A proposed hotel at 7th and Wilshire has been sent back for additional review with an expectation the project be approved or denied in the next six months.
At their Dec. 8 meeting, in a 4-2 vote, the City Council denied without prejudice an appeal by the developer that if upheld, would have allowed construction to move forward at the site of the Santa Monica Professional Building (710 Wilshire Blvd.). The council's decision returns the project to a specialized design review committee for additional work with the goal that problems be resolved within a six-month window.
The hotel was approved by development agreement March of 2012. The project includes incorporating a landmarked building into new construction for a 271 room, 15,210 sq. ft. hotel. Because the project would require additional certification by the Landmarks Commission and the Architectural Review Board, council established a Joint Decision Review Body (JDRB) composed of representatives from both Landmarks and ARB.
Eight design conditions for the hotel were also set forth in the development agreement, including a south elevation stair tower visual interest, south elevation green wall details, north elevation of southernmost wing to ensure same level of design detail as 7th Street elevation, east elevation to ensure same level of design detail as 7th street elevation, more prominent hotel entry, activate retail patio area with pedestrian-oriented amenities, ground floor open space that engages pedestrians and that courtyard-facing elevations have the same level of design detail as all other elevations.
The project was reviewed by the JDRB in June 2014, September 2014 and again this past September.
According to staff, at the June 2014 meeting, the JDRB said that the new construction needed a stronger architectural statement, the color and materials for the building should be a visual expression of a coastal landscape theme and that the building needed layers and hierarchy of variation to better complement the historic Santa Monica Professional building.
At the September 2014 meeting the JDRB review added the conditions that the new building should reference the texture, details, proportions and quality of the landmark, that sack finish appears like stucco and creates a uniform look over the large expanses of the elevations, that the hotel entry needed more prominence and that the building provide more variation in window openings.
It was at the September 2015 meeting that the JDRB approved the hotel's Certificate of Appropriateness, essentially approving the landmarks related issues but the group did not approve the buildings design.
The applicant filed an appeal of the JDRB decision on Oct. 6 stating that the project meets the required findings to approve the ARB application, that each of the eight design conditions from the development agreement had been addressed and that the JDRB comments had also been substantially addressed.
Staff recommended that Council uphold the appeal.
Council debate had little to do with the actual design of the building and was focused on the process for making decisions.
Councilwoman Gleam Davis was the most vocal critic of the JDRB process saying the rotating members of the group had given contradictory guidance to the applicant and the elongated process could endanger what was actually a well-designed building.
“This is conceptually what we want to do, we want to preserve existing buildings and repurpose them,” she said. “If we make that process so incredibly difficult or we take so long that they lose their funding, then no one's going to ever do this again.”
Councilmember Kevin McKeown stated that the building was “not bad, just not great.” “And in Santa Monica, I know we can do better,” McKeown said,
He said the building still had a chance to improve and recommended the project be sent back to the JDRB for more discussion.
“Our staff has told us now that our new goal is great place making and superior design and I agree with the JDRB that at least at this point, this still falls short of that goal that we have set for ourselves,” he said.
Newly appointed Mayor Pro Tem Ted Winterer supported sending the project back but asked for a six month time limit on JDRB review.
“I think that (the applicants) deserve to have an answer one way or another in a very short period of time,” he said.
In a 4-2 vote, with Davis and Councilman Terry O'Day voting against the motion, the council denied the appeal without prejudice, remanded the application back the JDRB for review, requested that the body give clear directions to the applicant as promptly as possible, and make a final decision whether or not to approve the project within six months.
Davis expressed her concerns with sending the application back to the JDRB, saying, “The impression I get is the JDRB isn't anywhere near consensus.”
