California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 2149 — Gates: standards: inspection.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law authorizes an owner of real property to install and operate on their property an electrified security fence, as defined, to protect and secure commercial, manufacturing, or industrial property, that meets specified requirements, except where a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation. If a local ordinance allows the installation and operation of an electrified security fence, existing law requires the installation and operation of the electrified security fence to meet the requirements of that ordinance. This bill would require a regulated gate, defined as any gate that weighs more than 50 pounds and is more than 48 inches wide or more than 84 inches high that is intended to be used by the public, an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, except as specified, to meet certain standards. The bill would require each building department to update, on or before July 1, 2026, its code requirements to ensure that any newly installed regulated gate in its jurisdiction meets those standards. The bill would require the owner of a regulated gate to have it inspected on or before July 1, 2026, or upon installation, and have it reinspected, thereafter, at least once every 10 years. The bill would require an owner to maintain a written report regarding the regulated gate's compliance with the specified requirements for at least 10 years and make the report available to the building department upon request. The bill would require the owner of a regulated gate that a professional or qualified employee, as defined, determines, upon inspection, to pose an immediate threat to safety to immediately stop the use of the gate until necessary repairs are completed and to engage a contractor or qualified employee to perform the repairs necessary to mitigate the emergency condition. The bill would require the owner of a regulated gate to engage a contractor or qualified employee to repair a regulated gate that is in need of repairs within a prescribed period, subject to imposition of an administrative fine by the building department, as specified. The bill would deem a regulated gate that fails to comply with these provisions 30 days after the owner of the gate has been notified of the violation, a public nuisance, and specify that in any case in which a government agency seeks to enjoin the continued use of a regulated gate that is in need of repair or replacement or that poses an immediate threat to the safety of the public, an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, the court may award costs, including the costs of investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorney's fees, that are not compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law, to the prevailing party. The bill would authorize a district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney to file a complaint for injunctive relief, or seeking a civil penalty, against an owner of a regulated gate for a violation of these provisions. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that, for regulated gates in existence as of January 1, 2025, its provisions apply only to regulated gates located in schools and parks, as specified. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 2).

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  6. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  7. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 51. Noes 10. Page 5363.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  11. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (May 16).

  12. Assembly Rule 63 suspended.

  13. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  14. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. Read second time and amended.

  16. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (April 16).

  17. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  18. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  19. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  20. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  21. From printer. May be heard in committee March 8.

  22. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 11 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7001
Unaffiliated 2000
Republican 0001
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Wilk — Yea
Roth — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Not Voting
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

AB 2149 Connolly Assembly Third Reading

Passed 51 Yea · 10 Nay · 19 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 38009
Unaffiliated 13105
Republican 0905
Total 5110019
% of votes cast 64%13%0%24%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Holden — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
Villapudua — Not Voting
Friedman — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Not Voting
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Not Voting
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Not Voting
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Not Voting
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Not Voting
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Essayli, Bill Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Unaffiliated 2100
Republican 0201
Total 11301
% of votes cast 73%20%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Villapudua — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 10 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Unaffiliated 2000
Republican 0101
Total 10101
% of votes cast 83%8%0%8%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Waldron — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2149 do?
Existing law authorizes an owner of real property to install and operate on their property an electrified security fence, as defined, to protect and secure commercial, manufacturing, or industrial property, that meets specified requirements, except where a local ordinance prohibits that installation and operation. If a local ordinance allows the installation and operation of an electrified security fence, existing law requires the installation and operation of the electrified security fence to meet the requirements of that ordinance. This bill would require a regulated gate, defined as any gate that weighs more than 50 pounds and is more than 48 inches wide or more than 84 inches high that is intended to be used by the public, an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, except as specified, to meet certain standards. The bill would require each building department to update, on or before July 1, 2026, its code requirements to ensure that any newly installed regulated gate in its jurisdiction meets those standards. The bill would require the owner of a regulated gate to have it inspected on or before July 1, 2026, or upon installation, and have it reinspected, thereafter, at least once every 10 years. The bill would require an owner to maintain a written report regarding the regulated gate's compliance with the specified requirements for at least 10 years and make the report available to the building department upon request. The bill would require the owner of a regulated gate that a professional or qualified employee, as defined, determines, upon inspection, to pose an immediate threat to safety to immediately stop the use of the gate until necessary repairs are completed and to engage a contractor or qualified employee to perform the repairs necessary to mitigate the emergency condition. The bill would require the owner of a regulated gate to engage a contractor or qualified employee to repair a regulated gate that is in need of repairs within a prescribed period, subject to imposition of an administrative fine by the building department, as specified. The bill would deem a regulated gate that fails to comply with these provisions 30 days after the owner of the gate has been notified of the violation, a public nuisance, and specify that in any case in which a government agency seeks to enjoin the continued use of a regulated gate that is in need of repair or replacement or that poses an immediate threat to the safety of the public, an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, the court may award costs, including the costs of investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorney's fees, that are not compensated for pursuant to some other provision of law, to the prevailing party. The bill would authorize a district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney to file a complaint for injunctive relief, or seeking a civil penalty, against an owner of a regulated gate for a violation of these provisions. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that, for regulated gates in existence as of January 1, 2025, its provisions apply only to regulated gates located in schools and parks, as specified. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 2149?
AB 2149 is sponsored by Connolly, Damon (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 2149?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2149?
Track AB 2149 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2149

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2149

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →