The Santa Monica City Council tabled a request to support two state housing bills after a majority of councilmembers expressed concerns about endorsing the legislation without further analysis.
Councilmembers Jesse Zwick and Dan Hall had requested the city take a formal support position on Senate Bills 79 and 677, both aimed at streamlining housing development and increasing density near transit. However, the other five councilmembers pushed back, seeking more staff analysis and raising concerns about prematurely endorsing legislation still early in the state's process.
"I'm happy to push this item until we can get more analysis from our staff or others," Zwick conceded. "But I do, frankly, really want us to think clearly about where our beliefs are and how committed we are to actually realizing them."
SB 79, authored by State Sen. Scott Wiener, would require that residential development within specified distances of transit stops be allowed on land zoned for residential, mixed, commercial or light industrial use. The bill establishes requirements for height limits, density and floor area ratios based on proximity to transit stops.
SB 677, also authored by Wiener, would require ministerial approval for housing developments containing no more than two residential units on lots with single-family homes or zoned for four or fewer residential units. It would also streamline urban lot splits and remove certain restrictions on subdividing parcels.
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya acknowledged the housing crisis but cited procedural concerns with endorsing the bills too early.
"California has a housing crisis. Our region has a housing crisis. To the best of my knowledge, every reputable academic study and every government or nonprofit policy analysis has found that the core issue driving the high cost housing in California is a shortage of homes," Zernitskaya said. "My concerns about this are more procedural rather than about the actual intent of the bills."
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis expressed similar reservations.
"I don't feel comfortable taking a position until we've seen a staff analysis," she said. "It would be unheard of for a legislative body to take a position when their staff hasn't even weighed in on how that bill impacts them."
Councilmember Ellis Raskin raised specific policy concerns, saying he couldn't support the bills without amendments addressing inclusionary housing requirements and industrial zone mitigation measures.
"I personally can't support these bills without asking for certain amendments," Raskin said. "If you're willing to wait until our next meeting, I'd be happy to work with you and others who might be interested in figuring out what amendments we might be able to come to consensus about."
Councilmember Barry Snell had a similar position.
“ think it's going in the right direction, but I am concerned about the inclusionary requirements, and I'm also concerned about the possibility of lower income properties being exed out because of the requirements,” he said.
Mayor Lana Negrete voiced outright opposition, saying, "I don't support these items. I have different views on local control and how it impacts affordability."
In defending his request, Zwick argued that the timing was crucial because both bills are scheduled for committee hearings in late April. If they don't advance from committee, they would effectively die for this legislative session.
"The reason why those transit lines are underutilized is because we don't allow people to live near them. The reason why we can't fund enough transit is because we don't allow enough people to live near it," Zwick said. "These are all interrelated concepts."
Zwick pushed back on misconceptions about the bills, noting that SB 79 would only apply to areas near high-quality transit stops, such as E Line stations and bus stops with service every 15 minutes or less. He emphasized that the city's 15% inclusionary housing requirement would still apply to projects under both bills.
Councilmember Hall suggested the council's qualified support might still help shape the legislation.
"I believe that we have the most leverage on getting investments that we would like to see in these bills if we are in on the ground floor," he said, suggesting conditional endorsement with amendments.
In a 6-1, Council chose to delay endorsement until a later date, potentially just as the bills face key committee votes in Sacramento.
