A bill that would exempt a wide range of housing, transportation and parking projects from California Coastal Commission permitting requirements has been narrowed to apply exclusively to Santa Monica as it moves through the state Assembly, its author says the revision is unlikely to derail the legislation.
AB 1740, introduced by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur in February, originally envisioned a statewide framework that would have allowed more than a dozen coastal cities with dense transit networks to bypass individual coastal development permits for projects including housing, bike lanes, outdoor dining and parking adjustments. A committee amendment restricted the bill's geographic scope to Santa Monica alone, at least for now.
"It's true, but the basic architecture of the bill remains intact," Zbur said in an interview. "The reason we did it that way is to allow, in another year, for other cities to be added to the program."
Zbur said the scope reduction came at the recommendation of the Natural Resources Committee and was not sought by the City of Santa Monica. He said he argued against the limitation but accepted it to keep the bill moving forward. The committee preserved the bill's program structure, leaving open a pathway for other qualifying cities to be added in future legislative sessions.
"This came from the committee itself," Zbur said. "We actually argued to try to not limit it quite as much."
Narrowing a bill to a single city is not unprecedented in Sacramento. A bill by Sen. Ben Allen related to speed cameras was similarly restricted to Malibu, which Zbur noted eventually served as a pilot that led to broader legislation.
Key Revisions to the Bill
In addition to the geographic restriction, the April 15 amendments made significant changes to the bill's parking provisions, a central point of contention among local critics.
The revised bill explicitly prohibits the removal of beach parking lots and parking on streets proximate to the beach. Under the amended language, parking management exemptions — including the ability to add or remove spaces and set pricing — do not apply to areas between the sea and the first public road paralleling it, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach.
Parking rate increases are now capped under a tiered structure: the city may raise rates without Coastal Commission approval until they reach $10 per day, adjusted annually for inflation based on the California Consumer Price Index. Any increases beyond that threshold are limited to the annual CPI change.
The bill does still allow removal of on-street parking outside those beach-adjacent areas, provided changes are tied to pedestrian, bicycle or transit improvements and the city makes a written finding that the project will not reduce public access to the shoreline.
"The goal is to not allow removal of beach parking," Zbur said. "The bill also recognizes that a lot of people still come into coastal cities using cars, and that we still need to protect parking and beach access for people driving in."
The amended bill also narrows the definitions section. Where earlier versions defined a broad category of qualifying "urban multimodal communities," the revised text substitutes a simple definition: "'City' means the City of Santa Monica."
Housing development exemptions were also modified. The bill now exempts multifamily housing projects from coastal development permit requirements provided they are not located within 300 feet of the beach, within 100 feet of wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and are located in areas where multifamily housing is already permitted under the city's general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance. Single-family homes with accessory dwelling units are explicitly excluded. The bill sunsets on January 1, 2037.
Committee Analysis and Legislative Process
The bill passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee 10-0 on April 13 and is double-referred to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, chaired by Assemblymember Matt Haney, where it is scheduled to be heard April 22.
The Housing and Community Development Committee's analysis describes the bill as establishing "a broad set of exemptions from Coastal Act CDP requirements within the City of Santa Monica" covering parking management, transportation improvements, accessibility upgrades, temporary events, building renovations, outdoor dining, bicycle infrastructure and housing development.
The committee analysis notes that the bill effectively supersedes locally adopted coastal policies in those categories, applying "notwithstanding any provision of an existing certified Local Coastal Program or certified land use plan." That means qualifying projects would bypass not only Coastal Commission review but also the additional coastal-specific standards and appeal pathways built into Santa Monica's Local Coastal Program.
The analysis acknowledges the tradeoff, stating the bill "may streamline infill housing production in a high-opportunity coastal jurisdiction and reduce permitting timelines" while also shifting "the balance between state-directed streamlining and the Coastal Act's longstanding reliance on locally tailored coastal planning through certified LCPs."
The bill includes a sunset date of January 1, 2037, which the committee noted would "allow the Legislature to evaluate how these changes affect housing production, coastal access, and resource protection over time."
The committee also suggested an amendment that would make sites identified for housing in the city's housing element — not only the land use element — eligible for the exemption.
Support and Opposition
The bill has drawn a broad coalition of supporters, including co-sponsors Abundant Housing LA, Streets for All and the City of Santa Monica, along with the California Home Building Alliance, the League of California Cities, Los Angeles County, the California Chamber of Commerce, AARP and numerous neighborhood housing advocacy groups.
Opposition is organized, Zbur acknowledged, and centers less on the bill's specific provisions than on the principle of modifying the Coastal Act at all.
The California Coastal Protection Network, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, Sierra Club and dozens of other environmental and coastal advocacy groups are either opposed or have taken an "oppose unless amended" position. Several groups, including the Surfrider Foundation and Azul, called on the author to remove all Coastal Act exemptions from the bill.
"The core of the bill — which guts essential Coastal Act provisions for the protection of the environment, public access, environmental justice and sea level rise planning — remains intact," the California Coastal Protection Network and others wrote in a joint position statement.
Zbur said the opposition reflects a structural concern about precedent rather than the specifics of the legislation.
"It's not that they think species are going to be harmed or wetlands are going to be harmed," he said. "But if you're taking away authority for this reason, the next thing is you're going to take the authority for a different reason, and eventually it's a slippery slope."
Zbur said he remains confident the bill will pass the Assembly and acknowledged that Senate hearings will be more difficult. Any bill that touches the Coastal Act, he said, is subject to heightened scrutiny at every stage.
"I am still confident that we will be successful getting this bill through this year," he said.