In the ongoing battle to address California's housing crisis, the spotlight is firmly on the 840-mile-long coastal zone, where the exclusionary practices of zoning laws are exacerbating the challenge of providing affordable homes. While lawmakers have been actively working to facilitate housing development across the state, a stark exception remains in the coastal region, raising concerns about the unintended consequences of protecting California's iconic beaches.
The California Coastal Commission, formed in 1972 to shield the state's shores from environmental harm, has become a focal point of controversy as legislators grapple with the urgent need for housing accessibility. San Francisco Democratic Senator Scott Wiener's proposed legislation aims to fast-track apartment development in areas falling behind state-set housing goals, but the coastal zone remains an exception, effectively excluding it from the commission's purview.
Critics argue that this exclusion mirrors historical redlining practices, perpetuating socioeconomic disparities by shielding predominantly affluent and white coastal communities from the same housing laws applied inland. The Coastal Commission's powers, once seen as a safeguard against environmental degradation, are now viewed by housing advocates as an impediment to addressing the pressing needs of millions of Californians seeking affordable homes.
Wiener, a proponent of housing development, dismisses the notion that the Coastal Commission is the sole guardian of responsible development along the coast. He emphasizes the application of existing zoning rules and environmental protection laws, arguing that exempting coastal communities from the state's most aggressive pro-housing laws is both unfair and offensive.
The demographic disparity within the coastal zone intensifies the comparison to redlining, with Wiener pointing out that these areas are wealthier and whiter than the rest of the state. By exempting them from the same stringent housing development laws applied inland, California risks perpetuating social and economic inequalities, creating a two-tiered system where coastal living is reserved for the privileged few.
The tension between the state's ambitious housing goals and the Coastal Commission's preservation mandate is particularly pronounced in Southern California. Recent shifts in housing goals have directed growth towards coastal communities, placing cities like Santa Monica, Malibu, Los Angeles, Encinitas, and San Diego in the crosshairs of this contentious debate.
Former chief counsel for the commission, Christopher Pederson, suggests that promoting multifamily housing along the coast aligns with environmental, climate, housing, and transportation policies. However, the Coastal Commission remains adamant about evaluating each project meticulously, citing the complex nature of coastal development and the added challenges posed by climate change.
As Wiener's bill faces hearings, the question of whether to compromise on coastal zoning exclusion remains at the forefront. Advocates for affordable housing argue that the focus should shift towards reinstating the commission's power to make affordable housing a condition for project approval. Critics, however, view this as a perpetuation of a system that favors the wealthy and obstructs meaningful progress in addressing the housing crisis.
In the ongoing struggle between coastal preservation and housing accessibility, California stands at a critical juncture. The decisions made in the coming months will not only shape the future of the state's coastline but also determine its commitment to fostering a more inclusive and equitable housing landscape for all its residents.