July 13, 2024 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

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...

SM.a.r.t. Column: BLINK NOW!

April 7, 2024

April 7, 2024

Nine years ago, I wrote a column for SMa.r.t. titled SANTA MONICA: BEACH TOWN OR ‘DINGBAT’ CITY? (https://smdp.com/2015/05/09/santa-monica-beach-town-dingbat-city/)Here is the...