July 6, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

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

All too often these days we find ourselves wondering how we could have been so correct about so many planning issues that we have written about over these last nine years, and yet so frequently we turn around and there it is…another project that is absolutely wrong, and that had been warned against, sometimes more than once, but now back and undoubtedly enroute to approval. It begins to make you think no one is listening, or as Paul Simon wrote:

“Fools” said I, “You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you”
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence”                                                                    
– Paul Simon

That well of silence would be the Planning Commission, the City Council, and Us, the resident voters, who continue to perpetrate the not too slow demise of what had been a fairly successful and desirable beachfront community, by being too silent. Residents and visitors alike shared the environmental, sustainable, and lifestyle benefits that a low rise beach environment, with fresh air, blue skies, and manageable traffic, provided for all, including for those in the Valley or the east side escaping the summer heat for a day at the beach. But success seems to breed contempt for “enough”, and greed “for more”, until it causes a rot, and in the case of a beachfront town that provided a relief, an escape valve, a ‘central park’ for so many, it builds itself into a shadow covered, traffic mired, non resident-friendly or un-useable, quagmire. Downtown.

Wow. That’s even too dark for me! But, is it really so far off? Fortunately a little over a year ago we significantly improved the makeup of the Council, and we have another election in November where we can hopefully make further improvements with a couple more fresh faces, if we don’t stay silent. As to the warning words that seem to fall silent on decision makers in our town, we are immediately faced with two major projects downtown that are on track to further alter our community beyond recognition, both having been warned about in the past. The Miramar project (https://smmirror.com/2018/04/opinion-sm-r-t-wall-not-music-eyes/)  pretty much in process having recently received Coastal Commission approval and city blessings, and now the condo/hotel project generally referred to as the Gehry Hotel (https://smmirror.com/2018/01/sma-r-t-dangers-wishing-upon-star-chitect/) at Santa Monica Blvd. and Ocean Ave.  

The issue isn’t to critique the architectural design of either of these two, or other large scale projects in the works, well, maybe the Gelson’s, but to focus on the planning and zoning, and the intentional carving out of specific sites that quite purposely allow a developer to create such inappropriate developments. One really has to ask why. But, in that context here is an earlier article (lightly edited and italicized here) that addressed these same project planning issues, and obviously fell silent on the ears of those decision makers. 

In The Spot…Light: Creative Zoning in Santa Monica                                                     (https://smmirror.com/2017/08/sma-r-t-spot-light-creative-zoning-santa-monica/)

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… and that referenced a location for a super market at Lincoln and Broadway.

There is a zoning issue commonly referred to as “spot zoning,” … 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? …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… 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”. … 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!

So there you are, stars in the eyes of the city apparatchiks for large scale projects, chasing revenue to pay for bloated budgets and salaries, and an unfunded massive pension obligation. 

As Paul Simon penned, “no one dared, disturb the sound of  silence”. Isn’t it time to change that.

Bob Taylor, AIA for SMa.r.t.

Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow

Ron Goldman, Architect FAIA; Dan Jansenson, Architect, Building & Fire-Life Safety Commissioner; Robert H. Taylor, Architect AIA; Thane Roberts, Architect; Mario Fonda- Bonardi, Architect AIA Planning Commissioner; Sam Tolkin, Architect; Marc Verville, M.B.A., CPA-inactive; Michael Jolly ARECRE.      

For previous articles see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing

Related Posts

John McEnroe and Patty Smyth Sell Malibu Home for $29 Million

July 2, 2022

July 2, 2022

Malibu Colony home sold to unknown buyer in private sale By Dolores Quintana John McEnroe, a retired former tennis star,...

SMa.r.t. Column: A Tale of Two Cities

July 2, 2022

July 2, 2022

The City of Santa Monica is surrounded on three sides by the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, while the jurisdictions...

Santa Monica City Council Approves Ballot Measure That Would Increase Hotel Bed Tax

July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

Santa Monica’s bed tax has been raised since 2004 By Dolores Quintana In a vote on June 28, the Santa...

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...

Pico Boulevard Affordable Housing Project Tops Out

June 27, 2022

June 27, 2022

Brunson Terrance coming to 1819 Pico Boulevard in Santa Monica By Dolores Quintana Community Corp. of Santa Monica has completed...

The Los Angeles Real Estate Market May Finally Be Slowing Down

June 24, 2022

June 24, 2022

Real estate sales drop 21 percent in past year By Dolores Quintana The Los Angeles real estate market is showing...

Redevelopment Complete of Former Westside Pavilion Macy’s

June 24, 2022

June 24, 2022

Developer announces complete of West End at Pico and Overland Developer HLW, on behalf of GPI Companies and in partnership...

Mayor Himmelrich’s Tax Transfer Measure Is Favored to Qualify for the November Election

June 24, 2022

June 24, 2022

In a cursory review, the City Clerk’s office verified 10,277 of the over 11,000 signatures  By Dolores Quintana Santa Monica...

Santa Monica Families Earning Upwards of $190,000 Can Qualify for Mortgage Relief

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

State expands California Mortgage Relief Program By Sam Catanzaro Santa Monica families earning upwards of $190,000 can qualify for mortgage...

Santa Monica ‘Smart Home’ Hits Market for $17 Million

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

10,000 square foot home at 1410 Georgina Avenue for sale By Dolores Quintana Santa Monica has a new property on...

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...

Former Home of the ‘Godmother of Santa Monica’ up for Sale

June 10, 2022

June 10, 2022

1707 San Vicente Boulevard property on market for $22 million The former home of the “Godmother of Santa Monica” is...

How is the Westside Commercial Real Estate Market Recovering?

June 10, 2022

June 10, 2022

By Dolores Quintana The commercial real estate market in Los Angeles is still trying to recover from over two years...