At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. City staff asked the Council to approve two major projects that were, in fundamental ways, in direct opposition to each other and would move Santa Monica in different directions simultaneously.

In the first instance, the staff asked the Council to “endorse the Neighborhood Conservation and Placemaking Principles as a component in the Land Use and Circulation Elements” in the General Plan revision.

Planning and Community Development Director Eileen Fogarty’s elucidation of the so-called “principles” was more informative than either the principles themselves or the staff report that elaborated on them.

Fogarty said that the primary thrust of the revised land use and circulation
elements of the General Plan was to restore and preserve Santa Monica’s unique character, and to elevate “performance over process.” To those ends, residential neighborhoods would become the focal point, basis and standard for the entire revision. At the same time, the commercial boulevards would be remade and reduced to supporting roles, serving, rather than dominating the residential neighborhoods.

Fogarty also spoke in some detail about the need to make the entire town, neighborhoods and commercial areas, more “pedestrian friendly,” to add a “network” of bike lanes, employ small-scale public transit, add more green landscaping, and devise some sort of “shared parking” in certain areas.

In general, Fogarty seemed to reiterate the views of residents as expressed in
a series of surveys and workshops. Following the public hearing and its own discussion, the Council endorsed the principles, which will now become the framework for the revision documents.

At the same time, the Council directed staff to create “a design policies manual to guide discretionary review” and to move forward on three short-term projects — a Pico corridor study, a Wilshire Boulevard parking study, and an Ocean Park Boulevard streetscape pilot program.

The Council also asked the staff to explore means of studying impacts of large projects in the M1 and LMSD zones and adjacent areas and return as quickly as possible with options. It also asked for an analysis of the economic impacts of the revision.

At the conclusion of her report, Fogarty announced that the next step would be a workshop on July 21 that would focus on the industrial areas.

Moving right along, she then asked the Council to approve the “Concept Plan for the Village Residential, Open Space and Retail Components of the Civic Center Specific Plan.”

The proposed “Village“ is a 324-unit housing development with some stores and cafes, and underground parking. The five buildings would be located approximately between the RAND Corporation headquarters and Ocean Avenue on the western edge of the Civic Center.

About half the units would be “luxury condos” that are expected to sell for $2 million each. Most of the other units would be “affordable” rental apartments, with a few live/work spaces for artists.

The land is a portion of the 11-plus -acre parcel the City bought from RAND fur $53 million several years ago. The developers are the Related Companies of California and The City’s own Community Corporation. Three local architectural firms are designing “The Village” (for more details, see “Bedlam-by-the-Bay” and “The Village That Isn’t Goes Forward”).

In concept, height, massing, bulk and density, “The Village” is not only the largest project the City has ever undertaken, it is radically different from anything that has ever been done here, and it violates both the spirit and direction of the General Plan revision, In the view of many residents.

At the very least, as some of the residents who spoke at the hearing said, it should be put on hold until the General Plan revision is complete to ensure that it complies with it. Other residents were critical of its design and location. One man said, it didn’t look like Santa Monica, it looked like “Irvine or Encino,“ and a woman said, “We don’t need more in this community. We need to fix what’s here,” Other speakers were worried about its impacts on the area, traffic and the town as a whole. A few people praised it as a much-needed addition to the town’s affordable housing.

Like many of the residents who spoke, Mayor Richard Bloom, Mayor Pro Tem Herb Katz and members Ken Genser, Bob Holbrook, Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor found “The Village” design flawed in various ways and, after much discussion with staff and the developers, decided to continue the plan, in order to give staff and the developer time to come up with alternative designs for “the massing and scale of the buildings.” One such alternative suggested by the Council was the addition of several floors to the building on the most southerly portion of the site in order to reduce the scale and mass of the other buildings. Such an addition would increase the building’s height from six stories to ten stories, or about 100 feet.

The Council also advised the staff and the developer that landscaping would be a key element in the overall design of the project, that the buildings’ corners should step back, that the so-called “Living Street” needed more “enlivening,” and that the designers should be creative in addressing massing within the current 65-foot building heights.

In other business, the Council voted to support AB 700, which requires a study of airplane emissions at Santa Monica Airport, with the proviso that it is amended to address the city’s concerns. Council also directed staff to work with the bill’s author to amend the existing legislation to support a scientific study based on data generated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as well as providing protections for the City against “actions and liability.”

Finally, in response to concerns expressed by Julien Isaacs and other
students from Crossroads School about the employment and treatment of “trained animals” by street performers on the Third Street Promenade, the Council directed staff to return with information on the condition of the animals, the status of the performers, and recommendations on possible ordinances.