This is an architectural rendering of the proposed three story building at 15113 Sunset Boulevard.
At the Palisade Community Council Land Use Committee (LUC) meeting held via Zoom on February 11, a proposed three-story mixed-use building was discussed. About 50 people attended the discussion.
The building, at 15113 Sunset Boulevard, would have two ground-floor commercial businesses and two stories of apartments.
Each floor would have one two-bedroom apartment, a one-bedroom apartment and a studio apartment. One of the apartments would be designated as a “very-low-income” unit. Owners were asked which apartment would be designated as the low-income apartment. They did not know, but possibly the studio apartment.
Prior to the meeting, an introductory report was placed on the PPCC website: click here.
That report emphasizes that because of California’s Density Bonus Law (DBL), waivers and incentives would be provided to builders. State Law overrules The Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhood Specific Plan.
LUC Chair Chris Spitz, who oversees the seven-member board, emphasized that DBL is a state mandate that supersedes local zoning and specific plans and Los Angeles must follow the DBL mandate.
Property owners Josh Stein-Sapir and Brad Keyes, with architect Andrew Alper of DesignArc and Nick Leathers from Crest, voluntarily attended the meeting to present and answer questions.
In 2021, Stein-Sapir and Keyes bought the 1958 building that was located on a 5,000 square-foot space.
The incentives owners would receive through DBL is a height of 40- ft, in lieu of 30-ft.; increase the height limit measured from grade to the ceiling to 34’9” as opposed to 27ft.; not have to provide commercial parking (eight spaces generally required); and an open space reduction to 50-sq.ft. instead of 650-sq.ft.
Waivers would include decreasing the setback on the north and side from 6 ft. to 0, not providing a loading zone, and removing the landscaping buffering requirement in the rear parking lot between residences on Embury Street.
Parking waivers would include reducing bicycle parking from 17 to 8 and instead of 9 car parking stalls as required by the specific plan provide six.
One way to ensure that they have six parking spaces was to provide a car lift on two of the ground spaces. One resident asked, “How noisy are lifts because there are residences behind the building?”
Crest’s Leathers said, “We’ll double check on the noise and sound issue.”
The back of the building would have to two car lifts. There would be no space for commercial parking, and no loading or unloading zone for the two commercial spaces.
Resident Scott Cullen asked, “What If you have two people living in every apartment, where will they park?” He pointed out it could mean as many as 12 cars, but they only have parking for six people.
Leathers said street permit parking might be an option.
Cullen pointed out that parking on Embury is only on one side of the street and asked if people on Embury had been made aware of the project.
Spitz pointed out that owners came to the meeting, even though it was not required and that the next step would be to go before the Design Review Board, before finally going to the City Planning Commission.
Owners were asked if they had considered subterranean parking. They had, but limited space and turning radius made it impossible.
Rena Repetti asked about the plans for loading and unloading for the commercial stores. She was told it probably would be in the back alley where cars were parked, but there would be set hours.
One resident asked, “Could you consider two stories? Would it still be economically feasible?”
That wasn’t answered.
A member of the LUC, Howard Robinson, suggested maybe they could get parking in Rick Caruso’s Palisades Village. Another audience member joked they could park in Ralph’s parking lot.
In the chat, someone suggested that lawsuits are now happening around the state over Density Bills and wondered whether this could be disputed. There was no answer.
Cullen said, “This is critical, owners along Sunset could go three stories with no parking if this goes through.”
Spitz reminded everyone that the meeting was “informational” and that there would be other upcoming meetings. She reminded owners that there seemed to be specific questions about safety and parking from the public.
Foot in the door… First of all, parking is already an issue in our town, EVERYWHERE in our town. Second, today a small space converted into business & housing apartments in a rule-stretching construction, tomorrow … in for a dime, in for a dollar… changing rules to accommodate investors and contractors to the detriment of the residents. Third, let’s face it. If nothing else proves our little town is incapable of increasing density, the fire should have screamed it, loud and clear. One street in and the same street out of town with unstable earth beneath.
Clearly a lot of vigilance is going to be required to prevent developers from imposing projects that maximize profits at the expense of residents’ quality of life and safety. I note that the article mentions Crest Real Estate, which was also involved in the proposed Mt. Holyoke mega-mansion, another questionable project.