City of Santa Monica
Planning Commission
1 MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Josh Hamilton, Chair, Planning Commission, on behalf of the Commission Re: Planning Commission recommendations on SB 79 (Wiener) implementation Purpose
SB 79 takes effect automatically on July 1, 2026. At its April 15, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission received a staff informational presentation on the statute and its implementation options, took public comment, and voted unanimously to transmit the recommendations set forth below.
Context
The Commission’s deliberations were informed by staff’s analysis that Santa Monica’s existing zoning — particularly in the commercial corridors — already meets or exceeds SB 79 standards across much of the buffer area, such that the practical impact of the statute falls unevenly: on some parcels it changes little, 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.
Of particular concern to the Commission is the potential impact of the legislation on the Pico Neighborhood, especially the R1 area directly north of the Santa Monica Freeway. For many years the City has tailored its planning and zoning decisions to protect this very vulnerable community from gentrification and displacement. The Commission assumes that this is still a City priority. Pico is the neighborhood with the highest concentration of ethnic and racial minorities and lower income households. It is also the neighborhood with the highest risk of displacement according to the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
The Commission’s recommendations reflect an effort to distinguish between those circumstances and to give Council a tailored framework calibrated to each.
Recommendations
The Commission recommends a two-track approach, summarized as: adopt a tailored interim ordinance now, while developing a more comprehensive Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) alternative plan to replace it.
2 1. Adopt Approach 2 (partial exclusion ordinance) immediately, as a scalpel-not-blanket interim measure
Within the four TOD zone areas, the Commission recommends letting SB 79 take effect inside the quartermile — including the Bundy/Expo corridor, which is already substantially below SB 79 density and production standards and where the statute’s intensification aligns with existing City direction — but using the ordinance tool to protect sites in the quarter-to-half-mile range, with particular attention to R1 parcels at risk in the Pico Neighborhood.
The Commission emphasizes that this protection should not be applied reflexively across the entire outer band. Staff should identify any sites inside the quarter-to-half-mile range that have genuine development capacity without gentrification concerns, and those sites should not be excluded. The exclusion list should be built deliberately, parcel by parcel where practicable.
The Commission further recommends that all existing historic resources — landmarks and historic districts as of the date of adoption — be excluded from SB 79 application under the ordinance.
2. Simultaneously develop Approach 3 (a TOD alternative plan) to replace Approach 2 over time
The Commission recommends that staff begin work on a TOD alternative plan that shifts density toward the commercial zones and away from R1. Two framing principles should guide that work.
First, shifting should produce real density increases, not paper increases. When units are moved out of R1 neighborhoods, they should land in places that actually produce housing near transit — up to the 200% cap where appropriate — rather than being transferred to parcels whose existing zoning already accommodates them.
Second, staff should study three specific questions as part of the alternative plan:
a. The feasibility and legality of inter-parcel development rights transfers within zones (not just between zones), pending HCD clarification on whether and how such transfers comply with SB 79;
b. Creative ways to achieve SB 79 density that is contextual within the R1 form and that produce homeownership opportunities that are affordable to identified groups of employees within the city such as teachers and administrative Santa Monica College, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and City employees. It is recommended that this approach be consistent with the Commission’s companion recommendation on missing middle housing (transmitted separately); and
c. How transfer-development-rights mechanisms currently used to incentivize historic preservation can be protected under an alternative plan, so those sites do not lose that tool. (San Francisco has a very successful transfer of development rights program aimed at protecting historic resources.) 3 3. Investigate two categorical questions on which the statute’s application turns The Commission recommends that staff investigate, and report back on:
a. The precise locations of “major transit stops” as defined by the statute, including the question of whether a charter city can be effectively up-zoned by an outside agency — Metro or the Big Blue Bus — unilaterally increasing headways. This question is particularly salient for Santa Monica because the Big Blue Bus operates as an independent enterprise fund, and its service decisions have land-use consequences that the City does not directly control through that fund’s governance.
b. The disparate-impact and fair-housing implications in the Pico Neighborhood, including the constitutional and general-law conflicts that could arise from applying SB 79 alongside the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligations. The Commission heard substantial concern on this point at its April 15 meeting and recommends that it receive dedicated legal and planning analysis.
4. Study a “right to return” provision as part of the Approach 3 / TOD alternative plan work
The Commission acknowledges that a right-to-return provision sits somewhat outside the scope of SB 79 itself. However, given the displacement concerns that attend intensification in sensitive neighborhoods, the Commission recommends that staff study the feasibility of incorporating such a provision into the TOD alternative plan as a complementary protection.
Transmittal
Commissioners Lambert and Landres have been designated to work with staff, under the review of the Planning Commission, on the detailed drafting that may follow from Council direction on these recommendations. The Commission stands ready to provide additional analysis or to appear before Council on this matter at Council’s request.
Respectfully submitted,
Josh Hamilton
Chair, Planning Commission