July 23, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

ARB Courage (Part 1 of 2)

On March 4, 2024, your ARB (Architectural Review Board) ruled in favor of the 521-unit Gelson’s Project at Ocean Park and Lincoln Blvd. This controversial project was fatally flawed from the beginning, and by the time the project got to the ARB, very little could be done to make it beneficial. The flaws built into it were so numerous they have been discussed at length in previous  SMart (Santa Monic Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) articles and also in public testimony and letters both at the ARB hearing and on social media. Because the ARB is the only venue where these monster projects typically still need to get a public review/approval, the ARB now has a particular responsibility and new increased relevance.

Reviewing the many Flaws

The project adds thousands of daily trips to an intersection that is already rated as F or D and is the source of many accidents. The project’s circulation overloads the adjacent alleys and streets because driveways coming out of Lincoln or Ocean Park can only turn safely north or east. Likewise, bikes leaving the project can only exit safely eastbound on Ocean Park Blvd (bikes cannot ride safely on Lincoln). The project makes no attempt to take advantage of its scale to enhance the LINK (Lincoln Blvd’s master plan for medians, landscaping, crosswalks, etc.). There is, for example, no lane widening. or separated bike path proposed. The project is on a very noisy intersection whose noise levels were already too high for a school, prompting the move of then-proposed SMASH and John Muir elementary schools to Los Amigos Park thirty years ago. The project has a pitiful 10% (52) of affordable units: nowhere near the 6000 affordable units Sacramento mandates we permit and build in the next seven years. In other words, we would have to build 115 Gelsons-sized projects just to meet Sacramento’s delusional affordable housing mandate.  

Killing the School District

Gelsons has no three-bedroom units, continuing the three decade free fall of our public school enrollment since it’s practically impossible for multigenerational families and families with different gendered children to find three-bedroom apartments. The project makes no attempt to recycle water (a previous state law, now expired, would have required a project this size, over 500 units, to provide a new source of water sufficient to last 20 years). The project makes no attempt toward getting us to net zero (buildings providing all the power they need generated on-site). Net zero buildings are rarely over three stories tall. Environmental progress would be, for example, exceeding substantially the City’s pitiful photovoltaic collector requirement or providing batteries to store the power generated for evening use. The high and too close buildings create conditions of gloomy, deep shade for the bottom rearmost units and no frontal privacy for most of the units due to the lack of open space separating the 12 towers.

One easy way to mitigate these flaws would be to reduce the size of the project by removing one floor from the whole project. In fact, the developer is willing to meet with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City next week to discuss such a proposal. We will see what the response will be.

Do we need to accept flawed projects?

But regardless of these flaws or possible mitigations you may say we need the housing? We should be willing to accept flawed projects just to get more housing? Actually, we need very little additional housing. The City’s natural growth rate is about 150 units per year (about 1100 units over the next eight years per the new Housing Element’s documentation). What we need is more AFFORDABLE housing. Instead of 90% market rate and 10% affordable provided by Gelsons, we need the exact opposite. In other words, the City’s overbuilding of market rate housing does not help our housing AFFORDABILITY crisis, which includes everyone paying more than 30% of their income on rent or mortgage and also includes those that are homeless. First of all, through covid deaths and emigration, our City’s population has dropped at least one thousand residents (about 500 units) in the last few years, while the State’s population has also dropped by over a million residents in those last few years. Second, we currently have in Santa Monica a vacancy rate of about 10%-11%, contrary to the City’s claim, at the Gelson’s ARB hearing, that the vacancy rate was 3-4%. Third, in the near future, the vacancy rate will either increase with the opening of all the new projects already under construction (see the Great Wall of Lincoln), not to mention the many multi-story (some well over ten floors) already in the permit pipeline OR the rent for upper-end apartments will drop slightly, OR both will occur simultaneously: increased vacancy rate and softening of the upper-end apartment market. Neither of these possible events makes Santa Monica more affordable for those who need housing and cannot pay market rates. So, in Santa Monica, we have no demand shortage for upper-end market housing but a huge unmet demand for lower cost apartments. In other words, Santa Monica does not need the Gelson’s project nor its kindred projects.

How did we get stuck with these oversized projects universally reviled by their neighbors and not meeting our real needs? Next week, we will review Sacramento’s role in overbuilding Santa Monica, assisted by an ideologically driven city council that did not push back when it became apparent where the State was headed.  

By Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA

S.M.a.r.t Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow

Thane Roberts, Architect, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect, Dan Jansenson, Architect & Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission, Samuel Tolkin Architect & Planning Commissioner, Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE Marie Standing. Jack Hillbrand AIA 

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

in Opinion
Related Posts

Food, Water, and Energy Part 2 of 4

July 21, 2024

July 21, 2024

Last week’s S.M.a,r,t, article (https://smmirror.com/2024/07/sm-a-r-t-column-food-water-and-energy-part-1-of-3/) talked about the seismic risks to the City from getting its three survival essentials, food,...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Food Water and Energy Part 1 of 3

July 14, 2024

July 14, 2024

Civilization, as we know it, requires many things, but the most critical and fundamental is an uninterrupted supply of three...

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...