September 8, 2026

Dear Editor,

On Tuesday, September 8, 2026 the Santa Monica City Council will vote on an ordinance implementing SB 79 development standards. The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors strongly opposes Option 1, the immediate implementation of SB 79 without a temporary exclusion and without a locally developed Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan.

Our opposition is rooted in the history and reality of environmental racism in the Pico Neighborhood. The construction of the I-10 Freeway cut through and isolated the Pico Neighborhood, demolishing homes, displacing residents and leaving remaining families to live with decades of freeway noise, air pollution, traffic impacts, and physical division. Now, Option 1 threatens to continue and compound that history.

Option 1 is problematic because it appears broader than necessary. Immediate SB 79 implementation around Expo/Bundy will trigger land speculation and invite rapid market-driven redevelopment in an area already shaped by freeway pollution, industrial adjacency, and past displacement. Without a local plan, strong anti-displacement protections, and environmental justice analysis, Option 1 risks treating this impacted neighborhood as simply a transit opportunity zone rather than as a community that has already absorbed decades of infrastructure damage.

The city staff report states that the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone needs at least 52 additional parcels to meet SB 79’s temporary exclusion criteria. Yet Option 1 upzones 89 parcels, 37 more than the stated

minimum. If the goal is simply to qualify for temporary exclusion, the city should not impose a major zoning change on more homeowners and residents than required.

The City is acting under legal uncertainty. The staff report acknowledges that SB 79 is unclear about how to calculate exclusion criteria for TOD zones that cross city boundaries, such as Expo/Bundy, which includes both Santa Monica and Los Angeles parcels. Santa Monica requested guidance from the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) but had not yet received a formal answer. The Council should not upzone 89 parcels before receiving definitive guidance from the State’s HCD.

The better path forward is clear: Continue Item 12-B. Do not introduce the ordinance until the City provides the analysis supporting its decision. Use the additional time to create a local plan that advances housing while protecting public health, preventing displacement, and addressing the long-standing environmental justice issues in the affected neighborhoods.

Pico has too often been asked to absorb the city’s burdens first and receive protections later. The Council should not repeat the pattern of behavior that puts Pico Neighborhood residents’ quality of life as secondary to development interests.

Sincerely,

The Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors