CC SR 20240416 J - AB 2560 (Coastal Zoning Housing)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/16/2024
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to oppose Assembly Bill (AB) No. 2560 (Density Bonus
Law: California Coastal Act of 1976).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to AB 2560, which aims to apply
Density Bonus Law to the California Coastal Act without limitation restrictions.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Shaunna Hunter, MPA, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Same as below
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter of opposition to AB 2560 (page A-1)
B. Text of AB 2560 (as introduced February 14, 2024)
C. Analysis by the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development
(page C-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
AB 2560, introduced by Assemblymember Alvarez, aims to apply Density Bonus Law
(DBL) to the California Coastal Act of 1976 without limitation restrictions. AB 2560 is
intended to address the housing crisis in California's coastal areas by allowing DBL
provisions to apply without restriction within the Coastal Zone. If approved, this bill
removes the provisions which state DBL does not supersede or alter the Coastal Act,
thereby permitting density bonuses, concessions, incentives, and waivers of development
standards, notwithstanding areas governed by the Coastal Act.
The bill has the potential to incentivize the construction of affordable housing within the
Coastal Zone that may lead to increased housing development in coastal areas. While
1
supporters argue the bill will promote equity while addressing affordability in the Coastal
Zone, opponents argue it weakens environmental protections provided by the Coastal Act
and may exacerbate issues such as sea-level rise.
With AB 2560, Assemblymember Alvarez builds upon previous legislation, including AB
1866 (2002) and SB 619 (2003), which aimed to balance housing development with
environmental protection in coastal areas. The proposed changes reflect ongoing efforts
in California to address the housing crisis while navigating concerns about environmental
impact and community development.
AB 2560 represents a significant proposal to address housing affordability and
development in California's coastal regions, with potential implications for environmental
conservation and community planning. Cal Cities has not yet taken a position on this bill.
Our Neighborhood Voices has expressed opposition to AB 2560 along with the California
Contract Cities Association and the City of Newport Beach. Notably, the California
Coastal Protection Network, Endangered Habitats League, and the Sierra Club are
opposed to AB 2560 unless amended. Supporters of AB 2560 include the American
Planning Association, California Building Industry, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles.
CONCLUSION:
Assemblymember Alvarez’s proposed bill has far-reaching implications on coastal
development and further erodes local control over specified development while risking
environmental impacts associated with the terrain, infrastructure, and certain geological
considerations of coastal cities, including Rancho Palos Verdes. Staff therefore
recommends the City Council authorize Mayor Cruikshank to sign the opposed position
letter (Attachment A).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letter.
2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
2
April 16, 2024
The Honorable David Alvarez
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5320
Sacramento, CA 94249-0080
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to AB 2560
Dear Assembly Member Alvarez,
I am writing on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to express our strong opposition
to Assembly Bill (AB) No. 2560. While we understand the urgent need to address the
housing crisis in California's coastal areas, we believe that AB 2560, if approved, would
have significant negative impacts on our community and the environment.
AB 2560 aims to apply the Density Bonus Law (DBL) to the California Coastal Act of 1976
without limitation restrictions. This would allow density bonuses, concessions, incentives,
and waivers of development standards within the Coastal Zone, potentially in centivizing
the construction of affordable housing. However, we are deeply concerned that this bill
would weaken the environmental protections provided by the Coastal Act and exacerbate
certain coastal environmental concerns.
AB 2560 represents a departure from previous legislation aimed at balancing housing
development with environmental protection in coastal areas. While we appreciate efforts
to address the housing crisis, AB 2560 risks prioritizing housing development over t he
preservation of our fragile coastal ecosystems especially in areas in close proximity to the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and the State-designated ecological reserve of Abalone
Cove. Moreover, coastal zones throughout the state are prone to geologic challenges,
including bluff erosion.
The proposed bill has far-reaching implications for coastal development and threatens to
erode local control over development decisions. Given the unique terrain, infrastructure,
and geological considerations of coastal cities like Rancho Palos Verdes, we believe that
AB 2560 is not the appropriate solution to addressing the housing crisis in our region.
A-1
Therefore, I urge you to work toward solutions that balance the need for housing
affordability with the protection of our coastal environment and community character.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely,
John Cruikshank
Mayor
cc: Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward, Chair, Committee on Housing
and Community Development
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th Assembly District
Ben Allen, Senator, 24th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, Cal Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
A-2
AB 2560
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Christopher M. Ward, Chair
AB 2560 (Alvarez) – As Introduced February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: Density Bonus Law: California Coastal Act of 1976
SUMMARY: Applies Density Bonus Law (DBL) to the Coastal Act without limitation.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Deletes the provision that states that nothing in DBL supersedes or in any way alters or
lessens the application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (the Coastal Act).
2) Provides that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, or waivers of development
standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under DBL are permitted,
notwithstanding the Coastal Act.
EXISTING LAW:
1) States that nothing in Density Bonus Law supersedes or in any way alters or lessens the
application of the Coastal Act. (Government Code (GOV) Section 65915)
2) Provides that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or waivers of development
standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under density bonus law shall
be permitted in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act. (GOV 65915)
3) Defines “concession or incentive” as:
a) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements
or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards
including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and
in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required, that results in
identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents
for the targeted units;
b) Approval of specified compatible mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing
project that will reduce the cost of development; and
c) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the local
government that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable
housing. (GOV 65915)
4) Requires a city, county, or city and county to grant a concession or incentive requested by an
applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding based upon
substantial evidence of any of the following:
a) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions
necessary to support the affordable housing costs or rents for the affordable housing units
required;
C-1
AB 2560
Page 2
b) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health
and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical
Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income
and moderate-income households; or,
c) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
5) Requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus, based on a specified formula, when an
applicant for a housing development of at least five units seeks and agrees to construct a
project that will contain at least one of the following:
a) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower-income households;
b) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households;
c) A senior citizen housing development or age-restricted mobilehome park;
d) Ten percent of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate-income
households, provided the units are available for public purchase;
e) Ten percent of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless
persons;
f) Twenty percent of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing
development, as specified; or,
g) One hundred percent of all units in the development are for lower-income households,
except that up to 20 percent of the units may be for moderate-income households. (GOV
65915)
6) Specifies that applicants for a density bonus can receive the following number of incentives
or concessions:
a) One incentive or concession for projects that include:
i) At least 10 percent of the total units for lower-income households;
ii) At least five percent for very low-income households;
iii) At least 10 percent for moderate-income persons and families in a development in
which units are for sale; or
iv) At least 20 percent of the units for lower-income students in a student housing
development.
b) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include:
i) At least 17 percent of the total units for lower-income households;
C-2
AB 2560
Page 3
ii) At least 10 percent for very low-income households; or
iii) At least 20 percent for moderate-income persons and families in a development in
which units are for sale;
c) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include:
i) At least 24 percent of the total units for lower-income households;
ii) At least 15 percent for very low-income households; or
iii) At least 30 percent for moderate-income persons and families in CIDs; and
d) Four incentives or concessions for a project that include:
i) At least 16 percent of the total units for very low-income households; or
ii) At least 45 percent for moderate-income persons and families in CIDs; and
e) Five incentives or concessions for projects in which one hundred percent of all units are
for lower-income households, except that up to 20 percent of the units may be for
moderate-income households.
i) If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or is located in
a very low vehicle travel area in a designated county, the applicant shall also
receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet. (GOV 65915)
7) Establishes the Coastal Commission (Commission) in the Natural Resources Agency and
requires the Commission to consist of 15 members (3 non-voting and 12 voting). (Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 31004)
8) Requires a person planning to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to
obtain a coastal development permit (CDP) from the Commission or local government
enforcing a local coastal program (LCP). (PRC 30600)
9) Defines “development” to mean, among other things, the placement or erection of any solid
material or structure on land or in water. “Structure” includes, but is not limited to, any
building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power
transmission and distribution line. (PRC 30106)
10) Defines the “coastal zone” as the land and water area of the State of California from the
Oregon border to the border of the Republic of Mexico, extending seaward to the state's outer
limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000
yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and
recreational areas, the coastal zone extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the
sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less. In developed
urban areas, the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does
not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, nor any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or
flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area. (PRC 30103)
C-3
AB 2560
Page 4
11) Provides that nothing in the Coastal Act exempts local governments from meeting the
requirements of state and federal law with respect to providing low- and moderate-income
housing, replacement housing, relocation benefits, or any other obligation related to housing
imposed by existing law or any law hereafter enacted. (PRC 30007)
12) Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that it is important for the Commission to
encourage the protection of existing and the provision of new affordable housing
opportunities for persons of low- and moderate-income in the coastal zone. (PRC 30604)
13) Requires the Commission to encourage housing opportunities for low-and moderate-income
households. Provides that the Commission may not take measures that reduce the density of a
housing project below the level allowed by local zoning ordinances and state density bonus
law unless the Commission makes a finding that there is no feasible method to accommodate
the density without creating a significant adverse impact on coastal resources. (PRC 30604)
14) Provides that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas must be considered and protected
as a resource of public importance. Permitted development must be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of
natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and,
where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New
development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline
Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and
by local government must be subordinate to the character of its setting. (PRC 30251)
15) Establishes a process for the streamlined approval of multifamily housing developments in
certain instances and areas, including the streamlined approval of multifamily housing
developments in the coastal zone, so long as the development is not on:
a) An area of the coastal zone between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or
within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tideline of the sea
when there is no beach, whichever distance is greater;
b) Areas not included in (a) that are on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within
100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward
face of any coastal bluff;
c) An area of the coastal zone that is not subject to a certified local coastal program or
certified land use plan;
d) An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise;
e) A parcel in the coastal zone not zoned for multifamily housing; or,
f) On, or within a 100 foot radius of wetland, or on prime agricultural land. (GOV 65913.4)
FISCAL EFFECT: None.
COMMENTS:
Author’s Statement: According to the author, “The Coastal Zone is one of the most expensive
housing markets in the country, rendering it unaffordable for the vast majority of Californians, C-4
AB 2560
Page 5
including service workers who make the coastal economy possible. The ballooning housing costs
is a direct result of not building enough housing to meet the demand.
As a state program that has proven successful in creating more market rate and affordable
housing across the state, Density Bonus Law serves as an important tool to resolve the severe
housing shortage in our coastal areas. Density Bonus Law only applies in areas already zoned
residential and allows developers to build additional units above the zoned amount in exchange
for a certain percentage of income-restricted units. This ensures areas already zoned for housing
are building more units than they would have otherwise while also dedicating a portion of them
for moderate, low, and very-low income earners.”
Statewide Housing Needs: According to the Department of Housing and Community
Development’s (HCD’s) 2022 Statewide Housing Plan Update,1 California’s housing crisis is a
half century in the making. After decades of underproduction, supply is far behind need and
housing and rental costs are soaring. As a result, millions of Californians must make hard
decisions about paying for housing at the expense of food, health care, child care, and
transportation, directly impacting quality of life in the state. One in three households in the state
doesn’t earn enough money to meet their basic needs. In 2023, over 181,000 Californians
experienced homelessness on a given night, with a sharp increase in the number of people who
became experienced homelessness for the first time.2
To meet this housing need, HCD determined that California must plan for more than 2.5 million
new homes, and no less than one million of those homes must be affordable to lower-income
households, in the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This represents more than
double the housing needed in the 5th RHNA cycle. By contrast, housing production in the past
decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 10,000 units of affordable
housing per year.3 As of April 5, 2024, in the 6th RHNA cycle, jurisdictions across the state have
permitted the following:
2.1 percent of the very low-income RHNA
4.8 percent of the low-income RHNA
4.8 percent of the moderate-income RHNA
12.7 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA
Density Bonus Law: Density Bonus Law (DBL) was originally enacted in 1979 as an incentive
to encourage housing developers to produce affordable units at below market rates. In return for
including a certain percentage of affordable units, housing developers receive the ability to add
additional units for their project above the jurisdiction’s allowable zoned density for the site
(thus the term “density bonus”).
The affordability units built using density bonus must be deed restricted for 55 years.
Additionally, DBL specifies concessions and incentives around development standards (e.g.,
architectural, height, setback requirements) and reductions in vehicle parking requirements that
1 California Department of Housing and Community Developme nt, A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide
Housing Plan. March 2022, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/94729ab1648d43b1811c1698a748c136
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Point in Time Counts.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html
3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml C-5
AB 2560
Page 6
projects can receive to offset the cost of building affordable units. Both market rate and 100
percent affordable housing projects can use these provisions and all local governments are
required to adopt a density bonus ordinance. However, failure to adopt an ordinance does not
exempt a local government from complying with the requirements of DBL. DBL is a critical tool
in the state’s toolkit when it comes to reducing the price of affordable housing development, and
incentivizing the construction of high density housing.
Development in the Coastal Zone: In 1976, the Legislature enacted the Coastal Act, mandating
that coastal counties manage the conservation and development of coastal resources through a
comprehensive planning and regulatory program. The area that constitutes the coastal zone is
defined by California’s Public Resources Code. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and
recreational areas, the coastal zone extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea
or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less. In developed urban areas,
the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the
area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, nor
any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or
drainage channel flowing into such area.
In partnership with coastal cities and counties, the Commission plans and regulates the use of
land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the
Coastal Act to include construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the
intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a special permit
(CDP) from either the Commission or the local government with a certified LCP.
Eighty-five percent of the coastal zone is currently governed by LCPs drafted by cities and
counties, and certified by the Commission. In these certified jurisdictions, local governments
issue CDPs with detailed planning and design standards. There are 14 jurisdictions without LCPs
– also known as “uncertified” jurisdictions – where the Commission is still the permitting
authority for CDPs. One exception to this is the City of Los Angeles, which implements the Act
directly by issuing CDPs. However, every city-issued CDP can be appealed to the Commission.
According to a 2015 analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, “a collection of factors drive
California’s high cost of housing. First and foremost, far less housing has been built in
California’s coastal areas than people demand. As a result, households bid up the cost of housing
in coastal regions. In addition, some of the unmet demand to live in coastal areas spills over into
inland California, driving up prices there too. Second, land in California’s coastal areas is
expensive. Homebuilders typically respond to high land costs by building more housing units on
each plot of land they develop, effectively spreading the high land costs among more units. In
California’s coastal metros, however, this response has been limited, meaning higher land costs
have translated more directly into higher housing costs. Finally, builders’ costs—for labor,
required building materials, and government fees—are higher in California than in other states.
While these higher building costs contribute to higher prices throughout the state, building costs
appear to play a smaller role in explaining high housing costs in coastal areas.”
California’s coast is a vital natural resource and delicately balanced ecosystem, as well as an
important economic and social resource for the state. However, not all of the coastal area is a
natural resource, and much of it is developed urban areas – including extremely wealthy coastal
communities. SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023 expanded upon SB 35 (Wiener),
Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017, by allowing for by-right development in the coastal zone on sites
C-6
AB 2560
Page 7
that local jurisdictions have identified, through their zoning, as appropriate for housing. The sites
still need to meet all of the objective environmental criteria in SB 423, including that the site
cannot be within a wetland, flood hazard area, protected habitat, or conservation easement.
Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (3 Cal.App.5th 927 (2016)): In 2013, City of Los
Angeles planning officials approved a proposed residential development in the Venice area. The
project would have involved tearing down a two-story, three-unit apartment building and
replacing it with a 15-unit housing development including five duplexes and five single-family
homes. Pursuant to DBL, the developer was allowed to exceed the normal density restrictions for
that location because two of the units would have been designated for very low-income
households. DBL also entitled the developer to other zoning concessions, including a height
variance. The City approved the project’s vesting tentative tract map, including findings that the
project complied with the City’s General Plan as well as the Venice Specific Plan, and also
approved a CDP under the Act.
In September 2013, a neighborhood group appealed the planning department’s development
approvals, including the CDP. The residents argued the project violated the Act because its
height, density, setbacks, and other visual and physical characteristics were inconsistent with the
existing neighborhood. The Planning Commission found that the development did not conform
to the Act because its size, height, bulk, mass, and scale were incompatible with and harmful to
the surrounding neighborhood and because the setbacks were too small. The developer appealed
the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, which denied the appeal.
The developer then brought an administrative mandate action against the City, alleging that it
had violated the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Act, and the Mello Act. For the
purpose of this analysis, the focus will be on the court's decision as it relates to state DBL and
the Act. The trial court found that the density bonus, height and setback variations initially
approved for the project were proper under the housing density statutes and other City zoning
plans and regulations, including the Commission-approved Venice Land Use Plan. However, the
trial court found that the housing density statutes were subordinate to the Act and that substantial
evidence supported the Planning Commission’s findings that the project violated the Act because
it was visually out of step with the surrounding coastal community.
The developer appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that
that state DBL is subordinate to the Act and that a project that violates the Act as the result of a
density bonus may be denied on that basis. The court noted that “the Legislature appears to have
struck a balance” between the Act and DBL “by requiring local agencies to grant density
bonuses unless doing so would violate the [Act].”
It is worthwhile to examine the legislative history behind two bills relating to state density bonus
law and the Act, both of which enacted laws referenced in the Kalnel Gardens, LLC case. AB
1866 (Wright), Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002, made numerous changes to state DBL and state
law relating to second units. According to this Committee's analysis of that bill, the sponsors
contended that “there are many reasons for California's housing crisis, but one very important
reason are the many constraints and obstacles imposed on housing by local governments.” One
of the provisions of DBL added by AB 1866 is that the granting of a concession or incentive
shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require an LCP amendment. It also added
the section of law this bill seeks to amend—Government Code Section 65915(m), providing that
DBL does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Act.
C-7
AB 2560
Page 8
AB 1866 was opposed by the Commission until August 6, 2002, shortly after amendments taken
in the Senate added, among other provisions, what is now Government Code Section 65915(m).
Prior to that amendment, in the Commission's opposition letter to the Senate Housing
Committee, it stated “…[t]he Commission has historically taken the position that housing density
bonus ordinances need to be consistent with other LCP and Coastal Act policies, and therefore
should be formally amended into any applicable LCP.” The Commission's August 7, 2002 letter
to the author of AB 1866 states that the Commission voted to remove its opposition and take a
neutral position on the bill because “the most recent amendments clarify that nothing in the bill is
meant to supersede or lessen the application of the Coastal Act policies…” The Assembly
Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis, which appears to be the only legislative analysis of
AB 1866 that directly addresses this amendment, describes the amendment as "[p]rovid[ing] that
the requirements of the California Coastal Act shall not be superseded by any of the provisions in
this measure.”
One year later, SB 619 (Ducheny), Chapter 793, Statutes of 2003, made several changes to laws
relating to the development of affordable housing, including requiring the Commission to
encourage housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. It also provided that
the Commission may not take measures that reduce the density of a housing project below the
level allowed by local zoning ordinances and state DBL unless the Commission makes a finding
that there is no feasible method to accommodate the density without creating a significant
adverse impact on coastal resources. This Committee's analysis noted that the “author asserts that
in spite of overwhelming need, many communities continue to resist new housing development,
especially multifamily housing and higher density housing.” According to the Senate Natural
Resources Committee analysis, “California coast cities, with the current rate of growth, will have
to support more housing. From an environmental perspective, coastal areas should consider
increasing housing density and affordability…Affordable housing projects developed in coastal
areas, as long as they are consistent with LCPs, are an environmental bonus, not a detriment.”
In 2018, AB 2797 (Bloom), Chapter 904, further clarified the law in response to Kalnel Gardens,
LLC to provide that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of
development standards and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under density bonus
law shall be accommodated, but in a manner that harmonizes DBL and the portions of the Act
relating to Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies. This bill would remove that
requirement and apply DBL in the Coastal Zone notwithstanding the Coastal Act. As a result, the
Commission or a local agency implementing the Act would be required to approve a developer’s
request for density, concessions and incentives, and parking reductions regardless of a conflict
with the LCP.
In 2023, AB 1287 (Alvarez), Chapter 755, was approved by the Assembly Housing and
Community Development Committee with language that would apply DBL to the Coastal Act
without limitation. AB 1287 was subsequently amended in the Assembly Committee on Natural
Resources to remove that provision.
In 2023, SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778, expanded upon SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes
of 2017, by allowing for by-right development in certain portions the coastal zone on sites that
local jurisdictions have identified, through their zoning, as appropriate for housing.
Arguments in Support: According to the California Home Building Alliance, which includes
SPUR – one of the bill’s co-sponsors, AB 2560 “is a matter of fundamental fairness and equity.
C-8
AB 2560
Page 9
Over the past several years, the State Legislature has passed many measures to address our
housing affordability and availability crisis by facilitating housing production. Unfortunately,
most of these laws have exempted the Coastal Zone altogether. There is now a growing
consensus in the Legislature and among advocates that this is not equitable as these coastal
communities are some of the most expensive, exclusive and segregated in the state and the local
workforce is suffering greatly.
It is important to note that the Coastal Zone includes large swaths of urbanized and already
developed interior areas far inland from the coastline and beaches where new housing is needed
and would be appropriate including in San Diego, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, San
Francisco, Arcata and Eureka, among others. State density bonus law was first enacted by the
Legislature several decades ago to ensure that affordable and mixed-income housing
developments are feasible even in the highest-cost areas of our state. Furthermore, these bonuses
are only available on sites that have already been zoned for residential use by the local
jurisdiction. The legislation in no way endangers coastal resources but rather will provide greater
access to much-needed housing in the coastal area.”
Arguments in Opposition: According to the California Cities for Local Control, “AB 2560
significantly weakens the environmental protections heretofore provided by the coastal act. The
Legislature’s burgeoning assault on coastal zone protections, especially in an era when sea level
rise is inevitable, defies reason.”
Double Referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources,
where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bay Area Council (Sponsor)
Circulate San Diego (Sponsor)
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (Sponsor)
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated General Contractors
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Community Builders
California Community Builders
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California Yimby
City of Sn Diego
CivicWell
East Bay Yimby
Greenbelt Alliance
Grow the Richmond
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Action Coalition
How to ADU
C-9
AB 2560
Page 10
LeadingAge California
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
YIMBY Action
Opposition
California Cities for Local Control
California Contract Cities Association
Livable Ventura, INC
Mission Street Neighbors
New Livable California Dba Livable California
Newport Beach; City of
Save Lafayette
Oppose Unless Amended
Azul
California Coastal Protection Network
Center for Biological Diversity
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC)
Environmental Center of San Diego
Orange County Coastkeeper
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Puvunga Wetlands Protectors
Sierra Club of California
SoCal 350 Climate Action
The Surfrider Foundation
Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
C-10