May 18, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

What Say You? Santa Monica Residents & The Zoning Ordinance:

The Santa Monica Planning Commission, concerned about resident opposition to the current redline version of the proposed new zoning code, called a Town Hall Meeting at Lincoln Middle School for the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 19.

It was open mike, no time limit, no bells going off, no speakers being cut off.

Intermixed with specific comments regarding the proposed code, people spoke of their frustration with the process.

Amy Aukstikainis, of Northeast Neighbors, spoke to great applause when she said; “We’ve been submitting comments for over two years to the City without reply.”

Major themes were water, traffic, re-adaptive use of existing buildings, parking, housing, historic preservation, and protection of neighborhoods and residences.

Over-development of the City was a repeated concern raised by speakers saying over-development will devalue the quality of life for residents, harm the character of the city, and derail Santa Monica’s long-term fiscal health.

Using the ‘fiscal health’ term has become something of an insider’s ironic joke as some of the speakers saw the term as a stealth entry into the statement of purpose – with an undefined meaning and as not appropriate to a zoning code.

The proposed zoning code is a lengthy and technical document but the audience showed it had done its homework. The three most common requests were the removal of Activity Centers, continuing the requirements for “A” lots, and the elimination of Tier 3 zoning.

Commissioners were asked to remove Activity Center concepts from the document saying neighborhood-serving businesses were already thriving in Santa Monica and Activity Centers were a concept that didn’t ‘fit’ Santa Monica. They argued that existing businesses were in the neighborhood to serve a need and were successful, in part, because they were woven into the fabric of the neighborhood.

Commissioners were asked to keep the “A” lots (think of surface parking lots next to residences) at the current standard, thus providing a buffer between commercial and residential, and to continue to be required to provide a landscape edge.

Commissioners were asked to ban Tier 3 development because of the concern that residential neighborhoods would be overly impacted by the height and density of the Tier 3 developments, especially as proposed on Wilshire Blvd.

In the surprise move of the evening, Armen Melkonians of Residocracy announced, “The LUCE was faulty from day one. We need to revisit the LUCE EIR. Residocracy will be putting an e-petition on the Residocracy web site for people to sign. The e-petition will request a revisit of the LUCE EIR.”

He received a standing ovation from the audience.

There were only a handful of supporting speakers in the room. One was Hank Koning, a well-known and award-winning local architect and a former Planning Commissioner. He spoke of paradoxes in the discussion.

Challenging the assumptions of many of the speakers he stated, “We need to build more housing in order to have less traffic. Wilshire Blvd. Tier 3 housing would do just that.”

The Town Hall meeting started at 7 pm and ended just before 1 am. Commission Chair Jason Parry, Commission Vice-Chair Richard McKinnon and Commission members Amy Anderson, Sue Himmelrich (Council Member-Elect), Jennifer Kennedy, and Gerda Newbold listened carefully to testimony and did not speak themselves.

The audience of about 200 to 300 people thanked them for holding the meeting and for allowing people to applaud and to show audience support for other speakers.

Was this audience a self-selected group of oppositionists or do they reflect general and widely held sentiment in the City? When asked that question, Sue Himmelrich, a current Planning Commissioner and Council Member-Elect said, “After walking the neighborhoods for three months I believe this is a more vocal but accurate expression of the sentiment in the City. We have had a Council majority that didn’t represent the people. I hope I’m part of the beginning of building a coalition that changes the Council.”

Planning Commissioner Richard McKinnon said, “From knocking on thousands of doors during my campaign for Council, I learned there’s a generalized discontent about development and a sense the City is going the wrong direction. They are less vocal but not so different in their opinions from the two to three hundred people who came to the Town Hall meeting and who have been participating in the discussion on the proposed zoning code for two years. They all feel they’ve been blown off.”

OPA Board Member Mary Marlow was asked if she was hopeful that the meeting would bring results. She responded, “The majority of the Planning Commission is out of sync with residents of the city. The four-person majority of Jason Parry, Gerda Newbold, Jim Reis and Amy Anderson have resisted many thoughtful, resident initiated changes to the draft zoning code. Residents mistrust the City and made their mistrust clear at the Town Hall Zoning Meeting.”

Danilo Bach of NOMA summed up the tenor of the meeting saying, “What happened here tonight reflects the depth of anger and mistrust of the present City government.”

David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development for the City, was at the Town Hall Meeting.

He invited residents’ ongoing participation, saying, “The comments we received at the Town Hall Zoning Meeting were valuable and will be important to the process as we begin the Planning Commission’s official review of the red line draft. The next meeting will be held on Dec. 3. It will be the first in a series of seven Planning Commission meetings to review the redline, with the last meeting scheduled for Jan. 28, 2015.”

Now it’s up to the Planning Commission. Will they provide a point-by-point response to the issues raised? Will they explain how they will handle public comments on the proposed zoning code? The Town Hall meeting, difficult as it was, could be the start of a dialogue that replaces mistrust with trust. A trust that will be realized only if the process becomes more reciprocal and the proposed document reflects the discussion.

What Say You?

in Opinion
Related Posts

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...

Column: Tackling Childcare Costs

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Finding affordable, quality childcare is essential for many working parents. The current shortage of care options is helping drive up...

SMa.r.t. Column: Tunneling for Mobility

April 1, 2022

April 1, 2022

Editor’s note: this is an April Fools Day column and is intended to be satire.  Starting this year permits from...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Value of Our Boulevards

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

Following is a composite of past articles dealing with the accelerated demise of our beachfront environment together with the increasing...