CA AB 2390
enactedStreamlined housing approvals: objective standards: review and modifications.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 2390 pass?
Yes. CA AB 2390 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-09-29): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 799, Statutes of 2026.
What is CA AB 2390 about?
The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2036, 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 (streamlining process) . Existing law, for purposes of this streamlining process, authorizes a development proponent to request a modification to an approved development if submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development. Existing law requires a local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards in effect when the original development application was first submitted. Existing law requires evaluations of modifications for consistency with the objective planning standards to be made using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, as described. This bill would instead require the local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that were in effect when the original development application or notice of intent was first submitted, as described. The bill would also require subsequent modifications to be evaluated for consistency using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, or that was used in a previous modification, as described. The bill would make conforming changes. Existing law provides that if a development proponent requests a modification, as described above, the time during which approval of the development remains valid is extended for the number of days between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain a building permit. Existing law also further extends that time during the pendency of litigation, if any. This bill would provide that the litigation extension is not limited to the first request for a modification submitted by the development proponent. This bill would also make nonsubstantive changes. 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. By imposing additional duties on local officials, 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 CA AB 2390?
Schiavo is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2390.
Description
The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2036, 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 (streamlining process) . Existing law, for purposes of this streamlining process, authorizes a development proponent to request a modification to an approved development if submitted to the local government before the issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development. Existing law requires a local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards in effect when the original development application was first submitted. Existing law requires evaluations of modifications for consistency with the objective planning standards to be made using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, as described. This bill would instead require the local government to approve a modification if it determines the modification is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that were in effect when the original development application or notice of intent was first submitted, as described. The bill would also require subsequent modifications to be evaluated for consistency using the same assumptions and analytical methodology the local government originally used, or that was used in a previous modification, as described. The bill would make conforming changes. Existing law provides that if a development proponent requests a modification, as described above, the time during which approval of the development remains valid is extended for the number of days between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain a building permit. Existing law also further extends that time during the pendency of litigation, if any. This bill would provide that the litigation extension is not limited to the first request for a modification submitted by the development proponent. This bill would also make nonsubstantive changes. 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. By imposing additional duties on local officials, 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.
- Introduced
- 2026-03-16
- Latest action
- 2026-09-29 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 799, Statutes of 2026.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Schiavoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-29
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 799, Statutes of 2026.
became-law
2026-09-29
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2026-08-20
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
2026-08-13
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 72. Noes 0.).
2026-08-13
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 72. Noes 0. Page 6154.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-11
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2026-08-10
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).
2026-08-10
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5324.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-04
Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
2026-08-03
From committee: Be ordered to second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to Consent Calendar.
committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-07-02
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 1).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-07-02
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-15
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-11
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 10).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-06-03
Referred to Coms. on HOUSING and L. GOV.
referral-committee
2026-05-21
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-21
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 69. Noes 0. Page 5180.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-06
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-23
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2026-04-22
Read second time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-04-21
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 20).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-04-08
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-03-17
Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
referral-committee
2026-03-16
Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and NAT. RES.
referral-committee
2026-03-16
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-02-21
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
2026-02-20
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
- 02/20/26 - Introduced — 2026-02-20Compare
- 03/16/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-03-16Compare
- 04/22/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-04-22Compare
- 06/15/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-06-15Compare
- 07/02/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-07-02Compare
- 08/17/26 - Enrolled — 2026-08-17Compare
- 09/29/26 - Chaptered — 2026-09-29Compare
- AB2390Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Natural Resources] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2026-04-08 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Haney: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Ward: yes
- Lee: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wicks: yes
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-04-20 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (14)
- Zbur: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Haney: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Muratsuchi: other
Do pass.
2026-05-06 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Solache: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Fong: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Krell: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Arambula: other
AB 2390 Schiavo Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-21 · pass · 69-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Ta: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Soria: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Berman: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Papan: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Solache: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Patel: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Davies: yes
- Lee: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Krell: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Bains: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Fong: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Ward: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Hart: yes
- Jackson: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Flora: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
- Ramos: other
- Bennett: other
- Addis: other
- Garcia: other
- Lackey: other
- Arambula: other
- Muratsuchi: other
- Boerner: other
- Chen: other
- Bauer-Kahan: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Local Government]
2026-06-10 · pass · 9-0
Member-level votes (10)
- Pérez: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Cabaldon: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2026-07-01 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Laird: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Choi: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Durazo: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-10-02T18:21:48.879917Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2390. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.