This bill establishes a voluntary "housing leadership" designation for California cities and counties that demonstrate sustained housing production above baseline compliance. The Legislature intends the designation to unlock enhanced funding and targeted regulatory relief as a reward for jurisdictions that outpace housing element requirements and adopt prohousing local policies.
The measure directs the state housing department to design thresholds that recognize differing affordability challenges across jurisdictions and to publish annual lists of affordability designations and housing leadership designees. It also requires emergency regulations to set application and verification procedures, and it builds in a short cure period before certain enforcement fines apply.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a state designation awarded to jurisdictions that submit five years of complete progress reports and meet production targets tied to local affordability. Designated jurisdictions may adopt ordinances that waive or modify specified state planning and zoning requirements and receive priority reporting and potential funding advantages.
Who It Affects
California cities, counties, and consolidated city-counties that report housing production; developers and project applicants working in designated jurisdictions who may face fewer objective design controls; and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which must adopt and administer the designation and publish lists annually.
Why It Matters
The proposal shifts incentives away from punishment toward positive inducements, making regulatory relief contingent on demonstrable production. For practitioners, it creates new compliance triggers, new opportunities to streamline approvals in qualifying jurisdictions, and fresh administrative responsibilities for state oversight and verification.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill authorizes the state to award a housing leadership designation to jurisdictions that demonstrate multi-year housing production above specified benchmarks. A jurisdiction must first file complete annual progress reports for the prior five years; the department then evaluates production against thresholds that differ by the jurisdiction’s housing affordability profile.
The law emphasizes tailoring standards so that high-cost and low-cost places are judged by different performance expectations.
Winning the designation carries discrete benefits. The bill lists specific state code sections from which a designated jurisdiction may, by local ordinance, create exemptions or adjustments: exemptions from one planning statute listed in the bill, authority to modify certain lot-size, setback, and objective design-review standards tied to another statute, a mechanism to avoid fines by curing identified violations within 90 days of written notice from the Attorney General or the department, and limited ability to set height limits as a form of development-standard waiver while preserving a minimum density bonus entitlement.
Those changes are options for local governments — the designation authorizes local ordinances that take advantage of the relief rather than forcing them to change standards.To operationalize the program, the department must publish two lists each July: one showing each jurisdiction’s affordability designation and another listing the jurisdictions that received housing leadership status. The department must adopt emergency regulations by July 1, 2027, after stakeholder consultation, to set application procedures, the math for production thresholds and netting demolitions, and criteria for approval rates and timelines; those emergency rules remain in effect until permanent regulations replace them.The statute defines three affordability categories using the ratio of median purchase price to area median household income — "affordable," "unaffordable," and "extremely unaffordable" — and ties different production-per-1,000-resident thresholds to each category.
Because the designation rests on measured output, the law focuses on the number of units permitted (net of demolitions) averaged over a five-year period, rather than on single-year results or solely on the presence of prohousing policies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A jurisdiction must have submitted a complete annual progress report for each of the preceding five years to qualify for the designation.
The bill sets production thresholds by affordability: at least 5 units per 1,000 residents (affordable), 7.5 per 1,000 (unaffordable), or 10 per 1,000 (extremely unaffordable), averaged over five years and net of demolition permits.
Designated jurisdictions may, by local ordinance, exempt themselves from specified provisions of Section 65852.21 and may modify minimum lot sizes, setback rules, and certain objective design-review standards under Section 66411.7 while retaining ministerial approval for at least two units on qualifying parcels.
If the Attorney General or the department sends a written notice that a jurisdiction’s action would violate a housing reform law, the jurisdiction gets 90 days to cure the violation to avoid fines under Section 65914.2.
The department must adopt emergency regulations by July 1, 2027 to set application procedures, methods to calculate and verify production, and criteria for approval rates and timelines; those emergency rules stay in place until superseded by permanent regulations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent and tailored thresholds
This opening provision states the Legislature’s purpose: incentivize jurisdictions that outperform statutory housing requirements through funding and regulatory relief, and require the department to build affordability-sensitive production thresholds. Practically, it signals the policy design: the program is incentive-based, not punitive, and seeks to account for differences in local housing markets when setting performance standards.
Authorized local exemptions from specified planning rules
These clauses let designated jurisdictions adopt ordinances that exempt or modify particular state planning requirements identified by statute. The bill explicitly lists which elements can be altered—one statutory cross-reference that can be fully exempted and a second that allows modification of lot sizes, setbacks, and objective design-review standards. Importantly, the text preserves a minimum level of ministerial approval (at least two units on qualifying parcels) even when lot- and design-related standards are relaxed.
Cure period for enforcement notices and limited height waivers
The measure creates a 90-day cure window after a written notice from the Attorney General or department that a jurisdiction’s decision or inaction would violate a housing reform law; curing within that period prevents fines under the referenced enforcement statute. The bill also permits jurisdictions to use height limitations as a form of waiver or reduction of development standards, while still requiring a minimum density bonus for qualifying projects—so designers and applicants gain some predictability about bonuses even where local height rules remain.
Annual publication and noncondition of designation
The department must publish two lists each July: one assigning affordability designations to jurisdictions that submitted complete progress reports, and a second listing jurisdictions that received the housing leadership designation. The statute prohibits the department from adding application conditions beyond those spelled out in the section, and it requires annual reporting of designations to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and other agencies upon request, establishing an interagency transparency mechanism.
Qualification mechanics and production metrics
Eligibility hinges on two mechanics: a complete five-year reporting history and meeting the numeric production threshold that corresponds to the jurisdiction’s affordability classification. Production is measured as permitted housing units per 1,000 residents, averaged across five years and net of demolition permits—an approach that rewards sustained output rather than one-off spikes.
Emergency regulations and implementation timeline
The department must adopt emergency regulations by July 1, 2027, following stakeholder consultation. Those rules must cover application procedures, calculation and verification methods for production thresholds, and criteria for approval rates and timelines. The emergency regulations remain effective until replaced by permanent regulations, shortening the usual rulemaking timeline and accelerating program startup.
Key definitions for affordability categories and metrics
The statute defines 'affordable,' 'unaffordable,' and 'extremely unaffordable' jurisdictions using the ratio of median purchase price to area median household income, and it ties 'area median household income' to HUD metro or county definitions. These definitions determine which numeric production threshold applies to each jurisdiction and anchor the law’s differential treatment of markets.
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
- High-producing local governments: Cities and counties that sustain above-threshold permit activity gain the option to adopt local ordinances that streamline standards, plus preferential visibility on state lists that can help secure funding or fast-track programs.
- Developers and project applicants in designated jurisdictions: Projects may face fewer objective design constraints, potentially speeding approvals and lowering soft costs where local ordinances exercise the allowed waivers.
- State agencies and funders: The department and agencies that allocate housing funds get a simple, production‑based signal to prioritize jurisdictions that demonstrably increase housing supply.
Who Bears the Cost
- Lower-producing jurisdictions: Cities and counties that fail to meet the thresholds lose access to those regulatory flexibilities and the competitive benefits of designation, increasing pressure to change local policy or accept competitive disadvantage for state resources.
- Local residents concerned with design and neighborhood character: Where local governments enact waivers, neighbors may see reduced setbacks, altered lot standards, and fewer objective design controls, which can change built form and local streetscapes.
- Regulatory and enforcement bodies: The department and Attorney General’s office must invest staff time to verify production figures, evaluate applications, and manage 90-day cure notices, creating administrative workload without an explicit funding mechanism.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to accelerate housing by offering tangible relief from statewide planning rules to jurisdictions that produce units, versus preserving local land-use safeguards and equity objectives that those statewide rules protect; rewarding raw production risks privileging quantity over design quality and equitable affordability without parallel safeguards or targeted requirements.
The bill ties significant regulatory relief to a single performance metric—units permitted per 1,000 residents averaged over five years—and that choice creates implementation and policy questions. Measuring permitted units (net of demolition) is straightforward in theory but raises verification issues in practice: jurisdictions use different permitting codes, reporting practices, and timing for when a permit counts as 'permitted.' The emergency regulations must therefore specify counting rules, treatment of mixed-income and phased projects, and how to reconcile discrepancies between local reports and state databases.
The authorized waivers trade local design controls for production incentives, but the law leaves many decisions to local ordinances. That design creates risks of uneven application: some jurisdictions may adopt narrow waivers targeted to accelerate large market‑rate projects rather than promoting equitable or affordable production.
The cure provision gives jurisdictions a 90-day window to fix violations highlighted by the Attorney General or the department, which softens enforcement but could delay accountability and complicate the timing of remedies. Finally, the differentiated thresholds use a price-to-income ratio to set standards, which helps tailor expectations but may still privilege jurisdictions with existing development capacity (infill sites, strong developer pipelines), potentially widening the gap between places that can rapidly scale production and those that cannot without additional investment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.