Council
Weighs in Again on Downtown Plan |
By Jorge Casuso
January 23 -- Scheduled to take no official action, the
City Council Tuesday reiterated issues that need to be ironed out
before adopting a general plan that will drastically change how
Downtown is run.
Bankrolled with new property assessments, the plan -- which, among other things,
would boost maintenance, enhance marketing efforts and create an “ambassador
program” -- requires the approval of both the property owners taxed and
the council, which stands to lose much of its control over the Bayside Board.
Some council members were confident in the proposed plan, which has been in
the works for nearly a year and a half and must receive the support of the majority
of the Downtown property owners, who would be taxed a total of $3.7 million
a year.
“I think it’s a terrific idea and a plan. . . to make the Downtown
a better area. . . and a more inviting atmosphere,” said Council member
Bob Holbrook.
But others were more hesitant to give their enthusiastic endorsement, saying
the plan, which expands the size of the current district and the kinds of businesses
taxed, needs more input from the public.
“We have really had very little public input so far,” said Council
member Kevin McKeown. “It’s awkward to express so many
discomforts."
Among the sticking points was whether private contractors would be used in
the enhanced maintenance effort; whether residential landlords, if taxed, would
be allowed to pass that fee on to their tenants and whether the ambassadors
would be allowed to use walkie-talkies in their role as the “eyes and
ears” on the bustling area.
Several council members insisted that the City maintain control over the enhanced
maintenance effort, which they said should be undertaken by an expanded City
crew, rather than the hired contractors proposed as an option by Bayside District
consultants.
“It’s incumbent on the City to retain control of the public spaces
Downtown,” said McKeown. “The public space. . . belongs to us all.
We need to use public employees to maintain public space.”
“The City must retain control over its property,” said Council
member Ken Genser. Nothing should be done, he said, “without the City
being able to approve it or oversee it.”
The council also discussed the role of the ambassadors and whether residential
properties would reap sufficient benefits to warrant paying the $1.2 million
a year needed to put them on the streets and in public restrooms 15 hours a
day, seven days a week.
McKeown worried that the ambassadors -- who would provide a “concierge”
service for visitors and “assist police to discourage nuisance crimes”
-- could be taking on too much of a policing role if given walkie-talkies.
McKeown said he would oppose “assigning a police role to the private
sector” and questioned the benefits residents would reap from the program.
“I don’t see how Downtown residents benefit from the ambassadors,”
he said. If residential properties are taxed, “the fees will be passed
on to the renters,” McKeown predicted.
“To a renter, I don’t think this turns out to be a good deal,”
he said.
Genser shared similar concerns. “I wonder if the residents would have
the same benefits as commercial use from the ambassador program,” he said.
But Holbrook noted that since the residents don’t directly vote for the
assessments, as they do for a bond or parcel tax on the ballot, it may not be
possible to pass through to cost to them.
The council also indicated it still must iron out the size of the new revamped
board, which would give property owners more power.
Under the proposed plan, the size of the current 11-member board would be increased
to 15 members -- seven appointed by the council, seven by the assessed property
owners and one designated by the City manager.
Genser worried a 15-member board might be too big.
“I think (it) gets to the size where people don’t care to take
a lot of responsibility,” he said. “If you have the wrong process,
you could encourage more of a gadfly” type being appointed.
Tuesday’s discussion comes nine months after the council unanimously
approved a general blueprint of the plan, which would replace an assessment
district that currently only taxes retailers, with a much larger one that would
include restaurants, hotels, offices and, perhaps, apartment buildings.
Under the proposed plan, the influence exerted by a property owner would be
commensurate with the amount of the assessment, which would be based on the
size, location and type of use.
A property on the wildly successful Third Street Promenade would pay the most
at 88¢ a square foot. Properties on neighboring 2nd and 4th streets and
Ocean Avenue would pay 44¢, while those on 5th to 7th streets would pay
22¢.
A building on the Promenade with retail and office use might pay $16,500 a
year, while a large office building could pay as much as $45,000, consultants
said. While a hotel might pay $20,000, the Salvation Army could pay as little
as $5,000.
A remaining sticking point will be how much to tax a property such as the City
Bus Yards, which derives little, if any, benefit from the services bankrolled
by the assessments.
In order to raise the needed funding, the owners of the 350 property parcels
in the expanded Downtown Business Improvement District (PBID) will have to agree
to be assessed under a proposed “property-based model.”
Under the plan, the boundaries of the Downtown Business Improvement District
would be expanded to encompass the area bounded by the east side of Ocean Avenue,
the east side of 7th Street, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard and the 10
Freeway.
If the law passed, it would mark the first major change in two decades in how
the Bayside District – which has sometimes had strained relations with
the City, especially over the homeless – manages the Santa Monica's roaring
Downtown economic engine.
The new boundaries will include half a dozen hotels, a stretch of high-end
restaurants overlooking Palisades Park and several dozen new apartment
buildings along 5th, 6th and 7th streets.
|
