AB 2295 adds Section 65584.2.3 to the Government Code to allow two or more local governments to enter voluntary agreements so that a single new housing development can be counted toward each participating locality’s share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). The permission is conditional: the jurisdictions together must commit at least $60,000 per unit in local funds, and the project must include units affordable to very low– and lower–income households as defined in state law.
The bill creates a simple statutory hook for interlocal funding partnerships aimed at producing affordable units while crediting multiple jurisdictions’ RHNA obligations. But it leaves key mechanics — how credit is documented, whether state or regional bodies must approve, and what counts as “funds awarded” — to local agreements and subsequent implementation, creating both practical flexibility and potential for disputes over accountability and oversight.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits voluntary agreements between local governments so a new housing development can be credited toward each party’s RHNA share if the jurisdictions together award at least $60,000 per unit and the project includes units affordable to very low and lower income households as defined in the Health and Safety Code.
Who It Affects
Cities, counties, and consolidated city-counties (including charter jurisdictions) that participate in RHNA compliance; affordable housing developers seeking gap financing from multiple jurisdictions; and local planners and housing element authors who must reflect credited units in RHNA reporting.
Why It Matters
This creates a statutory pathway to pool local public funding and receive RHNA credit for the same project across multiple jurisdictions — a tool that could speed affordable development but also shifts where and how RHNA obligations are satisfied, with limited procedural detail on oversight or permissible funding types.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2295 lets two or more local governments sign a voluntary agreement to treat a single newly built housing project as counting toward each party’s share of the regional housing needs allocation. The statute frames this as a tool for jurisdictions to collaborate: instead of each jurisdiction relying only on in‑place development to meet their RHNA numbers, they can jointly fund a project and all signatories can claim credit.
The bill sets two conditions for that counting mechanism. First, the local governments that are parties to the agreement must together award local funds equal to at least $60,000 per unit.
The text does not define every form of eligible support, but it requires a minimum monetary contribution level tied to units produced. Second, the project must include affordable units targeted to very low and lower income households, invoking the income categories set out in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.AB 2295 is explicitly voluntary and applies to any city, county, or combined city and county — including charter entities.
It does not prescribe the internal terms of interlocal agreements, such as how participating jurisdictions divide cost, monitor affordability covenants, document RHNA credit, or resolve disputes. Nor does the provision specify whether regional councils of governments or the Department of Housing and Community Development must approve or certify the cross‑jurisdiction counting; those procedural details will be determined in practice by the parties and by any implementing guidance or regulations developed later.In effect, the statute creates a legal baseline allowing pooled local funding to be converted into RHNA credit for multiple jurisdictions, provided the funding and affordability thresholds are met.
The openness of the mechanism gives local partners flexibility to tailor agreements to regional needs, but that same openness leaves several implementation, oversight, and fairness questions unresolved that local counsel and planners will need to address when drafting agreements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires participating local governments to award at least $60,000 per housing unit in combined local funds for a project to qualify for cross‑jurisdiction RHNA credit.
To qualify, the project must include units affordable to very low and lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053.
A single project may be counted toward each signatory locality’s RHNA share — the same development can provide RHNA credit to multiple jurisdictions under the agreement.
The statutory definition of “local government” explicitly includes cities (including charter cities), counties (including charter counties), and consolidated city‑counties.
The statute is silent on procedural safeguards: it does not define what counts as ‘funds awarded,’ require regional or state approval, or set monitoring, enforcement, or recapture rules for credited units.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authorizes voluntary interlocal RHNA‑credit agreements
Subsection (a) creates the core authorization: two or more local governments may enter a voluntary agreement that permits a new housing development project to count toward each party’s share of the regional housing needs allocation. Practically, that lets jurisdictions coordinate funding and count shared outcomes when satisfying RHNA requirements. Because the authorization is voluntary, it depends entirely on local parties choosing to negotiate and execute interlocal agreements.
Local funding minimum — $60,000 per unit
Paragraph (1) sets a quantitative funding threshold: the local governments that are parties to the agreement must award a combined minimum of $60,000 per unit. The statute requires the funds be ‘awarded by the local governments in total,’ but it does not specify eligible forms of award (grants vs. loans vs. land contributions), timing, or whether private leverage counts toward the threshold—leaving those definitions to the parties or later guidance.
Affordability floor — very low and lower income units required
Paragraph (2) conditions the RHNA‑crediting on the presence of affordable units targeted to very low and lower income households, anchoring eligibility to existing statutory income categories in the Health and Safety Code. This ties the new counting mechanism specifically to lower‑income production rather than market‑rate development, and it implies projects must meet the statutory affordability definitions and any attendant covenant or monitoring obligations to be validly credited.
Who may sign — definition of local government
Subsection (b) defines ‘local government’ for this section to include cities, counties, and city‑and‑county entities, explicitly encompassing charter jurisdictions. That inclusion removes ambiguity about charter status and makes the tool broadly available across California’s range of municipal governance forms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Jurisdictions with limited developable land: Small cities or wealthy suburban jurisdictions that lack buildable sites can fund projects elsewhere and still claim RHNA credit, giving them a practical avenue to meet allocation obligations without changing local land use.
- Affordable housing developers and nonprofit sponsors: The ability to access combined local contributions from multiple jurisdictions increases gap financing options, lowering project risk and improving feasibility for lower‑income projects.
- Very low‑ and lower‑income households: By tying the mechanism to lower‑income affordability, the bill aims to produce more deeply affordable units that serve households at the bottom of the income ladder.
- Regional planners and councils of governments: The mechanism offers an additional tool for regional cooperation and for aligning funding with production in higher‑capacity jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Participating local governments that commit funds: Cities and counties that agree to award local funds will incur direct fiscal costs and budgetary trade‑offs, potentially diverting capital from other priorities.
- Local taxpayers in contributing jurisdictions: Public dollars used to meet the $60,000 per‑unit threshold represent an indirect cost to taxpayers in those jurisdictions, particularly if projects are located in other cities or counties.
- Housing element and compliance staff: Planners and legal teams will face added administrative work to draft, approve, document, and defend interlocal agreements and to integrate credited units into housing elements and RHNA reporting.
- Smaller developers or jurisdictions lacking legal capacity: The need to negotiate complex interlocal agreements and comply with affordability monitoring may impose disproportionate transaction costs on small developers and under‑resourced local governments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 2295 pits two legitimate goals against each other: accelerating affordable housing production by letting jurisdictions pool funds and claim shared RHNA credit, versus maintaining transparent, accountable allocation of RHNA responsibility so jurisdictions can’t offload obligations or double‑count outcomes. The bill favors flexible cooperation but leaves open whether that flexibility will produce additional housing or simply redistribute responsibility without robust oversight.
The bill creates a flexible crediting tool but leaves major implementation choices unresolved. It does not define the universe of acceptable funding instruments, whether land dedication or tax expenditures count toward the $60,000 threshold, or whether private leverage may be included.
Those uncertainties will drive negotiation friction between contributing and host jurisdictions and could lead to inconsistent practices across regions.
The statute also omits procedural safeguards: it does not require regional council or Department of Housing and Community Development sign‑off, set monitoring or enforcement standards for affordability covenants, or prescribe recapture remedies if units fail to remain affordable. That makes the mechanism administratively lightweight but increases legal and policy risk: jurisdictions could claim RHNA credit prematurely, disputes over counting could delay housing element certification, and concentrated development in lower‑cost areas could exacerbate spatial inequities unless agreements include explicit distribution and oversight provisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.