Santa Monica will see more housing produced near transit-oriented development (TOD) stops in the years to come.
Last October, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the much-debated and amended Senate Bill 79 (SB 79). It takes effect on July 1. The law increases allowable height, density, and floor area ratio (FAR) for qualifying housing projects located within a half mile of a TOD stop, which includes our three Expo Line stations and nearby Bundy Expo Station.
The authors hope it will lead to higher-density housing and thus more sustainable urban growth, as well as reduce the public’s reliance on cars.
SB 79 may not apply to housing projects that include hotel components or to parcels with three or more rent-controlled or affordable units that have been occupied in the last seven years.
The city’s current zoning already meets or exceeds SB 79 requirements. The growth plan, as outlined in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), calls for preserving residential neighborhoods and concentrating any new development along commercial boulevards.
However, SB 79, according to a memo to the city council from the Planning Commission, changes little on some parcels, “While on others, most notably portions of the Bundy/Expo corridor and certain quarter-to-half-mile bands around major transit stops, it could drive substantial intensification into areas that raise fair-housing, displacement, and neighborhood-preservation concerns.”
This is particularly true of the Pico Neighborhood and portions of mid-city, where the city wants to avoid resident displacement. The Planning Commission has recommended that city staff investigate the “disparate impact and fair housing implications” and complications that could emerge from applying SB 79.
Also under the law, transit agencies like Metro may also set their own zoning rules for land they own near stations, as long as those rules meet or exceed SB 79 minimums. Again, the Planning Commission encouraged city staff to investigate “whether a charter city can be effectively up-zoned by an outside agency.”
The State Housing and Commercial Development Department (HCD) has offered cities three approaches to implementing SB 79.
Approach 1: A city doesn’t have to adopt an SB 79 ordinance, but if one is adopted, it must be approved by HCD. A city can exclude certain sites if located more than one mile walking distance from the TOD stop, but this will require an ordinance identifying the areas to exclude that must also be approved.
Approach 2: A city can adopt an ordinance to temporarily exclude certain sites until 2030. Sites that may be excluded include those that meet any of the following conditions (all requiring HCD approval):
- It is located in a TOD Zone that has 33% of sites offering 50% of SB 79’s density and permitted FAR, and the TOD zone currently provides 75% of overall SB 79 TOD density
- It already allows at least 50% of SB 79’s densities and FAR
- Is located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
- Is located in an area vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise
- Are sites with locally designated historic resources before January 1, 2025, with some flexibility
- Is a site located in a low-resource area, as defined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
- Site in a TOD alternative plan
Approach 3: A city can adopt a TOD Alternative Plan that would transfer density across SB 79 TOD zones (i.e., areas within ½ mile of the TOD stop) and/or TOD sites subject to three rules:
- It must maintain the same total net zoned unit capacity across all TOD zones in the City, in terms of both total units and residential floor area, as what is available under SB 79
- At TOD Zone level, it cannot reduce density by more than 50%
- At the site level, capacity cannot be decreased by more than 50% except at certain sites (e.g., locally designated historic sites) and must have a minimum density of 1.0 FAR and 30 du/acre to support home ownership opportunities, and cannot be increased by more than 200%
Both city staff and the Planning Commission advise that the city council direct staff to bring an ordinance forward meeting Approach 2, while also directing staff to begin development of an ordinance adopting Approach 3 that would replace it.
As for the Planning Commission recommendations, staff has submitted a letter to HCD inquiring about several issues pertinent to Santa Monica’s TOD stops, including what defines a bus service TOD stop.
In the council session, questions arose regarding the state’s responsiveness to inquiries and approvals for approaches adopted by the council. City Director of Administration Jing Yeo said the city could expect delays in getting answers or approvals for up to 120 days from HCD, and that a give-and-take process similar to getting the Housing Element approved should be expected.
Planning Commissioner Shawn Landres appeared to speak to his commission’s recommendations, saying of the Pico Neighborhood, “Approach 2 lets us protect those parcels as a scalpel, not an axe, interim measure, while Approach 3 builds a comprehensive TOD plan that shifts density toward areas where it can feasibly yield housing.”
Councilmember Dan Hall voiced support for the immediate implementation of Approach 2, and said the elements of Approach 3 are at the core of his support for SB 79.
“The bill really does threaten unprecedented displacement and gentrification in the Pico Neighborhood,” said Councilmember Ellis Raskin. He called the neighborhood “The last concentration of Black and Latino families in Santa Monica.” He said that despite anti-displacement language, SB 79 still threatens up to 200 households, and that 102 rent-controlled units aren’t exempt at all from the law.
“I’m not comfortable with these one-size-fits-all approaches,” said Councilmember Lana Negrete. “I’m not interested in performative zoning or checking a box. I’m really interested in getting this right.”
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya voiced her support for anti-displacement measures, including a right-to-return provision that would give displaced residents a first crack at returning to newly developed housing in place of their former properties.
Raskin moved for the adoption of Approach 2 and to delay implementation until the latest possible time in 2030 as the law allows, and for the city to begin developing a TOD plan in accordance with Approach 3.
He also put a couple of stipulations in his motion. First, he asked that the city partner with the Rent Control Board to disseminate information to possible households affected. Second, that the city works with the legislature on a clean-up bill to fix some of the problems they see as inherent in the law, as well as to build more flexibility in the development of TOD zones.
It was seconded by Negrete.
Councilmember Barry Snell offered an amendment, which was accepted, adding the development of a right to return provision to the motion.
“I’m a little concerned that this is just kicking the can down the road,” said Mayor Caroline Torosis. She thinks that waiting so long to develop the TOD plan is just “putting the brakes” on the law’s implementation.
Negrete countered that, given all the state mandates on housing the city is already under, the SB 79 time frame “feels like a gift.”
After some additional give-and-take, Raskin accepted an amendment to have staff return with an update about what’s possible in six months. Also accepted was an amendment from Hall that the Bundy Expo station be prioritized for the law’s potential effects on the Pico Neighborhood.
The item was passed, 6-0, with Councilmember Jesse Zwick having recused himself from the item due to his professional work in housing advocacy.
Author
About The Author
