Monique's Key Environmental Housing Bill Passes Both Houses, Goes to Governor
Senator Limon's measure, which has attracted statewide attention, would require an environmental review of a proposed plan for an eight-story apartment at the Mission, among many other provisions.
The Legislature on Saturday gave final passage to Senate Bill 158, a complex, closely watched bill that - among many other features - would likely require formal environmental review of a huge housing development proposed near the Mission.
The measure, backed by Santa Barbara’s state Senator Monique Limón, won approval in the state Senate, 21-to-13, on Friday, and passed the Assembly, 54-to-18, on Saturday. It now rests with Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to sign or veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.
An 8,340 word, mind-numbingly technical piece of legislation, the bill drew statewide attention last week when build-baby-build housing activists peddled a juicy if dodgy narrative to several credulous Capitol reporters: that via a special interest special Limón was “sneakily trying to kill,” as one advocate put it, the eight-story apartment project in Mission Canyon being pushed by shady, out-of-town developers using the state housing mandate known as “builder’s remedy”
In fact, as anyone would know who read the bill, instead of some agenda-laden activist’s Twitter feed, it is a common expedient, known in legislative parlance as a “budget trailer bill,” a vehicle to specify and clarify ways and means for enacting the massive state budget act passed in June, which would effect multiple policy and programmatic issues.
What the bill actually says. In this case, the measure addresses, among other things: how the governor’s reorganization of state government to make housing programs more efficient should be implemented; how legal terms contained in amendments of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), approved in June are to be defined; how certain of those changes to CEQA, approved in a bid to spur construction of housing around the state, are to be carried out; how processes and protocols surrounding developments that affect Native American tribes are to be conducted; how much money should be appropriated for the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation ($2.1 million).
And so forth.
At one point, the bill also describes a certain set of sensitive environmental conditions that would prevent a developer from avoiding environmental review, under the recently-passed, pro-housing CEQA amendments. These include a project cited in “freshwater forested or shrub wetland”; “within a regulatory floodway”; and “adjacent to a California historical landmark,” among circumstances.
The requirement for environmental review in such cases would be limited to counties of relatively small size; Santa Barbara would be one, although Solano would be another, and Placer and Monterey counties both have similar populations.
Because these conditions could apply to the much-reviled, huge development being proposed near the Mission in her hometown, Limón now is being smeared as some kind of venal operator, at a time when pro-housing zealots - a coalition of developers, construction unions, and non-profits that profit handsomely from a building boom - seek to punish leaders who they perceive daring to step out line, or offering what they suspect might be any hint of resistance to their crusade to usurp historically local control over planning and zoning, and hand it to commissars in Sacramento.
For lazy reporters, who should know better, it’s an irresistible story: an on-the-rise legislator carries water for wealthy constituents (never mind that SB ranks second among California counties in poverty rate - don’t confuse us with Actual Facts).
The only problem: it’s a false, misleading narrative about one of the most honest politicians I’ve met in more than 50 years of covering this stuff.
Here’s the steak, not the sizzle. SB 158 has been presented in recent media reports as a simple, if underhanded, ploy by which Monique supposedly is trying to pull a fast one on behalf of her constituents.
For background and context on the confounding complexities of what’s in the legislation, rather than in social media posts by some guy with an axe to grind, here is the legislative staff analysis of the bill, which, keep in mind, is written to simplify measures for Assembly members before they vote:
“This bill provides statutory changes necessary to implement the Budget Act of 2025 related to land use.
Major Provisions
This bill contains the following statutory changes necessary to implement the Budget Act of 2025. Specifically, this bill:
1) Expresses the intent of the Legislature for the Housing Development and Finance Executive Committee created by the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 2025, to make recommendations to the Legislature regarding improvements the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) may make to optimize loan administration to expedite the processing of awards and loan closing.
2) Restores two provisions to the Budget Act of 2025, which were enacted in AB 137 (Chapter 20, Statutes of 2025) but inadvertently chaptered out by the subsequent enactment of AB 130 (Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025): a) Updating references to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to reflect that entity’s new name, the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (GO-LCI). b) Authorizing GO-LCI to require submission of General Plan Annual Progress Reports using standard forms, standards, and definitions, with specified exceptions.
3) Applies the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) to ministerial housing development projects, as defined in the Housing Crisis Act (HCA), reviewed by local agencies. 4) Modifies the deadline for a public agency to approve or disapprove housing projects that are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from 30 days after the conclusion of tribal consultation process to 30 days from the later of : a) The conclusion of the tribal consultation process under AB 130 (Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025) or b) The time period specified under the Housing Accountability Act.
5) Requires the HCD to prepare to administer Round 7 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program with the goal that the initial Round 7 disbursement will be available to grantees meeting the statutory provisions, beginning September 1, 2026, subject to specified criteria.
6) Revises the definition of "natural and protected lands" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to include lands that are identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan as specified, or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
7) Exempts builder's remedy projects greater than four acres from the limited application of CEQA provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.1.
8) Reduces the eligibility for builder’s remedy projects to receive the CEQA exemption provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 from five acres to four acres.
9) Requires the lead agency, for any housing project using the CEQA exemption provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, to file a notice of exemption with GO-LCI and the county clerk of the county in which the activity will occur.
10) Renumbers and makes non-substantive change to existing law that exempts from CEQA specified new agricultural employee housing projects and projects consisting exclusively of the repair or maintenance of an existing farmworker housing project.
11) Applies CEQA to housing development projects meeting specified conditions related to local population size and proximity to sensitive environmental and historic resources.
12) Appropriates the sum of $2,106,000 from the General Fund to GO-LCI to support the implementation of SB 131 (Chapter 24, Statutes of 2025).”
Congratulations if you’re still awake at this point. To all a good night.
Image: California Capitol (California.com).