> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Development has its limits - URL: https://www.smdp.com/development-has-its-limits/ - Published: 2008-01-12T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T17:55:43.000Z - Author: Melody Hanatani - Tags: Government & Politics, Main St, #archive-import *Locals want the city to keep construction at a reasonable level* CITY HALL Tensions were running high in the City Council Chambers, the room filled with one impassioned speech after another by Santa Monicans wanting the Landmarks Commission to save an historic surf shop. The sanctity of Dogtown must be preserved, the residents pleaded. If there was an underlying theme from that night in November 2006 — a hearing on whether an Ocean Park building that once housed the old Zephyr Surf Shop should be saved — it was that there’s been too many unwanted developmental changes along Main Street. “It’s important to send a message to developers that this entire city isn’t up for sale,” said Jacob Samuel, a lifelong Santa Monica resident, during the Landmarks Commission hearing. The pace and scale of development has long been a concern of residents, worried that their once sleepy town is being overtak-en by developers, building what has been criticized as unsightly and out-of-character structures that have a knack for attracting traffic into the city. These residents often point to the same list of projects that have popped up citywide since the General Plan, a long-range land-use blueprint, was last implemented in 1984 — a compilation of developments that include the Water Garden, the Plaza at the Arboretum, and occasionally, the new Archstone mixed-use complex at the corner of Main and Bay streets — directly across from the former Zephyr shop. Residents hope the city’s changing face will be molded into an attractive one, with the future adoption of the new Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE), a planning document that will guide development in Santa Monica for the next 20 years or more. “There’s no compelling reason to densify the city,” said Peter Tigler, an artist and 30-year-resident, who said he would like to see a general plan geared toward a less dense city. Over the past several years, residents have had the opportunity to air their concerns about development in the city through a series of workshops held as part of the LUCE update process, a process that has been named, “Shape the Future: 2025.” More than a thousand residents have participated in the community workshops, each of which have focused on a specific neighborhood or issue, from parking constraints in the Wilshire-Montana area to walkability in the Pico neighborhood to density in Ocean Park. Growth seems to be an issue in many California municipalities. In Sacramento, where the plan update is roughly two-thirds completed, planners are looking at ways to accommodate the growth of its population in an already densely-built city. The state capital is projected to grow by about 40 percent, according to Tom Pace, the general plan project director in Sacramento. “We don’t have an additional 40 percent of the nearly 100 square miles (in Sacramento),” Pace said. A draft of the city’s LUCE, just one of many municipal general plans being updated throughout the state, is expected to be ready for the City Council in June, and once approved, an accompanying zoning ordinance revamp is expected to occur. One thing city planners say they’ve heard loud and clear is that neighborhoods need to be protected, somewhat maintaining the status quo, while density in Santa Monica needs to be controlled and managed carefully. “(Sunset Park) residents tell us that they want densities to remain largely the same, but that the Industrial Lands should be down-zoned,” said Zina Josephs, president of the neighborhood group Friends of Sunset Park. “In other words, no growth, as Santa Monica is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country.” After the current general plan was adopted, the projections for new commercial growth were exceeded by 1990, according to the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, which is filing a ballot initiative that would limit commercial development in the city. By 1990, City Hall had approved approximately 5.7 million square feet of new commercial development, Diana Gordon, a member of the coalition, said last week. One of the major differences between the current general plan and its successor will be the manner in which future development will occur in Santa Monica. The current general plan essentially calls for a vision for a specific area of the city, but neither defines the type of development nor the specific location where it should occur. The lack of direction for developers has been one of the most glaring shortcomings of the current general plan, leading to “piecemeal” projects that have popped up throughout the industrial area, said Eileen Fogarty, the director of planning and community development for City Hall. The so-called industrial area, home to the Water Gardens and various creative arts studios, is roughly bounded by Centinela Avenue to the east, the I-10 Freeway to the south, the downtown area to the west and Broadway to the north. The new LUCE will not only state a clear vision, but it will also put that vision into action, mapping out not only what type of development should occur, but where it should take place, allowing projects to communicate with each other. The result will be the creation of a cohesive neighborhood feel in the industrial area, Fogarty added. The updated general plan will also specify how developments could provide benefits to the community, such as parking solutions for residents. The result of the new general plan will be smarter development, projects that communicate with one another, promoting walka-bility and improving the quality of life, Fogarty said. “The only way to improve the quality of life is to strategically locate uses,” Fogarty said If the general plan were to remain the same over the next 20 years, the city would most likely see the continuation of what has been taking place since 1984. “You see change, but not any of it managed,” Fogarty said. “You would see a continual deterioration in the quality of life. “You get the impacts, but you don’t get the positive change.” Santa Monicans have different visions for the future of the city, some wanting to see as little development as possible, others acknowledging that change is inevitable and that there are opportunities for smart development in certain segments of the city. “My overall sense of it is that we should severely limit the development of any more commercial floor area in most of the city, the exception being downtown,” said Councilmember Ken Genser. “We have a real imbalance in the city where we have more people coming to work here than live here.” While fewer projects would result in the loss of developer fees for City Hall, there are also hidden costs that come with commercial development — traffic and weakened infrastructures, such as waste-water, Genser added. One thing that Fogarty said will not happen is the realization of the fears of many residents — a metropolitan Santa Monica with high-rises popping up, incompatibly large-mass developments that just don’t seem to serve a purpose in ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/55/9f/559f9abc-8372-4a2e-8c2d-27386da4e363/content/images/2026/10/011208-12_01.jpg) *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 12, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/011208.pdf?ref=smdp.com)