Among the many state housing bills SPUR is advocating for this year, we are sponsoring five in particular that would facilitate housing production through transit-oriented, mixed-income, and affordable residential development. The bills tackle issues from lack of transparency about the total costs of a project’s development impact fees to attempts by jurisdictions to thwart the so-called Builder’s Remedy.
The State Legislature has until August 31 to decide which bills it will send to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk before the 2024 legislative session ends. Newsom will then have until September 30 to act on all the measures sent to him. While we don’t yet know which bills will make it to his desk, among them will almost certainly be some addressing the state’s housing crisis.
In addition to the bills we are sponsoring, SPUR’s informal statewide coalition, the California Home Building Alliance, is supporting dozens of other bills, including Senator Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill (SB) 937, which would lower the cost to finance and build new housing through provisions such as moving payment of development impact fees to the date the certificate of occupancy is issued; Senator Nancy Skinner’s SB 1211 to expand the number of accessory dwelling units allowed on multifamily properties; Assemblymember Wicks’ Assembly Bill (AB) 224, a “cleanup” and expansion of AB 2011 for residential development in commercial zones; and Assemblymember Matt Haney’s AB 3068 to streamline office-to-housing conversions.
Here are five bills SPUR is sponsoring to facilitate housing production:
Development Impact Fee Transparency
Development impact fees can make up nearly 20% of the cost of a new housing unit and are often hard to predict, which can deter construction. AB 1820 (Schiavo) would authorize housing project proponents who have submitted preliminary housing project applications to request a good-faith estimate of all fees and exactions that would apply to their project. The local jurisdiction would then be required to provide an itemized list and total sum of all fees within 30 business days. The measure would also require a jurisdiction to provide development proponents with the final good-faith estimate, itemized list, and sum total of fees within 30 business days of the project’s final approval.
AB 1820 will make the costs of development impact fees more transparent and predictable and is based on a recommendation in SPUR’s May 2021 policy brief How Much Does It Cost to Permit a House?
The bill is co-sponsored by SPUR, the California Building Industry Association, and California YIMBY.
State Housing Element Law and Builder’s Remedy Applications
State housing element laws ensure there is a sufficient supply of properly zoned sites for residential development in cities and counties to accommodate the housing needs of California’s population over time. To solve the housing affordability and availability crisis, all cities and counties must follow the law and adopt housing elements that are certified by the state. In fact, the state takes this process so seriously that it made the housing element the only element of a city’s general plan that it must review.
AB 1886 (Alvarez) is a good government measure that clarifies that a housing element or housing element amendment can be found in substantial compliance only by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the most recent housing element certification process, some jurisdictions claimed to “self-certify” their housing element and made findings to challenge the HCD determination that their housing element was not in compliance with state law as a way to reject so-called Builder’s Remedy project applications. The Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, first enacted in 1990, allows projects to move forward when a local jurisdiction is out of compliance with state housing element law. These applications for housing development projects may bypass most local land use and zoning as long as 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households or 100% of the units are affordable to moderate-income households.
In early March, after AB 1886 was introduced, the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles decided that cities cannot certify their own housing elements, a ruling that this legislation would codify. The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta intervened in the lawsuit brought by the California Housing Defense Fund and lauded the court’s decision.
The bill is co-sponsored by SPUR and the California Building Industry Association.
State Density Bonus Law for Mixed-Income Residential Development on the Coast
The state legislature enacted the density bonus law several decades ago to ensure that affordable and mixed-income housing developments that include below market-rate, deed-restricted units are feasible even in California's highest-cost areas. AB 2560 (Alvarez) seeks to allow state density bonus law to be used with greater certainty by housing projects in the Coastal Zone on sites that are zoned for residential development, do not threaten sensitive coastal resources, and are not vulnerable to sea level rise.
Most of the many measures passed by the state legislature to facilitate housing production have exempted the state’s Coastal Zone. However, there is a growing consensus in the legislature and among advocates that this approach is not equitable: coastal communities are some of the most expensive, exclusive, and segregated in the state, and the local workforce is suffering greatly.
The Coastal Zone includes urbanized and already-developed parcels inland from the beach where new housing is needed and would be appropriate, including areas in San Diego, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Arcata, and Eureka.
Our bill co-sponsor, Circulate San Diego, a public policy think tank in the San Diego region, recently released a report that documents the difficulties encountered in using state density bonus law in the Coastal Zone under current law and practice.
The bill is co-sponsored by SPUR, Circulate San Diego, and the Bay Area Council.
Interim Supportive Housing for People Facing Homelessness
SB 1395 (Becker) would facilitate development of interim supportive housing communities that provide safe, secure, and high-quality midterm housing solutions for people experiencing homelessness. These communities constitute a missing rung on the housing ladder: the one between temporary shelter and permanent affordable housing. The legislation would build this rung using a model already proven in San José, San Francisco, Rohnert Park, Santa Barbara, and other California cities.
SB 1395 clarifies that relocatable, single-room housing, which provides enhanced safety and privacy for residents, is eligible for streamlined approvals. In addition, it would extend the sunset for existing streamlining authorities under the Shelter Crisis Act and AB 101 laws to give local governments certainty that they can use these authorities to address the homelessness crisis beyond 2025. Finally, the bill would ensure that interim supportive housing is eligible for funding from state homelessness programs.
SB 1395 supports a compassionate and comprehensive system that can help people experiencing homelessness move out of dangerous makeshift encampments and into mid-term housing communities while they wait for permanent housing opportunities to become available.
The bill is co-sponsored by SPUR, DignityMoves, the Bay Area Council, and San José Mayor Matt Mahan.
Infrastructure Financing for Transit-Oriented, Mixed-Use, and Mixed-Income Development
AB 930 (Friedman) would permit local governments to form a new type of district called a Reinvestment in Infrastructure for a Sustainable and Equitable California (RISE) district to access tax increment financing and funding from several sources, including the state, for infrastructure and equitable development in dense areas near jobs and transit.
Unlike Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) tools, which can be used to promote sprawl development far from city centers and public transit, RISE districts are targeted for urban infill and transit-oriented development. These districts would be directly aligned with state climate policy and planning and development priorities and, consequently, should be uniquely eligible for state and federal matching funds.
The bill is co-sponsored by SPUR, the Council of Infill Builders, and CivicWell and is supported by Bay Area Rapid Transit.