Some of the most exclusive real estate in the country is under debate, as state officials consider ways to spur construction of affordable housing in the coastal zone.
Legislation by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, aimed to streamline that process. But recent amendments softening its language have left him unsure if he still supports his own bill.
We covered this issue last month when the nonprofit Circulate San Diego released a report dinging the Coastal Commission for what it called obstruction of affordable housing plans. The commission denied that and offered examples of projects it has approved in coastal areas including San Diego.
Alvarez’ bill, AB2560, concerns the application of California’s Density Bonus Law to coastal areas. The law gives developers incentives to build affordable housing as part of market rate projects, in return for the right to add extra units and other perks. Developers say that lets them balance the cost of affordable housing with profits from full-price units, to make the whole project pencil out.
In most of the state, the density bonus operates as an entitlement; if developers include a certain percentage of affordable housing, they automatically get to build more units than local zoning permits. In the coastal zone, there are more hoops to jump through. Housing projects there must abide by the California Coastal Act, and can be subject to Coastal Commission review. Developers say that makes those projects too risky, so they’re hesitant to pursue them.
Alvarez’ bill sought to clear the path for those projects. His bill said developers who include affordable housing could get all the benefits of the Density Bonus Law, “notwithstanding the (Coastal) Act.”
The commission objected, arguing that would chip away at coastal protections. The original bill would have cut language that kept density bonus projects from violating the Coastal Act, said commission Legislative Director Sarah Christie: “You can’t block public access, you can’t fill a wetland, those sorts of things.”
The bill was amended in the state Senate to say instead that a builder could claim density bonus advantages, so long as their project “does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access.” Christie said that provides more certainty for development, without compromising environmental quality.
“You can absolutely permit that project, just don’t violate the Coastal Act,” she said.
Alvarez said that still leaves the commission in the driver’s seat on housing issues.
“I’m concerned (the language) continues to give authority to the Coastal Commission to review, to stop, to block, any development that uses the density bonus tool,” he said.
There’s another point of contention; a separate part of the revised bill would change a longstanding provision that cities and counties don’t need to include housing programs in their local coastal plans.
Instead, the amended legislation would require local governments to update those plans to “harmonize” density bonuses with the Coastal Act by July, 2026, to increase housing while protecting coastal resources and access.
“Those two goals are not mutually exclusive,” Christie said.
Alvarez and the bill’s sponsors say the process of updating the plans would be expensive and time-consuming, and give the commission too much power over local housing decisions.
Will Moore, policy counsel for Circulate San Diego, which sponsored the bill, called it a “poison pill” amendment that “expands the commission’s authority on housing in ways that are opposite of the goal of the bill.”
The commission has adopted a neutral position on the legislation. Moore said Circulate San Diego opposes the bill as it stands. Alvarez is keeping his options open.
“Our goal is to try to increase housing for people of all income levels everywhere in California,” he said. “If the bill that returns to me in the assembly doesn’t accomplish that, we have no reason to approve that.”
In other housing news: The city of Escondido is opposing another bill, AB 3093, that aims to force cities to address homelessness. Our Tigist Layne reported that the city objected that the bill is confusing, and doesn’t address the lack of funding cities face when trying to house homeless people. On Wednesday the city council unanimously voted to oppose the bill.
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer led a protest earlier this week against corporate landlords who she said are manipulating the housing market, Emily Alvarenga of the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. The Board of Supervisors approved her proposal to regulate that practice and consider litigation against it.
Political Violence On the Rise
The recent shooting at a campaign rally for former President Donald Trump confirmed the potential for political violence amid this year’s presidential election.
The threat has been escalating for years, sometimes stoked by violent rhetoric from political leaders themselves. It was on display on Jan. 6, 2021, when hundreds of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, trying to halt the election certification of President Joe Biden.
Other incidents, including the assault on Congress Member Nancy Pelosi’s husband in 2022, and the 2017 shooting of members of the Republican congressional baseball team, also illustrate the volatility of our political climate.
California lawmakers have responded with legislation that would allow them to use more of their campaign funds for personal security, Cal Matters reported Monday. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar bill last year, saying it didn’t define clearly what “security expenses” entailed. Lawmakers sewed up that loophole and brought it back this year.
Threats against politicians and election workers have risen since 2017, according to a report published last month by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. That trend, “may represent a growing tolerance for violence among Americans,” the report stated.
The very protections that define our democracy also make it tricky to maintain it. Efforts to suppress violence are confounded by “confusion about the line between protected speech and criminal threats,” the report concluded.
A study published in January by the Brennan Center for Justice found that more than 40 percent of state legislators and 18 percent of local officeholders reported threats or attacks within the past year and a half.
Want to know who gets security details? This piece by ABC news spells out which government leaders receive federal protection, and which agencies provide it.
America’s Stinkiest Beach
Alongside America’s Finest City is a place with a more ignominious designation: America’s stinkiest beach.
That’s what locals told Cal Matters reporter Wendy Fry about Imperial Beach in her report on sewage pollution at the border beach. You can watch her video on what it’s like to live in the area beset by noxious fumes, and read about what California leaders are doing – or not doing – to resolve the decades-long environmental crisis.
The Sacramento Report runs every Friday and is part of a partnership with CalMatters. Do you have tips, ideas or questions? Send them to me at deborah@voiceofsandiego.org.