1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 8:32 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Item 11.A
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica should move forward with Item 11.A on SB79 implementation in a way that centers on improving housing affordability, sustainability, and equity through the rapid creation of an alternative plan. The focus should be on avoiding delayed implementation of SB79 through Approach 2 for as short of a period as possible, while still taking steps to avoid undesirable potential results of SB79 such as development adjacent to the 10 freeway in the Pico neighborhood. Overall, the city should avoid placing new residents in close proximity to this substantial source of pollution.
Santa Monica should explore Approach 3 - creating an alternative plan - particularly for the Expo Bundy area which would be most affected by SB79 state standards. As this area is split by the 10 freeway, there are meaningful differences in the suitability of sub-areas for development. Existing and future residents could benefit from reorienting development more closely to the Expo Bundy stop and away from parcels that are adjacent or very close to the freeway. This would support sustainability goals by providing better access to transit (i.e., not needing to cross a freeway to get to the E line) and health benefits by avoiding pollution.
To reiterate, Council should direct the creation of an alternative plan under Approach 3 that would:
Be completed and implemented by the end of 2026
Concentrate density near actual transit stops, not disperse it Not reduce Expo/Bundy capacity, which is already the lowest-capacity zone Avoid density increases in areas with high freeway proximity Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Pierce <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 9:39 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for thoughtful, robust implementation of SB 79 (11-A) Attachments: SB 79_ Santa Monica CC 042826.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and members of the Santa Monica City Council, I would like to submit the following comments from Abundant Housing LA regarding item 11-A on tonight’s agenda— implementation of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), the Affordable and Abundant Homes Near Transit Act.
Our organization thanks Santa Monica for supporting this bill in 2025, and we are eager to see its possibilities for abundant and affordable homes soon come to life. Iin that spirit, we ask that you direct the Santa Monica Planning Commission to NOT pursue any delayed effectuation of implementation, based on the criteria of existing zoned capacity.
Each of the three options first presented to the Planning Commission in an April 15 study session contains elements of smart urban planning, but none on its own can fully meet the needs of Santa Monica and its residents. Specifically, Abundant Housing LA would support direction to adopt a Local Alternative Plan (Approach 3) by 2030 to maximize capacity on major corridors, as well as delayed effectuation of implementation for the 43 eligible historic sites (Approach 2). We otherwise respectfully urge full implementation of this state bill (Approach 1) until final adoption of a Local Alternative Plan. This mix of strategies is the same model Culver City, another local supporter of SB 79, is currently pursuing.
Santa Monica and its renters are burdened by high housing costs. A reasonable, broad implementation of SB 79 will help Santa Monica meet the needs of residents and community members, while furthering badly needed progress on housing and environmental goals.
Our full comments are attached.
Thank you,
Jacob Pierce
Housing Elements & Policy Analyst
Abundant Housing LA
@jacobpierceLA
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Support for thoughtful, robust implementation of SB 79 (11-A) Dear Mayor Torosis and members of the Santa Monica City Council, I write on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, with comments about the item on Wednesday’s agenda, regarding implementation of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), the Affordable and Abundant Homes Near Transit Act. First of all, our organization would like to thank Santa Monica for supporting this bill in 2026, and we are eager to see its possibilities for abundant and affordable homes soon come to life. For these reasons and in that spirit, we ask that you direct the Santa Monica Planning Commission to NOT pursue any delayed effectuation of implementation, based on the criteria of existing zoned capacity.
Each of the three options first presented to the Planning Commission in an April 15 study session contains elements of smart urban planning, but none on its own can fully meet the needs of Santa Monica and its residents. Specifically, Abundant Housing LA would support direction to adopt a Local Alternative Plan (Approach 3) by 2030 to maximize capacity on major corridors, as well as delayed effectuation of implementation of the 43 eligible historic sites (Approach 2). We otherwise respectfully urge full implementation of this state bill (Approach 1) until final adoption of a Local Alternative Plan. This mix of strategies is the same model Culver City, another local supporter of SB 79, is currently pursuing.
SB 79 will help boost lagging housing production, create more affordable housing options, increase transit ridership and support the environment by reducing vehicle miles traveled and making it possible for millions more Californians to lead car-free and car-light lifestyles. But in order to maximize these ends, cities like Santa Monica must take actions that build upon existing zoning and local land-use plans, instead of defaulting to the absolute minimum. Over the first three years of the eight-year RHNA cycle, Santa Monica has permitted just 13% of its housing allocation. This is despite significant need for more housing in Santa Monica, with median rents of $2,400, according to Census data, and a median home sale price of $1.8 million, according to Redfin. More than 40% of renter households are spending too much of their income on rent, according to the Southern California Association of Governments.
Any plan to implement SB 79 should center the needs of renters—who live in a variety of the city’s neighborhoods—as well as those who work in Santa Monica but are unable to afford to live within its boundaries. Santa Monica is a very high-opportunity city that contains no low-resource geographies that would be automatically eligible for deferral under SB 79. Indeed, Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
the city is made up exclusively of high- and highest-resource geographies, as defined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee opportunity maps. The staff report noted that the transit-oriented-development station areas intersecting with the Pico neighborhood are home to comparatively more existing renters, but like all of Santa Monica, Pico is exclusively high- and highest-resource. Furthermore, as the staff report also notes, a developer may not demolish a rent-controlled complex larger than a duplex for an SB 79 project. This means that, even in neighborhoods home to existing dense multifamily housing, the bill still affirmatively furthers fair housing by focusing development on sites with little to no risk of displacing tenants. Hence, 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.
Simultaneously, it is possible for Santa Monica to use opportunities created by SB 79 to lean into best practices for urban planning. We recognize, for instance, that eligible historic sites identified by staff represent beloved community resources affecting a small minority of SB 79 geography. As such, we support the targeted exemption of the 43 verified historic sites as a balanced approach that safeguards cultural and architectural resources while still unlocking significant zoned capacity for new housing across the surrounding station areas. This narrowly tailored preservation measure reflects a commitment to historic stewardship, while ensuring that the vast majority of parcels remain available for transit-oriented homes that advance affordability, sustainability, and equitable growth. We would also support the drafting of objective standards that further this pedestrian-oriented character and also do not preclude development at the densities prescribed by SB 79.
Lastly, we do respectfully urge you not to pursue any deferrals based on the existing capacity in transit-oriented development zones. We appreciate the Commission’s intent to at least allow full SB 79 densities in the full quarter mile radius of transit-oriented development zones, but we are concerned about the interest in exemptions within the broader half-mile zone.
In many cases, it would be the wider half-mile radius that offers the greatest potential for affirmatively furthering fair housing and delivering missing-middle typologies. It is imperative that Santa Monica allow SB 79 to take effect, with very limited exceptions, to allow builders to choose which program better suits a given project and allow more projects to be financially feasible. This will help Santa Monica meet the needs of residents and community members, while furthering badly needed progress on housing and environmental goals.
We strongly ask that you please move forward in a way that advances housing options for all residents and at all levels of affordability.
Sincerely,
Scott Epstein
Policy and Research Director
Abundant Housing LA
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Opposition to SB79
Hello
Thank you for your time. I am in opposition to SB 79 for well documented health risks. Yes, we need housing we need more than 7% per building, but is living next to a train station the right plan.
Here are my concerns regarding the heath. https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/new-reporthighlights-impact-of-roadway-air-pollution-on-indoor-air-quality/2024/03 In this report dated March 7, 2024 from UC Davis it cites the health concerns living next to freeways. 1) Roadway air pollution and its effect on indoor air quality - People who live near major roadways in California continue to be at risk of developing respiratory, cardiovascular and reproductive health problems, despite the state’s push for clean energy policies, UC Davis Health researchers told the state Legislature in a new report.
The report states that people who live downwind about 500-600 ft will be at risk: Vehicles produce traffic-related air pollution from tailpipes; brake, tire, and road wear; and resuspended roadway dust. As a result, ultrafine particles, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and brake, tire and road wear particles are pollutants commonly elevated in near-roadway environments. Vehicles produce traffic-related air pollution from tailpipes; brake, tire, and road wear; and resuspended roadway dust. As a result, ultrafine particles, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and brake, tire and road wear particles are pollutants commonly elevated in near-roadway environments. “There is well established evidence that traffic density and proximity to busy roads increases the risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, reproductive, and endocrine conditions, as well as all-cause mortality,” “People of color, those experiencing linguistic isolation and those uninsured are most likely to experience higher traffic pollution in California. Thus, NRAP is an environmental justice concern due to inequitable distribution of exposures.
Health issues living near a Cement Plant – 17th St
2) Cement plant exposure was associated with higher risk of respiratory symptoms and lung function decline.
•
An excess risk of cancer incidence and mortality, mainly respiratory tract cancers was found in both children and adults.
•
Inconsistent results were described for cardiovascular diseases.
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
3 •
Exposed compared to unexposed subjects had higher blood or urinary concentration of heavy metals and of a marker of renal damage.
Thank you
Gail Gordon
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council 4/28/26 agenda item 11-A
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]> Subject: City Council 4/28/26 agenda item 11-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Council members,
Friends of Sunset Park writes in urgent support of the Planning Commission’s recommendations on SB 79 implementation.
Let us be clear at the outset: SB 79 is a deeply troubling piece of legislation. It strips local control over land use, imposes one-size-fits-all density mandates without regard for neighborhood character or displacement risk, and threatens the very fabric of communities like ours that have spent decades carefully balancing growth, affordability, and fair-housing obligations.
But we are where we are. SB 79 takes effect July 1, 2026, and the City now has a responsibility to implement it as thoughtfully as possible. The Commission has given Council a thoughtful framework and we urge Council to adopt it.
We particularly endorse the Commission’s two-track approach: adopt Approach 2 as an interim ordinance now, and simultaneously develop Approach 3 as a comprehensive TOD alternative plan to replace it over time. Shifting density toward the commercial corridors where it belongs is critical.
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
5 A few points we want to underscore:
The Pico Neighborhood deserves the protection the Commission describes. Pico carries the highest displacement risk in the 6th Cycle Housing Element and the most diversity in the whole city. Applying SB 79 reflexively to the R1 area north of the freeway would directly conflict with the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligations. The Commission is right to flag this and right to call for dedicated legal and planning analysis.
Historic resources should be excluded. Landmarks and historic districts as of the date of adoption should sit outside SB 79 application under the interim ordinance, as the Commission recommends.
A right-to-return provision is worth studying. Even though it sits outside SB 79 itself, it is exactly the kind of complementary protection that should accompany intensification in sensitive areas.
The Commission is right to ask whether a charter city can be effectively up-zoned by an outside agency, or even simply by our own bus agency’s whims, by adjusting bus headways. We must get to the bottom of the question of whether new SB 79 bus stops can be created this way (the Planning Department still awaits an answer to the submitted question), and if the answer is yes, we must make sure our own city’s code protects from this.
Friends of Sunset Park appreciates the Commission’s careful work, especially since they had to take it upon themselves to study SB 79 implications, given that they were never instructed to. We urge Council to now adopt the recommendations in full and to direct staff to begin the Approach 3 work without delay.
We still find it profoundly distressing that many members of this Council went on record in support of this bill, and did so when it was in even worse shape than the version that is now becoming law. What we should have done instead was voice loud dissent, especially when we have an approved housing element. The consequences of failing to do so will be felt in Santa Monica’s neighborhoods for a century to come, with luxury market-rate housing continuing to swallow our city and put it out of reach for even more people of modest means.
Respectfully submitted,
Friends of Sunset Park
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 11/13
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Council members,
I’m writing in strong support of the Planning Commission’s recommendations on SB 79 implementation.
I particularly support the two-track approach: Approach 2 as an interim ordinance for the Expo/Bundy TOD area, and Approach 3 developed as a comprehensive TOD Alternative Plan — ideally as part of the 7th Cycle Housing Element.
Three points to underscore:
The Pico Neighborhood needs the protection the Commission describes. Our own 6th Cycle Housing Element identifies Pico as carrying the highest displacement risk and the highest concentration of lowerincome residents and people of color in the city. Applying SB 79 reflexively to the R1 area north of the freeway would directly conflict with the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligations.
Landmarks and historic districts as of adoption should be excluded from the interim ordinance, and a right-to-return provision is worth studying as a complementary protection.
Finally — and this may be the single most consequential open question in front of us — the Commission is right to press whether a charter city can be effectively up-zoned by an outside agency, or by our own bus agency simply adjusting headways. The Planning Department submitted this question and is still waiting on an answer. If the answer is yes — if BBB or Metro can trigger SB 79 eligibility on a new corridor by changing a bus schedule or lanes — then every block within a half-mile of a frequent stop is permanently exposed to up-zoning by a body that answers to no Santa Monica voter. That is an unacceptable end-run around our charter, our Housing Element, and our residents. Our code has to close that door, right away. We cannot be making land use planning decisions by way of bus policy.
The Commission took on this analysis without being directed to, and that they had to concerns me. Los Angeles has been working through SB 79 implementation for months. The only reason this Council has a viable hybrid framework in front of it, in time to act before July 1, is that the Commission decided on its own initiative to study the issue. I hope the lesson of them having to do that encourages us to be on the ball going forward. Please honor their work by adopting the recommendations in full and directing staff to begin Approach 3 without delay.
Thank you,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026
Item 11-A
April 28, 2026