California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: housing development projects: energy systems and electron...
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 145 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 145.
You're tracking AB 145
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 145 — California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: housing development projects: energy systems and electronics: labor standards.
Last action — From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced January 08, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Senate.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
ModerateHow often bills like it became law.
-
Passed Assembly
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 1 recorded vote 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
(1) 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 (EIR) 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. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law exempts from CEQA a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element, as specified. This bill would subject a rezoning that would allow for the construction of a bed and breakfast inn, motel, hotel, or other transient lodging to CEQA review even if the rezoning implements a schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. (2) Existing law, for the approval of a proposed housing development project, as defined, that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA pursuant to a statutory exemption, or specified categorical exemptions adopted before January 1, 2026, but for a single disqualifying condition, as specified, limits the application of CEQA to the effects upon the environment that are caused solely by that single condition. For these projects, existing law requires the initial study or EIR to examine only those effects that the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, are caused solely by the single condition that makes the proposed project ineligible for a statutory or categorical exemption. This bill would exempt from that limited application of CEQA a housing development project that has a project site or parcel size that exceeds 4 acres, if the project is a builder's remedy project, as defined, and the project applicant applied, as specified. This bill would subject a project that includes a bed and breakfast inn, hotel, motel, or other transient lodging, as specified, to full CEQA review even if it would be eligible for the limited application of CEQA described above because of a single disqualifying condition. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. To the extent that this bill would impose new responsibilities on a lead agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law exempts from CEQA, except when located on natural and protected lands, a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing, as specified. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, sets forth the requirements for the adoption, publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies. This bill would repeal the CEQA exemption for a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing. The bill would instead exempt from CEQA a project that consists exclusively of a facility for manufacturing, producing, or assembling certain products, components, or systems, as provided, if, among other things, the project is not located within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined, and the project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards, as defined, and certifies to the lead agency that it will maintain those standards in the development, construction, and operation of the facility. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project meets the high road employment standards, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to develop and make available to lead agencies guidelines for evaluating whether a project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards. The bill would exempt the development of these guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. (4) This bill would appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation for implementation of this act. (5) 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. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Bill Text
- Amended 09/10/25 - Amended Senate Current pdf September 10, 2025
- Introduced 01/08/25 - Introduced pdf January 08, 2025
- AB145 View text html
Action History
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
-
Senate Rule 29.3(b) suspended. (Ayes 30. Noes 9. Page 2839.)
-
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
-
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
-
Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 9. Page 1703.)
-
Referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 53. Noes 17. Page 735.)
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
(Ayes 53. Noes 17. Page 643.)
-
Ordered to second reading.
-
Withdrawn from committee.
-
Referred to Com. on BUDGET.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee February 8.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Jesse Gabriel · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 17 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Gabriel, Jesse Democratic
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 52 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 0 | 17 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 53 | 17 | 0 | 10 |
| % of votes cast | 66% | 21% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ávila Farías | — | Yea |
| Essayli | — | Not Voting |
| Addis, Dawn | Democratic | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ahrens, Patrick | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Alvarez, David | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bains, Jasmeet | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Caloza, Jessica | Democratic | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Connolly, Damon | Democratic | Yea |
| Elhawary, Sade | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Garcia, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| González, Mark | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Harabedian, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Krell, Maggy | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Patel, Darshana R. | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ransom, Rhodesia | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Celeste | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Michelle | Democratic | Yea |
| Rogers, Chris | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Schiavo, Pilar | Democratic | Yea |
| Schultz, Nick | Democratic | Yea |
| Sharp-Collins, LaShae | Democratic | Yea |
| Solache, Jr., José Luis | Democratic | Yea |
| Soria, Esmeralda | Democratic | Yea |
| Stefani, Catherine | Democratic | Yea |
| Valencia, Avelino | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Nay |
| Castillo, Leticia | Republican | Nay |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Nay |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Nay |
| DeMaio, Carl | Republican | Nay |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Nay |
| Ellis, Stan | Republican | Nay |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Nay |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Nay |
| Gonzalez, Jeff | Republican | Nay |
| Hadwick, Heather | Republican | Nay |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Not Voting |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Nay |
| Macedo, Alexandra | Republican | Nay |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Nay |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Nay |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Nay |
| Tangipa, David J. | Republican | Nay |
| Wallis, Greg | Republican | Not Voting |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 145 do?
- (1) 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 (EIR) 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. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law exempts from CEQA a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element, as specified. This bill would subject a rezoning that would allow for the construction of a bed and breakfast inn, motel, hotel, or other transient lodging to CEQA review even if the rezoning implements a schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. (2) Existing law, for the approval of a proposed housing development project, as defined, that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA pursuant to a statutory exemption, or specified categorical exemptions adopted before January 1, 2026, but for a single disqualifying condition, as specified, limits the application of CEQA to the effects upon the environment that are caused solely by that single condition. For these projects, existing law requires the initial study or EIR to examine only those effects that the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, are caused solely by the single condition that makes the proposed project ineligible for a statutory or categorical exemption. This bill would exempt from that limited application of CEQA a housing development project that has a project site or parcel size that exceeds 4 acres, if the project is a builder's remedy project, as defined, and the project applicant applied, as specified. This bill would subject a project that includes a bed and breakfast inn, hotel, motel, or other transient lodging, as specified, to full CEQA review even if it would be eligible for the limited application of CEQA described above because of a single disqualifying condition. The bill would specify that other transient lodging does not include a residential hotel, as defined, or a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined, in a manner that is consistent with local law. To the extent that this bill would impose new responsibilities on a lead agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law exempts from CEQA, except when located on natural and protected lands, a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing, as specified. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, sets forth the requirements for the adoption, publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies. This bill would repeal the CEQA exemption for a project that consists exclusively of a facility for advanced manufacturing. The bill would instead exempt from CEQA a project that consists exclusively of a facility for manufacturing, producing, or assembling certain products, components, or systems, as provided, if, among other things, the project is not located within 300 feet of a sensitive receptor, as defined, and the project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards, as defined, and certifies to the lead agency that it will maintain those standards in the development, construction, and operation of the facility. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project meets the high road employment standards, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to develop and make available to lead agencies guidelines for evaluating whether a project applicant demonstrates high road employment standards. The bill would exempt the development of these guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act. (4) This bill would appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation for implementation of this act. (5) 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. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
- Who sponsors AB 145?
- AB 145 is sponsored by Gabriel, Jesse (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 145?
- This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced January 08, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
- Where can I track AB 145?
- Track AB 145 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 145
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.
Stay ahead of AB 145
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →