Late last year, project applicants KT Real Estate, LLC and HL Properties America Corporation secured approvals from the City of Los Angeles to redevelop a 60,000-square-foot site at 1925 W. Olympic Boulevard. The proposed project, submitted to the Planning Department for review in July 2022, calls for the construction of two building featuring a total of 238 studio, one-, and two-bedroom apartments on their upper floors, with 9,700 square feet of restaurant space at the ground level, providing a new location for the restaurant which currently occupies the property. Parking for 193 vehicles would be located at-grade and in two below-grade levels.
Approved plans rely on Transit Oriented Communities development incentives to permit a larger building than allowed by zoning rules. In exchange, the project would set aside 34 apartments as deed-restricted affordable housing at the very low-income level.
DGB + Line is designing the project, named Olympic + Westlake for its cross streets, which would rise seven stories in height. The contemporary podium-type apartment complex would incorporate amenities including community rooms, a courtyard pool and garden deck, a gym, and rooftop terraces.
A notable change since the inception of the project last year is alterations to its street-level frontage at Olympic and Westlake. Notably, surface parking originally planned at the corner of Olympic and Westlake has been replaced with an outdoor dining area. Other changes include the addition of a pedestrian staircase on Westlake Avenue, as well as a reduction in the number of driveways.
The appellant who brought the project before the Planning Commission, the Coalition for Equitable Westlake/MacArthur Park, is an organization which has frequently opposed new residential developments in Central Los Angeles based on the argument that "cumulative impacts" of multiple developments should require further environmental study. In their argument to the Commission, they contend that the project does not comply with local zoning regulations. Additionally, they leveled the familiar argument that the project should not be granted a Class 32 exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
A staff report recommended denial of the appeal, citing a lack of evidence to support its claims. The appellant did not attend the hearing.
Follow us on social media: