For a liberal like me, it’s hard not to be cranky after Donald Trump’s TKO (i.e., Electoral College) defeat of Hillary Clinton. True, my mood was elevated somewhat by the local KO of Measure LV, but it took another hit when I turned my attention to the political issue of the day in Santa Monica, namely the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) now under review by the Planning Commission.
The latest draft of the DCP, issued in February, is the product of what is looking to be a never-ending sequence of planning processes. These began a dozen years ago with the start of what was supposed to be a two-year process to revise the land use and circulation elements (LUCE) of the City’s general plan. The LUCE took six years of process before the City Council adopted it in 2010. Updating the Zoning Ordinance then took another five years (2010-15). During that time the City began the process to fill in a major gap left open in the LUCE, namely downtown Santa Monica (DTSM), and the draft DCP is what we now have for those efforts. After Planning Commission review, and further revision, the DCP is scheduled to come before City Council next spring.
Perhaps what’s most frightening about the DCP is that on its very first page of text, in an introductory section imagining a stroll in DTSM 20 years hence, the reverie ends with the statement that, “citizens in that far-off time  are actively engaged in the fourth five year-revision of the original 2016 Downtown Community Plan.” (Note: the earliest the DCP will now be enacted is 2017.)
The fourth revision? As noted in the report on the DCP that planning staff prepared for the Planning Commission meeting Nov. 16 (after holding hearings that night, the Commission will again take up the DCP at its meeting next Wednesday, Dec. 7), the DCP has “been the subject of citywide discussion for the past five years.” And we’re supposed to update it every five years? Should we start the “citywide discussion” now for the 2022 update?
And note: it’s taken five years (and we’re not done yet) to plan for 20 years of development of only about 44 blocks, most of which already have buildings that are unlikely to be replaced for decades, or even this century.
Naturally, “citywide discussion,” what we’ve been having for five years, is a euphemism. For what (you ask)? Well, primarily for an out of control process that wastes everyone’s time. But that’s not the whole story. At the heart “citywide discussion” is a euphemism for elected officials not having the courage to let city staff plan, goddamn it, and then demand that staff give them something to vote on.
No, I don’t blame the hard-working and abused-by-the-public planners who drafted the DCP for the years-going-on-decades of “conversation.” I blame the electeds, and the succession of city managers since 2004, who themselves know plenty about planning, and could probably write the documents themselves, but who are afraid to make decisions without cover of meeting after meeting.
These meetings go nowhere, because they are designed to placate people who are opposed to change in any form, including the reasonable evolution of our downtown, people who will never be satisfied or persuaded by anything, let alone by more “conversation.” The City Council wants to placate the un-placatable, residents unhappy with change who don’t like downtowns and urban life in general, and don’t like our downtown in particular, what with its horrid tourists and young, happy, and “transient” apartment dwellers.
Further, the data and input that come from repeated meetings, including the eight months of outreach staff conducted since publishing the draft DCP in February, are by their nature going to be inconclusive. The more sequences of meetings there are, the more layers of iteration, the more inconclusive the data are going to be. People have different opinions. Planners must listen carefully to the public because the public has real world knowledge and ideas, but you can’t get plans from the public because, for one reason, members of the public don’t agree with each other. (And for now I’ll only mention the fact that staff didn’t bother talking to any of the workers at downtown hotels, people who, as opposed to many residents, are downtown everyday, who know the place and use the transit, and who might be able to use housing that could be built there.)
Memo to council members, to the Planning Commission, and to the City Manager: those residents you are trying to persuade to be happy with change have told you time and again that they won’t be persuaded. They will never be happy with any change that they imagine will add to traffic or that won’t restore the sunny days of their youth. Why don’t you cut the farce about pleasing them and get back to planning and deciding? At what point will you stop trying to make people love and respect you who at best look down their noses at you (Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City) or at worst despise you (Residocracy)?
Memo to council members: given (i) that anti-development targets Pam O’Connor and Terry O’Day both won reelection without SMRR endorsements, (ii) that when all the votes are counted no-growther Armen Melkonians will likely have received votes from fewer than 25% of the number of Santa Monicans who voted this year, (iii) that yet again no candidate running on an anti-development platform has won election without a SMRR endorsement, and (iv) that RIFT and LV both lost decisively, is it too much to ask you to stand up and end our long municipal nightmare of perpetual planning? I.e., make some decisions instead of calling for more process?
Memo to council members and planning commissioners: If you believe that the charm and character of downtown will be destroyed if you allow buildings taller than 60 feet, fine. Vote that way. But can you finally vote? I.e., make decisions? Without fearing that the people will withdraw their love for you?
Finally, delay has substantive impact. The circumstances, economic, political, and otherwise, in which the LUCE process began in 2004 were quite different in 2010 when the LUCE was adopted, so much so that the LUCE was an artifact the night the council passed it, largely doomed not to be implemented.
Did I say I’m cranky?
Next time I’ll do some substantive analysis of the DCP. In the meantime, thanks for reading.
Pingback: Santa Monica in 2018: Are All Politics Still Local? | The Healthy City Local
Pingback: Downtown Santa Monica: where it doesn’t take a village (with lots of pictures!) | The Healthy City Local
Pingback: Not-Inspirational: More on the Downtown Community Plan | Santa Monica Next
Pingback: Not-inspirational: more on the Downtown Community Plan | The Healthy City Local
Pingback: Santa Monica's Long Municipal Nightmare | Santa Monica Next
All incumbents up for re-election won. LV, which from my perspective was the hot button issue of the 2016 Santa Monica election, was decisively rejected. If this isn’t a message of reassurance to city hall from Santa Monica voters then I don’t know what is. Maybe the ever-present threat of a Hines-style referendum is that influential? What I do know is, before anyone can say the word “fascist”, the first orange president will be occupying the White House. Any silver lining to share? I know it’s a stretch…
You’re asking me for a silver lining about Trump? Hmmm. Do I have that much of a reputation for optimism? I guess the only thing I can say is that the last time the GOP controlled the WH and both Houses, after the 2004 election, they tried to do to much and gave everything back to the Dems. And yes, I do believe we’ll still have elections in 2018.
🙂 I’ll begrudgingly add that SNL is relevant again.
Yes, I guess I’ll start watching the Daily Show again, too.
Be cranky…You are right!
Was Ruth Gruber any relation?
Rev. Jim Conn 230 Pacific St #108 Santa Monica, CA 90405 310/392-5056
Associations: Capital & Main – Writer: www.capitalandmain.com CLUE-LA – Member of the Board: www.clue.org Climate Action Santa Monica – Advisory Board Asset Based Community Development: www.abcdinstitute.org/ United Methodist Minister – Retired: www.calpacUMC.org
The Ruth Gruber you’re asking me about, who died last week, was not a relation, but oddly enough my sister is also Ruth Gruber, also a journalist, and also one who writes (a lot) about Jewish stuff. They became aware of each other decades ago, and became acquainted, were often confused, and my sister writes under “Ruth Ellen Gruber” to distinguish her work from the elder Ruth Gruber.