Arts District Expansion Gets Planning OK

By Eric Richardson
Published: Tuesday, March 04, 2008, at 04:28PM

Eric Richardson [Flickr]

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Appearing before the city council’s Planning and Land Use committee just minutes ago, Planning Chief Gail Goldberg told the committee that she agreed with Councilman Jose Huizar’s efforts to extend the southern boundaries of the Arts District. The PLUM committee passed the motion before it to do so, and that motion will now go to City Council tomorrow.

Huizar’s motion would extend the southern boundaries of the Arts District from 6th down to Violet, a block below 7th. The change would bring 2121 Lofts, as well as the recently approved AMP Lofts into the Arts District and its guidelines. Goldberg told the committee members that the EIR process required to make the change would take 6 - 9 months, and that CRA had agreed to pay for the study.

The Arts District specific plan contains provisions that are more conducive to residential development than is the current Central City North community plan.

This story belongs to the following topics:

Topic:
Industrial Land Use Policy

14 stories

Catching Up With... Industrial Land Use
December 28, 2008
Council Expands Artists-In-Residence Zone
December 19, 2008
Industrial Land Use Policy Gets an Award?
June 18, 2008

Comments

jim winstead writes:

this means that part of the arts district will now be within dlanc territory.

# on Mar.04.2008 AT 05:46 PM

micaheal #1 writes:

Hot damn, I’m no longer “industrial” now I’m an artist!

# on Mar.05.2008 AT 06:30 AM

Tim writes:

Happy for 2121. It is a great project and now hopefully it have neighbors develop around it.

# on Mar.05.2008 AT 07:54 AM

barker writes:

Gail Goldberg did not say that she “agreed with Councilman Jose Huizar’s efforts to extend the southern boundaries of the Arts District.”

She said she agreed to consider the idea and take a look at it. Should this happen, it would require an EIR. It is true that CRA has offered to fund such an EIR, should it go forward.

# on Mar.05.2008 AT 12:17 PM

Eric Richardson writes:

barker: I don’t have a transcript from the meeting, but the tone of her response to the motion was very favorable and surprised me. I would say that it was far more than just agreeing to take a look at the idea.

# on Mar.05.2008 AT 06:25 PM

whitman lam writes:

Hot damn, I’m no longer “industrial” now I’m an artist!

Actually, our local artists NEED “industrial” zoning to keep their converted warehouse lofts from going condo. It’s the only thing that keeps their rent from skyrocketing into yuppie territory.

# on Mar.05.2008 AT 09:39 PM

Ford Allen writes:

What this means for the buildings south of Violet and north of Olympic is probably more CRA/Planning restrictions as outlined in the January 3rd, 2008 “new directive” which is effectively a zoning policy change. It is unfair to offer welfare to the already well-healed developers and throw the actual neighborhood pioneers to the wolves. What ever happened to Huizar’s motion to block the implementation of that botched directive? I hope he didn’t pull it. Any news on that front? How will this new AIR boundary effect the “new directive”? Warehouse dwellers want to know.

# on Mar.07.2008 AT 10:19 PM