The State Legislature is on recess this week, but the 2025-2026 legislative session is in full-swing in Sacramento. In the last few months, thousands of bills — including hundreds relevant to housing — have been introduced. Over the coming months, in committees and on the floor, many will be tweaked, gutted-and-amended, or killed. Some will make it from their house of origin to the other house, (from the Assembly to the State Senate or vice versa), and back before being sent to the governor for veto or a signature. Some will go to the ballot for voter approval in 2026.
At the SV@Home Action Fund, we have always been selective about which bills to focus our attention on. Bringing our 3-Ps approach and Santa Clara County perspective, we join with housing advocates across California to build broad support for good bills, to work with legislative staff on bill language, press for amendments, or to oppose bills that move us backwards. In 2024, we primarily focused on the state budget, and Prop 5, which would have lowered the voter threshold for housing and infrastructure bonds. So far this year, we have only taken a position on a handful of bills, and we are studying several others which our partners have brought to our attention. As bills are amended, our position may change.
Bills We Support
- AB-609 (Buffy Wicks): Would exempt infill housing development from CEQA.
- AB-670 (Sharon Quirk-Silva): Would allow jurisdictions to count existing housing preserved with new deed restrictions, without displacing current tenants, toward their RHNA obligation
- AB-736 (Buffy Wicks) and SB-417 (Christopher Cabaldon): Would place a $10B housing bond on the ballot.
- AB-906 (Mark Gonzalez): Would require cities to demonstrate that they have accommodated a meaningful portion of their share of regional housing need for lower income households on sites located in higher income, racially exclusive areas; and rezone if their inventory of sites (in their housing element) does not affirmatively further fair housing.
Opposition to SB-457
We oppose SB-457 (Josh Becker). Because this bill was authored by a Senator representing large portions of Santa Clara County, we feel it is important to clearly express our concerns.
SB-457, would undermine an important housing accountability measure known as the “Builder’s Remedy”. We appreciate the meaningful progress made by many local City Councils toward meeting their housing goals. SB-457 risks undermining the progress we have worked so hard together to achieve.
The use of Builder’s Remedy was never meant to be widespread, and in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be necessary at all because every city would adopt a compliant Housing Element on time. That path already exists, and no new legislation is needed.
We agree it is ideal for local jurisdictions to plan for the growth they need to support their vibrant economies and to accommodate necessary growth, and for development to follow those plans.
The Builder’s Remedy creates an incentive for cities to do just that — to take their housing obligations seriously and to plan effectively in compliance with state law for growth.
We know not every Builder’s Remedy project is perfect. But the tool has sparked real movement — not just here, but across the state — and shown that the system can work when incentives are aligned.
In jurisdictions where that has been a challenge, the Builder’s Remedy has brought forth development proposals that could bring thousands of new homes, including affordable units, which will greatly help the cities meet their RHNA goals.