November 20, 2013 -- The board of directors of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) today voted unanimously to oppose the current proposal for development of the Bergamot site. We see the proposed project as far too big and too dense for the site, and we feel that it would cause unacceptable traffic problems that would degrade the quality of life of both the immediate neighborhood and the city as a whole.

In a recent meeting with officials from the development firm Hines, the company's proposal was opposed by representatives of all the city's neighborhood organizations, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMMRR), and Santa Monicans for a Liveable City (SMCLC). 

Following is our letter to the Planning Commission.

--- 

To:      Santa Monica Planning Commission

From:   Board of Directors, North of Montana Association (NOMA)

RE:      11/20/13 agenda item 8-A -- Bergamot Transit Village Center

The Board of Directors of the North of Montana Association (NOMA)  strongly opposes the current version of the Bergamot Transit Village Center. The project needs to be drastically reduced. It's too tall, it's too dense, there's too much office space, the amount of office space per employee was incorrectly calculated, and the project will generate way too much traffic in an area that is already at gridlock. Only a greatly reduced project with much less office space, and much less trip generation, would be acceptable.

We heartily endorse the statement by Friends of Sunset Park, which follows here.

____

We have looked through the EIR and, out of hundreds of DEIR comment letters from governmental agencies, neighborhood organizations in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles, and many, many individuals, only one letter was in support of the project.  

The current proposal includes the following to replace the 200,000 sq ft Papermate factory:

-- 766,908 sq ft in total (50% larger than Santa Monica Place)
-- 374,434 sq ft of office space (further exacerbating the city’s jobs/housing imbalance)
-- Heights up to 84 ft (the same as the Water Garden, which many of us feel is too tall)
-- 7,585 new daily car trips estimated in the EIR
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impact at 25 intersections, including:
-- 23rd/Walgrove at Rose Avenue & Venice Blvd.,
-- Cloverfield at Santa Monica Blvd., 
-- 28th/Stewart at Olympic Blvd.,
-- Centinela at Colorado, Olympic, I-10 freeway westbound ramps, & Venice Blvd.,
-- Bundy at Olympic, Pico, Ocean Park Blvd., & National, and
-- Barrington at Wilshire, Santa Monica Blvd., & Olympic;
1) Caltrans wrote in 2012 that existing average daily traffic on the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway is 192,000 in the vicinity of the project, and that "the project will have significant traffic impact."

2) The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) wrote in 2012 that, "The project should be directed to remove these impacts through either a scaled reduction or land-use reconfiguration of the project."

3) Another comment in the EIR noted that "By the DEIR's own admission, the project is in an area that is largely built out, and many of the surrounding intersections operate at or near capacity....The city and applicant should consider alternatives or project reductions which would result in less traffic impacts." 

4) The jobs-housing imbalance in our city, which has resulted from more than 9 million sq ft of office/commercial development since the 1984 LUCE was adopted, has created tremendous congestion on streets in Santa Monica and West LA, as well as the I-10 and 405 freeways. A key goal of the LUCE is to "reduce future traffic congestion" and "reduce regional commercial uses." The proposed Hines project violates these basic principles by a) adding 375,000 sq ft of office/commercial uses, and b) increasing traffic congestion.

5) Hines apparently estimated traffic and parking based on 286 sq ft per office employee. Meanwhile, a survey posted by the Wall Street Journal in 2012 states that "The average for all companies for square feet per worker in 2017 will be 151 square feet. Therefore,new daily car trips generated by the project could be closer to 15,000 rather than 7,585.  

In the Sunset Park neighborhood, all of our east-west "through" streets (Pico, Pearl, and Ocean Park Blvd.) are congested/gridlocked many hours of the day, not just from 5 to 6 PM, or whatever staff considers the PM peak hour. 

Our only north-south "through" streets (23rd and Lincoln) are also congested/gridlocked many hours of the day. Frustrated motorists take every possible side street and alley to try to get to and from work, schools, and homes, endangering pedestrians and other drivers.

On some streets we have cars idling in front of our homes for hours at a time, making it impossible to get in and out of driveways. FedEx diesel trucks use our residential streets and alleys to come and go from their headquarters in the Marina, fouling our air.

Residents have difficulty getting to and from work. Parents have difficulty getting their children to school, after school activities, music lessons, and CIF games. People with health problems have difficulty getting to and from doctors’ offices. Doctors and other local health workers find it impossible to get to professional meetings at UCLA and elsewhere. Another resident has written about getting stuck in traffic for an hour and watching her pet die before she could reach a nearby vet clinic. 

Is this what the LUCE meant by "preserving residential neighborhoods"? We think not. We already have the Santa Monica Business Park and Santa Monica College in our neighborhood, as well as cut-through traffic from the hospital district, the Special Office District, and the Cloverfield entrance/exit on the I-10 freeway. Our neighborhood cannot handle more traffic.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose the current Bergamot Transit Village Center. Only a greatly reduced project with much less office space, and much less trip generation, would be acceptable.

Dear NOMA members and friends, 

The intensive development planned for downtown Santa Monica is likely to impact the whole city. But just what kinds of impacts will the planned tall, dense projects have on traffic circulation, parking, water use, air quality, green space and safety?
 
To assure that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for downtown Santa Monica addresses all potential impacts of concern to you, please join residents from throughout the city at the "scoping"  meeting Thursday, Oct. 3, at the Civic Center beginning at 6:30 p.m.  The purpose of the meeting is to take public input on issues to be studied in the EIR. 

Your input is critical. Attached below for your convenience is a list of talking points developed by NOMA's Land Use Committee. Please feel free to use this list to brainstorm ideas and put them in your own words.
 
Free parking is available in the Civic Center parking lot. If you need a ride, please contact us at [email protected] and we will form carpools. Hope to see you there!
 

                                Thursday, October 3, 2013
                                                6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
                                      Civic Center – East Wing
                                             1855 Main Street


PLEASE NOTE: NOMA’S REGULARLY SCHEDULED OCTOBER 3 MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED TO PERMIT ALL MEMBERS TO COME TO THE CIVIC CENTER MEETING INSTEAD. Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Thursday, November 7. 


                                                                                    *******

TALKING POINTS

To: The members of the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney

From: North of Montana Association, Board of Directors

With this letter, the North of Montana Association outlines the areas of focus, concern and anticipated factors of study that we expect to be addressed in the upcoming Environmental Impact Report study for the Downtown Specific Plan. As residents, key stakeholders and community partners, we would respectfully request that these areas be addressed comprehensively in the EIR. Please consider this letter a list, not necessarily a comprehensive list, of the areas we expect to be addressed in specific detail with respect to the Downtown Specific Plan. 

******

1. Before any projects are advanced through the planning process, it is essential that the city complete an EIR study of at least two scenarios for its downtown, using as its baseline the current state of the downtown:

       Scenario one: Building out everything to the maximum extent permitted under current zoning.

       Scenario two: Adding to scenario one the proposed modifications for the eight so-called "opportunity sites”. 

2. Please measure potential environmental impacts in at least the following areas:

     1.    Traffic

    2.    Increased water usage, and adverse impact on city's ability to meet water goals

    3.    Increased electricity usage and potential reduction in stability of the power grid

    4.    Air quality

    5.    Noise

    6.    Congestion

    7.    Parking

    8.    Effects on the underlying geology of the downtown, particularly as regards potential seismic activity.

    9.    Access by first responders in a timely fashion -- potential slowing of response time

    10.   Visual impact  -- light/shadow on the streets and sidewalks

    11.    New costs to the city vs. expected new revenues

    12.    Changes in the character of our community

    13.    Added population

    14.    New car trips daily, broken out by time of day

    15.    Increase in number of public school students

    16.    Increase in use of the parks

    17.    Increase in demand for use of public facilities, including ball fields, meeting venues and other public spaces

    18.    Increase in daily volume of sewage and cost of hauling/treating it

    19.    Increase in daily trash and recycling (in tons), and cost of hauling/processing it

    20.    Increase in demand for hospital and ambulance services, and cost of providing it

    21.    Increase in demand for fire fighters and equipment

    22.    Increase in demand for police officers and equipment.

    23.    Increase in demand for public school services, including teachers, classroom space and administrative support

    24.    Increase in demand for public transportation.

    25.    Potential adverse impact of additional traffic on Santa Monica intersections, by name.

    26.    Potential adverse impact of additional traffic on through-trips by commuters who reside in nearby communities

    27.    Potential adverse impact of additional Santa Monica traffic congestion on adjacent and nearby communities (West Los Angeles, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Culver City, Venice, etc.)

3. Is it legal under the California Environmental Quality Act for the city to be advancing development projects prior to the completion of the required environmental impact report? This seems pertinent in light of recent statements by members of the Rent Control Board that the RCB was forced under threat of lawsuit to approve the withdrawal of rental units at Village Trailer Park, suggesting that advancing a project creates some legal rights for the developers before final approval is given.

4. There have been discussions about requiring deed restrictions on affordable units so that only people who work in Santa Monica can live in the units.  Are such deed restrictions legal? Are they enforceable?

5. How can we accurately assess the impact of new residents and car trips on the city when we have no realistic way to assure that scarce in-town housing units are occupied by people who work in Santa Monica?

6. How can we accurately assess the impact of new businesses on car trips and traffic in Santa Monica when we have no legal way to ensure that such businesses will hire local residents? Or could we include such a requirement in the Development Agreement (DA)?

7. More than $1.5 million in political donations have been made by developers in recent City elections. We know that developers who made these contributions stand to reap profits of hundreds of millions of dollars if the City Council approves additional height and density over current limits for their buildings, and they are seeking to gain advantage in this political process. It is customary in Santa Monica for council members not to recuse themselves from matters before council in which their campaign donors stand to benefit financially. Will each member of the City Council make public, on a current basis, the amount and source of all contributions and loans they have accepted from developers, people associated with developers, and developer-funded PACs, over the past five years? Residents don't want density and height downtown, but developers have more money than residents. We need to study the influence of developer donations on our City Council and the politics of our city. Please include that in the EIR.

8. Questions continue to be raised about the potential effectiveness of Traffic Demand Management (TDM) efforts to reduce congestion in our city.  

    a. What enforcement mechanisms will be put in place to require the developers to fulfill the terms of traffic demand agreements that they make with the city? How will the city ensure that TDMs will be implemented by subsequent owners in the event that properties are sold?

    b. Given that we are seeking to apply TDM measures to new developments in the city, should the practices not also be applied to existing large-scale employers, both private and public, such as the City of Santa Monica? In view of the fact that the City government is the largest employer within the city, what effective mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the city requires its employees to use vanpools, carpools and other methods of transit as a way of decreasing traffic congestion?

9. The city has already stated that it is unlikely to be able to achieve its goals for reduced water usage by the year 2020, given the existing level of development in the city. Please provide an estimate for the expected water shortfall by the year 2030 under each of the following three scenarios:

     1) With the downtown at its present state;

     2) With the downtown built out to 84 feet, and

     3) With the downtown fully built out plus with the eight “opportunity sites” fully built out?

10. Assuming that the Development Agreement proposals currently submitted to the city within the first three years of the LUCE are all implemented, the population of the city as projected by the LUCE for the year 2030 will be achieved within the next decade. Does then the city have a revised population estimate for the year 2030, broken out in the following ways:

     1) With the downtown at its present state;

     2) With the downtown built out to 84 feet, and

     3) With the downtown fully built out plus with the eight “opportunity sites” fully built out?

The EIR cannot be completed without access to such population data.

*****

We thank you for the work you have done to date.  We look forward to working together with the city to ensure conformance with the LUCE and identify potential environmental impacts that could result from anticipated development in the downtown.

Respectfully,

The Board of Directors

North of Montana Association

[NOTE: The video of this meeting can be viewed here. Community comments start at about 21 minutes in. Thanks to all who spoke, including NOMA members Carol Landsberg, Meyera Robbins and Jule Lamm.]

Dear NOMA members and friends, 

It was standing room only in the Franklin School cafeteria Thursday night, as some 200 Santa Monicans turned out to sharply criticize a development project that has been proposed for the eastern end of the city’s busy Wilshire corridor.

Dozens of speakers representing neighborhoods across the city said the project by Century West Partners (CWP) would degrade the area, not enhance it. They said the proposed project is too tall, too dense, and the wrong mix of units for the neighborhood surrounding the proposed site at the corner of Wilshire Blvd. and Berkeley Street.

As the crowd roared its approval, speaker after speaker expressed concerns about the project’s potential for gridlocking traffic in the already glutted area, eating up scarce on-street parking spaces, and ruining the neighborhood's residential ambiance. 

Residents also questioned the appropriateness of  $100,000 in campaign contributions that were made by the developer to promote candidates in the most recent Santa Monica City Council election. CWP representatives declined to answer any questions about the campaign contributions.

The mixed-use residential-commercial project under debate is proposed as five stories (60 feet) high, with 81,125 square feet of space. The vast majority of the 100 planned apartments are conceived as small studios or one-bedroom units, with very few units large enough for families with children.

Neighbors were particularly critical of the company’s plan to build a 5-story building on a parking lot that currently provides a buffer between commercial and residential areas. The parcel is presently designated as an “A” lot, with “R2” zoning, meaning that it may be built to just two stories or 23 feet high under current zoning. 

“If this developer is allowed to develop residential land, that’s going to happen everywhere,” said Tricia Crane, vice chair of Northeast Neighbors Association. “This is big bucks. This project is going to be the first of many.”

Others said the project didn’t include an adequate number of affordable units, had an unattractive and boxy design, and didn’t provide adequate green space, open space, or setback from the sidewalk.

Representatives of CWP said the company would take the comments into consideration.

The proposed CWP project is only one of many that have recently drawn the ire of Santa Monica residents, as the city considers scores of new developments that promise to  create many thousands more daily car trips on already crowded streets. Dozens of residents recently turned out at meetings of the Planning Commission to raise similar concerns about a proposal by Hines/26th Street LLC to build five residential and office buildings at Bergamot Station. (Related story here.)

A recent story in the Los Angeles Times reports that Century West Partners is in the midst of building $170 million worth of apartments in the area, including a $60 million complex in Santa Monica at 7th Street and Arizona Ave. (Los Angeles Times story is here.) 

Please watch for additional information on this and other issues on our website: www.smnoma.org

Meanwhile, please sign up for NOMA’s email list to get further updates on this and other pending development projects around the city.

[Reprint of this letter in the Santa Monica Mirror here.]