Every Tuesday, our city council convenes in chambers that embody civic memory—mid-century architecture from when cities believed in public purpose. There, dedicated public servants wrestle with impossible choices between state mandates and community character.
Citizens who have attended these meetings for years see genuine anguish on council members’ faces. They are not villains, they’re people navigating a system that often prevents the outcomes we all want: a thriving, sustainable Santa Monica honoring its past while meeting real needs.
So how did we arrive here? More importantly, how do we move forward together?
The Architecture of Difficult Choices
Cities are living archives, their streets and buildings carrying “collective memory.” Yet our councilmembers—many who genuinely care about Santa Monica—find themselves approving projects that erase this memory.
Understanding their constraints helps find better paths. Campaign finance structures create dependencies even reform-minded officials struggle to escape. When elections require substantial funding and traditional sources align with development interests, even preservation advocates find options limited.
Campaign finance records 2018-2024 would quantify these pressures, though the pattern is already evident. This isn’t about vilifying individuals but recognizing systemic pressures pushing good people toward difficult decisions.
Sacramento’s Blunt Instrument
The state employs what it considers necessary tools for California’s housing affordability crisis. The “Builder’s Remedy” allows developers to bypass local zoning when cities lack compliant housing elements—meant to ensure housing production, but feeling like a sledgehammer where a precision scalpel might work better.
If a California city lacks a “substantially compliant” housing element, the Housing Accountability Act indicates jurisdictions cannot use zoning or general plan standards to disapprove qualifying projects.¹
Our city attorneys warn of any resistance that might trigger this provision. Yet numbers suggest room for thoughtful response. As of March 2024, 215 jurisdictions were non-compliant among 539 total.² YIMBY Law identified only 93 Builder’s Remedy projects totaling 17,000 units across 40 mostly affluent cities.³
Some cities seek middle ground. Huntington Beach argued charter city status provides exemption⁴, though courts disagreed.⁵ Beverly Hills, previously allocated just 3 units (2013-2021), received 3,104 units (2021-2029).⁶ They fought through litigation, ultimately losing.7
Santa Monica? We exceeded requirements voluntarily. Our 6th Cycle RHNA allocation: 8,874 units, of which 70% are affordable.8 Yet City staff proposed capacity for 13,549 units—which is 52% above requirement.9
This “belief system” puzzles me. Perhaps leaders believe over-compliance demonstrates good faith, though this begs the question whether such enthusiasm for state mandates serves our residents’ interests.
The Unexplored Alternative: Community Land Trusts
While council pursues developer-driven solutions, a proven alternative exists: Community Land Trusts. California’s 40+ CLTs steward 1,600 permanently affordable homes for over 3,500 Californians, keeping over $250 million worth of properties as community assets immune from market dependency.¹⁰ CLTs work differently than traditional development. The CLT renewable 99-year ground lease includes restrictions on rent levels and resale prices that ensure housing costs remain regulated by the CLT.¹¹ Rather than token affordability expiring after 30 years, CLT properties remain permanently affordable, recycling public investment across generations.
The number of community land trusts has tripled in California since 2014.¹² In San Francisco, tenants facing displacement crowdfunded $300,000 and gave it to the San Francisco Community Land Trust, which combined it with loans to purchase their building for over $3 million.¹³ The trust now rents units back at permanently affordable rates.
Irvine offers another model. The partnership between the City of Irvine and Irvine CLT exemplifies what local government can accomplish when invested in the community land trust model.¹⁴ Facing similar pressures as Santa Monica—high property values, jobs-housing imbalance, expiring affordability restrictions—Irvine chose community ownership over developer giveaways.
Why hasn’t Santa Monica explored this option? CLTs preserve existing buildings and residents—maintaining community memory while ensuring permanent affordability. They don’t generate massive profits for developers or campaign contributions for politicians. But they actually solve the problem we claim to address.
The Revolving Door Effect
Confirming Employment histories would document suspected patterns of planners who move between competing municipal positions and development consulting.
Career incentives appear to favor collaboration over confrontation. Those who fight mandates risk being branded “difficult,” potentially limiting future opportunities. It’s an ecosystem where each player appear to understand unspoken rules.
The Affordability Mirage
“Affordable housing” provides moral justification for projects that may not serve those most in need. Builder’s Remedy, active since Santa Monica fell from compliance, requires only 20% affordable units at 60% area median income.15
Recent approvals average 90% market-rate, 10% affordable—predominantly studios unsuitable for families who create intergenerational memory. While state law allows negotiating higher percentages, Santa Monica consistently accepts minimums.
Meanwhile, genuine strategies remain unexplored. Beyond CLTs, we could pursue acquisition/rehabilitation of existing apartments, conversion of vacant offices, or partnerships with nonprofits. These preserve community fabric while adding real affordability.
Council’s Own Words
The clearest insight comes from officials themselves. Councilmember Phil Brock asked: “What I’m concerned with… is that we are just acquiescing and not simultaneously saying this is unfair, and I think we have to stand up for the residents of the city and our city.”16
When Housing Element faced rejection, Mayor Himmelrich stated: “I am appalled by the state’s approach… there probably ought to be a lawsuit, but I also am going to move that we ask staff to submit the draft redline revisions to HCD.” 16
Planning Director White revealed constraints: “We don’t really have any other avenues… We have tried very, very hard to express our strong position… but we’re running out of ammunition.” 16
Yet despite these claims about helplessness, the city proposed 52% excess capacity while ignoring proven alternatives like CLTs.
Infrastructure Realities
Santa Monica’s Public Works Department integrates infrastructure constraints into project approvals by requiring specific capacity studies for water, sewer, and other systems before projects are deemed complete or approved. Yet despite the City’s online descriptions footnoted below, there is a Council pattern suggesting that infrastructure constraint documents are protected against liability rather than being used to influence decisions.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22. When infrastructure fails, crisis justifies emergency measures—streamlined approvals, suspended input, eliminated standards. The problems are compounded rather than resolved.
Finding Common Ground
Other cities demonstrate creative paths honoring both requirements and character. Some join legal challenges ensuring reasonable requirements. Others maximize existing tools. Many now embrace CLTs as genuine solutions.
The difference involves community consensus. When residents, officials, and responsible nonprofits collaborate—rather than defaulting to developer interests—better outcomes emerge.
Perhaps we need new dialogue: How can CLTs help Santa Monica? Could we follow San Francisco’s model of tenant ownership? Irvine’s municipal partnership? The tools exist—we just need courage to use them.
The machine erasing Santa Monica’s memory isn’t inevitable. Systems can be reformed when communities unite with shared purpose. Can we move beyond developer-driven solutions to community-owned alternatives?
[Next: Part Three – The Reckoning]
See SMa.r.t.’s article saluting Frank O. Gehry in this week’s online edition of the SM Mirror.
Jack Hillbrand, Architect, AIA
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
SMa.r.t. Leadership: Dan Jansenson (Former Building & Fire-Life Safety Commissioner), Robert H. Taylor, Architect AIA, Thane Roberts, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA (Former Planning Commissioner), Sam Tolkin (Former Planning Commissioner), Michael Jolly ARE-CRE, Jack Hillbrand AIA, Landmarks Commission Architect; Phil Brock (Mayor, ret.), Matt Hoefler NCARB, Heather Thomason, Community Organizer
For previous articles, see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
References:
1 YIMBY Law – Builder’s Remedy resources
2 The Real Deal – California cities’ compliance data, March 2024
3 Calmatters.org/housing/2024/04/builders-remedy-bills/ – April 2024
4 The Real Deal –Huntington Beach ‘housing element’ challenge Nov. 2024
5 Voice of OCCA – Huntington Beach loses – May 2024
6 PR Newswire – Housing group wins over City Beverly Hills – Sept.2023
7 City of Santa Monica – Housing Element ’21-‘29
8 Santa Monica Daily Press – Planning Com. Revises Housing Element- June 2022
¹⁰ Cacltnetwork
¹¹ Othering & Belonging Institute
¹² CalMatters
¹³ CalMatters
¹⁴ Othering & Belonging Institute
15 Slate – Santa Monica Manhattanized – Oct. 2022
16 Santa Monica Daily Press – Council Adopts Housing Element – June 2022
17 https://www.santamonica.gov/water-and-wastewater-capacity-studies – Studies on
water/wastewater
18 https://www.santamonica.gov/plan-check-guidelines-and-requirements – Guidelines for Mixed
Use Multi-family/Retail
19 https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/public-works – Public Works Department
20 https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/santa-monica-ca/projects/152460 – Water Resources
21 https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/ – Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project – SWIP
22 https://ecode360.com/42740138 – Right of Way Management
23 https://www.santamonica.gov/watershed-management – Watershed ManagementPart Two of Three
