An act to add Section 53316.8 to the Government Code, relating to local government.
Summary
AB 2397 would add Section 53316.8 to the Government Code to create special rules for a narrow category of community facilities districts called “critical housing infrastructure districts.” These are districts formed solely to finance infrastructure for housing developments that include affordable units for lower-income or moderate-income households, where the district is initiated by a 100% landowner petition and any special taxes are eligible for landowner approval. For these districts, the bill limits a local legislative body’s ability to abandon the district, refuse to levy special taxes, or refuse to authorize bonded indebtedness.
Before taking any of those actions, the local legislative body would have to make findings based on substantial evidence that the district action would have a specific adverse impact on the public interest, would cause housing costs to exceed affordable housing thresholds for the targeted income groups, or, in certain cases, is not necessary to develop a site identified in the housing element for regional housing need. The bill also clarifies that it does not require or prohibit other actions otherwise authorized under the Mello-Roos Act, such as modifying the resolution of intention. It further declares that the measure addresses a matter of statewide concern and applies to all cities, including charter cities.
Impact
The bill would amend the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 by constraining local discretion in a defined subset of community facilities district proceedings tied to affordable housing development. In practice, it would make it harder for a city or other local agency to block financing tools for qualifying housing projects, while preserving authority to take other actions under the act. The measure would affect local governments, housing developers, landowners in proposed districts, and projects relying on special taxes or bond financing to fund infrastructure.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition: the bill received unanimous committee votes of 10-0 and 12-0, and it was later ordered to the consent calendar. The bill’s findings emphasize housing production and infrastructure financing as statewide concerns, indicating a pro-housing policy rationale that appears to have been well received in committee. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant public disagreement.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s restriction on local control. It limits a legislative body’s ability to abandon or deny financing actions for qualifying districts unless it can make specific evidence-based findings, which could be viewed by local governments as a constraint on municipal discretion. Another possible issue is the bill’s application to charter cities, since it expressly declares the subject a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair. The bill also creates a narrow definition of covered districts, so any dispute would likely center on whether a project truly qualifies as a critical housing infrastructure district and whether the required findings are supported by substantial evidence.