Opposition is building against SB 607, a bill scheduled to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday. Critics say the legislation would gut California’s landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), undermining protections that have safeguarded communities for over half a century.
Introduced under the banner of housing reform, SB 607 is facing an alliance of resistance from both environmental groups and organized labor, who warn the bill is a Trojan horse for sweeping deregulation.
“SB 607 takes a wrecking ball to decades of hard work to combat environmental injustice,” said Asha Sharma of the Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability. “What’s worse, it’s being promoted as a housing bill. But it’s not—it’s a broad rollback of public processes that frontline communities rely on.”
The bill would alter CEQA’s standards for environmental review, a move that opponents believe will allow projects—including industrial facilities, power plants, and freeways—to bypass crucial public health assessments. Labor unions, whose members often work on or live near such projects, argue CEQA provides essential safeguards.
“CEQA is critical to ensuring sustainable development and preventing construction moratoriums,” said Chris Hannan, President of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. “When public health is degraded, construction stops—and so do jobs.”
Mike Hartley of the California State Pipe Trades Council emphasized that CEQA is also a worker safety issue. “Labor union members operate and maintain facilities with elevated health risks. CEQA is a tool for ensuring their safety.”
With federal environmental protections under assault by the Trump administration—including rollbacks of NEPA, Clean Air Act standards, and climate regulations—many fear SB 607 would make California complicit in a broader national trend of environmental deregulation.
“This is the wrong time to roll back environmental and public health protections that we all depend upon,” said Frances Tinney of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The bill also faces resistance from organizations representing low-wage workers and communities of color, who argue it would eliminate one of the few tools they have to demand safer, healthier neighborhoods.
“SB 607 obliterates decades of protections to the detriment of California’s communities,” said Mario Yedidia of UNITE HERE, which represents hospitality workers. “We urge Senator Wiener to work with the opposition on a consensus bill that delivers truly affordable housing without sacrificing health.”
Environmental justice advocates echoed this sentiment, highlighting the threat to neighborhoods already overburdened by pollution.
“This disastrous bill would weaken environmental review for almost all new development—including hazardous and polluting projects,” said Aleja Maria Cretcher of Communities for a Better Environment. “CEQA is the only mechanism that ensures frontline communities have a meaningful voice.”
Several union leaders pointed to the practical consequences of the bill: diminished oversight, increased health risks, and the erosion of democratic input.
“CEQA prevents hazardous projects from being sited next to schools, childcare facilities, and homes without environmental review,” said Troy Garland of the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers. “SB 607 would eliminate that.”
“Unions have a genuine interest in enforcing environmental laws that protect the health, safety, and economic interests of their members,” added Peter Finn, President of Teamsters Joint Council 7. “Our members live and raise families in the communities where these projects are built.”
David Osborne of the Ironworkers District Council emphasized the importance of worker voice. “CEQA gives union members the ability to participate in project approvals—to address environmental and public health impacts before shovels hit the ground.”
Legal experts and environmental policy groups argue that SB 607’s proposed changes could lead to increased litigation and confusion, not faster project approvals.
“Even for those that support CEQA reform, SB 607 is not the solution,” said Matthew Baker of the Planning and Conservation League. “It will cause legal confusion and slow down development instead of speeding it up.”
Some labor leaders view the bill as part of a broader trend of sacrificing worker and community protections for developer profit.
“No policy ever improved living conditions for working Californians that moved over the backs of blue-collar workers,” said Tom Baca of the Boilermakers union. “SB 607 imperils the lives and livelihood of construction workers and should be held until communities and workers are adequately protected.”
The stakes, opponents argue, are too high to rush legislation of this magnitude. Fitzgerald Jacobs of the Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons International Association warned that SB 607 is “not a minor technical fix. It would undercut core elements of CEQA—elements that helped make California the 4th largest economy in the world.”
Chris Greaney of the Heat and Frost Insulators pointed to on-site health hazards as a major concern: “CEQA safeguards construction workers from exposure to hazardous materials and other risks. SB 607 would leave them unprotected.”
In a moment when environmental rollbacks are accelerating nationwide, California’s decision on SB 607 could have reverberations far beyond the state.
“At a time when the federal government is gutting protections,” said John Doherty of IBEW Local 6, “California should be strengthening CEQA—not weakening it to promote private interests.”
SB 607’s fate now lies with the Senate Appropriations Committee. As the hearing looms, the coalition of labor and environmental justice advocates is urging lawmakers to reject the bill and preserve California’s legacy of community-centered environmental protection.
It is useful to share the considered opinions of the people you quote. It would be useful to at least cite the considered opinions of the other side and some context for the problem as it relates to our peer states. I’m very grateful that CA has taken positive steps toward climate technology leadership and making large infrastructure investments that will serve us well into this century. It is also true we are widely regarded as a place that is markedly more difficult/onerous to get projects done and a huge percentage of the state is frustrated with it. Its unwise to hold back the improvements the entire state desires due to some sliver of the population for whom it will inconvenience. We don’t choose them to ensure union workers or anyone else are benefitted, but ensuring a conducive business environment for building and growth will ensure continuous demand for their services.
In my view we have to stop trying to disincentivize energetic development and then try to hold what demand remains hostage by extracting concessions from them. I would much rather have massive growth in missing middle dense housing and twice the progress on high speed rail and then deal with the negative aspects of that on the backend. It is far easier to pay for the externalities of those things when we have robust responsible growth. That is not the case in other states where they may cut red tape in order to just drill more oil derricks or widen freeways. But we are actively trying to do the “right thing” by making big investments in long term net positive projects and they are regularly wildly over budget and delayed. Average people will only remain supportive of these changes if they can rapidly see the statewide benefit. They do not viscerally care about the localized impact and they will be even more numb to their concerns if they continue to be a hindrance to the rapid advancement of our honorable development goals.
Steven says: “I would much rather have massive growth in missing middle dense housing and twice the progress on high speed rail and then deal with the negative aspects of that on the backend.”
Pretty sure that it’s the high-speed rail itself that’s come into question. And “missing middle” housing is yet another fake concept. There’s all kinds of “missing middle” housing available. And the “middle” doesn’t want to live in dense housing, unless there’s no other choice (e.g., places like San Francisco).
Steven says: “It is far easier to pay for the externalities of those things when we have robust responsible growth.”
Seems like I’ve heard that somewhere before. Regardless, it’s the pursuit of growth itself which is both unsustainable and undesirable.
Steven says: “That is not the case in other states where they may cut red tape in order to just drill more oil derricks or widen freeways. But we are actively trying to do the “right thing” by making big investments in long term net positive projects and they are regularly wildly over budget and delayed.”
Aren’t they trying to widen I-80 through Davis right now, largely due to all of the sprawl pursued throughout the region and beyond?
Regarding oil derricks, I believe there still are some in California. But also never fully understood why it’s always better to drill “somewhere else” as long as we’re still dependent upon oil in California.
Steven says: “Average people will only remain supportive of these changes if they can rapidly see the statewide benefit.”
There is no statewide benefit, nor is there a local one.
Steven says: “They do not viscerally care about the localized impact and they will be even more numb to their concerns if they continue to be a hindrance to the rapid advancement of our honorable development goals.”
Don’t know what you’re trying to say, here (e.g., “they will be even more numb to their concerns”) – but I find “honorable development goals” to be somewhat of an oxymoron. There’s already been too much “honorable development”.
Re: Missing middle housing, nearly 96% of all residential land is zoned single family meaning its entirely illegal to build anything other than a single family house. The “middle” doesn’t refer to middle class people or “average” people although there is plenty of evidence to suggest a huge percentage of people would gladly choose to buy them. When Portland finally legalized choice to build missing middle housing, 73% of all new housing starts were of that type.
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-staggering-california-residential-zoned-family.html#:~:text=A%20stunning%2095.8%25%20of%20all,Berkeley%27s%20Othering%20&%20Belonging%20Institute%20shows.
https://tcf.org/content/report/a-bipartisan-vision-for-the-benefits-of-middle-housing-the-case-of-oregon/#:~:text=But%20early%20data%20following%20the,cottages%2C%20and%20so%20on).
Re: Widening I80. Yes that’s true. I’m not suggesting we don’t undertake any development of that sort. I’m saying that relative to other places the big projects we do undertake are good ones and we shouldn’t hamstring ourselves for building adding a High Occupancy Toll lane on I80 while Texas continues to build the 26 lane Katy freeway that is still constantly congested.
Re: statewide benefit of these projects, You’re simply wrong. These projects are cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain , and better for overall statewide economic activity.
Re: Intelligent development. I don’t care if you don’t like smart development. I’m not here to sit on my butt with the status quo. We only have so much time on the earth and I’m here to make as many positive energetic contributions to the state/country/planet as I can, while I can.
Regarding “missing middle” housing, it seems that’s being defined as attached (rather than detached) housing. What exactly is it the “middle” of? I am confident that most people assume it means “middle class” housing – the very type of housing (single-family/detached) that you note is already plentiful. And there’s plenty of places where it’s still within reach of “middle-class” people.
I’m claiming that there’s a LOT of detached (single-family) housing that’s available to those we’d define as middle-class, depending upon the location. I’m also claiming that the people whom most would define as middle-class prefer detached, single-family housing – and that it’s continuing to be built (despite a population that is essentially not growing).
The “truth” is that the creation of the automobile is what changed everything from dense urban (and rural) living, to the sprawl that we see now. (It was NOT driven by racism, but rather the development of vehicles and freeway systems.)
Steven says: “Re: Intelligent development. I don’t care if you don’t like smart development.”
Those descriptions have no meaning – they’re essentially a marketing campaign – like “missing middle”.
Regardless, ALL growth is eventually unsustainable, unless you think housing can be built so high that it reaches into outer space. It’s also not feasible to tear down existing buildings in mass (and replaced with denser/taller buildings), especially as the population has essentially stopped growing.
Even in places like San Francisco, existing housing is generally not being replaced. (It is often heavily-remodeled, but usually remains as single-family housing. Apparently, there’s people with money lurking about, there.
Steven says: “I’m not here to sit on my butt with the status quo.”
The “status quo” has been, and continues to be pursuit of unsustainable growth. Slapping new names on it doesn’t change anything.
Steven says: “We only have so much time on the earth and I’m here to make as many positive energetic contributions to the state/country/planet as I can, while I can.”
Me too. And when you and I are no longer here, someone else will live in our homes. (And those populations are increasingly-smaller than the ones that preceded it.) The only “permanent” owner of property is the government. And that goes for future “temporary owners” as well. (Property/parcel taxes won’t die with us.)
I don’t see how 96% of existing residential land is restricted to single-family housing, in light of the state’s mandates. (For that matter, single-family housing seems to include the possibility of adding an ADU on the property, at a minimum these days.)
Regardless, it usually doesn’t pencil-out to tear down existing housing to build something more dense – regardless of zoning.
You’ve been misinformed about the definition of the term ” Missing Middle Housing refers to a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units, often located in walkable neighborhoods and compatible with single-family homes. It’s a way to add density and affordability to existing neighborhoods without drastically changing their character. Examples include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and bungalow courts.” It is in the “middle” of single family residences and large condo/apartment buildings.
There certainly are lots of single family detached houses. The point is that most of our peers have a much more balanced mix of single family residences, missing middle housing like four-plexes, and large apartment or condo units. The point is that 96% of all residential land, the freedom to build anything other than single family detached housing is prohibited. This is a stupid policy and makes housing far more expensive and less flexible than what otherwise would exist if there were more housing freedom.
The accommodation of the automobile is what drove sprawl. When large military industrial complex companies stopped making tanks etc, they shifted to building cars, and they lobbied heavily to make the government pay for infrastructure that let them sell them to make everyone dependent upon them. Huge efforts were undertaken to remove streetcar lines, widening roads, requiring any developer to institute parking minimums, building the interstate highway system, and even inventing the term “jaywalking” to make people who utilized the street seem like idiots (which is what the term jay meant) when historically those areas were far more mixed in their usage.
We don’t need to worry about building to outer space. I think if you grounded yourself to actually deal with real world problems here we wouldn’t have to deal with this clear hyperbole. There are huge problems with housing in San Francisco for the same reason they have them elsewhere. This type of policy change would make densifying possible, and reduce the upward pressure on housing prices. For everyone that owns a home or is trying to rely on appreciating resale value as their biggest asset, they have huge reasons to oppose affordable housing.
What do you mean you don’t see how 96% of residential land is restricted to single-family housing. Did you read the article. Its pretty rigorous in its presentation. The ability to add ADU’s is an extremely important but also very recent and marginal improvement. I support it wholeheartedly but this won’t do enough to improve living affordability and we can do better.
Steven says: “We don’t need to worry about building to outer space. I think if you grounded yourself to actually deal with real world problems here we wouldn’t have to deal with this clear hyperbole. There are huge problems with housing in San Francisco for the same reason they have them elsewhere.”
Right – most of it is related to the pursuit of business, beyond what an existing community actually “needs”. (Silicon Valley is an even better example of that.)
Property values have been dropping in San Francisco. There’s several reasons for that (e.g., telecommuting, businesses leaving/laying off employees, the collapse of the commercial market, etc.)
Steven says: “This type of policy change would make densifying possible, and reduce the upward pressure on housing prices. For everyone that owns a home or is trying to rely on appreciating resale value as their biggest asset, they have huge reasons to oppose affordable housing.”
What you’re referring to isn’t “affordable housing”, and would likely INCREASE the value of housing which surrounds it. (You’ve got it backwards.) That’s why something like Trackside, for example, would likely INCREASE values of surrounding properties. (However, that type of density has other, negative impacts.) Seems to me that the allegation that homeowners oppose density due to “property values” is a complete and total fabrication, intended to diminish concerns of existing communities (as is the term “NIMBY”).
Now, if you want to say that SUBSIDIZED housing lowers property values, I’m not sure if that’s true either. There probably isn’t enough of it (regarding funding) to make any difference either way. (That wasn’t true in the “old days”, in regard to public housing projects funded by the federal government. Those types of developments did not, and do not, have a very good reputation – for valid reasons.)
But ultimately, it comes back to the cost of tearing down existing structures, rebuilding infrastructure (to the degree that they’re able), and a lack of a naturally-growing population. That’s why it won’t pencil out, even if zoning is further changed. (It would be interesting to see how each/every city across the state is attempting to adhere to the state’s failing housing mandates – on paper, at least. I’d have to believe that some of the way that they’re able to address those mandates is by rezoning properties that will essentially never be redeveloped. (This is an ongoing battle with the state and their YIMBY allies, vs. communities.)
In any case, the goal is not clear – is it to “lower” the value of existing housing? (If so, density creates the opposite – it INCREASES property values.)
Or is the goal to (somehow) build “cheap” housing in expensive areas when it simply won’t pencil out?
None of this seems well thought-out, probably because the industries supporting the YIMBY movement are doing so out of self-interest, and are not forthcoming regarding their actual goals. Plus, terms like “smart growth” sound good at least – sort of like the “Inflation Reduction Act”.
One way that your “missing middle” (as you define it) might pencil out is if the state actually reigned-in all of the continuing sprawl in this region and elsewhere, thereby creating more demand for “missing middle” housing as you define it (and enabling it to pencil-out). But it’s pretty clear that the state has no intention of reigning in continuing sprawl, and the YIMBY groups also have zero interest in that.
It’s also pretty difficult in light of the “preferences” of consumers (especially “missing middle people” – which support continuing sprawl regarding the choices they’re presented with). Overall, dense housing has more disadvantages than less-dense housing, in the eyes of “missing middle people”.
My third comment, so I won’t be able to respond further today.
Steven, the term “Missing Middle” has at least two different meanings when used in the context of Housing. You are arguing for one of the two … the physical structure meaning … while ignoring the other of the two … the buyer demographics meaning.
The reason for that overlap is simple. The missing middle structures match either (A) the buyer’s budget, or (B) the buyer’s living space needs, or (C) both.
There is plenty of room for both meanings to occupy the space simultaneously. That is the case because in large part the two meanings overlap and complement one another.
In what context is this secondary meaning used with any frequency? The term was literally coined by someone in 2010 so it hasn’t been around that long to have a bunch of different uses. Building housing of this type definitely has the effect of making housing more affordable. But the term really does have a specific meaning in any real estate, land use, or policy context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing#:~:text=Post%2DWWII%2C%20housing%20in%20the,the%20now%20%22missing%22%20middle.
With apologies to Emerson …
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a closed mind, adored by statesmen and philosophers and divines.
To SS’s entire comment, there no need for a breakdown analysis. I will instead simply use the classic quote from the movie Billy Madison:
“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” — Principal Max Anderson
“Haters going to hate hate hate hate, shake it off.” Steven welcome to the Vanguard comment section.