Pending State Housing Laws Clear First Legislative Hurdle

The following state housing bills were passed by the applicable house of origin by the May 29, 2026 legislative deadline, meaning that they will continue to move forward in the legislative process. The bills must be finally approved by the State Legislature by August 31, 2026, after which they will be routed to the Governor for approval. Future amendments are expected, and the summaries below reflect the status of the bills as of June 3, 2026.

Regional “Transit Hub” Projects in California’s Largest Cities

AB 2074 (Haney) would require Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, and Long Beach to designate so-called regional transit hub districts by July 1, 2027, as specified. Qualifying housing development projects within a regional transit hub district would be subject to streamlined ministerial review and approval (i.e., no CEQA). Specified building height, FAR, and density maximums would apply. For example, at least 25% of the total area of a regional transit hub district would need to allow for a maximum height limit of at least 450 feet, a maximum FAR of at least 12:1, and no maximum density limit. Among other requirements, including labor requirements, regional transit hub district projects would need to propose a density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre and meet SB 79 affordable housing requirements (e.g., if lower income units would be provided, at least 13% of the “base” units prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law must be designated as lower income, as defined).

AB 2074 would also establish the Downtown Revitalization Loan Fund, which would be continuously appropriated to provide for loans for qualifying housing development projects in regional transit hub districts.

Townhome Development Projects

AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva and Wicks), titled the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, would facilitate townhome projects by requiring local jurisdictions to process qualifying projects ministerially (i.e., no CEQA), including the parcel map or tentative and final map for the project. Among other requirements, including labor requirements, the townhome project must meet at least 75% of the density requirements under Government Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B) (a.k.a. Mullin densities), which vary depending on the type of jurisdiction. For example, a minimum density of 22.5 dwelling units per acre would apply in a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county. Among other exemptions, AB 1751 requirements would not apply to the City and County of San Francisco.

Small Housing Development Projects

AB 748 (Harabedian, Haney, and Ward) would require local jurisdictions to create a program for the preapproval of single-family and multi-family housing projects with up to 10 dwelling units by July 1, 2027 or January 1, 2029, with the later deadline applying to small jurisdictions (i.e., a county with a population of less than 250,000, any city within that county, or a city with a population of less than 25,000 as of January 1, 2019). Local agencies would be required to process applications utilizing the pre-approved plans ministerially (i.e., no CEQA) within 30 days of receipt of a “completed application” if specified conditions are met. The program would not apply to master-planned communities, PUDs, or “similar large-scale development that includes the subdivision of land for the construction of multiple new housing units.”  It is not clear how this provision would be reconciled with the 10 single-family home maximum above, but recall that the Starter Home Revitalization Act (SB 684/SB 1123) separately allows for up to 10 dwelling units on separate parcels if specified requirements are met. Please see our prior legal alert for more information about that Act.

State Density Bonus Law Amendments

AB 2433 (Alvarez, Bryan, and Wicks) would make numerous changes to the State Density Bonus Law, including additional incentives for projects including homeownership units; providing that deeper levels of affordability count towards the moderate-income category; requiring local agencies to proactively apply the State Density Bonus Law even absent a request from an applicant; clarifying that a density bonus includes an increase in FAR where FAR is used to calculate the base density of a project; establishing a ministerial approval pathway for infill housing development projects that qualify for the new AB 130 CEQA exemption; specifying that the density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards shall be on sites that are the subject of the same housing development (versus contiguous sites); and specifying that the granting of a density bonus, incentive or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards shall not be discretionary and may be applied to the nonresidential components of a housing development project.

SB 1383 (Arreguín) would amend the State Density Bonus Law to specify that concessions and incentives cannot include or relate to labor standards (as defined in California Labor Code § 1205).

SB 79 Amendments: Transit-Oriented Housing Development Projects

SB 677 (Wiener) would amend SB 79 to expand the definition of “high-frequency commuter rail” to include a public commuter or intercity rail station with a total of at least 48 passenger trains on average per weekday (versus day) across all directions (versus both directions).

SB 722 (Wiener, Wahab, and Ahrens) would additionally disqualify project sites governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act from SB 79.

Please see our prior legal alert for more information about high-density transit-oriented housing development projects that will be facilitated by SB 79.

AB 2011 Amendments: Housing Development Projects on Commercial Corridors

AB 2118 (Hoover) would amend AB 2011 (Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022) to provide that objective standards imposed by the local agency cannot prohibit or otherwise limit mixed-use development in a qualifying housing development project. The bill would also clarify that AB 2011-specific development standards apply to the development project versus the property.

Please see our prior legal alert for more information about AB 2011, as most recently amended by AB 2243 and AB 893.

Factory-Built Housing Projects

AB 1815 (Wicks, Quirk-Silva, Caloza, González, Harabedian, and Hoover) would standardize the development standards applicable to factory-built housing statewide by restricting local jurisdictions from imposing building standards that exceed the state minimum building standards in the California Building Standards Code on housing development projects that utilize factory-built housing, provided that at least 15% of the total hard costs (i.e., the total cost of labor and materials) for each building in the project is spent on factory-built housing bearing the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) insignia.

Condominium Projects

AB 1903 (Wicks, Wilson, and Becker) would amend California’s construction defect law, as it applies to condominium and townhome projects constructed after January 1, 2027, to facilitate construction of those product types. The bill would make numerous changes including requiring homeowners to include proof of a potential defect with a pre-litigation notice; prohibiting project insurers from deeming repair of a potential defect an uncovered voluntary payment; permitting developers to obtain liability releases at least one year after completion of a repair; prohibiting homeowners from seeking recovery for costs associated with inspecting their property for potential defects and prohibiting homeowner associations from extrapolating inspection results across an entire development; requiring more detailed notice to homeowners before construction defect litigation commences; creating a certification process for condominium and townhome developments; and specifying that developers of certified projects may remedy identified defects without the threat of litigation.

AB 1406 (Ward, Wicks, and Wilson) would reduce barriers to condominium development by raising the amount of liquidated damages that may be imposed on a buyer who breaches a contract for the purchase of a newly constructed condominium from 3% to 6% of the purchase price.

Permit Processing

AB 1738 (Carrillo and Wicks) would require local jurisdictions to allow homeowners in a single- or two-family dwelling unit to request remote building inspections for certain structural components.

SB 1014 (Grayson) would require that, upon request by a housing development project applicant, the local jurisdiction provide a good-faith estimate of all required onsite and offsite improvements (as defined) and associated cost estimates within 30 days after deeming the SB 330 preliminary application (or, if not filed, the project application) complete. The bill would further require local jurisdictions to provide an itemized list of all onsite and offsite improvements associated with a post-entitlement phase permit within 30 days after deeming the application complete, and would prohibit local jurisdictions from requiring additional improvements not included on the list, except under limited circumstances necessary to mitigate impacts to public health and safety or environmental impacts under CEQA, or to accommodate applicant-requested changes to the project scope.

AB 1621 (Wilson, Rubio, and Wicks) would, among other things, prohibit local jurisdictions from requesting more than two plan checks in connection with a building permit application for a housing development project (but not other post-entitlement phase permits), unless the jurisdiction makes written findings, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that additional review is necessary to address a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. The bill would also change the process for appealing a post-entitlement phase permit determination and would toll applicable time limits for approval of a post-entitlement phase permit during periods when the housing development project is undergoing review by other public agencies if the review is required by state or federal law.

AB 306 (Schultz, Hadwick, and Wicks) would revise the process by which an aggrieved person can appeal to the California Building Standards Commission for interpretation of a building standard or code equivalence determination by, among other things, expanding the reasons for an appeal to the Commission and removing barriers for the Commission to accept appeals.

SB 330 Vesting & Development Applications

AB 1710 (Carrillo and Wicks) would amend SB 330 to designate post-entitlement permit standards and other rules, regulations, and determinations adopted or implemented by other public agencies under “ordinances, policies, and standards” that are vested at the time a SB 330 preliminary application is submitted for a housing development project. Vested post-entitlement permit standards would not affect the applicability of building standards in effect at the time an application for a building permit is submitted.

AB 1294 (Haney and Wicks) would, among other things, require HCD to adopt a standardized housing development application form by July 1, 2027, and would require that certain jurisdictions accept the standard application without supplementation by October 1, 2027. The bill would also designate any instance where a local jurisdiction requires an extraneous item not included in the standardized application as grounds for a HAA violation, thereby exposing the jurisdiction to potential enforcement by the State Attorney General.

Development Impact Fees

SB 1036 (Grayson) would require local agencies to calculate development impact fees for redevelopment and conversion projects to account only for the incremental impact associated with the new use.

Accessory Dwelling Units

AB 956 (Quirk-Silva, Carillo, and Wicks) would provide for the streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) review and approval of up to two detached new-construction ADUs on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, versus one ADU under existing law.