Santa Monica Backs Off Density, Centers in LUCE
- Josh Stephens
- Jun 30, 2015
- 7 min read
In 2010, the City of Santa Monica adopted a Land Use and Circulation Element to its General Plan that was hailed as a model of progressive planning. The LUCE foretold a denser but, possibly, less trafficked and more pleasant city and was one of the first such elements to achieve the goals of SB 375. Cities across the state looked to the LUCE as a model. It won "Outstanding Comprehensive Planning Award, Small Jurisdiction" from the California Chapter of the American Planning Association http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2773. The LUCE was designed to generate zero net new car trips in the city by 2025 and to reduce the city's annual greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 200,000 metric tons compared to 2010 levels. It also provided a bookend to the 1984 General Plan update. Back then, the city sought to increase its employment base but did not promote housing accordingly. Five years later, Santa Monica has plenty of jobs � 74,000 in a city of 92,000, with pressures increased with the recent rise of "Silicon Beach tech firms � but has taken a step back from the LUCE, eliminating a density bonus "tier" and four of five "activity centers" identified in the LUCE. And if a slow-growth group gets its way, a full repudiation of the goals of 2010 may be in the offing. The situation sets a politically sensitive table for the new city manager, urban planning legend Rick Cole, who started work on June 29. "The LUCE was basically sold to residents as a slow-growth document," said Armen Melkonians, founder of advocacy group Residocracy, which generally takes slow-growth positions. "The reality is that�.it effectuated changed in Santa Monica quite drastically and rapidly." He likened the LUCE's proponents to "snake-oil salesmen." Early this year, the City Council considered a comprehensive zoning code update intended to bring the city's code in line with the vision of the LUCE. It included three "tiers" of multifamily and mixed use development, affording developers increasing levels of density but requiring increasing levels of public scrutiny. The LUCE establishes two stories or 32 feet as the "base" in Tier 1. Tier 3, approved only through development agreements, requires developers to include community benefits, such as on- or off-site low-income units, in order to earn the right to build up to five stories or 50 feet in height. Tier 3 was designed to apply only to the city's major boulevards, notably Wilshire, Santa Monica, and Lincoln. Tier 3 was too much for many of the city's slow-growth advocates, who clamored for the down-zoning on the grounds that excessive development would infringe on neighborhood character and worsen the city's notoriously heavy traffic. The City Council voted 4-3 April 15 to eliminate that tier on Santa Monica and Wilshire, the city's two more important boulevards, as well as some of the other increased density envisioned by the LUCE. Even with this victory, slow-growth activists may yet gear up for a referendum that could force the city to rewrite the zoning code entirely. The LUCE was designed to add roughly 4,995 new housing units, well exceeding the 1,694 prescribed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 974 of which are allocated as below market rate. It also envisioned five "activity centers" that would include relatively dense development and clusters of commercial establishments that residents could visit without relying on personal automobiles. Much of the LUCE's provisions respond to the advent of Phase 2 of the Expo Line light rail, which will serve three stations in Santa Monica as of next year and provide direct service to downtown Los Angeles. A separate 5-2 vote eliminated all but one of the five activity centers. Both sets of changes were confirmed, with minor amendments, upon second reading June 23. The elimination of Tier 3 would not apply to Colorado and Lincoln boulevards, or to downtown Santa Monica, which is governed by its own specific plan, currently being revised. Also, 100-percent affordable developments and adaptive reuse projects are exempt. Even with much of the LUCE still intact, critics of the down-zoning consider it an egregious retreat from progressive planning, especially in light of pro-infill policies that are being implemented statewide, such as Senate Bill 375. "There's the direct effect of the decision, and then there's the momentum that the decision signifies, said Juan Matute, co-chair of smart growth advocacy group Santa Monica Forward and associate director of the Lewis Center and the Institute for Transportation studies at UCLA. "The concern is that it's one in a series of capitulations to those who don't believe in the vision of the land use and circulation element for a progressive, sustainable SM and that this is just one in a series of decisions that will completely dismantle the LUCE's vision." Melkonians, of Residocracy, said that rampant development in Santa Monica over the past five years proves that city government cannot be trusted to manage growth. Melkonians, who is an engineer by trade, said that the LUCE's relies on faulty growth projections. He contends that many of the 10,000 or so additional residents projected by the LUCE would actually have been induced by new development. In essence, he claims that the LUCE's projections mistake cause for effect. "They failed to include any of the growth-inducing impacts of the General Plan update itself," said Melkonians. The city's population has remained relatively static over the past 45 years, having reached 88,000 in 1970. Critics of the LUCE also contend that, regardless of planning trends, conditions have changed over the past five years that make stricter growth controls more necessary. Melkonians said that the LUCE relied on a planned subway extension, known colloquially as the "Subway to the Sea." That extension will not reach Santa Monica for decades, if ever. "There's a lot of support in the community for transit-oriented development," said Santa Monica Mayor Kevin McKeown, who voted for the down-zoning. "There was, on the other hand, considerable resistance to transit-anticipatory development." That resistance was on display several months before the zoning vote when the council, amid fierce lobbying from groups such as Residocracy, voted to rescind an agreement for a major mixed-use project next to the Bergamot Station Expo stop. One other change from 2010 involves not demographics but rather a dispute between two luxury hotels just north of downtown Santa Monica. The Huntley Hotel is opposing a proposed expansion of the Miramar that might obstruct the Huntley's view of the ocean. The Huntley donated $10,000 to Residocracy. "Voices in the community that were concerned about development became amplified as a result of the Huntley Hotel's involvement," said Matute. Melkonians said that donations do not drive the group's agenda. Whatever different methods of analysis reveal, the fact remains that the region faces what many consider a monumental housing crisis. Santa Monica's high housing costs are often held up as a symbol of that crisis. "We've grown only about a half-a-percent...that's below the birth rate," said McKeown "We're not even accommodating the kids who are born here." Even the slow-growth advocates wanted to make concessions for subsidized housing�some arguing that affordable housing should be the only type of new housing approved in the city -- supporters of the LUCE counter that, especially in the absence of redevelopment monies, generous amounts of market-rate development will be necessary to create affordable units. Tier 3 projects would have been approved contingent upon development agreements, through which the city could have compelled developers to include affordable units or set aside funds to promote other types of affordable housing. As well, Tier 2 projects may not be attractive to developers, for whom an extra story could make the difference between profit and loss. "It will be harder to build four- and five-story housing, which is where the most favorable economics are for residential construction," said Matute. Those concerns are overblown, according to Santa Monica Planning Director David Martin. "The result of all of our analysis is that a Tier 2 project is still feasible," said Martin. "We expect that the four-story mixed-use projects can still be built." Overall, Martin insists that the spirit of the LUCE remains intact. "I think the underlying principles of the LUCE are still sound. I don't think this undermines it in any way," said Martin. "It's not unusual for there to be some adjustments and reductions here and there." Though he voted for the down-zoning, Santa Monica Mayor Kevin McKweon said that he supports the vision of the LUCE and does not feel that the city's progressive spirit has been compromised. "What we did was to recalibrate that LUCE to accommodate what we see really happening in the next 20 years," said McKeown. "Our thinking on the zoning code was, I think, an extension of the thinking we put into the LUCE. The LUCE was a visionary plan of which we were very proud." One major element of the LUCE is the alleviation of the jobs-housing imbalance, symbolized by the nearly static river of cars that travel westbound on Interstate 10 every morning and eastbound evening. Proponents of the LUCE argue that it was designed to reduce traffic by offering housing that would be occupied by workers who currently commute into the city. "The measures that have been stricken were primarily those that would help the city cope with traffic in the future," said Matute. Melkonians rejects that theory, noting that there's no guarantee that all new Santa Monica residents will also work in the city. 2000 Census data indicates that only 32 percent of the city's residents worked in Santa Monica, with more workers commuting to Los Angeles than remaining in Santa Monica. "It's impossible that over 50 percent of (new residents) will work in Santa Monica," said Melkonians. "That's not how Southern California works." However this debate plays out in Santa Monica, it may foretell more challenges to the provision of housing and achievement of smart growth goals throughout the region. A recent report from the Legislative Analysts' Office emphasizes the need for coastal cities to allow more housing � as much as 100,000 more units annually than are currently expected to be build statewide. At the same time, the LAO acknowledged the challenges of developing in cities like Santa Monica. "Local residents are often resistant to new housing development and they'll use their local communities' land use authority to delay or block new housing development," said Brian Uhler, senior fiscal and policy analyst with the LAO, in a video released with Tuesday's report. "We see that this type of resistance is particularly heightened in California's coastal communities." Matute said that achieving these housing goals, and promoting infill development, is going to require planners around the state to become more politically savvy and more convincing in their outreach efforts. "The state, the regional, and the local plans in focusing on infill development are looking at putting a growing share of new growth in California...into existing communities," said Matute. "It requires an expanded level of community negotiation skills." Contacts and ResourcesSanta Monica 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element Kevin McKeown, Mayor, City of Santa Monica, kevin@mckeown.net David Martin, Planning Director, City of Santa Monica, david.martin@smgov.net Juan Matute, co-chair, Santa Monica Forward, http://www.santamonicaforward.org/, jmatute@ucla.edu Armen Melkonians, founder, Residocracy, https://www.residocracy.org/armen@residocracy.org
