Fortunately for California’s coast, Assemblymember David Alvarez (D-San Diego) was forced to withdraw his controversial bill, AB 2560, last week when amendments added went counter to Alvarez’ intent.
Alvarez and his so-called YIMBY supporters claimed the bill would have streamlined the approval of housing developments in the coastal zone that make use of the state’s affordable housing density bonus law. Developers liked the bill because it offered them a streamlined process if they set aside a portion of the homes in their projects as affordable housing.
Yet the bill ran afoul of the powers of the California Coastal Commission which, of course, has broad veto power over density bonus projects if they fall within the agency’s jurisdictional boundaries, which extend as far as 5 miles inland from the ocean.
Alvarez’s bill was part of a series of bills backed by the construction industry and YIMBYs that were rolled out in efforts at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.
AB 2560 was supposed to ensure that California’s density bonus law, a policy that allows developers to build taller, denser or meet fewer local requirements in exchange for setting aside some units for lower income tenants or owners and to apply in the coastal zone.
As Cal-Matters reported:
Since the 1970s, the California Coastal Commission has closely regulated any construction or demolition within the California coastal zone — a narrow band of land that varies from 1,000 feet to 5-miles inland from high tide. While many recent state housing laws have required predictable, by-the-book approval of proposed developments, the commission has remained a redoubt of discretion. The commission’s defenders say that that is as it should be, since the coast’s enormous value to the public, its fragile ecosystems and its vulnerability to searise require holistic and individualized protection.
“Californians really treasure their coast and they feel very strongly about protecting it and bills that seek to weaken coastal protections are going to run into some strong headwinds,” said Sarah Christie, the commission’s legislative affairs director.
Circulate San Diego, itself a controversial nonprofit, co-sponsored the bill. The group’s policy director, Will Moore, told the press amendments “undid the point of the bill.”
Alvarez also commented that, “In the Senate, we received even further amendments (that) would essentially give even more authority to the Coastal Commission, which is quite the opposite of what we’re trying to accomplish, and could hinder more housing from being built by increasing bureaucratic processes.” He voluntarily withdrew the bill but vowed to bring it back next year.
Alvarez’s bill and the others were dead by mid-August.
News sources:
I am shocked that San Diego’s own David Alvarez was so short-sighted to author this bill. I am grateful it was beaten back.
The California Coastal Commission remains the best thing since sliced bread for Californians and visitors from across the country and around the world who want to experience our gorgeous long coastline free from dense development up to the waterline.