DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT City Planning Commission Case No.: CPC SP Date: December 13, 2012 Time: After 8:30 am Place: City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 350 Los Angeles, CA Public Hearing: Public Hearings held August 30, October 11, and November 8, 2012 Continued From: November 8, 2012 CEQA No.: ENV EIR Incidental Cases: None Related Cases: None Council No.: 1-Reyes Plan Area: Central City North Northeast Los Angeles Silverlake/Echo Park/Elysian Valley Specific Plan: None Certified NC: Lincoln Heights Historic/Cultural GPLU: Various Zone: Various Applicant: Representative: City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: REQUESTED ACTIONS: The project area is located in portions of the Central City North, Northeast Los Angeles, and Silverlake/Echo Park/Elysian Valley Community Plans. The project is bounded by the intersection of San Fernando Boulevard and Avenue 26 on the north; Pasadena Avenue and the Golden State Freeway (I-5) on the east; Main Street for the portion of the project east of the Los Angeles River (River) and the railroad right of way for the portion of the project west of the River on the south; and Broadway Boulevard on the west. The project area includes portions of the Chinatown and Lincoln Heights communities. The River and the Golden State Freeway bisect the project area north to south and the Arroyo Seco and Arroyo Seco Parkway run east to west through the northeastern section of the project area. The project area includes the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park Goldline Station and immediately abuts the Chinatown Station and the Heritage Square Station in the southwest and northeast corners of the project area respectively. Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan: The Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan (Proposed Plan) revises land use and zoning, and introduces new building form, urban design, open space, parking, conservation, performance, and street standards to reflect recent shifts in existing conditions such as the opening of the Gold Line, the completion of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP), and the pending development of the Los Angeles State Historic Park (LASHP). The Proposed Plan includes revisions to the Citywide General Plan Framework Element, Transportation Element, and General Plan Land Use designations; Zone changes; and Street Reclassifications. 1. Pursuant to procedures set forth in Section of the Municipal Code and City Charter Sections 555 and 558, amend the Central City North, Northeast Los Angeles, and Silverlake/Echo Park/Elysian Valley Community Plans as part of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles, as modified in the attached Plan Resolution (Exhibit A), the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan, (Exhibit B) and

2 CPC SP Page 2 Corresponding Zone and Land Use Changes (Exhibits C, F) 2. Pursuant to Section of the Municipal Code, rezoning actions to effect changes of zone as identified on the Land Use Designation Map (Exhibit F) and Zone Change Map (Exhibit C). 3. Pursuant to procedures set forth in Section of the Municipal Code and City Charter Sections 555 and 558, amend the Highways and Freeways Map of the Transportation Element of the General plan to reclassify selected streets within the Central City North, Northeast Los Angeles, and Silverlake/Echo Park/Elysian Valley Community Plans as shown on the Street Redesignation Matrix (Exhibit D- A2). RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Staff Report dated October 11, 2012 and this Supplemental Staff Report as the Commission s report on the subject. 2. Approve and Recommend that the Mayor approve and the City Council adopt the attached Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan (Exhibit B), Land Use Change Maps (Exhibit C) amending the Central City North, Northeast Los Angeles, Silverlake/Echo Park/Elysian Valley Community Plans as part of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles, as modified. 3. Approve and Recommend that the City Council adopt the requested zoning actions to effect the changes of zone as identified in the Zone Change Ordinance and Map (Exhibit D). 4. Instruct the Department of City Planning to finalize the necessary zone change ordinances to be presented to City Council, and make other technical corrections as necessary. 5. Authorize the Director of Planning to present the resolution (Appendix A) and Plan (Exhibit B) to the Mayor and City Council, in accordance with Sections 555 and 558 of the City Charter. 6. Amend the Highways and Freeways Map of the Transportation Element of the General Plan to reclassify selected streets within the Central City North, Northeast Los Angeles, Silverlake/Echo Park/Elysian Valley Community Plans as shown in the Street Modification Table in the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and the Modified Street Cross-Sections A2. in the Plan s Appendices (Exhibit B). 7. Approve and Recommend that the City Council adopt the Administrative Code Amendment establishing the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Floor Area Trust Fund (Exhibit F). 8. Find that the City Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report ENV EIR (Appendix E) in its determination approving the Proposed Plan, and transmit the EIR to the City Council for certification. 9. Approve and Recommend that the City Council Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Proposed Plan Analysis... A-1 Proposed Plan Summary.A-1 Background.. A-1 Discussion of Key Issues...A-2 Exhibits (Attached): A. Draft Resolution B. Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan + Appendices 1. Specific Plan 2. Appendices C. Proposed Land Use Designation Change Map D. Proposed Zone Change Ordinance and Map E. Final Environmental Impact Report (includes DEIR, RP-DEIR and Appendices) F. Administrative Code Amendment

5 CPC SP A-1 PROPOSED PLAN ANALYSIS Summary On October 11 th and November 8 th 2012 the City Planning Commission (CPC) held public hearings on the Proposed Plan. At the October 11 th hearing there were 31 speakers, many of whom spoke in general support of the Plan but expressed concern over certain issues. Most of the concerns centered on the topics of affordable housing, public parking and protections for industrial development. Based upon the public testimony and subsequent deliberation, the CPC continued the item until November 8, At the November 8 th hearing, in light of the staff-suggested changes (see below) to parking and industrial design standards, there were 12 speakers, most of whom again spoke in general support but continued to express concern over a couple of remaining issues. Affordable housing continued to dominate the comments and a few developers and/or their representatives continued to press for specific modifications to address site-specific issues. Due to the affordable housing concerns raised on October 11 th the CPC formed an Ad Hoc Sub- Committee (Sub-Committee) of four commissioners to permit the opportunity for further discussion with developers and financing experts of affordable housing projects. The Sub- Committee met once with City Planning staff (staff) and affordable housing experts on October 22, 2012 to discuss concerns that the proposed residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.5:1 in the Urban Village would discourage the development of affordable housing. Subsequent to the October 11 th hearing, staff also worked closely with stakeholders to resolve concerns that particular standards with the Proposed Plan could unintentionally constrain parking flexibility and limit industrial development. Based upon the conversations with stakeholders, staff decided to eliminate the public parking requirement and adjust a variety of design standards to facilitate the expansion of light industrial development within the Plan area. These changes were introduced at the November 8 th hearing and are discussed in further detail below. In light of an independent analysis with respect to the impact of the 2.5:1 FAR on affordable housing (that was presented to the CPC on November 8 th) the item was once again continued in order to provide the development community and other stakeholders the opportunity to review the analysis which, along with other public comments submitted to the CPC, was posted on the Department s website at: planning.lacity.org/ Ordinances/Proposed Ordinances/Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan. Background The Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan (Proposed Plan) is a regulatory land use ordinance as permitted by Section of Volume 1 of the City s Municipal Code. The City establishes specific plans to address area specific land use needs and concerns. The Plan is the result of several years of planning and community engagement that involved community workshops, meetings and conversations with residents, employers, property owners, and community business, and environmental organizations as well as staff input from numerous City, County, State, and federal departments. The Proposed Plan anticipates that by 2035 the population within the Proposed Plan could reach 31,855, that there could be a total of units and that there could be a total of 10,546 jobs. As of 2007 the population within the Proposed Plan was 5,304 and there were 1,448

6 CPC SP A-2 housing units and 2,908 jobs. To enable this growth and to achieve the goals of the General Plan and the LARRMP the Proposed Plan establishes four new zoning districts: Urban Village, Urban Center, Urban Innovation, and Greenway (See Appendix B1- Zoning Districts Map). The Plan also includes an area-specific Density Bonus Option, a Community Benefit Option, and a Transfer of Floor Area (TFAR) program which together provide incentives for affordable housing, community benefits (open space, child care, library), and the preservation of lowerdensity industrial and residential uses, open space, and historic resources. The Plan includes a variety of standards addressing building form and massing, urban design, park, conservation, maintenance, noise, parking and streets. These are intended to regulate the urban form, promote open space, provide for a clean environment, minimize the effects of noise and vibrations, provide pleasant, safe, non-vehicular mobility options, and reduce energy and water consumption. Discussion of Key Issues Protecting and Enhancing Industrial Employment Centers At the October 11 th hearing the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) presented both oral and written comments regarding their concerns that many of the design standards in the Proposed Plan would prohibit the development and/or expansion of the light industrial projects that the Plan sought to encourage. Subsequent to the October 11 th hearing staff met with LAEDC representatives to discuss their concerns and review potential minor modifications. As a result of the meetings several design standards have been modified. These modest changes include adjustments to the building form, urban design, open space, conservation, and performance standards. Staff is confident that the changes will facilitate the development of light industrial development without impeding the overarching goals of sustainability and smart growth. In large part the changes either lessen the percentages of required active uses and visual transparency for a building façade or provide a technical clarification. Affordable Housing The intent of the Proposed Plan has always been to encourage a range of residential developments- both affordable and market rate. The challenge comes in determining what land use strategies (requirements and incentives) result in the development of a balanced residential community. The Plan currently limits a residential development in the Urban Village District to a 2.50 FAR. Due to other limitations in the Plan the residential portion of this development would be limited to a 2.25 FAR. The remaining.25 FAR would need to include non-residential uses. Residential projects could increase their FAR above the 2.5 (up to a 4:1 FAR) by including a proportion of any additional units, above the 2.5, as affordable. Due to the Plan s proximity to rail and bus transportation options the City expects that developers would be incentivized to include the affordable units as a means of achieving a larger project. The controversy has stemmed largely from concern by some members of the affordable housing community that the 2.5 FAR is too generous and would not incentivize a project to include any additional FAR. Others fear that requiring projects to include affordable units in order to exceed the base FAR will deter the market from building residential projects altogether and that the area will stagnate. To add another layer of complexity to the discussion, a recent analysis, independently commissioned by The California Community Foundation, suggests that there would be greater incentive on the part of market rate residential developers to include affordable units if the FAR for residential projects was limited to 1.5 FAR (1.35 residential +.15 non-residential). Prior to the December 13 th hearing the sub-committee will meet to discuss the pros and cons of either a 2.5 ( ) or a 1.5 ( ) FAR. The results of this conversation, and others that are continuing to take place among various stakeholders, will be presented and discussed at the December 13 th hearing.

7 CPC SP A-3 In the meanwhile, regardless of the FAR that is ultimately settled on, staff recommends that the the two pathways in the Density Bonus Option be renamed in order to provide greater clarity as to what type of projects are eligible to utilize either of the two strategies. The Publicly Funded strategy has been renamed Strategy A, and the Not Publicly Funded strategy has been renamed Strategy B. A project would select either Strategy A or Strategy B depending upon the number or percentage of units it was willing to restrict as affordable. Strategy A (was Publicly Funded) Strategy A projects are those that record a covenant prior to pulling a building permit to set aside either 11% of the units for households earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), 20% of the units for households earning less than 60% of AMI, or 100% of the units for households earning 60% of AMI or less. Strategy A projects receive a fixed amount of additional or Bonus FAR based upon the percentage of restricted units that are provided. Strategy B (was Not Publicly Funded) Projects that do not use Strategy A, but still elect to include affordable units and record a covenant prior to pulling a building permit to set aside an identified number of affordable units, would use Strategy B. Strategy B projects receive a fixed amount of bonus square feet for each square foot of an affordable unit that is provided. Based upon conversations with affordable housing developers staff has added a provision allowing projects that utilize Strategy B to receive bonus square feet by including units that are restricted to households earning 80% AMI or less. Prior iterations limited bonus square feet to units that were provided to households earning 60% AMI or less. Affordable Housing Transfer of Floor Area Option Another revision is aimed at providing greater flexibility to market rate developers who desire to increase their FAR above the base FAR of 2.5 while also providing an additional funding stream to affordable housing developers who are unable to utilize the full extent of the Bonus FAR. The Plan introduces a new Floor Area Option 2.1.I.4 which states: An existing parcel within the Urban Village District, which is eligible, as a result of participating in the Density Bonus Strategy A Option, up to an FAR of 4:1 may transfer any of its Unused FAR to a Receiver Site that is located within the Plan. Furthermore, 2.1.G.3 has been modified to allow projects that elect to purchase this Unused FAR to do so without first participating in the Bonus FAR Program. Parking The majority of the comments on October 11 th agreed that the removal of a parking cap was a positive step but argued that requiring projects to provide public parking, for any parking above and beyond the parking standard, would render many a project financially infeasible. Many stated that while the public parking option did provide relief from the parking standard, it complicated understanding of the Plan s parking requirements and ultimately would impede a project s ability to obtain financing. In response to these concerns staff has eliminated all vehicular parking requirements from the Plan. Instead, developers will determine what is the appropriate parking required for their specific project. Developers may opt to provide no parking whatsoever or they may determine that they need a specific amount of parking for each unit and/or square foot of development. Projects will be encouraged to design their parking areas such that the parking may be available to the public in the future in a manner determined appropriate by the property owner. Given the cost of constructing parking, coupled with the urban design and multi-modal standards imposed by the Plan, staff is confident that future development will not produce an oversupply of inexpensive parking that will reduce residents and/or employees incentive to walk, bike, or take transit. Any project that does elect to provide parking will need to provide at

8 CPC SP A-4 least 1% of the spaces as vehicle charging stations and provide at least one shared vehicle parking space and designate at least one parking stall for scooters, mopeds and/or motorcycles for every 25 units and/or 25,000 square feet. All projects, regardless of whether they include parking or not will need to provide bicycle parking and provide information for transit riders. Furthermore, projects over 50 units and/or 50,000 square feet will be required to participate in additional Transportation Demand Management Strategies as described in Mitigation Measure Transportation 4.1. Residential Uses within Urban Center Comments were received at both the October 11 th and November 8 th hearings regarding the proposed zoning for Block 9. The comment suggests that this site is well suited for residential uses. Therefore, the prospective developer has requested that the site be zoned as Urban Village which would permit a project that is up to 90% residential instead of the Urban Center district designation that was analyzed in the FEIR and is proposed in the Plan which limits residential use at 15%. This comment was previously responded to at length in the FEIR and the October 11 th Staff Report and staff continues to recommend that due to the sizable scale of this site, and its proximity to the Chinatown Station, it is well suited for a mix of uses that could include a limited amount of residential but is otherwise predominantly a job center and/or other regional attractor. Block 19B At the November 8 th hearing a comment was received, both verbally and in-writing, that suggested that Block 19B should be removed from the Plan as it was sufficiently segregated from the rest of the Plan area and had a unique geographical form. While it is true that the site s long, slender dimensions and steep topography are unique to the Plan and that its location immediately abutting Metro s Gold Line present access challenges, these reasons do not provide sufficient rationale to warrant removing it from the Plan because the Plan provides planning and design standards that would unify the site with the Plan area. Staff continues to recommend that the site be designated as an Urban Village with a Maximum FAR of 4:1 River Buffer One comment, received verbally and in-writing, at both the October 11 th and November 8 th hearings suggested that the two parcels currently owned by the Young Nak Church be removed from the proposed River Buffer (Buffer). The parcels in question are located partially within the Buffer area but also contain portions that are not in the Buffer area. The comment argues that imposing differing FAR and maximum lot coverage requirements on the same parcel makes it difficult for the property owner to satisfactorily develop their site. Properties within the Buffer area are limited to a 1.5:1 FAR and a 50% maximum lot coverage whereas properties outside the Buffer typically would have a 3:1 base FAR and a maximum lot coverage of 85%. Staff contend that it is not uncommon for properties throughout the City to straddle different zoning areas and that in this instance the only differentiation is FAR and lot coverage which should not prove an insurmountable design obstacle. The Plan provides a property owner faced with this circumstance with a variety of options. He/she could elect to develop the portion of the property within the Buffer area under the terms of the Buffer, transfer the unused FAR to another portion of their property not located within the River Buffer, or sell it through the Plan s TFAR program. Paseos One comment, also received verbally and in-writing at both the October 11 th and November 8 th hearings requested that the parcels owned by the Young Nak Church be exempt from the passageway requirement for blocks that exceed their permitted block length. The length of the block plays a large role in promoting walkability. Due to the industrial nature of much of the area, many of the blocks are longer than the block length typically desired to promote pedestrian activity. Shorter blocks would also help reduce traffic speeds and therefore result in

9 CPC SP A-5 increased pedestrian and bicycle safety. To induce the development of shorter blocks, blocks that are in excess of the identified optimum for each of the three zoning districts (Urban Village- 450, Urban Center-500 and Urban Innovation -600 ) are identified on the Maximum Block Length Map and developments that meet the identified criteria will be required to include a paseo or alley through their property. While the revised Plan does provide modifications to the block length requirement for light industrial uses it does not suggest that the requirement be lifted for non-industrial uses. Streets The Street Modification Table, The Street Standards Map and the corresponding sections of the Street Cross Sections in Appendix A2 have been modified to correct technical inconsistencies. Application Process After an internal discussion it was determined that the Project Permit Compliance Review (Review) process, outlined in the Plan, needed to be eliminated. The intention of the Plan had always been to permit projects by-right through an Administrative Clearance process as long as they followed the standards established by the Plan. Instead, the Review process, due to its association with the Project Permit Compliance process would potentially subject a project that adhered completely to the Plan to a lengthy appeal process. This was not the intention of the Plan and therefore the revised Plan has been modified to provide the opportunity for all projects which conform to the rules of the Plan to utilize the Administrative Clearance process. Mitigation Measure Transportation 4.1 has been modified to reflect this change. Prior language required projects seeking a Project Permit Compliance to include additional TDM strategies and instead revised language will require projects that add 50 units or 50,000 square feet of development to include the additional TDM strategies. See Exhibit B.2. Appendices

10 CPC SP P-1