But it’ll have to do
A proposed Main Street development is not “world class,” but it may be close with a bit more tweaking, city officials determined early Thursday morning.
Despite their hesitancy to approve the project, the threat of a multi-million lawsuit looming over their heads may have been enough for the city’s planning commissioners to vote 5 to 2 to conceptually approve the 133-unit housing and retail development on the north end of Main Street.
“It’s not a world class building and it could have been,” said commissioner Arlene Hopkins. “But we do the best we can.”
The 170,000-square-foot development that consists of two buildings, one of which takes up an entire city block on the west side of Main Street — where the former Pioneer Boulangerie Bakery used to be — has been in the review process for more than three years. The buildings, on both sides of the street, will consist of retail stores on the ground floor and rental apartments above.
The developer, Howard Jacobs, filed a lawsuit against the city in 2001 claiming it has cost him millions of dollars because the city dragged its feet in completing the environmental impact review of the project. The report was completed late last year, several months after the supposed deadline.
Jacobs claims that the delay has cost him between $2.5 and $3 million because he is sitting on land that he has to pay for and the city is delaying his right to get a return on his investment. Jacobs said he pays $115,000 a month for the mortgage, insurance and maintenance of the property.
The basis of that claim went unnoticed by at least one commissioner, who feels the drawn-out approval process is a symptom of a larger problem.
“I think if Mr. Jacobs had not approached this as a legal problem but started working with the economics and design, then I think things would have gone ahead faster and smoother and less acrimoniously,” Hopkins said. “I think the fact that litigation is involved is so sad and it’s a waste of time and energy and money... and the design is almost the last issue.
“I would urge you in the future to build your bridges and try to avoid becoming so litigious,” she added.
“I would urge you in the future to build your bridges and try to avoid becoming so litigious.” — — ARLENE HOPKINS Planning commissioner
Jacobs on Wednesday was before the planning commission for the second time after a series of public reviews bounced the project back and forth in the bureaucracy of City Hall. The project was unanimously rejected by the planning commission in December. Jacobs appealed to the city council, which unanimously approved it in February after Jacobs made substantial changes. But the architectural review board voted it down, despite that Jacobs made changes based on recommendations by council and city officials.
As a matter of process, Jacobs had to appeal the decision to the planning commission.
And as a matter of law, the planning commission was limited to only reviewing the project’s architectural design this time because it was acting as the ARB, deputy city attorney Barry Rosenbaum warned the board. He also made them aware of the pending lawsuit before they began the review.
“There is little question that this litigation will move forward,” he said. “However, it shouldn’t affect your decision.”
While some of the commissioners said the lawsuit had no bearing on their decision, they frequently discussed it during their deliberations, which ended about 1 a.m. after four hours of review.
The commission wanted to send the project back for yet another redesign, but after Jacobs requested that it be approved conceptually, the majority of the board reluctantly agreed to sign off on it — with more changes. Jacobs is scheduled to return before the commission on Sept. 18 with the modifications board members asked for.
The commissioners requested that Jacobs redesign the facades to make them better stand out as separate buildings. They also want the craftsman architecture to be more prominent on three sides of the buildings; fix the elevations on the street level at certain corners; and provide more details to the buildings’ material finishes. Lastly, Jacobs will landscape the buildings and surrounding area to capture the unique location of Santa Monica to reflect beach life.
Planning commissioners Kelly Olsen and Geraldine Moyle voted against approving the project. Despite warnings and looks of horror coming from attorney Rosenbaum, Moyle said she won’t support the project based on past issues that are no longer legally part of the scope of review.
“I cannot in good conscience approve the design in front of us because the design is fundamentally based upon a really lousy traffic analysis,” Moyle said, adding the area, once known as “Dogtown” and an eclectic neighborhood, “is dead” because the development will ruin it.
The dividing factor for the politicians who reviewed the project is whether or not the massive buildings should have several different facades to appear as if they are separate storefronts or keep them as large structures with passageways. The council wanted different facades so Jacobs’ design team created about a half dozen different architectural styles for the buildings.
But as commissioner Barbara Brown pointed out, no matter how many times the project is scrutinized not everyone will agree on its architecture and design.
“It’s all subjective, and we can discuss it until the cows come home, but we aren’t going to agree,” she said, adding that she likes the design and the development will revitalize the north end of Main Street, which is mostly run-down.
“It’s all subjective, and we can discuss it until the cows come home, but we aren’t going to agree.” — — BARBARA BROWN Planning commissioner
Gary Gordon, president of the Main Street Merchants Association, agrees that the area is deteriorated and needs an economic boost.
He also refuted claims by area residents and some politicians that the development will ruin the character of Main Street. Gordon reminded commissioners that the entire length of Main Street has an eclectic mix of architecture, starting with the Shatzi building on the south end and Edgemar further to the north.
“All of these things create the ambiance of Main Street,” he said. “It’s a jumble. The cities we love are jumbles. New York, Boston, San Francisco.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 23, 2002. Read the original PDF.