In an analy­sis for The Nation­al Law Review, Brooke Miller out­lines the poten­tial impacts of Cal­i­for­nia Assem­bly Bill 2243, which was signed into law by Gov­er­nor Gavin New­som last month.

The law expands the type of sites eli­gi­ble for expe­dit­ed approvals, adding region­al mall prop­er­ties of up to 100 acres that could help make larg­er mul­ti­fam­i­ly devel­op­ments with afford­abil­i­ty require­ments more finan­cial­ly fea­si­ble. The law also allows devel­op­ment with­in 500 feet of a free­way (pre­vi­ous­ly pro­hib­it­ed), pro­vid­ed that the devel­op­ment takes steps to improve air qual­i­ty.  

Accord­ing to Miller, “AB 2243 also pro­vides some relief from the strict min­i­mum den­si­ty require­ments of AB 2011, instead des­ig­nat­ing the “allow­able” den­si­ty- but still requires projects to meet at least 50% of the allow­able den­si­ty (75% for sites with­in ½ mile of an exist­ing rail or bus rapid tran­sit sta­tion) through 2026; after Jan­u­ary 1, 2027, 75% is the min­i­mum.”

AB 2243 also address­es a pro­vi­sion that usu­al­ly requires devel­op­ers to add com­mon open space to new res­i­den­tial devel­op­ment, rec­og­niz­ing that the phys­i­cal lim­i­ta­tions of a site can make meet­ing that require­ment chal­leng­ing. “For both con­ver­sion and rede­vel­op­ment projects, AB 2243 also lim­its mit­i­ga­tion fees to the incre­men­tal impact of the devel­op­ment, in recog­ni­tion that the exist­ing use like­ly already con­tributed to mit­i­gat­ing some devel­op­ment impacts.”

AB 2243 adds more qual­i­fy­ing “sur­round­ing urban uses” to free up more sites for hous­ing devel­op­ment. “AB 2243 also takes aim at AB 2011’s exclu­sion for sites in a “neigh­bor­hood plan”, which can work against a project in an out­dat­ed com­mu­ni­ty plan area or a juris­dic­tion with few areas out­side such plan­ning bound­aries.”