Director’s Report (Audio) (9:07) minutes
Report by Director on:
Time extensions to act on applications giving Director delegated authority – May 25 agenda
Revision of CPC existing by-laws – May 25th agenda
Commissioner request for “searchable” OCR scanned documents
City Attorney on: 8157 Sunset lawsuit court ruling
Director’s Report (Audio) (3:58) minutes
No report by Director
City Attorney on Lawsuit “Establish a (HI) Hybrid Industrial Live/Work Zone” and lack of proper environmental review.
Referral by CITY COUNCIL
| 11-1705-S3 | ||
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Motion (Wesson, Jr. – Huizar) – Direct the Department of City Planning, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to prepare and present an ordinance to add a provision to the City’s off-site sign ordinance, as worded in the Motion. |
||
Referral by CITY COUNCIL
| 16-0597-S1 | ||
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Motion (Wesson, Jr. – Koretz) – Instruct the Department of City Planning to report on the feasibility of incorporating changes to the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Community Plan that would allow deeper commercial lots along South Robertson Boulevard. |
||
CF 17-0471
Department of City Planning be authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement and any necessary associated agreement(s), subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form, with the California Employment Development Department, to provide the City and any authorized contractor, with confidential employment data for firms located in select station areas along the Metro Orange Line and Metro Purple Line extension for use in the preparation of market studies for the Transit Neighborhood Plans program to: analyze employment trends within select station areas, allow the City to plan for future land uses that support vibrant neighborhoods and employment centers, and encourage further investment and employment growth around the region’s expanding transit network.
Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents and reports.
05/03/2017 Council action final. Motion 04/25/2017
05/03/2017 Council adopted item forthwith. Motion 04/25/2017
04/28/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on May 3, 2017. Motion 04/25/2017
04/26/2017 Motion referred to Council (tentatively scheduled for May 3, 2017). Motion 04/25/2017
Density is a controversial subject in virtually all American communities. While some districts and communities are seeking more density to promote economic revitalization and a host of other progressive goals, density is more often a thing to be feared. Many think that density is simply ugly; More and bigger buildings, more asphalt and concrete, fewer trees and green space, less sunlight and privacy, and even less air to breath.
But with a finite amount of land to house us, communities all around the globe have come to understand the need and benefits of density (saving land and energy use, for starters). Here in Washington State, the Growth Management Act dictates that cities plan for anticipated growth, which, in many cases, means more density in areas with the infrastructure to support it.
Zoning codes all regulate density in some form. Single family districts include lot size minimums. Multifamily districts often include a maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre. Major political battles often erupt when density increases are proposed. Community members may fight against a proposed density number, but often they don’t know what it looks like.
Over the past few years, I’ve conducted a slideshow and discussion on density to planning commissions and committees in multiple cities. The major conclusion of the analysis is that perceptions on density depend on design. As author Julie Campoli noted in her 2007 book, Visualizing Density, people tend to overestimate the density of monotonous, amenity-poor developments and underestimate the density of well-designed, attractive projects, thereby reinforcing negative stereotypes.
This article shows examples of various densities in Washington State communities and closes with a summary of design elements that help to make density more compatible.
First, it’s important to clarify how densities are measured. Zoning codes either measure density on a gross or net basis. Net density includes just individual lots in the measurements while gross density includes street rights-of-way and common areas. As a consequence, net density figures are typically 50-70% higher than gross density numbers.
Gross density measurements are often best used when looking at large developments that are likely to have internal roads and open space. Net densities are often more appropriate for neighborhood infill situations. The graphics below, courtesy of GGLO, help to explain the differences.
Notable features: The lack of street trees combined with a prevalence of garages and driveways. The city’s new standards, however, reduce street widths, include wide planter strips and street trees, and deemphasize the garage in the design of home fronts.
Newer, single-family subdivision in Ellensburg
Notable features: Traditional streetscapes with sidewalks, planter strips, street trees, covered entries, and a diversity of architectural styles. Access to garages is provided by an alley behind the single-family houses.
Older, single-family neighborhood in Olympia, WA.
Notable features: Traditional streetscape with sidewalk, street trees, shallow front setbacks and front porches. The courtyard-access lots behind the street-fronting homes add density, but its density that’s largely screened from the street. Note that the second row of homes at the top and bottom of the image are accessed by private lanes.
Relatively new, single-family subdivision within the master-planned Snoqualmie Ridge development (Snoqualmie, WA)
Notable features: Consistent setbacks, shallow porches, minimal setbacks between homes, and alleys with driveway space in back. The monotonous layout and design, combined with the lack of usable open space for residents, led to updates to Lacey’s zoning and design standards.
Relatively new, small-lot homes in the Hawks Prairie development (Lacey, WA).
Notable features: Traditional streetscapes, a combination of front- and alley-loaded dwellings, and strategically located, common open space. The numbers below refer to duplexes (2) and triplexes (3). The remaining structures are single-family homes.
Relatively new, mixed-housing-type subdivision within the master-planned Issaquah Highlands development (Issaquah, WA).
Notable features: A variety of housing types, pedestrian-friendly street frontages, alleys and auto courts, and common open space with trails.
Relatively new, mixed-housing-type subdivision, also within the master-planned Issaquah Highlands development (Issaquah, WA).
Notable features: A combination of surface/garage parking and generous open space and recreational features (including children’s play area, sports court, vegetable gardens for residents, trails, common recreational building, and a protected natural area).
New apartment community in Renton, WA
Notable features: Single and double-single family lots redeveloped with condominiums. Each building contains between 3-7 units and has front-loaded parking at the street level beneath the dwelling units. All are built within a strict 30’ height limit; hence, the flat roofs.
5th Avenue condominiums in Kirkland, WA
Notable features: An urban, street-oriented townhouse development integrating corner retail spaces, live-work spaces, internal auto courts with private garages, and common open space.
Lionsgate Townhouses in Redmond, WA
Notable features: A cluster of single-family homes integrated into surrounding neighborhood with alley and internal auto-court access, private garages, a large cedar tree, and a manmade stream running through the site.
Detached, single-family homes in The Boulders at Green Lake development in Seattle, WA (images courtesy of Johnston Architects).
Notable features: New urban townhouses and live-work units served by underground parking and containing private patios and a centralized, shared courtyard space.
Live-work and regular townhouse units in Seattle’s Lower Queen Anne neighborhood (landscape plan courtesy of David Vandervort Architects).
Notable features: The whole block site transitions from 4-story buildings with ground level retail to townhomes that rise only one level above the street at the northwest corner of the site. While the L-shaped, mixed-use apartment building is over 100 dwelling units per net acre, the surface parking area and townhouse building bring the block’s average density down to 59 units per net acre.
Nia Apartments and townhouses in White Center (King County, WA).
Notable features: A 6-story, mixed-use apartment building in the very urban, First Hill neighborhood.
Apartments over ground level retail in Seattle’s First Hill neighborhood (left image courtesy of GGLO).
Notable features: This mixed-use project now under construction features 41 studio apartments averaging only 430 square feet. The trend in smaller units in urban areas results in a much higher density count than would be assumed in looking at this 4-story building. It replaces two single-family homes and features only eight parking spaces but will be within walking distance of a future light rail station.
Studio apartments over ground level retail in Seattle’s Roosevelt neighborhood (images courtesy of Weinstein A+U).
Some quick observations about the examples above and key elements that make them appear more or less livable or attractive.
Good streetscape. Since the most common perception of cities is from our view at street level, the quality of the streetscape in front of the buildings makes perhaps the biggest impact in humanizing developments and softening the hard edges of buildings. Street trees are present in all of the examples above, except the very first example in Ellensburg, and it’s notable that new streetscape standards for Ellensburg now require planting strips with trees! The mixed-use building photos above were all taken during the wintertime. Summertime photos from the same vantage point would certainly soften the edges of those buildings!
Vehicular access elements. Streetscapes dominated by views of garages tend to create more of a dehumanized setting. While they may not necessarily make a streetscape feel more dense, the garages certainly degrade the visual character. The Issaquah Highlands examples above are particularly successful in locating and designing garages and driveways in a manner that minimizes their visual impact on the streetscape.
Attractive streetscapes go a long way towards making higher-density neighborhoods livable. Poor streetscapes that are auto-dominated and lack softening greenery can make an area feel more crowded.
Building design. There are a number of building features that can impact a person’s perception of the building.
The top images feature good façade articulation and detailing that add visual interest and reduce the perceived scale of the buildings. The image below features monotonous setbacks and building forms. While some variety of color and porch roof forms are included, it still comes across as excessively monotonous.
The following planners provided assistance in this piece: Steve Butler and Byron Katsuyama (MRSC), Jeremy McMahan (Development Services Planning Manager, City of Kirkland), Chip Vincent and Clark Close (Long Range Planning Director/ Senior Planner, City of Renton), Gary Lee (Senior Planner, City of Redmond), Lisa Rutzick (Design Review Program Manager, City of Seattle), Joming Lau (Urban Design, MAKERS) and Sean McCormick (Urban Designer, MAKERS).
Bob Bengford writes for MRSC as a Planning Advisor.
Bob Bengford, AICP, is a Partner with MAKERS architecture, planning and urban design firm. Bob’s community design work encompasses all transects, from urban downtowns and transit-oriented development to rural area planning. Since joining MAKERS 13 years ago, Bob’s specialty has been helping communities craft usable development regulations and design guidelines. The combination of growing up in a sprawling Orange County (CA) tract home subdivision, reviewing development plans against antiquated and inconsistent codes in rural Bonner County (ID), and working with a great mentor at MAKERS (John Owen) have helped Bob recognize the critical importance of good development regulations and design guidelines in shaping vital and healthy communities. As a resident of Bellevue, Bob has been active in various community planning issues. He’s also an active four-season bicycle commuter, hiker, gardener, and urban explorer.
The views expressed in Advisor columns represent the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MRSC.
Director’s Report (Audio) 17:22 minutes
Note: Current record retention includes 2003; however, the official timeline is for 5 years.
Director’s Report (Audio) 12:20 minutes
City Attorney
Trial for Establish a (HI) Hybrid Industrial Live/Work Zone
Note: Current record retention includes 2003; however, the official timeline is for 5 years.
CPC-2017-1240-CA
An ordinance adding or amending Sections 16.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to remove references to the former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA) , which was dissolved on February 1, 2012, and to facilitate the transfer to the City of Los Angeles of the unexpired land use related plans and functions of the former CRA pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173(i ) and to make other cleanup amendments to the Municipal Code .
CF 13-0046
INTERIM POSITION AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT RECENTLY ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REFORM STRATEGIES RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council, subject to the approval of the Mayor: 1. Authorize by resolution the following 28 positions within the Department of City Planning to support the expanded Community Planning Program, implement recently adopted changes to the environmental review process, and improve delivery of development services consistent with the adopted Development Reform Initiative, subject to position allocation by the Personnel Department:
— Refer to CF 13-0046 For Detail
City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0011, dated March 31, 2017, relative to authorize twenty-eight (28) positions within the Department of City Planning to implement Development Services Reform Strategies. Report from Administrative Officer (March 31, 2017)
City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0008, dated February 24, 2016, relative to the Development Services Reform Initiative – Construction Services Trust Fund.
02/23/2016 Council adopted item as amended, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
City Attorney report R16-0038, dated Febuary 1, 2016, relative to the draft Ordinance amending the Administrative Code and the Municipal Code; deleting code and adding sections to rename the Construction Services Trust Fund; update trust fund procedures update and establish one-stop permit centers surcharge fee provisions, and temporarily increase the surcharge to fund BuildLA.
City Administrative Officer repor 0220-04851-0010, dated January 15, 2016, relative to the Development Services Reform Initiative status report.
City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0009, dated September 22, 2015, relative to the Development Services Reform Initiative status report.
City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0006, dated August 20, 2014, relative to Development Services Reform Initiative – Status Report Two.
City Administrative Officer 0220-04851-0005, dated June 6, 2014, relative to the status report and recommendations relating to the development reform implementation.
City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0003, dated November 22, 2013, relative to various recommendations relating to the development services reform, restoration of funding and resolution positions authority.
Chief Legislative Analyst and City Administrative Officer joint report 0220-04851-0001, dated August 23, 2013, relative to the first status update on the functional transfer and integration of development services programs of multiple City departments into a new development services department.
City Planning and Department of Building and Safety joint report, dated April 5, 2013, relative to the realignment of City departments.
City Planning report, dated April 5, 2012, relative to the proposed realignment of City departments.
CF 16-1472-S2
Motion (Ryu – Koretz) relative to instructing the Department of City Planning, in consultation with the City Attorney, to prepare and present a Zone Change Ordinance to apply the proposed Hillside Construction Regulation (HCR) Supplemental Use District (SUD) to two neighborhoods in Council District Four to regulate the construction of single family homes in hillside areas as follows: 1) the Laurel Canyon Neighborhood, generally bounded by West Hollywood to the south and West Hollywood to the east; and Studio City to the north, and 2) the Bird Streets Neighborhood, generally bounded by the Trousdale Estates Neighborhood of Beverly Hills to the west; Sunset Plaza and the rest of the Hollywood Hills to the north and east; and the Sunset Strip and West Hollywood to the south.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
Click on the green highlight to view official documents and reports.
Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated February 14, 2018, relative to a Zone Change Ordinance which establishes a Hillside Construction Regulation Supplemental Use District in the Laurel Canyon and Bird Streets neighborhoods.
