A New Bill Would Extend California's YIMBY Revolution to Heavily Regulated Coastal Areas
S.B. 423 would prevent the state's powerful Coastal Commission from shooting down affordable housing projects that comply with local zoning laws.

Over the past half-decade, the California Legislature has passed dozens of reforms aimed at increasing housing supply and streamlining its production.
Some of these reforms have been more productive than others. A few have been runaway successes, while a couple of others have been counterproductive flops. One thing they all have in common is that they don't apply to the 1.5 million–acre "coastal zone."
Instead, building in this zone remains controlled by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), a 12-member body with wide discretion to approve, deny, or condition local regulations of coastal development and individual projects.
So, while the trend of state law has been to remove bureaucrats' discretion over development, the CCC has largely retained its ability to say no to new housing along the coast.
"The more layers of review you have, and the more discretion agencies have in that decision-making process, the more reasons they can deny a development permit to a landowner," says Jeremy Talcott, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Potentially breaking that mold is S.B. 423, a pending bill in the Legislature that would expand existing state streamlining law to the coastal zone for the first time.
The bill is an extension and expansion of S.B. 35, a 2017 law that requires local governments behind on state-set affordable housing goals to "ministerially approve" projects that comply with local zoning laws.
Ministerial approval means that city bureaucrats can't subject projects to endless environmental reviews, require them to get special permits, or condition their approval on things that aren't already spelled out in local regulations.
Requiring local governments to approve new housing that complies with local government regulations has proven to be a significant improvement in the regulatory environment.
Researchers with the University of California, Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation estimate that S.B. 35 has been used to entitle 18,000 units of mostly subsidized, affordable housing between 2018 and 2021.
The law does streamline approvals for mixed-income and market-rate developments as well. But the requirement that developers using S.B. 35 streamlining pay prevailing (union) wages—which can raise construction costs by 10 percent or more—has seen few market-rate developers take advantage of the law.
Most of the projects using S.B. 35 have been 100 percent affordable projects, which already had prevailing wage requirements. The Terner Center does say the law has become "the streamlining method of choice among affordable housing developers."
But by exempting the state's coastal zone, S.B. 35 has left coastal developers with the need to get CCC signoff for their projects.
Opponents can also appeal the local approval of new affordable housing in the coastal zone up to the Commission as well. This extra layer of review can add significant delays to projects that have already been extensively vetted by local officials.
Witness the timeline for the Venice Dell Community project, which aims to replace a city-owned parking lot in the Venice Beach area of Los Angeles with 140 units of affordable housing.
The process of adding housing to the site started all the way back in 2016. After a dozen public hearings, the project received final approval from the city of Los Angeles in summer 2022. Because it's in the coastal zone, the project's sponsors had to get the CCC's signoff as well. Shortly after the city's approval came down last year, the commission voted to delay consideration of the project until November 2023.
For pro-supply housing advocates, continuing to exempt rich coastal communities from streamlining that applies to the rest of the state is untenable.
"Santa Cruz does need streamlining and Venice Beach does need streamlining. These places have all the amenities. Good schools, close to grocery stores, good healthcare, and you're saying no one else gets to live there," says Matthew Lewis of California YIMBY, which supports S.B. 423.
The CCC itself has fought against extending S.B. 423's streamlining provisions to its jurisdiction, arguing its mandate of protecting access to the state's coastal lands would be irreparably damaged.
"Once you start exempting classes of development from the Coastal Act there will be no shutting that barn door," Sarah Christie, a lobbyist for the Commission, told CalMatters last month. "You're going to lose some of the best things about California."
It does appear that the Commission and proponents of S.B. 423 are coming closer to an agreement.
The bill has already passed the state Senate. It also survived a tough vote in the Assembly's Natural Resources Committee over the opposition of that committee's chairperson and the Coastal Commission, who testified against it.
On Monday, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), the author of S.B. 423, inserted amendments into his bill that would exempt coastal land closest to the beach from the bill's streamlining provisions. More amendments exempting coastal areas vulnerable to up to five feet of sea level rise are expected to be added in the coming weeks.
These amendments are expected to get the Commission to drop its opposition to the bill.
Prior to those amendments, S.B. 423 was expected to open up about 270,000 acres of land in the coastal zone, once all the preexisting exemptions were considered. Legislative staff working on S.B. 423 say the most recent and forthcoming amendments will exempt about 30,000 acres of coastal land from the bill's streamlining provisions.
S.B. 423 still needs to pass the Assembly's Appropriations Committee and the Assembly as a whole. The latest amendments will require it to receive another vote in the Senate. The bill is facing a mid-October deadline to be signed by the governor.
The bill is hardly a free marketer's dream, given its primary purpose of streamlining subsidized development.
The units unlocked by S.B. 35 nevertheless show how much of a roadblock the discretionary approval process has become to new housing supply. Expanding its provisions to prime coastal real estate will be another proof of concept that getting rid of this discretionary review will lead to more housing being built.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why is this a good thing, exactly? Why is our population growing such that we need to usurp local control over land management to build more housing?
Given that Americans are currently reproducing at or below replacement levels, I'm gonna guess this is necessitated by the need to stuff ever more immigrants down our throats.
Two thumbs down.
It's not for immigrant housing. It's to be able to have Progressive activists/brown shirts on site in previously exclusive neighborhoods in advance of the next riot, to intimidate voters and find judges' and legislators' houses more easily.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website.. http://Www.Easywork7.com
Of course, the simple answer is to just eliminate the California Coastal Commission all together.
But that ain't gonna happen, is it?
"More amendments exempting coastal areas vulnerable to up to five feet of sea level rise are expected to be added in the coming weeks."
Because the sea level will rise five feet when, exactly?
Next thousand years, maybe.
I seem to remember one of the chicken-littles predicting 2010.
in 2007 on the cover of their global warming issue Sports Illustrated had Marlin pitcher Dontrelle Willis standing waist deep in rising seas
He certainly pitched like he was once the Tigers got him in the Cabrera deal.
lol yeah. loved that dude though.
Why stop at "vulnerable to up to five feet of sea level rise"? The beach front properties are vulnerable to up to 500 feet of sea level rise! Of course, 0.5 feet is more likely, over the next century.
“These places have all the amenities. Good schools, close to grocery stores, good healthcare, and you're saying no one else gets to live there”
These communities have all of those things because the people living there are willing and able to pay for them. Forcing a city to fill prime coastal property with “affordable” housing will put an end to the reason current residents want to live there in the first place.
Gentrification, libertarian style.
I'am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you.......
I highly recommend everyone to apply.. .. salarypay.com
How come only the rich neighborhoods get Target and CVS stores?
All the arm waving over 'the housing crises' ignores the fact that there is no "crisis"; more people want to live in certain areas than can afford to live there.
It's called 'the market' and Reason seems to prefer government control over it to allowing it to function.
spot on
not everyone can afford their dream home, dream car ...
not everyone can get into their dream school
not everyone gets to marry their dream spouse
this is the way it has always been and always will be
the government is not nor should ever be in the envy mitigation business
Much of the housing market price in California is due to the limited supply, in large part due to state and local edicts mandating environmental impact studies, a percentage of units to be set aside as “affordable,” restrictions on the types of homes that can be built, and requirements to use prevailing union wages.
So the state has taken it upon itself to force local communities to build more high-density housing, even if the local communities themselves are quite happy with the types of housing they already have. It’s not the California state government freeing developers, it’s the California state government mandating new development in local communities.
Everyone Sucks Here.
*shrug*
Let California drown in its own feces. The people getting fucked by this most likely voted for the people doing it to them.
Karma Sutra.
Pretty sure the beach communities have a limited supply of housing because no one who's owned a house there for more than 10 years or so will ever sell it under any circumstances. Prop 13 and the ones that allow the distortion to be passed on to generations results in longer-owned houses going off the market forever. The only houses that go on the market are the ones that were recently sold so the 'housing market' is really just a small % of houses that churn. Those houses are also likely to be the ones that don't require as much in the way of new construction permits.
One would think that "affordable" housing wouldn't need government subsidies.
>>they don't apply to the 1.5 million–acre "coastal zone."
nor should they. earn your view.
Everybody can earn $500 dollars Daily… Yes! You can earn more than you think by working online from home. I have been doing this job for like a few weeks and my last week payment was exactly 25370$ dollars.
This Website OPEN HERE.>>> http://worksathome1.cf/
This offers some marginal improvement, but the only way to straighten out the mess the government has made of housing is to remove all government interference from this sector of the economy and allow cooperative markets to provide housing. They will do so in greater quantity, with greater quality, at a lower cost, as markets always do when allowed.
https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Hooray for freedom. I’m sure, that if left to their own devices, developers would build plenty of cheap multi-family housing projects in desirable coastal locations. It makes perfect sense.
Affordable =Section Eight vouchers. I’m glad the state voters of California and the federal taxpayer want to provide high density public housing projects with cradle to grave subsidies for the future young leaders of the world.
Virtually the entire Section Eight program should be reported for "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse". Since eligible housing is designated by HUD, and the landlords know that the tenants don't particularly care what they're claiming the "market" rents are (since they're only required to pay what HUD says they can afford and the difference is always made up by taxpayers) and the bureaucrats don't have much of a feel for or motive to learn what the actual market is doing in the area, the landlords can claim almost any number they want as long as they don't get too greedy (and could even collude with other S8 landlords in the area to set a false "market" price that'll look convincing in DC if all comparably sized units are close to each other in claimed value).
My only personal experience was getting the boot from a building that was converting to section 8; the official rent on the 2BR1BA apartment I had was increasing from $790 to $1100+ in the process of the transition (far more than I could have afforded, and on my income I'd need to have had 4 dependents to qualify for the subsidy)
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,700 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,700 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com