Developers Battle Over Differing Points of View

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

October 19 -- Mall giant Macerich and the owners of a Downtown Travelodge have opposing points of view about each other’s redevelopment plans, revealing a seldom-seen sight in Santa Monica – property owners actively working to block key features of each other’s projects.

The escalating battle was played out before the Planning Commission earlier this month, as both property owners busily prepped their projects for City approval, an often-arduous process that can draw out for months and even years.

In a city that normally sees builders and residents pitted against each other, the sight of two developers offering biting critiques of the other’s project is raising eyebrows.

“This is the first time that I’ve opposed a project in 25 years,” said Chris Harding, a local land use attorney who is representing the Travelodge.

Now he and his law firm are working publicly against Macerich, as the owners of Santa Monica Place look to revitalize the struggling indoor mall Downtown by removing its roof and connecting it to the thriving Third Street Promenade.

The move comes after Macerich wrote a letter to City officials last December opposing plans by the Travelodge’s owners, the Farzam family, to increase the total number of units at their motel on Ocean View Avenue, widely considered one of the few moderately priced hotels in the high-priced Downtown.

Macerich, which has grand plans for a third-level food court with sweeping ocean views, fears that Travelodge’s proposal to stack more stories at their site by raising the motel’s height to 45 feet will leave diners staring at a façade.

“This is to notify (the City) that we strongly object to the change to the City’s Land Use Plan requested by (the Farzams),” Macerich Senior Vice President and General Counsel Stephen L. Spector wrote in a letter to a Santa Monica associate planner and copied to top City officials.

The variance that would allow the Farzams to build up to 45 feet “would detrimentally impact the current and future use of the shopping center,” Spector wrote

The Farzam family saw the letter as a direct attack on their expansion and began shooting back.

“For whatever reason, (Macerich) wants to crush our project,” Harding told The Lookout. “My clients are a family owned business. They’ve been successful, yes, but this is a bit like David fending off Goliath.”

But Macerich’s Senior Vice President Randy Brant insists his company is not the one initiating the battle.

“We plan to protect our view corridors,” he said. “The public has told us how important that view is. I support the Travel Lodge, but I also want to protect our views.”

Before opposing Macerich’s plans at the Planning Commission meeting October 4, Harding had told the Bayside Board of Directors, the non-profit agency that manages the Downtown, that Brant opposed “the Farzams’ proposed new Travelodge.”

He followed up his comments at the July 27 meeting with a letter dated August 14.

“Unlike Macerich, which previously proposed building a series of towers that would greatly exceed the City’s height limit, the Farzams have designed a project that satisfies the City’s height limit of forty-five feet as well as all other City development standards,” Harding wrote, referring to Macerich’s rejected plans to build three 21-story towers. (see story)

Harding then objected to Macerich’s plan to relocate the food court from the ground floor.

“We believe Macerich’s plan to relocate its food court to Santa Monica Place’s third floor is contrary to Macerich’s stated goal of better integrating Santa Monica Place with the Third Street Promenade and the rest of Downtown,” he wrote.

“Rather a third floor food court is more reflective of a traditional, self-contained enclosed shopping mall which typically ignores neighboring streets and businesses,” the letter continued. “In an urban, pedestrian-friendly environment, food uses belong at the street level – not on the third floor.”

Relocating a food court, which is currently at the entrance facing the Promenade, would also go against the City’s stated goal of keeping restaurants and food shops on the Promenade, Harding wrote.

Ten days later, Brant fired off his own letter to the Bayside.

“We’d like to point out that Macerich certainly does support the redevelopment of the Travelodge site, as we appreciated the City of Santa Monica’s need for affordable lodging," Brant wrote.

However, he continued, giving the necessary permits to Travelodge to build to 45 feet “would deprive the public of the opportunity to enjoy sweeping ocean views.

“Macerich encourages the Travelodge developer to work within the existing City regulations, rather than try to change the Land Use Plan for its benefit,” Brant wrote.

Macerich has conducted community outreach to nearly two dozen groups, and many support the idea of third-floor food court, Brant wrote. (see story)

“We’ve…received positive and supportive feedback from the community about creating an open air dining deck,” he wrote, calling it an affordable way to “experience the City’s prized light and coastal views on a daily basis.”

The bantering continued at the October 4 Planning Commission meeting, where Macerich gave an informal presentation about the general redevelopment plan for Santa Monica Place.

While Macerich officials said the court now acts as a “barrier” on the ground level, Harding suggested Macerich was not looking forward, but back, with this design.

“The center court being located in the middle is designed to suck people into the center, not reach out to the Promenade,” he said.

Brant said he has met during the past few weeks with the Farzam family to discuss the issue.

Now it’s up to the City whether they will see things from Macerich or the Travelodge owners’ point of view.