This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
By Ben Christopher, CalMatters
Earlier this year California lawmakers delivered an historic victory for champions of more housing construction by exempting most urban apartment developments from the California Environmental Quality Act, a 50-year-old statute that Yes In My Backyard advocates and the building industry have long blamed as an impediment to building more homes.
A bill proposed Monday night, just days before the end of the legislative session, would punch a very small hole in that landmark law that appears to apply to just one proposed apartment building in California — in the district represented by the incoming leader of the state Senate.
Senate Bill 158 would subject any project within a city of more than 85,000 but fewer than 95,000 people and within a county of between 440,000 and 455,000 people to the state’s environmental review law.
That only describes one place in California, according to 2020 Census data: Santa Barbara, a city represented by Sen. Monique Limón.
Earlier this year Democrats in the state Senate chose Limón as the body’s next leader. She is set to replace Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, who is termed out in early 2026.
The legislation further narrows the exemption to any project that abuts a wetland, a creek and a state registered historical landmark. It also carves out projects larger than four acres and those that have made use of a particular state law known as the “builder’s remedy,” which allows developers to bypass local approval processes if a city is out of compliance with state housing planning law.
On social media, Jordan Grimes with the Bay Area nonprofit Greenbelt Alliance and a frequent poster on land use disputes, noted that all those provisions appear to describe a single 270-unit, eight-story building proposed for a site behind Santa Barbara’s historic mission. The project has been the subject of considerable ire among some of the affluent coastal city’s residents and elected leaders. In May, the Santa Barbara mayor called the project a “horrendous nightmare.”
The developers behind the project, going under the corporate name The Mission LLC, have sued the city multiple times, alleging that local officials have illegally delayed the project and denied it a religious-based property tax exemption.
Responding to a question from CalMatters in a written statement, Limón’s office denied that the bill was “designed to prevent a specific project from moving forward.”
“This bill clarifies narrow instances when environmental review, public input, and mitigation efforts are required on a development that poses a risk to safety,” the statement reads.
In response to a series of follow-up questions, Limón’s office confirmed the senator was responsible for the new legislative language, but refused to explain whether the Mission project is one of the “narrow instances” in which additional review is required and whether there are, in fact, any others.
‘Wealthy NIMBY constituents’
Opponents of the Mission project, which is located at the mouth of a canyon north of Santa Barbara’s downtown, have raised concerns about wildfires and flooding risk.
The City of Santa Barbara has argued that the CEQA exemption law from earlier this year does not apply to the project. That’s based on the city’s interpretation of the law. The budget bill introduced this week would legally reinforce that position.
In an email, Santa Barbara Mayor Randy Rowse said he would not comment on the project, citing “frequent and continuing litigation with the applicants.”
In an unattributed statement from Mission LLC, the company slammed the deal and said it would sue, “as California prohibits legislation attacking a single project.”
“This bill is an example of the control of public policy by a few wealthy NIMBYs in an attempt to obstruct desperately needed low-income housing,” the company wrote. “The project, located in a wealthy area of Santa Barbara, would provide 54 low-income units and this attempt to block it demonstrates the kowtowing of some legislators to wealthy NIMBY constituents.”
The last-minute exemption is part of a broader budget trailer bill — legislation that is meant to direct state agencies on how to administer the year’s budget, but which in practice often become vehicles for a variety of policy changes. Unlike other legislation, budget bills are not authored by individual legislators, but by the entire budget committee.
This year has seen the Legislature take up a bevy of uber-ambitious housing production bills, aimed at making it easier for developers to build in the face of a chronic statewide housing affordability crisis. Throughout the year, a political schism has emerged between the Assembly, helmed by “Yes In My Backyard”-aligned Speaker Robert Rivas, and the Senate, which has been less receptive to that ideology.
For those hoping to divine how the Senate under Limón’s leadership might welcome pro-development legislation, the 11th-hour carve out is potentially telling.
“Is the incoming leader of the California senate sneakily trying to kill a proposed 250 unit apartment building in Santa Barbara via a budget trailer bill? It certainly seems like it!,” Grimes wrote on X.
Also Read
- CHP Investigates Fatal Solo Crash on Figueroa Mountain Road
- Validation Ale Opens Seasonal Pop-Up at The Shop, Targets Santa Barbara Bowl Crowds
- SpaceX Prepares Falcon 9 Starlink Launch as Vandenberg’s Sonic Boom Discussions Continue
- Rare Tornado Whirls Through Northern California Near Vina, Lasts Just a Minute
- Historic Carlton Hotel Reopens After Major Renovations, Joins Marriott Tribute Portfolio
The truly horrendous nightmare project is worth killing.
RIP Charlie Kirk
Hold on a sec….
Okay, got my 🍿
I unequivocally oppose all political violence, whether right or left. Full stop. Preaching hate, cruelty, racist, bigotry, and vocally supporting death to children as just a sacrifice he was willing to make for our “2nd Amendment rights,” while hideous, evil and horrible, was just speech and he is entitled to that.
I do see some folks online saying he’s inspired violence and actual acts of hate, racism, cruelty, etc through his words, but that’s a slippery slope.
More importantly than this POS’s death though, is the fact that 3 children are battling for their lives right now in Colorado after today’s 2nd, SECOND, shooting at a school.
From his own rotten mouth:
“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
Well, Charlie, I hope your wife and newborns feel the same way. I truly hope you are the only one to “sacrifice” himself today and not these kids in Colorado.
Wow SACJON you call him a “POS” after he got assassinated?!
That puts you into the sewer level of personal character and integrity, not far from the killer himself. What a rotten, hateful thing to say. Your hate doesn’t help you or your cause, whatver it may be. Your comment is so rotten it’s unbelievable. How is t it instantly deleted? You and folks like you that are so hateful are why this kind of tragedy happens. You should delete yourself for even saying what you said there. You gotta be able to disagree politically without being ok with people getting assasinated.
“You and folks like you that are so hateful are why this kind of tragedy happens.” Some reasons “why” this shooting happened are 1. An over abundance of guns with very little regulation if any 2. A severely depleted FBI that was defunded and chopped up by Kash, DOGE and Don – Why wasn’t this person known, why did the FBI director think they had caught the guy 3. Kirk’s hate speech – I’m a free speech advocate but people who say such vile things make themselves a sore thumb. 4. Fighting for the suppression of the rights of others – Don’t try and take away basic unalienable rights and expect the world to be ok with it…. The FBI has not caught the perp yet – it may be that there was a dispute over money or romance and not political at all.
The perp has now been “caught” (Kash Patel is taking credit but he turned himself in after his father recognized him.)
Right wingers lied (as they always do) and claimed that he’s trans or pro-trans but no, he’s a white Christian cisgender gun-toting male from an ultra MAGA gun-toting family–a Utah boy through and through (the governor called him “one of our own”). The right wingers are now lying that he was radicalized at college, but he dropped out after one semester to go to a trade school. The inscriptions on his gun casings were bizarrely and ignorantly misinterpreted by the media and others as left-wing messages when in fact they are groyper slogans–groypers are arch right winger Nick Fuentes’ “army”. Charlie Kirk was a frequent target of Fuentes (who famously had dinner with Trump for undisclosed reasons) — to Fuentes and the groypers anyone to their left is a fascist, and Kirk was not nearly antisemitic and pro-white enough for them. People talk about Kirk having been a family man–not something that Fuentes and his incel followers are keen on … Fuentes says having sex with women–even dating them–is gay. (https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/umw2br/nick_fuentes_having_sex_with_women_is_gay/)
For more on this sickness and the shooter’s apparent right wing connections, see this excellent discussion: https://www.muellershewrote.com/p/one-of-us-tyler-robinson-charlie
You know who was ok with it? Charlie Kirk: “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
He also said that caring about people was damaging: “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new-age term that does a lot of damage.”
He also thought that bashing in someone’s head with a hammer was patriotic if they were married to Nancy Polosi: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirk-bail-out-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-1234621493/
I could go on and on. Kirk was racist misogynist violence-loving and fomenting sociopathic garbage. Only the most vile POS would deny that he was a POS.
Kirk was a one trick pony. He spewed vile disinformation about minorities, immigrants, non Christian teligions, the LGBTQ community, higher education and democracy. His platform was literally to stifle the free speech of.others by spewing his doctrine to college students and tidying it up by debating college kids. People who defend and support Kirk’s ideals might want to take a good long look in the mirror.
BTW, Melissa Hortman was assassinated; Charlie Kirk was murdered.
https://www.editorialboard.com/would-trump-and-the-gop-use-the-assassination-of-a-free-speech-champion-as-pretext-for-criminalizing-free-speech-yes/
*that support
So the perpetrator it turns out is from the alt right – a Nick Fuentes follower – part of the “groyper army” and meme culture. This group turned on Kirk and Turning Point USA viewing him as an elitist and part of the establishment, and declaring war on their own. A young white Mormon person, raised in a Republican supporting family and owned firearms all of his life – his social media photo trail proves his affiliation. One far-right fringe apparently turned on another far-right fringe.
BASIC – “Wow SACJON you call him a “POS” after he got assassinated?!”
Yup, 100%. He WAS a POS. Being assassinated doesn’t change that, nor does it mean I’m celebrating or in any way condoning this. Being killed doesn’t change the person you were.
And seriously? “Sewer level?” Nah, that’s for people like you who support child rapists.
Wait, people are upset that Charlie Kirk was shot? So weird. He fought every day for a system that would trade innocent people being murdered by guns as the price for the freedoms that gun ownership protects.
He was successful, so….what’s the issue?
And BASIC – “being ok with people getting assasinated.”
Read the first sentence of my comment, you fool. I never said I was OK with this, I oppose it completely.
You really are stupid. Like VERY UNINTELLIGENT.
Charlie Kirk preached hate daily. The same people that support Kirk support suppression of evidence in the epstein files to protect their cult leader in the white house.
Agree 100%
Oh no Monique, I’m sorry you are so powerful and yet can’t just by bypass CEQA environmental regulations and run this “builders remedy” bs to build a massive eyesore in Mission Canyon. Too bad.
This is something that the other legislators should not allow but they probably will. Because you know how things go in Sacto. The entire situation is an outgrowth of the COSB’s official hubris. Why, because COSB thought it was going to get out of the mandates somehow or these developers were going away? The proposed developments are wholly ridiculous but also appear wholly legal. Maybe the city should think out of the box and look at inventory in its own portfolio and try to work out a trade with these deeply religious Unitarians – who have shown their care and concern for your housing challenged town. Letting this legislation go forward will only open the gates for more, and the legislators will not be able to resist it. There are other ways to fix this mistake.
This is amazing. THANK YOU Senator. We can’t let evil win—and those developers are evil!
Sneaky sneaky of Limon. I don’t hate the outcome if successful but this sets a bad precedent.
Any assassination on the basis of what someone thinks or says is fundamentally wrong, even if–as in this case–the person killed supports the kind of violence that killed him. That leads me to ask: How much do religions pay their professionals? How do they evaluate their work/worth? Begged bowl of rice to mansion, luxurious living, private jet is wide range. So, are the majority of those who make their living by proseltying true believers or ideology salesmen?
Money worshipers that find the perfect grift. If you have the talent and see how many rubes there are then it’s an easy gig.
This is great news if you care about your quality of life.
Who said money doesn’t buy [anything you want]! If you got it, you get it.
Are these folks actually lying or just missing the equivalent of half their brain?
Calling the opponents of the ‘Mission project’ NIMBY is laughable. No one wants out of place dense building with no parking in their neighborhood. Wonder why there’s nothing like that going on in Montecito or Hope Ranch?
Actually it has 500 parking spaces, which is a big problem for emergency egress. It would take a half hour just to evacuate that development! Creating a dangerous bottleneck just like the deadly Camp Fire in Paradise, Ca!
ZIPS – I actually agree with you 100% on this. This isn’t a halfway house on the eastside or a homeless shelter a mile from a school, this would fundamentally alter and destroy the iconic Mission and the area around it. This is should be opposed by EVERYONE, not just neighbors.
Subject: Urgent Request to Deny San Marcos Ranch, Montessori, and Tatum Developments Due to Specific Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
Dear Members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors,
I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed San Marcos Ranch, Montessori, and Tatum developments, which collectively plan to add approximately 2,000 housing units within a concentrated area of Eastern Goleta Valley. These projects, while framed as solutions to the housing crisis, pose a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety that cannot be ignored.
Public Safety Risks
The developments will introduce an estimated 4,000+ additional vehicles onto the already congested and accident-prone Hollister Avenue corridor. This corridor is the sole evacuation route for thousands of residents. During the 1990 Painted Cave Fire, residents were trapped on Hollister Avenue, forced to flee on foot due to gridlock and lack of alternative routes. This is not a hypothetical risk—it is a documented failure of infrastructure under emergency conditions.
https://www.edhat.com/news/33-years-since-the-painted-cave-fire/
Recent traffic collisions, including the one reported on September 11, 2025, near San Marcos Road and Hollister Avenue, underscore the daily danger. These incidents are not isolated. They are symptomatic of a corridor that is already overburdened and unsafe.
https://www.noozhawk.com/2-injured-in-goleta-traffic-collision-on-busy-hollister-avenue-corridor/
Legal Authority to Deny
Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), local governments may deny or reduce the density of housing projects if they can make written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, and that no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that impact.
-This threshold has been met.
-The evacuation bottleneck is a life-threatening hazard.
-The increase in traffic collisions is statistically supported.
-The strain on emergency response is foreseeable and unmanageable.
-No feasible mitigation—such as road widening or traffic signal upgrades—can eliminate the risk posed by adding a city-sized population to a single corridor.
Call to Action
The Board of Supervisors has both the duty and the authority to protect the community. Approving these developments in their current form would be a failure of that duty. We urge you to:
-Deny the projects under the HAA’s public safety exemption
-Commission independent traffic and evacuation studies
-Engage fire and law enforcement agencies for formal risk assessments
-Prioritize community safety over density mandates
Anything less than denial demonstrates a refusal to protect constituents from foreseeable harm. We ask you to act decisively and responsibly.
Copy and paste and send to the BOS
A great solution is CoHousing communities , one of the most promising, human-scaled alternatives to the high-density mandates that often ignore California’s ecological and social realities. They offer a way to live together without being crammed together, and they’re built on values that California desperately needs right now: resilience, connection, and sustainability.
CoHousing is:
-A cluster of private homes with shared spaces like gardens, kitchens, workshops, and gathering areas
-Designed and managed by the residents themselves
-Built to foster community, cooperation, and ecological responsibility
-It’s not just housing—it’s a way of life that balances privacy with connection.
CoHousing aligns beautifully with California’s challenges:
Water-smart design: native landscaping, greywater systems, shared irrigation
Fire resilience: defensible space, community fire planning, shared emergency resources
Energy efficiency: solar panels, passive cooling, shared infrastructure
Reduced sprawl: compact but livable layouts that preserve open space
And because residents co-design the community, it reflects local values and climate realities, not top-down mandates.
These communities prove that density doesn’t have to mean vertical boxes—it can mean intentional, regenerative living.
CoHousing isn’t just a solution—it’s a revolution in how we think about home.
Stop spewing chatgpt word salads.
Cohousing is a great community based idea gaining popularity… Free your mind, learn something new, create solutions
You are describing tour group home.
No, this is community based all inclusive, sustainable, energy independent, regenerative, a home not vertical boxes or high density…community choice not mandate
So this is your assisted living?
Free your mind, learn something new, create solutions
Gaslighting, lies and NIMBYism
Facts
Which exact part is false?
All one big WASP lie
You have ho facts to prove this false
“Ho facts”? Little early in the day for that.
Obviously auto correct, follow edhat policy
Ho ho ho
You have no facts to prove this false
Gaslighting, lies, no proof to prove true. Sad.
The facts are listed, provide exact part is false with specific data, not your gaslighting.
Correct, I am not gaslighting.
You are
Fact,
The BOS has the authority to deny projects that would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, and that no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that impact.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf
False
@ General tree your statements are false , read the facts at HCD.
The BOS has the authority to deny a project that would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety, and that no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that impact.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf
Filigree and shadow. Your arguments represent facade. You cherish your throne of lies.
You provide no real solutions to housing , climb out of your critic box, experience the possibilities…it might make you happier…
You are gas lighting, deflecting, and running from the sunshine that truth provides.
@ GeneralTree …Baby steps, start with one kind word…
All good, valid points there Sun. I hope this massive project gets canned or at least significantly cut back. It’s poorly planned.