Commission hinders ability to build

There’s no more pressing issue for California communities than the housing shortage, which is directly tied to rapidly rising rents and home prices, housing insecurity and ultimately homelessness. Individuals and families grappling with housing insecurity face myriad economic and social challenges that could be overcome with a secure home.

In response to the housing shortage and resulting affordability crisis, the Legislature has passed a myriad of bills over the past five years designed to streamline development approvals, increase funding for affordable low-income housing, and reduce regulatory obstacles to development. These bills should enable cities to permit housing faster and speed up the delivery of new homes. This proves challenging, however, in a coastal region when the Coastal Commission has veto power over projects that local governments have already approved.

The sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) rightly assigned the critical mass of new housing to Orange and Los Angeles counties because they are home to many high-opportunity cities in close proximity to jobs and transit. This methodology was a departure from past cycles in which the Inland Empire was assigned the majority of new housing.

Rest assured, building new housing on the urban edge will continue without the mandate of RHNA; however, coastal cities have long resisted new development, so RHNA and the plans to accommodate it ensure coastal cities do not close the door to new housing opportunities.

Securing development approvals for new housing in coastal cities is daunting. City councilmembers face both the ire of local NIMBYs and the heavy hand of the state. It is confounding then when the Coastal Commission’s policy undermines coastal cities’ ability to make progress toward their RHNA.

The threat of sea level rise in the next hundred years has become the rationale for the California Coastal Commission to embrace a major policy shift away from coastal development. New housing development in coastal communities is scaled back or completely prohibited, despite the projected decades of time before the threat of sea level rise may present a flooding problem.

The housing shortage is urgent and pressing — not decades from now, but today. We need to embrace adaptation and thoughtful coastal development, rather than prohibiting it. Using the “Principles Aligned for State Action” we can build a more resilient coast that anticipates sea level rise and still make progress on housing.

The governor and Legislature need to provide the Coastal Commission more guidance and a balanced state policy on the housing crisis and coastal protection. A key factor in developing that policy should be to quantify the cost of the commission’s interference with the ability of local government to deliver housing, including a cost analysis on the impact on inflation. The high cost of housing is estimated to be responsible for approximately 20% of the inflationary increases. Reducing inflation long-term means permits for new housing need to be expedited, not delayed.

Legislative efforts to expedite new housing represents real progress, but the restrictive decision-making by the Coastal Commission makes it harder for coastal communities to make progress toward housing goals. It is critically important that policies on coastal protection and housing developments co-exist in a manner that meets both current and future social, economic, and environmental goals.