An act to amend Section 30610.91 of, and to add Section 30512.5 to, the Public Resources Code, relating to coastal resources.
AB 1740 would create a Santa Monica-specific coastal permitting framework intended to streamline certain local actions while the city develops its own local coastal program. The bill requires the City of Santa Monica to submit a complete proposed local coastal program to the California Coastal Commission by January 1, 2029, and directs the commission to act on it within six months unless the city asks for more time. Until that program is certified, the bill exempts a defined set of activities in Santa Monica from Coastal Act permit review, including parking management changes, certain roadway and right-of-way improvements that support walking, biking, and transit, ADA-related public facility upgrades, EV charging installation, temporary community events, limited building renovations and changes of use, outdoor dining, and specified housing development projects outside sensitive coastal areas.
The bill also amends existing Coastal Act provisions to make it easier to process lane-conversion projects that replace motor vehicle lanes with bicycle, transit, or pedestrian facilities. For local coastal program amendments and coastal development permit applications involving those conversions, the executive director of the Coastal Commission would be able to waive or streamline review if the project, on balance, provides commensurate or enhanced public access to the coast. The bill removes the traffic study requirement for those applications, requires the commission to keep public records of applications, and mandates an annual report to the Legislature on waivers, denials, and pending applications. These provisions are framed as temporary and tied to certification of Santa Monica’s local coastal program, with some exemptions expiring on specific dates in 2029 or 2031.
In practical terms, the bill would shift some permitting authority and administrative discretion away from the Coastal Commission and toward the City of Santa Monica for a limited set of projects, while preserving commission oversight for more substantial development and environmentally sensitive locations. It would create a state-mandated local program for Santa Monica and could affect how the city manages parking, street redesign, housing projects, public facility upgrades, and temporary uses in the coastal zone. The bill also includes findings that it is a special statute for Santa Monica and provides for state reimbursement if mandated local costs are found.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative history appears favorable, at least at the committee level. It passed the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee 10-0 and the Assembly Appropriations Committee 12-0, indicating unanimous support in those votes. The bill’s findings emphasize climate goals, multimodal access, housing production, and reduced vehicle miles traveled, suggesting a policy rationale centered on modernization and local flexibility rather than deregulation for its own sake.
The main points of contention are likely to involve the balance between local control and Coastal Commission oversight, and whether the bill’s exemptions could weaken coastal resource protections or public access safeguards. The bill anticipates those concerns by limiting exemptions near beaches, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and by requiring written findings that certain projects will not reduce shoreline access. Still, the most sensitive issues are the Santa Monica-specific nature of the measure, the parking-related exemptions, and the possibility that housing and street-improvement projects could proceed with less commission review than under current practice.
AB 1740 would amend the Public Resources Code by adding a Santa Monica-specific local coastal program deadline and temporary permit exemptions, and by revising Section 30610.91 to broaden and clarify streamlined treatment for bicycle, transit, and pedestrian lane-conversion projects statewide. It would create a new duty for the City of Santa Monica to submit a complete local coastal program, require faster commission action on that submission, and temporarily exempt specified categories of development from Coastal Act permit requirements until certification occurs or the stated sunset dates are reached. The bill would also require annual reporting by the Coastal Commission and could impose reimbursable state-mandated local costs if determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
The available voting record suggests strong support and little formal opposition in committee, with unanimous do-pass votes in both the Housing and Community Development Committee and the Appropriations Committee. The bill’s framing emphasizes housing production, climate policy, multimodal transportation, and administrative efficiency, which likely contributed to the positive committee response. No committee transcript was provided, so the broader debate cannot be directly assessed from discussion records.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s special treatment of Santa Monica, the extent to which it limits Coastal Commission review, and whether parking and development exemptions could affect shoreline access or coastal resource protection. Supporters appear to argue that Santa Monica is an urbanized, transit-rich coastal city that can manage routine local actions without full commission permitting, while critics may worry that the bill narrows coastal oversight and sets a precedent for local carve-outs. The bill tries to address these concerns by excluding sensitive areas, requiring access findings for certain projects, and preserving commission authority over more substantial development.