History of Housing in California
According to an article by news nonprofit Berkeleyside, urban planner Duncan McDuffie spearheaded California’s first discriminatory zoning laws in 1916. He implemented these zoning laws to preserve wealthy, white communities at the expense of density. Zoning laws reserved one-acre plots for single-family homes, resulting in a statewide network built on urban sprawl. McDuffie’s policies also included legally enforceable contracts that prevented homeowners from renting or selling their homes to people of color, called racial covenants. Even after racial covenants were outlawed in 1948, McDuffie continued to champion exclusionary zoning codes targeting the type of housing permitted, shutting out people based on income instead of race.
Urban planner and Stanford University urban studies lecturer Dehan Glanz says those zoning codes primarily affected people of color.
“(They) were policies born of racial bias,” he said. “The thought was that if you only zone for single-family homes and one-acre lots, that’s going to mean wealthy people (will be) in your neighborhood, and you’re not going to have ‘poor people,’ which was a kind of dog whistle (to exclude) people of color.”
These codes have driven up the demand for and therefore the cost of existing homes. Nonprofit news organization Davis Vanguard reports that 56% of the 2.8 million cost-stressed households in California devote more than half of their income to rent, a figure 50% above the national average.
Incoming Reforms
New urbanization legislation taking effect on July 1 includes SB 79 and AB 130, bills that will reform the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA is a state law that requires state and local agencies to identify, disclose and lessen any significant environmental impact from proposed infrastructure projects, such as building homes. Not following CEQA results in severe legal and financial risks, which can halt projects for years or force complete cancellation. SB 79 and AB 130 simplify infill development and make it easier to build concentrated housing on unused urban land areas, such as parking lots or abandoned buildings. For California policymakers, infill development is ideal for combating the housing crisis due to its low infrastructural cost and environmental benefits compared to suburban sprawl. Infill development is also environmentally beneficial in that it is less reliant on cars. It facilitates a communal shift toward greener modes of commute, including biking, walking and public transportation. In Executive Order N-2-24, a 2024 initiative to improve infill development, Gov. Gavin Newsom emphasized that streamlining infill development will encourage inexpensive housing production and achieve California’s climate goals.
SB 79
Also known as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, SB 79 promotes infill development across California by overriding local zoning laws to allow for high-density housing within half a mile of major transit, including Bay Area Rapid Transit and Caltrain. To use SB 79, development projects with more than 10 residential units must provide varying affordable housing units based on the median income of the area.
According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, around 53% of San Francisco households earning under $100,000 have no access to a personal vehicle. As SB 79 develops more accessible housing near public transportation, surrounding communities stand to benefit the most, particularly low-income households without access to a personal vehicle. Increased public transportation usage is also directly linked to lower city carbon footprints.
Glanz maintains statewide initiatives for infill development and improved transportation such as SB 79 stem directly from youth interest.
“People, young people especially, don’t want to live in the suburbs,” he said. “There’s a strong market demand (from youth) for more diverse, integrated and dense suburban areas, (which is) why we’re seeing so many of these new (infill development) policies.”
SB 79 has garnered significant support from nonprofit community organizations, including Yes in My Back Yard. YIMBY Action has mobilized 10,303 new calls to state legislators and organized 35 people from across the state, including young and diverse people, to testify for the approval of the bill at the Senate Housing Committee hearing in Sacramento. YIMBY’s inclusion of a variety of voices successfully pressured California policymakers to pass SB 79, marking a step towards supporting underserved communities.
AB 130
Supporting SB 79, California Assembly Bill 130 speeds up affordable housing initiatives by allowing qualifying infill development projects to skip CEQA’s lengthy review process. AB 130 will also establish the Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Bank that provides developers in need of meeting CEQA transportation requirements the opportunity to pay into a state fund, financing affordable housing and transit initiatives. While the program is voluntary, the VMT Mitigation Bank will to consolidate CEQA’s transportation review process, prevent the delay of infrastructure and provide higher-quality transportation.
Palo Alto councilmember and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority board member Pat Burt believes that quality transportation is extremely valuable, not only to
people limited by income or location, but to the entire community.
“Some people may argue that the housing issue is so important that nothing else matters, and we don’t need to worry about parks and transportation and retail, but that is poor urban planning,” he said. “We can (improve) both housing and transportation and not repeat eras of the past (with harmful legislation).”
In an effort to ensure the well-being of all community members, AB 130 includes additional protection for tribal and cultural resources. Infill development is often built upon previous and current tribal land, as many of today’s major cities were built directly on top of historical tribal sites. AB 130 establishes limitations to prevent this. According to the environmental consulting firm First Carbon Solutions, the bill ensures that the creation of these homes under infill development includes input from indigenous tribes by requiring local governments to consult tribes within 14 days after the project application is approved. If tribal cultural resources are identified, the project must include measures to prevent damage to cultural heritage.
CEQA
SB 79, AB 130 and similar initiatives use infill development to build more low-cost housing, as well as more housing in general. Created in 1970, CEQA’s original purpose was to hold state and local agencies accountable for the environmental impacts of their projects. However, CEQA’s review process for mitigating these environmental impacts can take several years to complete, causing delays in affordable housing initiatives. Documents that infrastructure developers must obtain to meet the CEQA environmental review process can take up to seven years to produce, says environmental law and land use lawyer Shaye Diveley. Even after a city council approves a development project, public opposition groups referred to as Not In My Backyard’s can sue the city and often do on the basis of CEQA, arguing that the project should not be completed because of significant environmental effects, such as noise pollution or traffic. If NIMBYs can prove the city missed a significant environmental effect in the Environmental Impact Report, the court can order further review, thereby slowing the progress of the entire project by several years. According to the California Center for Jobs and the Economy, anti-housing CEQA lawsuits affected more than half of California’s annual housing production in significantly impeding the process of approval, which prevents vulnerable communities from securing a home.
NIMBYs’ lawsuits against affordable housing initiatives are a local occurrence. In 2013, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously approved Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s development project of 60 affordable senior apartments and 12 to 15 market-rate homes on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, an approved exemption of the density limit allowed in that zone. However, local NIMBYs threatened lawsuits over how the dense infrastructure of the project would increase noise pollution and traffic, negatively impacting a single-family neighborhood’s character. The NIMBYs successfully petitioned to put the rezoning to a citywide vote, leading 56% of voters to reject the proposal and effectively end the initiative. In 2014, PAHC sold the land to another developer who, in accordance with existing zoning codes, as well as community support and city approval, finished construction of 16 luxury single-family homes in 2020.
The story behind Maybell and Clemo Avenues demonstrates one of many statewide patterns delaying affordable housing: NIMBYs use CEQA to sue or threaten to sue the city to challenge dense affordable housing initiatives. NIMBYs claim that these projects will damage the character of their neighborhoods, which are often single-family communities built on urban sprawl. Dense infrastructure like high-rise buildings can not only appear unpleasant but can also block natural light from neighboring homes, leading to increased heating and artificial light costs. However, for California policymakers, the housing crisis outweighs NIMBYs’ concerns. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 65% of California communities met statewide standards of housing projects that supported infill development and inclusive housing initiatives in 2023. In 2026, the State of California reported increased pressure from the state has led to 92% of California communities complying with these standards. This 27% increase in the last three years demonstrates how affordable housing initiatives have taken state priority over NIMBY concerns of neighborhood character.
Complex land use attorney and former chair of the Oakland Planning Commission Amanda Monchamp asserts that because of increased priority and financing from the state, more affordable housing projects have been progressing in the last year and a half. However, this does not mean NIMBY input was not taken into consideration. During her time on the commission, Monchamp balanced NIMBY community input with necessary affordable housing initiatives. Most of the time, the commission would prioritize the development project moving forward, but made some modifications and concessions to satisfy the neighbors’ concerns with what was being developed.
“The public coming forth and complaining is a valuable part of the process,” she said. “I do think that there are also some people who come to the planning commission, and what they really want is for no (housing) to ever be built, usually because of their (NIMBY) view. That’s just not realistic — change happens, and if we’re going to solve the affordable housing crisis, we have to build more homes.”
Community Engagement and Diverse Voices
California policymakers have shifted to include more community voices in the conversation of urbanization to achieve more equitable urban legislation. In 2009, the San Francisco Better Neighborhoods program initiated a housing and infrastructure development project in the West of Twin Peaks area. In 2015, district supervisor Norman Yee supported the project by creating an advisory committee of park, residential, high school, utilities, local business and neighborhood representatives. Statistics from the San Francisco Planning Organization reveal that, after the project’s unanimous approval by the planning commission and board supervisors in 2020, 1,100 units are now under construction and scheduled for completion in 2031. Of those units, 50% were affordable and 150 were intended for education staff. All of the project’s buildings are required to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold or Platinum certification standard, ensuring infrastructure with premier energy efficiency. The input from these groups helped inform this sustainable and low-cost housing initiative, which is intended to benefit those very community members.
To urban planner and Stanford University sustainable cities professor Rick Kos, it is an urban planner’s ethical responsibility to include all aspects of a community in conversations about urban development to support social and environmental equity. Kos urges students to be engaged in conversations on urban policy.
“Unless youth are involved in (urban development) conversations, they’re going to be left out and subjected to whatever older generations impose upon them,” he said. “I would very much encourage students to get involved in discussions around shaping urban policy.”
At Gunn, students are already participating in local environmental advocacy. Green Commissioner senior Doyoon Kim’s research on heat mapping in Palo Alto is one of many student-led sustainability initiatives in the area. She believes focusing on smaller-scale issues in outreach, such as heat mitigation, is key to increasing community engagement.
“Although difficult, grassroots outreach is so much more efficient in convincing residents (to engage in environmental issues),” she said. “(Educating people about) smaller issues is so much better to talk about than focusing on the macro level to help people become interested.”
Within PAUSD, there is an active effort to include community voices in the development of the district’s climate action plan. PAUSD’s first-ever sustainability manager Karina Takemoto believes reaching out to all members of the community, including PAUSD staff, vendors, utility management and students, is crucial for the plan’s success.
“It’s really important to try to take input from everyone that you can, not just the loudest voice in the room,” she said. “Go out there and give people who wouldn’t have reached you otherwise a microphone.”
SB 79 and AB 130 are just a few of many future laws aiming to end the growing climate crisis while accommodating the urbanization of cities. Urban and environmental issues affect every community member, whether in the form of not being able to take the bus to work or struggling to find affordable housing.
The complex history behind California’s housing crisis, namely discriminatory zoning laws, reveals that exclusionary planning leaves lasting generational impacts. Now, California policymakers have shifted to prioritize hearing different groups in the planning and application of urbanization legislation to support the growth of equitable
and sustainable cities.
Program Director of Equitable Development at Urban Habitat Amanda Chang believes that to make meaningful progress, all need to be heard.
“If we want to get past (a history of non-inclusive legislation), we need to keep including (all) voices to make sure that we are not repeating (the past) in development of our cities, counties and regions,” she said.
