February 29, 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

S.M.a.r.t Column: Gelson’s Looms Large

February 22, 2024

February 22, 2024

Our guest column this week is by SMCLC (the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City). SMCLC is a well-established...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Top Toady Town

February 18, 2024

February 18, 2024

Throughout history, from the ancient Romans and Assyrians to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, siege warfare has served as an...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The Sunset of Home Ownership

February 11, 2024

February 11, 2024

We are watching the sunset of our historical and cultural American dream of home ownership as we now are crossing...

SMa.r.t. Column: B(U)Y RIGHT

February 4, 2024

February 4, 2024

“By Right” state housing laws that give developers, in certain projects, the ability to ignore codes ‘by right.’ Well, that...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Serf City

January 28, 2024

January 28, 2024

Homelessness is a problem in California, and nowhere is this more evident than in our fair city, where the unhoused...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Bond Fatigue

January 22, 2024

January 22, 2024

Last week’s SMart article,  described two critical problems faced by our Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD): the declining...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Peace on Earth

December 27, 2023

December 27, 2023

We are all, by now, saturated with jingles, holiday cards, “ho ho ho’s,” countless commercial advertisements, and exhortations to feel...

S.M.a.r.t Column: On the Clock with Mayor Brock

December 17, 2023

December 17, 2023

I became Santa Monica’s Mayor on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, following a simple “switch of the chairs” transition with outgoing...

S.M.a.r.t Column: SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL 2024

December 10, 2023

December 10, 2023

Position:Seeking Santa Monica City Council Candidate(s) Introduction:Exciting opportunity for the right candidate(s) to work with like-minded Council members committed to...

S.M.a.r.t Column: ARB (NOT Ready to Build!)

December 3, 2023

December 3, 2023

Santa Monica City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB), established in 1974, acts “…to preserve existing areas of natural beauty, cultural importance...

SMa.r.t. Column: We are thankful for….

November 27, 2023

November 27, 2023

SMa.r.t. would like to wish you all a great Thanksgiving with friends and family and also to thank its readers...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Make the City New Again

November 19, 2023

November 19, 2023

When the COVID crisis struck, it cut the city’s income in half, demolishing many businesses and causing widespread layoffs and...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Four Futures

October 29, 2023

October 29, 2023

As well described by Paul Krugman, all cities have a core competency: things they do well or better regionally or...

SMa.r.t column: Beautiful Quartz Countertops Are Hurting Workers and Should Be Banned

October 9, 2023

October 9, 2023

Quartz countertops are super popular because they’re tough and can handle stains, scratches, and heat. But there’s a big problem:...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Architect’s Son Reflects On Civic Auditorium

October 2, 2023

October 2, 2023

Welton (David) Becket (1902-1969), pictured above, backed by a picture of our Civic Auditorium, was the designer of that famed...