See the Maps: Bike Paths, Building Heights, Parks in Latest Bergamot Plan

City releases completed draft of the Bergamot Area Plan, a long-term guide to development near the arts center.

The city has completed a draft of a "visionary" planning document to guide development of the Bergamot Station Arts Center area with the arrival of the Expo Light Rail.

Near Santa Monica's Mid-City and Pico Neighborhoods, the area encompasses 140 acres on both sides of Olympic Boulevard on the northeastern edge of the city.

It is expected to be transformed into a walkable neighborhood with lots of apartments, creative offices, restaurants and shops when the Expo line is operational in 2016. A station at Olympic and 26th Street in the Bergamot area will be one of three light rail stops in Santa Monica.

The newly-completed Bergamot Plan—which is still awaiting City Council approval—will be accessible by foot, bike, bus and train, but lesser so by car.

The maps above this article show provide a glimpse at some of the most important components of the plan, including proposed building heights, bike paths and facilities, park and open space locations, and fiber optic infrastructure.

The entire plan can be viewed here or downloaded as a PDF here.

Stay connected with Santa Monica Patch throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter for email updates.

Gary Kavanagh February 19, 2013 at 03:03 PM
Mara, You mentioned you might consider biking if there were better paths, which I am assuming you mean greater separation from traffic. The reason the way things are the way they are, is anytime investments are proposed that go beyond token gestures for bicyclists is because motivated motoring advocates (which includes a number of residents, despite the fact more then 60% of our households own bikes) and interest groups go into full on foaming mouth attack to ask for even a tiny fraction of resources. I fought like hell and rallied others, just to get the city to start doing some bike lanes with a little more than the 5 ft. absolute minimum the state requires. So folks can have at least a little breathing room from reckless drivers who swing doors into people's path (which is illegal), and the passing of other vehicles. You'll notice my persistence in any of the new bike lanes with a little extra buffer space. If we say bicycling will never work based on facilities that most people fear to ride in, we are creating an impossible catch 22. The fact of the matter is many car trips are under 5 miles, under 2 miles, and even under 1 mile in some cases, these are distances in which the physical effort to ride a bike is a breeze even carrying loads, and quite often faster than door to door travel time for a car because parking is easier. Will a bike work for everything? No, & that's not the point. It's about enabling the most efficient tool for the job given a context.
Mara T February 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM
The end result for us all should be a functioning city, with accessible areas for our daily needs. If I don't walk (Gary K) should I pay taxes for improving sidewalks and lighting? We residents are all in the city together~ if I don't have a car I walk/bike/bus... and gain from those improvements. If I drive and can't or won't consider walking/biking or going by bus.. I will gain from the garages. There are so many variables. Just how many jobs are there here... and how many are commuting in to fill them? Would they choose to live here if they could? Have there been any quantified studies on this? Are there plans for student housing near our college? If not, why not? Are there dedicated one way streets that also provide two way bike lanes? What about 10th being north bound and 11th being south bound... with a whole lane with a dirt bike/walk path?
Gary Kavanagh February 20, 2013 at 02:06 AM
What I was referring to was not taxes, but the private subsidies, which are in some cases compelled by government mandates. The economic effects that things like parking minimum zoning has on the prices of rent (in Portland new apartments in some buildings that took advantage of being allowed to build a lot less or no parking, were as much as $600 cheaper a month than new apartments built to ratios formally required under zoning), and other basic goods and services. Driving is double subsidized, privately and publicly, in a web of financing that is not immediately obvious and thus acts to both obscure what the real costs of driving are, and systematically disadvantage people with out cars, who can't drive or choose not to drive (or drive but want to drive less). The number of US residents who do not drive for one reason or another, age, economic necessity, disability or choose not to, is estimated around 100 million people, equivalent to nearly the entire population of Mexico. There are more non-drivers in the US then the entire populations of most world nations. I'm tired of seeing this population systematically disadvantaged in the pursuit of flawed policies to benefit drivers (but which actually also undermine driving by inducing more trips making things worse all around).
Gary Kavanagh February 20, 2013 at 02:34 AM
On the subject of taxes, comparisons of driving to walking & public sidewalks is so often brought up, but that obscures enormous differences. For the cost of our adding 10 miles of 1 additional lane on the 405, we could repair nearly all the broken & non ADA compliant sidewalks all across the entirety of Los Angeles. 10 miles for drivers that will in all likelihood accomplish almost nothing (lane additions are diminishing returns), is treated as more important than improving the quality of walking for everyone in LA. People who walk or take transit do not require a $25,000-$50,000 real estate investment to be made to store their private property temporarily on arrival, and the cost of bike racks and their limited foot print is pretty negligible by comparison to parking a car. And typically when designing buildings around parking and drivers needs first, it diminishes the quality of other travel modes by introducing curb cuts and irregular traffic flows that create new potential conflict points for walking and biking. Cars also continuously destroying public infrastructure even when they are sitting doing nothing. I see this in the tire depressions that build up on streets where bike lanes are adjacent curb parking all the time. People whine about parking rates, but they are creating their own costs. Bicyclists & walkers however do not destroy infrastructure any faster than natural erosion. The list of differences in comparative costs goes on and on.
Mara T February 20, 2013 at 06:14 PM
It is apparent that the residents of Santa Monica are not being heard. There is already rent control here, therefore caps on allowable rent exist. It sounds to me that the argument for allowing building without parking is to line the developer's pockets, not aid our citizens. What about our, the citizens, concern about the height of proposed buildings? What about all new developments required to contribute to strategic parking areas throughout the city if they don't provide parking at their own development?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »