ARB, from page 1 Board member wants ‘more unique characteristics’
Instead of denying a Main Street developer’s plans, a city commission may have inadvertently given him more leverage in his quest to gain approval for the plan.
The Architectural Review Board voted 4-0 on Monday to deny Howard Jacobs’ 133-unit housing and retail development on the north end of Main Street in the former Pioneer Boulangerie Bakery site.
But before the vote was taken, board member Roldopho Alvarez said he had to recuse himself because his view of the project had been tainted. He said a letter sent to him by Jacobs’ attorney, Chris Harding, was meant to intimidate him into approving the project.
However, because not all the seven board members were present, Alvarez decided to vote anyway so the board would have a quorum.
“It’s certainly one ground for appeal that the ARB exceeded its role,” Harding said. “(Alvarez’s) judgment was so clouded that he couldn’t vote, but then he did. We think it’s outrageous.”
Harding sent the letter to all of the board members, which states that he and Jacobs agree with city staff that the ARB is limited to only reviewing the project’s architectural design, appearance and landscaping.
The packet also gives background information on the project, which has been in the public approval process for almost three years.
“We were just being very careful given the fact of the history of the project,” Harding said. “We didn’t have very positive expectations about (Monday) night.
“We had an obligation to build a record in case things go awry.”
Jacobs’ intuition that he would not get an approval from the ARB was correct — it just wasn’t for the reason he thought.
Alvarez and board member Joan Charles voted to deny the project based on Harding’s letter, despite the fact that two city councilmen present urged them to ignore the letter and vote on project’s design.
“Slapping on facades and calling it arbitrary doesn’t work,”
“I really don’t think the architect and the developer got the DNA of the street.” — he said. — RICK ABELSON Architecture Review Board
“I really don’t think the architect and the developer got the DNA of the street.”
Board members Sergio Zeballos and Rick Abelson voted on the merits of the project’s architecture.
But Abelson’s reasons for denying the project also were problematic for Jacobs.
Because the building will take up an entire city block, the council and the plan-ning commission, during the review process, asked Jacobs to make the building appear as if it was several with different storefronts.
“It should look like a lot of buildings built at different times and with different styles,” Jacobs said.
But apparently that’s not what the ARB wanted.
Abelson questioned Jacobs on what his vision of Main Street should look like, then said Jacobs’ architectural design was “naively” done.
Abelson added that Main Street should have more unique characteristics — like the sculpture of a clown wearing a skirt hoisted above a building at the corner Rose Avenue and Main Street in Venice.
“Yeah, a transvestite clown, that’s exactly what Santa Monica does not need,” Harding said. “Their direction was so fundamental, they wanted him to start all over again and we can’t do that.”
After nearly three years, a pending lawsuit against the city and countless hours of review, Jacobs was told in February by the Santa Monica City Council that he could build his development.
But the project still has to pass through the ARB, which determines the development’s overall conformity with the neighborhood — the controversial reason given by the planning commission when it denied the project Dec. 5.
The project still has to be reviewed and approved by the state coastal commission.
The development includes three-and four-story buildings on the west and east sides of Main Street just south of Pico Boulevard. The larger building will occupy the former Pioneer Boulangerie Bakery site.
The project will now go back to the planning commission for another review.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 22, 2002. Read the original PDF.