California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 1 D cosponsors

SB 322 — Urban equestrian inclusion zones.

Last action — August 29 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced February 11, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Assembly.

Prognosis

Advancing 48% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Senate

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law, the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act, authorizes, under specified conditions, a city, county, or city and county to establish by ordinance an urban agriculture incentive zone for the purpose of entering into voluntary contracts with landowners to enforceably restrict the use of vacant, unimproved, or otherwise blighted lands for small-scale production of agricultural crops and animal husbandry. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from entering into a new contract or renewing an existing contract under these provisions after January 1, 2029. This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county, under specified conditions, to establish by ordinance an urban equestrian inclusion zone within its boundaries for the purpose of entering into enforceable contracts, as described, with landowners, on a voluntary basis, for restricting land use for equestrian activities, as defined. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from entering into a new contract or renewing an existing contract under these provisions after January 1, 2029. Existing law, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits certain counties and cities from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of specified effects, including reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the county or city, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as specified. Existing law defines "reducing the intensity of land use" for these purposes. This bill would include entering into enforceable contracts with landowners for restricting land use for equestrian activities within the definition of "reducing the intensity of land use." The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 29 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  5. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  6. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 1090.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  9. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.

  10. Set for hearing May 12.

  11. May 5 hearing postponed by committee.

  12. Set for hearing May 5.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 871.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  15. Set for hearing April 23.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  17. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  18. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 14.

  19. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

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 and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7001
Republican 2000
Total 9001
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Not Voting
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar 2nd

Passed 34 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 26004
Republican 8002
Total 34006
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Not Voting
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Not Voting
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Republican 2000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing agriculture
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 SB 322 do?
Existing law, the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act, authorizes, under specified conditions, a city, county, or city and county to establish by ordinance an urban agriculture incentive zone for the purpose of entering into voluntary contracts with landowners to enforceably restrict the use of vacant, unimproved, or otherwise blighted lands for small-scale production of agricultural crops and animal husbandry. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from entering into a new contract or renewing an existing contract under these provisions after January 1, 2029. This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county, under specified conditions, to establish by ordinance an urban equestrian inclusion zone within its boundaries for the purpose of entering into enforceable contracts, as described, with landowners, on a voluntary basis, for restricting land use for equestrian activities, as defined. The bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from entering into a new contract or renewing an existing contract under these provisions after January 1, 2029. Existing law, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits certain counties and cities from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of specified effects, including reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the county or city, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as specified. Existing law defines "reducing the intensity of land use" for these purposes. This bill would include entering into enforceable contracts with landowners for restricting land use for equestrian activities within the definition of "reducing the intensity of land use." The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Who sponsors SB 322?
SB 322 is sponsored by Menjivar, Caroline (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 322?
This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced February 11, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track SB 322?
Track SB 322 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 322

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 SB 322

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →