Oppose Coastal Act Exemptions in AB 1740

Commission legislative staff provided an analysis of AB 1740. As originally written, the bill would have created an entire menu of Coastal Act exemptions for any city that self-declares itself an "urban multimodal community" — any city with a coastal transit stop, bike lane, and a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A low bar. Under the bill, urban multimodal communities would be exempt from the Coastal Act for the following types of development regardless of whether they have a certified LCP:

These exemptions could seriously jeopardize both public access and coastal resource protection. The bill also rewards the city that its author represents — Santa Monica — for being one of only 12 of 76 coastal cities without a certified LCP. Once the Commission certifies an LCP, the city gains local permitting authority while maintaining Coastal Act protections. This is the correct path.

Bill opponents noted that the bill was essentially written for Santa Monica — a point that became hard to dispute when the author accepted amendments limiting it to Santa Monica alone at last week's Assembly Natural Resources Committee meeting. While this lessens the bill's reach, it doesn't resolve the core problems. It would still reward Santa Monica for its failure to certify an LCP for over 50 years. It would still eviscerate Coastal Act protections for a large grab bag of development types. And it would likely invite other coastal cities to lobby for copycat exemptions.

ActCoastal members Surfrider, Salted Roots, Azul, California Coastal Protection Network, and West Marin EAC all provided testimony urging the Commission to oppose the bill, as did Surf Justice Collective member Outdoor Outreach.

Several Commissioners opined on the threats of AB 1740. Most notable were Commissioner Jackson — a City Councilmember representing Hermosa Beach, another dense coastal city without an LCP — and Commissioner Lee, a housing developer who might be expected to favor permit streamlining in the Coastal Zone. Both strongly opposed the bill.

Commissioner Jackson called it "a tool of the well-connected that are now pushing back against the broader public access and coastal protections that many have fought so hard for… 3 votes on a Tuesday would get Santa Monica whatever they want, if this were to pass."

Commissioner Lee, an inland Angeleno who visits Santa Monica regularly, described what's at stake firsthand: preferential parking that locks out visitors, multistory development destroying coastal bluffs and views.

The Commission voted unanimously to oppose AB 1740. (Commissioner O'Malley briefly stepped away from the dais and missed the vote.)

‍

‍

AB 1740 exemplifies the threats the Commission faces from Sacramento, and how adept the interests behind Coastal Act exemption bills have become at playing us against each other. By cosplaying as pro-housing, pro-transit legislation, AB 1740 supporters can attempt to characterize opponents as anti-housing NIMBYs when in fact, the opposite is true. As Commissioner Jackson implied, coastal cities like Santa Monica could eviscerate public access and visitor-serving accommodations without Coastal Act oversight — all it would take is a City Council vote.

This was the exact situation California faced in 1972, leading to one of the greatest underdog stories in state history: the successful passage of Prop 20, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. That fight laid the groundwork for the Coastal Act — and 50 years of proof that our coast is healthier and more accessible because of it.

‍