On March 27, the California State Legislature announced the “Fast-Track Housing” package, a suite of more than 20 bills to make housing more affordable in the state by removing red tape, reducing uncertainty, and dramatically diminishing the time it takes to get new housing approved and built. SPUR sponsored three of the bills and was among the subject matter experts interviewed by the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform, whose recommendations informed the legislative package. The assembly and senate must vote on their respective bills in the package. Those bills that are passed out of their house of origin will then head to the other house for policy committee hearings.
Two bills not in the Fast-Track Housing package would also accelerate housing production. SPUR sponsored both these bills and is working on another two housing bills that the legislature will take up next year.
SPUR-Sponsored Bills in the Fast-Track Housing Package
The bills sponsored by SPUR would expedite remediation and reuse of contaminated sites (Senate Bill 328), prevent local governments from adopting housing constraints not contemplated in the local Housing Element for three years (Assembly Bill 610), and facilitate redevelopment of underutilized commercial sites (Assembly Bill 1050). All three bills await a vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Senate Bill 328: Brownfield Remediation
SB 328 (Grayson) would expedite and substantially reduce the cost for remediation of contaminated or “brownfield” sites for housing by placing timelines on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to respond to permit requests for housing projects and by capping fees for review of the cleanup of sites that were not contaminated by the housing project sponsor. The bill’s other co-sponsors are the Bay Area Council and the Housing Action Coalition.
The backstory: In 2021, SB 158 removed the cap on the DTSC fee, causing some housing developments to see eightfold to tenfold increases in the fee, as well as a new per ton fee that has already been administratively raised twice.
Specifically, SB 328 would restore the $100,000 generation and handling fee for infill housing projects, nonprofit projects, and parks and would create a new $250,000 fee cap for master planned developments. This fee cap would be available only to developers that were not responsible for creating the hazardous waste.
Additionally, the bill would make site reviews more predictable and timely by requiring the DTSC to provide written notice of any further steps in the review process, including any additional information necessary to begin the review of the site remediation, within 30 days of submission of a request for projects of less than 26 units and within 60 days for larger projects.
Assembly Bill 610: Governmental Constraints on Housing Production
AB 610 (Alvarez) would ensure, with one exception, that local governments do not adopt new governmental constraints on housing production within three years of certification of their housing element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The bill would not apply to constraints reviewed by the local government during its housing element approval process. The bill’s other co-sponsors are the California Building Industry Association and the Housing Action Coalition.
The bill is a good government measure to ensure effective compliance with existing state housing element law regarding “governmental constraints” analysis and program requirements. Its premise is simple: Once jurisdictions have received certification of their housing element from HCD, they should be focused on (1) any required re-zonings, which must happen within three years; (2) implementation of housing programs committed to in the element; and (3) removal of any existing governmental constraints to housing identified in the housing element before adoption of any new governmental constraints that were not reviewed during the certification process.
Existing law requires housing elements to include an analysis of constraints that limit housing development. The law defines these constraints, which include land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Further, the analysis must demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its housing needs.
Assembly Bill 1050: Mixed-Income Housing on Commercial Properties
AB 1050 (Schultz) would help unlock development of mixed-income housing on commercial properties that would otherwise be an allowed use based on local zoning or state law. It would do so by creating a process for removal of private covenants, conditions, and restrictions that apply to the land and that prohibit or limit housing development on it. The bill is sponsored solely by SPUR.
The backstory: In 2023, SPUR sponsored AB 911 (Schiavo), which created this process to remove restrictive covenants for 100% affordable housing developments. However, some sites are too expensive or too large for affordable housing developers to acquire for construction of only deed-restricted, below-market-rate housing.
In addition, in 2022, the California State Legislature passed AB 2011 (Wicks) to support the redevelopment of shopping centers by allowing mixed-income housing on properties zoned for commercial use, and some jurisdictions’ general plan and zoning codes allow residential development in commercial zones.
AB 1050 would neither alter state housing laws related to project approvals nor change local zoning ordinances or the entitlement approval process.
Two Other SPUR-Sponsored Pro-Housing and Pro-Transit Bills
Though not part of the Fast-Track Housing package, two other recent bills co-sponsored by SPUR aim to encourage housing production in California. These bills await a vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Senate Bill 79: Upzoning Near Transit and Development on Transit Agency Land
SB 79 (Wiener) is a major piece of legislation to ensure minimum levels of zoning for multifamily housing in the state’s richest and most frequently served transit areas.
To maximize the value of its investments in public transportation systems, California must ensure zoning for appropriate residential densities near major transit stops, thereby boosting ridership, meeting state-set climate goals, and providing desperately needed housing in location-efficient (transit-adjacent) areas.
Additionally, the state must facilitate joint development opportunities on transit agency-owned land, a common practice in other countries, to strengthen transit system operations over the long term and to attract private investment for transit-oriented development.
SB 79 would boldly deliver on both counts.
The bill’s other co-sponsors are the Bay Area Council, California YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, and Streets for All.
Senate Bill 358: Traffic Impact Fees on Transit-Oriented Development
SB 358 (Becker) would bring greater clarity to and improve policy on the imposition of vehicular traffic impact fees on transit-oriented housing development.
Existing law reduces traffic impact fees for housing developments near transit and other amenities as befits the developments’ walkability and residents’ comparatively low number of automobile trips.
However, there is little guidance for implementation of this statute provision. Jurisdictions often ignore the provision because they are allowed to deny reductions in traffic impact fees.
SB 358 would expand and specify the amenities and land uses that qualify nearby housing development for a reduced traffic impact fee. Additionally, it would require jurisdictions to provide substantial evidence that the proposed development would not generate fewer vehicle trips than other developments farther from transit and other specified amenities before denying a reduced traffic impact fee.
The bill’s other co-sponsor is Streets for All.
Opposition to Bill Provisions That Undermine Housing
Unfortunately, SPUR and our allies have had to spend significant time opposing bill provisions that would stymie housing production, including multiple measures introduced to undermine the use of state density bonus law for many mixed-use developments, to allow local jurisdictions without a certified housing element to refuse “builder’s remedy” projects, and to prohibit unbundled parking in rental housing. The builder’s remedy is a provision within California’s Housing Accountability Act that allows developers of certain housing projects to bypass local zoning constraints when a city or county fails to adequately plan for housing by adopting a housing element that substantially complies with state law. Unbundled parking refers to the practice of charging a separate fee for parking rather than including it in the overall rent.
The good news: we have stalled several of these bills and have amended others to remove or substantially modify the harmful provisions.
Two-Year Housing Bills That the Legislature Will Take Up Again Next Year
SPUR continues to work on two bills that the state legislature will take up in 2026. AB 1406 (Ward) would facilitate financing of condominium development by allowing homebuyer deposits to be used for construction when a completion bond is posted to ensure project delivery and consumer protection. SB 315 (Grayson) would place reasonable parameters on the amount of parks fees that can be charged to residential developments particularly in outlier jurisdictions with exorbitant fees of, in some cases, more than $50,000 per unit. Confiscatory fees, typically in wealthy suburbs, are exclusionary and limit the type of housing that is feasible, as well as determining who can live in it. SPUR is sponsoring the SB 315 with California YIMBY.