July 19, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Letter To The Editor: Activity Centers Benefit Santa Monica:

Editor’s Note: This letter is in regards to the Santa Monica Planning Commission’s Wednesday, June 18 meeting agenda item 8A that looks at the City’s Draft Zoning Ordinance.

Dear Editor,

When I moved to Santa Monica about 15 years ago, I chose to live near Wilshire because of transit. I have long seen increased use of mass transit as a very important part of a healthy society. Anyone who looks at the traffic along Wilshire can tell that it’s a transit corridor.

I was active in the LUCE process and have spent a lot of time studying that document and its EIR. I became Chair of Wilmont during that process, holding that position until a couple of years after the LUCE was adopted and its EIR certified.

I had quite a few community members tell me that they were concerned about development near 14th and Wilshire. A few expressed concern about “tall buildings” there, fearing 20-story towers. The vast majority expressed concern about losing the Von’s, our neighborhood grocery store.

In April, 2010, we held a forum on long-term care housing, particularly for seniors. This forum highlighted the crucial need for such housing.

As a result of these conversations, we realized that the Activity Center at 14th and Wilshire could benefit our community if a full-service grocery store became a required component of the Activity Center. We urged the City Council to make that change before adopting the LUCE, which they did. This means that the Activity Center at that location protects our neighborhood grocery store.

We also realized that Activity Centers would be good locations for long-term care and other housing for people with limited mobility. The one at 14th and Wilshire, located very close to the health care district, is especially well-suited for that sort of housing.

Of course, adding shared parking at the Activity Center is another benefit to parking-starved Wilmont.

The EIR studied the impact of Activity Centers along Wilshire, comparing impacts of LUCE values against development more concentrated at designated transit nodes and development with reduced heights and FAR in Activity Centers. These are designated as Alternatives 3 and 4 in the LUCE. Alternative 4 would not reduce the overall amount of development. Without the concentrated development at Activity Centers, development would shift into the existing residential neighborhoods.

Page 2-10 of the LUCE EIR includes the statement:

Alternative 4 would guide new land uses to be lower and more spread out than under the proposed LUCE, reducing the effectiveness of the transportation policies of the proposed LUCE and creating greater overall levels of environmental impact than the proposed LUCE. Further, Alternative 4 would not provide the community benefits program of the proposed LUCE.

Section 6.7 starts on page 6-30 and considers Alternative 4. While removing the Activity Centers on Wilshire would not cause all of the negative effects described in this section, it’s useful to look at the traffic impact on Wilshire, described on page 6-33:

Alternative 4 is expected to produce a greater number of PM peak hour vehicle trips than the proposed LUCE due to the more dispersed nature of development.

When projected travel times for Alternative 4 are compared to those expected under the proposed LUCE, they are mostly slower during the AM peak hour due to the higher number of vehicle trips anticipated on local roadways.

For example, under Alternative 4 eastbound travel times along Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards would increase from existing conditions by 2.6 and 2.8 percent, respectively, in comparison to decreases from existing conditions of 2.3 and 1.6 percent under the proposed LUCE.

During the PM peak hour, travel times for Alternative 4 are essentially the same as those for the proposed LUCE, alternately slightly slower or faster depending on the corridor and direction.

It may be many years before development of either of these Activity Centers is even suggested as a reality. Whenever a developer does acquire the parcel containing our neighborhood grocery store, we need the protection of Activity Centers to ensure that we will still be able to walk to a full-service neighborhood grocery store.

Valerie Griffin

Santa Monica

in Opinion
Related Posts

SM.a.r.t. Column: Food Water and Energy Part 1 of 3

July 14, 2024

July 14, 2024

Civilization, as we know it, requires many things, but the most critical and fundamental is an uninterrupted supply of three...

Letter to the Editor: Criticizing Israeli Policy Is Not Antisemitic

July 10, 2024

July 10, 2024

In the past several months, we’ve seen increasing protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza. We have also seen these protests...

SMA.R.T. WISHES ALL A VERY HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEK

July 7, 2024

July 7, 2024

We trust you are enjoying this holiday in celebration of Independence. Independence to be embraced, personally and civically, thru active...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Under SCAG’s Boot

June 30, 2024

June 30, 2024

Four years ago, our esteemed colleague Mario Fonda-Bonardi wrote the prescient essay below when much of the legislative development juggernaut...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 2)

June 23, 2024

June 23, 2024

Last week’s SMart article  (https://smmirror.com/2024/06/sm-a-r-t-column-the-up-zoning-scam-part-1/)  discussed the ambitious 8895 units (including 6168 affordable units) that Santa Monica is required to...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 1)

June 16, 2024

June 16, 2024

Over the last few years, the State of California has mandated a massive upzoning of cities to create capacity for...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Shape Up – On Steroids

June 9, 2024

June 9, 2024

Nine years ago, SMa.r.t wrote a series of articles addressing the adaptive re-use of existing structures. We titled one “Shape...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Challenge of Running a City When City Staff Have Different Priorities

June 2, 2024

June 2, 2024

Living in a city has its perks, but it can be a real headache when the folks running the show...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path to Affordable Ownership in Santa Monica

May 27, 2024

May 27, 2024

[Note: our guest author today is Andres Drobny, a former Professor of Economics at the University of London, the former...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part II

May 19, 2024

May 19, 2024

As referenced in Part I of this article, the state’s use of faulty statistics and forceful legislation has left a...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part I

May 12, 2024

May 12, 2024

To quickly summarize, California grapples with an ongoing housing crisis spurred by state implementation of over 100 policies and mandates...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Where Will Our Huddled Masses Sleep? Navigating California’s Affordable Housing Mandates

May 5, 2024

May 5, 2024

Just as Lady Liberty beckons the “huddled masses” of immigrants to America, cities like Santa Monica have an ethical obligation...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMCLC SPEAKS

April 28, 2024

April 28, 2024

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) periodically invites guest columnists who have made a significant contribution to the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Building Modern Boxes Lacks Identity

April 21, 2024

April 21, 2024

In the relentless pursuit of modernity, cities worldwide have witnessed the rise of so-called architectural marvels in the form of...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Santa Monica Needs Responsible Urban and Architectural Design

April 14, 2024

April 14, 2024

[SMa.r.t. note: Eight years ago, our highly esteemed and recently-passed colleague Ron Goldman documented his thoughts on the need for...