An act to add Section 65913.3.3 to the Government Code, and to add Section 25205.5.5 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to hazardous waste.
SB 328 would create two new housing-related hazardous waste provisions. First, it would require the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), when a housing development project seeks DTSC oversight for site investigation, characterization, remediation, or certain post-entitlement permits, to send the requester written notice about next steps and any additional information needed within set timelines. For projects with 25 units or fewer, the notice would be due within 60 business days; for projects with 26 units or more, within 120 business days. The bill makes clear that DTSC would not be required to make a final determination within those timeframes, and the new process would become operative on July 1, 2028.
Second, SB 328 would cap hazardous waste generation and handling fees for certain housing projects. For infill housing that is at least 66 percent residential, the total fee would be capped at $100,000 for the entire project. For a qualifying master development project, the total fee would be capped at $250,000 for the entire development project, regardless of phase. These caps would apply only to generators that are not the responsible party for creating the hazardous waste, and applicants would have to certify eligibility to DTSC, which would then notify the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The fee limitation would apply to fees imposed on or after January 1, 2026.
The bill would amend the Government Code and Health and Safety Code by adding new sections that specifically tie hazardous waste oversight and fee rules to housing development projects. In practice, it would affect DTSC, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, local agencies involved in post-entitlement permits, and developers of infill and phased residential projects that encounter contamination issues during development. It is framed as a housing-production and process-efficiency measure, while also limiting certain state-imposed hazardous waste fees for eligible projects.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. Committee votes were unanimous at each recorded stage, and the bill advanced through multiple committees and to Senate third reading without any recorded opposition. The available context suggests broad agreement on the bill’s goal of reducing delays and cost uncertainty for housing projects that must navigate hazardous waste review.
The main points of potential contention are not reflected in recorded opposition, but they are implicit in the bill’s structure. DTSC’s review timelines are limited only to notice of next steps, not final decisions, which may leave some concern about whether the bill meaningfully speeds approvals. The fee caps also favor certain housing projects over other hazardous waste generators, so the bill could raise questions about revenue impacts, fairness among regulated parties, and whether the definitions of infill housing and master development project are narrow enough to prevent overbroad eligibility.
SB 328 would add Government Code Section 65913.3.3 and Health and Safety Code Section 25205.5.5, creating new DTSC notice requirements for certain housing projects and new hazardous waste fee caps for qualifying residential infill and master development projects. It would not eliminate existing hazardous waste oversight or local permitting requirements, but it would impose procedural deadlines for DTSC communications and limit fees for eligible nonresponsible generators. The bill would also require an application and certification process for fee relief, with DTSC coordinating notice to the tax agency. The new provisions would be operative on July 1, 2028 for the notice requirements, while the fee cap would apply to fees imposed on or after January 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have received broadly favorable treatment throughout the legislative process. Recorded committee votes were unanimous, and the bill moved forward on do-pass recommendations and was placed on the suspense file before continuing to advance. No committee transcript or recorded floor opposition is provided, so the available evidence points to a generally positive view of the bill as a housing-enabling and process-streamlining measure.
No direct opposition is shown in the available record, but the bill’s likely areas of debate are administrative burden, fiscal impact, and scope. DTSC may face pressure to meet new notice deadlines for contamination-related housing reviews without being required to complete final determinations on a schedule. The fee caps could also be controversial for stakeholders concerned about reduced hazardous waste fee revenue or preferential treatment for certain housing projects. In addition, eligibility hinges on project type and on the applicant not being the responsible party for the contamination, which could create disputes over classification and responsibility.