Legado’s attorney says opponents are twisting the Coastal Act to reduce beach access
By Benjamin M. Reznik
Reznik is a land use attorney representing the Legado Companies in their efforts to build on Culver Boulevard.
The commercially zoned lot at 138 Culver Blvd. in Playa del Rey — two blocks from the ocean and owned by my client, Legado — has been empty for many years, having been a gas station in the past. We obtained approval from the city Planning Department for a density bonus project of 72 units, of which eight units (11%) are very low income units that will be subsidized for 55 years by the owner of the project (which includes 7,500 square feet of ground-floor neighborhood retail).
Under state and city law, the density bonus allows for an additional floor or 11 feet in height above zoning restrictions, whichever is greater, in order to accommodate the additional units that are allowed. It is this additional floor that helps pay for (i.e. subsidize) the low-income units for the next 55 years.
Opponents argue that at four stories (48 feet in height), the building is too large. We provided evidence of scores of four-story buildings in the area, so opponents turned to the Coastal Act to argue that the building is “visually incompatible” for the Coastal Zone. However, the building does not block views and is in the middle of the commercial part of Playa del Rey, at the terminus of Metro Line 115.
Opponents also argue that the Coastal Act governs over density bonus, notwithstanding the fact that the Coastal Act has no objective criteria for height, density, etc. Rather, it provides general guidelines for new development in the Coastal Zone, such as “maintain and enhance public access to the coast,” “protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas,” “be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas,” and so on.
The Planning Department found that this project actually enhances public access to the coast, as it provides new housing at the coast and has retail and parking that will serve the visiting public.
But opponents argue that a four-story building violates the Coastal Act, and since the Coastal Act guidelines are subjective in nature, opponents are free to argue that they are being violated without the burden of providing objective evidence of adverse impacts or Coastal Act incompatibility. Total subjectivity.
And if the City Council goes along with this line of argument and denies this housing project, then for all practical purposes the Coastal Zone will have been turned into a “Red Line Zone” for any housing projects that include low-income units. Why? Because all such projects require the use of density bonus incentives, thereby making them slightly larger and able to subsidize the cost of the low-income units.
So in the name of “protecting” the coast, opponents are actively denying people of lesser means and minorities access to the coast!
This is not a case where a proposed density bonus project looms over an adjacent neighbor’s house. The 138 Culver project is fully surrounded by public streets. No, this is a case of pernicious discrimination that must not be legitimized by the City Council. The Coastal Act was never intended to be a tool used to deny housing in the Coastal Zone.
And if you think I am overstating the case, just look at what some of the opponents have written on social media. One opponent wrote this: “I for one happily welcome visitors to our town (many of whom are our inland neighbors) for the 3-4 months of the year when so many people just love coming to the beach. In exchange for that we have our town mostly to ourselves for the rest of the year. In my book, that’s a great deal.”
Indeed, opponents want to turn the coastal zone into an “exclusionary zone.” Make no mistake, the fight against this project is intended to target a specific group of L.A. residents who heretofore have not had the financial means to live in the Coastal Zone.
This point became all too evident at last month’s city Planning Commission hearing, where not one of the 50 people who spoke out against the project was a person of color or of a race other than white, while the nearly 100 supporters included a mixture of races and ethnicities. One of the supporters even pointed this out to the commission, though he really didn’t have to because it was blatantly obvious.
Supporters included Playa del Rey locals as well as housing advocates, who argued that residents of all income levels should have the opportunity to live on the coast. While much has been written on how coastal access has been historically restricted through private property rights, physical gates and fences, and other physical means (see Steve Lopez columns in the LA Times), there is another form of coastal access being denied — but this time using the Coastal Act itself as the weapon! Hopefully, the L.A. City Council will act not to exclude housing, including low-income housing, from the Coastal Zone.
You’re disgusting trying to argue that the opposition for this project is because of racism or people not wanting low income POC to live here. I can say that because I am a POC living in PDR. The fact of the matter is people in PDR don’t want greedy developers building huge luxury condos and creating unnecessary long construction, traffic nightmares, noise, blocking views (you’re wrong, it’s going to stick out like a sore thumb and block views for some on the hill) to the ocean, etc FOR YOUR PROFITS. Try again, somewhere else.
It will kill the view and the small feel that Playa has been able to keep while MDR has lost. Put it on top of the hill, or even just a block or 2 in (where I happen to live) and you would see support skyrocket. Putting it right in the view line to the water is a non starter and I hope your stopped from making such a large building.
Kill the view? From where exactly? The middle of that ugly old broken down lot? Maybe Bacari? Someone tell us where these beautiful views are over the luxurious “Jakes” lot… At least there would have been much needed parking if the original 2 story parking were allowed.
He’s full of you know what. How much did he pay you for writing this?
This is ridiculous and, simply, untrue. I have been a PDR resident for over 10 years. I am considered “low-income” and I am far from racist. This attorney wants you to think things that are so far from the truth. This development would RESTRICT beach access, cause more traffic, and block beautiful coastal views. They want to develop to fill their pockets not to help people. Please don’t believe these lies.
I would like to say that I find this article very disheartening. I have lived in Playa del Rey for almost 20 years and I have found it to be one of the warmest, friendly and diverse communities I have ever lived in. Nearly everyone in my neighborhood knows each other and comes from a different culture, US born or otherwise. My parent’s best friends live across the street, mixed couple married 55 years. I invited my best friend of 20+ years and my 13-year old goddaughter to come live nearer to me in Playa so we could be closer as a family… and…. they’re Haitian/Moroccan. Hello? It truly blows my mind how reckless society has become with regard for community and are happy to trade peoples’ well-being and happiness for their own personal greed and cash booty. No one in Playa del Rey is opposed to modernizing this beautiful enclave for ALL its residents, but not at the cost of destroying it while you all navigate from your Beverly Hills pirate ships making corporate land grabs while sipping drinks at the country club galas. The Kings’ (yes Kings’ not King’s) Beach is the last of its kind on the West Coast and will not go without a fight no matter how many underhanded tactics you engage in. Do no harm.
Clearly Mr. Resnick hasn’t visited Play Del Rey where we have free parking at Del Rey lagoon which is used by people of all races and income groups. If Legado also develops their property on the dunes THAT will curtail access. He is trying as hard as he can to interject class and race into his proposal for oversized luxury housing. His importation of affordable housing proponents was a cynical display of people who could really benefit from a real solution to the problem, not a token 8 unit breadcrumb.
My, Mr. Resnick sounds so liberal and caring, chastising all us nimby bigots here in Playa del Rey. People like my late husband, who was a poor Latino kid from East L.A., living in a garage, and who didn’t even speak English until he went to school, but became a success because of his talent and determination. He finally could afford to buy a duplex here for our family, a duplex under rent control as are over 240 units here. I’d venture to say that’s a larger percentage of “low income” units than any other beach community our size.
Sorry we couldn’t manage a display of people of color at the hearing, but it was interesting listening to those who pitched for Legado, especially the guy who “lives and works in Playa del Rey” who slipped and referred to us as Playa Vista. Oops.
The fact is that these developers who profess to care so much were generous supporters of Trump. That’s all you need to know.
Mr. Reznik
To say “the building does not block views” is simply untrue. Montreal Street ( just above Culver blvd) is a known and appreciated public vista – and one that would be completely obscured by this project. This is fact, and protecting such things is squarely within the purview of the Coastal Commission, so please describe the situation accurately.
To state “We provided evidence of scores of four-story buildings in the area” is a misrepresentation (at best). The only thing that even comes close to the scale of this project are buildings on Pershing and Manchester – business areas significantly inland and far out of sight from the water or any classically scenic coastal views.
Lastly. The racial angle you are now adopting is new, and frankly quite absurd. This has always been about the massive scale of the project and its appropriate place within an established and beautiful community. Neither you or your client can claim to be heroes to the working man, regardless of color. You build expensive projects for people with expensive tastes and who have the finances to match – period. To say otherwise is also a thinly veiled misrepresentation of the ultimate intent of this project and one easily supported with any casual observation of your previous developments and the residents.
I understand you represent a developer and you stand to gain quite handily from this project should it occur, so it should be expected that the truth may seem quite malleable to suit your needs, but you will need to work within the requirements of our community should Legado wish to become a part of it.
As for this article. Freedom of speech is important and you absolutely have every right to express your opinion, but I hope the Argonaut provides a consistent and equal home for viewpoints on all sides of this issue moving forward.