Santa Monica’s Coastal Fight Is Moving From Sacramento Back to City Hall
Two separate but closely connected debates over the future of development in Santa Monica are now unfolding at the same time: one in Sacramento over Assembly Bill 1740, and another locally over the city’s long-delayed Local Coastal Program. Together, the fights could reshape how housing, transportation, and development projects are approved in the coastal zone for years to come.
AB 1740 Draws Opposition From Community Groups
Assembly Bill 1740, authored by Rick Chavez Zbur, would reduce the number of projects in Santa Monica requiring direct approval from the California Coastal Commission. The bill would create exemptions for certain housing developments, bike and bus lanes, accessibility improvements, outdoor dining, parking changes, and temporary events in already urbanized areas. Supporters argue the measure would speed up routine projects often delayed by lengthy coastal permitting processes.
But as the legislation has advanced through Sacramento, opposition has intensified locally. Neighborhood organizations including the North of Montana Association have criticized the bill’s housing provisions, arguing they go far beyond streamlining small transportation or economic development projects and instead weaken independent oversight of residential development near the coast.
The political debate has increasingly centered on housing. Supporters, including housing advocates and some City Council members, argue the Coastal Commission has become a barrier to infill housing, bike infrastructure, and commercial revitalization projects. Councilmember Dan Hall testified that projects frequently stall after entering coastal review, discouraging investment and slowing improvements.
Opponents counter that the bill could allow larger projects to move forward without adequate environmental or public-access review. Critics also objected to the city supporting the legislation before a formal City Council vote. The controversy has spilled into op-eds, public letters, and heated online debates over “local control,” housing growth, and the role of the Coastal Commission in shaping Santa Monica’s future.
Council Moves Quickly on Local Coastal Program
As first reported in the Lookout, the City Council is now moving to accelerate work on a certified Local Coastal Program, or LCP — something Santa Monica has lacked for decades. Under California’s Coastal Act, cities with approved LCPs gain much greater local authority over coastal permitting, while the Coastal Commission shifts into a more limited oversight and appeals role.
The renewed push for an LCP appears directly tied to the controversy around AB 1740. Even supporters of the legislation increasingly acknowledge that a certified LCP would provide a more durable long-term solution than relying on Sacramento legislation to carve out exemptions from Coastal Commission authority.
Mayor Caroline Torosis said the debate around AB 1740 created a “unique window” to finally resolve the issue after years of delay. Councilmember Lana Negrete, who opposes parts of AB 1740, similarly argued the controversy has accelerated momentum for a more transparent and community-driven coastal planning process.
The Council’s decision to fast-track LCP discussions signals growing recognition that Santa Monica’s unusual status — as one of the few coastal cities without a certified program — sits at the center of the current conflict. Whether the city ultimately moves forward through state legislation, a local coastal plan, or some combination of both, the debate has become one of the defining land-use battles in Santa Monica politics.
Author
About The Author
