MY WRITE
There are three proposals from the Planning Department that, if approved by the City Council, will dramatically change the face of the community.
Two of the proposals would streamline the planning and approval process for developers. The third proposal greases the skids for quick, “one-stop” downtown restaurant alcohol licensing.
There’s a common thread to these proposals. The new codes will allow permit approvals to be granted behind closed doors when applicants meet new, universal sets of standards. Under the proposals, more and larger projects and alcohol permits will be green-lighted without public review by either the Planning Commission or the Architectural Review Board.
For example, the proposed downtown standards would raise the temporary public review threshold from 7,500 square feet to 30,000 square feet, and allow increased height limits with less on-site parking, among other recommendations.
Depending on the project and circumstance, public input is usually confined to cosmetic or decorative elements. Although it has on occasion resulted in more attractive buildings, in many cases, impractical or inane suggestions have resulted in unreasonable cost and delay for developers, which is what staff is trying to eliminate.
For example, at a recent ARB meeting, the long awaited approval for a three-story, mixed-use project proposed for the McDonald’s site at Colorado Avenue and Second Street was debated. Remember, the ARB’s purview is a building’s “cosmetics” or “decorative look,” including signage, color, wall treatment, landscaping, awnings, window trim, etc.
According to a report on The Lookout Web site, April 8, 2004, ARB board member Rudolfo Alvarez said, “The architectural conversation did not engage the signature view of Santa Monica. It seems to ignore the idea of the pier. I would have enjoyed seeing a building by the ocean with a view of the pier as a flow of imagery toward the sea.”
Fellow ARB board members voiced concern that the project was too “suburban” for such a prominent location and could be found anywhere in America.
I wonder if any ARB commissioner viewed the site? It faces a 1950’s era Holiday Inn and Santa Monica Place’s parking garage. There’s a multi-floor commercial building between the proposed project and the pier entrance. As for being “anywhere in America,” maybe the project should have a big, neon, rooftop sign that says, “This is in Santa Monica.”
Despite this, the answer is not cutting off public input. It’s in creating codes in tune with the community. One frequent project critic told me, “We can’t address issues such as height, massing and density on administratively approved buildings so we suggest changes in cosmetic details in the hopes that a “sow’s ear” might at least look more like a “silk purse.”
The city’s own community surveys show that many Santa Monicans believe the city is crowded and they want strict limits on development. This translates to more on-site parking, as well as restrictions on height and density. So why isn’t the planning staff writing codes to address these issues? Instead, they propose regulations, making it easier and quicker for developers to build even bigger, denser buildings with less parking — and eliminating public comment, to boot.
In addition to going in the wrong direction, the “take it all or leave it” attitude from planning staff management has drawn a confrontational line in the sand.
But don’t look for help from some City Council persons. Councilwoman Pam O’Connor complained about a citizen-initiated flyer distributed before the April 13 City Council meeting as dissemination of false information by “special interests.” Citing “micromanagement,” she said projects were “held hostage” by a few people on the ARB, the Planning Commission and the public. Councilmen Herb Katz and Michael Feinstein generally agreed.
It’s exactly what I’d expect from some city councilmembers. This isn’t the first time a hack politician has complained and concocted dark conspiracies when they’ve disagreed with citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free speech and to air grievances.
Shoving bigger development and alcohol friendly codes down the public’s throat isn’t cutting the mustard. City Hall better start listening to the people or some politicians and city managers will likely face uncertain futures The City Council will revisit a proposal for multi-family residential standards at its May 11 meeting, and address both downtown standards and alcohol permits at a later date. (Bill Bauer is a longtime resident of Santa Monica and a freelance writer).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 23, 2004. Read the original PDF.