Mall towers to go before City Council this month
CITY HALL — The debate continues to rage over plans to build five high-rise towers in downtown Santa Monica.
Members of City Hall’s Planning Commission, which makes recommendations to the City Council, agreed early Thursday that the proposal to redevelop Santa Monica Place mall should be tabled for at least two years. If not, it should be drastically scaled back.
“I just cannot see that this process is anything other than upside down, or backwards, or something,” said Planning Commission Chairwoman Barbara Brown at the commission’s Wednesday meeting. “I don’t know how anybody involved with proceeding with this negotiation can look at people in the eye.”
If the City Council agrees to stall the project when it considers it later this month, developers have said they would abandon their plans for the 10-acre site, which include demolishing the existing mall and erecting three 21-story residential towers, an eight-story office building and an eight-story apartment building. Those buildings would surround a new outdoor mall, which developers described as a natural extension of the Third Street Promenade.
CONTROVERSY INCHES FORWARD The height of the high-rise buildings has been an ongoing source of controversy in the community since the plan was unveiled in November. Developers maintain that the tall, thin towers will complement the Santa Monica skyline by reaching the height of the tallest building in the city, the white high-rise building at 100 Wilshire Blvd. Opponents claim the proposed towers are too tall and will clog downtown streets with traffic.
Former City Councilman Mike Feinstein urged the Planning Commission to keep an open mind about the proposal, which is still in the preliminary phase and will be discussed in many community meetings. The project also is expected to be modified.
“I think that we have a historic opportunity to really bring together the obvious areas in the downtown, and I’m here to encourage the entire community not to fumble away this opportunity out of unnecessary fear and paranoia,” said Feinstein, the only public speaker who backed the plans. “Anybody who does development in this city knows if you ask for exactly what you want for in the beginning, you’re not going to get close to what you want. You have to ask for more, because you’re going to get the you-know-what beat out of you while you go through this process. So they start high, literally and metaphorically.
“The fear that we have in this city is unfounded, because these people can’t do anything. It’s all in control of the city. It’s only what the city’s going to want,” Feinstein continued. “If we cut it off now, we could lose 30 or 40 years and never have somebody come along again, and I think we’ll just be hurting ourselves unnecessarily.”
When the City Council takes up the matter later this month, it will decide whether mall officials should be allowed to work with City Hall under what’s called a development agreement, where developers can skirt city codes if there’s a return benefit to the community. With this project, developers argue the opportunity for an outdoor mall to tie together the Promenade, Santa Monica Pier, Civic Center and Main Street should not be overlooked.
In addition to the residential, office and retail space, the plans also call for two acres of park space open to the public to be located on top of the retail buildings, overlooking the ocean. Randy Brant of the Macerich Co., which owns the mall property, said Santa Monica’s best interests were in mind.
“Macerich’s corporate offices are in Santa Monica,” he said. “A lot of us live here in Santa Monica. We think we have a pretty good understanding what Santa Monica’s all about.”
After a lengthy discussion, the commission voted 4-2 to recommend the city not enter into a development agreement until an update to the city’s aging development guidelines is complete. That process is currently underway and is expected to take two and a half years to complete.
ALL DEVELOPMENT BUILT EQUAL? If the City Council decides to proceed with the development agreement, the Planning Commission recommended the project be held to the same standards as other developments in Santa Monica. The city’s general plan calls for a maximum height of six stories at the mall property, said Amanda Schachter, a planning manager. Brant said he didn’t want to discuss the hot-button issue of height at the meeting, which lasted well into the early hours of Thursday.
“I don’t want to get into the height,” he said, after delivering a 15-minute presentation. “We’ve all seen the height, but there’s some height we need to facilitate here to support the 450 units, if we still want to have the park on this site.”
The residential aspect of the plan is a crucial component of making the project economically feasible, Brant added.
“I can say that the residential, the value created by the residential is an important economic engine for the rest of this project,” he said. “In our opinion, and I know we incited a lot of emotion, but, in our opinion, taller, thinner buildings are more attractive than shorter, squattier ones.”
If the council chooses to stall the project, mall officials have said they might undertake a less drastic remake of the aging 1980 mall, which was designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry. Previously discussed plans have included taking the roof off of Santa Monica Place and putting the parking decks underground. That plan wouldn’t include the high-rise towers, and also wouldn’t include a public park.
COMMUNITY CONCERN A total of six residents spoke on the issue before the Planning Commission, with all but Feinstein criticizing the project. Some complained the high-rise towers would clutter the skyline and create too much traffic. Others criticized the way Macerich unveiled the plans. They say the public ought to have been invited to give input earlier. Still others said the project had too many negatives. They pointed to, among other things, the city’s obligation to rebuild its 2,000 parking spaces on the site, at a cost of up to $100 million.
“What it appears to me is that when you look at the cost benefits to the community, they’re all overwhelmingly in the costs column,” said former school board president and City Council candidate Patricia Hoffman, who also is a member of the nonprofit organization that manages downtown. “I think that, right now, just saying ‘no’ is the right answer, and that later on Macerich can come back with a more community-friendly project that you might like better.”
Added Ocean Park resident Jacob Samuels, an artist: “I realize that the Macerich company wants to capitalize on their investment, but to even propose a 21-story tower and think that they can cut it down to 15 or 10, this is so out of character with downtown. Plus, the precedent that it sets for Santa Monica, it’s like becoming the Miami-ization of Santa Monica — these huge towers, this pittance of a park.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 7, 2005. Read the original PDF.