AFTER SUBMITTING MY DEC. 10 COLUMN, I decided it needed a revision. I rewrote three existing paragraphs about City Council wisely upholding landmarking a historic apartment building on Ocean Avenue and protecting tenants facing eviction at the Village Trailer Park with new material about the 20th Street/Cloverfield Avenue Greenscape Proposal that was on their Tuesday agenda.
The revision was e-mailed via high speed DSL lines to the new, world headquarters of the Santa Monica Daily Press with its state-of-the-art news center, complete with ultra-fast computers and avant-garde communications software. Although my revision had arrived well before Monday’s deadline, the perfect, fail-safe system somehow failed and my 179-word “20th/Cloverfield Greenscape” commentary didn’t run last Monday.
Here is what you missed: “City Council will also consider approval of concept designs for the ‘greening’ of 20th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard between Pico Boulevard and the I-10 freeway. I attended the Aug. 17 community meeting when this project was described as only “greenscaping” — planting trees, improving street lighting and landscaping adjacent sidewalk areas.
“Proposed landscaped curb extensions along Cloverfield were a major source of contention at the meeting. Implementing them would bulge the sidewalk into the street and eliminate up to 19 parking spots — nearly half of the street’s 41 spaces.
“Residents, already frustrated by a severe shortage of street parking, were led to believe that many of the proposed bumpouts would probably be eliminated and most if not all street parking would be retained. Attendees were also told revised designs would be submitted at another meeting for neighborhood review before being presented to City Council.
“It seems to me that these two promises have been broken. Do we chalk this up to another situation where neighbors may have been played? No wonder people think that City Hall doesn’t listen to them.”
For the record, City Council did review the 20th/Cloverfield design concepts and asked for design revisions — including a second look at the parking situation.
While in the holiday spirit, I’m going to extend kudos to the City Council for approving an ordinance a couple of weeks ago restricting bigger and faster Class C and D jets from operating at the Santa Monica Airport. Expanded jet traffic at the facility has resulted in numerous complaints about safety, noise and pollution.
“Historic district?” — If we’re going to compromise the character of a historic neighborhood by allowing old buildings to be demolished and replaced with construction then why even designate a
For five years, the city has been negotiating with the Federal Aviation Agency, which governs and oversees airport operation about flight safety. The city is concerned about larger planes that could lose control by overrunning landings or aborting take-offs and careen into nearby homes on either end of the runway. The FAA opposes city requests to shorten the runway, extend safety areas at either end or restrict jets by size.
The FAA is clearly wrong on this issue because even their alternative suggestions for mitigating overrun accidents fall short of the agency’s own safety guidelines. Public safety must come first and FAA’s refusal to “OK” increased safety zones or limit jet size is a recipe for a major disaster.
On the other hand, last Monday night, the Landmarks Commission gave Santa Monica Treesavers another month to come up with arguments as to why downtown ficus trees on Second and Fourth streets should be landmarks.
Hint to commissioners: There aren’t any. Ficus supporters are grabbing at straws to keep this lost cause alive and in the news. The Landmarks Commission is wasting time and needs to move on.
Another bad decision was the awarding of a “certificate of appropriateness application” for the demolition of a period, single-story duplex at 2642 Second St. in the Ocean Park Third Street Historical District and eventual construction of a “modern” single-family home. Project neighbors asked the commission to delay deciding on the development so it could be heard next month — at the same time as a request by a 2617 Third Street property owner seeking approval to add a “modern” two-story addition to the rear of his single-family residence which is “a contributing structure to the historic district.”
The neighbor’s request was reasonable, so the commission should have continued the Second Street item and heard about both projects at the same time. What’s at stake here is the “historic district”concept. If we’re going to compromise the character of a historic neighborhood by allowing old buildings to be demolished and replaced with construction “not of the period,” then why even designate a “Historic District?”
“Not of the period,”
Neither decision inspires my confidence that this commission is truly capable of protecting Santa Monica’s historic past.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 17, 2007. Read the original PDF.