Public Gets Kicked in the Gut- Part 3
By Donna Frye
Here is Part 1- and here is Part 2–
On Tuesday, September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed SB 344, a gut-and-amend bill that eliminated the public’s ability to file a civil lawsuit and challenge in court any unmitigated environmental impacts that may be caused by the Midway Rising project. Specifically, SB 344 “Declares the City of San Diego’s Midway Rising Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SPSEIR), which is pending certification by the City, fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
That means the San Diego City Council will be the final deciders of whether the environmental analysis for the project is adequate and what mitigation measures will be required.
To say that this gut-and-amend legislation reached the governor’s desk in record time is a gross understatement. Here’s a condensed history of the approximate six week “public process” for SB 344.
On February 12, 2025, SB 344 was introduced as legislation related to the disposition of human remains and the scattering of the ashes at sea. For some reason, on July 17, 2025, SB 344 was placed in the inactive file where it remained for over a year.
On August 13, 2026, it was removed from the inactive file. However, instead of the original ashes at sea bill moving forward, SB 344 was reincarnated to become the Midway Rising Gut-and Amend Bill even though it had nothing to do with the original legislation.
This happened despite the fact that both the State Assembly and Senate have rules (Assembly Rule 92 and Senate Rule 38.5) that say a bill cannot be amended unless the amendments are germane to the original intent.
Assembly Rule 92 states in part that, “an amendment to any bill… is not in order when the amendment relates to a different subject than, is intended to accomplish a different purpose than, or requires a title essentially different than, the original bill.”
Senate Rule 38.5 states in part that, “Every amendment proposed must be germane. In order to be germane, an amendment must relate to the same subject as the original bill, resolution, or other question under consideration.”
I could not find a specific rule that allows the Assembly to suspend Rule 92, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I was able to find one for the Senate that states Rule 38.5 can be suspended under certain circumstances provided specific findings are made notwithstanding Rule 21.
Got that? Or is your head spinning just a little bit like mine is?
So how did this happen in a little over six weeks? How did the Sacramento legislators push through a bill that denies the public’s right to ensure, in court, that there is an adequate environmental analysis that provides meaningful mitigation measures for this huge development?
On August 26, the Assembly suspended Joint Rule 61(b)(16) that says August 21 is the last day to amend legislation on the floor. That rule suspension allowed SB 344 to move forward even though the date to amend it had already passed.
That same day, SB 344 was read a third time and amended, ordered to a third reading and re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. Joint Rule 62 (a) was suspended in the Assembly by a vote of 61 to zero.
Joint Rule 62 (a), just in case you are curious, is a public notice requirement for committee hearings “to guarantee transparency by ensuring the public and lawmakers have advance notice before a bill is debated or voted on in committee.”
It seems like a meaningless transparency guarantee if it can just be suspended, but maybe it’s just me thinking like that.
On August 27, SB 344 was read a second time and re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources where it passed (12 Ayes, 0 Noes).
On August 28 it was read a second time and ordered to third reading.
On August 30, it was read a third time, an urgency clause was adopted and passed (72 Ayes, 2 Noes and 5 No Votes Recorded), it was ordered to the Senate where the Assembly amendments were concurred in and SB 344 was ordered to be engrossed and enrolled so it could go the governor.
On September 8, SB 344 was presented to the governor. His options included signing the bill, vetoing it or doing nothing and letting it pass into law without his signature.
On September 29, Governor Newsom signed SB-344.
I am describing only a small portion of this fast-moving, mind-numbing process to show just some of what happened and how difficult it is and was for the public to participate in the gut-and-amend process.
I am also trying to figure out when Assembly Rule 92 and/or Senate Rule 38.5 were suspended. In case you lost track, those rules require amendments to legislation to be germane to the original legislation in order to move forward. Disposal of ashes at sea is not germane to Midway Risings’s CEQA compliance.
Try as I might, I cannot find any votes in the Assembly or Senate for suspending the rules requiring SB 344’s amendments to be germane. Maybe they just ignore it and if no one in the legislature objects on the record, the unrelated amendments move forward without any discussion or debate. Or maybe it doesn’t require a hearing and they have a secret handshake we don’t know about.
Next Steps
So now what?
At this point, the goal is to address the unmitigated environmental impacts by asking the city council to adopt enforceable and binding mitigation measures that truly respond to the concerns raised by the public such as flooding and traffic.
It is very important that the comments provided are specific and solution-oriented and focus on the mitigation measures.
We know how we got here and rehashing it as part of the comments to city council about the Midway Rising project won’t change it, but providing meaningful public comments about the City of San Diego’s Midway Rising Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SPSEIR) will help.
Kent Lee, chair of the City Council Land Use and Housing Committee, indicated it could be heard at the committee on October 8.
However, rather than waiting to begin writing comments, it’s a good idea to get started now.
Here is the link to the SPSEIR that is called out in SB 344 and the one the city council will be voting on. Scroll down to page 2 to find the report dated 9/10/2025- (Midway-Pacific Highway) Midway Rising Specific Plan / Project No. PRJ-1106734 / Subsequent Environmental Impact Report / SCH 2023120451.
After the Land Use and Housing Committee hearing, the next step will be to provide comments to the full city council.
Please remember that once the city council approves the SPSEIR it becomes final immediately. The ability for the public to appeal the council’s decision was eliminated when SB 344 was signed into law.
The best way to counteract this most recent gut kick is to stay engaged. Some days it’s a little harder than others, but please keep the faith and keep trying.
