By David cole mike feinstein bobby shriver maria loya ken genser matt dinolfo jon mann
You are absolutely right that the next four years will be pivotal to the future look of Santa Monica.
Currently, we have no plan as to how big Santa Monica is to be. It’s not a priority to the folks that now control City Hall. As a councilperson, I would demand that we welcome the residents to a fast-track process that defines our city’s future and just how big we want to become.
I know that the Santa Monicans For Renters Rights and Chamber of Commerce endorsed candidates will approve the plans for massive new towers downtown. They have all been shown the plans in private meetings.
I can’t imagine four to five new buildings downtown that might be 20 or more stories tall.
Where will everyone park? And what about the new traffic that will be generated? We’re all going to be sold out again for more money in the city coffers.
I won’t approve this type of development. It’s not that I’m against all development, but we need to consider residents first — something that has not been done in years.
I personally would like to see Santa Monica not grow any bigger, for any future buildings to incorporate historic building elements and keep us small and friendly.
Let our neighboring cities absorb the massive projects developers want to build. I have a goal of solving our traffic and parking problems, slowing commercial development and going back to a time of a city with an architectural character we can be proud of.
I hope the community joins me in this goal and elects for change here in Santa Monica. Maybe we can ignore the slew of glossy mailers from people that really don’t care about us and just want their buddies up on the dais so they can approve their big projects.
Any change in allowable heights should be considered as part of the public process through the city’s general plan update.
Our primary goal should be to protect the scale and character of our existing residential neighborhoods, as well as neighborhood commercial districts like Main Street, Ocean Park, Pico and Montana.
Downtown, we currently have an irregular set of allowable heights from one block to another that have little to do with view corridors (other than protecting remaining ocean views from Second Street, which I support.) If we change these standards, we must take into consideration the effect on light and shadows at street level. We must also ensure that scale and massing does not overwhelm the pedestrian. That means combining design standards — including set-backs and step-backs — with height standards, to achieve a positive result.
Regarding the Fairmont Miramar, I opposed their proposal to create a “twin tower” that would “mirror” 100 Wilshire. Instead, I advocated a lower scale, three-story presence along Wilshire, with which they now agree. Any additional height proposed is for the middle of their property, next to their current higher-rise rooms. That is what the public will respond to when it comes before City Council.
Santa Monica Place is considering tearing down their entire block, putting parking underground, creating a more urban fabric, and extending the Promenade to the Civic Center — an important connection I support.
How much height we will allow on top for their proposed residential housing is for the community to decide.
In terms of future tax revenue, I support a qualitative approach that creates more passageways between the Promenade, Civic Center, Pier and the new light rail station destined for Fourth and Colorado. The more we open up the “arteries” of the downtown, the healthier our local economy will be.
Future downtown buildings should not be taller than what is allowed now. No more office or condo towers. We already have too many towers and massive buildings along Ocean Avenue, blocking the ocean view and breeze. During the public review process for any proposed towers, I hope Santa Monica residents will make themselves clear: No more skyscrapers.
In the center of downtown, buildings can be six stories instead of five if they contain affordable housing. Parking requirements are also relaxed. Are these provisions still a good idea? Residents and visitors will stop shopping at downtown stores if they get stuck in traffic or cannot park whenever they come to downtown Santa Monica. Sales tax revenue to the city may decrease.
To answer the concern that less development will erode our city’s tax base: 1. Santa Monica’s beauty and charm are worth much more than money. 2. Renewal and redevelopment of existing buildings will continue. That will generate increased tax revenue. More parking can be added, which benefits the whole area. 3. Increased development is not free to the city: It creates costs for additional services, police and fire protection, and wear on our infrastructure. 4. Santa Monica’s general fund is much larger per capita than other cities. If reduced development does cause a reduction of revenue, the city can handle it.
I am not in support of converting Santa Monica into a South Beach, Miami, by creating massive high rises along our coastline. I want to ensure that Santa Monica downtown district is welcoming to its residents as well as its visitors. In order to achieve this goal, we must actively engage our residents to developing a collective vision of what we want our downtown district to look like. Decisions regarding future development need to involve all Santa Monicans and not be left to the Planning Department.
Every development in Santa Monica must demonstrate a benefit for both the local economy and our residents alike. It is important to implement a balanced approach that will contribute to our economic base while maintaining our character and charm as a community. We must employ a cost-benefit analysis in every development that takes into account not only the economic and environmental impact that the development will have on our city, but a social impact that looks at how the development can benefit or hurt its surrounding residents.
The future of Santa Monica will be decided in the upcoming election. In the next year or two, the city will adopt a new general plan and zoning code. These documents will determine whether Santa Monica will become a West Coast Miami Beach, or if it will remain the predominantly lower-scale coastal town that most of us love.
Some developers are proposing new high rise towers. If it is up to me, they will not be approved. In my view, development in most of Santa Monica should be limited to two or three stories.
In our downtown and Civic Center, we might consider a few taller structures, but not over five or six stories. For example, most people don’t object to the older brick portion of the Miramar Hotel at the corner of California Avenue and Second Street. If we do permit additional buildings of this height, we must also adopt standards that protect public views and provide additional, publicly accessible open space. We must also assure that buildings are stepped back and have varied setbacks so we won’t “canyonize” our downtown.
Some might argue that tax revenues are worth having high-rise towers. My response is that nothing is worth destroying the charm of Santa Monica.
The developers are investing heavily in this campaign — through the Chamber of Commerce and through new, anonymous organizations. I pledge to make it clear to them that Santa Monica is not for sale.
Santa Monica has a unique charm and sophistication, due in part to the diversity of its citizens, its beautiful coastline, and its cosmopolitan atmosphere as a major international tourist destination.
The continuation of that charm will be contingent on development that will address the critical need for housing and at the same time not lead to “canyoniza-tion” along our major east-west corridors and Ocean Avenue. In addition, competition for available land should have as a primary objective an increase of park and recreational areas.
To accomplish this objective, I favor mixed-use development which addresses both critical housing needs and supports small business growth. Another benefit will be to enhance our property and business tax base.
Mixed-use development will have some degree of increased density, but in the long run will reduce traffic if people are able to live and work in a city that offers convenient, affordable housing and increased employment opportunities. Further, this type of development will decrease the use of automobiles, promoting public health through a more active lifestyle, and also, by extension, reducing pollution.
I do not anticipate, nor do I support, new high-rise development along Ocean Avenue, as this would have a deleterious effect on the charm and openness of our coastline. If we attract world-class architecture by streamlining our planning and architectural review, smart growth should be able to be accomplished in heights of no more than four to five stories.
Santa Monica Place has become antiquated and needs to be renewed. This offers a unique opportunity for the city to partner with a private developer to enhance our open space, increase parking options and housing, and expand the thoroughfare from the Third Street Promenade to the pier and Main Street.
Another major concern of any development is to preserve the openness of our avenues and parks, and provide safe and appealing pedestrian walkways.
We have already surpassed the height limit for hotels and commercial properties. The plans for another city-wide development plan around the Civic Center, the Promenade and Santa Monica Place are outrageous and corrupt, as is building a new hotel at the Fairmont Miramar. The city is running out of space and attempting to increase density by building up.
I have been consistently against development from the onset. No more growth, and curtail future plans already in process. I do advocate allowing homeowners to remodel their homes, within reason, and cease putting them through unnecessary delay and expense. I had to sell my 800-square-foot house in Sunset Park because of all the obstacles impeding the permit process.
This City Council and most of the candidates, especially those with their slick mailers, big-name endorsements and financial inducements, have sold out the residents of this city to special interests. I exclude Bobby Shriver, who represents many who are fed up with the arrogance and incompetence of this council. They have forgotten the voters’ revolt over rent gouging in the late ’70s, but now the Santa Monicans For Renters’ Rights is compromised and supporting candidates who are also endorsed by city employees and other outside interests. SMRR members, sitting and past council persons, and their friends are profiting from development and city contracts to public agencies. The Bayside Board has done little to solve downtown blight and is even exacerbating the problem.
We all know how badly the schools are fiscally mismanaged and the problems with the former superintendent, Neal Schmidt, and now a board member wants to continue that incompetence on the council.
We all know about the incompetence on the Planning Commission and other commissions, and the conflict of interest involv-
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 26, 2004. Read the original PDF.