Report accuses California Coastal Commission of adding to racially segregated housing

Good morning and welcome to the A.M. Alert!


Via Jenavieve Hatch...

A Southern California-based think tank, Circulate San Diego, published a report this Thursday morning that highlights the need for reform at the California Coastal Commission.

The commission was established in the 1970s through the state Coastal Act to protect California’s coast from over-development, environmental harm, and keep the Golden State’s 800 miles of coastline accessible to the public.

But the report, “A Better Coastal Commission,” claims that the commission’s recent opposition to affordable housing developments “has made the coast the least accessible part of California” and, contrary to its progressive rhetoric, has contributed to exclusivity and racial segregation on the California coastline.

The report cites the instances in which the Coastal Commission has resisted housing reform efforts, such as its exemption to the Housing Density Bonus Law, which allows certain housing developments to bypass certain development requirements if a certain percentage of housing units are reserved for moderate, low and very low income households.

The Coastal Commission has worked to keep the Coastal Zone from complying with the density law. A new bill, authored by Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego, would eliminate that exemption.

“The Coastal Commission is supposed to protect the environment and coastal access for all Californians,” said the report’s primary author, Will Moore, Policy Counsel at Circulate San Diego.

“But their actions have excluded Californians from the coast and made segregation and climate change worse. We need the Coastal Commission to live up to its mission and its rhetoric. We hope this report pushes them to do better.”

In the 27-page report, authors point to various instances of the California Coastal Commission voicing progressive beliefs — such as its 2022 report on the “Historical Roots of Housing Inequity and Impacts on Coastal Zone Demographic Patterns,” which explored the discriminatory, and now illegal, practice of redlining — while themselves not advancing progressive housing measures.

Redlining usually involved lenders drawing “red lines” around certain areas, usually with racial or ethnic majorities, and making it difficult for them to get help buying a home.

“The Coastal Commission’s actions do not live up to their claimed values when they are faced with an actual proposal to build affordable homes,” the authors wrote, citing a series of recently proposed affordable housing projects in Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, Encinitas and Oceanside that were stymied by the commission.

The report fans the flames in the already-contentious YIMBY v. NIMBY housing debates among lawmakers and the commission; Alvarez backed the report, and co-authors of his bill, AB 2560, have called for Coastal Commission reform as well.

“The Legislature should take a skeptical view to any demands by the Coastal Commission for more authority over housing of any kind,” the report states.

“The Commission has a proven track record of using its authority to impose additional burdens that prevent and delay affordable homes.”


California elected officials and union representatives are warning that a business-backed ballot initiative to require voter approval for all state and local taxes and tax increases could be the doom of the Golden State’s fabled film industry.

Critics argued that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act — currently the subject of a legal battle — has a retroactive clause that could undo SB 132, the 2023 law extending the film and television tax credit for another five years and changing how the existing credit can be used to offset productions’ tax liabilities.

The tax credit is credited with generating billions of dollars in in-state spending.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, in a statement, referred to the initiative as the “Taxpayer Deception Act” and called it a Republican ploy to “gut vital city services.”

“If the measure passes in November, production opportunities and hundreds of thousands of good-paying entertainment jobs may leave the state. It will be a devastating blow that our city, working Angelenos and their loved ones cannot afford,” Bass said

Thom Davis, president of the California International Alliance of Stage Employees (IATSE), said in a statement that the tax credit “has repeatedly saved our members, casts and crews from extinction whenever the film and television industry faces turbulent times.”

““We will not allow a handful of wealthy developers and landlords to jeopardize the very program that is essential in keeping film and television workers employed with good jobs and good benefits,” he said.

Hector Barajas, spokesman for the ballot initiative campaign, told The Bee that “this is more false statements and misinformation by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the union bosses. They are desperate and doing everything possible to prevent voters from deciding on their own taxes and how they are spent.”

He pointed out that when the initiative was litigated before the California Supreme Court recently, SB 132 was not mentioned as one of the laws that would be affected.

He added that the initiative only targets tax increases, not tax reductions such as the film tax credit.

“They’re trying to throw as much as they can against the wall,” he said.


Angry tweet incoming.

CalPERS is looking to block billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk from collecting a $46 billion pay package when the company’s shareholders meet Thursday.

CalPERS owns millions of Tesla shares.

“This exorbitant compensation package is at odds with CalPERS’ longstanding views on executive pay,” said CalPERS CEO Marcie Frost in a statement. “The compensation is excessive when compared to executives at peer companies, highly dilutive to shareholders, and isn’t tied to the long-term profitability of Tesla.”

Frost conceded that the divisive billionaire is entitled to be “well-compensated for his work,” but added that that pay should be commensurate with the company’s performance and subject to reasonable salary caps.

The $46 billion payday would be larger than the last four years of Tesla’s aggregate net income for the last four years (just under $34 billion), and CalPERS pointed out that Tesla’s value has fallen by more than half since its peak in 2021.

“We do not think a payout based on short-term market exuberance is warranted without sustained performance,” said CalPERS Global Equities Investment Director Drew Hambly in a statement. “Additionally, this deal concentrates power in a single shareholder and was negotiated by board members whose independence from Tesla’s CEO is questionable.”


“As a former teacher I say, ‘Housing, Housing for all! All sizes: ADU’S, multi-family, small, micro, Build on: school land, church land, state, county land, urban, coast, Here there, Everywhere!!!’”

- Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, via X.

Best of The Bee:

  • The Fed keeps interest rates steady. What does that mean for CA mortgages? Via David Lightman.

  • To close budget deficit, Sacramento will start charging for on-street Sunday parking, via Theresa Clift.

  • Sacramento State was asked to improve how it handles Title IX, sexual misconduct. Did it? Via Emma Hall.

  • California initiative changing Prop. 47 now eligible for November election ballot, via Lindsey Holden.

  • Education workers marched in protest on the UC Davis campus. Here’s why, via Chris Biderman.