PDP 01-20/CUP 01-7/PARK 01-5-- Conditional Use Permit
and Precise Development Plan for a new mixed use building
with two residences over commercial, and Parking Plan for
tandem parking and shared parking at
44 Hermosa Avenue
.
Staff Recommended Action: To
direct staff as deemed appropriate.
(PDF file)
Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report. The
project is a proposed mixed use development which is
unusual for the city since the use is only permitted in the
C-1, Limited Commercial zone. There is no mixed use
development zone and no development standards that apply to
the residential portion of the project. He noted that
previously on projects with transitional lots along the
highway, the density and development standards of the
nearest adjacent residential use was utilized for
establishing development and zoning standards. Using this
method the R-3 standards could apply. The current C-1
development standards does not restrict setback, lot
coverage, open space or landscaping requirements for the
site. The applicable parking standards are 2 parking spaces
required per residential unit. Staff believes it is
possible to make findings for the parking plan due to the
project size and the use of shared and tandem parking
between peak and off-peak parking demand periods between
the two uses.
Staff recommends three specific conditions for
Commission consideration.
- The additional tandem space be accommodated on site,
by reconfiguring the parking lot.
- Parcels be subject to a merger prior to the issuance
of building permits.
- Applicant submit revised plans clearly denoting all
requirements for locating height on their required
submittal. Additionally, exiting requirements for the
project are not a problem for the proposed project as
suggested in the staff report.
Commission Tucker asked whether the 3rd floor is less
that 500 feet; they do not require two (2) exits?
Responding, Director Blumenfeld noted that the Building
Code grants an exception for two (2) exits when the 3rd
floor within an individual dwelling unit does not exceed
500 sq. feet. Access to only one (1) exit need be provided
from that floor.
Chairman Perrotti asked about the permitted commercial
uses for the project. Director Blumenfeld responded that
only a retail or service type use could locate at the site
given the amount of on-site parking. A restaurant could not
locate due to parking on-site and the inability to install
cooking grill and hood systems on the property as presently
configured with residential on the second story.
Construction requirements and parking requirements preclude
it. The owner would be required to obtain Planning
Commission approval for any on-site alcohol use in
conjunction with a restaurant. He also noted that there is
no description of neighborhood commercial in the General
Plan, but there is a description of the limited commercial
uses, which are found in the Permitted Use List which
include retail and service uses, and apartments above
retail.
Commissioner Tucker asked if was no requirement for
landscaping for C-1? But there is in C-3?
In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld
stated that in C-1 there is no landscaping requirement,
however, the project requires a PDP and the Commission does
have latitude to require additional landscaping. The
condition is not precluded just because it isn't required
in the Code, and the Commission can require more than is
required in the Zone.
Commissioner Tucker asked if the project was apartment
units and not condominiums?
Director Blumenfeld responded that the project is
proposed as apartments and the Zoning Ordinance only allows
apartments above commercial in the C-1 Zone. To develop
condominiums, the owner would be required to file a
condominium map for approval and a text amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance would be required to allow a residential
condominium above commercial.
Chairman Perrotti asked if the application were
developed for condominiums, would they have to comply with
the requirements of a condominium?
Director Blumenfeld responded that the project would
need to comply with condominium requirements and that a
proposed text amendment could address these issues.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Julie Oakes, architect for the project, stated the
project is designed for a live/work situation. The
commercial area is very small and the square footage is
1700 square feet. We are potentially looking at dividing it
in two. In the past we have been asked about a live/work
scenario. The tandem parking would work for this because
the retail is so small but the residential units are large
enough where someone is really committing to a substantial
amount of rent. These units are 2300 square feet each,
three bedrooms, with fireplaces. The ceilings are 13 feet
high. The project is designed for someone who lives and
works a block from the beach. The owner is here tonight and
is willing to comply with any signage standards and to work
out the tandem-parking situation. Ms. Oakes presented a
parking scenario with commercial parking against the
building and the other spots for resident's use. The
project eliminates curb cuts to provide more frontage along
Hermosa Avenue. We are excited about bringing business and
living in this area, which is a nice transition between
commercial and residential. There are setbacks for the
residential area for Building Code reasons, that would not
apply if the project was all commercial, and it would be 30
feet straight up in a box. We want to design something in
small business who is interested in committing to an
attractive living space, with nice amenities and a space to
go downstairs and work in.
Chairman Perrotti said staff has discussed the guest
parking space, and has proposed it be provided behind the
handicap parking space.
Ms. Oakes responded that it would not be a problem but
to make sure the handicap stall is accessible. The
electrical can be designed into the building and trash area
can be moved.
Commissioner Pizer asked Ms. Oakes about the landscaping
portion of this project; if it can be made pretty similar
to Starbucks' sidewalk and trees, to start the whole city
to look prettier.
Ms. Oakes responded that setting back the storefront
creates the potential for putting planters in that area.
They are currently in the plans, along with substantial
decks in the front for planting.
Commissioner Hoffman commented that mixed use was
presented as an alternative in the '94 plan for the
downtown area and never was acted on. The consensus of the
Council was to never really proceed on it. The area that is
now solid condominiums Valley/Ardmore, First Street. Now we
are in a position to do that, and you're suddenly on the
other side, coming forward with that. You are now saying
the market is driving this, but the downside is we are
getting a lot of stuff on a relatively small lot without
meeting the kind of parking demand that would come with
either one of the combinations, whether residential or
commercial. One may cynically think this is a way to try to
max it out and yet not meet the requirements of either
one.
Ms. Oakes responded that the downtown area has extreme
uses, restaurants and bars. Adding residential on top of
restaurants and bars can work. It is a difficult marriage.
When you have an extreme use, size of lots and parking
requirements for liquor and restaurant use, you are looking
at a demand that is constant. Noise that is constant and in
those areas. That specific area had some concerns because
of parking, noise and the kind of people who would want to
live above a bar. We don't want to see more restaurants,
liquor or the ability to put in huge retail situations.
The area is neighborhood commercial, a vague reference
to local uses, such as a dry cleaners. The reality is it's
anything that C-1 allows. The ideal situation would be to
live upstairs and work downstairs.
Ms. Oakes responded that the owner and developers may
want to divide this into situations where we sell this and
sell this, sold as one parcel for one unit and one parcel
for another unit.
Commissioner Pizer responded that the applicant must be
aware that this project could not meet the condominium
requirements. Ms. Oakes responded, 1700 square feet for
commercial use is something fairly small on the retail
level or one or two commercial office uses. There is a
demand in the real estate market for that kind of use. We
are working on a number of these types of projects in the
greater metropolitan area. Yes, there is the potential to
have 20 cars there on a Wednesday and then have none for a
week, or two weeks. At 1700 square feet, and potentially
dividing it up, you are getting a whole lot of people into
this small site. It is now a day care, with potentially
greater impact now on parking.
Commisioner Pizer responded that the day care does not
require parking, but there is a lot of coming and going
trips.
Commissioner Pizer asked about input about staff
recommendation for merging the two parcels. If divided, you
would have to unmerge them. Is it necessary to merge
parcel?
Ms Oakes responded that is fine if it is necessary to
merge them to build the building, but that it is a greater
issue in terms of creating condominiums.
Commissioner Tucker asked Ms. Oakes how she envisioned
assigning parking spots. Most retail is seven (7) days a
week, you have people living upstairs, how would you handle
this?
Ms. Oakes responded that you have 4 spaces in front of
the building, with signage that employees of the commercial
would park up against the building. Behind that parking
anyone could come and go with the retail itself.
Commissioner Kersenboom asked for clarification on the
employees and residents parking.
Ms. Oakes responded that the residents would tandem park
and not in the same area as the retail. Parking for
residents is on the two ends, and that signage would also
control parking on site.
Commissioner Kersenboom asked if there was space to put
rollerblades, bicycles, and surfboards?
Ms. Oakes commented that they would provide necessary
storage area.
Chairman Perrotti opened the meeting to general
discussion.
Skip Lomer, property and homeowner, 126 First Court,
here to address the proposed new construction at 44 Hermosa
Avenue. I have had an opportunity to review the staff
report, and would like to thank Sol Blumenfeld and his
staff for their assistance. The plan proposes an 8614
square foot, 3 story building on a 4800 square foot lot.
First floor is a retail commercial, the second and third
stories, two split level apartments, all the access is
being proposed to the rear off of the one-way Palm Drive,
one way to the north. Staff suggests comparing the proposed
ordinance to the surrounding R-3 residences. The proposed
development cannot meet the required R-3 front yard
setbacks, even though three of the four blocks fronting on
Hermosa Avenue meet the 5 foot minimum. Parking is proposed
for the retail commercial users, and guests for the
residents are to be shared with the commercial parking. Per
the staff report required parking is 12 spaces, 7 for
commercial and 5 for residents, including one guest spot.
In reality the building plans call for 11 spaces, 10 of
which have to be in tandem, and 4, which have to be
compact.
In tandem, Chapter 17.44 contains no provision for
allowing commercial tandem parking and thus recognizes this
as only 4 available commercial parking spots as Sol
Blumenfeld indicated. Four of these eleven spots are
compact in size, which is greater than allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has even requested
consideration for reduced parking as he cannot meet the
requirements, he has even shuffling of cars due to the
small commercial footprint. Residential guest parking is
proposed to be ample after the weekday peak use. There is
no guarantee that the weekday peak use of shuffling cars is
going to be working at anytime, this close to the water and
during the peak summertime or the weekends or goes on
vacation. There is significant pedestrian traffic on First
Court and Palm Drive due to the residences that front First
Court that should be considered. I have very serious
concerns if the proposed construction be allowed to the
full 30 feet, that this would reduce or eliminate the views
enjoyed by the residents directly east of Palm Avenue. I
recommend that the Planning Commission deny the proposed
conditional use permit, keep 44 Hermosa Avenue a commercial
only location and keep the construction to only two
stories.
Ted Fredricks, 117 Lyndon Street; I think this project
is a misuse of the mixed use zone. If it were residential,
you would have two units with parking in garages for 4 cars
and guest parking, not tandem parking. Tandem parking is
going to create a parking lot situation on Palm Court,
which is a very narrow alley. If it is commercial, put the
parking on Hermosa Avenue, underground or something. I
think it is a terrible project.
Charlotte Cross, resident 122 First Street and have been
there 32 years. From an aesthetic point of view I have seen
the neighborhood, at first little cottages and very
wonderful beach community and it was a very stable
neighborhood. It has undergone all kinds of raising and big
huge apartment buildings and ugly ones to boot, and looked
at the commercial section and nothing in our blocks are
over one story except one apartment house on Palm Drive.
Everything is one story, if you put 30 foot behemoth on two
lots, it would wreck the entire neighborhood aesthetically.
I believe it is a bit of overkill and secondly say what Ted
said if there is 3 bedrooms and no garage, I think you are
asking for 3 roommates per unit. You're asking for big
trouble, no parking, roommates, no place for bicycles, no
nothing, no families; you get three guys who raise hell on
the roof on weekends.
David Pascalini, resident at 137 Lyndon Street, property
owned by wife Heidi Pascalini, an attorney representing
her, and I have my own concerns. I am objecting to this and
am hoping that the Planning Commission will deny the
Conditional Use Permit for all of the reasons stated
primarily for the parking problem, because we already have
parking problems in that area. We have double parking, we
have people parking illegally on one side of the street
where there is no parking on Sundays, putting hazard lights
on for 1/2 hour at a time. This will complicate and
aggravate the issue, and am hoping the Commission will deny
the permit.
Jeff Kotsubo, resident homeowner 136 First Court, would
like to approach this project objectively also. Small
business is good for Hermosa Beach, but at the same time
putting such a large building on the front of Hermosa
Avenue would contradict the community feel of Hermosa
Beach. I don't think there is any other commercial property
on that adjoining few blocks is that large of a project.
All of us come to live in Hermosa Beach for the small town
feel and small town look. This project would contradict
that whole goal of our homeowners and neighbors in the
community.
Troy Connis, homeowner at 123 Lyndon Street, around the
corner from 44 Hermosa Avenue. I have the same concerns,
primarily parking. Lyndon Street has only one side of
parking, and they have overutilized due to some of the
apartment buildings in the area. The other issue is, First
Court and Palm Avenue are very narrow small, almost
alley-like roads; they do not have curbs for walking and
when walking their pets are at risk from traffic.
Kimberly Connis, his wife, although what I have to say
might appeal more to the homeowners more than the
Commission. I live at 123 Lyndon Street. I am a teacher in
the community. I met my husband here; I play volleyball
here. I am all for new buildings, nicer buildings, take the
thrift shop too. As a homeowner, we just bought our home
two years ago and were expecting to have a family, I am
shocked to have a huge 30 feet building go up right there,
reminds me of the proposal for the pier, the monuments for
the promenade. As the nice lady said, 32 years ago it was
all cottages. It would be nice to keep a small town feel in
Hermosa, not just because I am a homeowner whose view is to
be blocked, a gigantic huge building amongst all the
smaller buildings would look odd, and all the parking
issues and all that is valid.
Jim LaPoint, developer, I live in Hermosa Beach. I live
in a mixed use building. This project is meant to enhance
Hermosa, and what I am hearing here is that some of these
people seem to be concerned about the parking. We thought
that by having a mixed use building, it would have less
impact on parking. First of all the people that are going
to be in the residences are most likely not going to be
there during the day time when people would be at the
business. I can tell you from my experience that that is
what happens. We don't envision this as being huge
building; the building next door to the property is 30 feet
high. It's an apartment building, so we are not going to
stand out on the street. We don't envision having 6 people
living in this; this was designed for a family; we expect
to have a family living there. Being a resident, I am very
concerned about what is going on in Hermosa. I would like
to see more mixed use. I think it's a very effective way to
enhance the community, to give us better security within
the community, having people here in the downtown area all
the time as opposed to the people that come in at night and
then leave.
Julie Oakes, architect for the project. Obviously I care
very much for the community; I would not have taken this
project on if I thought it would be detrimental. I felt
very positive this could be a very interesting and
futuristic step for us to take. Certainly it's going impact
views and I apologize for that, it is setback because it is
residential more than if it were a straight commercial
project, which it could be. Then it could be a box that
encompasses the entire lot. I think we have looked into
this in terms of how it could all work and try to come up
with solutions to these potential problems.
Chairman Perrotti closed the meeting to the public.
Commissioner Hoffman comments both the owner and his
representative are both well known to this Commission and
this community, so I don't doubt their sincerity, when they
suggest what they intend to have happen on the property.
The problem is that 5 years to 10 years from now that
building will still be there, whoever owns it and whoever
occupies it in whatever configuration that will be. I have
been working with the people on the Playa Vista Project, a
classic mixed use phenomenon. Even in a project on that
scale, the notion that people are going to get up in the
morning and walk downstairs and work and then go back
upstairs, is not going to happen; this is Southern
California. In this particular project, those spaces don't
become available for commercial visitors; they are always
going to be occupied by the owner. The applicant has done
some projects we all consider assets. On the height issue,
as Ms. Oakes points out, 30 feet is the maximum height
there; the applicant can come back tomorrow, or next
meeting, with a project and build a 30 foot box. And that's
what you are going to see, and that's what you should
anticipate being developed there. If you get something
smaller than that, as this would be, in terms of side yard
setbacks, that would be more luck and fortuitous than
something we could predict or anticipate. Certainly we
cannot anticipate that he would give up his property rights
to save people's views. It is not a realistic expectation.
Mixed use is a futuristic idea, as Julie suggested, we are
going back to the 1890's; that is the way cities used to
be. And there are a lot of desirable attributes.
Ironically, this community has consistently rejected that
idea at the master, general plan level. The bottom line is
the parking issue. I cannot reconcile creating a structure
that enables us to reduce the amount of parking that is
required. Not only to dramatically less than it would
require, even less than if commercial but even less than
required for conventional residential. It doesn't seem to
be something feasible. We need to rethink how we part this
project, slightly modified.
Commissioner Pizer stated, building height is a property
right, and in order to not exercise that right, we would
have to change the zoning. I like the project from the
standpoint that the building bulk is reduced compared to
what they could really do. The building bulk would be
reduced and a little more attractive. There is something
that came up and I feel is important, namely traffic,
safety and parking. Those are three issues I would like to
see studied a little further on this project. I would like
to walk that area, and I didn't, to see what is really
going on. I don't have a good feeling for that. What I hear
from the neighbors is safety could be a major issue there.
When safety is a major issue, we should pay attention.
Maybe there isn't any issue or maybe there is. I am not
sitting here, prepared to say that I just neglect that
point. This kind of a project I like for Hermosa Avenue. If
it works out, it could be very nice. I am not for tandem
parking; this may work. I think the safety issue and
parking study and traffic could be very serious and we
should look at those before approving the project.
Commissioner Tucker commented that I have always been a
advocate of when there is tandem parking and I vote no. As
a developer I never thought it would work, I have done
projects like this. What happens if this gentleman is not
here and we cannot move a car. On that basis it's a double-
edged sword. It's a nice project. I question Sol, if we are
going to use R-3 standards for upstairs, shouldn't the top
section have setback?
Director Blumenfeld responded that was a standard you
could use, though the project currently does not comply
with the R-3 standards.
Commissioner Tucker commented the building is a little
bit out of character with the neighborhood in the front
mass, most of the places have their balconies out front and
breaks up the mass of the building. My biggest concern is
the parking. We don't know what is going to in down below.
The seven-day usage is a reality in this society; retail is
open seven days. On that basis, I would vote against it
because of the parking issue. I don't think the parking is
going to work.
Commissioner Kersenboom it's a great idea. It's been
toyed with on Pier Avenue It's a smaller building than what
can be built commercially. Height limits are height limits.
If it was a one bedroom, giant bachelor pad, then it might
work with one car. The parking is a major concern and that
is what does it in.
Chairman Perrotti advised that we received a letter from
the Cappella family and they were opposed to the project
for the record. Concerning the concept of mixed use. I like
mixed use and it is a good utilization of commercial area,
to not have these huge commercial structures, which could
be built in the C-1 zone of Hermosa Avenue. Mixed use is a
good concept and I have seen it used up and down the coast
in California. On the East Coast, it has been used for
many, many years. As a Commission, we have recommend when
we reviewed the housing element of the general plan. We
recommended that this concept be considered. We can utilize
mixed use in Hermosa Beach. Whether it's on Hermosa Avenue
or Pier Avenue or in the locations off 6th Street on
Valley, commercial manufacturing area. One problem is the
parking. In the downtown area, there were restaurants we
allowed substandard parking using the assumption that the
customers would be walking or riding a bike. In this
location this is feasible also. I have a problem with the
tandem parking in certain situations, but I feel this is
something we should try to massage one way or another. I
like the suggestions staff has come up with to mitigate
some of the problems with the parking. If we do deny the
application this evening, maybe we could continue it to see
if staff and the applicant could develop something more
favorable to the majority of the commission. I am going to
vote for the project.
Commissioner Tucker asked if we would have this
continued with the applicant providing a trafffic, safety
and parking study. All of those three things are the issue,
and most of us are not convinced that those are addressed.
That is my motion, that this be continued.
Seconded by Chairman Perrotti.
Commissioner Tucker asked Director Blumenfeld if it
would be feasible to do a traffic safety study?
Director Blumenfeld responded that the Commission should
identify what it wants to see in that study, so the
applicant has some direction. For example, a comparative
analysis on what could be built on the site, trip
generation and accident data, trip generation between
comparable uses, study parking.
Commissioner Tucker pointed out that we only have his
presentation in writing and not the applicant's. Safety
issues apply to the project when the traffic going to be
there and is a concern to the neighbors.
MOTION
Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Chairman Perrotti to
continue until a study of traffic, safety and parking
provided by the applicant is concluded.
AYES: Pizer, Perrotti
NOES: Hoffman, Tucker and Kersenboom
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Perrotti commented that that motion failed. Do
we have another motion?
Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing.
Julie Oakes asked if the Commission would consider
continuing the item to address the concerns of both
residents and the Commission.
Chairman Perrotti commented that we just had a motion, a
second, a roll call on continuance, and it failed. Would
you like to propose a motion as to continuance?
Chairman Kersenboom asked if they would consider
reducing the size of the units or number of bedrooms to
reduce the parking problem and maybe set the building back
a little, and reduce the development.
Chairman Perrotti asked for a motion to continue, so
that applicant can work with staff and reduce the size or
part.
Commissioner Pizer commented that if it were an
all-commercial building, the traffic would be greater. Why
do they have to reduce the size of the building? It is
already reduced in bulk, so you have fewer bedrooms.
Commissioner Kersenboom commented that he liked the idea
and the project, but there is too much.
Chairman Perrotti seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hoffman commented that staff pointed out
that the size of development and the parking are a geometry
problem. A notion that we build what the zone allows for a
complete C-1, 30 foot high building. Going under is not an
attractive alternative for the applicant. But that is how
you create the parking space. The geometry problem that
staff addresses is the one that needs to be solved by the
architect and the applicant to park this appropriately. We
like the idea of mixed use, but we don't want to give you a
pass on the parking.
MOTION Chairman Perrotti clarified, the motion is to
continue so the applicant can work with staff to reduce the
amount of the bedrooms, so less parking would be
required.
AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, Tucker, and Kersenboom.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PDP 01-21
(PDF file)
-- Precise Development Plan to construct a new commercial
office building at
2697 - 2699 Pacific Coast
Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve
said request.
(PDF file)
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the proposed
project subject to conditions in the attached
resolution.
Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and
reviewed the project and noted a Precise Development Plan
is required, because the project exceeds 1500 square feet.
The proposed project is a two-story building, consisting of
a parking garage with office use on deck above and related
storage as part of the first floor, parking. The project
property zone C-3 must conform to C-3 development standards
and parking requirements. The project conforms to height
limit, 35 foot building for the zone. Staff had
recommendations relative to landscaping, to increase the
amount of landscaping along PCH and to increase the planter
depth.. This would permit the addition of large box trees
along that portion of the highway. Add two (2) street trees
and not effect the point of entry along PCH.
Commissioner Hoffman asked Director Blumenfeld about the
agenda and joint meeting with Public Works Commission,
relating to street trees, specie, spacing. Is there a plan
for PCH landscaping?
Director Blumenfled advised him there is not a landscape
plan for PCH.
Commissioner Tucker asked about using the alley as an
entrance/exit. Coming out of that area between 3 o'clock to
7 o'clock on the east side would never get out of there.
There is access on both sides.
Chairman Perrotti opened the hearing to the public.
Michael Werth, owner of the property, in answer to the
question, there is alley access; there is access to Gould.
There is another commercial building south of this
property; they have access to the alley. There is common
use.
Chairman Perrotti commented that staff has proposed
street landscaping. Mr. Werth commented he had no problem
with that, he would be a tenant and wanted something
esthetically appealing. Commissioner Pizer asked about the
property to the north, a low-level intensity, a blank wall?
Trying to visualize driving along PCH.
Greg Schneider, architect for the project, responded to
the question of footage of the building extending out
beyond the footprint of the current development. It extends
out about an additional 30 feet from the building.
Commissioner Tucker asked Director Blumenfled about Mr.
LaPoint's building. He responded that the walls were
plastered, had ringlets, or some relief provided as part of
the design.
Michael Werth commented that the existing building has
the same wall, on the south side is the existing building.
There is some landscaping on the between the parking area
and the block wall.
Commissioner Hoffman commented he had a concern about
the north side. In the future someone may build a building
joining you at the common wall, in the meantime we have a
pretty big wall towering over a one-story building, even
though they have a sloped room. At low cost, perhaps a
temporary issue to break up a pretty stark wall.
Mr. Werth commented that during construction period we
would not have access to the wall. Once that wall is
constructed and that building does come down, I would
enhance the wall. We will have some building that would
protrude over that wall, to be stucco all the way down: a
ringlet or something.
Bob Machan, resident and homeowner on El Oeste Drive.
Bring to your attention and a question to the applicant, my
question relates to the height of the building on the alley
backend. All homes on El Oeste Drive are 30 feet below the
alleyway. Your concern is how the building is going to
tower over the pizza place, my concern is about how the
building is going to tower over the residential homes and
backyards on El Oeste Drive. We currently have a very large
building on the south end. What modifications can be made
to the height of the building on the backside and do you
already have tenants who are signed up to move into the
building? What types of tenants do you plan to have?
Commissioner Tucker responded that the plan has a hip
roof, so it's not the full 35 feet, until the mid part of
the lot. At the alley, it's not more than 22-24 feet high.
At the back to the roof line, it is 27 feet, so it is not
going to a full 35 feet straight up. He asked Director
Blumenfled about some of the residents along El Oeste Drive
who were allowed to build taller walls for noise
attenuation. Director Blumenfled responded that this
information was correct.
Chairman Perrotti asked Mr. Werth to respond to the
question on the tenants.
Mr.Werth responded that he owns an escrow company and
would like to occupy the entire building. Other businesses
may be a real estate or mortgage business. He noted that
the suite partitioned into offices, along the back of the
building would be occupied by the escrow business.
Chairman Perrotti closed the hearing to the public.
Commissioner Tucker asked about the underground parking,
and noted that the floor finish on this structure should be
a swirl finish for noise attenuation. On the trees we are
requiring, if they are short we need to set a standard for
the trees. The front elevation, can you do something with
the garage entrance? Do we need to merge the lots?
Director Blumenfeld suggested adding a new condition
relative to the garage floor and lot merger as condition
Nos. 8 & 9.
Chairman Perrotti commented the front planter should be
expanded, and that the landscaping, should include more
than palm trees? Can they be shade trees?
Director Blumenfeld commented that there is no landscape
standard for the street, but PCH is a State highway, and
CALTRANS will comment, and in the end they may preclude
planting, so Commission may want to say street tree
planting will be provided pursuant to CALTRANS direction.
Curb cut will also have to be approved by CALTRANS.
Director Blumenfeld reiterated the items Commission
wanted to address:
5a. Revised and detail landscape plans shall be included
which specify plant sizes with all proposed trees to be a
minimum 36 inch box size and minimum trunk height to eight
feet.
5b Final roof plan shall be revised to include all property
lines and corner point elevations.
8 Surface of the parking garage shall be finished to
attenuate noise.
9 Properties will be required to merge prior to issuance of
the building permit.
10 (Would be the existing #8) Project and operations of the
business shall comply with all applicable requirements.
Commissioner Perrotti recommended enlarging the planter.
We would have to amend 5a to say, "revise and detail
landscaping plan shall be included which specify plant size
all proposed trees to be minimum 36 inch box, two street
trees installed with proper driveway clearance, pursuant to
CALTRANS approval and the planter shall be enlarged to
accommodate additional tree planting.
Commissioner Tucker asked about the air conditioning to
be screened on the roof.
MOTION
by Commissioner Kersenboom to approve a Precise
Development Plan to construct a new commercial office
building at 2697 - 2699 Pacific Coast Highway and include
the items discussed by Director Blumenfeld. Seconded by
Chairman Perrotti.
AYES : Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, Tucker, and Kersenboom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
