web analytics

Venice Update

News of Venice, CA and Marina del Rey CA

Proposed 98-Unit for Thatcher Yard to Go Before Planning, 21 October

The first of the three major housing projects for the homeless in Venice — the Thatcher Yard — will go before City Planning at noon, 21 October at the West Los Angeles Municipal Building, 1645 South Corinth Ave, LA 90025.

The 2.11 acres, formerly a city maintenance yard, is to accommodate  98 units –68 senior and 30 family. The project is further characterized as 50 percent affordable, 25 percent homeless, and 25 percent permanent supportive. The permanent supportive is defined as homeless with a disability.

Further details of the project can be obtained here.

The project as described by City Planning is:
The Project consists of the removal of a vacant service yard and surface parking lot and the construction of a 101,771 square-foot, 98-unit (68 senior units and 30 family units) residential development comprised of one three-story structure
with one subterranean parking level and nine two-story structures with a maximum height of 40.5 feet (measured to the top of the clock tower); 82 parking spaces are provided in the subterranean parking level and all vehicle access is provided on Thatcher Avenue via Princeton Drive (to the northeast).

The Project provides affordable and supportive housing for senior citizens and formerly homeless families, with approximately 590 square feet of supportive services onsite. Approximately 45 non-protected trees will be removed from the site; no street trees will be removed. The Project includes the removal (relocation) of a vehicular gate on Princeton Drive and construction of a new vehicular gate and paving on Thatcher Avenue, adjacent to the northeast corner of the project site; vehicle access is limited to emergency vehicles. The project would require export of 4,800 cubic yards of soil and removal of 2,400 cubic yards of asphalt.

Thomas Safran Associates (TSA), builder of the project, requests the following:

1. The City Planning Commission shall consider pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21155, consideration of the whole of the administrative record, including the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) prepared for the project, Case No. ENV-2018-5594-SCEA, all comments received regarding the SCEA, the imposition of mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the SCEA;

2. Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.20.2, a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed Project in the Single Permit Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone; Initial HN (Non-Commission) –rev. 03/27/19 Page 2

3. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22-A,25, a Density Bonus for a housing development project comprised of 98 dwelling units, of which 10 units will be set aside for Very Low Income Households and requesting the following incentives
and waivers of development standards:

a. An on-menu incentive to allow a maximum height of 40 feet 6 inches, in lieu of the otherwise permitted 30 feet pursuant to LAMC Section 12.21.1-A, and
b. An off-menu waiver to allow space between buildings – passageways of 8 feet in lieu of the 10 feet and 20 feet otherwise required pursuant to LAMC Section 12.21-C,2;

4. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24-U,21, a Conditional Use Permit to permit a joint public and private development with uses more intensive than those permitted in the most restrictive adjoining zone (R1-1);

5. Pursuant to LAMC Section 16.05, a Site Plan Review for a project which creates or results in an increase of 50 or more dwelling units;

6. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.37-I,3, a Waiver of Dedication and/or Improvements to waive the requirement to widen an additional 15 feet along Oxford Avenue;

7. Pursuant to LAMC Section 11.5.7, a Project Permit Compliance Review for a project within the Oxford Triangle Subarea of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan.

8. Pursuant to Sections 65590 and 65590.1 of the California Government Code and the City of Los Angeles Interim Mello Act Compliance Administrative Procedures, a Mello Act Compliance review for construction of 98 new Residential Units within the Coastal Zone

Comments (3)

  1. Gary Rosen

    Totally preposterous proposal that makes absolutely NO sense! It should be opposed and blocked by all neighbors.

    First, the road infrastructure is incapable of handling new development. As it stands, Lincoln Blvd. is a PARKING LOT between 3PM and 8PM and, on certain days, it literally takes about an hour to drive from Santa Monica to Marina Del Rey. Until the road infrastructure is remedied, there is NO logic to build another apartment or condo of any kind near there.

    Second, the city taxpayers paid for the demolition of the buildings on the Thatcher lot a few years ago, so the developer (Tom Safran) should compensate the city taxpayer for that demolition. There is NO rationale to provide an empty lot to the wealthy developer unless he compensates the taxpayer for the previous demolition expenses. It MUST be a condition of any future development at that site and, if the politicos fail to do so, then they should be investigated to see if they made a “sweetheart deal” with Tom Safran several years ago, whereby Safran avoids demolition costs at the expense of the taxpayer, thanks to “bribes” bestowed upon the politicos.

    Third, Barleys Motorcycles is contiguous to Thatcher Ave, and Barleys typically tests motorcyles (new and repaired) down Thatcher Ave., so it is NOT the place to locate seniors, unless they enjoy hearing a roaring motorcycle three or four times per hour. When the motorcycles are not speeding along Thacher Ave, then the kids typically use the street as a place for skateboarding, cycling, walking their dogs, etc. since there are NO playgrounds of any kind nearby. Unless Tom Safran creates a playground space for the kids in the area, he should NOT be allowed to proceed, period.

    Fourth, in that area (considered to be Marina Del Rey), an abundance of homeless tents have been appearing on low traffic streets such as Thatcher, and unless they have discovered a method to preclude the problem, then Thatcher is bound to have a long line of homeless tents appear once the development is completed. Rather than solving a homeless problem, it only will exacerbate matters. Reason: the homeless will find the street even more inviting since the new development will provide more shelter from the winter winds and rains.

    Fifth, they plan to remove approx. 45 trees in the area in order to build this edifice…and in that area, on the East side of the street, it is a CONCRETE jungle of apartments and condos, with virtually no trees or vegetation. Any removal of trees only will worsen the “concrete effect,” and the apartment/condo dwellers will be deprived badly of the sparse contiguous greenery that they now enjoy.

    Bottom line: I understand that the wealthy developer, Tom Safran, lives upon an expansive estate in Brentwood….he does NOT suffer any noise, he does NOT suffer any lack of privacy, he does NOT suffer any nearby heavy traffic, he does NOT suffer living within a concrete jungle, he does NOT suffer any homeless tents parked in front of his residence, etc. Moreover, he is a typical “progressive liberal” Democrat, an obviously insincere “social justice warrior” who believes that solutions to societal ills are OK, provided that they only inconvenience or harm others, while leaving him free to live a life of obscene indulgence and luxury. His proposed development at Thacher is guaranteed to become a massive headache to all neighbors in the area. It’s only genuine aim is to generate even more profits for Tom Safran under the pretext of providing affordable housing to seniors when, in the end, it will serve only to become a living Hell for all those affected by the undesirable development.

    BLOCK IT!!!!

  2. philth

    thats actually venice community housing corps target demographic.. they prefer gr clients so they can help them get on disability and extort them for back rent completely in breach of every conceivable contract term and even criminal line.. from a very disgruntled tenant

  3. Patricia

    Be careful of housing projects that promise to cater to groups like seniors or families or disabled. What happened in OC is that the non-profits ran out of appropriate clients and is now a PSH for single, drug-addicted people, with no oversight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *