CENTRAL CITY EAST

PLANNING STUDY

Summary of Analysis
and Recommendations
November 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The turn of the 21st century will be viewed as a noteworthy milepost in the history of Downtown
Los Angeles. It marks the commencement of an entirely improbable transformation of the heart of
the city. In the span of a fifteen-year period, 2000 2015, downtowns population tripled, its
appeal as a place to work, live, study, and play grew preposterously, and its image overcame
decades-long inertia of neglect and disinvestment.
However, the transformation, as is often the case, has been uneven. Central City East (CCE), the
subject of this planning study, lies in the heart of downtown adjacent to and overlapping Skid
Row, the nations largest cluster of homelessness. Central City East Association (CCEA), represents
stakeholders in CCE, who increasingly pose the question, how does a downtown industrial district
address the dramatic changes that are occurring at its doorstep, while also being subject to longstanding policies of containment that view CCE as the primary location of homeless services for
the entire region? This study aims to answer this not-so-simple question.
To be clear, this study is not an exercise to address homelessness. That is something for the region
to collectively address. While CCE has historically borne the burden of the citys policies of
containment, it cannot also be responsible for finding policy and political responses to address the
regions crisis of homelessness. The authors and stakeholders of this effort therefore focus on land
use, urban design, and economics issues that are often placed on the back burner whenever the
future of CCE is discussed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CCEA proactively sought and engaged a diverse set of stakeholders. These are individuals and
entities invested in the neighborhood and care deeply about its future. They included residents of
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments as well as market-rate housing, homeless service
providers, property owners, and business owners. While all offered a broad range of issues for
discussion, a single shared principle emerged: the absolute need to address and eliminate
unsheltered homelessness in CCE. This principle derived either from compassion, economics,
livability, downtown boosterism, or business self-interest provided a common thread to the
effort. Streets may be the theatre of life, but they are entirely inadequate as housing.
The study does not suggest a single path forward; instead it proposes multiple. The goal is not to be
overly deterministic about the future, but spur conversation about the issues that need addressing,
the policies that need updating , and ideas that need airing.
The future scenarios developed via this effort illustrate a spectrum of forward direction. Central
City East Association offers this study as a departure point for City staff and leadership to
commence a thoughtful discussion to understand the aspirations of stakeholders and put policies in
place that sensitively shape a shared, inclusive, and successful future of Central City East.

DOWNTOWN LA - PATCHWORK QUILT OF NEIGHBORHOODS

CENTRAL CITY EAST

(CCE)

260 acres
Alameda

40 city blocks
10% of Downtown

5,600 jobs
2% of Downtown
9% growth since 2002
Downtown grew 17%

4,000 residents
7% of Downtown
40% growth since 2000
Downtown grew 200%

Why are we exploring the

future of Central City East?

To provide guidance and input to

City staff and policy makers
Ca. 1955 (USC Digital Collection)

Why are we exploring the

future of Central City East?

To assemble a
diverse coalition
of stakeholders
focused on a
common mission
5th and Central, ca. 1955 (LAPL)

Why are we exploring the

future of Central City East?

To emphasize the complexity and

nature of the issues to address
Volunteers of America's mission post no. 1, ca. 1950 (LAPL)

Why are we exploring the

future of Central City East?

Not to solve
homelessness, but
address overlooked
aspects of land use,
urban design, and
public realm
Central Station, Ca. 1921 (USC Digital Collection)

What we heard from

RESIDENTS

o Our public realm needs attention; it should welcome

all users.
o We are landlocked between the impenetrable barriers
of San Pedro and Alameda.
o This is a neighborhood; the City needs to treat it so.
o People live here; they need amenities.

o People spend a lot of time outside; the public realm

needs to be accommodating.
Ca. 1956 (USC Digital Collection)

What we heard from

BUSINESSES

o Our public realm needs attention; it should welcome

all users.
o Seafood industry is declining; its not what it used to
be.
o We support service providers; they are our neighbors.
o Encampments and drug-dealing are bad for business
and recruitment/retention.
o We know that Skid Row will never be an Arts District
but it cannot continue like it is.
Ca. 1956 (USC Digital Collection)

What we heard from

PROPERTY OWNERS

o Our public realm needs attention; it should welcome

all users.
o Seafood industry is declining. We have to address
future uses.
o Alameda is like a dam holding back the Arts District
from spilling into CCE.
o Would like option of unlocking value of properties
o Change is inevitable, it but cannot be piecemeal
Ca. 1956 (USC Digital Collection)

What we heard from

SERVICE PROVIDERS

o Our public realm needs attention; it should welcome all

users.
o Region needs additional services but Skid Row is at
capacity.
o Skid Row cannot be the regions sole provider of services have to regionalize (scattered sites).

o Skid Row has always provided services and support to the

homeless, and it always will. Never has the situation been
so unmanaged.
o Some are currently evaluating feasibility of relocation.

Ca. 1956 (USC Digital Collection)

Existing Land Use Policies

The Study Area is zoned almost
entirely M2-2D (Light Industrial).

Some commercial IS ALLOWED, except for hospitals and guest

rooms (hotels, motels, etc). Retail uses are limited to less than
100,000 sf floor area.

Residential IS NOT ALLOWED (apartments, condos, live/work,

and guest rooms), except via the Adaptive Reuse of existing
eligible buildings. However, this cannot be done by-right in M
Zones. This process requires:
o
o
o
o

Discretionary review by Zoning Administrator

Environmental review (CEQA)
Public hearing
Incentives may be limited

Disallowed uses are possible, only by an Amendment to the

General Plan, which can only be initiated by the City Council,
Planning Commission, or Planning Director.
C2 (Commercial)
C4 (Commercial)
C5 (Commercial)
R5 (Multiple Dwelling)
M1 (Limited Industrial)
M2 (Light Industrial)
M3 (Heavy Industrial)

mile

PF (Public Facility)
OS (Open Space)

M2 2D
Zone: M2 denotes light
industrial.
Height District: 2 denotes
none for industrial, 75ft for
commercial, and 6:1 FAR.
Zone Prefix: D denotes
development limitation for
height, FAR, % lot coverage,
and building setbacks as
restricted.

Downtown is not what it was

Historic
Core

Little
Tokyo
Toy
District

Plan for change

Downtown has transformed.
Arts
District

Flower
Market

This is especially the case in

adjacent districts, like the
Fashion District, Arts District,
and the Historic Core.
In other words, external
pressures are at the Study Areas
doorstep.

Fashion
District
Produce
District

mile

Critical connections are broken

Historic
Core

Arts
District

East-west linkages are broken

(4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Streets).
Alameda is a physical barrier,
acting like a dam.

San Pedro is a psychological

barrier because of the number of
service providers.

mile

Long-standing use patterns are changing

Little
Tokyo

Service
Providers

Cold
Storage

Flower
Market

City
Market

Fashion
District

Arts
District

Seafood and cold-storage

businesses are in decline
(definitely not expanding)

Art
Hub

Produce users are relocating

SunCal

Housing supply is catering to

only one market segment

Alameda
Square

Produce

mile

Services are clustered along San Pedro

Most service providers are
clustered near San Pedro Ave
between 5th and 7th Streets.
Others are scattered across the Study Area, and
usually occur at the book-ends of blocks facing
major corridors (i.e. 5th, 6th, and 7th Streets).

Cluster adjacent to Gladys Park includes:

La Jolla
Eugene
Ellis
Regal Hippie Kitchen & Health Clinic

Skid Row Trust

SRO/Skid Row housing
Missions
0

mile

Other Providers

Larger parcels are clustered along Alameda

The Study Area is predominately fine-grained in
parcel size. Most parcels are smaller than 50,000 sq.
ft. in size, which arent necessarily suitable or
desirable for new developments. This also makes
land assemblage challenging because of the
overwhelming number of small parcels (and owners)
needed for assembly.
The largest parcels lie between Central and Alameda.

Alameda Square
32 acres of contiguous land assembly for mixed-use redevelopment
by Atlas Capital Group, LLC (formerly EVOQ Properties, Inc).

0 5,000 sq. ft. (325 parcels)

5,000 15,000 sq. ft. (274 parcels)
15,000 50,000 sq. ft. (65 parcels)
50,000 150,000 sq. ft. (172 parcels)

150,000 500,000 sq. ft. (6 parcels)

0

mile

500,000 1 million sq. ft. (1 parcel)

Note: 1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft.

Do we need more or less open space?

The Study Area encompasses 10

miles of streets, but only 1 park.
There are 2 facets of street life:
Occupation of sidewalks
(this is challenging).

mile

Amenities for 4,000

residents who spend a large
part of their day outdoors
(this is necessary).

Here, pedestrians are not First

Of the 62 total intersections within the Study Area:
35 are controlled both with marked crosswalks
and traffic signals. This is typical for major
intersections.
5 are provided ONLY with marked crosswalks.
This is typical for intersections near public parks
(Gladys Park) and public institutions (Inner City
Arts and 9th St Elementary School)

22 are uncontrolled WITHOUT marked crosswalks

or traffic signals.

Alleyways
Controlled Intersections (marked crosswalks, traffic lights)
Uncontrolled intersections (with marked crosswalks)
0

mile

Uncontrolled Intersections

Goals and Aspirations

o AN INDUSTRIAL-RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
UNLIKE ANY
Social services, housing, and businesses. Inclusive.

o DIVERSIFY HOUSING

Affordable, mixed-income, mixed-collar, multi-generational.

o CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SHELTER AND SERVICES

Be welcoming and inclusive as it has since its origins.

o FIRST-CLASS PUBLIC REALM

Safe and clean, friendly to all.

o BLUR BOUNDARIES

Better connect to neighbors.

o LEAVE A LIGHT ON FOR MANUFACTURING

Downtown LA will always be desirable for certain kinds of

manufacturing.

Alternative
Scenarios

Maintain the status quo (i.e.,

accept change will happen
on a case-by-case basis).

Pros
Easiest to implement
Likely to receive support from stakeholders
who want to keep things as they are
Inventory of industrial-only land remains
intact
Cons
Maintains status quo which is not a
desirable outcome for most stakeholders
CCE will continue to evolve, but on a myopic
case-by-case basis

mile

Embrace change universally.

Pros
Provides maximum flexibility to maximum
property owners
Equitable distribution of future
opportunities to all property owners
Likely to receive strong support from
property owners
Undoes the Citys long-standing policy of
containment
Cons
Dramatic reversal of existing policies
Entire inventory of industrial-only land is
potentially threatened
Existing industrial users will feel increased
pressure to relocate
Will encounter resistance from stakeholders
who want to keep things as they are
0

mile

Facilitate east-west
connections along
corridors that are already
seeing change.
Pros
Uses urban design and ground level activity to
establish critical East-west connections
Fine-grained, less disruptive evolution of the
corridor
Synergies with active transportation and
streetscape improvements.
Solves problems that are bigger than CCE alone
(i.e., connect Historic Core to Arts District)
Existing SRO housing typically fronts the eastwest streets and a flex/mixed use approach
along these corridors will provide needed
amenities and non-industrial environment

mile

Cons
Approach may be too surgical and narrowly
focused. It solves just one problem
(connection)

Reposition large parcels for

transformational, once-in-ageneration projects.
Pros
Recognizes the premium that large parcels
have as redevelopment opportunities in
downtown (there are very few)
Positions Alameda as the venue for once-ina-generation, transformative projects (new
downtown university, etc.)
Facilitates TOD opportunities along Alameda
Breaks the Alameda dam and allows
engagement with the Arts District
Will help make Alameda a better street

mile

Cons
Doesnt address the core residential area of
the district validates containment
Inequitable distribution of future
opportunities to all property owners
Facilitates the conversion of the largest,
most feasible industrial parcels to nonindustrial use

Allow change to respond to

external forces along the
periphery.

Pros
Responds directly to external forces already
at the districts edges
Allows largest parcels opportunity for
significant, meaningful redevelopment
Facilitates TOD opportunities along Alameda
Will help make Alameda a better street
Cons
Doesnt address the core residential area of
the district validates containment
Inequitable distribution of future
opportunities to all property owners
Facilitates the conversion of the largest,
most feasible industrial parcels to nonindustrial use
0

mile

Allow change where uses are

already non-industrial.
Pros
Addresses the core residential area of the
district dismantles containment by
allowing multi-income/market rate housing
in an SRO-only area.
Retains large portions of the district as
industrial-only.
Strengthens an existing residential/mixeduse/services cluster by reducing industrial
uses and infilling amenities and new
residents.
Tries not to cluster residents on basis of
income alone.

mile

Cons
Drastic, targeted reversal of existing housing
policy.
Sets up future conflicts of market-rate vs.
affordable housing.

Allow change to occur away

from large industrial parcels;
i.e., preserve viable
industrial (large) parcels.

Pros
Recognizes the premium that large parcels
along truck-accessible Alameda have for
industrial uses and preserves them for that
use.
Cons
However, parcels across the street have
already transitioned to non-industrial
(including the holdout at 6th/Alameda now
being developed by SunCal). A critical mass
of large industrial users may no longer exist.

mile

VARIATIONS OF STATUS QUO

1

STATUS QUO

REPOSITION
LARGE PARCELS

PERIPHERAL CHANGE

DISRUPTION OF STATUS QUO

EMBRACE CHANGE
UNIVERSALLY

CORRIDORS OF
TRANSITION

CONSOLIDATE
RESIDENTIAL

PRESERVE VIABLE
INDUSTRIAL PARCELS