Photos: Darius Riley | HOUR VOYSES
The ongoing struggle to address California’s high housing costs has gotten a significant boost in recent years. After decades of failure to build enough homes pushed prices to a crisis point, policymakers and their constituents began to reconsider their resistance to new housing construction. Years of education and advocacy by SPUR and other housing supporters is now starting to turn the tide in favor of new housing.
For years the state’s attempts to reform dysfunctional housing policy systems and spur housing development met local resistance. Many cities — often at the behest of a few highly vocal current homeowners — calibrated local housing policy to prevent new housing from being built, particularly in higher-income residential neighborhoods. Today, San Francisco, Oakland, and San José have started moving away from resistance and leaning into solutions for better housing outcomes.
In California, state and local governments do not build housing. Policymakers can only impact housing production indirectly, through laws and regulations that can support or hinder private market development. The state provides a framework of accountability for cities and counties, evaluating local housing policies to make sure they allow enough housing to meet the current and future population’s needs. Local governments tailor housing policy to accommodate future development and to reflect the needs and desires of current residents. Here’s how the state and Bay Area cities have started to work in concert to address a decades-long backlog of housing need.
State-Level Pro-Housing Laws
Five years ago, SPUR began working at the state level to increase housing production. Since 2020, we have worked alongside community advocates, pro-housing activists, developers, labor unions, and others to sponsor or support new state laws that allow more housing to be built “by right” (meaning it’s automatically approved if it complies with existing zoning laws and building codes), expand the types of housing that can be built on certain sites, and deter local governments from overly restricting housing production. These efforts contributed to seven recent laws, including major reforms this year to stop the misuse of state environmental law — a change we believe will be particularly impactful.
Senate Bill 9 (Atkins, 2021) allows homeowners to divide their property into two lots and build up to two homes on each lot.
Senate Bill 423 (Wiener, 2023) expands by- right approvals for mixed-income affordable housing in urban infill areas.
Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks, 2022) allows new housing to be built on any property currently zoned for commercial use if the housing project has affordable units on site.
Assembly Bill 1287 (Alvarez, 2023) expands in- centives under the State Density Bonus Program for mixed-income housing developments. Developers can add height and density to projects already using the state density bonus if they include moderate-income apartments in addi- tion to (not instead of) affordable apartments for very-low and low-income tenants.
Senate Bill 6 (Caballero, 2022) allows new housing on any parcel zoned for office, retail, or parking.
Assembly Bill 2488 (Ting, 2024) allows San Francisco to establish a special financing district downtown to offset a significant share of the development costs for commercial-to- housing conversion projects. Local legislation to establish this new program was introduced in April 2025.
Assembly Bill 607 (Wicks, 2025) and Assembly Bill 609 (Wiener, 2025) reform the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by exempting all urban housing and certain types of infill development from lengthy CEQA reviews and by reducing redundant requirements. Governor Newsom incorporated these bills into Senate Bill 131 (2025), a “trailer bill” that was signed into law with the 2025– 2026 state budget in June.
Bay Area Housing Efforts
Many cities continue to resist the state’s ef- forts to reform local housing rules, working to maintain local control over housing policy and protesting accountability measures that would require them to allow more housing to be built in more neighborhoods. In response to state laws that penalize these tactics, and in support of a growing pro-housing movement in local communities, San Francisco, Oakland, and San José have joined the state’s efforts and moved away from policies that stymie housing produc- tion and preserve patterns of segregation.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
To comply with state law, cities must adopt housing elements with policies that do two things: first, create capacity for construction that meets current and future housing need, and second, affirmatively further fair housing with no discriminatory impact on any demographic group. Over the past three years, Oakland and San José have worked with the state to adopt housing policies that realistically expand capacity to meet state-set housing production goals and to allow denser housing to be built in well-resourced neighborhoods. San Francisco is still working to make its housing rules compliant with state housing law.
The state found that San Francisco’s zoning regulations do not create sufficient capacity to meet local housing needs. The city must make its zoning code compliant with state law by January 2026 to avoid imposition of the “build- er’s remedy,” which would effectively remove San Francisco’s control over housing. The city’s Board of Supervisors is currently considering legislation to adopt Mayor Lurie’s Family Rezon- ing Plan, a zoning reform proposal to allow dense multifamily housing in most neighbor- hoods, including well-resourced neighborhoods largely untouched by development for 50-plus years. SPUR led a coalition of pro-housing advocates in urging the mayor to develop a proposal that would create significant capacity for new housing throughout the city, and we worked to help decision-makers understand the city’s obligations under state law.
Improving Local Program Administration to Improve Outcomes
Cities can tailor programs and processes to address specific challenges and get more housing built. San Francisco, Oakland, and San José have all designed materials and workflows not only to comply with state housing laws but also to help property owners and developers understand the laws. These administrative changes make the housing development application and approval process more efficient by reducing errors in applicants’ submittals, reducing reviewers’ response times, and identifying friction points that local policy changes could address.
Using State Housing Policy to Support Local Housing Policy
Many state housing laws create exceptions to local control or force cities to change local policy to comply with new rules. Other state laws amplify the impact of local policies and programs that support housing production by providing new policy tools. San Francisco is using one such law to advance its Commer- cial to Residential Adaptive Reuse Program, which makes it easier for developers to convert obsolete office buildings in the city’s downtown district into new housing. The program aims to create housing near transit hubs and employ- ment opportunities and to increase foot traffic to local businesses and institutions. To remove regulatory and financial barriers for conversion projects, it streamlines the permitting process, allows developers to add volume to the building site, and waives certain planning code require- ments, along with the real estate transfer tax and impact fees on up to a specified number of square feet for eligible projects.
Despite these efforts, high costs and unfavorable economic conditions have stymied conversion projects. To remedy this problem, the city is turning to AB 2488 to establish a special financing district downtown that would reinvest incremental property tax revenue to offset some of the development costs for conversion projects.
The Future of Housing Policy
Reforming California’s housing policy is an iterative process. To become more effective, some new state housing laws may need to be amended to administratively streamline programs, make incentives more attractive, or add measures to prevent the misuse of historic preservation laws to obstruct housing development. For their part, San Francisco, Oakland, and San José need tailored solutions to make it faster and less expensive to build housing. These solutions may include fee reforms and building code changes that lower the cost of housing production, administrative reforms to increase the efficiency of permitting and approval processes, and outreach to property owners about opportunities and incentives for building affordable and mixed- income housing, infill development, and additional dwelling units.
At SPUR, we’re thrilled to see our many years of effort finally paying off. We will continue working at the state and local levels to advocate for policy changes that can meet the housing needs of all Bay Area residents. ✹