Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Senate Bill

SB 344: California Environmental Quality Act: City of San Diego: mixed-use development project.

Enacted Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

SB 344 is a senate bill introduced in the California Senate on February 12, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: California Environmental Quality Act: City of San Diego: mixed-use development project. Primary sponsor: Akilah Weber Pierson (D). It lists 2 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (September 29, 2026): Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 786, Statutes of 2026.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

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 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.

This bill would provide that a specified City of San Diego environmental impact report for a mixed-use development project, known as the Midway Rising project, is deemed sufficient, adequate, and complete for full compliance with CEQA and that any approval of the project may rely conclusively on that report for compliance with CEQA. The bill would require that all mitigation measures adopted by the City of San Diego as the lead agency be conditions of approval of the project. The bill would require the lead agency to monitor and enforce those conditions for the life of each applicable obligation. To the extent this requirement would impose new duties on a local agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the project applicant to submit to the lead agency an annual status report on the implementation of those conditions. The bill would make its provisions operative upon the effective date of the bill or on the date the City Council of the City of San Diego certifies the report, whichever occurs later.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of San Diego.

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.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 3

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Akilah Weber PiersonPrimary sponsorDemocraticSenate39
Stephen PadillaCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate18
Christopher WardCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly78

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 786, Statutes of 2026.
  2. Approved by the Governor.
  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
  6. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 72. Noes 2. Page 6860.) Ordered to the Senate.
  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  8. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (August 27).
  10. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 61. Noes 0. Page 6562.)
  11. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
  12. Ordered to third reading.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page