Logo horizontal ruler

Search


Proposed Building Heights Stir Debate

By Jorge Casuso

July 3 -- While a vision for Santa Monica’s future has been slowly taking shape over the past four years, a key question cast a long shadow over the City Council’s deliberations Tuesday: How tall is too tall?

That question will likely be the center of the remaining debate as the council puts the finishing touches on the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), a document that will set the blueprint for all future development in the 8.3-square-mile city.

If Tuesday’s discussion -- which took place with two of the seven council members missing -- is any indication, an answer won’t be easy to come by. At least two council members openly questioning how the City's Planning staff came to propose buildings that could rise as high as 68 feet.

“I think this draft is way off base for this city, and it’s not what people wanted, (which is) to preserve the scale of this city,” said Council member Ken Genser.

“Development is already out of scale of the community,” said Council member Kevin McKeown. “I’m afraid that people who live here are already losing their neighbors and neighborhoods.”

The plan presented by City staff – which planners said is the result of nine Planning Commission meetings and countless community workshops – calls for taller developments with affordable housing in designated parts of the city.

The plan would concentrate new development near public transit nodes such as future light rail stations, encourage walking by providing neighborhood-serving uses in strategic locations and charge developers mitigation fees to bankroll special districts to manage traffic with the goal of creating “no new net car trips.”

To fuel the necessary development, staff is proposing allowing property owners to “economically develop their land and create the kinds of public benefits we’re talking about,” said consultant Robert Odermatt.

“A city is a very viable kind of organism,” said Odermatt. “They grow, they renew themselves, they adapt to change of philosophy, and, if you don’t change, you’ll go down.”

Some council members weren’t buying the argument.

“For many people in this community, change for change’s own sake is not very attractive,” McKeown said. “People are more interested in what exactly we’re changing into.”

McKeown and Genser dismissed fears expressed by Planning Director Eileen Fogarty based on her tenure in Alexandria, Virginia, where she said “property owners were willing to sit on properties for ten to 15 years and do nothing.”

“Things don’t stagnate in Santa Monica,” Genser countered. “We are in a booming part of the Westside with lots of regional pressure.”

"We shouldn't have to trade for what we want," said McKeown, referring the taller building heights. "We're a very special place. People desperately want to be here."

But some council members indicated they wouldn’t oppose taller developments in the designated areas along the main boulevards.

“I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination anything that has been proposed is significant overbuilding,” said Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom, who chaired the meeting.

Council member Bob Holbrook said he was shocked by the prospect that “if the commercial boulevards don’t change, it’ll eventually turn into a dead zone.”

“I’m a little bit concerned,” Holbrook said. “What is the impact if an area stays the same? Does it affect the vitality of the area? The revenues of the City?

“Some amount of growth is reasonable, and I want to see what that is.”

Holbrook pointed to the successful transition of Montana Avenue from a sleepy street with several gas stations to a bustling strip for high-end shoppers, prompting Genser to remind the council that the avenue likely has the strictest commercial development standards in the city.

Genser worried that by continuing to consider a 48-foot height base, the council would be fueling the fears of residents who oppose LUCE and support the Residents Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT), which would set caps on development.

“I think we have to take some of this stuff off the table,” Genser said. “I understand why people say staff wasn’t listening.

“We were listening, because much of the framework is very good,” he said. “But what it misses is the scale. The scale is out of whack.”

 

“I think this draft is way off base for this city, and it’s not what people wanted." Ken Genser

 

“I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination anything that has been proposed is significant overbuilding,” Richard Bloom

 

“Some amount of growth is reasonable, and I want to see what that is.” Bob Holbrook

 

Lookout Logo footer image
Copyright 1999-2008 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved.
Footer Email icon