> ## 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.

# LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Public input needed for development zoning
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/letters-to-the-editor-public-input-needed-for-development-zoning/
- Published: 2006-09-04T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:52:38.000Z
- Author: Bill Bauer
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

Proposition 90 on the November ballot is a statewide “pay to protect” measure that would give virtually everyone and anyone the right to sue cities and government entities by claiming a law or regulation has caused an economic loss and negatively impacted their property values.

Taxpayers could wind up paying out millions of dollars for claims against basic zoning laws that protect the environment and our neighborhoods from over development. Zoning codes and regulations that restrict undesirable businesses and overdevelopment, protect water, habitat and air quality and enact consumer protection statutes could attract frivolous litigation and result in horrendous legal costs and expensive payouts.

Here in Santa Monica, the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) has been undergoing updating for a couple of years. If City Hall was to downzone a neighborhood or mandate a lower level of development than a property owner believes his property can accommodate, that developer could sue under the provisions of Prop. 90 — if approved by California voters. Taxpayers could be on the hook for the value of property at its densest level — even if the community opposed or couldn’t handle the proposed development.

Rulings in place before election day aren’t subject to Prop. 90’s provisions, therefore implementation of revised zoning for the six city neighborhoods most likely to experience the greatest amount of redevelopment must be done before Nov. 7.

For example, on Main Street, current zoning allows for buildings twice the size of the mostly one-and two-floor buildings there now. Proposed changes would maintain the street’s existing scale and charm. If City Hall was to downzone Main Street after an approved Prop. 90, City Hall could be sued if a property owner claims that new codes prohibit larger, previously permitted developments and results in loss of property value. Depending on the judgment, the cost could be considerable especially if many property owners litigate.

City staff has made a number of recommendations subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Their recommendations, as summarized by City Councilman Kevin McKeown in an informational e-mail to neighbors are: ■In R2 zones (smaller, low density, mul-tifamily apartments and condos), reduce the base standards for permitted projects from five to four units on a typical parcel. Reduce the building footprint from 50 percent to 45 percent lot coverage. ■Reduce the R3 (medium density, apartment buildings and condos) standards to current R2 standards for lower height, less mass and fewer units. In both the R2 and R3 multi-family districts, give “preferred” priority only to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified environmental buildings; affordable housing; apartments — as opposed to condos — including market-rate rentals; historic projects and senior housing. “Preferred” projects would be allowed to build to existing standards. ■In those and other residential zones, reduce the allowable height by forbidding projections like elevators, stairs, parapets and mechanical rooms and screening. Instead, require that such items be accommodated only within the permitted volume allowed by the existing code and proposed amendments. ■In R2R zones (low density, single-family home or duplex, residential district along the beach south of Pico Boulevard), re-establish design review on all homes. Change R3R (medium density, multiple family coastal residential district) standards to be consistent with R3, thus reducing building density. ■On most of Main Street’s commercial district (CM2) reduce the allowed maximum floor area ratio to almost half of what is permitted now (1.5 to.8). Prohibit lot consolidations over 6,000 square feet to help preserve scale and character. ■In M1 zones (industrial conservation district), remove “artists studio”height incentives.

Public comment is requested. Voice your opinions and don’t be afraid to present your own suggestions for zoning and building code changes. Now is the time to act and here’s what to do: ■Read the staff report on City Hall’s Web site http://santa-monica.org/home/. Go to Planning Commission, agendas, Sept. 6, 2006, item 11B — staff report. Zoning maps also are on the Web Site, under Planning and Community Development. ■Give your input by e-mailing or the City Council at ■Attend the Planning Commission meeting Wednesday, Sept. 6, or City Council on Tuesday, Sept. 12 and speak out. (Bill Bauer)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 4, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/090406.pdf?ref=smdp.com)