By Kevin Herrera
Daily Press Staff Writer

CITY HALL — Without a clear path in sight, the City Council voted to remain put Tuesday night, declining to lead the city down what they believed to be roads of uncertainty posed by alternative land use and development plans.

At issue is Shape the Future 2025, a comprehensive action plan detailing how the city of Santa Monica should evolve over the next 20 years. It deals not only with commercial and residential development, but with mass transit construction and the preservation of open space. Shape the Future will also determine the pace of growth — a major concern for residents, many of whom are afraid of losing the small-town feel of Santa Monica.

During the council meeting, officials with the Transportation and Planning and Community Development departments laid out four land-use alternatives for the council to consider.

But before the council would debate which plans they liked and would want to study further, a majority felt it was necessary to put on the breaks, review material already on the table, and come back with a clear method for developing a vision for the city, along with a series of goals to meet that vision.

There was a complaint from residents — echoed by council members Herb Katz and Ken Genser — that the alternatives proposed had no clear objectives or goals.

“There is no ‘there’ there,” said Geraldine Kennedy of the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, who complained of a lack of an overall vision in the alternatives, specifically in the area of growth. “The authors have given you a pig and a poke and said ‘trust us.’”

BACK TO THE FUTURE

The council instructed staff to dig up the current land-use plan, last updated in 1984, to see if some of the objectives listed there could be applied to Shape the Future. Staff was also instructed to incorporate as much as they could from recent community outreach sessions so as not to give the impression that they were starting from scratch or that the previous community input was useless.

“I think we’re not far away from (developing goals and a vision),” said council member Pam O’Connor. “People always react. It’s human nature. I think instead of focusing so much of the negative we should look at the positives (of all the alternatives).

“I’m not saying it’s not important to look at the goals, I just don’t think they will answer every question, so we need to look at every alternative.”

The alternatives presented Tuesday were: Neighborhood Centers, Uptown/Downtown, Grand Boulevards and Status Quo. All plans relied heavily on the construction of light rail in the city, either by Santa Monica itself or by the County of Los Angeles in the form of the Exposition rail line.

Most of the council members and residents seemed supportive of the Neighborhood Centers approach because of its intention to preserve the identity of small neighborhoods while limiting growth and making public transportation more easily accessible — to help increase foot traffic and decrease the number of cars on city streets.

City officials said the concept of Neighborhood Centers would focus on mixed-use development along already established corridors such as Pico, Wilshire and Lincoln boulevards, as well as development at the Bergamot Station, which will link up with St. John’s Hospital and help support more medical-related uses.

Centers would also help create diversity as each would be designed to reflect the uniqueness of a particular community.

BOULEVARDS OF BROKEN DREAMS/b>

The alternative that seemed dead in the water is the Grand Boulevards concept, which O’Connor jokingly said suffered mostly because of the inclusion of the word “grand” in the title.

The concept would focus development on major corridors and foster a pedestrian-friendly environment by linking mixed-use development with mass transit stops. Streets would have light commercial on the bottom floors of buildings with apartments and work-live studios on the second or third floors. Bicycle use would be a priority. Downtown would continue to be the focal point of activity.

Another alternative that did not fair well with council members was the Uptown/Downtown concept that would create a smaller downtown-like community near Bergamot Station with work-live lofts for artists and an attention to light rail. Members feared this proposal would create too much development, bringing with it traffic problems already seen in downtown. The plan may also divide the city in half, council members feared.

Most residents wanted a no or limited growth proposal that would set a cap for commercial development while focusing more on increasing affordable, workforce housing. Therefore, it would seem that the Status Quo concept would be appealing. It wasn’t. Residents are not pleased with the way development is taking shape.

“We cannot go back (to 20 years ago) and change the mistakes that have been made, but that doesn’t mean we have to go downwards,” said Arthur Harris. “If the council is going to be captured by special interests it should be the populous that elected you, not the developers who have already blighted downtown.”

Many residents are unhappy with the way commercial development has taken over the city, bringing with it people from outside the community who cause traffic jams during rush hour as employees travel to and from work.

The growing number of condominiums and high-end apartments have changed the face of the city, residents said, and not for the better, as lower income renters have been forced to leave.

Resident Kent Strumple said that while development has become a problem, that cannot deter the council from moving forward with a plan to accommodate the inevitable.

“Growth is going to happen,” Strumple said. “I think planning for that is prudent.”

Officials developing Shape the Future said the reason why they did not have many specific targets for growth, such as how many apartments would be built, is because they are merely studying initial alternatives to see what tradeoffs they can make and still adhere to the community’s wishes that there be limited growth with a focus on more affordable housing, historical preservation, and a well-functioning mass transit system. To put certain limits early on would be premature and may force the design of one plan over others with equal benefits, said Andy Agle, interim director for the Planning Department.

Staff instructed the council Tuesday to choose three alternatives to be studied in detail. After Tuesday’s meeting, it is unclear what those three alternatives will be, or if they will be considered at all following the council’s latest move to gather more input. The issue is expected to come before the council again in the coming weeks.