “administrative record” for an EIR, it has to gather massive numbers of emails from any city staff that had even the most remote connection to the project. It’s a big & expensive undertaking. SB 607 limits emails in the record to core employees involved in the project.

scottwiener.bsky.social•1 day ago

5. When a city’s review of a project is done via a “negative declaration” instead of an EIR, it’s easier to challenge the review in court. SB 607 aligns the legal standard for negative declarations with the standard for EIRs: Whether there’s substantial evidence to support the city’s finding.

scottwiener.bsky.social•1 day ago

SB 607 doesn’t apply to fossil fuel projects or warehouse projects. It does apply to things like housing, clean energy, transportation, child care centers & so many other things we need to have a successful state.

catmorland82.bsky.social•19 hours ago

Are you removing the 5 ac requirement for the Class 32 exemption? Because that's what I've seen needlessly throw projects out of that exemption.

elliehlawless.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Scott Wiener for Governor!

dreger.bsky.social•1 day ago

The fact that you can speak such detail with authority that tracks with my understand gives me even more confidence in your leadership. Thanks for fighting!

aboutdave.bsky.social•1 day ago

Please do something about the deadline issue.

A huge problem I see in CEQA infill exemptions is the abuse of local discretion on when the infill exemption is granted

Ab1633 is way way too slow and burdensome to do that.

aboutdave.bsky.social•1 day ago

HCD called out Berkeley for, exactly that, calling it a violation of PRC 21080.1/.2 to fail to issue exemption determinations within 30 days of completeness.

HCD put that law as a threshold requirement for the pro-housing designation, but still awarded it to Berkeley.

aboutdave.bsky.social•1 day ago

We need to tighten up the law. To make it abundantly clear that cities have 30 days from completeness to confirm the exemption, or deny and require an EIR.

I applaud this bill's efforts to tighten up exemption standards in favor of builders.

aboutdave.bsky.social•1 day ago

But it's not enough if cities can just ignore their timing requirements.

And expecting builders to wait and go through the onerous an1633 notice and demand requirements isn't a scalable solution.

sagevh.bsky.social•1 day ago

I wish you could exempt all housing and energy project and transit from CEQA. Go further - our state is in crisis.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply