California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

AB 3122 — Streamlined housing approvals: objective planning standards and subdivision applications.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 754, Statutes of 2024.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2024. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (Democratic) on September 27, 2024.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    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 8 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

(1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on, among other things, that (1) the locality's latest production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to either very low income or low-income households by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period and (2) the project seeking approval dedicates 50% of the total number of units, as specified, to housing affordable to households making at or below 80% of the area median income. This bill would also include as an objective planning standard that (1) the locality's latest production report reflects the requirements described above and (2) the project application was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, and the project includes at least 500 units of housing, that the project dedicates 20% of the total number of units, as specified, as affordable units, with at least 9% affordable to households making at or below 50% of the area median income and the remainder affordable to households making at or below 80% of the area median income. For these purposes, the bill would include units affordable to acutely low income and extremely low income households, as those terms are defined, as units affordable to very low income households, as that term is referenced. Existing law requires a local government or relevant local planning and permitting department if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that a housing development project is in conflict with any of the above-described objective planning standards to provide to the development proponent written documentation of the standards with which the development conflicts and an explanation for the reasoning within 60 days or 90 days of the submittal of the development proposal, depending on the number of housing units. This bill would also require a local government or relevant local planning and permitting department to provide to the development proponent written documentation of the standards with which the development conflicts and an explanation for the reasoning as described above within 30 days of the submittal of any development proposal that was resubmitted to address written feedback provided by the local government. Existing law authorizes a development proponent to request a modification to a development that has been approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process if that request is submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit. Existing law authorizes a local government to apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification if the development is revised such that (1) the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 15% or more or (2) the development is revised such that the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 5% or more and it is necessary to impose an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. This bill would instead authorize a local government to apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification if the development is revised such that (1) the total square footage of construction increases by 15% or more or the total number of residential units decreases by 15% or more or (2) the total square footage of construction increases by 5% or more or the total number of residential units decreases by 5% or more and it is necessary to impose an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. By reducing the ability of a local government to impose objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted when reviewing a requested modification, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law includes as an objective planning standard that the house development and site on which it is located satisfy specified requirements, including that at least 75% of the perimeter of the development site is adjoined with parcels that are developed with urban uses. Existing law defines "urban uses" for purposes of that provision to include any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses. This bill would also include within the definition of "urban uses" any current or former public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, and parking lot or structure. (2) Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. 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. Existing law exempts from the requirements of CEQA, and requires specified public oversight timelines for, an application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act that is submitted pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described above if the development is consistent with specified requirements. In this regard, existing law requires the development to consist of 10 or fewer units and to not be a public work, as specified, and to be consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance. This bill would remove the above-described requirement that the development consists of 10 or fewer units and is not a public work, as specified, and would instead require the development to comply with specified provisions relating to the streamlined, ministerial approval process and to meet at least one of other specified requirements, including that the development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit. By modifying the duties of a local agency in reviewing applications for a subdivision, 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 754, Statutes of 2024.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 72. Noes 2.).

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended.

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

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

  13. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 26).

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

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 4). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  16. Referred to Coms. on HOUSING and L. GOV.

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

  18. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 71. Noes 0.)

  19. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  20. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 8).

  21. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 17). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  23. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.

  24. From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.

  25. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 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

Passed 72 Yea · 2 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 41204
Republican 13000
Unaffiliated 18001
Total 72205
% of votes cast 91%3%0%6%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Low — Yea
Essayli — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Wood — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Not Voting
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Not Voting
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Nay
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Not Voting
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
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 Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
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 Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Democratic 21001
Republican 7000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Democratic 6001
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 9001
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 71 Yea · 0 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 42005
Republican 11002
Unaffiliated 18002
Total 71009
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Essayli — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mathis — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
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 Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Not Voting
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
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 Yea
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 Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
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 Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Unaffiliated 4000
Republican 3000
Total 15000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Villapudua — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7000
Unaffiliated 1001
Total 8001
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Waldron — Yea
Essayli — Not Voting
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Democratic 7000
Total 9000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 3122 do?
(1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on, among other things, that (1) the locality's latest production report reflects that there were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to either very low income or low-income households by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period and (2) the project seeking approval dedicates 50% of the total number of units, as specified, to housing affordable to households making at or below 80% of the area median income. This bill would also include as an objective planning standard that (1) the locality's latest production report reflects the requirements described above and (2) the project application was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, and the project includes at least 500 units of housing, that the project dedicates 20% of the total number of units, as specified, as affordable units, with at least 9% affordable to households making at or below 50% of the area median income and the remainder affordable to households making at or below 80% of the area median income. For these purposes, the bill would include units affordable to acutely low income and extremely low income households, as those terms are defined, as units affordable to very low income households, as that term is referenced. Existing law requires a local government or relevant local planning and permitting department if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that a housing development project is in conflict with any of the above-described objective planning standards to provide to the development proponent written documentation of the standards with which the development conflicts and an explanation for the reasoning within 60 days or 90 days of the submittal of the development proposal, depending on the number of housing units. This bill would also require a local government or relevant local planning and permitting department to provide to the development proponent written documentation of the standards with which the development conflicts and an explanation for the reasoning as described above within 30 days of the submittal of any development proposal that was resubmitted to address written feedback provided by the local government. Existing law authorizes a development proponent to request a modification to a development that has been approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process if that request is submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit. Existing law authorizes a local government to apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification if the development is revised such that (1) the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 15% or more or (2) the development is revised such that the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 5% or more and it is necessary to impose an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. This bill would instead authorize a local government to apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification if the development is revised such that (1) the total square footage of construction increases by 15% or more or the total number of residential units decreases by 15% or more or (2) the total square footage of construction increases by 5% or more or the total number of residential units decreases by 5% or more and it is necessary to impose an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. By reducing the ability of a local government to impose objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted when reviewing a requested modification, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law includes as an objective planning standard that the house development and site on which it is located satisfy specified requirements, including that at least 75% of the perimeter of the development site is adjoined with parcels that are developed with urban uses. Existing law defines "urban uses" for purposes of that provision to include any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses. This bill would also include within the definition of "urban uses" any current or former public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, and parking lot or structure. (2) Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. 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. Existing law exempts from the requirements of CEQA, and requires specified public oversight timelines for, an application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act that is submitted pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described above if the development is consistent with specified requirements. In this regard, existing law requires the development to consist of 10 or fewer units and to not be a public work, as specified, and to be consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance. This bill would remove the above-described requirement that the development consists of 10 or fewer units and is not a public work, as specified, and would instead require the development to comply with specified provisions relating to the streamlined, ministerial approval process and to meet at least one of other specified requirements, including that the development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit. By modifying the duties of a local agency in reviewing applications for a subdivision, 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 AB 3122?
AB 3122 is sponsored by Kalra, Ash (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 3122?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2024. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 3122?
Track AB 3122 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 3122

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.

Stay ahead of AB 3122

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →