* Note: the original article on this confused SB 607, a broader CEQA bill, with SB 609, a narrower CEQA bill and part of the fast track legislation.
Sacramento, CA – A coalition of environmental, conservation, and community organizations has come out forcefully against SB 607 (Senator Scott Wiener), arguing that the bill would “undermine CEQA across the board” and represents a far-reaching rollback of California’s core environmental law.
In a detailed letter addressed to the State Senate’s Environmental Quality Committee, more than 150 organizations laid out a comprehensive case against the bill, which they say masquerades as a set of technical fixes but in reality “replaces provisions that have existed in the law for over 50 years with a broad, new legal framework.”
While some recent legislative efforts, such as SB 609, are part of a targeted Fast Track housing package and focus specifically on infill development, CEQA Works clarified that SB 607 is not part of that package and is a much greater concern.
In their words, “SB 607 is being portrayed as making ‘technical changes’ to clarify CEQA,” but instead, “it weakens environmental protections for nearly all private and government projects.”
Senator Scott Wiener and a coalition of housing and business advocates are calling SB 607, the “Fast & Focused CEQA Act,” as a long-overdue modernization of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
However, a broad alliance of over 150 environmental, conservation, and justice organizations is sounding the alarm, warning that the bill is not a surgical reform—but a sweeping rollback of one of the state’s most important environmental laws.
At its core, SB 607 aims to speed up CEQA review processes that Senator Wiener and supporters argue have become overly bureaucratic and prone to abuse.
“For California to succeed as a state, we need to build an abundance of housing, child care centers, transportation, clean energy, and all the things that make life better and more affordable,” said Wiener. “This bill makes smart process changes to focus CEQA on the projects that demand additional scrutiny… while speeding up the things we need to make California cleaner and more affordable.”
The bill is supported by pro-housing and economic groups, including the Bay Area Council, California YIMBY, Prosperity California, and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC). John Kennedy of RCRC praised the bill’s “common-sense approach to harmonize CEQA with its intended objectives without compromising its core environmental safeguards.” Wiener insists the bill “does not relax environmental standards” but merely clarifies and streamlines existing processes.
This week however, critics have pushed back.
In a sharply worded letter to the State Senate’s Environmental Quality Committee, CEQA Works—a coalition representing more than 150 environmental and community groups—warned that SB 607 “undermines CEQA across the board” and constitutes a sweeping and dangerous rewrite of environmental protections that have existed for over 50 years.
“This bill allows agencies to ignore credible, scientific evidence that projects will cause significant harm—air and water pollution, excessive noise, dangerous traffic, greenhouse gas emissions,” the coalition wrote. “It will give the public less information on a project, provide fewer opportunities for local groups to raise their concerns to their elected representatives, and result in less mitigation to reduce environmental and public health harm.”
The fundamental point of tension lies in the replacement of CEQA’s longstanding “fair argument” standard—which triggers an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) when substantial evidence suggests a project may have a significant environmental effect—with a more deferential “substantial evidence” standard. This shift, critics argue, would allow agencies to sidestep in-depth review even when credible concerns exist.
“This change would eliminate the current ‘fair argument’ test,” CEQA Works explained, “and replace it with a standard requiring deference to an agency’s determination that no EIR is required.”
Wiener’s office disputes this interpretation, stating in his press release that “SB 607 focuses on speeding approvals for environmentally friendly and environmentally neutral projects while maintaining existing processes for potentially environmentally destructive projects like fossil fuel facilities.”
But the scope of projects impacted by the bill goes far beyond housing and clean energy, according to opponents. CEQA Works writes that it would affect “freeways, airports, railyards, shipping terminals, office buildings, shopping malls, sports complexes, dams, sewage plants, mining, incinerators, power plants, prisons, and massive mixed-use developments on farmland, sensitive habitat, or in high wildfire danger zones.”
These concerns are not limited to content, but also to structure. Critics describe the bill’s expansion of CEQA exemptions—including an exemption for rezoning consistent with a housing element—as “overly broad and nearly impossible to make sense of.” They worry it could allow developers to sidestep CEQA review for rezonings that include industrial and commercial projects, simply because they don’t conflict with a housing element’s policy language.
Senator Wiener’s team counters that rezoning exemptions are justified: “Recognizing that local jurisdictions must undergo the CEQA process as a part of the housing element adoption process,” SB 607 “exempts re-zonings that are consistent with an already approved housing element.”
The bill also seeks to clarify and make usable the Class 32 urban infill exemption, which Wiener says is too ambiguous under current law to be effective. But environmental groups worry that removing review triggers like the “unusual circumstances” exception could strip communities of their ability to contest harmful projects, even in sensitive urban areas.
Supporters insist the reforms are grounded in long-standing calls for CEQA modernization. The Little Hoover Commission, a good government oversight body, recently recommended changes to CEQA, noting: “While CEQA remains an essential tool to protect the state’s environment, it can be improved through targeted, limited reforms.” Wiener’s press release highlights this endorsement, asserting that SB 607 “enacts several” of the Commission’s recommendations.
But CEQA Works points out that “the bill’s main proposals were never even considered, much less endorsed, by the Little Hoover Commission.” Moreover, the coalition quotes one Commission critic who testified, “I’m not suggesting that we change the fair argument standard… that’s not my suggestion at all.”
The opposition letter also raises alarm over transparency, particularly a provision that would allow agencies to exclude internal emails and communications from the official administrative record in CEQA litigation.
“Given that most communications are now done electronically, this is a major change,” CEQA Works writes. “There is no good policy reason for excluding these documents.”
Still, supporters insist these changes are meant to curb abuse—not block legitimate oversight. “CEQA can be, and is, abused to stop everything from student housing to clean energy to public art,” Senator Wiener argued, citing lawsuits that delayed a dormitory in Berkeley over claims that student noise was an environmental impact and a CEQA challenge against a light-based art installation on the Bay Bridge.
Whether SB 607 ultimately strikes the right balance remains to be seen. Environmental justice groups warn of a “Swiss Cheese CEQA” in which too many exemptions—and too much deference to agencies—could gut the law’s core protections. Proponents argue it’s a necessary evolution to meet the demands of climate, housing, and infrastructure crises.
Jordan Grimes of the Greenbelt Alliance offered a more cautious tone, stating, “While we have yet to take a position on SB 607, we look forward to working with the Senator to better align environmental policy with today’s environmental challenges.”
Meanwhile, CEQA Works is sounding the alarm.
“SB 607 is not a ‘good government’ bill and will not clarify CEQA or streamline only ‘environmentally friendly and environmentally neutral’ projects, as the author’s press release claims,” they write.
They maintain the bill “adds confusing new provisions that will confound public agencies and the courts. Even worse, by weakening CEQA and the requirements for EIRs, the bill would undermine the public’s right to meaningful review of projects across the state and eliminate critical protections for environmental resources and public health.”
They are urging lawmakers to reject SB 607 in its entirety. “We respectfully urge you to stop SB 607 now.”
