The Santa Monica City Council on Tuesday will consider three options for increasing development standards near the Expo/Bundy Metro station, the final piece needed to temporarily exempt the area from a new state law requiring greater density near transit stops.
The options, laid out in a staff report for the July 28 meeting, range from upzoning 89 single-family parcels north of the I-10 Freeway, to upzoning all 212 single-family parcels in the zone, to reverting to a Planning Commission recommendation that would instead raise standards on 66 parcels zoned for duplexes and apartments. Each option would allow the city to delay implementation of Senate Bill 79 in the Expo/Bundy area until a year after adoption of its next state-mandated Housing Element, expected around 2030.
The report comes two weeks after the council voted 5-1 to pursue rezoning single-family parcels rather than the multifamily parcels planning staff had originally recommended, directing staff to return with options for how many of those parcels should be included.
Need for the rezoning
SB 79, known as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, took effect statewide July 1 and sets minimum density, floor-area ratio and height standards for qualifying housing projects within a half-mile of designated transit stops. Cities can temporarily exclude a transit zone from those standards if at least a third of its parcels already permit at least half of SB 79's density and floor-area standards, and if the zone's overall permitted density reaches at least 75% of what SB 79 would require.
Five of Santa Monica's six transit-oriented development zones already meet that threshold, according to the staff report, and the council introduced an ordinance July 14 to exclude those zones, along with downtown bus stops, from SB 79's requirements. The Expo/Bundy zone, however, falls short. Of its 381 parcels, only 74 — about 19.4% — currently meet the density and floor-area threshold, well below the 126 parcels, or 33%, needed to qualify for exclusion. That means at least 52 additional parcels need increased development standards.
Of the zone's 381 parcels, the report states 90 are already ineligible for SB 79 protections, 54 are commercially zoned parcels that already meet or exceed SB 79 standards, and 237 are residentially zoned. Of those residential parcels, 232 carry what the report calls unlikely displacement risk — including 212 single-family, owner-occupied lots — while five carry potential involuntary displacement risk.
The three options
Option 1 would raise development standards on 89 single-family parcels located north of the I-10 Freeway, bounded by Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. The report says this area sits closest to the Expo/Bundy station and to higher-intensity commercial parcels in the Bergamot area. It would bring 42.7% of the zone's parcels up to the required threshold. Five of the 89 parcels have rent-controlled units, but all five are single-unit dwellings and therefore not protected under SB 79's displacement provisions, according to the report.
Option 2 would apply increased standards to all 212 single-family parcels located exclusively within the Expo/Bundy zone, raising 75.5% of parcels to the threshold — far more than the minimum needed. The report describes it as the simplest and most uniform approach, since it follows SB 79's own half-mile boundary rather than drawing a new line. Twenty of the 212 parcels have rent-controlled units, five of which have three or more units and are protected under SB 79's displacement rules.
Option 3 would return to the Planning Commission's June 17 recommendation to instead raise standards on 66 multifamily parcels — 60 zoned R2 and six zoned R3 — bringing 36.7% of the zone's parcels to the threshold while affecting the fewest total parcels. Of those 66 parcels, 44 have rent-controlled units and four have deed-restricted affordable units, with three parcels containing both. Forty of the 44 rent-controlled parcels have three or more units and would be protected under SB 79's displacement provisions; four would not.
Under all three options, a typical affected parcel's maximum density would rise to a 1.25 floor-area ratio, 30-foot height limit and 40 dwelling units per acre — below SB 79's guaranteed standards of a 2.5 floor-area ratio, 55-foot height and 80 dwelling units per acre, but above what current R1 zoning otherwise allows.
Staff also outlined four alternatives it considered and rejected, including upzoning parcels within a quarter-mile of the station, using a one-third-mile radius, targeting only parcels south of the I-10, or taking no action at all — each rejected either for falling short of the 33% threshold or for conflicting with the city's stated goal of directing development toward commercial corridors.
Background on the debate
The council's July 14 vote to pursue single-family rezoning over the Planning Commission's multifamily recommendation passed 5-1, with Councilmembers Natalia Zernitskaya, Caroline Snell, Ellis Raskin and Dan Hall and Mayor Caroline Torosis in favor and Councilmember Lana Negrete opposed. Councilmember Jesse Zwick abstained due to a conflict with his employer.
Raskin, who pushed for the single-family approach, argued it carried less displacement risk because most R1 parcels are owner-occupied, calling the change "really just paper upzoning" given that state laws such as SB 9 and SB 684 already allow comparable density on single-family lots. Negrete cast the lone dissenting vote, warning the approach could invite speculative buying by investors and asking staff to research the rent-control history of affected R1 parcels.
Planning Director Jing Yeo told the council at the July 14 meeting that any upzoning of single-family parcels would likely need to apply uniformly to avoid legal challenges resembling spot zoning, though city staff has since returned with the narrower Option 1 boundary for council's consideration.
No environmental review is required for Tuesday's discussion, staff said, because the item involves policy direction rather than a specific development project. Staff said any ordinance ultimately affecting the Expo/Bundy zone would need to return to the council for further action before taking effect.