One certainty about the just-signed AB 130 budget trailer bill is that it will lead to building projects that are extremely unwelcome in the areas where they’ll eventually stand.

This bill, which quite improbably passed the state Assembly on a unanimous vote after being pushed for two years by the East Bay’s Democratic Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, is likely to produce a boom in what is loosely called “infill housing” designed to help solve the state’s unquestioned housing shortage.

One of its major features applies the tag “infill housing” to anything built on any vacant plot of land containing less than 20 acres in a city or urban mapping area.

Until now, most folks thought of infill housing as apartments or condominiums on vacant lots or other small pieces of property. But 20 acres is an entirely new definition of “infill” or “small.” A plot that size built up to five stories can easily hold 1,000 or more new units, which is a large development. The previous definition of an infill site had a size limit of 5 acres.

As usual, with new housing in the new California, parking space requirements will be minimal, sometimes even non-existent for developments near major transit stops, on the presumption that very few living there will want the independence of owning their own car or small truck. Occupants will have to ride transit or fight for street parking every time they come and go from their new digs.

What’s more, the new developments will not be subject to community input, with no mandated public hearings on permits. It’s a developer’s fantasy.

Except for the Donald Trump effect. His campaign for unprecedented deportation efforts by Homeland Security agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol has created new shortages of labor in trades from roofing to drywall, from plumbing to demolition of smaller existing structures.

So one consequence of AB 130, which was quickly whipped into state law via the “budget trailer bill” maneuver, will likely be the proliferation of canvas-covered fencing around building plots where work is delayed.

Never mind that AB 130, which became law shortly after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the newest state budget, is wildly unpopular, once Californians are informed of what it contains — which is the biggest blow to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it passed in 1970 and was signed into law by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan.

Fully 66 percent of Californians in a poll taken for building trades unions and other major state interest groups opposed the bill once they learned it eliminates community input on new developments and bypasses some environmental protections, especially on land that has previously been surrounded by urban uses.

The poll also showed 70 percent of Californians still support CEQA, despite years of grousing about it by governors from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jerry Brown to Newsom.

The single most significant new related bill, also a budget trailer, is Senate Bill (SB) 131, from San Francisco’s Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener. This creates new CEQA exemptions for things like health centers and rural clinics, childcare centers, food banks wildfire mitigation projects and parks.

Why would legislators unanimously pass a bill that goes so much against public sentiment as AB 130? One reason is differences in the polls, with some showing majorities in favor of building as much housing as possible as soon as possible, and hang the consequences.

Another is that Newsom is clearly seeking a legacy. While running for president in 2027 and 2028, he will only be able to get so much mileage out of being the anti-Trump, a role he has sought to grab ever since the president nationalized the California National Guard and sent thousands of its troops into Los Angeles, where there was little violence either before or after their arrival.

If Newsom can claim to have solved or at least partially solved the housing crunch and California rents begin to drop, he will have a brand new hook for his presidential hat.

That’s strong motivation for any politician and probably explains the easy, greased passage of AB 130 better than anything else.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com.