May 26, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Santa Monica’s Democracy Of Gratification: Letter To The Editor:

Dear Editor,

We live in a democracy of gratification. Our can-do optimism along with our head-in-the-sand approach leads to a mindset of profit rather than quality of life. And after witnessing years of polarization in Washington our own Santa Monica community and culture has also managed to become divided.

The planning commission should  consider a win-win compromise for both the developers and the community with regard to height and density in the downtown – a compromise that would retain the beachfront scale and character of Santa Monica while also providing developers with some “upside.”

Give developers an increase to 135 ft for the eight “specified” sites to go along with the additional density which is available in the remaining zoned areas given the fact they are somewhat underdeveloped. 

This is in exchange for reducing tier 3 zoning to a more realistic 35-75 ft allowing 3-7 stories with FAR’s from 2.25-5.0. 

Height and density would terrace up from Lincoln (35 ft, 2.25 FAR) to 4th (75 ft, 5.0 FAR) and down from 2nd (55 ft, 3.5 FAR) to Ocean (35 ft, 2.25 FAR).

If the development community won’t compromise, then just proceed with the existing 85 ft maximum allowed under LUCE at the eight sites and reduce existing zones to 35-75 ft with required affordable housing being part of the community benefit package and not an increase in FAR.

Additionally, changes to height and density in downtown should not proceed without also including provisions in the zoning code currently being revised to:

1) widen sidewalks with required front yard setbacks open to the sky

2) create mid-block pedestrian walkways as part of a community benefit package

3) require offsets above 1st or 2nd floors at front and sideyards

4) reduce FARs further where projects cover multiple lots

5) require open space to be visible from the public r.o.w.

6) incentives to retain some low-rise buildings to provide needed variation. 

This is all possible within the “open space envelope” of the FAR. And there’s no reason these basics can’t be agreed upon before any more of these dreadful building blocks get approved!

Regarding the “iconic” conversation and the necessity of greater building heights, San Francisco is “iconic” because of its topography, water, bridges and cable cars – not because of its hi-rise buildings. 

Downtown LA’s nod to “iconic” is Disney Hall, or possibly the proposed LACMA and Peterson Museums in the future – none of which are hi-rise. 

What is “iconic” about Santa Monica is the ocean, Palisades park, the pier, and it’s beachfront character – let’s not lose it!

And with regard to condos above hotel rooms, they could also be assessed a yearly room tax – equivalent in area occupied by the number of hotel rooms below and the elevated views they enjoy.

There’s just no reason this can’t be an environmental and economic win-win.

Ron Goldman

Santa Monica resident & architect

in Opinion
Related Posts

​​Doubt Removed: Oil Refiners Gouging Us

May 23, 2022

May 23, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist There was some room for doubt back in February, when gasoline prices rose precipitously: Until the...

Is the Big Housing Crunch Mostly Fiction?

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist In some parts of California, there is definitely a housing crunch: small supplies of homes for...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better & Not Necessary! – Part 2

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

The dream of our beachfront city is about to become a nightmare! Just imagine a tsunami of these projects washing...

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Renting Your Second Home

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

If you are among the many Americans who own a second home that you occasionally use as a vacation getaway,...

Column: Cities Fight to Maintain Distinctive Characters

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Anyone who knows California well will realize that Palo Alto does not look much like nearby...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s, Boxed-In

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

This week we are re-visiting an article from 2018 regarding the Miramar project, by simply replacing the word “Miramar” with...

Column: Are You Talking Yourself Out of Saving for Retirement? Here’s How to Break the Habit

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Saving for retirement can be an abstract concept. It’s something we all know we should do, but the farther away...

SMa.r.t. Column: Failure to Plan…

April 30, 2022

April 30, 2022

Over the last approximately two years your City has been busy trying to respond to new California laws that are...

Letter to Editor: Your “Standing Firm With Santa Monica” Initiative

April 25, 2022

April 25, 2022

The following is an open letter to Councilmember Sue Himmelrich from Santa Monica resident Arthur Jeon regarding a proposed transfer...

SMa.r.t. Column: Planning The Real Future

April 24, 2022

April 24, 2022

In the 1970s, renowned USC architecture professor Ralph Knowles developed a method for planning and designing cities that would dramatically...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan: The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 15, 2022

April 15, 2022

Part II: Who pays the proposed transfer tax and where does the money go? Last week, we introduced the proposed...

Column: NIMBYs Getting a Bad Rap

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

By Tom Elias Rarely has a major group of Californians suffered a less deserved rash of insults and attacks than...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan – The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Part 1 of 2 In this two-part article, we will discuss both the proposed transfer tax ballot initiative and the...