Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Avalon Bay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves plan amendment and ordinance for Avalon Bay development after robust debate
Summary
After extended public comment from film and industrial stakeholders, the council approved a general plan amendment and ordinance enabling a residential component at the Avalon Bay site; councilmembers and planning staff discussed compatibility, affordable housing requirements and the need to protect industrial uses.
The Los Angeles City Council approved a general plan amendment and accompanying ordinance to allow a large residential project at a site currently designated industrial, amid several hours of public comment and divided committee recommendations.
The project drew opposition from nearby industrial and entertainment businesses, who said residential uses would be incompatible and could force existing employers to relocate. Supporters, including some council members and urban planning advocates, said adding housing near jobs could reduce commuting and congestion.
John Moranville, a television producer who said he represents himself and production partners, told the council that the planning staff, hearing examiner and planning commission had all recommended against the proposed zoning change and plan amendment. “This is a pure residential play disguised as commercial,” Moranville said, adding that the project could threaten the adjacent film industry and its jobs.
Leslie Daigle, representing Verizon Wireless, and developer and industrial owner William Feldman warned the council the site's current industrial users — including a mobile telephone switching office and film production stages — rely on predictability of industrial zoning. “We oppose the proposed housing development as it curtails our development rights and erodes the predictability of our expansion,” Daigle said.
Councilmember Bernsen said he had reconsidered and would support the measure, while pledging to pursue a plan amendment and zone change for surrounding parcels to reduce displacement risks and to require a more compatible zone for sound studios. Bernsen moved the proposal as it was before the council and said the council would follow with a plan amendment and zone change for the rest of the area.
Councilmember Mysikowski, who said she was part of the planning committee majority that opposed the measure, argued the proposal amounted to spot zoning and repeated the planning commission’s unanimous recommendation against it. “I strongly support the planning commission who recommended against it,” she said.
City planning staff told councilmembers the zone-change ordinance requires affordable housing as a condition: 20 percent of units must be affordable, split as 10 percent low-income and 10 percent moderate-income; the remainder would be market-rate.
Two roll-call votes were required. The resolution for the general plan amendment passed with 12 ayes and 2 noes; the ordinance was approved with the same tally. Council discussion emphasized follow-up actions including a plan amendment and zone change for the surrounding industrial area to reduce potential conflicts.
Action recorded: plan amendment and ordinance approved; councilmembers directed the Planning Department to pursue a broader plan amendment and zone changes for adjacent parcels and to ensure required affordable housing percentages are implemented.
