What’s Your Interpretation—Does Colorado Need Another Mini-Mall?

The term “director’s interpretation” typically refers to films loaded with so many ambiguities that the only way to resolve them is through a “director’s cut” in which the story becomes clearer.

But did you know there’s such a thing as a director’s interpretation in the Los Angeles Department of Planning—and that it might play a role in the city’s decision to allow yet another mini-mall in Eagle Rock?

Last week, two representatives of Specialized Realty, a Glendale-based developer of mini-malls, appeared before the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council in connection with their plans to convert the empty shell of a former auto-repair shop on 1351 Colorado Blvd. into an area containing three commercial spaces.

But because splitting up a single building into more than one retail space constitutes a mini-mall and is prohibited by the Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan, the only way to build a three-unit structure on the corner of Colorado and Eagle Vista Drive would be for Specialized Realty to seek a so-called “exception” from the Department of Planning. That, in turn, would trigger a public hearing process that would give community members a chance to agree or disagree with the project.

Because Specialized Realty wants three retail units in a single building, ERNC Vice President David Greene pointed out, the development effectively constitutes a mini-mall. However, according to Daniel Brumer, a lawyer representing Specialized Realty, a three-unit structure would not be a mini-mall if one of the spaces were devoted to retail—a restaurant, say—and the others were non-retail community businesses such as a doctor’s or lawyer’s office.

As it happens, Specialized Realty had been planning to seek an exception to the Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan, Brumer told the ERNC board at its monthly board meeting on July 2 in Eagle Rock City Hall. 

The “problem” was that the Department of Planning had advised Specialized Realty to apply for the Director’s Interpretation instead, largely because it’s a much cheaper and faster alternative, Brumer said.

It also happens to be an internal Department of Planning option devoid of any public hearing process and whose results are not publicly announced (although there is a 15-day appeal period), Greene pointed out at the meeting. 

While he’s not against efforts to develop Colorado Boulevard, Greene specified, the rules of the game do prohibit mini-malls, which, if they must be built, ought to be the result of an exception granted by city planners, following community input.

Artak Dovlatyan, the other representative for Specialized Realty, which manages the mini-mall on Colorado Boulevard that contains Yogurt Haven, La Fuente and Super Copy, told the ERNC board that the only reason why the company wants to build three retail spaces instead of one is to avoid the prospect of an empty store.

Dovlatyan argued that instead of spending roughly $15,000 on seeking an exception from city planners, it would make much more sense for Specialized Realty to invest the amount on landscaping the proposed mini-mall site and making it a place where community members could perhaps hang out rather than just shop.

In any case, Dovlatyan and Brumer said they would consider applying for the Specific Plan exception if that’s what would make the community happy—but both balked at making any immediate commitment.

According to the ERNC website, there’s a important precedent that may sway any Director's Interpretation in favor of the Specialized Realty application.

And that precedent is the development at 1916 Colorado Blvd., where a pet supply store, a sandwich shop, an insurance office and a dental office are located next to a 7-Eleven. (A jewelry store was recently banished by the mall's landlord to keep the development less than 30 percent retail, according to Greene, and it will soon be replaced by a massage parlor.)

The location is “a quasi-mini-mall that was allowed by the Planning Department without a public process or exception to the CBSP,” the ERNC website says, adding that in that case, an obscure clause in the Los Angeles Municipal Code was interpreted as applying to development, which allowed it to have up to 30 percent of retail use without being defined as a mini-mall. “The lack of public input on 1916 Colorado is the reason the ERNC is trying to be pro-active in the 1351 Colorado case,” the website states.

After a lengthy discussion in which some ERNC members, including President Michael Nogueira, verbally backed the 1351 Colorado development, the board voted, 8-4, with no abstentions, to write a letter to the Department of Planning, objecting to the Director’s Interpretation as an option. The letter would request an exception process to the Colorado Specific Plan instead.