Questions on Traffic & Development
(from the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter questionnaire):

1. Proposed development in communities adjacent to Santa Monica impact our traffic, air quality, and Santa Monica airport traffic.   Two of these proposed projects are Playa Vista Phase II and the LAX expansion. What is your position on these developments?

I unconditionally oppose Playa Vista Phase and have done so for many years, back to when I was lucky enough to be present at the founding meeting of the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust in 1993 in Westchester.  I am proud to have been part of this movement for public purchase/ecological restoration all these years.

On LAX - as a Santa Monican, we need to ensure that no LAX plan pushes more traffic to SMO - Santa Monica airport. 

On a greater Los Angeles level, I support a regional airport plan. Instead of LAX expansion, we better distribute demand regionally to other airports and connect the system with better public transit.  I specifically support bringing light rail line all the way into LAX.

2. Santa Monica is one of the most densely populated cities in Los Angeles County.  Over-development continues to add traffic and congestion on our streets.  Do you have any specific plans which address the issues of cars, pedestrians, bicycles, and public transit?   Do you think there should be a moratorium on commercial development?

I support land use strategies that increase the likelihood that people will work close to where they live and live close to where they work, utilizing as much public transit, walking and biking as possible.

The tools for this include jobs/housing balance, affordable housing, neighborhood community-serving retail, live/work space, mixed-use development, light rail, shuttles, bike lanes.

I don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all moratorium on *all* commerical development, because there are all kinds of small changes that should go on that are healthy and mostly incidental to the infrastructure questions you really raise.

The city's General Plan update is the place to resolve these questions for ourselves.  For example, we are going to have to think long and hard about what we do in the LMSD and M1 districts, because the Cloverfield corridor and Sunset Park are already really squeezed with L.A. traffic coming up from the other side.  The Council took this question seriously when it did not approve a project at Stewart and Colorado earlier this year.

3. We have been informed that Santa Monica is not in compliance with our own Master Plan in terms of open space/resident.  How do you propose to correct this?

I have been as aggressive as anyone to acquire more parks and open space.  I organized for the money in the 1997-1998 budget that added the Plastic Mart properties to the Virginia Ave. Park expansion.  I played an integral role in the Civic Center purchase, which creates a significant new open space between City Hall and the Pier, and I was the one who pushed to ensure a new field at 4th/Pico.

I am now pushing hard to acquire the Fisher Lumber property and intergrate it into Memorial Park.

Looking ahead, I believe the City and the School District should cooperate to move the District headquarters in to the Civic Center and then take down the district building (and adjoining buildings that they own) all the way to 17th - and then close 2/3 of 16th St. and add an additional field from the current Memorial Park to 17th St.  I also think the Verizon property along Exposition is worth acquiring.

I believe we need open and honest cooperation and coordination among the City, District and College on ballot strategies and land use, so that we are synergistic in the use of our dollars to acquire what we need to.

---