By Jeffrey Weinstein Santa Monica
On Monday, May 19, the Architectural Review Board met for a second time to review Community Corporation of Santa Monica’s proposed four-story, 44-unit low-income housing project at the corner of Pacific and Main in Ocean Park.
The ARB recommended additional design changes and refinement to the exterior of the proposed building to make the building more attractive. Nevertheless, the ARB has not required CCSM to eliminate the fourth floor, reduce the number of units or increase the number of parking spaces provided for residents, guests and visitors to Main Street to make the building more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The current design consists of 113 bedrooms with a single elevator, housing more than 200 residents, with nearly 1,500 square feet of ground level retail space, yet only 82 parking spaces. However, the ARB did request that CCSM make the entire length of the Main Street frontage retail-oriented by relocating the community room, which had been located along Main Street. The matter was continued for a third time, and the ARB will meet again in June to review the revised plan.
What stood out in my mind from this last ARB meeting was CCSM’s reluctance to make any voluntary design changes or improvements unless forced to do so by the ARB. For example, when asked why the project included only minimal ground-floor retail space, Joan Ling, head of CCSM, replied “Because the zoning code allows us not to.”
The same goes for why the proposed project is four stories, has 113 bedrooms and only one elevator and contains only 82 parking spaces. The local zoning code, with its numerous incentives, density bonuses and reduction in parking requirements for low-income housing projects, does not require it.
Well then, the neighborhood be damned. It makes no difference that CCSM was given $3,173,000 in public funding to purchase the land at Pacific and Main and $915,000 for pre-development, planning, and design fees. Evidently, CCSM has no sense of responsibility toward its neighbors or the larger community of taxpayers who have allowed CCSM to become Santa Monica’s biggest landlord. Incidentally, CCSM pays no property taxes.
The second item that stood out were the comments from James Conn, ex-mayor of Santa Monica. It was during Mr. Conn’s tenure and that of ex-Mayor Judy Abdo, both strong CCSM supporters, that the zoning code was changed, back in the late 1980s, to include all those incentives, density bonuses and reduction in parking requirements for low-income housing.
Jim Conn restated what has become a sort of mantra for CCSM supporters that “rich people” are to blame for the high cost of housing in Santa Monica and he used the “$1.2 million dollar home” at the corner of Pacific and Main as an example of the greed and unjust influence of “rich people.”
Knowing the owner of the house and her personal trials and tribulations, I can honestly say she has earned the privilege to live in such a splendid home. We can debate the reasons for the current housing affordability crisis, but when did it become justified and fashionable for an ex-mayor and clergyman of a local church to denigrate an entire class of people?
If I or anyone else for that matter, had blamed “poor people” for not earning enough money or certain minorities for not having access to quality education, we would rightly be labeled “insensitive” at best. But in the name of CCSM and some of their supporters, its OK to stigmatize those who own their own homes in Santa Monica.
Since becoming “a leading opponent of the project,” some have questioned my motives. As a long-time resident raising a family in Santa Monica, I am concerned with the quality of the neighborhood, just as I am concerned with the quality of our school system. I know that others in my neighborhood are as concerned as I about the rapid pace of change, increased density and traffic, deterioration of the school system and lack of accountability at City Hall.
Should the planning commission (on appeal from the ARB) fail to reduce the height and density of the Pacific and Main project to make the building more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, I will have no other alternative than to test in a court of law the “administrative approval” and exemption from the CUP process for this project as well as the project’s compliance with the planning and zoning code.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 31, 2003. Read the original PDF.