A push to bolster housing production in California’s coastal communities in recent years has led to heated battles over potential state reforms. Below, a veteran elected official believes the debate has created a false choice between housing and protections. The opposing view: A former attorney for the Coastal Commission says the state Coastal Act has failed to deliver on what it envisioned.

Guest Commentary written by

Fred Keeley

Fred Keeley

Fred Keeley is the mayor of Santa Cruz. He has previously served as a state assemblymember, Santa Cruz County treasurer and county supervisor.

As someone who has had the honor of representing the city of Santa Cruz in a variety of public offices over several decades, I feel called to wade into the current debate over housing production in the coastal zone. 

Some members of the Legislature have blamed the state’s high cost of housing (in part) on the California Coastal Act, the landmark law that has made our coastline the envy of the nation. They argue that the law is standing in the way of badly needed new development in beach communities, and the solution is to simply exempt housing projects from the Coastal Act.

But California doesn’t need to sacrifice coastal protection for new housing. That’s a false choice. We can increase density in coastal cities in a way that’s also environmentally responsible. 

Santa Cruz is already doing it. 

A few years ago, the city decided to work with the California Coastal Commission to update its coastal land-use plan, allowing for increased downtown density while also promoting public access and protecting natural resources. It took a minute, but now we have a plan that is facilitating urban infill growth without sacrificing the very resources that make Santa Cruz a great place to live. 

Over the last Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle, Santa Cruz approved thousands of new units with more on the way. More than half of those new housing units are in the four affordable categories established by state government. Just last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom designated Santa Cruz as a “Prohousing city” for its “commitment to housing-forward policies.” 

The Coastal Act didn’t impede that progress — it informed it.

Californians have made it clear that we cherish our coastline, whether for recreation, inspiration or simply for its stunning natural beauty. Things have changed since voters created the Coastal Commission in 1972, but public support hasn’t. 

A 2023 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that an overwhelming majority of residents believe oceans and beaches are “very important to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future.” 

Most people are surprised to learn that the Coastal Act originally included policies to protect and provide affordable housing. The commission approved about 1,000 deed-restricted affordable units annually, and prevented the demolition of another 1,200 existing affordable bungalows and duplexes. 

Unfortunately, the Legislature rescinded that authority in 1982, after just five years of implementation. You have to wonder what the state of affordable housing would look like today if the Commission had been able to continue those efforts over the last 50 years.

Developers and their legislative champions have the wrong target. The Coastal Act isn’t the problem — it’s a potential solution. 

California lawmakers should consider ways to strengthen the Coastal Act to advance housing goals. The Coastal Commission is a powerful agency that wants to be part of the solution and could be if they had the authority. 

In the meantime, locally elected leaders can start retooling their coastal land use plans to prepare for the housing their communities need in ways that respect our state’s most iconic landscape. 

All it takes is imagination and political will.