Area
Five What’s the organizational difference between the March 2009 Draft Plan and the November 2010 Draft? Area Four Vantage Points
Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco Vantage Point San
The March 2009 Draft was organized into an Executive Summary and four chapters: Purpose, Background, Future Area Three and Organizational Structure. The Executive Summary has been modified and its content incorporated into the Vision section that introduces the November 2010 Plan. The topics included in the Purpose chapter are either now included as part of Vision or -01 Overview. The topics included in the Background chapter are now included in Appendix AreaSection Two Area One A-01 Reference. The Future topics which were originally identified as Overview, Districts, Building and Block Standards, Uses, Parks and Open Space, Parking, Circulation, Stormwater and Resource Conservation have been renamed and reorganized as described in the paragraph below. The Organizational Structure chapter contained only two sub-sections. The first sub-section which described the Plan area’s Business Improvement Districts was moved to Appendix A-01 Reference and the sub-section on the proposed Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was omitted fromDRAFT the new asPlanthe Cornfield Arroyodraft Seco Specific 25 newly formed Project Area will be establishing a CAC. View Direction
ando Fern
Rd
gele Los An
s River
ay oadw
N Br
g
rin
N
St
Sp
ain
St
NM
0
400
800
1200
1600
feet
Prepared by Los Angeles Department of City Planning Graphic Services Section, June 2008
The Future: Overview section did not originally include any standards but rather provided a general overview of the vision of the Plan. This text has been reincorporated into the Vision section that introduces the November 2010 Plan. Future: Districts, the FAR section of Building and Block Standards, and Uses are now combined under the Districts Section. The Collocation Standards portion of Uses that was originally left blank in the March 2009 Draft has now been completed and titled Performance Standards. The remainder of Building and Block Standards has been divided between the new Massing and Street Wall and Architectural Details Sections. Parks and Open Space is still titled Parks and Open Space. What was titled Parking is now Parking and Access and what was Circulation is now Street Designations.
Much of the original information included in Circulation such as Street Tree Varieties, Street Roadway Standards and Street Design Standards, Bicycle Network and Transit Stops and Hubs will actually not be included in the Plan but be included in a separate Cornfield Arroyo Seco Streetscape Plan that is intended to be adopted concurrently with the adoption of the Plan and the Project Area. Because these subject areas include the public right-of-way they need to be approved by the Board of Public Works and the Cultural Affairs Commission in addition to the City Planning Commission and therefore are being grouped in their own document. And, lastly Stormwater and Resource Conservation has been combined under Conservation.
Besides organizational changes are there any other changes? We learned a lot over the last year, from your comments and feedback, while the environmental review was on-going and we wanted to capture those changes in this draft. The changes are illustrated in the attached matrix. Two changes in particular warrant a more detailed discussion here. The first change is in regards to how we identify allowable uses and the other is the classification of streets.
Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan
Vision
Uses We’ve attempted, from the early drafts of this Plan to redefine how we identify permitted uses. The zoning code today uses a list of 236 uses many of which are out of date while some new, innovative uses are not permitted because at the time the list was developed many years ago these new uses had not been thought of. But, despite the inadequacies of the current use list we have struggled to identify a more satisfactory solution. We attempted in the March 2009 draft to utilize the uses established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code but that list raised concerns similar to the current list and we were encouraged to look not at establishing a detailed list of every allowable use but to instead think of generalized categories. The use of “use categories”, instead of lists, are used by many cities around the country and after learning more about this approach, and speaking with a number of property owners in the City, concluded that this might be a practical solution for us to explore. While the categories will leave room for some interpretation they also provide the flexibility that we think is warranted. We look forward to your feedback on the new use categories. Please let us know what you think about this approach.
Streets
Area Five
Vantage Points
Area Four
Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco
We suggested, in the March ’09 Draft, an aggressive street modification program whereby almost all of the major arterials Area Three(with the exception of Broadway and Figueroa) would be downgraded to a Modified Collector. These in the Plan area proposed downgrades would provide one traffic lane in each direction as well as provide space for bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks. Broadway and Figueroa were proposed as Modified Secondary streets with two lanes in each direction Area One Area Two as well as bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks. While the accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists is still vitally important the initial traffic results have indicated that Spring, Main Street and San Fernando should continue to have capacity for two lanes in each direction. Fortunately, the width on Spring Street is sufficient to accommodate both the vehicular lanes as well as the bicycle lanes. In order to accommodate the bicycle lanes on Main Street and San Fernando Road the Plan recommends that parking be removed. Continued feedback on these options is most welcome and the DraftDRAFT Environmental Impact Report will identify all of the options. For a more detailed examination of all of the Streets Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan 23 please refer to Section 10 and Appendix 04 of the November 2010 Draft Plan. Vantage Point
San
View Direction
ando
Fern
Rd
gele Los An
s River
ay oadw
N Br
g
rin
N
St
Sp
ain
St
NM
0
400
800
1200
1600
feet
Prepared by Los Angeles Department of City Planning Graphic Services Section, June 2008
Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan
W
St roa e LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING / DRAFT u Fig N 73
Av
W
ue
28
en
ue
Av
en
Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan 60C
26
72
Area Five
69
60B
71
65
70 60B
Draft
68
68
60A
March 6, 2009
Area Four
60A
66
64
55
e
55
63
58
55 55 55
Executive Summary
Sections (S) and Appendices (A)
55
e n a Av
55
58 62
54B 58
53
Pa s a d
Chapters Sub-sections
61
54B
NS 53
51
an
Purpose
Fe r
56
49
Appendix A-01
no A
Area Three 45
13
N
12
in Ma
S
43
42
Pa s
40
Vision
75
41
ade
na
Av e
S-02 Districts
39
N Broadway
38
ve
Area One
E Avenue 26
47
Sola
Overview Districts Building and Block Standards Elysian Park Uses & Collocation Standards 21B Parks and Open Space 20 19B y Parking 18 s rk a e l a w e road ng ric P A 16 o t s B 17 Lo Hist ng S N Circulation te Spri a t S 15 19A Stormwater 15 14 Resource Conservation t
44
46
S-02 Districts, S-03 Massing and Streetwall, S-04 Architectural Details, S-09 Signage
76
37 36
dwa r o32a B N
35
y 33
34
S-02 Districts & S-08 Performance Standards 33
31
S-05 Parks and Open Space
32 31 22
Daly St
21C
Rd
52
do
48
Vision
Vision and Section 01 Overview
57
74
50
nan
Background
Future
November 1, 2010
67
65
31
Area Two
30C
30B
22
30A
24
29B
25
29C
29A
23
S-10 Street Designations and new Cornfield Arroyo Seco Streetscape Plan S-07 Conservation
23 26
Baldwin St
S-06 Parking and Access
27
Lincoln Park Av
Draft Site Areas
28
S-07 Conservation
N Main St
Vall ey Blv d
8
Organizational Structure 7
11
6
9
9
10
5
7 Community Advisory Comittee 4
3
N
7
7 Business Improvement District
Vig
ne
sS
Appendix A-01 See CRA Redevelopment Plan - Community Advisory Committee Zon
t
al A
ve
Comparison Matrix between March 2009 and November 2010 Version of the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan Item
Mar-09
Nov-10
Identification of Standards
Not numbered
Reference numbers were added Sec. #, Topic #, Individual Id#. Example: 4.4.1.�
Districts
Future p.78
Sec. 2, p.2
Districts Names
Employment Village Changed to
Urban Innovation to reflect interest in encouraging innovative employment/industrial uses in this district.
District Map/Land Use Districts
Future p.79
Sec. 2 pg.3
District Map/Land Use Districts
Block 42- open space was highlighted in the middle of the block Block 62- open space was shown adjacent to Avenue 26
Block 42- open space area shifted south to Pasadena to allow for improved public access and visibility Block 62- open space area eliminated. 15% requirement will still achieve open space on site but will allow future development greater flexibility in siting program.
Building and Block Standards
Future p.82
Misc.
Block and Lot perimeter
Maximum block perimeter Greenways-NA UV-1,600 LF UI-2,000 LF UC- 1,800 LF
Sec. 3, pg. 5 Changed to Maximum Block Length UV- 450 LF UI-600 LF UC- 500 LF
District Map/Land Use Districts
Density- Retail FAR
Eliminated- controlled thru square footage maximum instead
Max. Proportion of Floorspace by Use
Modified- originally overly burdensome. Too restrictive to respond to market needs. See Limits Table Sec. 2, p. 5.
Max. Floorspace per Establishment
Modified- sf limits eliminated except for retail. Retail in UV expanded. See Limits Table Sec. 2, p.5.
Building Setback
Modified slightly to respond to varying needs of different ground flor uses. See Building Setback Table, Sec. 3, p. 3.
% of Bldg. Frontage
Modified slightly to provide greater interaction between building façade and street. See Building Street Wall at Setback Line Table Sec.4, p.3.
Base FAR Map
Future. p.83
Base FAR
Sec. 2, pg.7 No change to base FAR
Maximum FAR
No maximum originally- (except in Greenway) if met FAR or Bonus FAR requirements.
Maximum FAR established for districts to focus increased growth to station areas while also protecting growth near lower density residential areas.
Height
Future. pgs. 84.85
Sec. 3, pgs. 8, 9
Maximum Height
Revised to permit more subtle variations in height to respond to surrounding conditions and not just street width.
Maximum Height
Concern that .5 of street width would still require a substantially high building. Undue burden.
TFAR and Bonus
Future. pgs. 88.89
Sec. 2, pgs. 8-11.
Transfer of FAR
Added River Public Benefit Payment to identify cost to purchase land from a public entity. Retain consistency with downtown TFAR program.
Bonus FAR
Removed redudant rquirements. Moved Greenway FAR to TFAR program. Establish River Public Benefit Trust Fund to provide a source and process for accounting of and dispensing of Benefit Payments.
Comparison Matrix between March 2009 and November 2010 Version of the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan Item
Mar-09
Nov-10
Urban Design
Future. pgs. 90,91
Misc.
Glazing and Transparency
Future p. 90
Sec. 4, p. 6- Ground Floor Transparency. no change
Glazing and Transparency
Future p. 90
Sec. 4, p. 8- Glazing. no change
Pedestrian Entry
Future p. 91
Sec. 4, pgs.4, 5 Entrance/Ground Floor Frontage Use. Established a variety of ground floor activity requirements and entryway requirement of 75’ to provide greater flexibility than the strict lineal dimensions originally proposed.
Scale
Future p. 91
Sec. 4, p.3- Guidelines G.4.5.c.
Proportion
Future p. 91
Sec. 4, pgs. 2-3. Guidelines intended to provide more design flexibility as opposed to the rigorous proportionality standard originally envisioned.
Fence Heights
Future p. 91
Omitted. Already in Zoning Code.
Security
Future p. 91
Sec. 4, p. 13. New standards provide greater detail and clarity.
Mechanical Equip
Future p. 91
Sec. 4, pgs. 12-13. New standards provide greater detail and clarity.
Utility Lines
Future p. 91
Sec. 8, p. 5. New standards provide greater detail and clarity.
Interior & Exterior Lighting
Future p. 94-95
Sec. 4, pgs. 9-11. New standards provide greater detail and clarity.
Signage
Future p. 96
Sec. 9- pgs. 1-5. New standards provide greater detail and clarity.
Uses
Future. pgs. 99-107
Sec. 2, pg. 4
Uses
Utilized the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to identify permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted uses within each district.
The NAICS codes proved to be more cumbersome then the existing use list. Determined that the establishment of Use Categories would provide greater flexibility in accommodating a range of uses within each district. See Uses Table.
Collocation Standards
Future p. 108. Was deferred to future.
Sec. 8. 1-8. Identified as Performance Standards to facilitate the collocation of multiple uses within the same district.
Parks and Open Spaces
Future pgs. 111-114.
Sec. 5, pgs. 1-13. New standards provide greater detail and clarity. Discussion on Wildlife Connections has been removed as there no requirements attached to this topic. The development of Wildlife Connections can be supported in the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area. Future open space improvements will enhance opportunity for wildlife connections.
Parking
Future pgs. 117-123.
Sec. 6, pgs. 1-9. New standards provide greater detail and clarity. Establishment of Parking Meter Zones has been removed but can be analyzed by LADOT should future parking demand warrant it.
Circulation
Future pgs. 125-147.
Sec. 10, pgs. 1-7. This Section focuses exclusively on the establishment of new street designations. Specific street cross-sections of each block are included in Appendix A-04. A Streetscape Plan will identify specific street and sidewalk treatments, including street lighting, transit shelters