California lawmakers finally passed a bill that will close loopholes cities and neighbors use to blunt the impact of marquee housing density laws.
The passage of Senate Bill 677 capped an 18-month meandering path amid a flurry of activity over the weekend and last week that sent a wave of housing bills to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
The other bills headed to Newsom’s desk touch nearly every part of the housing pipeline, from zoning and building height to accessory dwelling units, fees and permitting timelines.
These bills are the latest in a string of state laws California has enacted since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to address a decades-long housing affordability problem.
Many of those laws have preempted local control over zoning and permitting, aiming to promote greater density in more places and speed up approval processes for new construction. But lawmakers have also sought to curtail local government attempts to circumvent the new laws, or stall their implementation and their intended goals of more new housing.
This session’s bills double down on that approach, from loosening density restrictions to streamlining the local review process itself.
Expanding ADUs, downtown density and permitting limits
Since 2016, California has leaned into ADUs as a strategy to bring more housing options. Along the way, state lawmakers have kept dropping barriers. SB 1117 and AB 956 mark the latest moves to make ADUs easier and cheaper to build. They cut fees and allow homeowners to build two detached units instead of one.
Other bills address the permitting process. SB 1014 would force cities to disclose infrastructure requirements within 30 days of a housing application and bars them from adding new requirements later in the process.
The biggest zoning change targets downtown cores. AB 2074 would let seven of the state’s largest, transit-rich cities allow high-rise housing near transit hubs. The seven are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and Long Beach.
“The pandemic is over, but many of our largest cities are still struggling to bring vitality back to their downtown neighborhoods,” Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY, which sponsored the bill, said in a statement.
Beefing up starter home law
A separate bill, SB 1116, adds muscle to the state’s five-year-old Starter Home Revitalization Act, which requires cities to fast-track small-lot, for-sale detached homes.
Lawmakers have had to keep coming back to it. SB 684 in 2023 formalized subdivision map procedures and set 60-day approval deadlines. SB 1123 in 2024 expanded the law to vacant single-family lots up to 1.5 acres.
Cities kept finding workarounds and other tactics to slow-walk or paralyze the measures, prompting the state Department of Housing and Community Development to send technical assistance letters rebuking cities.
SB 1116 requires height limits to be measured in feet rather than stories, tightens setback rules, and requires local ordinances under the law to go through HCD compliance review for the first time.
The bill faced organized resistance anyway. The League of California Cities and grassroots groups argued it strips local governments of discretionary rights and lets smaller lots hold more units without public notice or review.
SB 677’s long road
Senate Bill 677 shows how far a bill can travel before landing. Sen. Scott Wiener introduced it in February 2025 to fix loopholes in SB 9 and SB 423, two laws that let homeowners split lots into duplexes and fast-track approval for multifamily housing. That version stalled in the Senate Housing Committee in April 2025 without enough votes to advance.
Wiener revived the bill in January 2026 as a narrow technical fix instead, clarifying how regional planning agencies draw transit-density maps under SB 79, a separate law tied to housing near transit stops.
But seven Senate Democrats broke ranks to oppose it, arguing it could expand where the law applies without enough clarity for cities.
Local officials, through the League of California Cities, argued the transit-district definition changes were “vague and confusing.” League of California Cities lobbyist Brady Guertin told a January committee hearing that cities “worry that the definition change could be an expansion of where SB 79 applies”.
The bill changed shape again that month, emerging as a measure targeting late-stage delay tactics against already approved housing projects.
Opponents sometimes challenge subdivision maps on unrelated grounds after a project has cleared entitlement, or local governments decline to hold hearings needed to approve tax-exempt bond financing for affordable housing. The final bill limits those subdivision-map appeals for urban infill housing and lets the state treasurer approve stalled affordable-housing financing when a local government causes the delay.
“When a new application for housing is approved by a city, that should signal the end of delays, but many cities abuse a loophole to prevent homeownership opportunities,” Hanlon said.
