Santa Monica Gears for Battle Over Controls on Development

The battle between developers and proponents of slow growth is entering a new, volatile phase in Santa Monica, spurring debate that probably will reach the voting booth this fall.

The seaside city, once considered a haven for slow growth, has lately seen a spate of approvals for luxurious hotels and some of the largest office complexes on the Westside.

City planners say Santa Monica, in the last three years, has almost exceeded the growth in retail and office space that had been projected for the year 2000.

Draft Initiatives

Along with such development, some see much-needed tax revenue pouring into city coffers; others see much-dreaded traffic and waste clogging city streets and sewers.

Alarmed opponents of fast-paced development are demanding that city officials clamp down. Some are going a step further, starting to draft initiatives for the November ballot which would more stringently curtail growth.

Those favoring growth warn that further restrictions will drive away business and hurt the city’s income.

“No question that growth and development in the community will be the central issue in the November election,” said City Councilman Dennis Zane, up for reelection and planning to wave the slow-growth banner high in his campaign.

“The future is long. We live for a long time with development policies,” said Zane, who is among those studying the initiative route. “The pressure (from developers) is as if there were a feeding frenzy. But we don’t want Santa Monica to be L. A.”

With the debate escalating, both sides hoped to use the City Council’s writing of a comprehensive zoning code to bolster their positions. Developers wanted to see restrictions eased; neighborhood activists wanted to see limits beyond those that city planners were proposing.

And when the dust settled, neither side was satisfied.

The City Council, with little discussion, voted into the zoning ordinance a package of changes that limits growth more than its staff had recommended.

Marathon Session

The revisions, most proposed by Zane during a marathon session that lasted until 3 a.m., scaled down allowable heights and densities of new buildings by as much as 50% in some areas of the city, city planners say.

The biggest cuts came in the Special Office District, along Olympic Boulevard, and on Wilshire and Santa Monica boulevards, where new buildings would have to be four stories or fewer, instead of the previously permitted six stories or fewer.

Further review and revision will follow, and a final vote on the entire code is not expected until July.

However, developers and business leaders were quick to register their dismay at the council’s action. They had sought elimination of required public hearings for some projects and urged no “severe” reductions in allowable heights and densities for new buildings.

Christopher Harding, a lawyer representing several developers and member of the executive committee of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, warned that the council’s action will erode what he said was a healthier business climate that has been re-created since a 1981 building moratorium alienated developers.

“In one evening, (the council) destroyed much of the confidence that the business community had developed over the way the city had begun to function,” Harding said.

He criticized the post-midnight revisions, saying the public was unaware of how drastic the changes were going to be and suggested the council’s action was a preemptive strike aimed at staving off the initiative movement.

“They (council members) were apparently responding to hysteria about possible initiatives for the downzoning of the city, rather than considering the issues,” he said.

“It is inappropriate to make those kinds of major policy decisions after midnight when no one is listening.”

Demanding Review

Harding said Chamber of Commerce members would fight the council’s downzoning measures by demanding a careful review of the financial impacts and by lobbying to “convince them they made some mistakes.”

And on the other side of the debate, slow-growth proponents, who often accuse the City Council of favoring development, praised the council action but said it did not go far enough.

“There is more that needs to be done to ensure that the city’s infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate future development,” said Ken Genser, co-chair of Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights.

“The council could do a lot more, but given its track record (of approving large developments), I don’t think they will,” said Genser, who is also involved in drafting a ballot initiative.

And in the middle, Councilman Alan Katz defended the revisions being made to the zoning code, saying they responded to community concerns but were not enacted “in a knee-jerk fashion.”

Despite the restrictions that the council incorporated in the zoning code, some people think an initiative may still be necessary to establish broader rules for growth.

“The zoning code is a site-by-site standard,” Zane said. “The question of sewage and traffic is not a question of site by site but of overall rate of development. We are trying to formulate approaches to limiting the overall rate of development.”

Currently, negotiations apparently are under way to reach consensus between at least two proposed draft initiatives, one more stringent than the other, according to sources.

Katz said he understood the move for an initiative as “a valid expression of frustration” with the way development is sometimes carried out. But he questioned whether an initiative was necessary or the proper way regulate growth.

“The zoning ordinance as we’ve been modifying it is a very responsible slow-growth document,” he said.

Support From Hayden

Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) said he is likely to support an initiative to limit the city’s growth, provided a “reasonable” version is put forth.

“The question is whether elected city officials should be trusted with growth questions, or whether community control through initiative is a better approach,” Hayden said.

“I lean toward the latter. Even progressive city officials have mixed interests tugging at them. They want the revenue that growth generates; therefore, there is a temptation to support growth to raise revenue for services. That can eventually lead to a situation where you face gridlock and air pollution and sewage overflows as a consequence.

“We are at that point in West L. A. and not far from that point in Santa Monica.”