The Santa Monica Planning Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend a dual-strategy approach for implementing a sweeping state housing law, seeking to temporarily shield vulnerable residential neighborhoods from mandatory upzoning while the city crafts a longer-term local alternative.
The unanimous vote directed the City Council to simultaneously pursue two of the three implementation options available under Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last October and set to take effect July 1.
The commission's recommendation calls on the council to quickly adopt a stop-gap ordinance temporarily excluding certain eligible residential parcels from the law's upzoning requirements until 2030, while staff works in parallel to develop a permanent Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan that would allow the city to strategically redistribute required housing density away from sensitive neighborhoods and concentrate it closer to transit stations and downtown.
Commission Chair Josh Hamilton, who framed much of the evening's technical discussion, put the core challenge plainly. The city's 2021-2029 housing element had intentionally concentrated density in commercial corridors, upzoning boulevards while largely leaving residential neighborhoods untouched. "We decided that we were going to take on a lot more housing capacity along the boulevards," Hamilton said. "The big impact is on the residential-zoned properties … and I think that's probably going to be the nexus of the conversation."
SB 79 establishes minimum height, density and floor area ratio standards for housing projects within a half-mile of major transit stops. In Santa Monica, that encompasses four Metro E Line light rail stations: Downtown Santa Monica, 17th Street/Santa Monica College, Bergamot, and Expo/Bundy. Because the city heavily upzoned its commercial corridors during its 2021-2029 housing element cycle, non-residential zones largely already meet or exceed the law's thresholds. The primary impact falls on residential zones — R1 through R4 — where SB 79 would potentially more than double permitted density and floor area ratios.
Commissioners expressed particular alarm about the law's potential effects on the Pico neighborhood, Santa Monica's most diverse community by race, income and generational background. Commissioner Shawn Landres, who made the motion ultimately adopted by the commission, flagged the risk of a direct conflict between SB 79 and the city's existing fair housing obligations. "I have fair housing concerns about conflict of laws and disparate impact from intensification of the density in the Pico neighborhood," Landres said, warning that the law "may be asking us to do some things in the Pico neighborhood that directly contradict what we were directed to do by the law, the Constitution and HCD, with respect to our housing element, in terms of protecting that neighborhood from displacement."
Landres also raised an alarm about a potential backdoor to further upzoning by outside transit agencies. "Does Big Blue Bus now control our zoning?" he asked staff directly. "If they decide to intensify transit, or if Metro decides to intensify transit on the Expo Line, could that back door change our zoning with no public hearings, no resolutions, no staff study, no public process?" Staff acknowledged the question was partially unresolved, particularly regarding whether increases in bus service frequency at existing stops — as opposed to new stops — could trigger SB 79 protections, and said the matter had been flagged for upcoming outreach to HCD.
Commissioner Jim Ries, who said he has served on the commission on and off since 2007, pushed back against an overly broad exclusion strategy, urging his colleagues to keep higher-intensity development in the zones immediately surrounding stations. "I have pushed for density within a quarter mile of transit since I started," he said. "I don't want to give up on this opportunity here to say that we're just going to go ahead and [waive] the SB 79 within the quarter miles."
That position helped shape the final motion, which called for protecting only the outer half-mile ring of residential parcels under the stop-gap approach while allowing the more intensive quarter-mile zones to proceed under SB 79 standards — at least until the city completes its longer-term alternative plan.
The commission's motion also formally requested that staff investigate specific protections for the Pico neighborhood — including the feasibility of a right-to-return policy for displaced residents — safeguard local historic landmarks, examine the potential for transferring density within zones as well as between them, and seek legal clarification on what qualifies as a major transit stop.
The vote drew sharp divisions in written public comment submitted before the meeting. The overwhelming majority of resident letters urged the city to adopt a local alternative rather than accept what many called a one-size-fits-all state mandate. Longtime homeowner Susan Aminoff asked commissioners to "adopt an option that considers the preservation of low density in neighborhoods like ours," while the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City urged the city to craft "its own plan for this wave of new development, rather than letting developers make those planning decisions for us."
But pro-housing voices pushed back forcefully. Abundant Housing LA urged the commission to otherwise fully implement the state bill, noting that over the first three years of the current eight-year housing planning cycle, Santa Monica has permitted just 13 percent of its assigned housing allocation, despite median rents of $2,400 and a median home sale price of $1.8 million. The group warned against broad deferrals, arguing that "a robust implementation of SB 79 will create more housing options in Santa Monica and take development pressure off of multifamily sites housing working-class families."
The commission's recommendations now go to the City Council, which must act before July 1 if it wishes to adopt the stop-gap ordinance before the law takes automatic effect. Commissioners Landres and Leslie Lambert volunteered to draft a formal letter to council codifying the motion. No timeline requirement applies to the longer-term alternative plan.