AB 698 adds Government Code section 37100.6 and requires a city's legislative body to develop and post on its website an analysis before it adopts any transfer tax on the sale of real property. The required analysis must examine, at minimum, effects on affordable housing (including affordable units created within market-rate projects), market-rate housing production, and property tax revenue for the city, county, state, and relevant special districts.
The bill matters because it inserts a mandatory, public analytic step into local tax policymaking while expressly applying to charter cities. That combination raises practical questions about who prepares the analysis, what methodology is acceptable, how the findings will influence policymaking, and whether the new requirement will slow or reshape local efforts to raise revenue through transfer taxes — especially in jurisdictions with limited analytic capacity.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires a city's legislative body to develop and post online an analysis before adopting any transfer tax on the sale of real property. The analysis must address the transfer tax's effects on affordable housing (including affordable units from market-rate projects), market-rate housing production, and property tax revenue across affected jurisdictions.
Who It Affects
Directly affects city legislative bodies (including charter cities), housing developers, county governments and special districts that rely on property tax revenue, and housing advocates who monitor local tax policy. Smaller jurisdictions and staff who prepare fiscal analyses will bear the immediate administrative burden.
Why It Matters
Creates a statewide requirement for transparency and impact assessment in local tax decisions and narrows the practical autonomy charter cities often claim over municipal affairs. It could change the evidence base used in council debates about transfer taxes and shift the costs of policymaking onto local governments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 698 does one thing: it requires local legislative bodies to produce and publish a short, focused analysis before they adopt any transfer tax on the sale of real property. The bill specifies three topics that the analysis must cover: the proposed tax's effect on (1) production of affordable housing, including affordable units produced within market-rate developments, (2) production of market-rate housing units, and (3) property tax revenue for the city, county, state, and any relevant special districts.
The analysis must be posted on the city's website prior to adoption of the tax.
The statute leaves important choices to the local body. It does not prescribe a methodology, require third-party review, set a minimum level of detail, or mandate a public hearing tied to the analysis.
The text says the legislative body "shall develop and post" the analysis, which creates an obligation but not a standardized process; how extensive the study must be, who prepares it, and how long it must be available before a vote are left to local practice or later regulation or litigation.Section 2 adds legislative findings that frame the requirement as a matter of statewide concern and explicitly states the new section applies to charter cities. That is significant: the bill attempts to prevent charter cities from using home-rule authority to avoid the analytic step.
The bill does not alter the underlying authority to impose transfer taxes (for example, it does not change the Documentary Transfer Tax Act), nor does it provide funding for producing the analyses or set penalties for noncompliance.Practically, the requirement will create administrative and budgetary work for cities that do not already perform these assessments. For larger jurisdictions, the analysis will likely be integrated into existing fiscal and housing impact reports; for smaller cities it may trigger consultant contracts or simpler staff memos.
Because the bill mandates posting on an internet website, the analyses will also create a public record that housing advocates, developers, and other local governments can use in debates or potential litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Government Code §37100.6 requiring a legislative body to develop and post an analysis on its website before adopting any transfer tax on the sale of real property.
The analysis must, at minimum, examine effects on (1) affordable housing including units produced within market-rate projects, (2) market-rate housing production, and (3) property tax revenue for the city, county, state, and relevant special districts.
AB 698 does not specify analytic methods, required metrics, timing windows for posting, or who must prepare the analysis—leaving those procedural choices to local governments.
Section 2 contains findings declaring the requirement a matter of statewide concern and explicitly applies the section to charter cities, narrowing a common municipal-home-rule defense.
The statute neither amends the authority to impose transfer taxes nor funds or sanctions the new reporting duty, creating an unfunded administrative obligation for localities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory pre-adoption analysis and online posting
This is the operative provision. Before adopting any transfer tax on the sale of real property, a city's legislative body must develop an analysis and post it on the city's internet website. The bill prescribes three required topics the analysis must cover: impacts on affordable housing (including affordable units coming from market-rate projects), impacts on market-rate housing production, and impacts on property tax revenue for the city, county, state, and relevant special districts. The provision creates a clear sequencing requirement—analysis then adoption—but does not define the depth, format, or timing of that analysis.
What triggers the requirement and who it covers
The requirement triggers on adoption of any transfer tax 'on the sale of real property' by a legislative body. The statute expressly references 'the legislative body' and lists charter city legislative bodies as included, which signals a broad municipal coverage. It does not limit the rule to particular types or sizes of transfer taxes (for example, by revenue threshold) and does not carve out specific transaction types; any locally adopted transfer tax on sale of real property falls within the rule.
Statewide concern and charter city applicability
Section 2 contains the Legislature's findings that reduced property-tax receipts and the provision of adequate housing are matters of statewide concern and not merely municipal affairs. Legally, those findings are meant to justify applying the new analytic duty to charter cities by avoiding interference with the home-rule doctrine under Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution. The practical effect is to limit a common defense charter cities use when asserting that statewide laws intrude on local governance.
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
- Affordable housing advocates and tenants: The mandatory analysis will create a documented basis to argue that a proposed transfer tax would harm affordable housing production, or conversely that it would not, improving advocacy and oversight during local debates.
- Counties and special districts that rely on property tax revenue: The required assessment of property-tax impacts produces data these entities can use when assessing fiscal exposure and engaging with cities that propose transfer taxes.
- Developers and housing market analysts: Developers will gain a public record of local fiscal reasoning and assumptions about housing elasticity that they can use in entitlement negotiations or to rebut local policy rationales.
Who Bears the Cost
- City governments (including charter cities): Cities must allocate staff time or contract consultants to produce the mandated analysis and maintain website postings, creating administrative cost and potential delays in adopting revenue measures.
- Small or resource-constrained jurisdictions: Smaller cities without in-house analytic capacity will face proportionally higher costs if they hire outside consultants or divert planning/fiscal staff from other duties.
- Local taxpayers and property sellers: If the new analytic step delays adoption of transfer taxes or prompts more conservative policy choices, local governments may postpone or forgo revenue that would have funded services; conversely, if analyses deter taxes, other revenue sources could be pressed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between preserving local fiscal autonomy—allowing cities to impose transfer taxes to address local needs—and imposing a statewide transparency test meant to protect housing production and interjurisdictional tax bases; AB 698 forces cities to choose between clearer public documentation (and the costs and potential delays that entails) and the exercise of local taxing authority without extra procedural requirements.
AB 698 standardizes an informational step but leaves critical procedural and substantive choices unresolved. Because the bill does not set methodological standards, local analyses may vary widely in quality, assumptions, and conclusions; two neighboring cities could reach opposite findings about the same proposed tax based on different assumptions about housing supply elasticity or how market-rate projects incorporate affordable units.
That variability undermines comparability and could politicize the choice of assumptions. The statute also imposes the duty without providing state funding, which will matter most for small cities that lack planning or fiscal analysts.
The decision to brand this as a 'statewide concern' and to apply the duty to charter cities is likely deliberate but could invite litigation. Courts will need to weigh whether the Legislature properly distinguished statewide from municipal affairs; that inquiry could reopen constitutional debates about the limits of home rule.
Finally, because the bill creates a required public record but does not attach procedural protections—no mandatory public comment period tied to the analysis, no independent audit, and no enforcement mechanism—the documents might become tools of local politics rather than neutral inputs, and aggrieved parties could attempt to use flaws in the analysis as grounds for litigation challenging a transfer tax adoption.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.