A plan to replace an aging office building across from Lafayette Park with a self-storage facility is drawing growing opposition from residents in Westlake, who say the project wouldn’t benefit the community and would significantly alter a prominent corner.
Locals point to the fact that more than five self-storage facilities already operate in the area. There’s one storage facility nearby at 2500 W. 6th St., and another one is being proposed at 525 Virgil Ave.
The proposed development at 2727 W. 6th St. would rise nearly 91 feet, according to planning documents, and would replace an existing commercial office building, where an acupuncture clinic operates. The area is bordered by 6th Street, Lafayette Park Place and Benton Way.
“I’m trying to find an example of any other self-storage unit that’s built directly across from a park in the city of LA, and I’ve yet to be able to find anything,” resident Hazel Molina said, during a Rampart Village Neighborhood Council meeting in May, pointing to the fact that a large storage facility would be built directly across from Lafayette Park as one of her concerns.
The project, proposed in a commercial zone, would include 32 parking spaces, bicycle parking, two driveways and would operate from 6 a.m. – 10 p.m.
According to Marathon Communications and Allen Matkins, the law firm representing the developer, the facility would provide additional storage options in a dense neighborhood, activate a key site along a transit corridor and include security features such as controlled access and video monitoring.
But locals and members of the Rampart Village Neighborhood Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee, who first heard about the project proposal in May, have raised concerns about the exemptions developers are seeking, including one related to the building’s height.
They have also expressed suspicions about the possibility that the project could eventually be converted into a data center, due to how it’s designed, and the contamination that could come with it, as well as the removal of mature trees and the lack of active ground-floor uses.
“I’m not convinced,” Robert Reyes Villagómez, a member of the neighborhood council said. “We have regulations for a reason, and other than what I can imagine is increased profits for a self-storage company, there’s no real benefit. Why grant this?”
Representatives for Marathon later clarified they do not have plans to convert the storage facility into a data center.
Residents have also brought up traffic concerns, arguing that such a prominent area could benefit from a more active use, such as a community center.
In June, during another meeting with the neighborhood council, Marathon presented additional changes to the original proposal in response to concerns. The company added ground-floor retail, solar panels and, if the project moves forward, a discounted storage program for local residents.
Allberto Veloso, the president and committee chair of the Rampart Village Neighborhood Council, said the council decided at that meeting to not provide a recommendation for the project.
“Really it comes down to like the opportunity costs of why that location, and especially because there are a few, there’s already one storage building three blocks to the east, right, and they’re trying to build another one three blocks to the west, so we’d have three in a half-mile stretch of land, which seems kind of excessive,” Veloso said.
He added that the council also felt Marathon had not done enough outreach to the community to hear what residents thought about the project.
Veloso also said Marathon is now expected to return to them on July 15, with the neighborhood council potentially taking an official position at its July 21 meeting.
Marathon Communications and Allen Matkins, the law firm representing the developer, did not respond to requests for comment from The LA Local.
As of late, the neighborhood council board has not yet decided how it plans to officially respond to the project.
The project is seeking approvals for a 204,262-square-foot development, a conditional use permit for a household goods storage facility, a transitional height exception and other environmental exemptions.
Veloso said the applicants promised they would not return to the city’s zoning administrator before meeting with the committee again.
Residents also questioned why two storage projects are being proposed within a short distance of each other.
Others raised concerns that the building’s long walls could become magnets for graffiti and that the removal of existing trees would diminish the streetscape.
Westlake resident Nick Venet, who also attended a May neighborhood council meeting, urged residents to scrutinize the proposal, arguing that it does not align with the neighborhood’s needs.
“At best, it’s a bad idea,” Venet said. “It’s not affordable housing, it’s not a community green space.”
