The Santa Monica City Council voted April 14 to advance an ordinance realigning the city's implementation of Senate Bill 9 with state law, while amending staff's recommendation to retain a minimum guaranteed unit size of 1,500 square feet — a standard staff had proposed reverting to the state's 800-square-foot floor.
The ordinance, prepared by Planning Manager Ross Fehrman, amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.125, which governs duplexes and lot splits on parcels zoned for single-unit residential use. The vote was 5-1, with Council Member Lana Negrete casting the lone dissent.
SB 9, known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act, took effect Jan. 1, 2022, permitting property owners to construct a duplex with accessory dwelling units on a single parcel or subdivide a parcel and build up to two units on each resulting lot, capping total development at four units. Santa Monica first implemented the law in April 2023. Subsequent state legislation, Senate Bill 450, prompted further local revisions adopted in May 2025, including the 1,500-square-foot guaranteed unit size and a council direction to eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement.
The ordinance before council would bring the city's code back into conformity with state law as required by Santa Monica's 6th Cycle Housing Element, reinstating the owner-occupancy affidavit requirement and proposing to revert the guaranteed unit size to 800 square feet — though staff acknowledged the council retained discretion to set the floor higher.
Fehrman told the council the practical stakes of the unit-size question were more nuanced than they might appear. "Whether it's 800 or 1,500, it's not a minimum, it's not a guaranteed maximum," he said. "It just means we have to make sure we are allowing for them to at least achieve those sizes." He also noted that of the roughly 10 SB 9 applications received since the law's adoption, none had required modified local standards to achieve larger unit sizes, though he cautioned outcomes were highly case-specific.
Council Member Ellis Raskin, who moved approval of the ordinance, argued that the 1,500-square-foot threshold reflected a hard-won legislative compromise reached on May 13, 2025, and should be honored. "In light of that promise that I made to my colleagues on the dais, I think it's really important to honor the compromises and promises and agreements we make as part of the legislative process," Raskin said during his remarks. He also cited the scarcity of larger rental units as a practical justification. "I looked for a three-bedroom apartment a few years ago, and there were only a handful available citywide," he said.
Council Member Natalya Zernitskaya, who seconded the motion, argued that while SB 9 would not resolve the housing crisis overnight, incremental progress remained meaningful. "It took us time to get into the housing crisis we're in," she said. "It's going to take time to get out of it, but I think we can, as long as we continue to try to make changes that are responsive and try to follow the data and make more homes available for more people."
Negrete, the sole dissenting vote, expressed deep reservations about density increases outpacing the city's capacity to study their effects. "We're making real, permanent changes to our neighborhoods without clear data on outcomes, and that is concerning to me," she said, adding that she did not believe SB 9 in practice delivered housing affordable to those who needed it most.
The council also directed staff to return with a separate local ordinance implementing additional elements of the May 13, 2025, legislative package — most notably removal of the owner-occupancy requirement — which Fehrman said could not be accomplished through the state-law implementation ordinance alone and would require its own planning commission review. He estimated that process could take a matter of months, depending on scope.
The ordinance also incorporates changes required by Assembly Bill 1061, effective Jan. 1, 2026, prohibiting demolition of contributing structures within state or locally designated historic districts and restricting alteration of exterior structural walls in those areas.
The Planning Commission had voted 6-1 on March 4 to recommend the state-aligned amendments without increasing the guaranteed unit size above 800 square feet. One dissenting commissioner argued the council should simultaneously consider a local ordinance reinstating the 1,500-square-foot guarantee and removing the owner-occupancy requirement.
A second reading will be required before the ordinance takes effect. Staff identified no immediate financial impact from the action.