California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted 4 D cosponsors

SB 886 — California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: public universities: university housing development projects.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 663, Statutes of 2022.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 27, 2022. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 7 sponsors

    1 primary, 6 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (4 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, exempt from CEQA a university housing development project, as defined, carried out by a public university, as defined, on real property owned by the public university if the project meets certain requirements, including that each building within the project is certified as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum or better by the United States Green Building Council, that the project's construction impacts are fully mitigated, and that the project is not located, in whole or in part, on certain types of sites, including a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as provided. The bill, with respect to a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway, would prohibit a local government from denying an application on the basis that a public university did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government applicable to the site if the public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to demonstrate that the site meets these criteria and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above requirements. By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a university housing development project is not exempt from CEQA if, among other things, the project would require the demolition of specified housing or a historic structure that is listed on a national, state, or local historic register. The bill would require the public university to hold at least one noticed public hearing to hear and respond to public comments before determining that the university housing development project is exempt under the bill's provisions. The bill would require the lead agency, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building within a project, to obtain the LEED certification of the building, and to make a determination that all construction impacts of the project have been fully mitigated and issue a notice of that determination. The bill would require the lead agency to file the LEED certification and the notice with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk to make the certification and notice available to the public. To the extent that this bill would impose additional duties on a local agency, including the county clerk, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 663, Statutes of 2022.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 1. Page 5081.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 70. Noes 2. Page 6009.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (August 11).

  11. June 29 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  12. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 13).

  14. Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  15. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  16. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 33. Noes 1. Page 3881.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  17. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  18. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  19. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3773.) (May 19).

  20. Set for hearing May 19.

  21. May 16 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  22. Set for hearing May 16.

  23. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 3540.) (April 27).

  25. Set for hearing April 27.

  26. April 25 hearing postponed by committee.

  27. Set for hearing April 25.

  28. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E.Q.

  29. Re-referred to Com. on E.Q.

  30. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  31. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  32. Joint Rule 55 suspended. (Ayes 31. Noes 6. Page 2880.)

  33. (Ayes 31. Noes 6.)

  34. Art. IV. Sec. 8(a) of the Constitution dispensed with.

  35. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 27.

  36. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 6 co-sponsors · 115 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (6)

Not signed on (115)

115 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 115 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Unfinished Business SB886 Wiener et al. Concurrence

Passed 37 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11101
Unaffiliated 22001
Republican 4000
Total 37102
% of votes cast 93%3%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Borgeas — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Pan — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Newman — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Min — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Kamlager — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Nay
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

SB 886 Wiener Senate Third Reading By Robert Rivas

Passed 70 Yea · 2 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34104
Democratic 29102
Republican 7002
Total 70208
% of votes cast 88%3%0%10%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Voepel — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Levine — Not Voting
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Nay
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Do pass.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6001
Democratic 7000
Republican 1001
Total 14002
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1001
Unaffiliated 4102
Democratic 1001
Total 6104
% of votes cast 55%9%0%36%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Friedman — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Wood — Yea
McCarty — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Not Voting
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

3rd Reading SB886 Wiener et al.

Passed 33 Yea · 1 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9103
Unaffiliated 21002
Republican 3001
Total 33106
% of votes cast 83%3%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Newman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Min — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Pan — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Roth — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Hertzberg — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Not Voting
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Nay
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Not Voting

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3002
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Bradford — Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4001
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kamlager — Yea
Bates — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Subjects

housing environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 886 do?
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, exempt from CEQA a university housing development project, as defined, carried out by a public university, as defined, on real property owned by the public university if the project meets certain requirements, including that each building within the project is certified as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum or better by the United States Green Building Council, that the project's construction impacts are fully mitigated, and that the project is not located, in whole or in part, on certain types of sites, including a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as provided. The bill, with respect to a site that is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood or within a regulatory floodway, would prohibit a local government from denying an application on the basis that a public university did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government applicable to the site if the public university is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to demonstrate that the site meets these criteria and is otherwise eligible to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above requirements. By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a university housing development project is not exempt from CEQA if, among other things, the project would require the demolition of specified housing or a historic structure that is listed on a national, state, or local historic register. The bill would require the public university to hold at least one noticed public hearing to hear and respond to public comments before determining that the university housing development project is exempt under the bill's provisions. The bill would require the lead agency, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building within a project, to obtain the LEED certification of the building, and to make a determination that all construction impacts of the project have been fully mitigated and issue a notice of that determination. The bill would require the lead agency to file the LEED certification and the notice with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk to make the certification and notice available to the public. To the extent that this bill would impose additional duties on a local agency, including the county clerk, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 886?
SB 886 is sponsored by Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Archuleta, Bob (Democratic), Becker, Josh (Democratic), Hueso, Medina, Mullin, and Rivas, Robert (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 886?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 27, 2022. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 886?
Track SB 886 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 886

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 886

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →