By Rev. Jim Conn and Victoria Best
On Wednesday, the Planning Commission will vote on the Shore Hotel’s latest attempt to upscale. They should reject it. The Shore Hotel’s proposal to add restaurants, bars, and outdoor entertainment is yet another chapter in the years-long battle to right a historical wrong. Will the Planning Commission reward a developer who knowingly violated the rules while our local businesses struggle to recover from the impacts of COVID-19?
First, we should acknowledge how the Shore’s violations have impacted one of our city’s most precious resources, our beach. Since 1989, California has lost almost 25,000 low-cost overnight accommodations. Coastal access for all but the wealthiest travelers faces an existential threat. The luxury Shore Hotel as it exists today was once the site of two motels that made up 35% of the low-cost visitor accommodations lost in the City of Santa Monica between 1992 and 2018.
Even worse, the motels were demolished without a final nod from the state’s coastal access protection agency, the California Coastal Commission. After a protracted battle with both the Commission and the courts over whether or not the Shore had, indeed, violated the Coastal Act, the Commission levied a historic $15 million penalty against them. This was the largest fine in the Commission’s history.
The Shore was originally approved to be a limited-service hotel with limited food and beverage offerings to keep the hotel from being offered overall as a luxury hotel, since the Commission does not have the legal authority to set actual room rates.
To quote the conditions of approval from 2008, Shore Hotel “does not include a restaurant, bar, conferencing facilities, spa, florist, lounge or similar amenities typically found in more upscale or luxury hotels.” Now, Shore Hotel seeks to add exactly those type of amenities.
Their current proposal appears to seek to substantially alter the character of the hotel to be able to compete with Santa Monica’s highest end properties. To quote an earlier version of the hotel’s new website, Revitalize Shore Hotel, “These proposed change [sic] would enhance services at Shore Hotel from limited accommodation to full-amenity— taking the first step in providing the type luxury [sic] expected of Ocean Avenue hospitality.” This language no longer appears on the website.
Denying this project should be a no-brainer on the merits alone, but also seems consistent with the Planning Commission’s demonstrated desire to hold developers accountable to the rules.
Just a few weeks ago, the Planning Commission rejected the Oceana Hotel’s attempts to open its amenities to non-guests. Commissioner Mario Fonda-Bonardi, who voted against the Oceana’s proposal, said that the hotel “had a [permit] in 1996 that specifically excluded the non-guests eating or drinking there. That was written in there for a reason.” Commissioner Nina Fresco noted that the Oceana’s proposal was not “about the greater good.” She continued: “If we have rules, we have to honor the rules.”
A broad coalition of community leaders and organizations oppose the Shore Hotel’s expansion proposal, including Santa Monica Forward, Downtown Santa Monica Inc., Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR), NRDC, Food and Water Action, Bruce Reznick Executive Director at LA Waterkeeper, Congressman Ted Lieu, and the Santa Monica Democratic Club.
Will the Planning Commission reward our local bad actors by letting them develop the luxury hotel they always intended to build, regardless of the rules, or will they stand up for law, for the community and for coastal access?
Rev. Jim Conn is the former Mayor of Santa Monica and Victoria Best is a longtime Santa Monica resident.