The City Council voted 5-1 Tuesday to give initial approval to an ordinance raising development standards on 89 single-family-zoned parcels near the Expo/Bundy light-rail station, a targeted move designed to shield the city's last unprotected transit zone from a sweeping state housing law.
The measure passed on first reading after hours of debate and emotional public testimony. Councilmember Lana Negrete cast the only dissenting vote, and Councilmember Jesse Zwick was recused. A second reading is required before the ordinance takes effect.
At issue is Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which took effect statewide July 1 and guarantees minimum development standards — greater density, height and floor area — for qualifying housing projects within a half-mile of major transit stops. In July, the council adopted an ordinance temporarily excluding six of Santa Monica's seven transit-oriented development zones from the law until one year after the city adopts its next housing element, expected around 2030.
The seventh zone, Expo/Bundy, did not qualify. Because the zone straddles the border with Los Angeles and Santa Monica controls too few high-capacity parcels on its side, the city fell short of a state threshold requiring at least 33% of sites to allow half the density SB 79 guarantees. Only 74 of 381 parcels — about 19% — met the standard.
To close the gap, the ordinance increases the allowed density on the 89 R1 parcels, bounded by the I-10 Freeway, Dorchester Avenue, Exposition Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, from one unit per parcel to 40 dwelling units per acre. It also raises the floor area ratio from 0.5 to 1.25, but only for projects that meet the higher density, a condition staff said would prevent owners from simply building larger single homes. The existing 28-foot height limit is unchanged. Staff estimated the change would push the zone to 42.7% of qualifying sites, enough to secure exclusion.
Planners stressed the increase remains far below what SB 79 itself would permit — 2.5 floor area ratio, 55 feet and 80 units per acre. Left unaddressed, staff warned, the zone stays open to SB 79 projects; denials of qualifying projects in high-resource areas become rebuttably presumed unlawful starting Jan. 1, 2027, carrying penalties of $10,000 per unit.
The debate centered on displacement. An earlier proposal to upzone 66 multi-unit R2/R3 parcels was set aside in July over concerns about renters, and staff concluded the R1 approach carried lower risk. Business-license data identified only two of the 89 single-family parcels as rentals, though five are registered under rent control.
Councilmember Dan Hall, who moved the recommendation, framed the choice as a defense of tenants and a bet on ownership. "When you flip a single-family home into a handful of townhomes, it contains rising prices," he said, arguing the alternative was blocks of "4.5, 5, 6 million McMansions." He drew a sharp line between homeowners and renters: "Choosing to sell your home is not displacement, but with renters in multifamily housing, eviction is always an option and thus a threat to stability."
Hall's motion, seconded by Councilmember Barry Snell, initially paired the staff recommendation with direction to begin planning the city's alternative TOD zones. Mayor Caroline Torosis then won a friendly amendment directing staff to simultaneously study the community's "dual ordinance" concept, possible exemptions for parcels with uses such as child care, and a citywide anti-displacement measure for rent-controlled homes. She said her priority was to "close the door as quickly as possible" on the expanded development window while pursuing those added protections. Torosis also voiced frustration at repeated shifts in the data presented to the council: "I feel like we're getting new information every time we discuss this, which is a little bit disconcerting."
Negrete pushed for more time, offering a substitute motion to revisit the R2/R3 approach while the dual-ordinance idea was studied. It failed for lack of support, in part because that approach had not yet been submitted to the state. "I can't support the upzoning because of the R1 neighborhood," she said in explaining her vote, adding that she remained "curious to see what comes back."
Staff rejected the dual-ordinance approach, saying SB 79 is silent on how to calculate capacity across city lines and that the state Department of Housing and Community Development has not answered the city's request for guidance. City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln told the council the chance of a formal state response before the second reading was "nil."
Councilmember Ellis Raskin, who voted yes, signaled the item may yet change before final adoption. "Yes on first reading," he said. "Let's see what happens in the second."