California has taken unprecedented steps to stimulate housing production in recent years. Since 2017 the Legislature has approved almost one hundred new laws to facilitate construction, including requiring cities to update local housing plans with more ambitious production targets. The executive branch has carried out a carrot-and-stick strategy to reward cities committed to addressing the housing crisis and penalize those that do not. And the attorney general has scored recent high-profile victories in legal disputes to promote housing plans in wealthy cities in Malibu, Huntington Beach and La Cañada Flintridge.
However, California's approach to land use reform has not had the tangible impact on housing production and affordability seen in other states (such as Texas) and countries (such as New Zealand). These locations have significantly changed land use regulations and accelerated construction by preventing local governments from denying permits through other means.
Meanwhile, California is not on track to meet its 2022 goal of building 2.5 million units by 2030. In recent years, we have allowed only an average of about 110,000 units annually. Updated statewide housing plans include zoning changes to allow for approximately 750,000 new homes, and the state estimates pending developments of more than 6,500 units have been unlocked due to your supervision. This is progress, but still insufficient to improve affordability and stop Population losses driven by high cost of living.. The state government must expand the scope and speed of land-use reforms, and all cities, including wealthy and recalcitrant enclaves, must do their part.
Let's think about Malibu. After the city delayed its mandatory housing plan, which was expiration in 2021he the attorney general requested The courts will intervene in April. Malibu settled with the state and agreed to adopt a compatible plan through In mid-September. In fact, the city was allowed to delay updating its plan (and any new housing it may have produced) for nearly three years without significant consequences.
And Malibu is not alone. Almost a room of Southern California cities still lack state-approved plans to accommodate new housing development and implement fair housing policies. While these cities waste time, the region's residents are suffering the effects of the housing shortage: high rents, overcrowding, evictions and homelessness. Given how far behind the state is in meeting housing demands, stronger sanctions and plans are needed.
Senate Bill 1037 by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would give more teeth to existing laws, is a welcome start and recently passed the Senate. Policymakers should also strengthen the builder's remedy law incentivize cities to create compliant plans by allowing certain projects to bypass zoning rules, providing more clarity to developers.
The resistance of cities is not the only obstacle to construction. The state-mandated housing plan framework also bears responsibility, allowing cities up to three years after completion their housing plans to change zoning. This multi-step framework has allowed Los Angeles to propose bold and acclaimed reforms to its original plan just to reduce its most effective provisions in the next years.
Another source of delays is the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires review of rezoning proposals for potential environmental impacts. While this may seem beneficial, it means that many new housing development opportunities will not be available until almost halfway through the eight-year planning period. New housing on already built urban land, which helps reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by allowing people to live closer to jobs and services, it should not be subject to the same environmental review as open space development.
One solution would be to exempt proposed zoning changes in local housing plans from CEQA. Lawmakers could expand SB 10, a 2021 law that allows cities to waive CEQA review for modest increases in permitted building density in limited locations, to allow larger increases in already developed areas. This could empower pro-housing cities to change their zoning more quickly and eliminate an excuse that anti-housing cities use to slow growth. Additionally, local governments can use environmental review to prolong project approval indefinitely, which contradicts simplification provisions of state housing law. The Legislature should reconcile these two statutes.
When cities finally adopt their plans, they are often inappropriate, without achieving significant improvements in housing affordability and access. They are also often unfair: Our ongoing research shows that most California cities concentrate new housing sites in their low-income neighborhoods. This not only conflicts with fair housing goals; It also reduces the amount of housing developers will build and leaves on the table the many units that could be added to higher-income neighborhoods. State regulators should respond by requiring objective performance-based metrics, such as the fair housing land use scoreto ensure that all neighborhoods take on their fair share of development.
California is gaining national recognition for its action on housing, in part because of the high-profile state-local conflicts exemplified by the Malibu case. The Legislature and the governor have taken on some tough fights with important symbolic value. But if our leaders truly want to improve housing conditions for most Californians, that symbolism must be accompanied by more substantial reform of state housing and environmental laws.
Paavo Monkkonen is a professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA. Aaron Barrall is a housing data analyst at UCLA's Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies.
