AB 36 establishes a state “prohousing” designation for local jurisdictions that have adopted a housing element found in substantial compliance and that have implemented specified local prohousing policies. The bill directs the state department to create criteria for that designation and to award additional points or other preferences to designated jurisdictions when scoring competitive housing and infrastructure programs.
The measure matters because it ties local land-use and homelessness-related policy choices to concrete funding advantages in several major California grant programs. That linkage creates an incentive for cities and counties to change zoning, permitting, fee and programmatic practices to improve their competitive position for state resources.
At a Glance
What It Does
The department must adopt regulations to identify jurisdictions as prohousing and report those designations annually. Designated jurisdictions receive additional points or preference in scoring for specified state competitive grant programs.
Who It Affects
Cities and counties with adopted housing elements, especially those considering zoning changes, parking or permitting reforms, and jurisdictions that run safe parking or safe camping programs. State agencies that administer competitive housing and infill grants will implement the scoring adjustments.
Why It Matters
By shifting grant scoring, AB 36 creates a lever to encourage local pro-housing actions without directly overriding local land-use authority. For grant applicants and local governments, prohousing status can be the difference in winning scarce discretionary funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 36 instructs the state housing department to develop and apply a “prohousing” designation for jurisdictions that have housing elements in substantial compliance and that adopt local policies that facilitate planning, approval, construction of housing, or policies that keep people housed. The bill lists illustrative policies — from relaxed parking rules and by-right zoning to local housing trust funds, reduced fees, accessory dwelling unit incentives, and expedited approval for emergency shelters and supportive housing — and makes those policies the basis for the designation.
Once a jurisdiction is designated prohousing, the statute requires awarding additional points or other preferential treatment in the scoring of specific competitive grant programs identified in the bill. The programs named include the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, the Transformative Climate Communities Program, and qualifying components of two state infill grant programs.
The department must publish the list of covered programs on its website annually.The bill sets out regulatory and administrative mechanics: emergency regulations must be adopted (the bill references a July 1, 2021 effective date for emergency regulations) and permanent regulations follow; the department must report designations to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and other agencies; and it must craft criteria that account for rural, suburban, and urban differences. There are special provisions for “small rural jurisdictions” (cities under 25,000 population or counties under 200,000): the department will evaluate materials from those jurisdictions’ housing element submissions on request, may avoid extra documentary burdens, and is prohibited from requiring renewal of their prohousing status for at least four years, though the department may still revoke a designation.The statute also limits how points for certain social-service–oriented policies are valued relative to land-use policies: any additional points for policies such as safe parking, safe camping, or expedited approval for low-barrier navigation centers, emergency shelters, or supportive housing cannot exceed the minimum points awarded for a prohousing policy that directly affects planning, approval, or construction of housing.
That creates a hierarchy in how the state values programmatic homelessness responses versus direct land-use changes in grant scoring.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 36 names four specific program categories where prohousing designations must yield scoring preference: the AHSC Program, the Transformative Climate Communities Program, the qualifying infill portion of the 2007 Infill Incentive Grant, and qualifying infill and catalytic infill portions of the 2019 Infill Infrastructure Grant.
The department must adopt emergency regulations (the bill references a July 1, 2021 benchmark) and then permanent regulations to define prohousing criteria that consider rural, suburban, and urban differences.
Small rural jurisdictions (cities <25,000 or counties <200,000) may ask the department to evaluate their existing housing element submission for evidence of prohousing policies to reduce new paperwork.
The department cannot require small rural jurisdictions to renew their prohousing designation for at least four years, though it retains authority to revoke designations sooner for cause.
The statute caps the value of bonus points for safe parking, safe camping, and expedited approval for shelters/supportive housing so that those points do not exceed the minimum value awarded for policies that directly affect planning, approval, or construction of housing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent and tailored criteria
This opening subsection frames the purpose: to create incentives (extra points or preference) for jurisdictions that comply with housing element law and adopt prohousing policies. Practically, it requires the department to consider differences between rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions when it writes prohousing criteria — a signal that the ensuing regulations must not be one-size-fits-all and should allow for geographically appropriate policy mixes.
Programs eligible for prohousing scoring preference
Subdivision (b) specifies the competitive programs that must incorporate prohousing preference into scoring: the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program; Transformative Climate Communities; the qualifying infill portion of the 2007 Infill Incentive Grant; and qualifying infill and catalytic qualifying infill portions of the 2019 Infill Infrastructure Grant. The provision also leaves open the possibility that other state programs can award additional points when state law already permits it, creating a path for broader application by administrative or statutory action.
Designation process and special rules for small rural jurisdictions
Subdivision (c) requires the department to designate jurisdictions as prohousing under the regulations and report designations annually. It creates accommodations for small rural jurisdictions: the department, upon request, shall evaluate their existing housing element submission for evidence of prohousing policies (to minimize extra paperwork), and it shall not require these jurisdictions to renew designations for at least four years (while retaining revocation authority). Those mechanics reduce administrative burden for less-resourced jurisdictions while preserving oversight.
Regulatory timeline and publication requirements
The bill directs the department to adopt emergency regulations (with a specific statutory hook referencing July 1, 2021) and indicates those emergency rules will remain until permanent regulations take effect. Separately, the department must post an annual list of covered programs on its website, which both informs applicants and binds agencies administering grants to the same program list.
Definitions and the prohousing policy menu
Subdivision (f) defines key terms and provides an explicit, nonexclusive list of prohousing local policies that qualify a jurisdiction for designation. That list ranges from land-use tools (by-right zoning, higher-density zoning, reduced parking, objective standards) and finance tools (local housing trust funds, reduced fees) to programmatic homelessness responses (safe parking, safe camping, low-barrier navigation centers, emergency shelters, supportive housing). The statute also places a relative cap: additional points for safe parking/camping and expedited shelter/supportive housing approvals cannot exceed the minimum value of points granted for policies directly tied to planning, approval, or construction.
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 that have already adopted compliant housing elements and prohousing ordinances — they gain a measurable competitive edge in state grant scoring and improve prospects for project and infrastructure funding.
- Affordable housing developers and project sponsors in prohousing jurisdictions — projects located in designated jurisdictions will likely score higher for state discretionary grants, improving feasibility for infill and affordable projects.
- Small rural jurisdictions that meet the criteria — they receive lighter documentary burdens (department can rely on their housing element submission) and at least a four-year stability window for designation, improving access to grants without frequent renewals.
- Programs and agencies seeking to leverage state funds for housing and climate goals — the designation creates a clear state-level incentive that aligns local policies with programmatic objectives, potentially improving pipeline quality for AHSC and infill investments.
Who Bears the Cost
- The state housing department and administering agencies — they must develop, publish, and apply new regulations, track designations, and adjust grant scoring frameworks, increasing administrative workload.
- Local governments that want the designation but lack staff or political support — they face the cost of drafting ordinances, changing zoning, or adopting new permit processes to meet the prohousing menu.
- Communities and local stakeholders resistant to zoning or shelter expansions — jurisdictions that pursue prohousing actions may face political conflict, potentially shifting local resources to community engagement, legal defense, or mitigation measures.
- Non-designated jurisdictions and applicants — as points shift toward prohousing jurisdictions, applicants outside the designation may find themselves less competitive for the same pool of discretionary funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to reward local jurisdictions for adopting prohousing policies through competitive grant advantages (thereby leveraging state money to influence local land use) or to avoid creating a two-tier system that privileges better-resourced or politically inclined jurisdictions and undercuts direct support for shelter and services — a choice between steering local behavior with financial carrots and ensuring equitable access to state funding regardless of local policy choices.
AB 36 creates a targeted incentive structure but leaves substantial discretion to the department in defining what counts as ‘‘prohousing’’ and how much preference to award. That discretion raises two practical issues: first, the risk of uneven application or perceived arbitrariness in designation decisions; second, the potential for gaming where jurisdictions adopt superficial or narrowly tailored measures to capture scoring benefits without broader commitment to housing production.
The bill attempts to mitigate some fairness concerns by requiring the department to consider rural, suburban, and urban differences and by easing documentary burdens for small rural jurisdictions, but it does not prescribe numeric thresholds for policy impact or production outcomes.
Another unresolved tension concerns the bill’s valuation of homelessness-response policies versus direct land-use reforms. The statute explicitly caps bonus points for safe parking, safe camping, and expedited shelter/supportive housing approvals so those points cannot exceed the minimum value awarded for policies that directly affect planning, approval, or construction.
That prioritization reflects a policy choice: the state values land-use changes more than programmatic shelter responses when allocating scarce grant advantages. Practically, this may discourage jurisdictions from focusing on shelter and services if they are seeking grant competitiveness, or it may incentivize bundled packages where jurisdictions pursue both land-use reforms and service programs to maximize scores.
Finally, implementation-resourcing is an open question. The department must create and maintain a designation list, publish program lists annually, coordinate with other agencies, and revise competitive scoring across multiple programs.
Those tasks require funding and staffing. If resources are not provided, the intended incentive could underperform or be applied inconsistently across grant cycles.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.