See full press release,
see La Jolla Light story

NFABC’s view

SB 92 Fails to Deliver on Affordable Housing Promises

Senator Catherine Blakespear claims that SB 92 will “encourage developers to add significant AFFORDABLE housing to their mixed-use projects” and “sets the bar higher” to address California’s desperate need for affordable options. But does it really? Unfortunately, there’s no mandate in this bill for developers to include higher percentages of truly affordable housing.

Instead, SB 92 simply requires two-thirds of a project to focus on residential space to qualify for density bonuses. Mayor Todd Gloria describes this as “a major step toward building the AFFORDABLE housing San Diego and our state urgently need.” But how does requiring more residential space—without addressing affordability—help working- and middle-class families who are priced out of the market? There’s no guarantee these units will be affordable for those who need them most.

Congressman Scott Peters also praises SB 92, saying it tweaks the law to ensure “the original density bonus law” provides more AFFORDABLE housing. Yet this bill still relies on the same outdated, low thresholds: only 10–20% of units in a project need to qualify as VLI (Very Low Income), LI (Low Income), or MI (Moderate Income). And let’s be real—at this point, “moderate income” housing is almost market-rate pricing. If developers meet these minimal percentages, they can still build massive luxury projects and call it “affordable housing.”

Even worse, SB 92 completely ignores community input and local concerns about infrastructure and height limits. By doing so, it shifts the burden onto city development offices to fund their own studies to address these impacts—yet again putting pressure on local governments. This lack of consideration for local input makes it even harder to build the kind of housing communities need in ways that fit their unique circumstances.

SB 92 might claim to align with the Housing Accountability Act, but in practice, it only reinforces the status quo, where “affordable housing” is often political doublespeak for barely affordable units that don’t serve the working and middle-class families most in need. If we’re serious about solving California’s housing crisis, we need real mandates for higher percentages of affordable housing—not vague claims and minor tweaks that do little to shift the needle.