At a time when housing demand continues to outpace supply across California, the recent Southern California Development Forum brought together leaders from law, development, andcapital markets to examine what is slowing production and what it will take to move projects from concept to completion. 

Moderated by Spencer Kallick, Partner at Allen Matkins, the conversation grounded policy discussions in real-world experience. Joining him on the panel were Armeen Neshat, Real Estate Development Director at Decro Corporation; Nolan Weinberg, SVP of Development at PMB; John Mimms, Vice President of Development at The Michaels Organization; and Alex Valente, Principal at Trammell Crow Company. Together, they represented the perspectives of workforce, senior, affordable, and market-rate housing asset classes to paint a clear picture for 2026. 

Entitlements: The Cost of Time 

One of the clearest themes of the evening was that time has become one of the most expensive inputs in housing development. 

Weinberg shared his example of a senior housing project in San Diego that required a six-year entitlement process before breaking ground. With rising interest rates, the delay compounds financing costs and erodes projected returns. For senior housing in particular (an asset class still stabilizing after COVID-19 disruptions), the extended timeline can deter capital from entering the market altogether. 

Mimms reinforced this point, noting that developers can underwrite construction costs with relative certainty, but administrative delays are far harder to model. The lack of consistent timelines across cities creates risk premiums that ultimately translate into higher per-unit costs. 

State Reform: Progress and Gaps 

The panel turned to state-level reforms and their practical impact on housing production. Valente referenced AB 130 (California legislation aimed at accelerating housing construction by restricting local government authority to impose stricter-than-state building standards and by creating exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as evidence that thestate recognizes the urgency of housing delivery.  

However, the panelists were clear: policy adoption is only the first step. Execution at the local level determines whether reforms meaningfully reduce friction. Incentive programs like Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) have unlocked additional density and feasibility in key corridors, but they require stable funding sources and consistent administrative support to function effectively. Without sufficient capital investment, projects stall regardless of zoning reform. 

Kallick agreed and noted that policymakers must better understand how incremental requirements accumulate. Energy mandates, parking minimum adjustments, design overlays, and impact fees may each appear modest in isolation, but collectively they can push projects beyond feasibility thresholds. 

Capital and Market Dynamics 

Beyond regulation, capital markets continue to shape the housing landscape. Weinberg noted that senior housing faces particular challenges in attracting new equity amid pandemic-era occupancy volatility. Meanwhile, rising interest rates increase the cost of debt and compress margins across asset classes. 

Valente framed the issue in fundamental economic terms: housing is subject to supply and demand. When supply is constrained by entitlement delays, code requirements, and uncertain approvals, pricing pressure intensifies. Conversely, predictable pathways to production encourage investment and stabilize markets. 

Even large-scale redevelopment efforts must navigate these pressures. Mimms discussed the Jordan Downs redevelopment in Los Angeles, which will deliver more than 800 units of affordable housing as part of a comprehensive community transformation. Projects of this magnitude require sustained coordination between public agencies, developers, and residents. In this case, both the possibility and complexity of delivering housing on this scale have been successful 

Design Efficiency and Complete Communities 

While policy reform and access to capital are critical, panelists also emphasized internal discipline within development teams. Efficient design, standardized unit layouts, and thoughtful amenity programming can meaningfully reduce costs. Mimms spoke to the importance of creating complete communities —housing that integrates services, open space, and connectivity — while balancing amenity expectations with financial realities. Over-programming common areas or layering unnecessary design features can undermine pro formas. The challenge is delivering environments that attract residents without inflating construction budgets. 

Neshat added that updated building codes could help align sustainability goals with cost containment. Clear, modernized standards reduce redesign cycles and inspection conflicts, creating both environmental and economic benefits. 

A Call for Education and Alignment 

In closing, the panel returned to a unifying theme: education. Kallic emphasized that many policy decision-makers underestimate the cumulative impact of regulatory layering. Greater transparency around real development costs and the consequences of delay could foster more pragmatic solutions. 

The conversation was candid but constructive. Panelists agreed that meaningful progress requires coordination across the ecosystem: legislators crafting workable statutes, municipalities resourcing planning departments, capital providers re-entering the market, and developers committing to efficient, community-oriented design. 

The panel made one point unequivocally clear: housing production is possible at scale. What remains is aligning policy intent with operational reality to ensure that projects move from approval to occupancy with far greater certainty.