Building Our Way Out: How Permitting Reform Can Help Save California

Democratic leaders like Buffy Wicks are tackling the red tape that's driving up costs and driving out residents

In the wake of devastation from the Los Angeles fires that burned thousands of homes, rebuilding becomes more than a necessity—it becomes a test of our systems, policies, and collective will. California's arduous permitting processes have long been the subject of criticism, turning what should be straightforward construction into bureaucratic odysseys.

Between environmental reviews that can take years, multiple layers of government approvals, and legal challenges that can derail projects even after receiving permits, the state has created what amounts to an obstacle course for development. The challenge isn't just about rebuilding what was lost. It's about rethinking how we build at all.

Yet amid this challenging landscape, a promising reform movement is emerging, led by California's Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-14), who chairs the Select Committee on Permitting Reform, has become one of the most vocal advocates for streamlining the building process. This is what lawmakers should be focusing on, especially when 38% of Californians believe that cost of living, economy, inflation, and housing affordability are their top issues.

Image Credit: PPIC

The committee's recent report doesn't mince words: "It is too damn hard to build anything in California." I recently heard her speak at Sacramento Day, where she noted that releasing this report may result in pushback from those who typically oppose permitting reform, but emphasized that our housing and building crisis is too important to avoid addressing directly. I cannot agree more.

That is exactly what we believe here at The Rebuild. We cannot let people who have become so obsessed with process and paper that we stop being a country that builds. It prices people out and stifles growth. It is important to highlight when we have elected members who understand that.

It Wasn’t Always This Bad

California is the world’s dream factory—a place that gave us Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Yosemite’s towering cliffs, used to build and do so fast. The Golden Gate Bridge (1933-1937) was built in just four years. It was not only built ahead of schedule but also under budget during the Great Depression, despite using early 20th-century construction techniques.

Today's reality? If the Golden Gate Bridge were proposed now, it would take years just for environmental reviews, lawsuits, and permit approvals before a single rivet was placed. Compare this to California's high-speed rail project, which has been in the works since 2008, has cost $11 billion so far, and has yet to carry a single passenger.

Image Credit: The Fresno Bee

What was initially estimated to cost $33 billion for the San Francisco to Los Angeles segment has now ballooned to a high-end estimate of about $128 billion, with no clear timeline for completing the full route.

Unclear Direction, and Building Paralysis

This report comes at a time when Democrats in California are unclear in how they can actually tackle the massive issues on affordability. As a recent CalMatters analysis revealed, affordability-focused legislation appears to be "a work in progress" following the bill introduction deadline:

• Of approximately 1,160 bills filed by Assembly Democrats, only around 80 of these bills touch affordability. It's pretty hard to claim California is making affordability its number one issue when only 6.9% of bills filed have any connection to bringing down the cost of living.

• Many of these seem to be one-off proposals rather than part of a coordinated strategy.

• Roughly 250 of these bills are "spot bills" or placeholders for future legislation.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are grappling with immediate crises—the devastating Los Angeles wildfires and the economic uncertainty triggered by erratic federal policies under the Trump administration. But if Democrats allow themselves to be consumed by short-term firefighting, they risk losing sight of the larger structural failures that have driven California’s affordability crisis in the first place.

California's inability to build—whether it's housing, infrastructure, or clean energy projects—is not a matter of funding, demand, or technical expertise. The state has all of these in abundance. What it lacks is a system that allows projects to move forward without becoming mired in endless regulatory and legal roadblocks. As Ezra Klein recently noted California’s inability to complete major infrastructure projects—like the high-speed rail debacle, is a prime example of a state that believes in government but has forgotten how to make it work.

The Cost of Inaction

The Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform has put numbers to the problem: California needs to build approximately 310,000 homes per year (including 125,000 affordable units) to close its housing gap, yet in 2023, it produced less than 115,000 homes—just 36% of the target (and a mere 6% of the affordable housing goal). The committee’s findings confirm that permitting delays are among the top obstacles preventing projects from breaking ground. In Wick’s words, “Right now, there are too many opportunities in the process to put a wrench in the gears.”

This aligns with Ezra Klein’s recent critique that California and other blue states have become places working families can no longer afford to live. California saw a net loss of 268,000 residents in 2023, a trend driven by high housing costs and bureaucratic stagnation. California’s failure to build isn’t a matter of technical expertise—it’s a failure of political will and governance.

Image Credit: Tax Foundation

A key comparison underscores just how much California lags behind its peers. The committee heard testimony from developers who operate nationwide, noting that in states like Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina, general plan amendments and zoning approvals can be secured within months, while in California, they often take years. Subdivision map approvals that take mere weeks elsewhere can drag on for months in California. As a result, some national homebuilders face financial penalties for having too many projects in the state because investors see California’s permitting system as a liability.

In a testimony by Tom Grable, of Tri Pointe Homes, Grable stated that homebuilding executives must explain their California holdings and often face direct questions about whether they're overexposed in the state. This creates a perverse incentive for builders to limit their California investments precisely when more housing construction is desperately needed.

Make Permitting Sexy Again

Okay, permitting reform has probably never been sexy, as Wicks has noted herself. But it still is a key factor in ensuring that we can build our way out of this mess to lower costs and promote growth.

1. CEQA Reform

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remains one of the most formidable obstacles to building in California. The committee's report specifically calls for:

• Focusing environmental review exclusively on actual environmental impacts rather than allowing it to be weaponized for non-environmental objections

• Creating distinct permitting pathways for climate-beneficial projects like infill housing and renewable energy

• Exempting transit and active transportation projects from CEQA, building on successful models like SB 288 and SB 922

• Limiting the scope of CEQA litigation for projects that align with state goals for housing and climate action

These CEQA reforms help address the root of California's building paralysis. By targeting the law's misuse rather than its intent, Wicks has found a politically viable path to reform. Currently, CEQA allows nearly anyone to challenge virtually any project, creating an endless cycle of litigation. Shifting the focus to actual environmental impacts would preserve the law's core mission while preventing its exploitation as a delay tactic.

The early success of transit exemptions demonstrates how targeted reforms can accelerate beneficial projects without compromising environmental protection, potentially serving as a model for broader permitting reform. What makes Wicks' approach politically viable is that it does not seek to dismantle CEQA entirely—an effort that would trigger fierce opposition from environmental groups. Instead, it proposes targeted reforms that uphold environmental protection while introducing rational exemptions for projects that inherently advance environmental goals.

While broader reforms should be pursued in the future, starting with these targeted changes provides a practical stepping stone for more comprehensive CEQA reform. Although I have advocated for a full overhaul, I recognize that Wicks’ approach has a better chance of passing through the legislature.

2. Uniform Application Standards and Shot Clocks

The committee's report highlights successful reforms like those applied to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which increased production from just 1,300 units annually to over 23,000 in 2023 through:

• Creating standardized application forms across jurisdictions rather than the current patchwork approach

• Implementing strict timeframes for application review—requiring permits to be issued within 120 days

• Eliminating uncertainty by locking in project requirements at the time of application submission

• Establishing meaningful penalties for agencies that fail to meet review deadlines

The ADU revolution demonstrates how effective these reforms can be. By creating uniform standards and enforcing deadlines for ADUs, this approach could be expanded to all housing types, creating predictable timelines for developers and ending the notorious practice of moving the goalposts mid-process.

Image Credit: Bay Area Council Economic Institute

3. Coordinated Permitting Across Agencies

Drawing from successful models like the streamlined EV charging station permits and environmental restoration projects, the report recommends:

• Consolidating approvals under a single lead agency instead of requiring sequential permits from multiple departments

• Designating project managers from the regulatory side to shepherd projects through the permitting maze

• Creating "one-stop shops" for permits similar to Sacramento's successful model for housing development

• Pre-determining mitigation requirements so developers can design to specifications from the beginning

The fragmentation of authority between dozens of agencies creates a nightmare for builders. The report cites the case of a 117-mile transmission line (SDG&E’s Sunrise Powerlink) that required 70 permits from 28 different agencies and took five years just to get through the approvals process. By designating lead agencies and regulatory project managers, California could eliminate the costly game of regulatory pingpong while maintaining necessary oversight.

4. Infrastructure Streamlining

For critical transportation and energy infrastructure, the report highlights promising reforms like:

• Expanding AB 205, which allows developers to seek consolidated permitting from the California Energy Commission

• Creating programmatic environmental reviews for entire categories of projects (like transmission line upgrades)

• Reducing barriers to reconductoring existing transmission lines (replacing old wires with higher-capacity ones on existing towers), which can triple electricity capacity without new rights-of-way

California's inability to build infrastructure threatens both its climate goals and economic future. The report shows how targeted reforms like LA Metro's agreement with Los Angeles saved months of permitting time by establishing clear standards upfront. This approach could revolutionize how the state builds everything from bike lanes to power lines. Without these changes, California risks undermining its own climate legislation by making it prohibitively difficult to build the very infrastructure needed to achieve these ambitious goals. As California races to meet renewable energy targets, streamlining these essential infrastructure projects represents one of the most immediate opportunities to accelerate progress while reducing costs for consumers.

The Political Urgency of Reform

Housing and building inaction isn’t just an economic failure—it’s a moral and political crisis. Skyrocketing costs are driving people out of blue states, shifting congressional seats and Electoral College votes away from California, New York, and Illinois, weakening Democratic influence.

If Democrats fail to address the structural issues making their states unaffordable, they risk losing ground not just in governance, but in public trust. As Klein aptly put it, Democrats “became the party that believes in government, that defends government, not the party that makes government work.” To change that perception, they must prove that the government can deliver—by building the housing, infrastructure, and clean energy projects that California desperately needs.

The choice is clear: stay mired in bureaucracy or embrace reform and finally build the future long promised. The committee’s report lays out a roadmap for how California can start building and lowering costs—before it’s too late.