SB 967 revises the Housing Element article by adding and aligning a set of definitions around an “acutely low income” category and related terms used in planning law. The bill cross‑references the Health and Safety Code and explicitly defines which types of living spaces may be counted as housing units for acutely low income households when jurisdictions prepare their seventh and subsequent housing‑element revisions.
Why this matters: changing the legal definitions changes what local governments and developers can count toward meeting a community’s planning obligations for the lowest‑income households. The bill widens the class of unit types (single rooms, modular homes, mobilehomes, transitional housing, etc.) that can qualify for that counting, and it clarifies how supportive and frequent‑user housing services fit into planning language — a technical but operationally important shift for planners, housing providers, and advocates.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 967 sets statutory definitions for “acutely low income” and several related income bands, defines supportive and transitional housing terms, and instructs that — for the seventh and later housing‑element cycles — a ‘housing unit’ for acutely low income households may include single rooms, modular and mobile homes, and transitional units. It also defines separate living quarters and frequent‑user coordinated care housing services.
Who It Affects
Local governments (cities, counties, city‑and‑counties) responsible for housing elements, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), developers and operators of small‑unit, modular, transitional, and supportive housing, and service providers working with chronically homeless or frequent users of emergency services.
Why It Matters
By changing what counts as a housing unit for the lowest income tier and clarifying supportive‑housing terminology, the bill alters the mechanics of planning compliance and the menu of eligible unit types jurisdictions can use to meet their obligations — with downstream effects on project design, funding priorities, and measurement of housing production for the most vulnerable.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 967 is a focused, text‑level bill: it does not create new subsidy programs or funding streams, nor does it change substantive eligibility for existing programs. Instead, it rewrites and consolidates a set of definitions that feed into housing‑element law and cross‑reference the Health and Safety Code.
The most visible change is the statute’s treatment of an “acutely low income” category (linked back to Section 50063.5 of the Health and Safety Code) and how that category sits relative to extremely low, very low, lower, low, and moderate income bands.
Operationally, the bill tells planners how to count units for acutely low income households in later housing‑element cycles: starting with the seventh revision, a “housing unit” for that income tier may be a house, apartment, modular home, mobilehome or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room — and that includes both permanent and transitional housing. The bill also defines “separate living quarters” narrowly to mean spaces with separate sleeping quarters and direct access to the outside or a common hall; it explicitly says separate bathrooms or eating areas are not required.
Those textual choices make certain rooming houses, single‑room occupancy (SRO) units, and other compact living arrangements plainly eligible for counting if they meet the separate‑living‑quarters test.SB 967 puts supportive housing and supportive services into the same definitional framework. It defines supportive housing as housing without a length‑of‑stay limit that serves a target population and links to onsite or offsite services, and it lists the types of supportive services courts, funders, and operators commonly use (case management, medical and behavioral health, substance‑use treatment, employment services, benefits advocacy).
The bill adds a definition for “frequent user coordinated care housing services,” a targeted construct for people identified by a city or county as the costliest frequent users of emergency services — language that makes it easier for planners to label and plan for projects aimed at that subpopulation.Taken together, these changes are procedural and definitional but meaningful: they broaden the universe of unit types jurisdictions can rely on when demonstrating to HCD that they have adequate sites or unit capacity for the lowest income households, and they standardize terms used across housing, health, and social‑service systems. That creates immediate questions about measurement, durability of counted units, and the interplay between planning compliance and on‑the‑ground housing outcomes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adopts “acutely low income” by reference to Health and Safety Code Section 50063.5 and treats that category as part of the lower‑income groupings the housing element must consider.
For the seventh and subsequent housing‑element revisions, the statute says a qualifying housing unit for acutely low income households may be a house, apartment, modular home, mobilehome or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room — and may be permanent or transitional housing.
A “separate living quarters” qualifies for counting if it has separate sleeping quarters and direct access to the outside or a common hall; the statute expressly allows counted units to lack separate bathrooms or eating spaces.
The bill defines transitional housing as rental developments operated under program rules that require recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible recipient at a predetermined future point that must be no less than six months from the start of assistance.
It defines “extremely low income” relative to the new acutely low category — explicitly making extremely low income the band above acutely low but still bounded by the existing extremely low limit in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Core definitional framework and cross‑references
This opening set of definitions ties statutory language in the Planning and Zoning article to existing Health and Safety Code provisions and clarifies which actors and geographic units the article addresses (cities, counties, city‑and‑counties, councils of governments). That linkage matters because the bill does not create standalone numeric income limits; it imports limits by reference and therefore relies on Health and Safety Code numerics and HCD guidance for implementation. Practically, local planners will need to read this statute together with the referenced Health and Safety Code sections to determine exact income thresholds for compliance.
Positions acutely low income below extremely low and within 'lower income'
The bill defines acutely low income by reference and then sets the relationship among bands: extremely low income is defined as incomes exceeding the acutely low limit but not exceeding the statutory extremely low cap. It also explicitly includes acutely low income within the umbrella term 'lower income.' That hierarchy affects how jurisdictions allocate site capacity and count units against lower‑income obligations: acutely low is now a discrete, recognized tier that planners must consider when mapping needs and eligible sites.
Expands what counts as a unit for acutely low income households in later housing‑element cycles
For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the bill broadens the statutory definition of 'housing unit' for acutely low income households to include small and alternative unit types (single rooms, groups of rooms, modular homes, mobilehomes, trailers) and allows either permanent or transitional uses. The provision is strictly limited to later cycles, so its practical effect depends on a jurisdiction’s revision schedule; planners will need to identify which existing or proposed sites meet the separate‑living‑quarters test and document how those units will be used to serve acutely low income households.
Clarifies the access and sleeping‑quarters test for counted units
The statute defines separate living quarters as having separate sleeping quarters and direct access from outside or via a common hall, and it explicitly disclaims the need for private bathrooms or kitchens. That loosened physical requirement is consequential: it makes SROs, rooming houses, and other compact units easier to qualify for counting, but it also raises issues about habitability standards and program eligibility that local governments and code enforcement will need to reconcile with building, health, and habitability laws.
Standardizes service‑linked housing and frequent‑user care language
SB 967 incorporates definitions for supportive housing, supportive services, transitional housing (including a minimum recirculation period of six months), target population, and 'frequent user coordinated care housing services.' By naming these concepts in planning law, the bill makes it administratively simpler for jurisdictions to classify a project as supportive or frequent‑user‑targeted in a housing element, which can affect site feasibility analyses and descriptions of available services. However, these are definitional changes only — they do not allocate funding or change program eligibility on their own.
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
- Acutely low‑income households and people experiencing homelessness — The statute makes it more likely that room‑scale, modular, and transitional units targeted at the most vulnerable can be counted in planning documents, increasing the chance jurisdictions will plan for these unit types.
- Local planning departments and councils of governments — The bill supplies clearer statutory language to classify unit types and supportive housing, reducing ambiguity when preparing later housing‑element revisions and when documenting sites for the Department of Housing and Community Development.
- Developers and operators of SROs, modular homes, and transitional programs — Explicit inclusion of single rooms, group rooms, modular and mobilehome units as qualifying housing units creates a clearer path for such projects to be presented as meeting acutely low income site capacity.
- Service providers and coordinated‑care programs — By defining 'frequent user coordinated care housing services' and supportive services, the bill gives service providers a consistent planning‑level label to use when partnering with jurisdictions or applying for project approvals.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments and planning departments — They must update housing‑element inventories, reclassify sites, document how rooming houses or transitional units meet the separate‑living‑quarters test, and may face increased administrative burden or legal scrutiny during certification.
- Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) — HCD will likely need to issue guidance, templates, or rulemaking to operationalize the new definitions and their cross‑references to the Health and Safety Code.
- Supportive‑housing operators and transitional housing providers — Meeting the definitional recirculation requirement (a minimum six‑month assisted occupancy before recirculation) and linking services to housing may require operational changes and secure funding for ongoing supports.
- Building code and health‑inspection authorities — The broadened unit definitions could produce pressure to reconcile planning‑level counting with building, health, and habitability standards, potentially driving inspection and code‑enforcement workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB 967 creates is this: expand the statutory definition of countable housing units to quickly give planners and project sponsors more options for serving the most vulnerable, or preserve a narrower definition that prioritizes long‑term, fully self‑contained housing but limits immediate, flexible responses. The bill favors flexibility and a broader menu of unit types — useful for short‑term production and targeting frequent users of emergency services — but that same flexibility risks allowing jurisdictions to meet planning obligations on paper without securing the durable housing and services needed to stabilize very low‑income residents.
SB 967 is narrowly textual: it changes what planning law calls things, not direct program rules or funding. That makes the law a lever for changing planning outcomes, but also creates implementation questions HCD and local governments must answer.
The most immediate challenge is measurement: allowing single rooms and groups of rooms to qualify expands the pool of counted units, but it also creates risk that jurisdictions will rely on less durable or less habitable unit types to meet obligations unless HCD clarifies durability, occupancy, and habitability criteria. The cross‑references to multiple Health and Safety Code sections mean practitioners must read statutes side‑by‑side; numeric income limits remain sourced elsewhere, so the bill increases dependence on external code sections and agency guidance.
Another tension is timing and scope: the unit‑counting expansion applies only to the seventh and subsequent housing‑element revisions, which delays effect for many jurisdictions and creates a patchwork where some localities operate under the new counting rules while others do not. Finally, defining supportive and frequent‑user services in planning law helps coordinate service‑linked housing with planning obligations but does not fund those services.
Without matched operating dollars, projects that count on planning flexibility to qualify may struggle to deliver the supportive services the definitions assume.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.