|
Eastwood
Coalition – Design Review Committee Meeting
Tuesday, July 13,
2004 at Gershwin Hotel
Topic: Whole
Foods
Attendees:
Council
District 4 Representatives:
Renee Weitzer – Chief Planning Deputy
Rory Fitzpatrick – Chief Field Deputy
Eric Sanjurjo – Field Representative
Jonathon Brand – Ass’t. Planning Deputy
L.A.D.O.T. Representative:
Mike Bagheri - Transportation Engineer
Bond Developing Representative:
Ira Dankberg
Community Members Present:
Heidi Calvert
Dan Golden
Pierre Kunz
Cindy Duhaime
Anne Marie Harrington
Tony Harrington
Michelle van der Heijden
Brenton Jaimes
Adam Keare
Dave Monks
Fran Reichenbach
KC Schmidt
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
New Design:
Ira brought a rendering of the new exterior of the Whole Foods store. Bond
Developers took the comments from our design review meetings and changed
the facade. They took a more obvious streamlined approach. The new plan
opens up the corner and turns the levels glass – open and airy. Planters
will be along Garfield to add greenery. Keyed entrance will be available
for the neighbors to have after-hours access. This new plan is more
decorative.
The highest section is 53 feet. The upper most structure is equivalent to
a four story building. Heidi asked about the height. She is manager and a
resident of the old St. Francis Hotel. Her concern is that the new
Whole Foods building will block the view for the tenants and guests.
KC complimented Ira on the new design and rendering, a much needed
improvement over the original. New architect: Orange County architect,
Bastian & Assoc – got their fame from working with the studios
(Warner Bros. Paramount)
Renee asked to see more landscaping from the parking area to soften up the
look – cascading greenery particular. She wants to see it more friendly
and warm.
Parking:
Will the number of parking spaces change? Ira says we’re still looking
at 210 parking spaces with 25 for the neighbors. SNAP says they only need
about 85 spaces.
Ira says employees are encouraged to use mass transportation. But it was
pointed out that this is unenforceable. Pastor Greg is offering the
parking lot of his church for the employees to use as off site parking.
However, the church holds many events, which fills the lot with cars.
Also, restaurants and bars already use it for valet parking. Other points
brought up: The church is 10 minutes down the street, and (recognizing
human behavior) employees running late for work will be discouraged from
parking that far away. With 80 employees on duty at any given shift, a
better solution is needed for employee parking.
Adam says another alternative is to have Whole Foods buy a lot for this
purpose. Renee reminded Adam that leasing a lot won’t last forever. Dave
would like Whole Foods to be a self-contained entity, one which provides
employee parking.
Cindy is concerned about parking for herself since she is disabled. She
could never afford a parking space in the dirt lot. She wants priority
parking as a disabled resident.
Ira says that first we need to be able to provide more parking than the
SNAP ordinance allows. They will be asking for a variation from that SNAP
ordinance. He doesn’t know how the 20 – 25 parking spaces for
residents would be allocated.
Renee reminded us that the SNAP ordinance originated with Jackie Goldberg
(years ago) and was completed by Garcetti. If you are near a metro rail
station, there are incentives to developing and one of them is a reduced
parking requirement. The council office never
agreed with that ordinance but encourages variations from this ordinance
to provide more parking.
Ira said that Whole Foods is evaluating how many employees will be working
here and how they will travel to work. Dave mentioned that the Whole Foods
in Glendale tells their employees to park on the neighborhood streets.
Dave suggested underground parking for the employees and residents. Or,
make the store smaller. He wants to know how many car trips this store
will generate each day.
Mike (DOT) says that a parking/traffic study will be done. He says that
the trips are high enough to launch (42 peak hour trips) a traffic study.
Ira says that this study has begun and will be part of the CEQA study.
Renee asked about when a public hearing will take place. Ira says about 4
months.
She suggests that he go to Whole Foods and come back to us regarding
employee parking.
Employee parking is one of the conditions involved in the entitlement
process. She agrees with the community that the issue of employee parking
is very important.
Renee asked Ira to find out what is WF’s policy is for their employee
parking.
KC asked how was it that they came up with 60 extra parking spaces? Ira
says that it was efficient to get more spaces into the design to make the
parking lot equal to the entire footprint of the building.
Loading Protocol:
The loading dock is still on Garfield. Dave says that 5 tractor trailers
and 15 delivery trucks and vans will come per day. He thinks that we will
lose the parking spaces at least on the western side of Garfield. Garfield
is 42 feet wide.
DOT’s position is that they don’t want the trucks to back into or out
of a loading dock. DOT said that there’s no reason to take parking out.
There is a bigger issue than the parking since the DOT will not allow for
backing into the dock. Backing in blocks
traffic.
Mike says that one suggestion is to do the loading and unloading from the
street. It was brought up that this will make more noise and there would
be a loss of the parking on the one side of the street.
He suggested the delivery trucks should come off Franklin, come down
Garfield – park on the west side of Garfield, unload and continue down
Garfield and exit onto Hollywood Blvd. This would not block traffic.
It was noted that the ideal situation would be for the truck to do turn
around on site rather than backing in or out.
Ira says that by having the trucks back in, you won’t lose the parking.
Since the entire truck will be inside the loading dock, there won’t be
such a noise issue.
Renee says that the noisiest part of this whole operation is the beeping
that happens when these trucks are in reverse.
According to Renee: The other option is to have a flag person there so the
trucks don’t have to beep. They won’t have to apply for a variance to
remove the beep since it’s a private project.
Renee says that this can be a condition that there be a flag person out
there when the truck is backing out. These large vehicles have the
capability to turn on and off their beep. She agrees that loading and
unloading on Garfield – on the street will be very noisy.
She asked that the DOT take into consideration that the MTA uses Garfield
as a turn around.
Ingress and Egress for customers; Hollywood
Mike says that the DOT is opposed to the location of ingress and egress on
Hollywood Blvd. It will not line up with the intersection of St. Andrews
on the southside of the boulevard. It will also interfere with the drive
for the Downtowner Motel, located next
door.
Mike also stated that the smartwalk would have to be relocated to the
otherside of St.Andrews.
Renee stated that she thought the ingress/egress access was originally
going to be on Garfield. She thought it was being placed on Hollywood
because of the community requesting it that way.
Is there a way to have the parking lot entrance on the same side of the
project as the loading dock? Ira says that it used to be that way. Renee
says that it’s the preferred plan from the DOT’s point of view. She
asked what would be better for the community.
KC raised concerns on the amount of traffic that would be generated on
Garfield, a residential street. KC also says that the community can’t
properly reply to this issue until we know the number of customers that
are expected. Mike (DOT) says that there will be 150 – 200 car trips (in
and out) per hour during the peak hours of operation.
DOT says they could impose turn restrictions – this would address the
traffic on Hollywood Blvd.
Field Trip: The group walked over to the site to discuss the
problems with the ingress and egress. The DOT would prefer the ingress and
egress to be on Garfield, with cars that are exiting the store limited to
a right-turn only, forcing them south on Garfield to
Hollywood. A new signal will go in on Garfield and Hollywood, and the
Smart signal will no longer be needed.
The DOT also said that they could impose limited hours of delivery,
restricting deliveries to non-peek hours. For example, no deliveries
between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and then again from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.
Setback:
The building will be set back more than the front portion of the
Downtowner. They will use that 7 foot setback for café space.
Will the widening of Hollywood Blvd be needed? Ira doubts that, not seeing
an advantage to widening just in front of the project. The DOT makes that
determination ultimately.
Renee suggests that there be a cut-in for the café so that the tables
don’t go out to the sidewalk.
Ira said that the café tables will be protected under an overhang that is
part of the architecture. Renee said that in Santa Monica they have a
planter element that divides the café from the sidewalk.
Renee asked if people would see cars from the outside of the parking
structure. Ira said that they would not.
Dave says that the development maxes out the footprint. He feels that the
7 feet should be sidewalk and the café should be built into the project.
Dave says that some of the community feel that the store is too big for
the lot, and our neighborhood. Are we building this store for the
community? It’s very impactful. It feels as if this project is geared
for the automobile, not the neighborhood. We haven’t heard from Whole
Foods regarding specifics: the park, palm trees, employee parking, hours
of operation, incentive programs, etc. Is this the right site for this
project? Ira mentioned that he hasn’t seen this level of neighborhood
involvement concerned over the impact from a project before.
KC says we want to see if this project will not only work for now but well
into the future. The changes are exciting, but this community is concerned
about the negative impacts. He wants for us to be convinced that this is
the ideal location for the WF’s
store, and that the positives will outweigh the negatives.
Trees
We’re not settled on where to plant the trees – the neighbors want
them in the pocket park but it’s not secure yet. The church offered to
take them.
Management of the dirt lot:
KC asked about what is happening to manage that lot right now. Ira says
they are trying to get the buildings demolished and fence the area. Renee
says that the development company would like to expedite the demolition of
those buildings. Some neighbors said
that the Panorama should not be demolished at the present time, in case
the project doesn’t go through.
Dave said that there is activity on that property and not much light. He
says if you light the place up it will deter this activity, and suggested
that Bond take better care of the property.
Ira says that this is their plan after the buildings are removed. It was
brought up, however, that once the buildings are removed, they can never
be replaced. Fran asked that the Panorama be left allowed to stay fenced
in and the cottages removed.
Renee asked that we take our concerns back to our neighbors, and get a
consensus from the larger group. She said we should make some suggestions
regarding neighborhood mitigation – what would we like for the
neighborhood as a benefit? Street trees? A park? What would make it okay
for us?
Cindy lives right across the street from the cottages. She wants the
cottages gone due to the gang presence. This issue will be on the agenda
for the next Eastwood meeting.
The meeting was adjourned. |