CA SB 358
enactedMitigation Fee Act: mitigating vehicular traffic impacts.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 358 pass?
Yes. CA SB 358 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-10. Latest recorded action (2025-10-10): Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 515, Statutes of 2025.
What is CA SB 358 about?
Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, imposes various requirements with respect to the establishment, increase, or imposition of a fee by a local agency as a condition of approval of a development project. Existing law requires a local agency that imposes a fee on a housing development for the purpose of mitigating vehicular traffic impacts to set the rate for that fee, if the housing development satisfies all of certain prescribed characteristics, to reflect a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison with housing developments without the prescribed characteristics, unless the local agency adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the housing development, even with those characteristics, would not generate fewer automobile trips than a housing development without those characteristics. This bill would require those findings to be supported by substantial evidence in the record before or as part of the housing development project approval process. Existing law specifies one of those prescribed characteristics described above is that the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units, whichever is less. Under existing law, another prescribed characteristic is that convenience retail uses, as specified, are located within 12 mile of the housing development. This bill would revise the characteristic relating to parking spaces, to instead, specify that the housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units. The bill would eliminate the characteristic related to convenience retail uses, and instead would add a characteristic that the housing development is located within 12 mile from 3 or more specified locations, including, among other locations, a supermarket or grocery store, a pharmacy or drugstore, or a restaurant, as defined. Existing law authorizes a local agency, if a housing development does not satisfy all the prescribed characteristics, to charge a fee that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development. This bill would eliminate that express authorization. By imposing a mandate on local agencies that approve housing development projects with regard to impact fees, 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 CA SB 358?
Becker is the primary sponsor of CA SB 358.
Description
Existing law, the Mitigation Fee Act, imposes various requirements with respect to the establishment, increase, or imposition of a fee by a local agency as a condition of approval of a development project. Existing law requires a local agency that imposes a fee on a housing development for the purpose of mitigating vehicular traffic impacts to set the rate for that fee, if the housing development satisfies all of certain prescribed characteristics, to reflect a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison with housing developments without the prescribed characteristics, unless the local agency adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the housing development, even with those characteristics, would not generate fewer automobile trips than a housing development without those characteristics. This bill would require those findings to be supported by substantial evidence in the record before or as part of the housing development project approval process. Existing law specifies one of those prescribed characteristics described above is that the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units, whichever is less. Under existing law, another prescribed characteristic is that convenience retail uses, as specified, are located within 12 mile of the housing development. This bill would revise the characteristic relating to parking spaces, to instead, specify that the housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to 2-bedroom units, and 2 onsite parking spaces for 3 or more bedroom units. The bill would eliminate the characteristic related to convenience retail uses, and instead would add a characteristic that the housing development is located within 12 mile from 3 or more specified locations, including, among other locations, a supermarket or grocery store, a pharmacy or drugstore, or a restaurant, as defined. Existing law authorizes a local agency, if a housing development does not satisfy all the prescribed characteristics, to charge a fee that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development. This bill would eliminate that express authorization. By imposing a mandate on local agencies that approve housing development projects with regard to impact fees, 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.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-12
- Latest action
- 2025-10-10 — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 515, Statutes of 2025.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Beckerauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-12
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2025-02-13
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 15.
2025-02-19
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
referral-committee
2025-03-24
Set for hearing April 23.
2025-04-10
April 23 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
2025-04-11
Set for hearing April 30.
2025-04-30
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 968.) (April 30).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-05-01
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-05-09
Set for hearing May 19.
2025-05-19
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-05-20
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-27
Ordered to second reading.
reading-1,reading-2
2025-05-27
Read third time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-28
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-06-02
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 27. Noes 11. Page 1378.) Ordered to the Assembly.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-06-03
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
reading-1
2025-06-09
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
referral-committee
2025-07-03
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 2).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-07
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-08-20
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 2.) (August 20).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-08-21
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-09-03
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 53. Noes 14. Page 2869.) Ordered to the Senate.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-09-03
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
2025-09-08
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 28. Noes 9. Page 2605.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-16
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
executive-receipt
2025-10-10
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2025-10-10
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 515, Statutes of 2025.
became-law
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-30 · pass · 5-2
Member-level votes (7)
- Arreguín: yes
- Laird: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Seyarto: no
- Choi: no
3rd Reading
2025-06-02 · pass · 27-11
Member-level votes (40)
- Menjivar: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Becker: yes
- Laird: yes
- Durazo: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Limón: yes
- Allen: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Stern: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: no
- Niello: no
- Seyarto: no
- Valladares: no
- Alvarado-Gil: no
- Grove: no
- Dahle: no
- Strickland: no
- Wahab: no
- Choi: no
- Jones: no
- Hurtado: other
- Reyes: other
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-07-02 · pass · 9-0
Member-level votes (10)
- Stefani: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Ward: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Ta: other
Do pass.
2025-08-20 · pass · 11-2
Member-level votes (15)
- Fong: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Solache: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: no
- Dixon: no
- Ta: other
- Tangipa: other
SB 358 Becker Senate Third Reading By Ward
2025-09-03 · pass · 53-14
Member-level votes (79)
- Zbur: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Addis: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Haney: yes
- Berman: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Solache: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Bains: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Patel: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Papan: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Krell: yes
- Lee: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Ward: yes
- Fong: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Hadwick: no
- Wallis: no
- Jeff Gonzalez: no
- Sanchez: no
- Davies: no
- Dixon: no
- DeMaio: no
- Gallagher: no
- Macedo: no
- Tangipa: no
- Lackey: no
- Alanis: no
- Chen: no
- Ellis: no
- Ta: other
- Irwin: other
- Bennett: other
- Calderon: other
- Flora: other
- Hart: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
- Patterson: other
- Muratsuchi: other
- Castillo: other
- Soria: other
- Boerner: other
Unfinished Business SB358 Becker Concurrence
2025-09-08 · pass · 28-9
Member-level votes (40)
- Laird: yes
- Rubio: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Limón: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Allen: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Becker: yes
- Niello: no
- Jones: no
- Alvarado-Gil: no
- Choi: no
- Seyarto: no
- Strickland: no
- Ochoa Bogh: no
- Grove: no
- Valladares: no
- Wahab: other
- Dahle: other
- Stern: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 358. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.