Claim: The state is requiring Santa Monica to build 9,000 apartments.
Answer: Partially true, partially false.
Santa Monica has a pretty big housing problem. Originally, the city was told to plan for 8,895 new homes by 2029, but it might actually need to build between 30,000 and 33,000 to hit the affordable housing goals set by the state. This is due to the city’s “inclusionary housing model,” which says developers have to include Below Market Rate units along with market-rate homes. The idea is that profits from the expensive homes help fund the affordable ones.
There are two types of housing projects: one focuses only on affordable units funded by the government, and the other mixes affordable and market-rate homes. The catch is that federal and state funding only covers about 3% to 7% of costs, so cities like Santa Monica can’t just rely on government help for affordable housing.
While Santa Monica has built enough market-rate homes to exceed the requirements, it’s falling severely short on affordable units. The state requires that 69% of new homes be affordable, but the city has only managed about 18.5%. That means Santa Monica would need to build a lot more market-rate homes to meet the state’s affordable housing goals for the city, way more than originally planned (just for this planning cycle, which ends in 2029, with a new one to follow), and shocking to folks who haven’t been following Sacramento’s housing regulations recently.
(Data from Marc Verville)
Claim: Rent control can be eliminated by City Council.
Answer: False.
Santa Monica’s rent control policy is well-protected legally because it’s part of the city charter, similar to a local constitution. This charter amendment, which was approved by voters in 1979, prevents the City Council from making any changes or getting rid of rent control on their own.
To change or remove rent control, there’s a significant hurdle: it requires a citywide vote. This means the City Council can’t make independent decisions on this issue. While they can adjust certain details of the rent control regulations, their power is limited. They can’t eliminate the fundamental principles set by the 1979 Rent Control Law without voter approval.
In essence, rent control in Santa Monica is a deeply embedded policy within the city’s legal framework. Its strong ties to the voter-approved charter make it very difficult to change. Any major adjustments or removal of this policy would need the backing of the public, emphasizing the restricted authority of the City Council in this matter.
Claims that “Rent control is on the ballot” are a bit misleading. The upcoming election will focus on Proposition 33, which proposes changes to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. If it passes, cities like Santa Monica could expand rent control to cover more properties, including single-family homes and newer apartments. This proposition has stirred up mixed reactions and shaken up traditional political alliances.
Claim: City Council’s failure to comply with state housing requirements has allowed developers to construct skyscrapers in the city.
Answer: Mostly false.
There’s some confusion about the taller buildings popping up in Santa Monica. Most of these developments aren’t because of the “Builder’s Remedy,” which lets developers sidestep local zoning rules if a city doesn’t meet housing deadlines.
In late 2022, many Builder’s Remedy applications were submitted in Santa Monica, mainly by WS Communities (WSC). The City of Santa Monica reached a court settlement with WS Communities, which resulted in the withdrawal of 12 out of 14 Builder’s Remedy projects that had been submitted. This settlement, announced in October 2023, significantly reduced the number of potential Builder’s Remedy projects in our city.
However, the story doesn’t end there. After this settlement, almost all of the actual tall building projects that were subsequently submitted for permits utilized height increases allowed by state law. These state regulations include provisions for increased height and a variety of incentives that enable developers to build larger structures than local zoning typically allows, and have nothing to do with Builders Remedy.
Claim: School enrollment is declining, while budgets and construction are increasing.
Answer: True.
Santa Monica’s School District is seeing a drop in student enrollment, going from about 11,300 in 2014 to around 8,600 today—a nearly 25% decline. Projections show more declines ahead, which could hurt state funding tied to attendance.
The district is now wrestling with the fallout from past blunders, including neglected facilities, lackluster administrative practices, and a tendency to favor demolition over preservation. This has set a rocky foundation for any future advancements. In a whirlwind of construction, nearly every building on the high school campus has been torn down and rebuilt, save for the historic Barnum Auditorium, which stands proud due to its landmark status. Now, the English Building is the last vestige of the original campus. Unfortunately, recent construction efforts haven’t focused on sustainable design, and poor maintenance and accountability have lead to higher operating costs and vulnerability to climate change.
Financially, the district is struggling with a pension shortfall and has become extremely dependent on bond measures. Nearly $900 million has already been earmarked or spent on upgrades and construction (not including double that amount in projected interest), and a new bond measure (QS) on the November 2024 ballot is seeking another $495 million (again, with about double that in projected interest). This dependency on bonds has been likened to an addiction, raising red flags about the district’s long-term financial health, especially as fewer families are moving into the area. The city’s focus on building small, non-family-friendly apartments is driving away families, contributing to the decline in student enrollment.
(Data from Mario Fonda-Bonardi)
Daniel Jansenson, Architect, Building and Fire Life Safety Commission
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Dan Jansenson, Architect & Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission; Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect; Thane Roberts, Architect; Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Architect; Samuel Tolkin Architect & Planning Commissioner; Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE; Marie Standing, Resident; Jack Hillbrand AIA, Architect
