May 25, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t.- Our Downtown Community Plan: Quantity or Quality?

One of the most important decisions our City Council will make this year could be approval of our new Downtown Community Plan (DCP). What is the DCP? It is the master plan that will define our public realm and quality of our environment for the next 13 years. It will address such issues as land use, open space, infrastructure and mobility. Its policies will have a major impact on the future development of downtown and hence its ultimate success or failure. As goes the downtown, so goes the City.

Unfortunately, the plan before Council is primarily a 300-page marketing document putting interests of developers above those of residents. The plan’s focus should have been creating a true downtown center, not a free-for-all with ‘large boxes’ as currently specified in the building design guidelines. For example, the five blocks along Lincoln Boulevard are proposed as a continuous wall of 5 and 6-story buildings where there are currently only 1 and 2-story structures.

As proposed, the DCP encourages 5 to 8 story buildings, with some as high as 12 stories, when average height throughout downtown today is just above 2 stories. The result will be greater demand for water, emergency services, schools, parks, and parking at time when these services are becoming insufficient for those who already live and work here. There comes a point of diminishing returns when adding to current infrastructure will no longer suffice. At that point, we will need to start anew at great capital expense and residents will likely pay it for.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the DCP confirm many impacts but dismisses them as “insignificant” because “The Downtown is classified as a transit priority area with infill residential, mixed-use, residential, and employment center development; therefore, aesthetic and shade, shadows, and solar access impacts would be considered less than significant and analyses of these impacts of projects within the Downtown are not required pursuant to CEQA.”

The fact that these impacts are not considered does not change the fact that they will occur. The DCP proposes expanding our downtown beyond its ability to absorb more, larger high-rise offices, housing and commercial projects. The economic power of tourism, with an increase from 6 to 9 million in just three years, could possibly support this expansion. Ironically, it may also be the cause of its undoing. Why? When our city becomes mired in traffic with shaded streets and loss of its beach town character, we may no longer be the tourist attraction we were in the past. At that point, the economic burden will fall to the residents.

There are other reasons why the City should reconsider before going down this “one-way” street to dystopia. Today’s shopping malls and office buildings may be tomorrow’s “dinosaurs.” Recent studies show online shopping is challenging the office and commercial sectors. In addition, there is an increasing number of employees choosing to work remotely. Newly proposed theater complexes are likely suffer the same fate as home theaters improve and most films can now be streamed online. The City’s plans for the future as codified in the DCP appear based more on the past. If this were to come to pass, our future downtown might no longer hold the promise that it currently does.

There will also be negative impacts that extend beyond our downtown. The most obvious result will be an increase of traffic jams, both in our city’s heart and in adjacent neighborhoods. This will occur if frustrated drivers start to take short cuts through residential areas to get across town. These negative impacts could extend to our tourist trade as well. As our city becomes gridlocked and loses its character, it becomes less convenient for visitors as well as residents. Darkened streets in the heart of our city could make downtown a dreary place, particularly in winter. If and when that happens, we will have also lost one of our largest sources of revenue – tourism.

Santa Monica is no different from many seaside cities that are under constant pressure to increase density to accommodate more businesses and visitors. Growth is a fact of life and must be accommodated but with the recognition that this growth needs to be managed and comes at a price. The City cannot let market forces, or weak planning documents like the DCP, set the pace and type of growth. This needs to be done by City leaders and residents to insure that market forces do not override safety, health or environmental safeguards that protect residents and make our city safe and livable. Manhattan Beach, for one, has taken this step. To leave these important decisions to outside interests, often driven by profit, sets a dangerous precedent that could result in the loss of our city’s character as well as its economic viability.

When you’re in Santa Monica, you should feel that you’re in a special place. The DCP will neither protect our environment, nor our history, and values. As written, it ignores important civil and environmental issues, focusing instead on economic growth to service the City’s ballooning pension liability. This is a shortsighted and dangerous path that could ruin both our downtown and our city. If this train is to be slowed, or stopped, it will have to be done by the residents. The first opportunity to ‘stop the train’ occurs when the DCP comes before City Council next week. Please join with other concerned residents to hold the City Council and staff to account so that they take a step back and do the right thing.

SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow). Thane Roberts AIA, Architect, Robert H. Taylor AIA, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Daniel Jansenson Architect, Samuel Tolkin AIA, Phil Brock, Santa Monica Arts Commission.

Ron Goldman & Thane Roberts for SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow)

Robert H. Taylor AIA, Ron Goldman FAIA, Thane Roberts AIA, Architect, Daniel Jansenson Architect, Samuel Tolkin AIA, Phil Brock, Santa Monica Arts Commission. For previous articles see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writings.

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...