1. NO STUDY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT ALONG SPEEDWAY ALLEY 2. 5 ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF THE VENICE BOARDWALK LIKELY TO BE REDEVELOPED 3. SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON SPEEDWAY INDICATED 4. APPLICANT'S BROKEN CREDIBILITY 5. BUILDING SIZE DISGUISED: FLOOR AREA, BUILDABLE AREA AND FAR UNDERSTATED 6. 15 CAR PARKING DEFICIT 7. DISALLOW 50% F.A.R. DENSITY BONUS FOR TOKEN RESIDENTIAL USE 8. INCREASE SUNSET AVENUE SETBACK FROM 6FT TO 15FT 9. INCREASE SPEEDWAY ALLEY SETBACK FROM 5FT TO 15FT 10. LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT 40' TO 35': DROP DECK & REPLACE 5' SCREEN W/ 18" RAIL 11. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT NOT A PERMITTED USE IN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE 12. PRECEDENTS PREJUDICE CITY's PREPARATION OF A LOCAL COASTAL PR0GRAM
Subsequent web pages document the above points of objection with annotated selections from: 10/28/15 Revised Building Plans; Coastal Development Permit Application; Traffic Impact Study; CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration; Zoning Administrator's Determination Letter; Architect's Design Presentation Building Impages; 601 Ocean Front Walk (OFW) Coastal Commission Reports 1992 and 1998; 619 & 701 OFW Coastal Commission Report 2004; 619 & 701 OFW Building Plans; Prevailing Setbacks Survey by Neighbors for Sustainable Development on Venice Beach; Photos of project model in neighborhood context by John Stein; Table and photos by John Stein; Appeals Court Rulings in Gaggero vs. Knapp, Petersen et al.; LA Planning Department Zoning Manual; Venice Local Coastal Program; Venice Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan