Hannah Heineman

The pace of development in Santa Monica is a major concern of an increasing number of residents, as was reflected in the large turnout on September 10 for a presentation on grassroots participation in city planning given by Diana Gordon, one of the founders of Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC).

According to SMCLC’s website, it is “an all-volunteer organization whose purpose is to ensure that our local government is responsive to residents when making important development decisions about our city.”

Gordon made her presentation at a monthly meeting of the North of Montana Association (NOMA). She was introduced by NOMA’ interim Interim Chair, Albin Gielicz.

As she began, she noted that she was invited by NOMA to respond to a June presentation given by the city’s Director of Planning and Community Development, David Martin. His presentation highlighted five city projects and 23 Development Agreement (DA) projects that were either under construction or going through the city’s development review process. The City allows developers of DAs to violate some the City’s zoning code provisions in return for including some community benefits in their projects.

Gordon reviewed the projects Martin presented to Noma, and also discussed developer NMS’s ambitious plans to build a series of large six to eight-story apartment buildings full of very small apartments (375-425 square feet). Should, she asked rhetorically, one developer dominate future apartment stock for short-term people without a stake in our community?”

She went on to say, “This is not work-force housing, which the City wants to encourage for first responders and their families.”

Gordon also discussed developers’ tactics to foil residents’ efforts to control commercial development, and screened a slide that demonstrated that 99 percent of the money donated in 2008 to the “Save Our City – NO on T” campaign” was donated by developers. Written and spearheaded by SMCLC, Prop T was a ballot measure that would have put a cap on commercial development, but it was swamped by a $700,000 campaign that claimed it would destroy the local schools by disastrously reducing City revenue.

Good city planning is fostered, according to Gordon, by good governance. “Good governance begins with the willingness and ability of residents and community groups to demand greater accountability, fairness, and responsiveness from their city officials, employees and service providers,” If residents are going to have more of a say, they must participate -– demanding equal access to decision makers by being present at key meetings, and challenging City Hall’s often superficial explanations for its actions. Transparency –- the free flow of relevant information to assist residents’ understanding and awareness of policies/decisions was vital, she said, as was accountability -– holding officials responsible for their actions.

Citing some examples of the City’s lack of accountability, Gordon mentioned a developer who overpays for a site in order to dictate the size of his development, the absence of verifiable traffic reductions/penalties, developers presenting ”over inflated, unsupported financial projections of city revenues for projects without accompanying information on drains on public services or infrastructure,” and EIRS that don’t fairly evaluate project alternatives.” She also stressed that developers’ campaign contributions to Council members and deception in elections be exposed.

Moving on, Gordon said the City must make sure developers pay the developer impact fees to the city for traffic caused by their development and that they comply with their DAs.

She went on to say that good governance includes networking and working with groups in nearby communities in order to encourage regional master planning and cumulative impact review.

Finally, Gordon asked that residents “work to elect Council members who are authentic about over-development and traffic and are leaders.”