Development concerns run deep in the community. The community reception regarding the Hines proposal for the Papermate site, part of the planned Bergamot Transit Village Center, has been almost entirely critical thus far. With this development, like most developments that experience opposition in the community, traffic impact is a big concern.

In theory, this project should not produce the same kind of traffic as ones of similar scale in years past or at other locations. The mixed uses should make for convenient walking trips, and this development, along with others proposed in the area, would ostensibly be built to take advantage of the coming Expo Line and adjacent bike path, to mitigate some of the traffic impact they might otherwise produce.

There are some folks who are opposed to development altogether and would likely be unsatisfied with any new proposal in Santa Monica. I don't think that is reasonable or sustainable—that is, if you look at sustainability from a big-picture view. If cities that are already built were to completely freeze their development, that would not really stop development. It would simply push even more development into the suburban and exurban fringe, where gross inefficiencies of land use and transportation create households and businesses that are voracious energy consumers.

While I support the idea of developing along transit corridors, I have some doubts about how truly transit- and sustainability-oriented the Hines project would be at this point. As currently proposed, the 1,900 parking spaces—more spaces than Santa Monica Place—calls into question how we intend to not produce more net p.m. car trips. Stopping growth in p.m. rush-hour car trips is one of the pinnacle goals in our new planning document, the LUCE. We simply cannot address traffic issues without a hard look at parking policy and quantity.

Who is going to pay for the parking is an important question. If it is to be bundled into the cost for all tenants, as it is in many developments, we are in fact creating a strong financial incentive to own a car and drive. Those who are willing to live car-free or simply cannot afford to drive are, in many cases, helping to subsidize the cost of driving for others. If the goal is to reduce car trips, our priorities are quite backward in having those who live without a car often shoulder the burden of the significant parking costs imposed by drivers.

So how much money in parking costs are we talking about? Donald Shoup, author of the book The High Cost of Free Parking, has put forth figures stating that underground parking spaces cost at least $50,000 apiece. Using that metric, the Hines project proposes to build at least $95 million worth of parking spaces. That is just construction costs; it doesn't include the monthly and long-term costs of maintaining such garages. For a developer to get back their parking investment, if the parking costs are not recovered in fees on drivers, it would come out of higher rents or sale prices for all the tenants. Thus we have the dilemma of high-parking requirements that drive up the cost of living even for people who don't own a car.

As the city continues to develop around what will become our new major transit corridor, there are several important issues that must be addressed to ensure we are in fact building transit-oriented development and not simply transit-adjacent development. Many of these issues and concerns are in fact reflected in staff recommendations to the developer, discussed in the staff report to the planning commission. However, it is important that members of the community, and our elected and appointed officials, continue to stress these concerns.

We must put the pedestrian experience first, and ensure it is both comfortable to walk and that there are real destinations of various kinds within walking distance. Bicycling for transportation is a growing trend in the city and is well-suited to the climate, terrain and distances within Santa Monica. New development should be built to anticipate continued growth in bike ridership. This means offering secure long-term bike parking for tenants, as well as bike racks at and around ground-level retail for short-term parking needs. How new developments will integrate with our bike-route network must be considered. Parking-garage capacity should be scaled back from old formulas, and pricing should be decoupled from living costs. Such pricing will help ensure we actually meet transportation management goals and that we do not price out those who are most likely to be regular transit users: those living car-free.

As one of the creative professional types already working in the area, I, for one, would certainly consider moving into the Bergamot Transit Village it if it were affordable to do so. Then I could walk a block and half to work instead of biking cross-town. The moment the Expo Line rolls into town, I plan to get a lot of use out of it, as do many others I know. The millennial generation is over the idea of rushing into single-family home-ownership, and blowing all of our money on car payments and insurance. We want compact places to walk and bike to, and we want them to have real social spaces. We want to ride the train across town and fiddle with our smart phones, or work on our laptops, instead of hunching over a dashboard aggravated on the 10 freeway.

I'm very excited by the opportunity we have in developing around Bergamot and the Expo Line. Though I have my concerns, ultimately I want to see the Transit Village built. In all likelihood, it's going to be built. It comes down to whether we end up with a shining example of transit-oriented development done right or just a bunch of big buildings near a light-rail station. I strongly hope for the former.