AB 1893 - NYU Furman Center

State Land Use Enacted Legislation

Bill #	State	Year	Party	Topic
AB 1893	CA	2024	D	Affordable housing incentives and financing, Density bonus, Enforcement, Fair distribution of housing, Inclusionary zoning, Planning Requirements, Written findings, burden and standard of proof

Provided by Furman

Summary

Declares the need for at least 2.5 million homes over the next eight years, the need for cooperation of all local governments to faithfully implement housing elements, the effectiveness of builder’s remedies, the need for greater clarity regarding builder’s remedies in the Housing Accountability Act, and that considerable evidence shows that new market-rate housing improves overall housing affordability without displacing low-income households.
Allowing local jurisdictions to disapprove housing development projects or emergency shelters if it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that on the date of a completed application, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element in substantial compliance with applicable requirements and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project;

Prohibits local jurisdictions from justifying disapproval or conditional approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter based on a changes in the zoning ordinance or general plan made after the date of the completed application;
Defines builder’s remedy project to mean a project that:

Provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households;
Has a completed application in a jurisdiction without a compliant housing element;
Does not exceed a density that is fifty percent greater that the minimum appropriate for the jurisdiction, three times greater than that allowed by applicable state or local law, or consistent with the jurisdiction’s housing element; and
Meets minimum density requirements for sites located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station;

Requires local agencies to apply only objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to builder’s remedies projects if such standards, conditions, and policies would have applied to the project if it had been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that would allow the proposed project;
Allocates the burden of proof of compliance with requirements regarding development standards, condition, and policies to the local agency;
Provides that builder’s remedy projects that qualify for a density bonus receive an additional two incentives or concessions from the local agency;
Prohibits local agencies from

Applying objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would render builder’s remedy projects infeasible or preclude them from being constructed as proposed;
Requiring builder’s remedies projects to apply for legislative approval or any approval or permit not generally required for a project of the same type and density;
Considering or treating a builder’s remedy project as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose;
Imposing any requirements to a project solely or partially on the basis that it is a builder’s remedy project; or
Requiring a mixed-income builder’s remedy project to comply with local affordability requirements if such requirements dedicate more than 20 percent of units as affordable;

Requiring local agencies to make written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that local affordability requirements would not render a builder’s remedy project infeasible before imposing such requirements;
Creating a cause of action for applicants for housing development projects to enforce the Housing Accountability Act if a local agency violates provisions applicable to a builder’s remedy project; and
Requiring courts to multiply fines by a factor of five for each subsequent bad faith violation of the Housing Accountability Act if a court has previously found that the local agency violated the act in bad faith.