California has taken unprecedented steps to spur housing construction in recent years. Since 2017, the state Legislature has passed nearly 100 new laws to spur construction, including requiring cities to update their local housing plans with more ambitious construction targets. The administration has pursued a carrot-and-stick strategy to reward cities that are eager to address the housing crisis and punish those that aren't. And the attorney general recently won high-profile victories in court battles to move forward with housing plans for wealthy cities like Malibu, Huntington Beach, and La Cañada Flintridge.
But California's land-use reform efforts have not had the tangible impact on housing construction or affordability seen in other states (e.g., Texas) and countries (e.g., New Zealand), which have expedited construction by making significant changes to zoning regulations and denying local governments the ability to deny permits by other means.
Meanwhile, California is far from reaching its 2022 goal of building 2.5 million housing units by 2030; in recent years, it has permitted only about 110,000 units per year on average. Updated statewide housing plans include zoning changes to allow for about 750,000 new homes, and it is estimated that more than 6,500 pending developments have been released with state oversight. While this is progress, it is still not enough to improve housing affordability and halt population decline caused by skyrocketing home prices. State governments must expand the scope and pace of land use reform, and all cities, including wealthy and rebellious neighborhoods, must do their part.
Take the example of the city of Malibu. The attorney general filed a petition in court in April to intervene after the city delayed implementing a mandatory housing plan that was due in 2021. Malibu settled with the state, agreeing to adopt a compliant plan by mid-September. In effect, the city was allowed to postpone updating its plan and any new housing the city might build for nearly three years without significant consequences.
Malibu is not alone. Nearly a quarter of Southern California cities still do not have state-approved plans to accommodate new housing development and implement fair housing policies. While these cities dither, the region's residents suffer the effects of the housing shortage: rising rents, overcrowding, evictions and homelessness. Given how far behind the state's goals of meeting housing needs are, tougher penalties and plans are needed.
State Senator Scott Wiener's (D-San Francisco) Senate Bill 1037, which would give more enforcement to existing law, is a welcome first step and was recently passed by the Senate. Lawmakers should also strengthen the Builders Relief Act, which incentivizes cities to create compliant plans and gives developers more transparency by allowing certain projects to get around zoning rules.
Resistance from towns isn't the only obstacle to construction. A state-mandated housing planning framework is also to blame, since it allows cities to make zoning changes up to three years after finalizing their housing plans. This multi-phased framework allowed Los Angeles to propose bold, much-praised reforms in its original plan, only to have the city curtail its most effective provisions in subsequent years.
Another cause of delays is the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires review of rezoning proposals for their potential environmental impacts. While this may seem beneficial, it means many new housing development opportunities are not available until nearly halfway through the eight-year planning period. Building new housing on already built-up urban land helps reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by allowing people to live closer to jobs and amenities, but it should not be subject to the same environmental review as development on vacant land.
One solution is to exempt zoning changes proposed in local housing plans from CEQA. Legislators could expand SB 10, a 2021 law that allows cities to skip CEQA review for moderate increases in permitted building density in limited locations, to allow larger increases throughout already developed areas. This would allow pro-housing cities to make zoning changes more quickly and eliminate an excuse anti-housing cities use to slow growth. Additionally, local governments can use environmental review to indefinitely delay project approvals, which runs counter to the state’s housing law streamlining provisions. The Legislature should harmonize these two laws.
When cities finally adopt plans, they are often inadequate and do not improve housing affordability or access. They are also often inequitable. Ongoing studies show that most California cities concentrate new housing in low-income neighborhoods. This not only contradicts fair housing goals, it also leads developers to build fewer homes, leaving many that could be added in higher-income neighborhoods. State regulators should respond by mandating objective, performance-based metrics, such as fair housing land use scores, to ensure all neighborhoods receive their fair share of development.
California has earned national recognition for its approach to housing, in part due to high-profile state and local conflicts such as the Malibu shooting. The Legislature and Governor have fought tough battles that carry significant symbolic value. But that symbolism must be matched by more substantive reforms to our state's housing and environmental laws if our leaders are serious about improving the housing situation for the vast majority of Californians.
Paavo Monkkonen is a professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA. Aaron Barrall is a housing data analyst at the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Research.
