ARB Sends Affordable Housing Project Back for Redesign

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

April 8 -- Supporters and opponents of a proposed 44-unit affordable housing development on Main Street packed the Architectural Review Board meeting Monday night for the public’s first, and perhaps only, chance to influence the project two blocks from the beach.

Supporters contend that the four-story development on the corner of Pacific Street -- which is exempt from Planning Commission and City Council reviews by an ordinance to encourage affordable housing -- will give low-income families a chance to live in an increasingly upscale city.

Opponents, who outnumbered the supporters, argued that the project, which is comprised of five buildings surrounding a courtyard and will house roughly four residents per unit, was rubber-stamped and could destroy their neighborhood.

Sharing concerns that the 27,046-square-foot development was incompatible with the shops along Main Street and the surrounding residences, the board asked the developer, Community Corporation and Santa Monica, to come back with a design that better fits the context.

Board Vice-chair Joan Charles -- who replaced Chair Sergio Zeballos because he works for the architect -- said that the courtyard building doesn’t “relate to buildings in the neighborhood.

“It’s a little bit massive on the Main Street side,” Charles said after the meeting, adding that the building didn’t have “a strong enough pedestrian orientation” and was not “retail oriented,” like the other stores lining the street.

Board member Iris Oliveras agreed. “It did not fit contextually,” said Oliveras, who is a part owner of surfsantamonica.com. “It did not fit the architectural fabric of the street. It breaks the continuity of two-story shops along Main Street.”

Oliveras noted that a perspective drawing of the project made it appear to be the same height as the neighboring buildings. “The drawing was a misrepresentation,” Oliveras said. “They made a four-story building look like it was two, when in reality it was twice the size.”

The board asked the architect to make several design changes. They included reducing the 21-foot-wide pedestrian entrance (which board members said resembles a motel entrance), adding to the 1,486 square foot ground floor retail frontage (which has a community room and a laundry mat, but no stores) and stepping back the third floor façade. The board also suggested reconfiguring the building to eliminate the upper floor.

Monday night saw one of the largest crowds to attend an ARB meeting in recent memory, with members of the audience spilling into the hallway outside the council chambers.

In a letter to the ARB, Jessica K. Frazier, a Pacific Street resident, echoed the concern of many opponents of the project (which will include 82 subterranean parking spaces), describing it as “ugly, blocky, disjointed, and too dense.”

“The project's developer mischaracterized legitimate community concerns, and accused nearby homeowners and residents of motives they do not have,” Frazier wrote. “The ARB should resist being misled by (Community Corporation’s) attempt to slander those who voice an independent opinion about the project.”

Joan Ling, the executive director of the housing agency, which runs 2,000 units in 80 buildings in the city, said concerns that the project was “too tall, too big, too dense, (with) too much parking, (and) too many people,” is a misperception.

“They seem to think were going to cram nine people into a unit,” Ling said after the meeting. “We keep explaining to them we are expecting four persons per unit, half of them children. That’s our experience.

“It’s human nature to try to avoid change, particularly where people like it the way it is,” Ling added. “They don’t like change. Our job as a socially responsible agency is to make it a positive change, and preserve the economic diversity of the community.”

On Tuesday, Jeffrey Weinstein, a leading opponent of the project, sent a letter to ARB chair Zeballos questioning the participation in the meeting of board member Bill Adams, who has worked as an architect for Community Corporation.

“As a licensed architect, I believe it is entirely inappropriate and a conflict of interest should Mr. Adams continue to sit in judgement of a Client for whom he has provided professional services,” Weinstein wrote. “I also believe it behooves the ARB to avoid any appearance of impropriety.