Interest in putting L.A. infill sites back into productive use is ramping up like never before, as developers and elected officials turn their attention back to the urban core.
There’s just one key problem: much of that core is toxic.
Unlike the pristine land in outlying areas, infill sites are often oozing with the remnants of L.A.’s industrial past chemicals, metals and other substances left behind by decades of oil refining, auto manufacturing, metal plating and other Old Economy activities.
Cleaning up the sites is an expensive, time-consuming and sometimes even highly politicized process. But no less than the future of L.A.’s economy relies on getting it done.
Today, even outlying suburbs like Santa Clarita are putting the brakes on development. The sprawling city of L.A. simply has little room left to expand, making it more critical than ever to return polluted sites to productive use.
“We have either run out of pristine sites or in some cases, come to realize that cutting down forests for new development and putting chain-link fences around old factory sites is not a very good social planning approach,” said Timi Hallem, a land-use attorney and partner at Tuttle & Taylor.
Several factors have spurred the increased momentum in redevelopment of “brownfields” the industry term for abandoned or underused properties with environmental contamination. Technological advances, new liability insurance and growing recognition among local and state governments that the sites offer prime reuse opportunities have all contributed to a new atmosphere.
Some institutional lenders remain overly wary, Hallem said, but increasingly, brownfields are being recognized for their development potential. This is especially true as developers and communities have embraced the buzzwords “smart growth” and “sustainable development” as remedies for endless sprawl.
Hundreds of contaminated sites throughout the Los Angeles region are being quietly cleaned and returned to productive use without the firestorm of publicity and politics surrounding the Belmont Learning Center fiasco earlier this year.
“It has become more commonplace. For a long time, people were so scared of environmental issues, lenders were so wary and people were so concerned about the blank-check risk (so much so) that everyone who could, shied away from brownfields,” Hallem said.
Oilfields, refineries, steel mills, tire plants, aerospace manufacturing operations, military bases and trash dumps once dotted the L.A. landscape. Now, they are coming back to life as brand new industrial parks, retail power centers and even housing subdivisions.
Of course, contaminated sites pose a major challenge, even with advances in technology and stepped-up government assistance. Cost, feasibility and, sometimes, politics can scuttle potential redevelopment. Belmont the half-completed high school atop an old downtown oilfield is the poster child for how not to redevelop a brownfield. The $170 million fiasco has also served as a wakeup call to the private sector to be extra vigilant and deal with issues early in the process.
Crude oil contamination is fairly common on sites around Los Angeles. Other problems run the gamut, from chemical solvents to heavy metals to methane. It’s not just gritty inner-city areas that have environmental problems, either. Former agricultural land can contain pesticide residue, and even a small corner plot in the middle of the city may be marred by buried gas tanks or dry-cleaning waste.
“Today, those are all do-able (cleanup projects). Fifteen years ago, it was scary.
