Housing Accountability Act: housing development projects.

Senator Durazo’s housing proposal weaves a tighter boundary around lodging within high‑residential mixed‑use projects, pairing a targeted redefinition of a housing development project with a companion timing mechanism that depends on a closely related measure. At its core, the measure narrows the housing development project category for mixed-use developments in which two‑thirds or more of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use by prohibiting any portion of such a project from being designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except under specified conditions. The reform is structured to keep lodging as a separate component that may be approved independently and would not receive the housing development project benefits.

Key mechanisms center on how a mixed-use, predominantly residential project is treated under the Housing Accountability Act. If lodging were to be included, the portion without lodging can be treated as a housing development project, and the lodging portion would not be eligible for housing‑development incentives or benefits. The bill clarifies what counts as transient lodging and carves out certain uses, such as residential hotels or post‑occupancy short‑term marketing, from the lodging prohibition in specific sequences. In addition, the measure retains the Act’s enforcement framework—private actions to enforce the standards, the requirement for written findings when housing projects are disapproved or conditioned, timelines for agency determinations, and the possibility of penalties and attorney’s fees for noncompliance—along with existing density‑bonus and builder’s remedy provisions that apply to qualifying housing projects.

Implementation and coordination emerge as notable features. The amendments are presented in parallel versions, with operative effect conditioned on enactment of a companion housing measure and on the sequencing of enactments, creating a synchronization mechanism rather than a standalone, immediately effective reform. The bill preserves cross‑reference corrections and contemplates how the companion measure would interact with its changes, potentially altering the timing and scope of the lodging prohibition. The proposal also maintains applicability to charter cities and retains the Act’s private enforcement pathway and the use of fines to fund housing programs, including a minimum fine per housing unit and required use of the funds within specified timeframes or their reallocation to state housing efforts.

Beyond the procedural and fiscal details, the measure sits within a broader policy context aimed at accelerating housing production while delineating the role of lodging within mixed-use development. By separating housing from lodging within mixed projects that favor residential intensity, the proposal seeks to preserve housing incentives under the Act for the housing portion while restricting the housing benefits for the lodging segment. That structural choice bears on project design and local review practices, affecting how developers plan mixed-use schemes, how lodging components are positioned relative to housing, and how local agencies allocate review resources under a regime that continues to rely on objective standards and pre‑defined findings. The intersection with a companion reform and the presence of sunset provisions for certain enforcement elements suggest a careful balance between advancing housing supply goals and preserving adaptive, time‑bound policy tools.