The Santa Monica Planning Commission voted unanimously at their recent meeting to delay a decision on proposed housing development standards, citing insufficient public engagement and concerns about rushing changes that could permanently alter single-family neighborhoods.

The commission continued until Dec. 17, a recommendation on zoning amendments related to two state laws — Senate Bills 684 and 1123 — that require cities to ministerially approve subdivisions of up to 10 units on certain parcels. The delay gives residents and developers more time to weigh in on City Council-proposed modifications that would go beyond state requirements.

"Meaningful public process — we need more of it," Commissioner Shawn Landres said during the meeting. "I want to make sure that we are allowing our standards to be overridden. I do not want to create new standards that could cause us to end up in a down-zoning problem."

The state laws mandate that Santa Monica allow ministerial approval of housing subdivisions on parcels zoned for multiple-unit and single-family dwellings. SB 1123, which became effective July 1, expanded provisions from SB 684 to include "vacant" single-family parcels up to 1.5 acres that meet specific criteria.

Under state law, cities must approve or deny such projects within 60 days and cannot impose height limits lower than underlying zoning or require parking within half a mile of high-quality transit. The law prohibits projects in high fire hazard zones and includes protections against tenant displacement.

However, the City Council went further in an emergency interim zoning ordinance adopted in June and extended in July, proposing standards more generous than state minimums. The council's modifications include allowing a 1.5 floor area ratio (compared to the state's 1.0 to 1.25 requirement), permitting three stories and 33 feet in height, reducing front setbacks, eliminating upper-story stepbacks, and waiving affordable housing fees for projects with five or fewer units.

Ross Fehrman, acting planning manager, told commissioners the modifications were intended to "provide greater flexibility and remove potential barriers to make these projects more feasible."

But commissioners questioned whether such changes were necessary. When asked if developers had complained that state standards were insufficient, Fehrman acknowledged: "None that I'm aware of."

Only one project has been submitted under the state law so far — an eight-unit fee-simple subdivision on a 13,000-square-foot lot that doesn't utilize the emergency ordinance provisions. No projects have used the city's more generous standards.

Commissioner Leslie Lambert, who lives in an R1 zone, supported the state law's goals but opposed the Council's more aggressive approach.

"I don't support three stories in our R1," Lambert said. "I know what three stories looks like, because I live next door to a 30-foot house. I don't really need a picture to show me that."

Lambert added: "If we up-zone here to 33 feet and a 1.5 FAR, and then we find down the road that that doesn't work, or it's not needed, and we want to down-zone, we're going to get smashed by the state."

Commissioner Nina Fresco raised concerns about the affordable housing fee waiver, noting the city would collect no fees for projects with five or fewer units while still requiring on-site affordable units for six to 10 units.

"I'm very uncomfortable with waiving the AHPP fees," Fresco said, referring to the Affordable Housing Production Program. "For me, giving away affordable housing fees is really painful, because we're not helping anybody by doing that."

Commissioners also worried about potential workarounds. Under current rules, a developer could create four parcels with accessory dwelling units on each, resulting in eight units with no affordable housing contribution.

Vice Chair Peer Chacko expressed frustration with the top-down process: "When we are going above and beyond, which we should certainly consider doing, I worry about a very top down process that is very explicit, that speaks to very specific numbers."

The commission received 34 public comments before the meeting — 21 letters supporting the changes and 12 in opposition. Opponents cited concerns about fire safety, evacuation capacity, parking, and neighborhood character. Several noted that proposed R1 projects could exceed development allowed in R2 multi-family zones.

Frank Prewoznik, a resident, wrote that adding density before completing the city's Local Hazards Mitigation Plan was premature, especially given "the heightened risk of fire spreading from structure-to-structure due to relaxed development standards."

The commission will reopen the public hearing Dec. 17, encouraging residents, developers and other stakeholders to provide input before making a recommendation to the City Council.

"Tell us what you think," Landres said. "We will read your comments and take them seriously, all of them, even if we disagree with them."