By Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO — Sen. Catherine S. Blakespear, D-Encinitas, on Wednesday introduced legislation aimed at tightening recent changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, responding to concerns that last year’s reforms created overly broad exemptions for industrial development.
The bill, SB 954, seeks to balance CEQA streamlining efforts with environmental, labor and public health protections, following criticism of SB 131, a budget trailer bill that exempted many advanced manufacturing projects from environmental review.
According to the senator’s office, the legislation is backed by more than a dozen senators and 20 Assemblymembers and is intended to address what lawmakers described as unintended consequences of the earlier law.
“Refining and reforming CEQA is important so that it works the way we want it to for modern California, but we must be thoughtful about it,” Blakespear said. “SB 954 ensures that when new industrial facilities are built, that the environment, workers and the communities living next door are protected as they should be.”
SB 131, signed into law in 2025, created a broad exemption for “advanced manufacturing,” a category that includes a wide range of industrial activities such as chemical production, plastics manufacturing and mining operations. Critics argue that the definition is so expansive that it allows projects with significant environmental and health risks to bypass review.
A coalition of more than 30 legislators had previously objected to the scope of the exemption and called for corrective legislation. SB 954 is intended to fulfill that commitment by narrowing the definition of advanced manufacturing and adding environmental safeguards.
The proposal would strengthen protections for habitats of protected species, clarify exemptions related to residential daycare facilities and establish legislative intent to further refine the scope of CEQA exemptions.
A statewide poll conducted by FM3 Research in March 2026 found strong public support for environmental review requirements. The survey of 600 likely voters showed that 72 percent approve of CEQA, while 64 percent oppose exempting advanced manufacturing projects from environmental review and disclosure requirements.
The same poll found that 85 percent of voters consider it extremely or very important to review development projects for impacts such as water quality, air pollution and exposure to harmful chemicals.
Supporters of SB 954 argue that the legislation aligns with public sentiment and restores transparency in land use decisions.
“Continuing to build out needed infrastructure does not require us to compromise our environmental stewardship priorities, especially when it comes to intensive manufacturing facilities that severely pollute and threaten public health and the environment,” said Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica.
“SB 954 re-establishes needed guardrails against this type of development to once again protect our sensitive communities, ecosystems, and species that depend on thoughtful policymaking in this new age. I am proud to join with Senator Blakespear and this broad coalition to uphold these promises made when we significantly reformed CEQA last year.”
Assemblymember Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, a joint author of the bill, said the measure responds directly to concerns raised after SB 131 was enacted.
“After seven months of collaborative work, I am proud to join Senator Blakespear on SB 954, which delivers meaningful clean up to SB 131,” Connolly said. “Following the unprecedented CEQA exemptions granted to all advanced manufacturing projects through the passage of SB 131, it was critical that subsequent legislation be introduced to ensure our communities are protected from toxic contamination and environmental destruction.”
Connolly added that the bill would limit exemptions to appropriate industrial zones, establish setbacks from sensitive areas, require worker protections and mandate consultation with tribal communities.
Advocates for environmental justice and public health also voiced support for the legislation, emphasizing the risks posed by industrial facilities operating without oversight.
“When industrial facilities that handle arsenic, cyanide, and other toxic chemicals can be built near to homes and schools without public notice or environmental review under CEQA, that is not progress — that is a public health crisis waiting to happen,” said Asha Sharma, state policy manager at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability.
“Communities, particularly those that have already borne the heaviest burden of industrial pollution, have a right to know what is being built near them and what it means for their families’ health. SB 954 restores that right.”
Environmental groups said the bill is necessary to maintain CEQA’s role as a central tool for safeguarding public health.
“CEQA is one of California’s most powerful tools for protecting the health of our communities, our air, our water, and our natural resources, and it only works if we fight to keep it strong,” said Esther Portillo, director of Western Environmental Health for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “SB 954 does exactly that, stepping in where last year’s legislation missed the mark on public health and community protection.”
Other advocates stressed the importance of public input and community protections in land use decisions.
“Policy made without public input won’t make building faster or more affordable for Californians,” said Chloe Hsieh, legislative advocate for California Environmental Voters. “That’s why it’s so important to quickly restore critical protections, including safeguarding communities from toxic heavy industrial development, ensuring tribal voices are respected, and establishing community setbacks, so we can build the California of the future the right way.”
Medical professionals also highlighted the health implications of reduced environmental oversight.
“As a pediatrician, I see the consequences of toxic chemical exposure in children every day — asthma, developmental delays, lead poisoning, elevated cancer risk,” said Dr. Bonnie Hitchcock. “These are the conditions that follow when industrial facilities emitting arsenic, cyanide, and radioactive materials are sited near homes and schools with little or no review and no disclosure. This poll confirms what families already know. SB 954 is a matter of children’s health, plain and simple.”
Labor leaders said the bill would help ensure that expedited development does not come at the expense of worker protections.
“Unions and community advocates have fought for decades to win labor and environmental standards on major infrastructure and manufacturing projects,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “Any streamlining of the law that allows companies to benefit from expedited access to building permits must include labor and wage standards that create and protect good union jobs for those building, maintaining, and working in these facilities.”
Industry representatives expressed support for refining the law while maintaining clarity for development projects.
“Senator Blakespear and her colleagues have crafted a thoughtful proposal that balances growing high quality manufacturing jobs, protecting community and worker health, ensuring California’s environmental leadership, and clarifying planning processes,” said Mike Miller, director for UAW Region 6. He added, “We look forward to working with the Senate to narrow the ‘Advanced Manufacturing’ definition in SB 954 while preserving clear standards that deliver public benefits and predictable projects.”
Labor advocates also emphasized concerns about loopholes that could allow unrelated commercial developments to avoid environmental review.
“SB 954 restores a basic principle that was lost in last year’s budget negotiations: streamlining environmental laws to increase housing should not create a loophole for luxury hotels and large entertainment venues to avoid environmental review,” said Mario Yedidia, Western regional political director for UNITE HERE International Union.
The bill is expected to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in the coming weeks.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
It was a complete sham that they exempted housing developments from CEQA reviews within cities.
There are creeks, for example, which flow through cities. Davis has one itself, though I believe it’s in an artificial channel because previous developers (as well as UCD?) “didn’t like” its original location.
Just because a proposal is a housing project does not mean that it has no impact.
Reminds me of the shift from LOS (traffic congestion) to VMTs (vehicle miles traveled). If anyone believes that LOS doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gasses, I’d invite you to look at I-80 on any Thursday or Friday afternoon in particular, and tell me if you think greenhouse gasses are being created (but with little or no VMTs).
Then there was the issue regarding “students are noise” at UC Berkeley. Instead of acknowledging the truth – which was a justification for the megadorms in Davis in the first place in regard to the minidorms that created problems for neighbors). Instead, the governor and other YIMBY politicians tried to present that issue as discrimination against students (in order to further weaken CEQA).