Industrial Land Use Policy

Speakers Tell of Changes in Industrial Use

By Eric Richardson — March 07, 2008 — 5 Comments

Nancy Carradine

Not all "industry" is created equal.

That's a fact that seems to get lost in many of the stats brought out by the Planning department to support its Industrial Land Use policy. At Tuesday's Planning and Land Use meeting several speakers took the chance to clarify.

Mark Shinbane, V.P. of , told how his company has expanded in recent years from a $100 million business to one that does $200 million per year. In that time the firm has maxed out the space available to it in Downtown's industrial areas. "The streets are way too small Downtown," Shinbane told the committee, noting that his trucks have issues daily with limited space getting in and out of their loading docks. — Continued Inside...

Arts District Expansion Gets Planning OK

By Eric Richardson — March 04, 2008 — 7 Comments

Eric Richardson

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.

Industrial Land Use Goes to PLUM

By Eric Richardson — March 04, 2008

In just a minute (I better get moving) city council's Planning and Land Use committee will begin an agenda heavy in Industrial Land Use items. I'll be at the meeting and will be posting live updates to .

If you haven't followed along, read up on this Industrial Land Use primer to prep yourself for the full recap, which will be coming this evening.

Update (4:15pm): Meeting finished just a few minutes ago. Probably a few different updates coming in the next 24 hours.

Chinatown Lofts Adds Interest to Industrial Debate

By Eric Richardson — February 20, 2008 — 8 Comments

This week's Downtown News writes about 1101 N. Main, a . As the article notes, the project has gotten all thumbs up from the city. Planning changed the site's zoning from Industrial to Mixed Use, ruling that the site was better served with a residential development. City Council just overruled an appeal filed by neighboring California Drop Forge, who argued that its presence was unacknowledged in the project EIR. There are two things particularly worth noting in this project:

First, it's "L.A. Chinatown Lofts." Take a look at the render (rotated for clarity) and you'll see that the building footprint is supposed to look like the letters LA. Clever.

Second, it's interesting to see Planning fully in support of this project while it denies development in the southern Arts District. Unlike, for instance, the recent process with AMP Lofts, this site has an actual heavy industrial neighbor with noise and vibration concerns that factor into how the development will play out. Why does Planning feel that those can be mitigated here, but rule oppositely in another part of Downtown?

After Presentations to CRA and Planning, What Next for Industrial Use?

By Eric Richardson — January 18, 2008 — 6 Comments

Eric Richardson

The debate over Industrial Land Use can be a tough one for the mere resident to unravel, delving deep into zoning and city documents. The infamous joint memo delivered to staff by CRA head Cecilia Estelano and Planning chief Gail Goldberg got another two hearings in the past week as the document was presented to the pair's respective boards. In the meetings they acknowledged the controversy, made the case for their policy and outlined their view of the solution. Unfortunately for Downtown, the latter two points do nothing to address wide ranging concerns.

Unfortunately for you, this is going to take a lot of words to explain. Feel free to read on, to print the story out for weekend pleasure reading (seriously, you get three days), or to just wait a few minutes until we can post something fluffier. — Continued Inside...

Council Looks to Set Course for AMP Lofts Approval

By Eric Richardson — January 07, 2008 — 8 Comments

Ed Fuentes

The proposed AMP Lofts at 695 Santa Fe has land, an award winning design and the favor of both Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Councilman Jose Huizar. What it doesn't have is approval from the city's planning department. Tomorrow morning City Council will consider a motion by Huizar to take jurisdiction over the case and let the council's Planning and Land Use Committee determine the project's fate.

On December 13th six members of the Central Area Community Planning Commission deadlocked on whether to reverse a denial by Acting Zoning Administrator Michael LoGrande, causing the initial decision to hold. LoGrande's denial was largely predicated on the argument that residential use was inconsistent with the neighborhood, but a look around shows that the project has plenty of residential neighbors. Diagonally across the intersection of 7th and Santa Fe is 2121 Lofts, with 78 units. Just one block away are the Toy Factory and Biscuit Company lofts, with a combined 214 units. The 182-unit AMP Lofts would cement what has quickly turned in a southern outpost of the Arts District.

Though the original denial and December deadlock predate the Industrial Land Use Policy just introduced by Planning and CRA, the arguments read just the same. Though the project's process was put in play way back in 2005, tomorrow's Council action looks to be the first move in the fight over development of Downtown's industrial district.

Previously: AMP Lofts to Rise Within the Warehouses

The Debate about Jobs

By Eric Richardson — January 04, 2008

Yesterday's preview meeting for Downtown industrial land use provided more questions than it did answers. Donald Spivack of the CRA and Jane Blumenfield of Planning presented the two departments' joint results to a packed room that was vocally opposed to both the procedure and the content of the plan to forbid residential use in a wide swath of Downtown's industrial land.

Aside from the concerns over process mentioned earlier, the biggest objections raised were over the areas designated as "Job Preservation" zones. Carol Schatz, CEO of the Central City Association, asked the big question: just how many jobs are in the Downtown industrial area to be preserved?

While the only number given at the meeting was that of 84,000 jobs inside the study areas, by the Planning Department indicate that the 620 acres of the "Downtown Industrial Core" (basically Main, 3rd, Alameda and the 10 freeway) hold less than 25,000 jobs and 0% heavy industrial use. The largest job category listed is wholesale trade, at 8,316.

While there was much more to come out of the meeting, this number provides a useful framework for beginning discussion of the issue. If the intent of the city is to retain and create jobs, isn't it clear that the industrial approach hasn't panned out?

For the Bored and/or Obsessed: Twittering Industrial Land Use

By Eric Richardson — January 03, 2008 — 7 Comments

As mentioned the other day, this afternoon at 3pm Planning and CRA are holding the first preview meeting for their "new" Downtown Industrial Land Use policy. As relevant bits come up during the meeting, I'm planning to give a go to pushing them out via . To follow along, just check out .

Afterward I'm sure I'll be writing up a normal report as well, but I've long been kicking around the idea of using twitter for short, immediate updates as Downtown events are taking place.

Update (2pm): Also, to add a note of content, you don't really even need to attend the meeting to get the gist of what DLANC thinks about the issue. This item was added late to the agenda for tonight's Economic Development committee:

Discussion and possible action regarding proposed Downtown Industrial Policy. Possible motions regarding both the content of the proposal and the legality of the procedure developing the proposed policy

I doubt one asks questions about the legality of something one is in favor of.

Update (11pm): Full write-up coming tomorrow, but I just wanted to mention that I enjoyed the twittering / live-blogging process and posted 15 updates over the course of the two hour meeting. []

Industrial Policy Round Two Kicks Off This Week

By Eric Richardson — January 01, 2008

Eric Richardson

Public "preview" meetings on a plan for Downtown's industrial space kick off this week with a Thursday afternoon briefing at City Hall. The zoning plan would govern the development of a large swath of land southeast of Downtown. Last year the Planning Department created a controversy with Downtown stakeholders and elected officials when it issued draft zoning rules that would have prohibited any residential use over much of that area. The Downtown News reported last week that .

When the zoning plan came through last year, Council opposition from Jan Perry and Jose Huizar brought a halt to the process. This time around the cooperation between Planning and CRA seems intended to prevent the same plan from ending with the same fate. Neither agency will be briefing the Council before the items reach their respective boards. The current schedule has the item in front of the Central Planning Commission on January 10th and the CRA Board on January 17th.

In a letter sent last week to Planning GM Gail Goldberg, Perry expressed her concern. "It is inappropriate that this significant policy be issued as an administrative, interdepartmental action. The City Council is the policy-making body for the City and all policies need to come to Council for review and approval." Perry also criticized the timing of the public meetings and the haste of the presentation process, noting that those affected may still just be returning from holiday vacations. — Continued Inside...

Industrial Zoning and Downtown

By Eric Richardson — November 19, 2006 — 13 Comments

Eric Richardson

This week's issue of the Downtown News covers the industrial zoning plan . It's a good read, but I came away not really feeling that I knew any more about what the plan might mean for Downtown. It's a tough issue, and Downtown has very specific issues and challenges that need careful consideration.

The south-eastern side of Downtown has a heavily industrial history, but the infrastructure that exists was built in a time where industry looked very different than it does today. Blocks and roadways are small, and this makes sense when you consider that everything was originally spaced for spur tracks and rail cars. Modern semis have a particularly difficult time navigating the outdated streets. Industry realizes that, and most heavy uses left Downtown long ago.

To rebuild Downtown's industrial land for modern industrial use would basically require blowing everything up and starting over with larger blocks and wider streets. There simply isn't room to make the existing layout semi-friendly. — Continued Inside...