California lawmakers push through controversial CEQA changes in early-morning vote
A bill to change a key environmental law was approved by the California Legislature early Saturday morning, just days after the measure received sharp criticism from environmental advocates, other close observers and several lawmakers.
Legislators this summer voted to increase exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, a watershed law that is sometimes used as an impediment to slow down or stop housing projects.
Many lawmakers had concerns that the changes left habitats exposed to damaging development and communities vulnerable to increased pollution by making it easier to build manufacturing plants.
But Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would only sign off on a new state budget if the exemptions were approved. Legislators reluctantly voted for them and Democratic leaders vowed to address their concerns later in the year.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco and a top budget official, unveiled that attempt earlier this week during a committee hearing. It did not sit well with several legislators who said the proposal inadequately addressed their concerns.
In one example, the bill added some protections for certain natural land, but did not remove a CEQA exemption for manufacturing plants that they were calling for.
It also included a section that said a CEQA exemption didn’t apply for a project in a city with a population between 85,000 to 95,000, in a county with 440,000 to 455,000 people and that was located next to a historic state landmark.
That seemed to apply to a controversial apartment project near the Santa Barbara Mission, according to Jordan Grimes, a resilience manager for the Greenbelt Alliance, an environmental organization. That project is within the district of state Sen. Monique Limón, D-Goleta, who will take over as the leader of the Senate later this year
“It’s disappointing that it passed with that provision in it,” Grimes said Saturday afternoon. “I think it sets a pretty dangerous precedent for future legislation, for future projects.”
Limón said she provided feedback on the bill that passed over the summer related to a range of issues including protections for endangered species, consulting with Native American tribes and exemptions for manufacturing projects.
“I think that there was never an intention to make this about any one specific thing,” she said. “I think everyone’s given a lot of different feedback on aspects of this particular CEQA reform.”
Limón did not directly address the provision of the bill, but later added: “I think that there is attention being given to perhaps not really what the focus of the feedback that people have given.”
Wiener decided to pull the measure from consideration during the Wednesday night hearing after it received the strong pushback, mostly due to the environmental-related concerns.
But the proposed changes didn’t die.
They were included in Senate Bill 158, which the Assembly approved early Saturday morning.
Before that vote, Wiener said in an interview that passing the bill “doesn’t mean we’re not going to do the broader reform.” He called it a “small down payment” and said legislators would continue to work on potential changes. On Friday, Assemblymember Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, and a group of more than 20 lawmakers announced a separate proposal to modify the changes that were approved in the summer.
The bill came up in the Senate shortly before 2:30 a.m. and received 21 votes, the exact number needed to pass. Legislators adjourned for the year Saturday afternoon and are set to return again in January.
State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, D-Panorama City, voted against it, saying she did not want to support a bill that did not address the concerns environmental advocates and her had with the bill. She said Limón made commitments that legislators would try to make more changes next year.
“I have faith that she will come back and do that,” Menjivar said. “I didn’t want to vote on something that didn’t have that in there.”
The bill now goes to Newsom. A spokesperson for the Governor’s Office declined to say if the governor has made a decision on the measure.
This story was originally published September 13, 2025 at 1:13 PM.
