Thread by @CSElmendorf

Hey all you CEQA lawyers out there: Is long-game of Eberling's seismic-safety argument an effort to blow up CEQA-Guidelines presumption that building permits are ministerial and thus exempt from CEQA review? /1

https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1468608996185501700

I know the presumption's rebuttable, but it's my understanding that SF (and probably most other cities) has treated building-safety issues covered by codes as "ministerial enough" to be excluded from CEQA analysis. /2

If Eberling challenges this practice and wins, it's going to be a nightmare for housing development. Projects would have to go through CEQA review (& appeals, & litigation) twice over: first for entitlement, and again for building permits. /3

As anyone who's ever pulled a permit for remodeling an older homes knows, there's all sorts of "as applied" discretion tucked into the building permit process, as DBI staff try to figure out how to make codes "work" w/odd lots, odd existing structures, etc. /4

But maybe there's a silver lining: Would requiring an EIR for ordinary kitchen and bath remodels kickstart a political coalition for CEQA reform? /end.