August 12, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t.-In The Spot… Light: Creative Zoning in Santa Monica

By Bob Taylor, AIA for SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Planning Commissioner; Ron Goldman FAIA: Sam Tolkin Architect: Bob Taylor AIA; Thane Roberts AIA; Dan Jansenson Architect; Phil Brock Arts Commissioner.

Santa Monica’s new DCP (Downtown Community Plan) identifies three sites as “Established Opportunity Sites,” although the addition of the word “established” seemed to have appeared from nowhere in the final version presented to the Council for approval. The phrase “Opportunity Site” only appears once in the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan – the supposed guide to how the city is to be planned and developed, and that referenced a location for a super market at Lincoln and Broadway.

There is a zoning issue commonly referred to as “spot zoning,” and Councilmember Tony Vazquez had expressed concern about spot zoning when these sites were before the council. It generally refers to a situation where a parcel of land is given special conditions, such as additional height, use, or floor area that is not given to other properties within the same zone. Spot zoning is not considered legal in California, though a recent court case described a new definition identified as “permissible” spot zoning. It addressed the issue of granting more, or less, rights to a single parcel with the requirement that it be ”in the public interest” to do so. A subtle difference from providing a “public benefit” it would seem.

But does it matter to you, the residents, if three commercial sites in our downtown are given special privilege? No big deal, right? How can it hurt? Only three sites in the downtown doesn’t seem too much, right? Wrong. Because, not only does it set a precedent for future developers to demand equal development rights, but it adds dramatically to the excessive development that has already been encouraged by the council and is currently under construction throughout downtown, transforming our low rise beach town into DTLA West.

The DCP must comply with the General Plan, and giving the three sites special benefits doesn’t allow conformance, as the LUCE and new Zoning Ordinance have no provision for allowing the tall structures. To “correct” the conflict, the City, instead of designing the DCP to comply with the LUCE/Zoning Ord., changed the LUCE/Zoning Ord. to conform to the DCP, ignoring the resident input that helped shape the LUCE and the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance. Creative, to say the least. In so doing, the three sites were granted heights to 130ft as an “overlay” to the underlying zoning, allowing almost three times the zoned height where two of the sites are identified on Ocean Avenue, one being the Miramar Hotel, and the second a site at Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard.

A condo/hotel project is currently proposed for the Ocean Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard site. The location was approved based on it being said that it is a “large” site, different from adjacent “smaller” sites. The fact is, however, that the site is made up of separate parcels, with an alley that separates them, and they do not seem to be legally tied (via legal lot tie and so recorded) though they are apparently under single ownership. One has to wonder how allowing an almost three times height increase for a proposed project of private high-end condos with some hotel rooms is “in the public interest”? It is clear that it is in the developer’s interest, but what is the public benefit, or interest? It is also possible that the proposed project could fail to go forward, yet that site will have the benefit, to its developer, of additional height not permitted to other adjacent parcels, and presumably could be sold at a significant profit without having had to build anything. Other projects, recently approved with extraordinary special rights, such as The Village Trailer Park, were sold at significant profit after special approvals, without the developer having turned a shovel of dirt. “Public interest”? Really?

In addition, what precludes another developer from theoretically purchasing several contiguous sites along Ocean Avenue, or elsewhere downtown, recording them as a single “large” site, and then asking for the same 130ft height “baked in” (to quote the council) to the other three sites. The DCP limits those heights as an “overlay” to only those three “established opportunity sites”, thereby giving them special treatment over similar sites and use requests. Would that not then constitute having “spot zoned” the three sites by denying equal opportunity to others.

By changing the LUCE to conform to the final DCP, the argument appears to be that the three sites are not spot zoned because they are in conformance with the gerrymandered zoning overlay. Not being an attorney, this type of issue and determination is beyond my capability to offer a legal opinion, but I suspect at some point someone will pursue a court action to determine why only these three sites rate special treatment “in the public interest”. Wonder what that interest would be?

The third site is the long discussed 4th/5th and Arizona site owned by the City. That site has had several public hearings as the City has been involved in negotiations with a private developer for a very large 10+ story commercial office/hotel project with a nominal 48 residential units. Most egregiously, the newly adopted DCP has no public open space set aside, identified or suggested, and this project has encountered extraordinary resident push back demanding that the city owned land should be a plaza/park for the “people”. Residents, visitors and workers alike. How is it “in the public interest” to consider a large privately owned commercial/hotel project on city property, while ignoring and denying the ”people” any semblance of public open space within the entirety of the boundaries of the downtown. Not one spot zoned for you!

Downtown Santa Monica
Renderings of the contentious development on the “opportunity site” of 4th and Arizona is receiving strong push back from residents, with developers currently touting a hotel, market, office space, housing, and museum, while soliciting public comment on store inclusions via Facebook.
in Opinion
Related Posts

OpED: Santa Monica Police Officers Association on Downtown Presence

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By The Santa Monica Police Officers Association Recently, there has been increased public dialogue around the topic of crime and...

Review: A Santa Monica Restaurant’s New Happy Hour is Top-Notch

August 10, 2022

August 10, 2022

By Dolores Quintana Birdie G’s in Santa Monica has a new Happy Hour and it is something special. For one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Ode to the Future of My City

August 8, 2022

August 8, 2022

How sad it is to journey to Santa Monica and I can’t find it.The open blue sky hides behind canyon...

SMa.r.t. Column: Why Native Gardens?

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

Voltaire said it best at the end of his 1759 novel  Candide: “We must cultivate our own garden”. This simple...

SMa.r.t. Column: We’re All Wet – Not!

July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Don’t you think that if you heard, or read, statements from controlling government agencies that said you were threatened by...

Affordability Answer: A New Tax on Housing Speculators?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The TV commercials and online ads are fast becoming ubiquitous: “We’ll buy your house as is,”...

SMar.t. Column: Has the Promenade Turned a Corner?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

In large complex systems with dynamically balanced forces, it’s paradoxically often hard to tell when something has actually happened, For...

Column: Groundwater Law Has Not Stopped Subsidence

July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

By Tom Elias Drive almost any road in the vast San Joaquin Valley and you’ll see irrigation pipes standing up...

SMa.r.t. Column: It’s Time to Look at the Facts of Santa Monica’s Housing History

June 30, 2022

June 30, 2022

The Narrative: Santa Monica’s decades-long housing construction “shortage”  The Narrative endlessly repeats the refrain that for decades Santa Monica has...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Mansionization of Santa Monica

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

Editor’s note: This column originally appeared in print in 2016.  In the 1980s, Santa Monica’s single family zoning code was...

OP-Ed Response to DTSM Board Chair Barry Snell and Plea to City Council Regarding Safety Ambassadors and Ambassador Program

June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022

I am responding to the OP-ED (dated June 7, 2022, Santa Monica Mirror) by City-appointed DTSM Board Member and now...

SMa.r.t. Column: Wheeling Electrically

June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

A recent weekend visit to Dana Point, on the Orange County coastline, revealed a curious scene: dozens, if not hundreds...

Population Loss: New Era or Pandemic Glitch?

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The numbers suggest a major change is underway in California. It would take a Nostradamus to...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Sound of Silence Is Big & Tall

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

All too often these days we find ourselves wondering how we could have been so correct about so many planning...

OP-Ed: DTSM Chair Barry Snell on Safety Ambassadors

June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

By Barry Snell Chair, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Board of Directors  The Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) Board of Directors...