Main Street Housing Project Gets Go-ahead; Appeal Likely

By Mark McGuigan

June 17 -- The third time 'round proved the charm when the Architectural Review Board Monday night approved a 44-unit low-income housing project on Main Street that pitted neighbors and affordable housing advocates against each other.

But the battle may not be over. Opponents -- who fear the three and four-story development with 113 bedrooms and 82 subterranean parking spaces is too massive and will decrease property values -- vowed to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.

While most of the ARB members, as well as the 14 speakers, acknowledged that changes made over the past two months improved the design, the Community Corporation project continued to draw both plaudits and criticism in almost equal measure, with the notion of a community divided pervading throughout the evening.

“It has been a very divisive project,” said area resident Mario Bernardi. “It has really pushed a lot of issues and divided a lot of neighbors. I think it’s time to put down those hatchets, and you (the ARB) could be part of the healing process by bringing this community back together.”

Once again, the design issues seemed to take a back seat to the impacts the 27,046-square-foot development would have on the neighborhood, with opponents decrying its density and lack of retail space on Main Street, an issue that had hampered past attempts to secure ARB approval.

“CCSM (Community Corporation) has finally shown some ground floor retail along Main Street,” said Jeff Weinstein, a local resident and leading opponent of the project. “However, they have not added any square footage, just made the retail space more narrow.”

In a speech that grew increasingly impassioned, Weinstein questioned why a 44-unit, low-income building on the corner of Main and Pacific streets contained a single elevator and retail units without bathrooms.

“I don’t believe the current configuration of retail space will work well for customers or for the tenants,” said Weinstein, an architect and developer. “There are no bathrooms, so it will be difficult to lease.

“But I also believe CCSM doesn’t care. It’s simply a way that they can get the project approved by the ARB. The fact is CCSM has lied to the entire community for the last two years telling us that ground floor retail could not be done.

“I speak for the larger community when I say we’re sick and tired of being lied to by CCSM,” he told board members.

Former Mayor Jim Conn, a proponent of the project, played on comments made by members of the board the last time the planned development went before the ARB on May 20.

“I know you (the ARB) were looking for the soul of this building, and I hope you find that soul tonight,” he said of the latest incarnation of the proposal.

Drawing on the consensus of residents from his own building, Conn went on to describe how they felt about the project across the street.

“There are 26 units in my building. Nine people are for this and eight people are against it. One of those has moved and one is in jail and six people have no opinion whatsoever,” he told board members, a comment that stirred a ripple of laughter throughout the chamber.

“The plurality of the people who are going to be affected most, the people whose wind, air and light are going to be affected by this building, are supporting this and I hope you do too,” he concluded.

As the arguments ebbed and flowed, several themes once more dominated the proceedings. The height of the proposed structure, parking considerations and the density of the building’s population were all cited as issues of concern to the community.

Board member Iris Oliveras questioned the location of the building’s walkway that had originally been to the rear of the building but remained on the upper floors to the Main Street side.

Architect Joseph Coriaty defended the decision. “We decided to put them on the front to further articulate the façade, give the building mass and just to create some visual interest,” Coriaty explained. “We would use the term ‘collage.’”

But Oliveras, who cast the dissenting vote, felt the configuration would discourage tenants from opening their doors and windows to ocean breezes.

“It’s unfortunate that the architect changed the design from the original and moved the walkway to the front. The board didn’t request that,” said Oliveras, who is an owner of surfsantamonica.com. “As a result of security and privacy concerns, the occupants of those units are not going to be able to leave those doors open.”

But once again it was the question of retail space that dogged the close of proceedings. The staff report noted that “affordable housing projects are specifically exempt from requirements to provide commercial uses on the ground floor street frontage” and that “the applicant has voluntarily increased commercial frontage.”

Board member Oliveras asked for clarification on the depth of the units, front to back, currently allotted for commercial use.

“Sixteen feet and twenty feet,” replied Coriaty.

And the lack of bathrooms? Oliveras asked.

“The plumbing utilities would be there and its not that atypical that those are put in once the retail tenant approval work is done,” Coriaty said.

In the end, the debate among board members was reduced to nothing more than minor clarifications on terminology, landscape alterations, and paint colors -- no architectural modifications were requested.

In fact, the staff report warned that “the Board cannot require modifications to the building design that will negate the fundamental development criteria established by the Administrative Approval (e.g. overall height, number of stories, density).”

“I think the project has come a long way, in light of the fact that we aren’t in control of a lot of issues,” said ARB member Bill Adams, who read the admonition.

“In terms of height,” Adams said, “I think that the architects have sort of juggled height around as much as they possibly can to cope with that issue and set it back in a way so that it does perhaps the most minimal amount of damage to the neighborhood.”

In the corridors of City Hall, Coriaty said his firm was “thrilled” by the decision but understood that there was still a ways to go.

Standing not far away, residents were already discussing an appeal.

“The reason I’d be appealing would be due to the density,” said Jeff Weinstein afterwards. “It’s just a lot of people in a very small space.”