1 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall
Subject: 16A - or special meeting
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’m writing in support of Council pursuing a certified Local Coastal Program and re-opening a real conversation with the Coastal Commission. It is overdue. What I want to weigh in on tonight is the spirit in which we go into that conversation — and the version of recent history we tell ourselves while we’re doing it.
We all want our downtown to recover. We all want tourism back, businesses returning, and the Third Street Promenade alive again as a place residents actually use and enjoy.
But the Council must go into LCP negotiations understanding what the Coastal Commission actually is for the rest of us - a check on Santa Monica’s own political tendencies. We should be asking the Commission for help holding ourselves to a higher standard than we have been willing to hold on our own.
A few specifics. Whatever LCP this Council pursues, we must not ask for it to or let it become a streamlining or ministerial-approval vehicle for development projects. Those terms sound neutral, but in practice they very often mean fewer public hearings, fewer notices, fewer chances for residents to find and raise legitimate concerns, and projects that move forward whether or not the people most affected ever had a meaningful say. We have seen enough of that pattern citywide.
The same goes for transit and roadway changes within the coastal zone. We still do not have a definitive answer on whether upgrades to existing bus stops or bus lanes can trigger new SB 79 transit-qualifying hubs — and until that question is settled, the City must not reduce the Commission’s oversight over what happens to routes, stops, and roadways along the coast. After everything that has been upzoned in this city already, we cannot now upzone the coast by accident through a transit improvement project.
Finally, on AB 1740: a bill was quietly written in Sacramento aimed at the coastline of Santa Monica, given official support from our city, and never subject to a public hearing on the specifics before our support was added, practically ensuring it would move quickly through the legislature. The whole process feels like an end-run around the Coastal Commission and around the people who live here.
Please let’s learn from the fierce opposition to this bill and the process by which it happened, and let’s not repeat this kind of process. To the extent the bill is still alive, we should not continue to support it.
Pursue the LCP. Please hold the line on resident voice and Commission authority.
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
2 Protect the coast like it is something we love — because if it becomes like Any Beach USA, our ability to recover economically will truly be threatened, and not just in the short term.
Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16A - only item on agenda intended to circumvent LCP PUBLIC INPUT
EXTERNAL
Dear Conniving Council Members,
What are the rules that define “Community Engagement “ in the development of a Local Coastal Plan (LCP)? Surely it doesn’t look like a dozen years of back and forth with the Coastal Commission… with the last THREE YEARS behind closed doors with zero community engagement while conflicted over :
"What followed was a years-long impasse, not because Santa Monica failed to engage, but because of fundamental policy disagreements about how the Coastal Act should apply to an urban, transit-rich, multimodal coastal city."
The City "re-engaged" with the Coastal Commission in May 2023 "and has worked steadily since," the report said.
"The landscape has shifted meaningfully in recent weeks." Most of you will go down in Santa Monica’s History as THE MOST CONNIVING COUNCIL MEMBER EVER TO HAVE BEEN ELECTED.
VOTE THEM OUT and RECALL the others attached to the
DESTROY the SANTA MONICA COASTLINE SCHEME
Voters : vote out Torosis and Zwick this November and recall SNELL, Hall, Raskin and Zernitskaya. ( Beware that their ELECTION PAC PROMOTIONS will use false messaging to make them appear to be “the good guys” who are all about protecting the Santa Monica coastline. Take a picture of this email and get to work mobilizing against all of them.
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
4 Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
5 THIS NOVEMBER,
Vote for:
1. Lana Negrete
2. Ashley Oelsen
3. Doug Trussler
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete
Subject: City Council Special Meeting 5-12-26: Local Coastal Plan
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I support re-engaging with the Coastal Commission to get approval for, and implement, a Local Coastal Plan that protects our coast for everyone.
It's really important to note for the record how we got here, and the revisionist history being used by the Council majority and Staff to recast their failed attempt to gut the Coastal Commission in Santa Monica.
Make no mistake, this isn't leadership and it's not an emergency. This is damage control for a year spent behind the scenes crafting AB1740 with Rick Zbur to eliminate Coastal Commission authority in Santa Monica - a bill that has proven hugely unpopular, and a reelection campaign problem for Torosis, among residents who still believe our coast is for everyone.
Prior to that, Council and Staff spent at least a year eliminating environmental protections and zoning via SB79. Image how far we could have progressed on an LCP if our City had been working in good faith on its LCP instead of working to neuter the Coastal Commission for the benefit of developers.
Furthermore, this item was posted by Mayor Torosis 5.5 hours AFTER the cutoff to sign up for remote public comment. The Mayor's use of special meetings must also be accompanied by allowing the public to speak remotely on the item.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Subject: Re: Oppose AB1740 CORRECTION PLEASE DISREGARD PREVIOUS
EXTERNAL
Our coast is iconic. It is the only reason people come to our town. It is the only reason people live here. The coastal commission has preserved this important natural treasure.
IN DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA, you MAY TRY TO build your luxury towers, you MAY TRY TO erase what was beachy about Santa Monica,
and that MAY further crater our town. But WE THE PEOPLE, will not allow you to limit access to our coast, block views of the ocean, affect our sacred land.
You have gone too far this time. This land does not belong to you. It belongs to the people.
And whoever on the council supports AB1740 will face such opposition as you have never seen.
Truly. We will vote you out, we will have you recalled. We will make good trouble so that this coast is accessible and visible and enjoyed by all, We the People - Not You the Developer
owned.
Ellis, Barry, Lana, we know you are better than this. We know you believe in democracy and the importance of nature for every person, no matter race, income, class, demographic.
Stand up for what matters. THIS ACTION WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY.
Thank you,
Karen Croner
This Land Is Your Land
Words and Music by Woody Guthrie
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York island,
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters;
This land was made for you and me.
As I was walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway;
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
8 I saw below me that golden valley;
This land was made for you and me.
I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding;
This land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling, As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.
In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.
Karen Croner
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Subject: Oppose AB1740
EXTERNAL
Our coast is iconic. It is the only reason people come to our town. It is the only reason people live here. The coastal commission has preserved this important natural treasure.
You will build your luxury towers, you will erase what was beachy about Santa Monica, and that will further crater our town. But WE THE PEOPLE, will not allow you to limit access to our coast, block views of the ocean, affect our sacred land.
You have gone too far this time. This land does not belong to you. It belongs to the people.
And whoever on the council supports AB1740 will face such opposition as you have never seen.
Truly. We will vote you out, we will have you recalled. We will make good trouble so that this coast is accessible and visible and enjoyed by all, We the People. Not You the Developer owned.
Ellis, Barry, Lana, we know you are better than this. We know you believe in democracy and the importance of nature for every person, no matter race, income, class, demographic.
Stand up for what matters.
Thank you,
Karen Croner
This Land Is Your Land
Words and Music by Woody Guthrie
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York island,
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters;
This land was made for you and me.
As I was walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway;
I saw below me that golden valley;
This land was made for you and me.
I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
10 And all around me a voice was sounding;
This land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling, As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.
In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.
Karen Croner
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
11 Mitchell Kois
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; [email protected] Subject: OPPOSE Zbur's AB 1740 & OPPOSE Torosis's Local Coastal Plan
EXTERNAL
I am OPPOSED to Zbur's AB 1740 and any plan -- specifically the "Local Coastal Plan" that resembles it. Our coastline needs to be protected, as it has been under the California Coastal Act of 1976. It is not up for grabs for the developers. The majority of our city council seems to be beholden to developers and blind to the will of Santa Monica residents and to what would be good for the environment and economy.
The California Coastal Act of 1976.
Section 30001 Legislative findings and declarations; ecological balance The Legislature hereby finds and declares:
(a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem.
(b) That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. (c) That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction.
I strongly oppose the plan being pursued by Mayor Torosis and other developer friendly members of the council. When will the city council listen to and pursue what the people want? We need an open, protected coastline. I repeat, you will damage the environment and the economy if you force your plan on us. You must stop this now.
Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
12 Mitchell Kois
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:06 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: tonight's very special LCP meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager,
Please consider residents of Santa Monica and those, who visit to enjoy our beach tonight. We don't want a City ringed with high-rise building for the wealthy. AB 1740 as wriƩen is a giŌ to the developers. What does "infill housing" even mean?
Develop a bill about bike lanes, parking and events.
As Negrete said, "At the end of the day, the Coastal Act maƩers.
There’s a reason our coastline sƟll feels accessible, open, and protected." "The goal shouldn’t be to dismantle those protecƟons. The goal should be to modernize the process through a workable Local Coastal Plan that balances environmental stewardship, economic recovery, public access, and local flexibility." Thank you for thinking of the people, who live and visit the Santa Monica, Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: City Council Meeting May 12, 2026 Item 16.A.
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must oppose a Local Coastal Program plan that exempts most programs and projects from Coastal Commission permits.
The Coastal Commission exists to preserve and protect our coastal area and should not be weakened and guƩed. Minor items such as outdoor dining, special events and bicycle lanes can be handled by the Coastal Commission itself and not be subject to the State or City of Santa Monica. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Subject: ITEM 16 A.. 5/12/2026.. OPPOSE AB1740 AS WRITTEN
EXTERNAL
A. Request of Mayor Torosis, Councilmember Raskin and Councilmember Snell to hold a special meeting to receive a briefing on significant progress in the City of Santa Monica's (City) long-standing pursuit of a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), to memorialize the work underway, and to provide Council direction on how to carry this progress forward
"Spearheaded by Mayor Caroline Torosis, the special meeting -- which was posted minutes before the required 24-hour notification -- will provide a status report on the City's "longstanding pursuit of a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP)." Enough double-legalese speak Caroline.. you and your $$ partners..Streets for All and Abundant Housing LA do not own this town..they just own you, Dan Hall, Natalya, Zwick. They surely don't own Lana and maybe Ellis and Barry will get a stroke of integrity and stop selling this town out for their own gain.
There are few in this town that want more market rate housing anywhere..but that is all you give us with a paltry few units of "affordables"..pathetic what you have done. But now, you want to do all you can to destroy our coast and take it away from the residents as a final pay off to your masters. Shame shame on all of you. Having trouble getting permit for thousands to tromp all over our fragile coast system- even more so since the Palisades fire. well I am all for not allowing it anyway. There is nothing about AB 1740 that I like from who authored it..Zbur -we are not his town to damage.. get your mitts off us you Wiener troll... get out of our business..Move on with your sell out ideas done in the dark with the darkest prince ever ..Dan Hall helping.
No to AB 1740 all the way..but definitely no housing.not one unit ..
Stop playing games with us Caroline. You were once someone of integrity and decency but you have been all too willing to open your political limbs to the money concerns who have invaded us like a mass of diseased locusts.
May you go down in November.
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
15 Danielle Charney
Fed Up with the BS
No on 1740
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Subject: COMMENT ITEM 16A May 12, 2026 Special Meeting Called by Mayor Torosis Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Board of Friends of Sunset Park, we write in support of pursuing a certified Local Coastal Program and we encourage Council to re-engage with the California Coastal Commission in good faith. A certified LCP is a worthy and overdue goal. We want to be equally clear, however, about what that pursuit must and must not look like — and about the honest history that brings us to this moment.
We strongly support bringing businesses back downtown, revitalizing tourism, and making the Third Street Promenade a place that works for residents and visitors alike. There is urgent work to be done on that front, and we want to see Council pursue it energetically.
A certified LCP, and our relationship with the Coastal Commission, should function as guardrails against ourselves. The history of this city makes clear that Santa Monica’s elected leadership cannot always be trusted to protect the coast from developer interests. That is not an attack — it is an honest reading of how local politics, campaign dynamics, and wellresourced developer pressure have shaped land use decisions here. The Coastal Commission exists precisely so that the public’s coast does not depend on local political will alone, and we should not be approaching this moment trying to pressure the Commission into giving Santa Monica more latitude to exploit its own coast. We should be asking the Commission to help us bind our future selves.
That framework shapes everything else. Once an LCP is certified, the City becomes the day-to-day permitting authority for most coastal development — which makes the content of the plan critical. The LCP must not become a vehicle for streamlining, ministerial approval, expedited review, or any other mechanism that loosens coastal development review in ways that cut residents out. In practice, those mechanisms mean fewer hearings, fewer notices, and fewer ways for the public to raise real legal and compliance concerns — a steady narrowing of resident voice that almost always benefits well-resourced developers. We will be watching to ensure this LCP locks in clear, specific protections rather than leaving room for future Councils to carve out lighter-touch pathways for coastal development. And whatever Commission oversight remains after certification should not be further reduced by any side agreement layered on top of the plan.
The same concern applies to transit and roadway changes in the coastal zone. There is a critical, unanswered question:
can “upgrades” to existing bus stops or bus lanes produce new SB 79 transit-qualifying hubs, and therefore new upzoning by operation of state law? Until that question is resolved, the City cannot responsibly give up any of the Commission’s remaining authority over routes, stops, and roadway configurations along the coast. After eight years of citywide upzoning, we cannot invite a mechanism that quietly upzones the coastal zone through changes to transit infrastructure.
Finally, although AB 1740 is not on tonight’s agenda, it must be named. To suggest any renewed willingness to engage on the LCP emerged as the intended product of AB 1740 rewrites very recent history. AB 1740 was a deliberate runaround of the Coastal Commission and of Santa Monica residents alike, aimed at unleashing luxury, market-rate development on some of the most valuable land in Los Angeles County. To the extent the Commission is back at the table it is because residents made AB 1740’s posture untenable — not because the bill was a clever opening gambit. And we must say plainly: it is unacceptable to legislate for Santa Monica through the state legislature. A bill aimed at a single city’s coastline, advanced in Sacramento outside the reach of the residents who live here and the Council that represents them, is a serious breach of local democracy regardless of one’s views on coastal development. This cannot happen again. We Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
2 expect our Council, our state legislators, and our regional partners to oppose any such future attempt, and to ensure no Santa Monica official has any hand in inviting or shaping such a bill.
Friends of Sunset Park supports the pursuit of a certified LCP. We insist that the plan itself genuinely protect the coast and resident voice, that no side arrangement further reduce Commission oversight, and that this work proceed with a clear-eyed account of how we got here — because it was residents, not AB 1740, who brought the Commission back to the table.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
The Board of Friends of Sunset Park
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
3 Mitchell Kois
From: Angela D. Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 16A - Support for 1740 with Consideration for Coastal Access and Traffic Mitigation
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of Item 16A, the proposed 1740 project and the broader vision of creating more housing opportunities in Santa Monica, particularly near transit, jobs, and existing infrastructure. As our city continues to face affordability challenges impacting working families, students, seniors, and local workers, thoughtful housing development must remain part of the solution.
I appreciate that this proposal reflects many of the values long advocated by community members and organizations seeking a more inclusive and sustainable Santa Monica — one that allows people who contribute to our city to also have the opportunity to live here.
At the same time, I believe it is important to acknowledge and thoughtfully address concerns raised by residents regarding beach access, circulation, and traffic impacts. These concerns should not be dismissed, but rather incorporated into the planning process through practical mitigation strategies and transparent engagement.
As the project moves forward, I encourage the City to prioritize:
• Strong multimodal transportation planning that reduces car dependency and improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity
• Clear traffic mitigation measures and monitoring, particularly during peak beach and visitor periods • Protection and enhancement of coastal accessibility for residents and visitors alike • Streetscape and infrastructure improvements that support neighborhood livability • Continued public engagement to ensure community concerns are meaningfully addressed throughout implementation
Santa Monica has an opportunity to demonstrate that housing growth, climate-conscious planning, and quality of life can coexist when projects are approached thoughtfully and collaboratively. I believe 1740 can move us in that direction if paired with responsible planning and accountability measures.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
4 Warmest,
Angela
Angela D. Scott (she/her), MBA/V, Certified ScrumMaster® Candidate, Doctor of Education, Ed.D.
Organizational Change and Leadership
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall
Subject: 16A - or special meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’m writing in support of Council pursuing a certified Local Coastal Program and re-opening a real conversation with the Coastal Commission. It is overdue. What I want to weigh in on tonight is the spirit in which we go into that conversation — and the version of recent history we tell ourselves while we’re doing it.
We all want our downtown to recover. We all want tourism back, businesses returning, and the Third Street Promenade alive again as a place residents actually use and enjoy.
But the Council must go into LCP negotiations understanding what the Coastal Commission actually is for the rest of us - a check on Santa Monica’s own political tendencies. We should be asking the Commission for help holding ourselves to a higher standard than we have been willing to hold on our own.
A few specifics. Whatever LCP this Council pursues, we must not ask for it to or let it become a streamlining or ministerial-approval vehicle for development projects. Those terms sound neutral, but in practice they very often mean fewer public hearings, fewer notices, fewer chances for residents to find and raise legitimate concerns, and projects that move forward whether or not the people most affected ever had a meaningful say. We have seen enough of that pattern citywide.
The same goes for transit and roadway changes within the coastal zone. We still do not have a definitive answer on whether upgrades to existing bus stops or bus lanes can trigger new SB 79 transit-qualifying hubs — and until that question is settled, the City must not reduce the Commission’s oversight over what happens to routes, stops, and roadways along the coast. After everything that has been upzoned in this city already, we cannot now upzone the coast by accident through a transit improvement project.
Finally, on AB 1740: a bill was quietly written in Sacramento aimed at the coastline of Santa Monica, given official support from our city, and never subject to a public hearing on the specifics before our support was added, practically ensuring it would move quickly through the legislature. The whole process feels like an end-run around the Coastal Commission and around the people who live here.
Please let’s learn from the fierce opposition to this bill and the process by which it happened, and let’s not repeat this kind of process. To the extent the bill is still alive, we should not continue to support it.
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
6 Pursue the LCP. Please hold the line on resident voice and Commission authority.
Protect the coast like it is something we love — because if it becomes like Any Beach USA, our ability to recover economically will truly be threatened, and not just in the short term.
Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:05 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Mtg. 5/12/26 - Item 16A - Wilmont Board comments on Coastal Commission and LCP
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) writing to formally oppose AB 1740 in its current form. We urge the Council to scrutinize this bill regarding its fiscal merits, the lack of transparency in the process by which it arrived before you, and the substantive damage it would cause to foundational environmental protections. Most critically, we oppose the expanded residential development exemptions that would be devastating to our neighborhood.
The City of Santa Monica’s co-sponsorship of this bill does not reflect the views of its residents, and there has been no public report on how this sponsorship occurred.
Wilmont consists of 12,500 residences, primarily 2-4 story multi-family buildings where approximately 80% of residents are renters. Our neighborhood is located more than half a mile from any light-rail stop and more than 300 feet from the beach. Under AB 1740, housing development projects in multi-family zones located more than 300 feet from the beach would be exempt from Coastal Commission review.
The bill defines qualifying projects by reference to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2), which imposes no affordability requirements. This means 100% luxury market-rate developments would qualify for exemptions with no deed-restricted affordable units. Furthermore, the bill allows building expansions of up to 50% and permits significant changes-of-use. These provisions appear designed for speculative coastal redevelopment rather than the minor adjustments to bike lanes, outdoor dining, and parking that sponsors have publicly described. While we welcome discussions on simplifying regulations for local coastal businesses, we cannot support these residential housing exemptions.
AB 1740 is now a special statute applying exclusively to Santa Monica. This classification should trigger heightened scrutiny. The Legislature is being asked to single out our coastline for diminished environmental protection and new development standards that prioritize market-rate projects over affordable housing. Ten years of these exemptions, combined with state density bonuses, would likely Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
2 lead to massive displacement of rent-controlled tenants and fundamentally alter the character of our community.
While AB 1740 is being marketed as a "minor coastal permitting fix," it functions as a major deregulatory housing bill. As California Coastal Commissioner Jaime Lee noted, AB 1740 is a "blunt instrument." Wilmont remains committed to a Santa Monica coast that is protected, accessible, and equitably enjoyed by all.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026
Item 16-A
May 12, 2026