CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to Assemblymember Eloise Reyes (D-Colton) as the Majority Leader. Reyes previously served as Majority Leader of the California Assembly from 2020 to 2023.
California lawmakers are rushing to introduce a bill to improve warehouse building standards before the end of this year’s legislative session. The bill is drawing criticism from environmental justice, business and local government groups across the state, who are opposing it.
The bill, authored by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale), would require new warehouses built after 2026 to have a 300-foot buffer from “sensitive receptors” like schools, parks and hospitals. New warehouses constructed in areas rezoned for industrial use would need a 500-foot buffer.
The bill also requires that new and expanding warehouses over 250,000 square feet include electric truck charging stations, rooftop solar panels, and cooling roofs. It mandates separate truck entrances, air pollution monitoring and a 2-to-1 replacement of any demolished housing.
The California Hospital Association, California State Council of Laborers and United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council are supporting the bill.
The California Chamber of Commerce is taking a neutral position on the bill. Adam Regele, CalChamber’s Vice President of Advocacy and Strategic Partnerships, told KVCR in a statement that, “Under threat of far-reaching legislation and local moratoriums on critically necessary warehouse projects, we believe this compromise strikes a key balance that allows California’s goods movement and logistics industry to continue to thrive.”
Regele added that the agreement will ensure certainty in the long-term planning and development process for the business community.
Andrea Vidaurre, a senior policy analyst with the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (PC4EJ), argues that the bill would enshrine the practice of building warehouses too close to communities already impacted by warehousing. She notes that dozens of groups across the state are opposing the bill because they believe it fails to consider the communities most affected by these developments.
“There are some great pieces of the bill, and we appreciate that warehousing has been taken seriously this year, but it is not ready yet,” said Vidaurre. “The process needs to include [environmental justice] communities.”
Paul Granillo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, says his organization opposes the bill, saying it is poorly written.
“We have to appreciate that this bill is being rushed through in the last three days of the session,” Granillo said. “This is not regular order, where you introduce bills in January and then you have hearings, and then you have experts. That's what makes for a good policy. What we have here is an attempt to implement bad policy at the very last hour of the legislative year.”
The bill's co-author, Assemblymember Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Colton), has previously proposed three unsuccessful warehouse setback bills. Her last attempt, AB 1000, would have required a 1,000-foot buffer zone for warehouses, but Reyes withdrew it from the Assembly Local Government Committee after Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas created a warehouse working group earlier this year.
In a statement, Reyes said the goal of the working group was to establish “common sense policies” to address warehousing concerns. She is working with Rivas and Carrillo to move the bill forward.
“Although I believe that this is an important step forward, I also do not believe this bill does everything that is needed to protect our most vulnerable, including a need for a larger setback, and will continue to advocate for one,” Reyes stated.
Ana Gonzalez, the executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), shares similar concerns with Vidaurre and believes Reyes is committed to opposing the current setback language in the bill.
“If we're really talking about environmental justice, this whole process has been anything but environmentally just,” she said. “But I am confident that [Reyes] will do everything in her power to make these changes, and if that happens, we'll revisit this with our community again.”
Gonzalez confirmed on Wednesday that CCAEJ is now opposing the bill after consulting with members of the community, unless the setback provisions are removed.
