> ## 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.

# Neighborhood issues not solved by rancor
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/neighborhood-issues-not-solved-by-rancor/
- Published: 2005-08-15T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T07:35:09.000Z
- Author: Bill Bauer
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

What is community livability? To some, it’s parks, safe streets and good schools. To others, it’s about peace and quiet, being able to commute without being stuck in traffic and parking close to home.

Balancing the good with the bad in an ever-changing community makes urban planning an imperfect work in progress. For example, in areas heavily impacted by a street parking shortage, you’d think any development that doesn’t provide even the minimum on-site parking required by code would be off limits.

But what happens when that development is a community-serving entity? Is it OK to set aside a neighborhood livability issue like requiring a developer to provide adequate on-site parking? It’s the question I asked in my column on recent plan-ning commission approval of expansion and a parking variance proposal by the Unitarian Universalist Community Church at Arizona Avenue and 18th Street (SMDP, Aug. 1, page 4).

The project’s architect, Ralph Mechur, took me to task for the column (SMDP, Aug. 9, page 4). Unfortunately, Mechur’s “psychic hotline” wasn’t working when he categorically stated I’d never been to the church, talked to neighbors or studied his proposal.

I would have hoped for real dialog, but Mechur, who should know all about “bully pulpits,” resorted to whining, denial, name calling, changing the subject and speculation about how I work rather than address issues and solve problems.

To me, it’s not about church history or mission, community service, whether renovation is necessary or how Mechur’s design would improve church facilities. It’s about how this expansion affects neighborhood quality.

In 1930, when the church was built, there was no requirement for on-site parking. By today’s standards, it’s short 84 spots. Based on Mechur’s proposal, 12 more spaces are required. Because they’re not provided, a variance was requested and approved, along with the expansion plans.

Mechur claims that church members “are interested in working with neighbors to try and mitigate the ongoing parking problems.” I’m sure they are but recent letters to the editor in the Daily Press and a meeting with neighbors last Thursday evening tell me, “It ain’t happening.”

It seems that neither Mechur or his client have offered practical solutions beyond parking at UCLA Hospital lots two blocks away only on Sunday morning, or “taking the bus.”

Mechur claims that I, “based on poor facts, am working to divide neighbors.” That I accuse the church who provides service to all who ask as being “the source of the problem” and that “the church who has the least resources should solve a pervasive problem.” Please.

Every time the church proposes an expansion (in 1994, in 2004 and now in 2005), on-site parking has been glossed over. In fact, it’s so much of an issue that neighbors have passed the hat, collected money and appealed the Planning Commission’s approval to City Council. So, angry nearby residents don’t need me to inflame the situation.

An e-mail from 18th Street neighbor, Cathy Millikan, sums it up. “We told them... they should provide parking and they said, ‘no.’ They told us their people park in UCLA hospital’s lot. We told them they park there after all the parking is gone on our street and they have to park there and walk the two blocks. They said, ‘Too bad, it cost too much to provide parking.’”

The 18th and Arizona neighborhood is overparked because hospitals, car dealerships, retail stores, churches and apartments with insufficient parking have been built and allowed to expand with the blessings of city officials. Over the years, myopic planning and lack of oversight have made a bad situation intolerable. Neighbors view the proposal as the straw that broke the camel’s back.

An architect friend and former Santa Monican, Garth Sheriff, who knows the players well, said, “The rules do not apply evenly in Santa Monica. You and Ralph (Mechur) are ‘talking past each other.’ You say, ‘The victim is the neighborhood,’ and you’re right. Mechur says, ‘The expansion helps many people,’ and he’s right.”

Sheriff said a similar situation occurred with the Self Realization Fellowship’s expansion in Mt. Washington. “The church withdrew its application for expansion to be a good neighbor,” he said. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to happen here.

So, when the City Council hears the appeal, I hope it realizes “pervasive problems” can’t be solved by adding to them. Let’s hope calm heads and clear minds find solutions before neighbors become even more alienated with the institutions that are supposed to serve them. (Bill Bauer is a longtime resident and a freelance writer.)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 15, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/081505.pdf?ref=smdp.com)