Weakening The Coastal Act Won’t Improve State’s Housing Crisis
By: Fran Pavley, Ret. State Senate
There's a popular belief among some members of the state Legislature that coastal protection policies are preventing developers from building multifamily housing in coastal cities.
But where’s the evidence? When pressed, supporters of bills like AB 2560—a proposal to strip away environmental and public access regulations in exchange for more dense housing in the coastal zone—simply point to the complaints from disgruntled developers.
The fact is that local governments and the Coastal Commission routinely approve multifamily and other types of housing in the coastal zone. This includes housing projects that take advantage of the State’s density bonus law, which allows a project to add units if some of them are designated as below market rate.
In most southland cities, the coastal zone generally extends only about 1,000 feet from the ocean. If the Coastal Act was responsible for preventing new multifamily housing, the evidence would be starkly visible, with rows of high-rise condos looming right up to the edge of the state’s coastal zone boundary. Clearly, this isn’t the case.
Do we need more? Yes. But pitting housing against coastal protection is a false choice.
That’s because housing unaffordability is actually a global problem having nothing to do with state coastal protections. From New Zealand to New Jersey, home prices are skyrocketing. Regulation surely plays a part in overall costs, but California’s crisis has multiple causes, including interest rates, labor costs, global investment trends, short term rentals, supply chain issues, remote work trends and the rollback of rent control laws. Yet the Legislature seems almost single-focused on deregulation. It’s always tempting to go for the easy “fix” to a complex problem, but AB 2560 isn’t a silver bullet. The irony is that during a construction boom is exactly when California most needs careful environmental oversight the most.
Without the Coastal Act, for example, new condominium complexes could encroach on beach access trails and pave over precious dune habitat or wetlands. Builders could easily sidestep public safety issues such as flooding, drought and bluff collapse. Weakening coastal protection won’t bring down home prices, but it will maximize profits.
Approximately 80% of California’s population already lives within an hour’s drive of the coast. Only a tiny sliver of that area is subject to Coastal Act protections. This ensures the beach and ocean are protected and accessible for all the people, for recreation, contemplation, or to escape extreme inland heat events. Eliminating environmental protections for this coveted sliver of won’t make a dent in California’s housing needs, but it will devastate our iconic shoreline and number one tourist draw. If we start exempting major developments from the Coastal Act, it won’t be long before the only people who can experience a magnificent coastal view will be few who can afford to buy one.
Growing up in the San Fernando Valley, our family looked forward to going to the beach on hot summer days. Years later as a schoolteacher, I couldn’t afford to live at the coast, but I could always take our children there because the beach has remained open to everyone, even in the most exclusive areas, thanks to the Coastal Act.
As a state lawmaker, I represented some of the most spectacular coastal areas of the state, from Ventura County to Santa Monica as well as the Simi and West San Fernando Valleys. The public everywhere has benefitted from this visionary law, and the $49 billion ocean-based economy that it contributes to.
Do we need more coastal housing? Absolutely. But rather than Coastal Act exemptions, the Legislature should embrace and expand the law to help create abundant, resilient housing that is also sustainable at a price point California workers can afford. Having served on the Commission myself, I believe the agency would welcome the opportunity to be a part of the solution.
It's tempting to make rash decisions in a crisis, as the state is in with housing affordability. But lawmakers should think twice before serving up California’s most beloved landscape to those profiting from its development.
