AB 130 Withdraws Coastal Commission Appeal Jurisdiction for Certain Housing Projects

Note: This is the eighth update in our series covering AB 130 and SB 131, two bills that work substantive changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California housing law. Click here to learn more about other recent updates in these bills.

The California Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code section 30000, et seq.) generally requires that projects within the coastal zone obtain a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) and that local governments incorporate coastal protections into municipal building and zoning regulations. These local regulations form a Local Coastal Plan (“LCP”), which normally is submitted to the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) for certification. Once certified, an LCP allows local governments to control the issuance of CDPs within their jurisdiction, subject to the Commission retaining limited appeals jurisdiction over a subset of local decisions.

AB 130 further limits the Commission’s appeals jurisdiction by exempting certain housing projects from appeal to the Commission. Specifically, AB 130 exempts “residential development projects,” defined as multifamily housing projects of four or more units that are exclusively residential, from the Commission’s appeals jurisdiction in two scenarios:

• where the project was approved by a local government and is located in a “sensitive coastal resource area,” and
• where the project was approved by a “coastal county” in an area where the principal permitted use in the underlying zoning designation is nonresidential.

(Pub. Res. Code sections 30603(a)(3)-(4).)

The Commission still retains authority to hear appeals over local CDP decisions for projects within a certain distance of the shoreline or located closest to certain areas, such as tidelands, wetlands or coastal bluffs (even when the CDP is for a “residential development project”). (Pub. Res. Code sections 30603(a)(1)-(2).) Nonetheless, the exemptions in AB 130 mean that local governments will have the final say over whether to issue a CDP for residential development projects in other sensitive coastal areas or areas not zoned as residential.

Starting July 1, 2027, AB 130 also requires the Commission to submit an annual report to the California Legislature regarding the length of time for residential development projects to pass through the Commission’s appeal process, any conditions imposed by the Commission, and the number of projects approved, denied, approved with conditions, or withdrawn. (Pub. Res. Code section 30405.) This annual report requirement can be construed as a warning shot across the Commission’s bow that it may be subject to further restrictions to its appeals jurisdiction if the Legislature is unhappy with how residential projects are faring on appeal.

This budget provision is notable given that legislative efforts in previous sessions have stalled or been significantly amended. For example, in 2023, AB 1287 by Assemblymember David Alvarez (D-San Diego), proposed to amend the Density Bonus Law to remove Gov. Code Section 65915(m), which provides that it does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act. If passed, the measure would have required any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under current law to be permitted regardless of the Coastal Act. The measure was amended in its second committee, Assembly Natural Resources, however, to preserve the protections of the Coastal Act.

To learn more about these changes to the Commission’s jurisdiction over CDP appeals, please contact the authors.

This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding AB 130 and SB 131 in California. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.