California Assembly Bill AB2295

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/26
• Refer: 3/9/26

Caption

An act to add Section 65584.2.3 to the Government Code, relating to housing.

Summary

AB 2295 would add a new section to the Government Code allowing two local governments to enter into a voluntary agreement so that a new housing development project can count toward each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). The bill is aimed at encouraging intergovernmental cooperation on housing production, especially for projects that include affordable units. It applies to cities, counties, charter cities, charter counties, and city and county governments. To qualify, the project must be jointly funded by the participating local governments, with at least $60,000 per unit in total local-government funding, and it must include affordable housing units for very low- and lower-income households as defined in the Health and Safety Code. The bill does not change the overall RHNA framework, but it creates a new mechanism for local governments to share credit for qualifying projects, similar in concept to existing provisions that allow certain tribal housing projects to count toward a locality’s RHNA obligation.

Impact

The bill would amend the Government Code by adding Section 65584.2.3, creating a new statutory exception within California’s RHNA system. If enacted, local governments could negotiate agreements to allocate RHNA credit for jointly funded affordable housing projects, potentially affecting how cities and counties meet housing-element obligations and report compliance. The bill would not alter HCD’s role in determining regional housing needs or the existing allocation methodology, but it would give local agencies a new tool to collaborate on affordable housing production and potentially reduce barriers to siting or funding such projects.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears generally supportive of housing production and interlocal cooperation, with a clear emphasis on affordable housing for lower-income households. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or support from hearings. The bill’s structure suggests a policy approach intended to be practical and incentive-based rather than punitive.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the $60,000-per-unit local funding threshold and the requirement that the project include very low- and lower-income units. Supporters would likely view these conditions as ensuring meaningful local investment and affordability, while critics could argue the threshold is too high, too restrictive, or may limit use by smaller jurisdictions with fewer fiscal resources. Another possible issue is whether allowing RHNA credit to be shared between jurisdictions could complicate accountability or be used to shift obligations rather than increase total housing supply.