Committee advances AB 462 to shorten coastal review for accessory dwelling units to 60 days
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
AB 462 would require coastal development permit decisions for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be made within 60 days by local jurisdictions or the Coastal Commission for certified local coastal programs, and would prohibit appeals of local CDP decisions for ADUs under the amended text discussed in committee.
The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee advanced Assembly Bill 462 as amended, a measure that would align coastal zone accessory dwelling unit permitting with the streamlined 60‑day review period that applies to ADUs elsewhere in the state.
Assemblymember Lowenthal presented the bill and described it as a targeted fix following the destructive winter fires that increased housing displacement in Los Angeles County. He said ADUs are a proven, quick source of new housing and that homeowners in coastal zones currently face a separate, often lengthier coastal development permit (CDP) process. The amended language requires that a completed ADU application receive a coastal development permit approval or denial within 60 days and directs concurrent review so local ADU permitting and coastal permit review proceed together.
Supporters included California YIMBY, American Planning Association, California YIMBY’s Nolan Gray, and local government representatives. Witnesses emphasized the role ADUs have played in housing supply and stressed that coastal homeowners should not face a longer, more uncertain permitting timeline than homeowners outside the coastal zone.
Several environmental and conservation organizations — Surfrider Foundation, California Coastal Protection Network, Sierra Club California and others — testified that they appreciated the amended approach that aligns CDP timing with ADU review; several remained opposed or “unable to remove opposition” over a provision that would bar appeals of local CDP decisions for ADUs. The Coastal Commission’s legislative manager expressed gratitude for engagement but said the agency remained concerned about an absolute prohibition on appeals and was open to continued discussion.
Committee members asked about impacts in wildfire‑prone areas and public safety; witnesses said existing fire-zone standards would remain in place and that the bill does not change other ADU standards.
The committee moved AB 462 as amended to the Senate Committee on Housing; the committee minutes show the item left on call with the committee recording a favorable vote (recorded in minutes as a pass as amended).