By Jorge Casuso

May 5, 2026 -- A State Assembly bill that exempts Santa Monica from Coastal Commission permits for certain activities and types of development is moving towards approval with unanimous committee votes.

Co-sponsored by Assemblymember Rick Zbur, who represents the district that includes Santa Monica, the bill is meeting with both enthusiastic support locally and stiff opposition.

Proponents say AB 1740, which is co-sponsored by the City, will make it faster and cheaper to mount special events, boost business and develop small-scale housing, while opponents fear it will open the floodgates to high-rise luxury condos along the beach.

On Monday, Northeast Neighbors emailed the co-sponsors of the bill and the chairs of two key committees urging them to oppose a "special bill" that applies only to Santa Monica "rather than a comprehensive approach to coastal policy."

"We oppose this piecemeal carveout for a single jurisdiction because it undermines the very foundation of the statewide protection of the Coastal Act," the Board of Northeast Neighbors wrote.

The bill "has no requirement for affordable housing," the Board said. "It’s a carve-out that if approved will result in high density luxury condos along our coast."

Introduced by Zubur on February 5, AB 1740 waives Coastal Commission permits required for "certain activities and types of development within an urban multimodal community," such as Santa Monica.

On April 22, the bill was amended by the Assembly Housing Committee "after legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for Santa Monica," according to the Legislative Counsel's Digest.

"The bill would repeal these permit exemptions on January 1, 2037," the digest stated.

Before the vote, City Councilmember Dan Hall testified "in strong support" of AB 1740. "The City of Santa Monica is proud to co-sponsor this bill," Hall said.

"This bill now applies only to Santa Monica -- and only to a limited set of low-impact activities that do not restrict access" to the coast, Hall told the Committee.

"At City Hall, we hear the same thing again and again," Hall said. "(A)pplicants are ready to move forward, until they encounter the additional layer of Coastal Commission review that can be unpredictable in timing, cost, and outcome.

"At that point, projects stall, or they don’t happen at all," he told the Committee. The bill "is about aligning coastal protection with our state’s housing and climate action goals, and our local economic recovery."

Ten days before the Committee's vote, Dan Jansenson, representing the slow-growth group Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow (SMa.r.t.) emailed City officials requesting "background information on Santa Monica’s co-sponsorship of AB 1740."

The day the Housing Committee approved the amended bill, the City responded.

"Assemblymember Zbur’s office approached the City to gauge interest in sponsoring the bill," the email read. "The concepts reflected in the bill were informed by ideas and challenges shared by City staff and are consistent with the City’s adopted State Legislative Platform."

Santa Monica's pro-housing Council did not vote on co-sponsoring the bill, which officials said is not unusual, and the Council's "Legislative Positions" listed on the City website have not been updated since July 2023.

In her weekly newsletter sent on April 27, Councilmember Lana Negrete said she was divided over the bill, which gives the City more control over such things as "outdoor dining, temporary events, bike and bus lanes, and certain housing projects."

"I agree with parts of this," Negrete wrote. "I have watched the Coastal Commission hold up business openings for so long that operators give up entirely. Other businesses have walked away.

“In a moment of economic recovery, that kind of friction is doing real damage. We need a local coastal plan, and we need faster turnaround on outdoor dining and temporary activations on our beach."

"Where I part ways," Negrete wrote, "is the housing piece."

"My fear is that this bill will be used to push 20-story luxury developments along our coastline that will not deliver affordability or workforce housing, and that will permanently change the look, feel, and accessibility of the coast we all share," she wrote.