656 San Vincente Boulevard building will include 140,000 square feet of medical office space
By Dolores Quintana
The Los Angeles City Planning Commission has officially given approval to Stockdale Capital Partner’s proposal after five years to redevelop the trapezoid-shaped lot at San Vincente and Wilshire Boulevard as reported by Urbanize Los Angeles. The new structure will be a medical office tower.
The vote was unanimous and the site is currently home to a Big 5 Sporting goods store and is located at 656 San Vincente Boulevard. The new structure will be a 12-story building that will have roughly 140,000 square feet of medical office space and a podium-style parking lot that will hold 418 vehicles as well as 5,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor.
ZGF Architects are the designers of the project which, according to Urbanize Los Angeles,
“would be clad in glass and rise to an apex of approximately 230 feet above street level.” The project’s style is contemporary and the building will be wedge-shaped as viewed from the perspective of Wilshire and San Vincente. The building will have outdoor terraces on the San Vincente side that are carved out of the building and increase in height as the viewer’s perspective moves north away from the Wilshire Boulevard side.
According to the environmental impact report issued by the City of Los Angeles, it is estimated that the development will take two years to complete. Additionally, the development will have to have another general plan amendment and zone change approved by the City Council at a later date.
Stockdale’s proposal was opposed by three appellants at the Planning Commission hearing. Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), the Beverly Wilshire Homeowners Association and attorney Micheal Yadegari were the appellants. Their argument was that the development’s plans violated the California Environmental Quality Act and area
zoning regulations. They insisted that the Commission overturn their approval of the project’s vesting tentative tract map. The appellant’s opposition did have support from local residents who were most concerned about the development’s impact on traffic and parking in the area.
The Commission’s staff report recommended that the Commissioners deny those appeals due to a lack of evidence and so the Commission voted to approve the project.
