Target Decision Delayed as Speakers Weigh in on the Proposed Downtown Project

Jorge Casuso

After a year of community meetings and informal debate, the proposal to build a Target department store in the heart of downtown got its first official hearing Wednesday night.

After listening to nearly 50 speakers tout the project as a much-needed affordable shopping venue or denounce it as a catalyst for further gridlock and parking woes, the commission adjourned. Deliberations will begin on Monday, October 30.

If there was no discussion among the slow-growth commission members, their questions to the applicant, staff and speakers indicated that there was plenty of concern about the three-story store with 572 underground parking spaces slated to go up on the corner of Fifth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard.

The concerns ranged from traffic problems to a different tenant occupying the 162,000-square-foot site, with some commissioners questioning the applicant's position on unions, an issue not normally factored into a development permit.

"We're not approving this particular retailer," Commission chair Kelly Olsen told a packed chamber of residents wearing "Yes Target" and "Off Target" buttons.

But the caution that another tenant could occupy the site failed to deter supporters from singing the praises of a department store they said would fill the gap left by the demise of Woolworths, Hensheys and JC Penney.

"Target is an affordable store," said Morris Levin, who noted he had bought clothes and bicycles for his children years ago at a Target store in Minnesota. "I think you should find a way to allow this store so that there is something affordable for the common folk."

"We need to do everything we can to stop the upscale trend," said peace activist Jerry Rubin, a City Council candidate. "I say we work with Target and do everything we can. Our seniors want that (Target). They need that. It's exactly what we need."

Opponents countered that the store, although badly needed, would be a prime destination for shoppers who would clog the already congested downtown streets with vehicles and worsen an already critical parking shortage.

"We should be concerned about the loss of affordable retail, but this Target store is a cure that's worse than the disease," said former Mayor Dennis Zane. "It's a horrendous idea.

"Target will grind our downtown to a halt, and no amount of tweaking or traffic signals will alter that fact," Zane said. "I think that this is a bad idea. This store will come with very intensive traffic."

"I think this is a terrible location for this type of retail use," said Jessica Fraser. "It would add a horrendous amount of traffic to an already impacted area."

Fraser called the assumption that 40 percent of the visitors would arrive by foot, bicycle or pubic transportation and not in cars "ludicrous." The estimate by traffic engineers was accepted by both Target officials and City staff.

City staff, however, recommended that the Planning Commission deny approval of a development permit, arguing that the proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding area and would add to the growing gridlock and parking crunch.

"The placement of this project, an 'anchor' store that will be a destination use, is not compatible with the adjacent land uses and is not conducive to the viability of the downtown," according to the staff report. " Staff believes that due to its size and single tenant retail use, the proposed project is not compatible with the smaller retail, restaurant, office and residential uses that exist in the area and will likely develop in this area of the downtown.

Supporters of the project said they were taken aback by the contention. After all, the site was the location of the old Henshey's department store demolished after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. They also noted that the current zoning code permits the proposed size and use.

"It's been 12 years and we've listened very hard to the community and they told us they wanted affordable shopping," said Bill Spurgin, who represents the Henshey Company, which owns the land.

Spurgin tried to allay fears that a different retailer could occupy the site after the Target project is approved.

"We have a contract with Target," Spurgin told the commission. "We're not just generically saying that this is a retail project. We're supporting a Target store and that's our intent." Spurgin added that he believes that "Target has not leased or sold any of its stores."

Spurgin said it was not fair to expect Target, which has offered to help pay for circulation measures such as computerized traffic signals, to "take care of all traffic problems."

"Traffic is everybody's problem," Spurgin said. "If we all work together, we will not clog our streets."

Wednesday night's hearing brought out residents who had never stepped into the council chambers, as well as two former planning commissioners, Eric Parlee and Frank Gruber, who made their first appearance since leaving the powerful commission.

But if speakers ranged from regulars to new comers, nearly half of those who showed up for the meeting were turned away from the packed chamber. With no seating provided downstairs, some 100 Target supporters, including many elderly residents and Latino families, left before they could testify.

The continuation of the meeting drags on an already lengthy process that spurred threats of a lawsuit by the Henshey Company. The project will not be heard by the City Council until after the election, and the council incumbents are not allowed to take a public position on a pending project.

As a result, what is one of the most significant and controversial developments has not become a key issue in the Nov. 7 elections.