1 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Adler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 7:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting July 28, 2026 Item 4E– Second Reading of the SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Fatal Compliance Flaws in the City’s Proposed SB 79 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan / Phased Implementation Ordinance AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica City Council to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Exclude Certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to issue a formal objection regarding the city’s draft Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan under California Government Code Section 65912.161.
My objection relates to the content of Staff Report 7706 submitted at the first reading on July 14th, 2026, and the "SB 79 Exclusionary Ordinance Model Methodology" paper and the "Inventory of Sites Eligible for Temp Exclusion" spreadsheet submitted by the city staff to support their staff report:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=149 9&MediaPosition=&ID=7706&CssClass=
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=20692 https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=20693 The mathematical model used to justify this ordinance is seriously and fatally flawed. The inventory spreadsheet, submitted by the city staff on July 14, 2026 to support that model, has dozens of issues which when combined, I believe, puts the city below the density threshold required by Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) for a local implementation plan.
To legally exclude or defer any parcel from the maximum density requirements of Senate Bill 79, Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(B)(i) strictly requires the city to prove that its alternative zoning map maintains a collective housing yield of at least 75% of the state baseline capacity across the remaining, unexempted sites. The model and inventory prepared by the city staff (and presented at the first reading of this ordinance) does not prove that conclusion.
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
2 The submitted model and the accompanying spreadsheet rely heavily on "phantom capacity"—counting massive, highly visible parcels that have zero realistic probability of conversion to housing. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) applies strict "realistic capacity" standards. When independent housing advocates and the HCD audit this map, the following sites (and others) will be disqualified, causing the city’s model to crash below the mandatory 75% threshold and triggering immediate, unmitigated state upzoning citywide:
The City Yards: (Resource Recovery / Recycling Facility / Waste Transfer Station) and Gandara Park: Counting the city's largest industrial and open space parcel as a primary housing engine is a severe compliance trap. HCD requires housing sites to be safe for human habitation. Without a fully funded, approved plan to decommission, chemically remediate, and physically relocate our entire municipal waste infrastructure, HCD will assign this site a 0% development probability. Providence Saint John’s Health Center and other structures on HMU parcels:
Active regional trauma centers operating under restrictive institutional master plans are structurally and legally impossible to convert into multi-family housing. Because residential units are not permitted by right, HMU parcels fail the baseline eligibility test for SB 79 capacity calculations.
Santa Monica Place Mall: While commercially zoned, this is a fully operational, highvalue luxury asset with long-term commercial leases. HCD guidelines dictate that active, high-performing commercial properties must receive a heavy "likelihood of conversion" discount. Counting it at 100% capacity violates state planning law. Santa Monica Civic Auditorium: This site creates a direct legal paradox. The city cannot invoke Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(F) to shield historic landmarks from development while simultaneously claiming that the very same landmark will serve as a high-density residential pipeline to hit the 75% target. Inappropriate Commercial Over-Zoning: Beyond these major landmarks, the city's model inappropriately counts various parks, open spaces, public/governmental facilities, and local institutions simply because they happen to sit on land designated as commercial. HCD explicitly disallows open spaces and public administrative buildings from being categorized as realistic housing inventory without formal surplus land declarations or active RFPs.
Various Historic and Very New Commercial Sites: non-eligible sites such as The Pen Factory, The Water Garden, The Hyatt Centric Delfina and other hotels, and portions of Colorado Center. HCD guidelines do not allow counting such sites at 100% capacity. Fatal Systemic Overlap and Double-Counting of Parcels: Beyond individual site invalidations, the city’s entire mathematical architecture is built on an illegal accounting error. Because Santa Monica’s transit stations feature heavily overlapping half-mile radii, hundreds of parcels sit within multiple TOD zones simultaneously. As indicated in footnote 1 of the chart on page 7 of the staff report, the city has erroneously counted these exact same parcels—and their projected units and square footages—multiple times across every single overlapping zone to make it appear as Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
3 though every district independently meets the 75% threshold.This practice of "double, triple, and quadruple counting" capacity directly violates HCD's strict un-duplicated net capacity accounting standards. A single piece of land can only be built upon once; it cannot carry the legal weight of multiple separate neighborhood exemptions. HCD's GIS audit teams will instantly flag these duplicate Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), scrub the phantom units from the model, and reject the ordinance.
If the city approves this ordinance based on a model built on the flawed spreadsheet presented at the first reading, the HCD will issue an immediate Notice of Non-Compliance.
I urge the Council to direct staff to recalculate the TOD Alternative Plan using strictly realistic, underutilized commercial parcels, surface lots, and vacant land. Proceeding with the current flawed math guarantees a state rejection, stripping the city of the very local planning control you are trying to preserve.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Bruce Adler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: TECHNICAL PROCEDURAL OBJECTION: July 28, 2026 Agenda Item 4E – Second Reading of the SB 79 Exclusion Ordinance
EXTERNAL
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
This written comment submits a formal procedural objection to the proposed adoption of the Ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation on tonight’s agenda. The item is improperly agendized as a "Second Reading" (Adoption). Under the Santa Monica City Charter and standard California municipal law governing the legislative process, this draft cannot legally be adopted tonight because it has been fundamentally altered from the draft introduced on first reading on July 14, 2026.
To preserve the integrity of the public process and avoid a fatal procedural defect that would invalidate the ordinance, the City Council must treat tonight’s item as a new First Reading (Introduction) and delay the final vote to a subsequent meeting.
The text presented tonight fails to match the introduced text in the following material, non-clerical, and highly substantive ways:
1. Alteration of Title and Legislative Intent: The title of the ordinance introduced on July 14 explicitly stated its purpose was "to increase development standards for parcels zoned multiunit residential that are located within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station". The draft presented tonight has struck this clause entirely, completely altering the public notice and scope of the law.
2. Complete Elimination of Section 9.06.030 and Table 9.06.030: The original ordinance introduced a strict grid of maximum allowable densities (1 unit per 1,080 sq. ft.) and specific Floor Area Ratio (FAR) caps (1.25 for R2; 1.5 for R3). Tonight's version completely excises this section, fundamentally changing the zoning restrictions to be applied to city parcels.
3. Complete Elimination of Section 3 (Table 9.08.030): The original draft introduced comprehensive, multi-page overhauls to the standard development limits for standard R2, R3, and R4 multi-unit residential districts—including edits to baseline housing densities, building heights, and front/interior setbacks. Tonight's draft completely strikes this section.
4. Geographic Scope Reduction: The initial introduction gave explicit public notice of land-use changes bound specifically to a targeted one-half mile radius of the Expo/Bundy Station.
Tonight's draft removes this localized boundary completely, shifting the application entirely to a broad, citywide formula.
A second reading is legally reserved for final approval of a text whose policy mechanisms have already been properly introduced to the public. Removing multi-page zoning schedules, deleting Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
5 targeted geographic boundaries, and eliminating local density constraints are massive substantive policy shifts, not minor clerical cleanups.
Adopting this drastically altered version tonight under the guise of a "Second Reading" bypasses mandatory statutory intervals, deprives the public of lawful notice on the finalized text, and subjects the ordinance to immediate legal vulnerability.
Conclusion and Remedy:
The City Council must direct the City Clerk to record tonight’s action as a First Reading and Introduction of the revised ordinance text. The item must then be scheduled for a lawful Second Reading and formal adoption at a future council meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026
Item 4-E
July 28, 2026