Bubba Gump Building Clears First Hurdle

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

June 22 -- In the end, the only objection the Planning Commission had last week before approving the new 9,000-square foot Bubba Gump family restaurant that will replace the landmark Boathouse on the Pier was not design, or shrimp, but alcohol.

With Wednesday’s near unanimous approval of the design, which one commissioner “loved” and another called “bland,” the 3-story building offering two levels of outdoor dinning with a seaside view, and drinks, should be built within a year.

Before it can go up, the Landmarks Commission must approve the design of the new structure and the demolition of the weathered, old, wooden 7,000 square foot Boathouse, which has been a staple of the pier for more than half a century.

Towering at 40 feet in height from beach-level, the Paramount-owned restaurant named after the popular academy award winning movie “Forrest Gump,” which specializes in “shremp,” will be the 12th and, at over $4 million, most expensive of the chain’s United States-based operations.

“I really like it all,” Commission Arlene Hopkins told the architect, Howard Laks. “I love your design.”

Planning Chair Darrell Clarke, however, was not as impressed by the proposed building, which includes corrugated metal panels, painted metal veneer, ornamental lamps and blue canvas awnings. “I find the building a little bland, but it works,” he said.

Commissioner Jay P. Johnson objected to the “blankness” of the wall facing the bluffs, where he wanted more “pop.” He also wanted “more of a statement” from handicap accessible elevator entrance at beach level.

Still, the only dispute was over how much alcohol the family restaurant, which has been four years in the planning, should be allowed to serve.

At commissioner Kelly Olsen’s request, the default cap of 35 percent was reduced to 25 percent after learning from the applicant that alcohol accounts for 12 to 13 percent of all sales on average throughout their chains.

But Gordon Miles, the chairman of the company’s board, and Scott Barnett, the company’s president and CEO, objected.

“We’re paid to avoid economic risk,” said Miles, and “to avoid that economic risk we’re going to want as much latitude as we can get in the future. We are convinced that it is going to be a family restaurant… We just don’t know what the character and make up of the restaurant is going to be.”

Miles added that the company “tailors” their service to the needs of the area the restaurant operates in, and without knowing exactly what Santa Monicans will want, the cap limits their ability to meet supply with demand.

With a 25-year-lease commitment, Miles added, “We don’t think (a 25 percent cap) is an appropriate economic risk.”

Commissioner Julie Lopez Dad found the applicants’ “reservation” on cutting down the cap to 25 percent suspicious.

“You don’t seem as convinced as I was that long term it’s going to be what is being presented to us,” a family restaurant, she said.

Commissioner Olsen agreed. “What we constantly hear is, ‘I only need this. I am this animal here, but I want the option to change my spots and become this animal over here, even though I have no history of doing that.’”

Olsen said that regardless of the cap, since the alcohol permit allows the sale of drinks only to customers who have “intent” to purchase food, even if there are customers who “want to come in and watch the sunset and have a drink…that won’t be possible.”

Barnett pointed out that the company conceded to closing the restaurant by midnight and “if you can’t stay open past midnight, you’re not a viable bar operation.”

Olsen questioned what the applicant’s fear was and noted that they could always come back and ask the commission to raise the cap if circumstances warranted.

Miles responded that he “wouldn’t characterize it as fear. We don’t fear any planning commission.” It’s just that “our crystal ball is no clearer than anyone else’s.”

Commissioner Geraldine Moyle concurred with her colleagues. “If (the 25 percent cap) increases the number of designated drivers, that’s for all of our benefit.”

With Commissioner Barbara Brown as the lone dissenter, because she didn’t think the 25 percent cap was necessary, the commission approved the project 6 to 1.

The applicants were happy and said, in the future, they “hope to be selling a lot of shrimp.”