Search

By Jorge Casuso

February 12 -- Downtown stakeholders will have a chance Tuesday to publicly weigh in on a proposed plan that would change the way the Downtown is managed for the first time since the wildly successful Third Street Promenade was launched two decades ago.

Property owners -- who would bankroll the plan with new assessments -- as well as business owners will take part in a forum at 3 p.m., followed by a resident and community forum at 7 p.m. Both events will take place at the Community Meeting Room of the Main Public Library, 601 Santa Monica Boulevard.

The plan -- which must be approved by the City Council and Bayside property owners -- comes at a time when Downtown streets are showing the wear and tear of millions of visitors a year, movie theaters are falling out of date and the homeless have staked out the popular strip as a hangout.

The new management structure -- which includes a major revamping of the Bayside Board and the way it is chosen -- would pump an additional $3.7 million in new assessments to boost maintenance, enhance marketing efforts and create an “ambassador program” to inform visitors and help keep the streets safe.

But before the plan can move forward, it needs the blessing of two factions that have not always seen eye to eye -- City officials, who control the public streets, and the landlords who own the 350 property parcels in the expanded Downtown Business Improvement District (BID).

Last month, council members -- who have indicated their support for the general concept -- were presented with a blueprint of the proposed plan, which has been in the works for nearly a year and a half. Although not scheduled to take action at the January 22 meeting, several council members were enthusiastic about what they saw.

“I think it’s a terrific idea and a plan. . . to make the Downtown a better area. . . and a more inviting atmosphere,” Council member Bob Holbrook said.

But others were more hesitant to give a ringing endorsement, saying the plan, which expands the size of the current district and the kinds of businesses taxed, needs more input from the public.

“We have really had very little public input so far,” said Council member Kevin McKeown. “It’s awkward to express so many discomforts."

Among the sticking points is whether private contractors would be used in the enhanced maintenance effort, which will be bankrolled with $1.3 million in new assessments, and whether the $1.23 million ambassadors program could use walkie-talkies to enhance safety in the bustling area.

Other concerns expressed by the council included whether the board should be made up of 13 members, instead of the 15 proposed by Bayside officials, and whether residential landlords, if taxed, would be allowed to pass that fee on to their tenants

Although such details will be hammered out over the next two months, Bayside representatives are confident there is support for the general thrust of the plan after meeting with major stakeholders who will have a proportional vote on the assessments.

Downtown’s biggest landlord, Douglas Emmett, which would pay some $300,000 in taxes, has expressed interest in the plan, though it has not committed, while the Macerich Company, which owns Santa Monica Place, “very clearly (is) on board,” said Brad Segal, the lead consultant on the project.

Randy Brant, Macerich’s executive vice president in charge of real estate, is a major booster of the plan.

“I live in Santa Monica, shop in Santa Monica, eat in Santa Monica, watch movies in Santa Monica, and as a Santa Monica resident I see an opportunity for improvement in the Downtown area,” said Brant, who was appointed to the Bayside Board in December.

Bayside officials also met with representatives of ten hotels in the district, and they “have reacted mostly favorably to this,” said Segal, who heads Progressive Urban Management Associates, Inc.

“They understand the investment, they understand the private investment,” said Kathleen Rawson, executive director of the Bayside District. “I felt that we made some pretty good progress.”

***

One of the cornerstones of the proposed plan addresses a longstanding concern among Downtown property owners -- the shabby state of the streets and parking structures, despite the efforts of a maintenance crew that has won kudos for its hard work.

While council members and Bayside officials agree the Downtown needs to be cleaner if it is to compete with sparkling new venues such as The Grove and Hollywood and Highland, the details have yet to be hammered out.

At last month’s council meeting, several council members insisted that the City maintain control over the $1.3 million in additional maintenance, which they said should be undertaken by an expanded City crew, rather than the hired contractors proposed as an option by Bayside District consultants.

“It’s incumbent on the City to retain control of the public spaces Downtown,” said Council member McKeown. “The public space. . . belongs to us all. We need to use public employees to maintain public space.”

“The City must retain control over its property,” said Council member Ken Genser. Nothing should be done, he said, “without the City being able to approve it or oversee it.”

But for the plan to garner the support of the majority of the property owners, it is “crucial” that the City continue to provide existing services, Segal said. “Anything that lowers the existing level is a non-starter.”

The council also discussed the role of the ambassadors and whether residential properties would reap sufficient benefits to warrant paying the $1.2 million a year needed to put them on the streets and in public restrooms 15 hours a day, seven days a week.

McKeown worried that the ambassadors -- who would provide a “concierge” service for visitors and “assist police to discourage nuisance crimes” -- could be taking on too much of a policing role if given walkie-talkies.

McKeown said he would oppose “assigning a police role to the private sector” and questioned the benefits residents would reap from the program.

“I don’t see how Downtown residents benefit from the ambassadors,” he said. If residential properties are taxed, “the fees will be passed on to the renters,” McKeown predicted.

“To a renter, I don’t think this turns out to be a good deal,” he said.

Genser shared similar concerns. “I wonder if the residents would have the same benefits as commercial use from the ambassador program,” he said.

Council members also worried that a 15-member board might be too large. “I think (it) gets to the size where people don’t care to take a lot of responsibility,” Genser said. “If you have the wrong process, you could encourage more of a gadfly” type being appointed.

After weighing the council members’ concerns, the working group voted two days later to recommend that the new board be composed of 13 members, although the vote was far from unanimous.

The group also recommended that the seven members the City Council and property owners each appoint (one seat would be filled by the City Manager) not be restricted to a prescribed number of property owners, business owners and residents.

“The City Council should not have any prescription,” said former mayor Judy Abdo, a member of the working group. “They should be able to appoint whoever they want. I prefer fewer rules on that. I think they should be able to make good judgements each time.”

***

If all goes as planned, the council could approve a detailed version of the plan next month, paving the way for a petition drive that must receive the support of the majority of the Downtown property owners under the proposed “property-based model.”

Under the plan, the boundaries of the Downtown Business Improvement District would be expanded to encompass the area bounded by the east side of Ocean Avenue, the east side of 7th Street, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard and the 10 Freeway.

The proposed BID would replace an assessment district that currently only taxes retailers, with a much larger one that would include restaurants, hotels, offices and, perhaps, apartment buildings. The new boundaries would include nearly a dozen hotels, a stretch of high-end restaurants overlooking Palisades Park and several dozen new apartment buildings along 5th, 6th and 7th streets.

At last month’s meeting, some members of the working group worried that the new assessment district was too large, that property owners on peripheral streets would not reap adequate benefits and that the City wasn’t picking up its fair share of the costs.

“We could be paying for something we don’t get,” said Janet Morris, who represents a group of Downtown property owners. The assessment district, she added, “should be limited to the commercial area Downtown, which ends at 5th Street.”

But the majority on the working group agreed that the proposed boundaries should not be scaled back. The streets, proponents of the wider boundaries argued, would reap benefits proportional to the assessments paid by their property owners, which would be based on the size, location and type of use.

Under the proposed plan, a property on the thriving Third Street Promenade would pay the most at 88¢ a square foot, properties on neighboring 2nd and 4th streets and Ocean Avenue would pay 44¢, while those on 5th to 7th streets would pay 22¢.

A building on the Promenade with retail and office use, for example, might pay $16,500 a year, while a large office building could pay as much as $45,000, consultants said. While a hotel might pay $20,000, the Salvation Army could pay as little as $5,000.

The plan, Segal said, “mirrors existing values and rents, as well as the existing assessment structure.”

While hiring ambassadors and boosting maintenance mainly benefit the Promenade, the impact of those programs would also be felt on other streets, Bayside officials said.

“We can’t be taking care of ourselves and saying, ‘It stops here,’” said Bayside Board member Bill Tucker, a Promenade property owner who sits on the working group. “It’s Downtown. We have to be safe.”

Property owners on peripheral streets who have met with Bayside representatives “see value in the cleaning,” Segal said, adding that it is important that the current maintenance services paid by the City stay in place.

“I think we’ve had adequate representation to know there will be support for the petition,” Segal said.

“It wouldn’t be looking to the future to limit this to 5th Street,” said Alan Freeman, who represents JSM management, which owns and operates more than 500 residential units Downtown. “We definitely need ambassadors on 5th, 6th and 7th.”

Some working group members also questioned why the City would pay little or nothing in assessments for key properties -- the Main Library, the Bus Yards and the public parking structures. Under the proposal, the City would pay assessments only for the ground floor of the structures.

While some property owners felt the City should pay for the entire structure, Segal and the majority of the working group disagreed.

“If you assess the structures, you have to provide the services,” Segal said. “The cleaning of the parking structures is currently a City responsibility. The moment you assess the parking structures, you’d have to provide additional benefit.”

Segal noted that while it’s important to set goals and budget line items, the numbers are not etched in stone and will change over time, as programs are tested and tweaked.

“You can’t answer the (deployment) questions until you’re up and running,” Segal said.

If the law passes, it would mark the first major change in two decades in how the Bayside District manages the Santa Monica's roaring Downtown economic engine.