Top remaining housing bills for 2026

By Brady Guertin, legislative advocate (housing)

With affordability dominating policy discussions this year, the Legislature has taken a somewhat different approach to housing policy. Lawmakers have focused heavily on reducing the cost of development, promoting “missing middle” housing, and increasing manufactured and factory-built housing.

This marks a shift from prior years, when legislative efforts centered primarily on accountability, streamlining housing development approvals, and reducing local land use authority. However, there are still several bills that could impact local land use plans — including a late-breaking bill by the Attorney General.

Sponsored housing element bill exempts certain cities due to timing concerns

Cal Cities’ sponsored housing element bill, AB 2296 (Papan), received some changes in the weeks leading up to summer recess. The measure allows cities to begin the housing element review process six months earlier than existing law. This would give cities more time to receive technical assistance and guidance to get their housing elements certified on time for the 7th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Cycle. Due to concerns from several councils of governments regarding implementation timelines, cities with housing element deadlines for the 2027, 2028, and 2029 calendar years would be exempt from the bill until the 8th RHNA Cycle.

Assembly bill may allow downzoning to occur

Cal Cities continues to oppose AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva). The bill requires cities to automatically approve townhome projects in multifamily zones and vacant single-family zones if a proposed project is less than three stories tall, regardless of state-certified housing elements. This could force cities that rely on higher-density development in multifamily zones to identify new housing sites to maintain compliance with housing element law. Meanwhile, vacant areas planned for single-family development must increase density and residential capacity if a townhome project is proposed, which could strain local infrastructure.

Gut-and-amend sets new precedent for local planning mandates

Attorney General Rob Bonta is sponsoring AB 1457 (Bryan), a late gut-and-amend that requires local jurisdictions to either update their general plans to incorporate environmental justice or adopt a standalone environmental justice element by June 30, 2028. The proposal establishes an aggressive timeline for completing a robust and highly prescriptive public engagement process without providing state funding to support those efforts.

AB 1457 would be among the first legislative efforts to establish a specific general plan update deadline outside the housing element, which could set a new precedent for local planning mandates. It is unclear whether cities that have already completed environmental justice requirements — required under state law since 2018 — would need to redo their general plans.

Cal Cities is oppose unless amended on the bill. General plan updates are already costly and time-consuming. The bill’s tight timeframes will make it even more difficult for cities to meaningfully engage with communities, not to mention budget for staff and procure any necessary services — especially in populous or geographically dispersed jurisdictions. Cal Cities is urging the author to extend the 2028 deadline and ensure that cities that have already completed the update do not have to redo their previous efforts.

Two ADU bills ask cities to do more with less

The Legislature is also advancing two accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) proposals opposed by Cal Cities. AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) requires cities to approve two detached ADUs in residential or mixed-use zones ministerially. SB 1117 (Cervantes) further restricts cities' ability to charge impact fees on up to two ADUs exceeding 750 square feet on the same lot. Under the measure, cities could only assess impact fees on the portion of an ADU that exceeds 750 square feet.

For example, if a project applicant proposes a 1,000-square-foot ADU, a city could only charge impact fees on 250 square feet of the project. In practice, this would result in a 75% reduction in impact fees — funds that cities are legally required to use for critical infrastructure and public services needed to support new housing development. Together, these policies would increase residential density while reducing the resources available to support infrastructure, public safety, and essential services.

What’s next?

The Legislature returns from summer recess on Aug. 3. To learn how to make your voice heard on these critical issues, contact your regional public affairs manager or sign up for Cal Cities’ July 22 legislative briefing. To review all the housing bills Cal Cities is engaging, please visit this link.