CEQA Community Strategy Group

05/02/2022

What is the current status of CEQA, locally in SF and in CA?

05/20/2021

CEQA remains!

By Laura Wenus : bizjournals – excerpt San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin joined Dean Preston in opposing the proposal to tweak the CEQA appeals rules. Even just one objector can slow publ…

03/12/2018

From Eric Brooks:

Hi all,

Scott Wiener is yet again attacking CEQA (The California Environmental Quality Act) with two 'housing' bills that he has introduced in the California Senate, SB 827 and SB 828.

These bills launch similar attacks on CEQA to those we opposed and halted in San Francisco when Wiener was a Supervisor.

See details below. And see the bill texts at:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB828

*TOMORROW'S HEARING*

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee is holding a hearing tomorrow, Monday, March 12, at 1:30pm in City Hall Room 250

(Board Chamber) to decide on whether to pass a resolution to oppose Wiener's attack. NOTE: There are only two items on the committee agenda, so the item will be heard right around 1:30.

In Scott Wiener's own district it is vital that we show strong community opposition to these bills. Please attend and speak at this hearing if you can.

*See talking points for public comment below.*

*SIGN THE STATEWIDE PETITION TO OPPOSE WIENER'S LEGISLATION*

https://www.change.org/p/senator-mcguire-senate-ca-gov-no-to-sb-827-sb-828-stop-top-down-planning-unsustainable-high-density-housing-growth

*TALKING POINTS FOR HEARING*

Wiener has just introduced flimsy fig-leaf amendments to SB 827 for so called 'tenant protections' to give political cover to his fellow politicians who might otherwise vote against SB 827. Focus comments on how weak these so called 'tenant protections' are.

Here's a list of talking points. Choose one or two of these for your comments.

1) Wiener's Claim: "Local Demolition Prohibitions Will Remain"

REALITY: Demolition controls are *already* routinely ignored. So not only will illegal demolitions continue to take place, but the increased building height and number of units allowed in SB 827 will incentivize *more* illegal demolitions in a city that is already plagued by these demolitions.

2) Wiener's Claim: "Demolition of Renter-Occupied Housing is Banned Unless:

- moving expenses for tenants in interim housing are paid while a project is being built

- the full rent cost of a comparable, available unit is covered for up to 42 months

- displaced tenants get first choice for units in new buildings at ame price and terms"

REALITY:

Current demolition and displacement protections are *already* notproperly enforced, and allowing larger buildings with more luxury units will highly incentivize more skirting of the law by developers and speculators.

a) Renovation and Ellis Act evictions, and buyouts, often occur long

before an application for a demolition permit is filed. Developers can get away with these tactics because Planning doesn't keep a proper inventory of rental units and cannot identify all property that has been renter-occupied.

b) Displacement protections are already woefully inadequate. Tenants who
have been displaced by development (for example in the Fillmore district) have a very low rate of actual return to their neighborhoods because of the difficulties and costs involved.

c) Construction times are unpredictable and manipulated. Developers use delays blamed on market prices and other factors to discourage displaced
tenants from returning. This enables developers to sell more empty, and
therefore more profitable buildings, to speculators. It is very easy for unscrupulous developers to game the system and drag the permit and construction process beyond 42 months.

d) The increased building sizes and units allowed in SB 827 will cause the price of land for housing to go up dramatically, because the land's

potential value will be so much higher. This will make building affordable housing prohibitively more expensive and undesirable to developers, and will drive luxury condo oriented gentrification that will make the affordability crisis worse.

Wiener's amendments amount to nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. Increased speculation values will only drive more economic incentive to break already poorly enforced laws.

Please vote to OPPOSE SB 827!

(2)“High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that has service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

02/25/2018

Hello CEQA Community! Any new stuff happening on the CEQA front here in San Francisco or in California?

07/13/2017

Hello CEQA Friends and Allies! Anything going on in SF or Sacramento that we should be aware of here in our local CEQA group? Thank you.

06/10/2017

Hello from CEQA Community Group!

04/18/2016

https://www.facebook.com/JaneMorrisonSF/

Jane is 96 years young today. Wish her a Happy Birthday!

Jane Morrison was a long-time Democratic Party activist, Chair of SF Democratic Party, Progressive Icon, Diversity Manager at KNBR Radio, & beloved by all! 100 Years Young today April 17, 2020

03/10/2013

- In November and December 2012, Supervisor Scott Wiener attempted to use the distraction of election and holiday time to sneak through legislation that would drastically weaken the public's ability to use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to protect the environment and our community from harmful developer projects. In preparing his legislation, Supervisor Wiener made almost no contact whatsoever with the city's environmental, social justice, neighborhood, historic preservation, and parks preservation organizations (which deeply depend on CEQA to do their important work) and these groups rose up to oppose his destructive legislation.

- On November, 29, 2012, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to Supervisor Wiener that he meet with these community opponents to the first and second drafts of his CEQA legislation, and to then introduce an AMENDED text which reflects feedback from these community organizations.

- After three so-called 'roundtable discussions' with Supervisor Wiener, Planning Staff, and City Attorney Elaine Warren, no substantial changes AT ALL have been made in this legislation to address the many serious problems that we have clearly documented both to them and to the Planning Commission. We therefore call on the Commission to recommend a 'NO' vote on Supervisor Wiener's legislation to the Board of Supervisors. Community requirements which have still not been met are:

- There must be no 'First Approval' trigger of the appeals clock. This is far too early in the process to enable sufficient examination and understanding of projects. While a more clear trigger is reasonable, that trigger should be the final approval that a project as a whole receives from the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors (whichever body takes that final action). Where the final approval is also a first approval, we must ensure more robust noticing so that no environmental review falls under the radar.

- All sections which would allow the Board of Supervisors to avoid a formal legal appeal hearing before the full Board are unacceptable. All appeals must be heard at a full, formal, Board appeal hearing, without exception. Currently, any CEQA determination provided by the City may be formally appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Under the Amendments, this formal appeal process is eliminated if the Board of Supervisors must approve any aspect of a project.

- There must be no elimination of the “Fair Argument” standard. State law codifies that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted if here is “substantial evidence which supports a fair argument” that a project may significantly negatively impact the environment. Supervisor Wiener’s legislation cuts out the words “which supports a fair argument” setting a much tougher test for triggering Environmental Impact Reports. The coalition insists on retaining the current local wording, which simply states “fair argument” on its own.