By Jason Islas
Staff Writer

June 11, 2013 -- In the past week, neighborhood groups, community activists and at least one major political organization have thrown their weight behind an effort to halt discussion of three major Santa Monica projects until a Downtown Specific Plan is adopted.

But the effort they are backing -- a motion by Council member Kevin McKeown backed by Tony Vazquez and Ted Winterer, the two newest members on the dais -- may not actually slow down development, according to City officials interviewed by The Lookout.

As worded, McKeown's item might not prevent any of the three proposed projects along Ocean Avenue -- the shortest of which would stand 174 feet -- from going forward with the initial planning stages, which include holding community meetings and starting to draft Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), according to City staff.

McKeown's resolution reads, requests that the City Council direct staff “to bring forward at this time…only those Development Agreement applications where the proposed heights are within the maximum allowed for downtown in the previous and therefore most recent applicable Land Use Element."

While McKeown has said his intention is to “postpone work on the DAs involving towers over 84 feet” allowed under the existing guidelines, the question of how this motion could impact the planning process hinges on the phrase “bring forward.”

“If it means 'shall not do float ups,'” Planning Director David Martin said, it could slow down the planning process, since “float ups” are preliminary meetings where developers get informal feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council on their plans before moving forward with the EIR process.

According to McKeown, that's precisely what he hopes will happen.

"Our motion tomorrow night is to hold off on all discretionary decisions on downtown development proposals over the existing limit of 84 feet, including a postponement of not only City Council decisions but Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board decisions,” he said.

“While the law requires us to accept Development Agreements and to do paperwork processing, we are not on any forced timeline to hold discretionary decision meetings. If a developer wants on his or her own to conduct a float-up, or scope for an EIR, that remains within the developer's legal
right,” McKeown said.

“However, we do not have to make premature decisions, even at the Board or Commission advisory level, and can, if the majority of the City Council agrees, properly delay such decisions until our residents get to participate in creating a Downtown Specific Plan," he said.

Council member Tony Vazquez has said that he understood the motion to simply prevent DAs for the three Downtown towers from coming before the Council for final approval before adoption of the Specific Plan in March 2014, not that it would stop the planning process. (“Vazquez Discusses Height in Downtown Santa Monica,” June 5, 2013)
http://www.santamonicalookout.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2013/June-2013/06_05_2013_Vazquez_Discusses_Height_in_Downtown_Santa_Monica.html

If “bring forward” means simply bringing the DAs before the Council for final approval, as Vazquez believes, it wouldn't make much difference.

Martin said that none of the three DAs for the major developments would be ready for final approval before the adoption of the Specific Plan.

The proposed project furthest along in the planning pipeline -- the proposed $255 million overhaul of the Fairmont Miramar Hotel at Ocean and Wilshire Boulevard, which includes a nearly 200-foot tower – will take at least a year to return to Council for the DA approval.

The two other proposed projects Downtown -- a Frank Gehry designed 244-foot hotel at Santa Monica Boulevard and the replacement of the old Holiday in on Colorado with three buildings, one 174-feet tall – have only recently entered the planning process.

Still, there has been an outpouring of support for McKeown's motion by those who oppose the concept of creating eight “opportunity sites” that would allow building taller than the new Specific Plan would allow in exchange for certain “community benefits,” such as affordable housing, public parking and open space.

“It has become evident to us and others that polarized positions on certain downtown 'opportunity sites' are making effective public process difficult and threaten to preclude thoughtful deliberation on the Downtown Specific Plan as a whole,” reads the Santa Monica Democratic Club's endorsement of McKeown's item.

“Under these circumstances, for projects proposing heights in excess of 84 feet, to proceed with float-ups, EIR scopings and other public hearings--whether before the City Council or its advisory bodies such as the Planning Commission--seems inadvisable,” it concludes.

The Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition recently adopted a similar resolution.

“The Board of Directors of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition ("Wilmont") has unanimously voted to adopt a resolution in support of a motion proposed by City Councilman Kevin McKeown,” the resolution reads. “If approved by the City Council, the motion would temporarily freeze the processing of downtown developer agreements for high-rise buildings.”

Diana Gordon, Founder of Santa Monica Coalition for a Liveable City (SMCLC) echoed these sentiments.

“It would be irresponsible and poor planning for the City to consider any applications for these tower hotel/condo projects on the so-called 8 'opportunity sites' that greatly exceed the current zoning standards without a draft plan for the Downtown,” she said.

“The City needs to first establish acceptable heights and densities for the entire Downtown, including these 8 so-called 'opportunity sites' in collaboration with the community and the Planning Commission and generate a draft Downtown Specific Plan,” Gordon said.

Most recently, the Mid City Neighbors weighed in, calling for the Council to support the motion.

“It has been apparent over the last few months that residents have been excluded in many ways from the meaningful discussion that's needed regarding acceptable height and density limits Downtown,” reads an official statement from the neighborhood group.

“The proposal being considered would allow for more transparency and open discussion and is essential to the creation of a Downtown Specific Plan that truly has public input,” the statement reads.

The Council will vote on the item Tuesday.