Pictured above is an artist's rendering of the planned Fresh & Easy store at 52nd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard in south Los Angeles. The design of the parking lot - it's located next to rather than behind the building - generated opposition to Fresh & Easy's plan. But twelve of the 13 members of the Los Angeles City Council voted to approve the plan with the parking lot as is, next to the store. [Artist's rendering: KL Architects.]Southern California Market Region
[Related Story - December 16, 2010: New Retail Center Would Bring Ralphs Supermarket, Target Store to South Los Angeles' Crenshaw]
Despite objections by a number of neighborhood groups, the Los Angeles City Council voted to approve (13 members for and just one member against) a proposed Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market store at 52nd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard, in south Los Angeles.
The store will be the fresh food and grocery chain's second market in south Los Angeles, a part of the city that's currently underserved by supermarkets offering fresh food and groceries at reasonable prices.
In September of this year the Los Angeles City Planning Commission granted Tesco-owned Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market four of the five exemptions it requested to what's called the Crenshaw Specific Plan, an area zoning policy that prohibits certain types of new development in the neighborhood, including automotive businesses, drive-through establishments, gun and pawn shops, swap meets, public storage facilities, motels, bars not attached to dining and dancing businesses, recycling and buy-back centers and strip malls.
The four exemptions are:
>To permit two wall signs along the façade facing Crenshaw Boulevard and one pedestrian sign (three total) along the façade facing 52nd Street in lieu of the maximum of one wall sign and one Pedestrian Sign (two total) which is otherwise permitted for each business establishment located on a street corner.
>To permit a sign along the east elevation of the proposed project (Crenshaw Corridor frontage) to have 184.6 square feet of sign area, and to also permit a sign along the north elevation (52nd Street frontage) to have 124.7 square feet of sign area, both of which exceed the maximum 75 feet of sign area otherwise permitted.
>To permit the northern facing ground floor façade (facing 52nd Street) to have 20 percent transparent building elements in lieu of the otherwise required 50 percent.
>To permit a surface parking lot for the proposed Fresh & Easy Market to be located at the side of the structure instead of the rear of the building as is otherwise required.
The Crenshaw Specific Plan, which mandates that all new developments have parking behind the retail or office buildings, is also designed to encourage pedestrian foot-traffic along Crenshaw Boulevard and the neighboring streets.
Following the granting of the exemptions and approval of Fresh & Easy's plans by the planning commission for the store at 52nd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard, The Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for Empowerment (HOPE), a non-profit neighborhood organization, along with a couple other community groups appealed the commission's decision to the Los Angeles City Council. (You can view a December 3, 2010 "open letter" HOPE director Winnifred Jackson wrote about the group's opposition to the store here.)
The key point of opposition HOPE and the others have to the proposed Crenshaw Fresh & Easy market is design-related: They want the store's parking lot to be placed in back (behind) the store rather than next to it (see the artist's rendering at top). One of the exemptions to the Crenshaw Specific Plan (number four in the above list) given to Fresh & Easy allows for the parking lot to be next to rather than in back of the store.
The opponents argued to the city council at yesterday's meeting that the parking lot should be located behind the grocery market because doing so fits the elements of the Crenshaw Specific Plan, including encouraging more pedestrian-friendly development. They claim having the parking lot next to instead of in back of the Fresh & Easy store creates an automobile-related strip mall development, which is prohibited in the Crenshaw Specific (zoning) Plan. (See above.)
Tesco's Fresh & Easy says the shape of the parcel prohibits placing the parking lot behind the store.
The Los Angeles City Council, led by Councilmember Bernard C. Parks who represents L.A.'s Eighth District, disagreed with the opponents' position, however, and upheld the planning commission's decision to grant Fresh & Easy the five zoning exemptions, approving the plans for the store with the parking lot beside it rather than behind it, by a huge majority of votes.
"In a community with the highest rate of diet-related health problems - such as obesity and diabetes - as well as the lowest life expectancy in the city, this is a monumental step toward providing residents the choices they need to take control of their diet and their health," Parks said yesterday in a statement about the vote in favor of bringing the Fresh & Easy store to the majority African-American neighborhood in south Los Angeles.
Additionally, the majority of Crenshaw District residents who packed yesterday's city council meeting were in support of rather than in opposition to bringing the Fresh & Easy market to the neighborhood, regardless of where its parking lot will be situated.
Walter Cathey Jr, a regional director for Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market in Los Angeles, worked to rally support among neighborhood residents in advance of yesterday's council vote in favor of the planned fresh food and grocery market.
Cathey also worked closely with Councilmember Parks and other supporters to make sure the project had a broad range of support, not just from neighborhood residents, but also from city officials and other stakeholders.
For example, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department spoke out in favor of Fresh & Easy's store plan at yesterday's council meeting. Andre Dixon, a senior lead officer from the 77th Division, which is located in the neighborhood, said having the parking lot next to (the approved design) rather than behind the market (what the opposition wants), was superior from a public safety standpoint because having parking behind the store would decrease visibility and pose a public safety risk.
According to Councilmember Parks, the Fresh & Easy store, which the grocer plans to start construction on early next year, will be the first new grocery market to be built in the Eighth District in a decade.
Fresh & Easy is also planning a second store on Crenshaw Boulevard, at Crenshaw and Jefferson Boulevards. The store is part of the $12 million "West Angeles Plaza" retail project that's being developed by the West Angeles Community Development Corporation.
The south Los Angeles region, which comprises numerous neighborhoods, is a "food dessert" area, meaning it offers a less than desired number supermarkets that offer fresh foods and groceries at reasonable prices.
Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market opened its first store in south Los Angeles in February of this year. [See - February 24, 2010: Fresh & Easy Store Opens its Doors in South Los Angeles.] That store, which is at 1025 East Adams Boulevard (Central & Adams), has thus far been one of the grocer's better performing Southern California units, our sources tell us.
The grocer also has a store in nearby Compton, which also has a history of being undeserved by supermarkets. [See - February 10, 2008: Tesco's Fresh & Easy Opens Latest New Store in 'Food Desert' City of Compton, California.]
The majority of the 92 Fresh & Easy stores in Southern California are suburban locations, located in middle-to-higher income neighborhoods in the region. There are currently 155 Fresh & Easy markets - 106 stores in California, 28 in Arizona, and 21 in Nevada.
But the Tesco-owned grocer appears, based on our research and reporting, to be considering implementing a more aggressive urban strategy as part of its new store opening plans and growth in Southern California.
For example, as we reported last week in this story - December 10, 2010: Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market CEO Tim Mason Says 70 New Stores Possible in Los Angeles Area - Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market CEO and Tesco corporate director, told a San Fernando Valley business group last week that the food retailer has identified 70 new store locations in Los Angeles County and could open up to that many stores in the region down the road.
We learned this week from our sources that a number of those potential future store locations are in lower-income Los Angeles neighborhoods that are underserved by supermarkets. Whether the grocer opens that many (oreven close to it) stores in Los Angeles though, we will have to wait to see.
But residents of the 52nd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard area will only have to wait perhaps until late 2011, the time period when the grocer hopes to open the market, for Tesco's Fresh & Easy to come to their south Los Angeles neighborhood.
Related Stories
December 10, 2010: Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market CEO Tim Mason Says 70 New Stores Possible in Los Angeles Area
December 15, 2010: Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market's California WIC Voucher Expansion Program Stalled
July 2008 piece: Tesco's to Open A Fresh & Easy Grocery Market in Low Income, Underserved South Central Los Angeles Neighborhood
February 24, 2010: Fresh & Easy Store Opens its Doors in South Los Angeles
February 23, 2010: Food Deserts & WIC Vouchers: Half A Loaf For the New Fresh & Easy Store Opening Tomorrow in South Los Angeles
July 28, 2010: What A Long, Strange Trip it's Been: South Los Angeles Will Be First Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Store to Accept WIC Vouchers Starting Tomorrow
July 30, 2010: Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market Store at Central & Adams in South Los Angeles is Now Accepting WIC Vouchers; Additional Stores to Follow
July 11, 2008: 'Food Desert' Neighborhoods and Southern California: More on the Fresh & Easy Store Planned For South Central Los Angeles
July 15, 2008: Fresh Food to Bloom in An Inner-City Food Desert: Tesco's Fresh & Easy Breaks Ground For New Store in Underserved South Los Angeles Neighborhood
July 6, 2008: Former NBA Great Earvin 'Magic' Johnson is Working His Business Magic in Urban, Inner City Neighborhoods; We Offer An Idea For Tesco's Fresh & Easy
Posts
9 comments:
The Council member and Fresh & Easy have been very good in painting this community with a broad brush to present a picture that just isn't the case. Allow me as a member of the Crenshaw community correct some of the false images:
1) This is not a food desert. In your report you neglected to mention that there is a full-service Ralphs market just two blocks away (Slauson & Crenshaw), and a weekly farmers market a block away. Within a 2.5 mile radius of the site are 6 supermarkets (3 Ralphs, 2 Albertsons and a Food 4 Less) and 2 farmers markets.
2) This is not a poor South LA community. The store is located in View Heights at the foot of View Park and less than 1/2 mile away from Baldwin Hills a place so affluent it birthed the BET reality TV show of spoiled brats named after the area. View Park, Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights and Leimert Park is the most affluent contiguous black community in the United States. But it has resulted in a lack of investment in our commercial corridor in large part because of the image projected by stories like these and by ineffective political leaders, like the Councilman, who have failed to create the climate that new business feel comfortable coming to. The stark contrast between the beauty and affluence of the residential areas and the Crenshaw commercial corridor is a constant talking point in community meetings.
3) The large parking lot is a bigger safety hazard than the proposed alternatives. The officer neglected to mention that in this area the biggest problem the local division has is not in the storefront areas that have rear parking, but rather with the large strip mall parking lots. Also, because of the low fences, this is a parking lot that will be very hard to lock up at night. The result has been to erect large gates at some of these areas, which is terribly unsightly.
Comparatively, if the parking access was restricted to two areas (one on Crenshaw and one on 52nd Street) and the rest of the boundary had pedestrian-friendly storefront it would be much easier to lock up at night, and there would be more pedestrian activity on the sidewalk known as "eyes on the street."
The most important point however, is that if there is a safety concern require on-site security. Almost all successful businesses in this area have it, why shouldn't Fresh & Easy?
4) There were alternative designs that would have made the store more pedestrian-friendly but Fresh & Easy and the Council man have refused to consider them. Among them was moving the building to the corner and having the parking in the middle. It would have made the parking lot much less obtrusive.
5) The only surprise after the Council member made clear he had no problem with the design of the building (about a year ago) was that the Planning Land Use and Management committee pushed this out of committee to the Council without a recommendation despite the Council member's appearance (that NEVER happens) and that Alarcon voted no on the floor of the full City Council. A little bit more research on your part would have revealed that the City Council votes unanimously 99.993% of the time. The unwritten rule in City Council politics is that council members don't mess with projects in other council members district, because they don't want them messing with projects in their own district.
The Council member and Fresh & Easy have been very good in painting this community with a broad brush to present a picture that just isn't the case. Allow me as a member of the Crenshaw community correct some of the false images:
1) This is not a food desert. In your report you neglected to mention that there is a full-service Ralphs market just two blocks away (Slauson & Crenshaw), and a weekly farmers market a block away. Within a 2.5 mile radius of the site are 6 supermarkets (3 Ralphs, 2 Albertsons and a Food 4 Less) and 2 farmers markets.
2) This is not a poor South LA community. The store is located in View Heights at the foot of View Park and less than 1/2 mile away from Baldwin Hills a place so affluent it birthed the BET reality TV show of spoiled brats named after the area. View Park, Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights and Leimert Park is the most affluent contiguous black community in the United States. But it has resulted in a lack of investment in our commercial corridor in large part because of the image projected by stories like these and by ineffective political leaders, like the Councilman, who have failed to create the climate that new business feel comfortable coming to. The stark contrast between the beauty and affluence of the residential areas and the Crenshaw commercial corridor is a constant talking point in community meetings.
3) The large parking lot is a bigger safety hazard than the proposed alternatives. The officer neglected to mention that in this area the biggest problem the local division has is not in the storefront areas that have rear parking, but rather with the large strip mall parking lots. Also, because of the low fences, this is a parking lot that will be very hard to lock up at night. The result has been to erect large gates at some of these areas, which is terribly unsightly.
Comparatively, if the parking access was restricted to two areas (one on Crenshaw and one on 52nd Street) and the rest of the boundary had pedestrian-friendly storefront it would be much easier to lock up at night, and there would be more pedestrian activity on the sidewalk known as "eyes on the street."
The most important point however, is that if there is a safety concern require on-site security. Almost all successful businesses in this area have it, why shouldn't Fresh & Easy?
4) There were alternative designs that would have made the store more pedestrian-friendly but Fresh & Easy and the Council man have refused to consider them. Among them was moving the building to the corner and having the parking in the middle. It would have made the parking lot much less obtrusive.
5) The only surprise after the Council member made clear he had no problem with the design of the building (about a year ago) was that the Planning Land Use and Management committee pushed this out of committee to the Council without a recommendation despite the Council member's appearance (that NEVER happens) and that Alarcon voted no on the floor of the full City Council. A little bit more research on your part would have revealed that the City Council votes unanimously 99.993% of the time. The unwritten rule in City Council politics is that council members don't mess with projects in other council members district, because they don't want them messing with projects in their own district.
Parks, who is running for re-election bused in seniors and kids who for the most part didn't understand the issue, and many left feeling used once the issues were explained to them. It was great political theater, but it won't mean a thing. Several people have already begun discussing a lawsuit. And that would be unfortunate, given that all it would have taken is a little bit more dialogue with the community groups, respect for the Crenshaw Specific Plan and minor redesigns of the project to resolve the controversy. But the Fresh & Easy representative did not want to modify his standard corporate model to comply with the communities' clearly defined design guidelines. This a real black eye for Fresh & Easy.
I'm a resident of the neighborhood and totally disagree. The lot where the Fresh & Easy is going has been empty for a long time. First it was an empty store front. Then it was torn down and has been sitting vacant for over a year.
No other grocers are interested in putting a store on the lot. Safeway, no. Albertsons and Stater's, no thanks. On and on.
We need a grocery store in the neighborhood. In a perfect world not giving Fresh & Easy the exemptions would be fine. But it ain't a perfect world. They might have taken advantage of the fact no other grocer wants to locate there to get hte exemptions, saving them some money probably, but I look forward to a grocery store so close to my house rather than more years of an empty lot. Ralphs also needs some competition.
I'm not sure what was said that was disagreeable. The previous post was primarily only written to correct a few misrepresentations that have been made by the other side . You just issued one yourself when you said, "The lot where the Fresh & Easy is going has been empty for a long time. First it was an empty store front. Then it was torn down and has been sitting vacant for over a year."
That's just not true, and again seeks to project a false image in an attempt to justify Fresh & Easy violating clearly defined design guidelines and undercutting the community's defined long-term development vision.
The fact is Crenshaw Motor Ford closed in early 2007 after serving the community consistently for over 50 years. Soon thereafter some car auction place opened up in the same building, but was closed down about 2 years ago. A little over a year ago, the owner demolished the old building, so it has been a vacant lot for about a year, which definitely isn't even close to a long time even in the best economic areas, especially since it typically takes 2 years in the city of Los Angeles just to get through the approvals process, when a project is compliant with the design requirements.
So no, it has not "been empty for a long time."
And it is ridiculous to suggest that Fresh & Easy is going to improve the local grocery stores. First, what evidence is there to suggest they'll perform any better than the rest?
Second, the Slauson/Crenshaw Ralphs (2 blocks away) was torn down and rebuilt 4-5 years ago. The Albertsons at King/Crenshaw was significantly renovated about 2-3 years. The Ralphs further down on Rodeo/Crenshaw is going to be torn down and rebuilt. And the Food 4 Less Slauson/Western just opened up only 6 years ago. All of these capital improvements were announced BEFORE Tesco expressed interest in the United States, let alone the Crenshaw community.
Fresh & Easy should build the type of development that is in line with the long-term design guidelines of the community, just like they'd be required to do in any other community. I'm not sure how that is in any way disagreeable.
The 12-1 vote should only be surprising because there was 1 opposed. The unwritten rule in LA City Council politics is that the entire council always votes with the council member in whose district the project is, because they don't want other council members voting against projects in their district.
The 99.993% figure is accurate: LA Weekly article
Another surprise was that the item came out of the Land Use committee of the City Council with no recommendation, despite the Council member's statement requesting the committee reject the appeal.
It was very telling the conversation at the committee level and the absence of any at the City Council level. The only council members who stood up and spoke in support of the plan were the only Republican on the council and a council member in another district who is facing a similar challenge from residents who want a Cost Co. built in a more pedestrian friendly manner.
There has been a healthy online email dialogue that has included the council member since the vote where the group basically has admitted they focused their attention on winning the case in other avenues (my bet is they're going to court), since they had zero shot at the City Council level. The City Council member in very uncharted fashion has openly expressed disapproval of the Crenshaw community specific plan.
There is also an election coming up in March.
I wasn't exaggerating when I said the City Council votes 99.993%: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/07/la_council_votes_unanimously_9.php
Over a year ago, the Council member for the area, Bernard Parks, said he didn't care about the exceptions and wanted to see them granted. So even if the hall were packed with residents the council still would have voted unanimously in with the Council Member. It happens time on land use issues in Los Angeles. The no vote is the only real surprise.
I've been on a list with about 50-100 CCs seeing the back and forth between the HOPE group and the Council member, and it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. Several people have said they're ready to sue.
And you can delete the first post in this thread. It is redundant.
Many of us support the Fresh & Easy store. We don't feel 2 grocery stores in the neighborhood is enough. It's insulting to say those of us who were at the council meeting were all bused in. Just propoganda. Here's a blog post I and many others in the neighborhood supported to get the Fresh Easy store approved http://www.blackisonline.com/2010/12/freshneasy/
Anonymous,
People were bused in. I don't even the Council member or Fresh & Easy will deny it.
And it's ridiculous to suggest people would oppose another grocery store. That's a straw man argument. People's objections were to the failure of the store design to comply with the clearly defined pedestrian orientation design requirements. You say you don't care. Many do.
The difference is I think you wouldn't care whether the design was or was not pedestrian oriented. I'm not passing judgment, just simply making an observation.
Post a Comment