SAN FRANCISCO — Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has introduced SB 607, the Fast & Focused CEQA Act, a bill aimed at improving the efficiency and clarity of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
The legislation seeks to eliminate unnecessary delays for environmentally friendly projects—such as infill housing, infrastructure, child care centers, and clean energy developments—while maintaining rigorous environmental review for projects with potential environmental harm, such as fossil fuel facilities.
The California Environmental Quality Act, originally passed in 1970, was designed to protect communities from harmful development, ensuring that projects like refineries and factories do not pollute natural resources or endanger public health. However, over time, CEQA has expanded far beyond its original intent, leading to delays that can stretch three to four years or longer and significantly increase costs for essential projects.
“We need to build an abundance of housing, childcare centers, transportation, and clean energy to make life more affordable and sustainable for Californians,” said Senator Wiener. “CEQA provides critical environmental protections, but it has also been abused to block and delay projects for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment—including projects that are essential to fighting climate change and expanding housing access.”
Addressing CEQA’s Overreach and Misuse:
Over the decades, CEQA has been broadly expanded by courts to apply to nearly every government-approved project, including those built by private entities that require local permits. This has led to extensive litigation and appeals, often for reasons unrelated to environmental protection.
Examples of CEQA’s misuse include:
- Student Housing Delays in Berkeley (2023) – Neighbors filed a CEQA lawsuit claiming that the hypothetical noise from student residents should be considered an “environmental impact,” delaying much-needed housing.
- San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Art Blocked (2023) – A resident used CEQA to halt an LED light art installation, arguing that the project constituted “discrimination.”
These legal challenges often result in years-long litigation, ballooning project costs, and discouraging investment in urgently needed housing and infrastructure.
Key Reforms in SB 607:
SB 607 proposes five targeted reforms to modernize CEQA and restore its focus on genuine environmental concerns which include:
- Streamlining Reviews for Low-Impact Projects – When a project just barely fails to meet CEQA exemption requirements, SB 607 limits review to only the specific issue that disqualified the project.
- Clarifying the Urban Infill Housing Exemption (Class 32) – Many urban housing projects are already exempt from CEQA, but confusing guidelines prevent cities from applying the exemption. SB 607 directs the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LUCI) to issue clear guidance, removing barriers to housing production.
- Protecting Housing Element Rezonings from Unnecessary CEQA Reviews – Local jurisdictions already conduct CEQA reviews during their housing element updates.
My earlier comment was not posted (don’t know why), but I’ll just ask this in a more simple manner.
What’s the difference between Scott Wiener’s continuing deregulation efforts, vs. the same type of effort from Trump?
And why does only “one” of them claim to be a progressive?
Wiener isn’t progressive.
To more seriously answer your question, Wiener is a legislator not an executive. He is introducing a bill that has to pass both houses of the legislature and get signed by the governor. Trump is attempting to legislate through executive order in ways that are likely not constitutional.
” Trump is attempting to legislate through executive order in ways that are likely not constitutional.”
Not how I read DT’s actions. He’s doing what DT does, doing outrageous things to tilt his opponents who take what his says literally off their axis in order to topple them in order to get things done. He’ll never literally get many of these executive orders to stick, but it may advance what he’s aiming to achieve. I say this without giving a thumbs up or down on specifics, just pointing this out.
Thought I’d run it through the “wopper”. Yeap, he’s a progressive.
https://progressivevotersguide.com/california/2024/general/scott-wiener?language_content_entity=en
Courage California is an LGBTQ group. Wiener is solid on those issues. Not so on some other issues that progressives support. In general, progressives in San Francisco consider Wiener part of the establishment, not part of the progressive wing.
“Thought I’d run it through the “wopper”.”
Yup, I guess that’s going to be the new go to when citing supposed facts on the Vanguard. No need to supply your sources or links. All you have to say is you ran it through the Whopper.
Wrong. He cited his source – his source was the link he posted, that enabled us to scrutinize the results properly. How he derived it whether it was Google, ChatGPT, or Burger King is irrelevant.
I was referring to you David.
Change the pronouns, the concept is still the same. Everything uses the same basic structure – facts are presented, sources are cited. That’s true of books, it’s true of newspaper articles (unless they specifically use an unnamed source), that’s true of Google which pulls up search results and it’s true of all the AI that I’ve seen used. As long as that occurs, the reader can go to the source of the data and evaluate whether the conclusions are warranted. If that doesn’t occur, ie, sources are not cited, it should be called out.
Conversations on the Vanguard could someday just be commenters simply posting cut and pasted AI excerpts back and forth to each other.
On that subject I asked ChatGPT, “someday will comment sections consist of only AI talking back and forth?”
ChatGPT said:
It’s definitely possible! If AI-generated comments become widespread, we might see bots debating each other, hyping up posts, or even forming weird little in-jokes. Some sections could just be AI-generated noise, like two chatbots arguing about whether pineapple belongs on pizza.
But hopefully, human voices will still cut through. Maybe AI will just assist—suggesting comments, summarizing discussions, or filtering out spam. But if a comment section ever turns into an endless loop of bots replying to bots, that’d be a strange, kind of dystopian internet moment.
What do you think—would that be hilarious or depressing?
I vote “depressing”
You’re looking at the downside. The upside is the AI revolution is just scratching the surface. I haven’t even had a chance to test run all the tools we now have access to. In 2020, the pandemic and Zoom completely changed the way the Vanguard was run. All of sudden we had the ability to be anywhere and meet with anyone. The AI revolution will be a game changer as well, the ability to analyze vast amounts of data at the click of a button. We still need safeguards, policies and procedures, but why wouldn’t we use the tools we have access to? It’d be dumb.
But simply cut and pasting AI generated responses without crediting the source I feel is wrong on so many levels.
I agree – copying and pasting an AI generated response isn’t a good idea even with crediting the source.
So tell me where I can find this “Whopper” source you have been referring to?
David M. Greenwald says:
February 21, 2025 at 10:18 am
Ran it through the whopper…
Ask me in a few months when I”m licensed to use that particular service
“All of sudden we had the ability to be anywhere and meet with anyone. ”
We had that ability for years, but the use of the tools became widespread in 2020.
Yes, the locking of ourselves in our homes was half-a-decade ago, in a couple of weeks. I feel like I lost a couple years of my life not long ago.
“Wiener isn’t progressive.”
Wait, WHAT ??? I see there’s a lot of text below, but before I read it, is this a master course in gaslighting, the Twilight Zone, or am I on Candid Camera?
David says: “Wrong. He cited his source – his source was the link he posted, that enabled us to scrutinize the results properly. How he derived it whether it was Google, ChatGPT, or Burger King is irrelevant.”
(I’ll try to do better next time, by NOT posting my source. Like you do (even prior to the time that you started using artificial intelligence as your response).
By the way, the Burger King source says that whoppers are better than Big Macs.
David says: “Everything uses the same basic structure – facts are presented, sources are cited.”
(Lately, I’ve noticed that simple Internet searches are using AI to specifically compile an answer to a question I’ve asked. Which, at first glance – seems great. But when I then look at the “real” sources that AI cites, I find that they sometimes (and perhaps even “usually”) don’t say the same thing as the AI response.)
(The difference in citing “actual” sources is that those sources are then responsible for what they write. In contrast, AI cannot be held responsible for what it writes.)
David asks: “We still need safeguards, policies and procedures, but why wouldn’t we use the tools we have access to? It’d be dumb.”
(What “safeguards” have you been using – even prior to this point?)
David says: “Wiener isn’t progressive”
O.K., but what does that say about YOU and the YIMBYs?
Here’s the California Assembly progressive caucus: https://www.assembly.ca.gov/offices-caucuses/legislative-progressive-caucus
Chaired btw, by Alex Lee who not long ago was ASUCD President for UC Davis.
Truth be told some of those folks I would not consider progressives. There is no senate counterpart.
Would you consider Matt Haney (on that list) to be a “progressive”? He was endorsed by California YIMBY.
https://cayimby.org/news-events/california-yimby-endorses-matt-haney-for-assembly-district-17/
Do you consider YIMBYs to be progressive? And do you support the YIMBY agenda?
Do you consider yourself to be (both) a progressive and a YIMBY?
Haney is close. He’s not one of the ones I take issue with.
YIMBY – no. A lot of YIMBYs are conservative.
Me – depends on the issue. Criminal justice reform, definitely. I’m not perfectly aligned with the YIMBYs on housing, but similar. I’m more likely to support rent control and affordable housing.
I suspect that a lot of YIMBY types (including Haney, Wiener, Aguiar-Curry claim the “progressive” label).
In fact, I’m not even aware of any “conservatives” who simultaneously claim to be both YIMBYs and conservatives. YIMBYs tie themselves to the progressive label.
Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to be more “protective” of neighborhoods against the YIMBY assault. (See Huntington Beach.)
I guess we could run through the complete list of YIMBY endorsements, to see which ones you think are “progressive” vs. “conservative”. (My guess is that they’re ALL Democrats, at least.)
https://cayimby.org/endorsements/
But what meaning does “progressive” have, if it overlaps with conservatives on housing development? Other than the conservatives trying to protect their own neighborhoods, how is the paid YIMBY agenda different from what someone like Trump supports?
How is, for example, “California Forever” (the proposed development in Solano county) “different” from what BOTH conservatives and YIMBYs advocate for?
I tried to oversimplify this.
The YIMBYs are supportive of densification and infill projects. Opposed to things like rent control.
Then you have the realtors and apartment association, opposed to rent control, and more supportive of peripheral housing.
Then you have some of what I of as more progressive groups like Housing as a Human Right which supports homeless, affordable housing and rent control.
California Forever folks I believe are Republicans and more supportive of traditional type single family homes.
Seems to me that YIMBYs claim the progressive label and support ALL forms of housing – including sprawl and developments like California Forever.
And that’s similar to the reason that some of the local “progressives” are trying to undermine Measure J.
Can you point to a single YIMBY who is doing anything to help reign-in sprawl? (You’ve already acknowledged that they oppose rent control, and are aligned with real estate interests regarding that.) Would you also say that they’re either directly supportive of sprawl, or at least “look the other way” as it continues?
Can you point to a single YIMBY (politician, or otherwise) who claims to be a conservative?
My point is that they are hiding who they actually are.
“Seems to me that YIMBYs claim the progressive label”
Show us
I ran this through the whopper and came up with this (this whopper thing is becoming addictive):
Yes, YIMBYs (Yes In My Backyard) often align with progressives, but not always. The YIMBY movement advocates for increasing housing supply through upzoning, loosening building regulations, and streamlining permitting to address housing shortages and affordability issues.
Many progressives support YIMBY policies because they align with social justice goals like reducing housing costs, combating displacement, and promoting sustainable urban development.
See the list of YIMBY endorsements.
You say that Scott Wiener is not a progressive. How about Ceclia Aguiar-Curry?
She’s definitely not.
We could run through each one of the politicians that California YIMBY endorses (including Aguiar-Curry), but maybe this article cuts to the chase, so to speak:
“Are yimbys the new progressives? Only in a bizarre Wonderland”
“San Francisco yimbys have now declared themselves “as progressive as it gets” in the welcoming pages of the San Francisco Chronicle. Claiming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as one of their own, they are now, the article claims, engaged in “fighting inequality to protect the most vulnerable.”
“The New York Times, The Atlantic and countless academics have embraced “yimbyism” with an astounding stream of favorable articles, coverage and comment by columnists. Not since the late 1950s has there been as board of a consensus among academics and the media on urban policy than that which has emerged around the two primary yimby principles: remove all local constraints and build new high density housing in urban areas, letting the market solve the housing crisis by an abundant new supply—and housing costs will drop like a stone and the homeless will find a home in a condo tower.”
https://48hills.org/2022/08/are-yimbys-the-new-progressives-only-in-a-bizarre-wonderland/
So David, are you a YIMBY supporter while simultaneously claiming to be a progressive? Or are you trying to deny that?
Or, do we have a new “YIMBY definition” of what it means to be a progressive?
“So David, are you a YIMBY supporter while simultaneously claiming to be a progressive? Or are you trying to deny that?”
I explained my positions on the previous comment. I don’t fall into the progressive camp on housing.
I guess the point being that there are some people who claim to be progressives (and value that label), but actually aren’t progressive – as that label is defined.
And as noted in the article I cited, you’re more-aligned with the YIMBYs who claim to be progressive – but aren’t.
There’s a reason they claim to be progressive – they’re hiding who they actually are (e.g., regarding who funds/supports them).