> ## 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. # Moratorium on new development in Santa Monica proposed - URL: https://www.smdp.com/moratorium-on-new-development-in-santa-monica-proposed/ - Published: 2004-12-10T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T05:47:33.000Z - Author: John Wood - Tags: Government & Politics, Downtown, #archive-import *Critics of Santa Monica Place overhaul want to delay new projects* CITY HALL — A movement is building to halt all large developments in Santa Monica. Members of the Planning Commission next week will discuss a suggestion to ban new projects over 50,000 square feet until an update to City Hall’s planning codes is completed. That process is expected to take two and a half years. At issue is a controversial proposal to build five high-rise buildings on 10 acres in downtown Santa Monica currently occupied by Santa Monica Place mall, designed in the late 1970s by architect Frank Gehry. The new proposal includes nearly 600,000 square feet of retail space, and 450 housing units in towers stretching up to 21 stories high. Opponents of the project said the towers will clutter the Santa Monica skyline. They also criticized the way developers put forward the plans. “As it’s been put forward, I think that people miss... (that) the towers start four stories above the ground, and the park, which is supposed to be one of the public amenities, doesn’t meet the ground level,” said Patricia Hoffman, former president of the Santa Monica Democratic Club, which proposed the moratorium. “It’s the wrong starting place for a community discussion. I would like to see an honest community discussion that starts with step one, rather than with step seven or 10 or 20 or whatever it is, and I think that’s been missed completely,” Hoffman added. A senior mall executive said he understood the negative emotional reaction the towers received, but added a moratorium was the wrong response. “A moratorium or anything that postpones the direction of Santa Monica Place... would be very frustrating for Macerich, since we have been working with the city for close to three years,” said Randy Brant, a vice president at Macerich Co., which owns the mall. “It’s an emotional subject and I understand that. Macerich did the right thing by suggesting what we thinks works best. We’re certainly open to considering alternatives.” If the Planning Commission backs the concept of a moratorium, the issue would be forwarded onto the City Council, which is currently scheduled to discuss the Macerich proposal in January. It’s unclear where the council stands on the issue. “I don’t think there needs to be a moratorium on development,” said City Councilman Bob Holbrook, adding the public process would be thorough. “The Macerich project, if they redevelop — and that’s a big ‘if’ — there’s adequate zoning in place to do that and to do it reasonably. We just need to work with them on a project that everybody thinks is a great one... The spirit of redeveloping (Santa Monica Place) is something that everybody’s going to have to buy into.” City Councilman Kevin McKeown said now may be an ideal time for a development moratorium because City Hall is beginning the process of updating the city’s general plan, which will govern growth in Santa Monica for decades to come. “In general, this kind of a temporary freeze on development is something that other cities have done,” said McKeown, an open critic of the Macerich plans. “I think it’s very interesting that this proposal is coming from a grassroots organization,” McKeown added. “It’s not coming from planners. It’s not coming from council members. It’s really coming from the community. That to me says something.” Former Mayor Nat Trives, who supported a temporary development moratorium when he served on the council, said the proposal was worth considering. “Moratoriums are used just like you would if you were driving a big truck — you have your clutch and your brake, and if you’re going too fast downhill, and you don’t want to burn out your brakes, you use the clutch,” Trives said. “‘Moratorium’ is not a bad word,” added Trives, who chairs the chamber of commerce. “When used properly, the moratorium is a legitimate function of government.” Large, city-wide moratoriums were instituted in the late ’70s and again for several years in the late ’80s, said Assistant Planning Director Andy Agle. Several smaller moratoriums, for specific areas of the city and specific types of development, have also been set up, Agle added. Myriad legal issues are entailed, officials said. “For me, the bottom line is... the law does allow cities to impose moratoria on a showing under certain circumstances where there is a need, and (the moratorium is) for a limited period of time,” City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said. With next week’s discussion pending, members of the Planning Commission were hesitant to comment publicly on the proposal. “It’s a really sticky, mucky situation,” Planning Commissioner Arlene Hopkins said. Added Planning Commissioner Julie Dad, also president of the Santa Monica Democratic Club, which put forward the suggestion to halt development: “I’ve not seen the plan and I’m not going to have anything to say about it until next Wednesday night. “In this case, and you can tell from the records, Commissioner (Gwynne) Pugh and I more than others (agree that)... we need to not move forward on things, especially text amendments, before we have revised the general plan,” Dad added. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 10, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/121004.pdf?ref=smdp.com)