February 11, 2010 -- Council member Kevin McKeown urged the City Council Tuesday night to halt the multiple development agreements in the planning pipeline until Santa Monica updates to the General Plan’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE).

Putting a halt to the approximately 2 million square feet of proposed development while the City codifies a development vision for the next 20 years was also a burning topic at last week’s Planning Commission meeting.

“In the community, there’s tremendous concern and confusion over what we’re talking about,” McKeown said.

The council member, who is a champion of little or no growth, worries that the LUCE, “which is hugely important to the next 20 years, is to some extent being overshadowed by potential development agreements that are being dropped across the transom for the City to evaluate."

Developers, he said, "want to get something going, perhaps before we get the LUCE in place.”

“Can we avoid this community confusion so that we all together are focused on one thing, and that one thing is the LUCE?” McKeown wondered.

The council is expected to vote on the LUCE in the late spring.

McKeown suggested the City put a temporary stop to the so-called float-up process, in which projects go before the Planning Commission and City Council for questions and comments. Two float ups have gone before the Planning Commission this year, and another will be presented next week.

The council member also said the City could say that it is “holding off on DAs,” a term that made City Attorney Marsha Moutrie uneasy.

“If you start to do what looks like a de facto moratorium, you’re going to run into the law on moratoria,” said Moutrie.

Moutrie added that the council could stop the float-up process, since the process is a council policy and it is not addressed in the municipal code.

“A developer who wants a development agreement with the City has a legal right to file an application," Moutrie said. "As to whether the City had to respond to the application within a certain amount of time… there’s probably an implied obligation to do something within a reasonable time.”

Council members asked Moutrie and Eileen Fogarty, director of the Planning and Community Development Department, to return with further information on the legal and policy issues regarding development agreements during the LUCE process.

No other council members spoke on the topic. At last week’s Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners Jay Johnson and Ted Winterer made comments similar to McKeown's.

McKeown’s comments came during a meeting in which the council received a presentation on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE.

Council members asked some clarifying question regarding traffic, housing and development height issues, but they were limited in the comments they could make because of the legal constraints of the meeting’s focus.

Those wanting to comment on the draft EIR have until March 8 to submit them in writing. To view the LUCE and the draft EIR, go to www.shapethefuture2025.net.