The DRRA recently sent the following letter to our LA City officials:
July 18, 2024
Holly Harper
221 North Figueroa Street Suite 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: CPC 2023-5986-CA
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (“ARO”)
Insufficient time has been allowed for public input on this draft ordinance, but our land use
committee was able to review and approve this letter before the July 18, 2024 comment
deadline.
This ordinance claims to be about “adaptive reuse,” but it’s really about rezoning. Adaptive
reuse refers to the process of reusing an existing building for a purpose other than that for
which it was originally built or designed, e.g. putting housing in a commercial building. The
reuse occurs within the existing building envelope. This ordinance seeks to enable housing
construction free of all zoning restraints.
Here are our concerns in more detail:
1. This ordinance is being prepared before our Community Plan (adopted in1997) can be
updated. This puts the cart before the horse, allowing land use decisions to be made
parcel by parcel (“spot zoning”), rather than as implementation of a long-term plan.
2. The new Zoning Code will not be enacted until the updated Community Plan is adopted,
and that process is not expected to begin until ordinances comprising the Citywide
Housing Incentive Program (including this one) are approved, ostensibly by next
February. Therefore, we need to be sure that until we have a new Community Plan, all
zoning decisions are based on the current code, and the rules must be applied uniformly
and consistently to all projects. Discretionary decision-making opens the door to graft
and corruption of those who are deciding what gets built where.Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
July 18, 2024
Page 2 of 6
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. At the June 27, 2024 public hearing on the proposed ARO (sparsely attended because it
was the night of the presidential debate), the Planning Department representative
made it clear that the department’s policy is to do everything possible to create
housing, and in the proposed ARO, they have “cleared away the zoning part,” so that
only Building Code requirements will limit Adaptive Reuse projects. We vehemently
disagree with this policy and do not believe that eliminating zoning requirements will
make housing more affordable in Los Angeles.
The idea behind “adaptive reuse” is to provide housing in commercial buildings that
otherwise would be vacant. However, the Department of City Planning’s General
Development Standards (updated March 2024) still need to be enforced. Height limits,
setback requirements and lot size requirements should not change just because the
property use has changed from commercial to housing.
The City Planning Commission’s Affordable Housing Incentives Guidelines (VI) provide
that an applicant requesting incentives/concessions must provide “[t]he rationale and
accurate supporting information, sufficient to demonstrate that the specific request is
necessary to make the affordable units feasible.” In other words, will the project only
“pencil out” if the incentives are provided, or could the affordable units be provided
within the limits of existing zoning and development standards. By definition, an
adaptive reuse project is allowing a developer to do something that otherwise would
not be permitted. Therefore, all developers must make this showing for any project that
includes covenanted affordable units.
Unless the adaptive reuse project is required to stay within the footprint of the existing
building, densification in order to get a few “affordable” units actually will have the
effect of making housing less affordable for those who are not chosen to live in the
covenanted units. If building a few affordable units will give the owner permission to
build more market-rate units than normally would be allowed, the result will be
gentrification, not lower housing prices. We know from the Glencoe Maxella Specific
Plan area, where the underlying zoning is “industrial,” that if housing construction is
allowed, the industrial uses (dog kennels, automotive shops, Bruffy’s Tow) will be
crowded out in favor of high rent, luxury apartment buildings with a small number of
covenanted units for Very Low Income tenants. We would rather see a project like the
21 unit, all affordable building at 13366-13368 Beach Avenue, which was built within the
City’s general development standards by Venice Community Housing Corporation.
It is our understanding that the new form-based zoning will look at the combination of
Floor to Area Ratio (FAR), building height and lot size, rather than use, to determine
whether a property complies with the new Zoning Code. If the proposed ARO does not
Post Office Box 661450 – Los Angeles, CA 90066
www.delreyresidentsassn.orgAdaptive Reuse Ordinance
July 18, 2024
Page 3 of 6
8. 9. count certain areas toward the FAR or height, how will it be possible to assess whether a
project is in compliance with the new Zoning Code?
We strongly oppose overriding Specific Plans and Q Conditions. The terms of those
plans were negotiated with the community and approved by the City.
A. In the Glencoe Maxella Specific Plan area, the height limit is 55’. On the G8 project
(13448 Beach), the developer was allowed to build to 85’ in one part of the building
in exchange for providing a community amenity, a ground level, publicly accessible
gathering place. Under the proposed ARO, the developers get unbridled density
increases and must provide nothing to the community. The covenanted
“affordable” units only benefit the few people allowed to rent them, and the
landowner picks the tenants. As a result, the proposed ARO does nothing to provide
shelter and services to the many homeless who are living on our streets.
B. The Q-conditions on properties also need to be enforced. The Stella apartment
complex (13488 Maxella Avenue) was permitted on the condition that a second
piece of property be left open for the residents to use as a dog park. Five years after
the Stella project was approved the developer tried to come back and develop the
undeveloped parcel. The Q condition protected the community benefit that had
been negotiated. If a developer agrees to do something in exchange for being
allowed to build, the developer must be expected to adhere to what was promised
to the community.
Where housing is built in an existing building, the developer should not be able to
“double dip” by using affordable housing incentives to change the footprint of the
existing building. To do otherwise abdicates all control by the Planning Department of
when, where and how development should occur. Specifically, the following incentives
must be deleted from the proposed ARO:
a. Allowing one new story to be added and not counted as new floor area, as long as
the area is used for amenities available to all residents.
b. Allowing a project that includes on-site affordable housing (how much?) to add up to
two stories that exceed the zone’s allowable height (in addition to the floor allowed
for resident amenities?).
c. Exemption from any zoning requirements for minimum unit size (800 square feet in
the Glencoe Maxella Specific Plan), as long as Building Code requirements (60 square
feet per resident) are met.
d. Adaptive reuse projects not required to comply with any upper story or building
mass provisions. (Without stepbacks and transitional height requirements, we will
have massive, ugly cubes of apartments.)
Post Office Box 661450 – Los Angeles, CA 90066
www.delreyresidentsassn.orgAdaptive Reuse Ordinance
July 18, 2024
Page 4 of 6
e. f. g. No requirement of new open space or landscaping for the residents who are being
added to the community by the adaptive reuse project.
Allowing new construction to utilize unlimited density as an incentive if it is part of a
Unified Adaptive Reuse Project, i.e. a project composed of two or more buildings
with certain linkages (see discussion of an actual project below).
Allowing Adaptive Reuse Projects that provide on-site affordable housing to add two
additional stories, not considered as new floor area or height, up to the maximum
height allowed by the zone or height district.
10. To highlight the impact this ordinance could have in Del Rey, we will describe an actual
project that is under discussion.
A. 13481-13485 Beach Avenue. Five years ago, a triplex and a single family home were
on this property. On June 12, 2020, the Los Angeles Housing Department
determined that under SB 330, those four units needed to be replaced with four
“affordable” units in the new project. The developer planned to build 20
condominium units and seven Very Low Income covenanted affordable units.
The May 4, 2023 Letter of Determination from the Los Angeles City Planning
Commission stated that based on the property’s “pre-dedicated lot area” the
property had a base density of 10 units of housing. That base density was then used
to calculate how density bonuses could be applied to increase the number of units
built. The property zoning (CM(GM)-2D-CA) permitted one dwelling unit for every
800 square feet of lot area. The proposed ARO must explain how a property’s “base
units” will be calculated because those are used to determine how many incentives
will be granted. As the number of incentives is based on the number of affordable
units being created, the ordinance should not exempt the projects from zoning
requirements for minimum use size. It must be possible to calculate in advance how
many units can be put on a particular parcel because that affects the demand for
public services.
In addition, the new project was only planning to add three new units of affordable
housing, and yet the density bonus calculations were based on the project providing
seven units of affordable housing for the City. If the goal is to create housing, then
only the increase should be considered in density calculations.
Ultimately, the City Planning Commission approved three incentives, four waivers of
development standards and a total of a 162.5 per cent density bonus, but it never
required a showing that the bonuses were necessary to make the affordable units
feasible. Further, the project was not built, so the City lost four affordable units for
more than four years.
Post Office Box 661450 – Los Angeles, CA 90066
www.delreyresidentsassn.orgAdaptive Reuse Ordinance
July 18, 2024
Page 5 of 6
B. Unified Adaptive Reuse Project. The property above changed hands last year, and
the new owner has purchased 13476 Washington Blvd. (a commercial property in
Culver City) and is planning to create one property with 13477-13481 Beach Avenue
(in Los Angeles).
At a June 20, 2024 meeting of the Del Rey Neighborhood Council’s land use
committee, the developer presented a rendering of the new project, which proposes
a 77’ tall building with 82 rental apartments, 20 of which would be Very Low Income,
and 2670 sf of retail. Under the ARO, the retail space would be for tenant-serving
uses. All parking would be unbundled, i.e. a tenant wanting parking would need to
purchase a space.
The proposed ARO would exempt adaptive reuse projects from any zoning
requirements whereas the Culver City property presumably would be regulated by
Culver City rules for adaptive reuse. (We often have projects that straddle the city
border, and usually Culver City is the lead agency. Here, the idea is to have one
project in two cities. What rules apply when the adaptive reuse is of a building
outside the City of Los Angeles?)
Conclusion
We acknowledge that there is a need for more affordable housing, and for the homeless
to have shelter and services. As mentioned above, we have no problem with all-affordable
housing projects that are built within the framework of the City’s general development
standards. We do have a problem with a proposed ordinance that hugely benefits private
developers and essentially gives carte blanche to them while getting nothing in return for the
community.
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth A. Pollock
Advisor (past president)
Del Rey Residents Association
CC:
• Del Rey Residents Association board (for August 4, 2024 meeting)
• Elizabeth Birks, District Representative for State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas,
• Michelle Persoff, Sr. Field Representative, State Assemblymember Isaac Bryan
• Tracy McGee, Constituent Engagement Deputy, County Supervisor Holly Mitchell,
• Marian Ensley, West Area Representative for Mayor Karen Bass,
• Jeff Khau, Planning Deputy, City Councilmember Traci Park, jeff.khau@lacity.org
• Matthew Halden, Del Rey Deputy, City Councilmember Traci Park,
• Blair Smith (re Citywide Housing incentive Program), blair.smith@lacity.org
• Kiran Rishi (re Community Plan Update), kiran.rishi@lacity.org
• Matthew Glesne, Sr. City Planner, Housing Policy, matthew.glesne@lacity.org
• Cally Hardy, Sr. Housing Analyst, Housing Department, cally.hardy@lacity.org
• Del Rey Neighborhood Council, board@delreync.org
• Land Use and Planning Committee, Del Rey Neighborhood Council,
• Maryam Zar, Westside Regional Alliance of Councils Land Use & Planning Committee
Post Office Box 661450 – Los Angeles, CA 90066