CORRESPONDENCE
ERIKA FOY RECO! ED
!
PROTECTING PASADENA 2022 MAY 23 AM 9:31
May 23, 2022
City Council
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: South Fair Oaks Specific Plan
The South Fair Oaks Specific Plan(SFOSP) is poised to change our city drastically in both positive and negative ways. While planning a city's growth can be exciting and challenging, it is important to always remember the key tenants of what makes our city so unique. I challenge you to question if this plan goes far enough to address the continuation of Pasadena's charm and what makes us so special. It is of my opinion this plan is designed well beyond city infrastructure capacities, neither enhances nor encourages a small-town feel, is not of an appropriate scale for the surrounding historic neighborhoods, encourages very little green space, and will still have a devastating cumulative impact on traffic with every major intersection surrounding the area despite recent efforts to fix this problem. While I do see the city's effort to improve the plan over the last two years, there are a few points I would like to make for your review. I think by addressing some of the following items, the negative aspects can be diminished- 1) The density and height at the corner of Filmore and Arroyo Parkway are too tall and dense due to the adjacency of single family homes on Marengo and the neighborhood of Madison Heights. The staff report states the plan focuses growth away from residential neighbohoods, yet in this case that goal is far from being met.
2) The new sidewalk widths and building setbacks are to be applauded. I am not certain though the five foot setback is enough to meet the goal of increasing the tree size canopy. While five feet is considerably better than the previous zero, l am not sure this minimal setback will actually help us meet the goal of enhancing a more prolific urban tree forest for the benefit of our city's future and the looming increase of the urban heat index. How can we encourage developers to leave even more room for trees? Is five feet enough for massive trees to grow for the generation of residents?
3) The change in open space requirements and tree planting standards are a positive step forward. It is commendable the city has required trees to be "in- ground" in order to count towards the tree requirement. I am still concerned the city has not taken further steps within the SFOSP to address the opportunity to use park and traffic impact fees from the future developments to create larger open green spaces with city owned property in the direct area. My hope is most of the acquired resources would be spent in the immediate area to address quality-of-life issues. Where will children play who will live in some of the the 05/23/2022
Item 16
most dense buildings in the city? The SFOSP lacks walkable space where kids and families can kick or throw a ball. The staff should be required to show in the plan where larger open space will be accessed and what routes these individuals must take. I cannot imagine crossing Arroyo Parkway and California, the busiest intersection in our city, is appropriate for any child on a bike or foot attempting to access Allendale Park for baseball or the Blair High School pool for swim lessons.
4) The planning staff is right to not recommend the planning commission recommendations. Different rules for different developers will only wreak havoc on city process as we have seen in the past. We need just one set of guidelines and standards for the entire city when it comes to the consistency of trees, sidewalks, setbacks, and other policies goals. What the commission is proposing will be problematic because we will see different development standards for each parcel and our city public process will be disaster. I ask you to consider how it will work if every applicant can ask for different standards like we see with planned developments. The "flexibility" the commission is recommending will likely become a free for all. We must build a city where everybody has to follow the same rules, it should not be open for interpretation. All of a sudden developers are going to have "substantial hardships" and the issue becomes who determines the hardship and how? Is this a new city process? 5) Many organizations have called for a bike lane along Raymond for transit users, local residents and Art Center students to access Old Pasadena. As history has it, we actually had a cycleway on Raymond. The first 1.4 miles of a larger and more significant cycleway to extend to downtown Los Angeles opened on January 1, 1900. According to Dan Koeppel, an award-winning writer and cycling expert, the original start to the bike highway portion stretched roughly from the Hotel Green to near what is now the Glenarm Power Plant (see photo below).
Wouldn't it be better to plan for a bikeway as part of the SFOSP versus attempting to insall one later? Would this help ease the traffic and parking concerns for the future?
I challenge council to consider if this plan goes far enough to address all the future needs and desires of current and future Pasadena residents. While I do appreciate the city's effort to change many necessary and obvious mishaps, I do think the plan can do more. South Fair Oaks area is a wonderful blank slate and I hope this council makes every effort to stamp your vote in a way that the history of our city will forever remember your efforts and energy to create a plan that moves us into a new era. The quality-of-life for all must be front and center of how people will live, work and enjoy. It comes down to trees, traffic, transit and accessible space to put your feet on something green.
Thank you for your time,
Erika Foy
CURBED
LOS ANGELES
820211
Linda Vista-Annandale Association
2022 MAY 23 AM 9:59
Pasadena, CA
Re: Council Meeting 5/22/2022; Agenda Item 16; South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Update Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
The Linda Vista-Annandale Association (LVAA) supports the adoption of the Staff recommended South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Update. This proposed Specific Plan Update is innovative and visionary and has the potential to transform the South Fair Oaks area. In connection with our support, we do have the following comments with respect to specific Plan issues.
First, we strongly support the Staff recommendation NOT to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to enable deviations from certain Plan development standards for commercial properties when it can be "clearly demonstrated that compliance with the standards would result in a substantial hardship." Such a provision is not good public policy in that it would undermine the intent, goals, and objectives of the Plan, and cause the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Update to be inconsistent with prior recently adopted specific plan updates.
Second, while we accept the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations to study the implementation of a program related to public-private partnerships for the excellent Plan provisions concerning the creation of paseos and publicly accessible open space, LVAA suggests incorporating additional language requiring that any such program shall be publicly reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the Council.
Third, as to Plan provisions and Guidelines regarding Street Trees, while we would prefer that all proposed Specific Plan Updates are reviewed by the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC before Council consideration, we strongly support the "next best thing" included in this Plan:
Implementation action IMS-1 on Page 127 of the Plan which addresses the issue of appropriate Street Tree selections, including the deficient current Street Tree choice on South Fair Oaks, by providing that Public Works and presumably UFAC will review the approved Street Trees for this Specific Plan area in "the near-term." LVAA supports this implementation measure and urges that this implementation action is taken promptly.
Thank you for your attention to our comments.
Sincerely,
Nina Chomsky
Nina Chomsky, LVAA President
cc: LVAA Board of Directors
05/23/2022
Item 16
RECOVED
PAS
2022 MAY 23 PM 12:31
May 23, 2022
CRESIDENTS
ASSOCIATIO
Mayor Victor Gordo
Members of the City Council
City of Pasadena
VIA EMAIL
South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Update, Item 16, City Council May 23, 2022 The West Pasadena Residents' Association supports the recommendations of the Planning and Community Development Department in its report of May 23, 2022, and recommends adoption of the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Update.
We wish to call your attention to the two recommendations made by a majority of the Planning Commission at its April 13, 2022 meeting, shown as the two bullet points on page 1 of the report:
• The first bullet suggests an implementation program in the SFOSP for public-private partnerships for the creation of paseos and publicly accessible open space.
WPRA supports study of PPP's for these purposes but suggests that a policy be reviewed in detail by the Planning Commission and Council prior to implementation, to permit adequate public review.
• The second bullet would include language in the SFOSP allowing the review authority to approve limited deviations from some development standards for commercial projects when it can be "clearly demonstrated that compliance with the standards would result in a substantial hardship."
WPRA strongly agrees with staff NOT to include this recommendation in the SFOSP. "Hardships" (not defined) will necessarily result from compliance with Pasadena's development standards because these standards require time, effort and money for compliance. Thus every project may claim that these standards pose "hardships." It is not difficult to imagine routine requests for deviations based on the widening and subjective definition of "hardships", to the increasing detriment of our planning and community goals.
Thank you for your consideration of our points of view.
Respectfully,
Dan Beal, President
The WPRA is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in southwest Pasadena. We have over 1,000 paid members.
WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION 05/23/2022
POST OFFICE BOX 50252 • PASADENA, CA 91115 Item 16
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From: David B.Coher
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 2:18 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: Council Agenda Item 16 - South Fair Oak Specific Plan (SFOSP) Public Comment [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.]
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more... https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Hello. My name is David Coher and, as you may know, I am a member of the Planning Commission. I am writing on behalf of myself, not the Commission, to urge that you include the Commission's recommendation to add needed flexibility to this Specific Plan.
The Commission approved the Specific Plan only once this needed flexibility was added. Therefore, I disagree with Staff's proposal to remove this needed flexibility. Speaking for myself, I know that I would not have voted for the Specific Plan without this flexibility - which would have reduced the 5 - 2 vote to only 4 - 3. Further, I suspect, from discussions during the meeting, that several other members of the Planning Commission only voted for this Specific Plan because it included this needed flexibility and that without it, it would not have passed the Planning Commission. This is, after all, the role of the Planning Commission - to provide appropriate revisions to such documents and make the work of the Council easier.
The needed flexibility was added by the Planning Commission upon its review to ensure that the Specific Plan is not overly prescriptive and that the City has the ability to ensure the development envisioned by the Specific Plan. To strip out a fundamental element of the Specific Plan's approval - such as this needed flexibility - renders the Planning Commission's review moot and raises questions about the overall viability of the Specific Plan.
Therefore, on behalf of myself, I ask you to include the second bullet of the recommendation in the agenda before you, to -
'Incorporate language in the [South Fair Oaks Specific Plan] that would give the review authority the ability to approve limited deviations from development standards not including allowed height setbacks, or tree planting requirements, for commercial properties when it can be clearly demonstrated that compliance with the standards would result in a substantial hardship."
David B. Coher
05/23/2022
Item 16
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From: John Latta
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:11 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Cc: Thyret, Pam; Wilson, Andy
Subject: Agenda Item 16 - SOUTH FAIR OAKS SPECIFIC
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from 1. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.J
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more.. https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Council Members:
The Madison Heights Neighborhood Association previously submitted a detailed letter regarding regarding The South Fair Oaks Specific Plan but we want to reiterate our main concerns.
We believe SWOT (Setbacks, Walkability, Open Space, Trees) are critical general concerns for the plan. We vehemently believe that a five foot setback is too small because trees could not be planted in the ground and walkability would be poor. We also want to step ups in height away from adjacent single family neighborhoods so new development doesn't loom over them.
Thanks for all your hard and good work.
John Latta
President, Madison Heights Neighbor Association
05/23/2022
Item 16
1 Item 16
Comments to the Pasadena City Council Regarding the Proposed South Fair Oaks Specific Plan
May 23, 2022
Thomas Priestley, Ph.D., AICP/ASLA
40 West Glenarm Street, Pasadena, CA 91105
510.579.5606 [email protected]
Introduction
As a resident who lives just outside the boundaries of the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan planning area, I have been following the progress of the specific plan planning process with considerable interest, and I want to share a few of my thoughts about the proposed specific plan with you.
My perspective on the planning area is informed by the fact that I have been living at 40 West Glenarm Street, approximately 100 feet west of the planning area's boundary, for the past eight years. During my time on Glenarm Street, I have become familiar with the planning area through my frequent use of it as a pedestrian. In addition, my perspective on the area is informed by my professional training and experience. I have a Bachelor of Urban Planning degree and have master's degrees in city and regional planning and environmental planning, as well as a Ph.D., in environmental planning.
Because of my professional training, I have a long and continuing interest in the public's use of streets and the application of urban design measures to improve the livability and safety of streets for non-automotive users. In addition, much of my professional career has been devoted to analysis of the aesthetic issues posed by a range of large infrastructure projects, particularly electric generation and transmission facilities. Because power plant aesthetics has been so much of a focus of my professional life, I have some highly developed thoughts about the future use of the Glenarm and Broadway Power Plant sites, which are located less than a block down the street from my house and whose stacks are visible from my property.
My Thoughts in Brief About the Proposed Specific Plan
Overall, my assessment is that this plan is sound and that its policies have for the most part been carefully thought through. I strongly support the land use development concept that has been prepared, which capitalizes on the area's locational assets, provides for the growth of the medical center and the Art Center campus, and responds to the City's and the region's housing needs while at the same time respecting the area's heritage structures and existing residential 05/23/2022
Item 16
areas. I am especially supportive of the plan's provisions that will permit the development of high-density housing in the planning area, particularly in the corridor along South Raymond Avenue. The proposed high-density housing, along with the Plan's urban design provisions will make it possible to take advantage of the extraordinarily high level of accessibility by public transit in this corridor and the proximity to Old Pasadena, Central Park, Huntington Hospital and the cluster of medical uses around it, and the Art Center South Campus to develop an urbane, dense, pedestrian oriented district.
Need for More Detail About Making South Raymond Avenue a Complete Street Unfortunately, the plan is not specific enough in its implementation measures to ensure realization of the potential of South Raymond Avenue. Because of the density of the housing that is being proposed along the street, the mixed land uses, the presence of the Art Center campus and its dormitories housing 800 students, and the high level of public transportation service, South Raymond Avenue has all the ingredients to become a street with a lively pedestrian life. The plan's text should be amended to specifically state that the vision for South Raymond Avenue is that it should become a street on which automobile traffic is de- emphasized in favor of public transportation and active transportation. A statement that indicates that protected bike lanes should be located on this street should also be included.
Map 5.1-1 in the version of the plan now under consideration proposes 15-foot sidewalks for South Raymond Avenue. To be consistent with the vision of South Raymond Avenue as an active transportation corridor, this map should be amended to indicated sidewalk widths of 22 feet or 25 feet.
In addition, I request that you amend the plan's implementation actions for Infrastructure, Mobility, and Sustainability specified in Section 7.1 to be more specific about the need to develop and adopt a design plan to turn South Raymond Avenue into a street with a high level of amenity that prioritizes active transportation.
One way to achieve this would be to revise Implementation Action IMS-4, which now reads:
IMS-4 Streetscape Program
Explore opportunities to develop a Streetscape Program for Raymond Avenue, including improvements that address pedestrian amenities, such as seating, in alignment with DOT's Pedestrian Plan.
To ensure a more comprehensive and definitive implementation action regarding South Raymond Avenue, please revise this Implementation Action to read:
IMS-4 Complete Streets and Streetscape Program for South Raymond Avenue Develop a Complete Streets and Streetscape Plan for South Raymond Avenue that will convert the street to a corridor that emphasizes active transportation and provides a high level of amenity. The plan's provisions should include reduction of the number of automotive travel lanes, reduction of space devoted to on-street parking, provision of amenities at public transit stops, development of a protected cycle track, creation of a series of broad pedestrian plazas that provide for safe circulation for pedestrians and amenities for the residents of the area's future high-density housing, for students at the Art Center's South Campus, and for workers at and visitors to the area's medical facilities. The streetscape program should include a substantial increase in the number of trees planted in the corridor to provide ecological benefits, increase shade and amenity, and screen the views looking south down the street toward the Glenarm Power Plant.
More Planning is Required for the Glenarm Power Plant Site The proposed plan's analysis and land use prescriptions for the "Institutional Flex" area seem weak and incomplete. First, the name given to this area "Institutional Flex" does not recognize or do justice to the fact that all the land in this area is owned by Pasadena Water and Power and has been used for electric power production for a very long time and is likely to be a valuable resource for meeting Pasadena's utility needs in the future. The name for this area should be changed to "Glenarm and Broadway Power Plant Sites" to provide the public with a better understanding of what this area is.
The plan doesn't document any communication or coordination between Planning staff and the staff of the PWP responsible for managing these two power plant properties or planning their future. More time and effort is required to prepare a plan for this area. Given that, I suggest that strong consideration be given to treating this area the same way that the Huntington Hospital properties are treated - designating this area as one where "Land Uses Shall be Specified by a Conditional Use Permit or Master Plan'.
I also suggest that the implementation section for the Glenarm and Broadway Power plant Sites area include a provision that requires Planning and PWP to collaborate to evaluate the existing conditions on these two sites, the existing uses, PWP's anticipated use of the existing facilities, and PWP's future needs that could be accommodated on the site. The implementation measure should further require that based on these analyses, PWP and Planning should develop a long- term framework plan for the site to guide its future development to meet Pasadena's utility needs, and to the extent that there are any buildings or land areas that are not needed for utility use, that they be designated for uses that support the land uses and activities in the nearby areas of the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan area. An important element of the long-term plan is a plan for the aesthetic enhancement of the two power plant sites that define Pasadena's southern gateway and now have some adverse aesthetic impacts on the areas around them.
To achieve this, I request that you revise Implementation Action PA-3 in Section 7.1 of the plan document.
This Implementation Action now reads:
PA-4 Visioning for Glenarm Power Plan (sic)
Collaborate amongst city departments to explore future Glenarm Power Plant improvements and adaptive reuse potential, including long-term visioning and planning for the site.
PA-4 Visioning for the Glenarm and Broadway Power Plant Sites Planning and PWP staff are directed to collaborate to evaluate the existing conditions on the Glenarm and Broadway Power plant sites, the existing uses, PWP's anticipated use of the existing facilities, and PWP's future needs that could be accommodated on the site. Based on these analyses, PWP and Planning should develop a long-term framework plan for the site to guide its future development to meet Pasadena's utility needs, and to the extent that there are any buildings or land areas that are not needed for utility use, that they be designated for uses that support the land uses and activities in the nearby areas of the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan area.
I also request that you revise Implementation Action PA-5, which now reads:
PA-5: Glenarm Power Plan (sic) Gateway
Explore opportunities to transform the Glenarm Power Plant into an artistic landmark and create a southern gateway to the City at Glenarm and Arroyo Parkway through public art. "Public art" is probably not the right strategy for improving the appearance of the Glenarm and Broadway Power Plant sites and turning them into a positive gateway into Pasadena for travelers on the Pasadena Parkway and Fair Oaks Boulevard. It would be more effective to develop a comprehensive design plan for the two sites that includes removing the now defunct Broadway power plant and its cooling tower, which are large, highly visible, and not particularly attractive structures, and planting rows of Canary Island palms along the sites' Arroyo Parkway and Glenarm Street edges to partially screen views into the site, and to create a landmark landscape element with positive associations.
Please revise Implementation PA-5 to read:
PA-5: Glenarm and Broadway Power Plant Aesthetic Enhancement Plan In conjunction with the development of the comprehensive plan for the Glenarm and Broadway Power Plant sites, prepare an aesthetic treatment plan for these sites. This plan should consider removing facilities like the Broadway Power Plant and its cooling tower that are no longer being used for their original purposes. It should also include landscape and paint treatments to improve the site's appearance in views seen by nearby residents and by travelers entering Pasadena. The landscape treatment should include planting rows of Canary Island palms along the Arroyo Parkway and Glenarm Street edges of the site.
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From: Greg McLemore
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 4:23 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: Today's City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 16 - South Fair Oaks Specific Plan - Public Comment.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from earn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
May 23, 2022
Mayor Victor Gordo
Members of the City Council
City of Pasadena
Via Email
RE: South Fair Oaks Specific Plan
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The draft South Fair Oaks Specific Plan is well thought out and well-presented, and clearly the successful product of many hours of hard work by many people. I think it has the potential to re-envision and revitalize south-west Pasadena.
It brings housing to areas to areas of the plan while downplaying and downzoning commercial development in some of the same areas. It significantly increases setbacks, open space requirements, and design standards.
When it was presented a week before being sent to the Planning Commission, the draft included numerous changes over previous drafts. As no summary of changes was provided, it wasn't necessarily easy for everyone to give these changes the attention necessarily warranted on short notice.
During the Planning Commission hearing, there was discussion about some of the potential and serious issues that could arise with the draft, and how to handle them. The Planning Commission felt it was important that relevant the review authority be given the ability to approve limited "deviations from development standards not including allowed height setbacks, or tree planting requirements, for commercial properties when it can be clearly demonstrated that compliance with the standards would result in a substantial hardship." In the version released this week, there are more changes that aren't immediately obvious without an in depth review. Some of the dozens of changes I noticed on this new version today included further tuning of sidewalk setbacks in the innovation district between Del Mar and California west of Fair Oaks, a difference in how an area south of Huntington Hospital is handled around Alessandro, other substantive changes, and numerous minor fixes and clarifications.
However, anything as complex as a specific plan is rarely perfect or always clear, and this draft, with some of the most dramatic changes in the city is no exception. There will be issues that will be found in it in addition to those fixed in the latest draft, language that in hindsight will lack clarity, and other unforeseen things not accounted for.
The safety valve as proposed by the Planning Commission is limited in scope. It shouldn't be seen as scary but instead as an opportunity that will help allow the City of Pasadena to bring greatness to the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan area. 05/23/2022
1 Item 16
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Greg McLemore
Long-time resident, Madison Heights
Long-time believer and investor in the potential of south Raymond and Fair Oaks.
Huntingtor
HMI Metel sarch
Institutes
May 23, 2022
Mayor Victor Gordo
Members of the City Council
City of Pasadena
Dear Mayor Gordo and Council members,
HMRI supports the adoption of the recommended changes to the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan made by the Planning Commission following the April 13, 2022 meeting. Specifically, HMRI would like to highlight the importance of keeping the second recommendation:
Incorporate language in the SFORSP that would give the review authority the ability to approve limited deviations from the development standards not including allowed height, setbacks, or tree planting requirements for commercial properties when it can be clearly demonstrated that compliance with the standards would result in substantial hardship.
Adopting this recommendation provides a safety net for both the property owners and the city for when zoning creates unintended hardships. The specificity of the SFOSP does not have a mechanism to evaluate special circumstances in the event of hardships created by the guidelines and requirements.
Adding in language to grant limited deviations for clearly demonstrable hardships creates the flexibility needed to address those unforeseen circumstances at the time of development.
HMRI is excited at all the possibilities that the new SFOSP might create and supports the continued effort to grow this area into the H.E.A.R.T district. Adopting the recommendations from the Planning Commission, the SFOSP can become the guide to building a positive, pedestrian friendly, economic hub for the city.
Respectfully,
Mark Dixon
VP of Laboratory and Facilities Operations
686 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Pasadena CA 91105
05/23/2022
Item 16
82021/00
ArtCenter
2022 MAY 24 AM 8: 39
May 2, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
artcenter.edu
Mr. David Reyes
Planning Director
City of Pasadena
175 N Garfield Ave
Pasadena, CA 91101 T 626 396-2200
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Draft South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Comments
Dear Mr. Reyes:
ArtCenter College of Design ("ArtCenter" or the "College") is pleased to continue following the progress of the Draft South Fair Oaks Specific Plan ("Draft Plan"). We have had a chance to review the most recent Draft Plan presented to the City Planning Commission on 1700 Lida Street, Pasadena, California 91103 April 13, 2022. Although the Draft Plan represents a tremendous step forward for this area of the City, we believe it is still lacking in a few fundamental ways. As described in further detail below, we are requesting the City modify the following elements of the Draft Plan:
1. The goals and policies of the HEART District are focused too heavily on promoting one type of use - medical office. For the Specific Plan to successfully create a new neighborhood, in the true sense of the word, the Draft Plan needs to more equitably include all components of the HEART District. As it stands, the other uses are treated as accessory and supplemental to medical offices. 5 To further the above, medial office uses should be strictly limited along Raymond Avenue to the south of Fillmore. The current limitation included in the Draft Plan does not sufficiently promote other uses in the area.
2. The west side of Arroyo Parkway should permit some form of residential uses, even if limited. To the north, near Fillmore Station, residential uses are permitted at a high density. To the south, ArtCenter's Master Plan permits student housing. Prohibiting housing in an area so proximate to public transit will further hamper the City's goals of establishing a transformative new neighborhood. The west side of Raymond Avenue and south side of Glenarm Street should include similar pedestrian improvements as the rest of the HEART district.
05/23/2022
Item 16
ArtCenter
3. The HEART District was envisioned for the purpose of creating a livable development standards are crucial to ensure the future livability of the area. teredu
1. The HEART District / Medical Office Uses
As you know, ArtCenter's South Campus is located within the boundaries of the Draft Plan.' T 626 396-2200 Specifically, the South Campus is within the Public-Semi Public ("PS) zoning district and within the overarching HEART district of the Draft Plan. It is also surrounded by two separate zoning districts under the Draft Plan: the Arroyo Gateway District ("AG") to the east along Arroyo Parkway and the Institutional Flex Space ("IF") district to the south across Glenarm Street. As the College's South Campus zone is defined by PMC17.20.020, which governs PS zone, all standards are determined by its previously approved Master Plan.
The overarching goal of the HEART District is to create a community that equitably represents and supports development for Health, Education, Arts, Research, and 1700 Lida Street, Pasadena, California 91103 Technology. However, the goals as described in the Draft Plan emphasize more of a shift from industrial to primarily medical office. While medical uses are a strong economic driver for the region, the imbalanced focus of the Draft Plan will lead to a medical office core in the City at the expense of creating a true HEART district.
Goal 10 of the Draft Plan states that the HEART District should provide "an arts and medical district with a mix of land uses and amenities that creates an active district and serves residents, students, employee needs throughout the day." However, the emphasis should be on creating a 24-hour livable neighborhood, not an area that will continue to shut down after 5:00 pm. Figure 3.2-3 shows the Draft Plan currently provides a larger emphasis on medical uses than any other use described as being essential to the HEART District. For example, it calls out the area between Fair Oaks and Raymond as a "mix of medical-oriented uses, ArtCenter campus, amenities, and housing that leverage transit." Why doesn't the ArtCenter College of Design Draft Plan focus on the other uses that are critical to the HEART district? Further, the same figure explicitly describes the need to "promote high-quality, creative architecture for medical office buildings through design guidelines." Although ArtCenter agrees that creative architecture is essential to the South Fair Oaks Specific Plan, it is Avenue an 101-10 5. 40 Paway
ArtCenter
essential for all uses and not just as a focus on medical office. ArtCenter requests modifications be made to all goals, policies, and figures within the Draft Plan to more adequately capture the intent of establishing a true HEART District in Pasadena.
Additionally, the SFO-MU-C zoning district does not align with anything other than incentivizing medical offices. According to the Draft Plan, the SFO-MU-C zoning district is artcenter.edu
Why isn't this district also focused on promoting arts, education, and research uses? As currently drafted, there are not incentives for developers to construct anything other than primarily medical office buildings. To be sure, the Draft Plan does include a minor restriction on medical uses south of Fillmore along Raymond Avenue. However, this restriction does T 626 396-2200 little to incentivize uses other than medical office. The restriction provides a requirement for medical and medical office uses to be limited to no more than 30% of the ground floor frontage along Raymond Avenue. However, these uses are in no other way restricted and other uses are not required along the street frontage. ArtCenter requests the City modify the Draft Plan to limit medical and medical office uses to a maximum of 30% floor area for the entire building south of Fillmore or explicitly providing that 70% of the ground floor frontage must be occupied by retail, arts, education, residential or restaurant uses. Without these modifications the City will only be creating a medical core that serves employees from 9:00 - 5:00 pm and becomes a ghost-town the remainder of the day.
II. Residential Uses / Pedestrian Enhancements
The Draft Plan divides the Specific Plan area into distinct zoning districts but does not adequately address residential uses in areas adjacent to those contemplated in the previously approved ArtCenter Master Plan. Although ArtCenter's Master Plan is governed ArtCenter College of Design 1700 Lida Street, Pasadena, California 91103 by its own development standards and enjoys the benefit of previously approved student housing residential uses, the Draft Plan does not permit residential uses along a large portion of the western frontage of South Arroyo Parkway. Specifically, although the Draft Plan permits various types of residential uses, including multi-family housing, in the Mixed- Use Neighborhood and Mixed-Use Core zoning districts, none are permitted within the Commercial General district on the west-side of Arroyo Parkway between ArtCenter's campus and just south of Fillmore Station.? While the Draft Plan makes significant headway for growing local businesses, it does not provide sufficient housing opportunities to support the long-term health and growth of those businesses, nor would it provide complementary residential uses that are consistent with the ArtCenter Master Plan. To better serve the community, residential uses and/or mixed-use developments should also be permitted, at the very least, along the entirety of the west-side of S. Arroyo Parkway between Glenarm and Fillmore Station. ArtCenter has strived to create a future where students can live and feel welcomed into the community like any other Pasadenan. However, the removal of 2 South Fair Oaks Specific Plan, Chapter 4.3.
ArtCenter
residential from this area coupled with the reduced height and density along both Raymond and Arroyo will disincentive community growth.
Additionally, the Draft Plan does little to focus on pedestrian realm enhancements beyond the connection between Huntington Hospital and Fillmore Station. Specifically, Goal 10.g focuses on "creating] a node of activity and enhanced connections between Huntington Memorial Hospital and Fillmore Station through public plazas, wide sidewalks, street trees, artcenter.edu and active ground floor uses." This goal is admirable but should be expanded to the entire district. For ArtCenter, we would like to see pedestrian improvements completed for the length of the western side of Raymond Avenue to eventually compliment the commitment ArtCenter has made in the Master Plan to enhance the eastern frontage. enhancements will provide a seamless transition for people using the L Line and traveling to the South Campus, allowing for easier use of the proposed main quad and movement between Raymond Avenue and Arroyo Parkway. Further, the Draft Plan contemplates no pedestrian improvements to the southern side of East Glenarm Street, despite this being a major thoroughfare for students and requires crossing of the L Line tracks and 110 freeway (See Draft Plan Figure 3.2-4). ArtCenter requests the Draft Plan include a greater focus on these types of improvements and connections throughout the Specific Plan area.
III. Livable Community
During the entitlement process for ArtCenter's Master Plan the one item made clear by the City Council was that the South Campus must be integrated with the surrounding community. Frequently, the theme of creating a campus and not a fortress was referenced during the public approval process. ArtCenter has consistently embraced this concept with the hopes that the updated South Fair Oaks Specific Plan would be the catalyst for a livable community around the South Campus. ArtCenter students do not want to just live on ArtCenter College of Design 1700 Lida Street, Pasadena, California 91103 campus. They want to be a part of a thriving community and accepted residents of Pasadena. The current Draft Plan will fall short of these goals.
By limiting height and density between Raymond Avenue and the west side of Arroyo Parkway, the Draft Plan ensures that the original goal of creating a robust and thriving community will not be accomplished. ArtCenter believe these streets should be in line with the Draft Plan's development standards for Fair Oaks. Fair Oaks proposes a height Raymond Avenue to 51 feet (63 feet with averaging). The Draft Plan then calls for a discrepancy completely ignores ArtCenter's South Campus and it's proposed buildings of up to 100 feet and new on-campus student resident population. We respectfully request that the areas south of Fillmore and north of Glenarm, along Raymond and Arroyo Parkway, have a maximum height of 63 feet (with height averaging up to 75 feet) in line with Fair Oaks. 3 See Draft Plan, Maps 6.1.2 and 6.1.3.
ArtCenter
This will provide for uniform standards and the flexibility needed for an evolving community, while not arbitrarily restricting development surrounding ArtCenter's South Campus.
Additionally, the Draft Plan prohibits residential on the west side of South Arroyo Parkway, despite a portion of South Arroyo being wedged between high density residential to the north near Fillmore Station and to the south at ArtCenter. Given the regional housing shortage and the goal of the Specific Plan to provide a sustainable market for local businesses, artcenter.edu prohibiting all residential uses along the western side of Arroyo Parkway needlessly limits the viability of creating a true community. While ArtCenter understands the need for Arroyo Parkway to remain primarily a commercial corridor for Pasadena and step down in intensity as it nears the residential neighborhoods to the east, any long-term commercial success in the area will necessitate more residential. Further, the area directly surrounding the Fillmore permits the highest residential densities (87 dwelling units per acre) within the district.4 Despite these expansive residential uses, the Draft Plan restricts all residential uses just one-block to the south of Fillmore station and for the entire eastern side of Arroyo Parkway. The Draft Plan should permit multi-family residential uses on the western frontage of Arroyo Parkway and establish a more gradual transition moving away from the Fillmore station. This transition would limit residential density while still providing the housing needed California 91103 to support a thriving neighborhood. Without these modifications, the Specific Plan will continue to fail to provide significant and sustained change to this area of Pasadena.
Thank you for your work on the Specific Plan update and for considering these comments.
ArtCenter would be happy to schedule a meeting with your staff to further discuss these comments and any other considerations regarding the Draft Plan at your earliest convenience. Please do not hesitate to reach me at [email protected] or 626- 1700 Lida Street, Pasadena, 396-2292.
Respectfully
Rollin Horter
Vice President, Facilities and Campus Planning
ArtCenter College of Design ArtCenter College of Design CC: Justin Mahramas, Esq.
Holly Williams, Montgomery Clark Advisors
aId.
Iraheta, Alba
From: Sanborn Consulting •
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 6:45 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: Footbridges for the new district plan
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more... ‹https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Hi
Listening to the plan presentation and would like to see some footbridges over the Metro to enable the new neighborhoods to walk to grocery shopping without having to walk some very long blocks.