The Candidates Address the Issues: III

Santa Monica City Council

Kathleen Herd Masser
Mirror contributing writer

   Part II:
   Problems and Programs

   This week, candidates for City Council offer their positions on growth and development, traffic, housing, and historic preservation.
   Question: What is your position on growth and development?
   Linda Armstrong: Cut back on development. Preserve housing.
   Letitia Anderson: I take a proactive stance. I have spoken to local residents and their responses were that the city's limit falls within a small area and growth should take place at the perimeters.
   Bill Bauer: The Matrix Report was very clear when it said the planning process has no goals or long term plan. Perhaps the best thing to do is clean house and bring in new management that will stop the chaos and revamp the planning process to make it more workable and efficient, yet still responsive to the people.
   Richard Bloom: I believe in responsible growth that focuses on mixed-use development and minimizes negative intrusions on residential neighborhoods.
   David Cole: I think we are big enough. We are one of the densest cities in California. Surely we must allow the replacement of decaying and unsafe structures. And this may be our last chance to expand and preserve open space. We do not have any current and thoughtful city plan for development, traffic and parking. We sorely need one to guide us into the future and we need it now.
   Matt Dinolfo: I favor mixed-use development with adequate public input. I would favor relaxation of height requirements and removal of the 7500-square-foot ceiling on discretionary review of commercial projects. I would work to expand our parks and open spaces.
   Michael Feinstein: I am a ‘slow growth’ advocate. Development should serve our community by providing the jobs and the housing we need, but not outpace the ability of our infrastructure to handle it. I support maintaining the scale of our residential neighborhoods, while promoting vibrant commercial districts that serve residents and visitors.
   Ken Genser: Santa Monica is a built-out city and our streets are already too congested. Our general plan should be revised to limit future growth. To the extent there is future development, it should be directed away from our residential neighborhoods and towards our downtown. Our policies should encourage the preservation of existing multi-family housing so the people who live here can stay here. I strongly oppose the recommendations to allow city staff to approve more development without public review.
   Patricia Hoffman: Growth and development need to be slow and thoughtful, and must be sustainable. As the population in the region grows, Santa Monica will be required to absorb its share of this growth. Development should be responsible and balanced to meet the needs of a diverse community.
   Herb Katz: I support careful, smart growth and development that improves the quality of life for Santa Monica residents. I believe we can encourage and control it through zoning and planning with known objectives and rules rather than continuous changes and subjective decisions on each project.
   Maria Loya: Every development in Santa Monica must demonstrate a benefit for both the local economy and our residents. It is important to implement a balanced approach that will contribute to our economic base while maintaining our character and charm as a community. Public participation is key in addressing issues related to development projects and residents should be given an opportunity to create a collective vision and approach for future development. Currently I am spearheading a groundbreaking effort to create a Community Benefits Agreement for communities affected by the proposed LAX modernization plan. This agreement would create a national precedent, establishing far-reaching environmental safeguards, educational improvements and job protections for thousands of residents. As a Council member I will work to expand mechanisms for public participation in the development process.
   Jonathan Mann: In my opinion developers, merchants and city employees have more to say about what affects this city than residents, which is why I intend to empower residents via the electronic interface. Future development should be severely restricted and home owners should be allowed to develop their own property with a more expedited and fair permit process.
   Kathryn Morea: I've heard many people in Santa Monica say they are against development. Or that Santa Monica is overcrowded, traffic is gridlocked, and we just have too many people already here. City Hall itself has become the biggest developer around. New affordable housing projects are springing up all over town, bringing hundreds of new families to Santa Monica. Yet a homeowner trying to add a bathroom may be stalled for years trying to get permits and approval. I will ensure that all property owners will be considered in the planning process, not just a few special interest non-profit agencies who are exempted from rules. I will work to bring balance and fairness to the development process.
   Bobby Shriver: Some growth is going to happen. It must be carefully planned, meet the needs of our residents, and not place undue burdens on residential neighborhoods. I am especially interested in housing for senior residents. Redevelopment of older properties is important. Adequate parking must be planned on each redeveloped site; this will relieve parking problems, because few old buildings have adequate parking.
   Question: Traffic in Santa Monica is a major issue. How, specifically, would you improve traffic flow in the city?
   Linda Armstrong: That’s a hard one. Increase bus services. Eliminate speed bumps.
   Letitia Anderson: My interaction with local residents has been mixed. I would support no more speed bumps per the residents and increase traffic control officers, while increasing more accessible parking facilities in the busiest areas of town such as the Farmers Market area where there was the terrible traffic tragedy.
   Bill Bauer: The City has a woefully out-of-date circulation element which needs updating. Currently, traffic improvements are knee-jerk reactions without a big picture. All “traffic calming” on major arteries must be dramatically scaled back so that traffic is not diverted onto residential streets. Signal lights must be synchronized to move traffic, not impede it. We must stop removing traffic lanes and narrowing lanes so that streets can efficiently carry the increasing traffic loads. Enforcement is the best way to discourage reckless and thoughtless driving.
   Richard Bloom: Funding and construction of Expo Light Rail must be our priority on transportation. In addition, there has been much good discussion about shuttle transportation and the benefits it could bring to our city. It is time to take that discussion to the next level. Finally, we must continue to focus on pedestrian friendly policies that encourage people to walk and use alternative transit.
   David Cole: While I like the new trees and plantings along Wilshire and Pico boulevards, I think it is stupid to bottleneck our major roads. If anything, we might restrict travel in the residential areas but not on our main arteries. What we're doing now only diverts traffic onto our neighborhood streets. Let's have beautiful streets, but let's also get people moving in, out or around town quickly. And let's take the time to develop a master traffic plan that can address the future.
   Matt Dinolfo: I advocate increasing parking structures in outlying areas with shuttle services to the business districts. I believe the current traffic calming devices are having the opposite effect, adding to our city’s congestion. Overall, I would advocate for the removal of speed bumps and discourage the development of further traffic circles and center islands.
   Michael Feinstein: The primary tool we have in dealing with traffic is how we develop. I have always supported strategies that reduce the volume of car trips – including limiting the overall amount of development – while promoting jobs/housing balance, public transportation, and locally-serving small business (including preserving neighborhood markets). I will continue to work hard to bring the Expo Light Rail line to Santa Monica, because of its obvious benefits. At the same time, I voted to oppose the proposed Playa Vista project in Los Angeles because of the extremely negative impacts it would have on Santa Monica on Lincoln Boulevard and in Sunset Park (as a result of ‘pass-through’ traffic). In terms of street, streetlight, sidewalk and crosswalk design, I support strategies that ensure pedestrian safety in all neighborhoods and commercial districts, while allowing needed fire and police department access.
   Ken Genser: We must balance traffic flow with safety and with the character of our community. I support better coordination of traffic signals and "real time" changeable directional signage to increase the capacity of our streets.
   Patricia Hoffman: Congestion is always the result of someone else’s car. We all have a role in reducing the number of automobiles on our streets. We must improve public transportation and decrease individual car trips. We can encourage combining trips, carpooling, walking and bicycle riding. Also, while Santa Monica has about 87,000 residents, our daytime population is well over 200,000. Much of the traffic is generated by employees of area businesses. The Council could do more to create and publicize incentives for traffic reduction plans. It could also seek out smarter traffic flow devices. While there is a blight of signs in the city, there is no signage that helps people find better flowing routes into, around, and out of our city.
   Herb Katz: I support specific, appropriate and reasonable measures including implementation of a citywide shuttle that will encourage local residents to get out of their cars for short trips. I also support heightened, concentrated traffic enforcement to deal with recurring problems in seriously congested locations. I do not favor "traffic calming" measures, which are ineffective and often unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.
   Maria Loya: It is important to recognize that the majority of the traffic in Santa Monica is caused by people coming to Santa Monica to either work or simply enjoy what our beautiful city has to offer in terms of recreational fun. Public transportation is key in effectively addressing the problem of traffic congestion and therefore, a regional solution is needed. We need a light rail line linkup coming out to Santa Monica, and I will work with other community leaders in the region to make this happen.
   Jonathan Mann: The last seven years has been a period of unprecedented growth that has created all kinds of problems for residents who have to deal with the traffic, parking and other chaotic side effects.
   Kathryn Morea: Traffic has drastically worsened in the past five years. Some is beyond our control, such as commuters traveling through Santa Monica to Playa Vista. But much of the frustration I hear about is because of the proliferation of so-called "traffic calming" on our major thoroughfares (curb extensions, larger medians, smaller lanes). I understand that traffic calming can be useful in small residential neighborhoods such as those around a school, but not on major streets such as Santa Monica Boulevard. When elected, I will impose a moratorium on further traffic calming of major streets.
   Bobby Shriver: Computers control signals for some intersections in the city, based on traffic flow. That should be true for all major streets. Signals, especially on the north-south streets, currently seem to be timed to stop traffic at each block. This can be changed. The flashing crosswalks are great and should be used more at dangerous intersections. I realize that “traffic calming” devices such as curb extensions are supposed to protect pedestrians – obviously the most important goal. Yet, when these devices and poorly timed signals keep traffic from moving, they become “driver enraging” devices, and these enraged drivers become a danger to pedestrians.
   Question: Rents and home prices have skyrocketed in Santa Monica. What, if anything, will you do to protect the existing stock of rent-controlled and affordable housing, and increase rental and home ownership opportunities for low- and middle-income residents?
   Linda Armstrong: As a SMRR member, I’d do everything to keep affordable housing and rent control.
   Letitia Anderson: Work to stabilize rent and assist the developers with speedy access to build more, upgraded, middle-class homes and rentals.
   Bill Bauer: As a long-term renter on a limited income, I fully support and defend rent control and tenants’ rights. Rental housing is the major part of our affordable middle- and low-income housing stock; as such it must be protected to the fullest extent possible. New affordable and middle income housing must go to Santa Monicans, our seniors and disabled, first. A city housing policy solely based on rental units must change. A program that encourages ownership is desperately needed to balance the “Renters' Rights, voter-based housing agenda” of the current political machine. Even the poor deserve a shot at the American dream – home ownership.
   Richard Bloom: I have consistently supported every effort to preserve existing affordable housing and maintain one of the country’s strongest rent control ordinances. I promise to continue to do so and that is one of the reasons that I have, again, been endorsed by Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights. In an era when the number of poor Americans continues to increase, affordable housing is the important responsibility of every city and I am proud that Santa Monica continues to be a national leader in this area.
   David Cole: I support rent control and like the incumbents will fight to protect the renter. And I too would continue to build affordable housing in Santa Monica. I would however build many of them with only city funds and that will allow us to offer them to existing Santa Monica residents including our seniors. And I would build some buildings every year that contain low cost units that can be purchased by renters. Economic diversity is something we need to maintain.
   Matt Dinolfo: I would explore financial incentives to builders who increase housing stock for low- and middle-income households. I would also support non-profit programs but would expect those projects to be architecturally in keeping with their surrounding neighborhoods.
   Michael Feinstein: To protect our existing stock of affordable units, I support
   • Purchase, rehabilitation and deed restriction of existing affordable units
   • Directing the bulk of new development outside of existing neighborhoods, so as not to encourage the displacement of existing residents and affordable rents
   • Pursuing changes in state law to allow for deed restriction of existing affordable units to count towards overall housing needs objectives.
  
   To increase our existing stock of affordable units, I support
  
   • Changing state legislation to allow more local choice/control in inclusionary housing ordinances, including increasing the ability of municipalities to require on-site affordable housing as part of new developments
   • Promoting inclusion of affordable housing as part of Development Agreements negotiated between developers and the City Council
   • Dedicating significant redevelopment money to preserving and increasing affordable housing
   • Offering density bonuses to encourage more affordable housing, particularly on-site
   • Making the approvals process easier for affordable, on-site units
   • Lowering parking requirements for affordable units located near public transit corridors, along with the provision of transit passes to residents as an alternative
   • Updating in-lieu fees for affordable housing, to more fully incorporate the real cost of replacement housing
   Ken Genser: As we revise our zoning ordinance, we should include policies that discourage the replacement of existing multi-family structures with newer, more costly housing. We must continue our ongoing investment in permanent affordable housing -- both new construction and the purchase and rehabilitation of existing units. I support experimenting with the moderately priced for-sale housing that is currently in the planning stage, provided there are guarantees that the units will remain affordable for future generations.
   Patricia Hoffman: I’ve been a rent control activist for 25 years. Because of rent control people have been able to age in place without the threat of enormous rent increases or eviction. I would continue to work with the Rent Control Board and staff on the issues effecting tenants. I am a director of Community Corporation of Santa Monica. We build and maintain affordable housing for working families, individuals, the disabled and seniors. We can’t build fast enough to meet the needs of all the low- and middle-income people we would like to house. We are also working on a limited-equity home ownership project for moderate income workers, such as teachers, nurses, fire fighters and police officers. I will continue to support these efforts and others to maintain and increase the affordable housing stock in Santa Monica.
   Herb Katz: Home prices are driven by regional market forces over which the city has no control. Our city's rent control system continues to be among the strongest in the nation, with tough protections against harassment and eviction. Santa Monica currently encourages inclusion of affordable units in new rental developments. I believe that the principle of economic independence through home ownership is one that governments at all levels should encourage. Ironically, some of the most creative approaches to home ownership opportunities in Santa Monica have been blocked by the organizations that claim to represent the best interests of tenants.
   Maria Loya: I strongly support Santa Monica’s rent control law and will work to strengthen the current support network for low- and moderate-income renters by increasing the availability of counseling and legal assistance to assist tenants in exercising their rights. I will also work with our state legislators to oppose legislation that weakens tenants’ rights and protections. I will work to improve outreach to all tenants to ensure that our services to protect tenants reach every family in Santa Monica. The City is beginning to review the General Plan, and it is vital that we develop a long-term plan to preserve and purchase land for low- and moderate-income housing. I strongly believe that in order to preserve and increase affordable housing, we need to promote mixed use development projects. I also believe that it is important to support the continued effort of Community Corporation of Santa Monica to purchase and rehabilitate existing units to maintain our affordable housing stock. I support moving forward on CCSM’s plan to find a viable affordable option for renters to own their own units.
   Jonathan Mann: Jonathan Mann did not respond to this question.
   Kathryn Morea: Rent control is part of the City Charter and will continue to protect tenants. "Affordable housing" projects (buildings that rent to low-income families) tend to bring in new families from outside Santa Monica. But we have plenty of people right here in Santa Monica whom this housing could serve. Why not rent those affordable units to people already here? I propose that we rent those units to the disabled, the elderly, the Pico residents, etc. – those already living in Santa Monica.
   Home ownership must become a priority. It's cruel to keep people dependent and trapped in poverty. I propose that renters be allowed to purchase their units from the enormous inventory of buildings already owned by CCSM (Santa Monica's low income housing provider, and single largest landlord). Many of those buildings were bought years ago and could be purchased by the current tenants for pennies on the dollar. It's win-win. The renter becomes a homeowner. This bestows all the benefits of home ownership onto the "former" tenant: equity, tax breaks, borrowing power, retirement, and pride of ownership.
   Bobby Shriver: The Santa Monica Rent Control Law – which cannot be changed by the City Council – protects existing tenants, but not the housing stock, because state law allows owners to redevelop their properties. We should encourage city-supported home ownership opportunities for renters, which would also help preserve our low- and moderately-priced housing.
   Question: What is your position on historic preservation?
   Linda Armstrong: Preserve everything possible, especially housing.
   Letitia Anderson: I would work closely with proactive groups such as the Santa Monica Historical Conservancy and the Pico residents.
   Bill Bauer: I believe that which is truly historical needs to be preserved. Properties must be carefully selected, otherwise the movement becomes compromised and abused by those avoiding eviction, out to prevent new development and who pervert the process for their own personal gain.
   Richard Bloom: Since elected, I have been an ardent advocate of historic preservation and have been gratified that the Santa Monica Conservancy and the preservation movement reached its maturity since I was first elected by an overwhelming majority of Santa Monica voters in 1999.
   David Cole: I love history and am very supportive of preserving our architectural past. So much has been lost. Does everyone realize that Santa Monica Boulevard is Route 66? Imagine using that theme in development along this Boulevard. Not only could we preserve the past, but new buildings could resurrect and reflect the past. What has been lost could be built anew.
   Matt Dinolfo: I favor historic preservation, but I feel homeowners should have the ability to participate in decisions that affect their homes.
   Michael Feinstein: A community’s architectural heritage is a necessary, critical part of its identity – the best parts of which should be treasured and preserved. As City Council liaison to the Landmarks Commission, I have worked to make our community’s Landmarks Ordinance more transparent and resident-friendly, while working to provide incentives and rewards to those who chose to landmark their buildings.
   Ken Genser: I am a strong advocate for preserving our built heritage. Historic structures provide character and define the context of our city. We should consider revisions to our zoning ordinance to give "by right" incentives for preserving historic structures. Our laws should encourage additions to our older buildings, rather than their replacement.
   Patricia Hoffman: Our past is a key to understanding our present and future. I believe we should take great care of buildings and places of historical significance. To quote from the Historic Preservation Element, “The preservation of historic buildings enhances the quality of life in Santa Monica. It improves the quality of the built environment, encourages respect and appreciation for the community’s history and culture, maintains the character of the City, and contributes to the City’s economic stability.”
   Herb Katz: Historic preservation is important and needs to be accomplished through cooperation between the city and property owners, rather than unilaterally imposed through an inflexible set of criteria established by city dictates.
   Maria Loya: My position on historic preservation is to protect improvements and areas that represent Santa Monica’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history, safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage, and promote the use of landmarks and historic districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people.
   Jonathan Mann: Jonathan Mann did not respond to this question.
   Kathryn Morea: There are a few rare and historic properties which should be preserved. This should not be arbitrary and based merely on whether a place has "charm." There must be incentives and tax advantages for the owners of those properties, to encourage true restoration.
   Bobby Shriver: Who wouldn’t favor protecting the wonderful character of Santa Monica? Unfortunately, right now in Santa Monica, this issue is driven by fear: Preservationists fear Santa Monica is rapidly losing its architectural heritage, and property owners fear they’ll be forced to keep structures that don’t suit their or a prospective buyer’s needs.
   The problem lies in the inexcusable and costly delays caused by city management. We must work to make it easier for people to restore old buildings by creating additional financial and procedural incentives. The city must train its planning and building staff to be familiar with special needs of preservation, as well as reduce permit fees and speed up the review process for people who want to preserve our history.
   We can also educate ourselves about the value of our architectural heritage, which would result in more voluntary preservation.