A Community Created Master Plan for an Improved Transit Village in

1

A Community Created Master Plan for an Improved Transit Village in Westlake

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 0

Created Through the Generous Support of theCaltrans Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant

P L A NN I N G T O S T A Y

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 5

CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................12Creating a Transit Village? or Improving Existing Transit Centered Neighborhood?

CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................19The Participatory Planning Process

CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................28 Transit Village Improvement Area 1:Pedestrian, Transit and Bicycle Mobility & Access

CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................44Transit Village Improvement Area 2:Safe and Healthy Communities

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................. 54Transit Village Improvement Area 3:Strategic Planning, Policy and Proposals to Promote Affordable Housing and Jobs

CHAPTER 6 ..................................................................69Priority Opportunities and the Sites for ActionRevealed by Overlaying Plan Layers

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION ..........................................72Plan to Improve Existing Transit VillageWithout Displacement

{BLANK PAGE}

5

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Imagine a neighborhood one Metro stop from the center of a world city, yet at the same time a classic urban village. Pedestrian main streets lined with diverse locally owned businesses satisfy all your daily needs from groceries to doctors offices to a place to run into neighbors and chat. Multi-story historic and contemporary buildings punctuate the center of the village, with storefronts at street level and apartments and offices above. A historic central park offers a lake with boat rentals and an original Mission Style community center. Just two blocks from the Metro, internal streets offer a dense diversity of housing, from historic Victorian homes, brick apartments houses and bungalow courts to mid-century duplexes.

This is the extraordinary Westlake neighborhood just west of downtown Los Angeles.

Westlake is not without problems. The sidewalks of the main streets are narrow forcing pedestrian to step into the street around crowds and vendors. As you walk down the main shopping street on an intensely hot Los Angeles day, the only thing harder to find than shade is a bench. Students walking to school and bicyclists on the way to work must be cautious and brave navigating streets designed exclusively for vehicles. Parts of the historic central park are ruled by drug dealers and the community center is in desperate need of renovations. When the sun goes down, dark bus stops and high street crime make public transit a risky business and keep many inside even on steamy nights. This project seeks to apply the best practices of transit oriented development (TOD) to solving these problems and enabling Westlake to realize its full potential. But, unfortunately our task is not so simple. If a traditional TOD masterplan is

applied to Westlake, the problems may be solved but at the expense of current residents being displaced by increasing condo conversions, demolitions and rising rents.

Over the last 30 years Central American immigrants have given new life to this urban village, turning it into the downtown of the Central American immigrant world. Tens of Thousands of very low and low income immigrant families have made Westlake their home, attracted by the low rent, public transit, proximity to downtown job opportunities and burgeoning Latino culture. Businesses, social servicesand churches serving the Latino community have blossomed, returning a vibrant street life to the historic built environment.

With its extraordinary location, transit amenities, historic neighborhood fabric, and low rents and property values, Westlake is ripe for gentrification. If the current low-income renter residents band together to solve the immediate problems of the neighborhood, they may well not be there to see the improved neighborhood they help create.

!

!

!

! !

!

!"#$%&'"

"#!"(")*

#"+",$--$

*#,./'&

0()

1'#23'($

3**!$(

!"#"$%!"#$%&'(#)*+,#-&*&+(.# #

/%0&,*1%

2'*.0++,,*4%#-&567#"'%*#######89:#$+,%#)*6+50

;+&7#(48

&?6B;:C;#:5;"

6

Resident planners from CCNPs original Central City Transportation Project survey bus riders on their priorities for improving bus tops.

Project Description and History

This project is led by Central City Neighborhood Partners (CCNP) and the City of Los Angeles, in collaboration with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); the Los Angeles Departments of Transportation and Planning; the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). Together we set out to develop a community-driven Master Plan and Implementation Strategy for a Context-Sensitive Transit Village in the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles. For the purposes of focusing our work, we chose to concentrate on the mile radius around the Westlake/MacArthur Park Metro Rail Station, knowing that if we were successful our proposals would impact a broader area.

This project grows out of the success of CCNPs Central City Transportation Plan Project. From 2004-2006 CCNP, the City of Los Angeles and the project partner organizations created a learning community of more than 35 low-income residents who assessed the 400 bus stops in the neighborhood; conducted 997 bus ridership surveys; polled 512 residents; and participated in 12 community meetings. This participatory planning process resulted in proposals for 33 specific transportation infrastructure improvement projects that directly addressed the most urgent needs of the neighborhoods low-income transit

dependent residents. The project also built a community of conscious, skill resident planners ready to follow through on the implementation of their plan and the creation of future plans. In 2008, the American Planning Association (APA) awarded CCNP the 2008 National Planning Excellence Award for a Grassroots Initiative for the project, stating CCNPs successful approach is a stellar example of grassroots advocacy and community building.The concrete success and national recognition achieved by CCNPs first transportation planning project inspired CCNP and community leaders to think broader. Improving bus stops is essential, but what about making the walk from home to the stop or from the stop to school safer, more comfortable and even beautiful. What about bringing more transit lines close to community centers and schools or creating more affordable homes near transit lines? And could it be possible to stop planning our neighborhood around cars and individual vehicle traffic, when over 40% of our neighbors rely on public transit as their primary transportation?

Our new found capacity and these pressing questions led us to apply for a Caltrans Community-Based Transportation Planning grant to plan a Context-Sensitive Transit Village for the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles. This Masterplan is first product of our work under that grant. This document will be followed by more developed implementation plans and schematic designs for example improvement projects.

7

!

!

!!

!"#$%&'#(

)%

*++$%&

,&+(-.(/

,%$%/

."#!*"&%

0"12%&+(

34*

5!4

6("7

(#$(&(-+

+#/68"9

1&(7-

4%68#%

8"9+

!27!%4

(#$(&(-+

$(#%79"(

27"+7

*"&%."#!*

/%44%'8(&)

#(0((

/

*++$%&

$%7"9%

:; :69=;?84> =.-3@;A83.

402$+5*6702*9BCD

!C

"!C

$!C

%!C

&!C

'!C

(!C

)!C

*!C

1574-.05 :69=34> :69=;?84> =.-3@;A83.

809:;"(+0*% :69=;?84>

=011:($%(0%>02?1;A05A79B"(I9>5.A7DJA3K596-;85=.AE;;-LA.8734,3051.-01;A09.49M;H5N425A

OA;P5/496A5.'!)+%(G)C"&G)C%+G(C!G(C'G&C"G+C"G$C

=34>9;@:6"#&+*+'('G)C"&G)C"!G$C!G(C%G(C&G$C"G!C

:6=;?84>3,858,75070.4%15.1%6.6%0.6%2.9%3.5%0.9%

10

From old to new and improved.

In the last 20 years, this densely populated urban village of low income Latino immigrants has been impacted by two significant drivers of development: the new Metro Red Line and the resurgence of Downtown Los Angeles as an upscale residential neighborhood. The first Metro Red Line Station west of Downtown Los Angeles sits at the center of Westlakes own downtown on Alvarado St. between 7th St. and Wilshire Blvd. Since the late 1980s, the station area has been through several planning processes, development scenarios and development proposals prepared by the Metro, private developers or adjacent property owners.

Until the economic downturn, Westlake was experiencing new opportunities from developers and real estate groups interested in investing in the area as new upscale condo and rental construction moved west from a resurgent Downtown. These same developments, also caused hardship as many local residents who had been working to improve their own quality of life were being displaced due to evictions for demolitions and rent increases caused by the rising local market. These evictions, and the replacement of longtime mom and pop businesses with chain and upscale establishments, began changing the neighborhoods character. Old brick apartment houses and corner stores were replaced with modernist condos and fusion cafes built to attract new, affluent residents to the neighborhood. The downturn has provided a respite from these changes, but everyone expects the opportunities and challenges to return when the economy recovers.

In addition to private development, city agencies like the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) and Los Angeles Department of City Planning (LADCP) are contributing to the re-shaping of the Westlake District. CRA/LA is weeks away from awarding the contract to develop the Westlake Theater Project, a neighborhood defining mix-use development occupying most of the central block of Westlake adjacent to the Metro station on Alvarado St. The LADCP is doing similarly defining work on a broader level as it updates the Westlake Community Plan, which is the Citys blueprint for guiding growth and development in the area.

The Critical Role of Resident Participation

All these outside plans and development interests could easily sweep away Westlakes low-income immigrant residents and the community they have created. This project seeks to empower residents with the skills and knowledge, technical staff, and organization they need to create and advocate their own plans for their own neighborhood.

Resident participation is critical on multiple levels, both substantive and political. Residents know best what needs to be improved in their own neighborhood and often have insight into how to improve it. This is particularly true for a neighborhood like Westlake with a very specific culture that is outside the experience of most North

11

Resident planner presents the results of her field research during a participatory planning workshop.

American planning professionals. What is the right way to improve the sidewalks of 6th St., which depending on your perspective are either alive or choked with street vendors? Would doubling density be an acceptable trade-off for affordable housing? Is density a trade-off at all? The answers to these questions are subjective, and the current residents are the subjects best and most justly placed to make these decisions.

Residents leadership is especially critical in resolving the conundrum of improving the neighborhood without gentrifying it. The solution is likely a combination of aggressive affordable housing policy and strategic improvements crafted to improve the neighborhood more in the eyes of current residents, than in the view of new

more affluent residents. Current residents are essential for both aspects of this approach. As the story of this project described in the following chapters shows, residents personal stake in not being displaced assures that affordable housing not be left to be figured out later as other easier, but potentially gentrifying, improvements are implemented such as well designed streetscapes, bike lanes and crime reduction measures. Residents will assure we do not fiddle with planning as their Westlake burns.

Resident insight is also critical to finding those very particular measures that would be improvements for current residents, but not necessarily increase property values and the potential for displacement. For example, would more sidewalk vendors be an improvement for current residents, but not gentrifiers? Is a new social service center needed by current residents, but not necessarily looked upon positively by condo developers? These are very subtle decisions that must be made by residents.

Lastly, broad resident participation is critical to building the constituency needed to implement non-gentrifying improvements. Some of the affordable housing measures necessary to preserve the affordability of the neighborhood will not receive universal support and will need large numbers of skilled, passionate resident advocates to have a chance of passage. If this project is successful, it will not only create a masterplan and toolbox of prototypes, but also a skilled, passionate constituency ready to assure their plans are implemented.

12

Introduction

Historically, many transit villages have been designed from the ground up on green fields, under utilized or cleared land or the large parking lots surrounding sub-urban rail stations. As described in the introduction, the context of this project is quite different. The Metro Red line station is surrounded by a densely populated, historic low-income new immigrant neighborhood. The neighborhood is organized around pedestrian shopping streets with multi-story mixed use buildings. 40% of residents already use buses and the Metro as their primary means of transportation.

This context begs the question, Are we planning a transit village, or does it already exist? To answer this question, we carefully compared the accepted definitions of a transit village or transit oriented development with the existing conditions in our study area.

Definition of a Transit Village or Transit Oriented Development

The Caltrans Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study (Arrington et al, 2002), clearly defines transit oriented development:

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is moderate to higher-density development, located within an easy walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the auto...

Statewide TOD Study Technical Advisory Committee

The 1994 California Transit Village Development Planning Act (Section 65460 of the Government Code) defines a transit village as:

a neighborhood centered around a transit station that is planned and designed so that residents, workers, shoppers, and others find it convenient and attractive to patronize transit. (It contains) a mix of housing types,

including multiple dwelling units, within not more than a quarter mile of an existing or planned rail station.

As described in the introduction and illustrated in the maps on the following pages our Westlake Study Area completely fulfills these definitions:

walking distance of the Metro, Rapid Bus and bus lines. The neighborhood averages 33,594 residents per square mile, more than 4 times the city average.

commercial streets with neighborhood businesses, services and offices in multi-story mixed used buildings with active street facades.

for transportation, 4 times the City of Los Angles usage level and 7 times the county usage level.

C H A P T E R 1Creating a Transit Village? or

Improving an Existing Transit Centered Neighborhood?

13

!

!

!

!""#$%

&$#$%'(

)*+,$%"-

./

-'#-%-0"

"'(12*3

4$12'$

2*3"

-'#-%-0"

,5*"5

#*%+*'

678

978

,5*"5

%-12-%4

:4!

;%0

14

!"#

$%

&'(

)*"+,-#."/

0$%

1+'2-#."/

/"3$4+2"

!),,."-!'+"

!"+*),

5'+,(-#."/

4+2"

*+'),("4"$

*)'),+()

!6'4.,5$),

&'(

7$%

8$%

/.43%.'"

'+91+'$

4+:+;"$$"-1+'2

+4#+'+()

==>

==>

=>=!"#$%&'(#)&*+,-#. (#&.

/,0%&$123$&'%)4"25.,-6

7282979:282:97:9:282;77;7:282

15

Current Westlake zoning supports the transit village form of the neighborhood with mix-used commercial zoning concen-trated immediately around the Metro Station feeding to residential zoning only blocks away.

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

16

Beyond definitions, the Caltrans Study provides a specific checklist for use in evaluating whether a project or plan conforms to criteria for TOD. Below we have evaluated our study area against this checklist. Some of the criteria are designed to evaluate new development or regulations for development, rather than an existing neighborhood, but we have quoted the complete Caltrans checklist to assure a full test of our study area.

!"#$%"&'()$*+,(!-./0#1'$23%(456(3%(4%"&'1$(71##"8.(

!*%%.&$(!3&+1$13&'(1&(9.'$#"0.()$*+,(:%."(

!"#$%#&$'()#'$*#'(+,-)#*$./"0)"-,'()1."(#,*2&0$3'#'$-,*$*#,'()(#'456-2%-72#8$9(:#*13'#8$,/)$*/9(,-)#*$7&$-;)(

17

Our Westlake Study Area already satisfies 75% of the Caltrans criteria for a TOD, including all the major characteristics. This number rises to 88% if you exclude the criteria that relate only to future development. Westlake is a transit village.

Consequently, this project should not be an effort to plan a transit village, but rather an effort to improve an existing one. In the maps below and in the context maps in later chapters, we document the existing conditions of the Westlake transit village and then analyze those conditions to reveal the priority actions and sites for improvements.

As a participatory project, selecting and prioritizing the actions and sites is not just a technical matter, but equally a democratic process led by residents of the village. In the next chapter, we document the process residents went through to choose their priorities for improvement efforts.

To respect residents right to determine their own priorities, we did not share an analysis of the existing transit village before residents conducted their own process. In the context of this report, however, it is valuable to look at what improvements the Caltrans report suggests Westlake needs, so that we can then compare these recommendations with the residents judgments.

!"#$%"#$'()*#)+#)%$'"(,,-./0,$%($(%"$1,#,$()2$.)3$(442,+%#5

6789$41//$'"(,,-./0,$.%$.//$0#:$'(")#",

;.)$"#,+3#)%,$.)3$#.,#3$()$.$B"+3K+)%#"'())#'%#3$,:,%#144#"#3$4"(

18

A good place to start is the Caltrans TOD criteria that the neighborhood does not yet fulfill:

environment with lighting and tree cover.

oriented, pedestrian friendly pattern of the neighborhood.

The Caltrans report also provides more guidance for what to improve in the Westlake Transit Village by quoting a list of components of a successful transit village created for the State of New Jersey. Planning Transit Friendly Land Use: A Handbook for New Jersey Communities, focuses on the characteristics that define the pedestrian and rider experience, specifically calling for:

of identity for the neighborhood, district, or community it serves;

that make pedestrian access easy;

bicycle access;

meet others;

Together these lists anticipate most of the proposals Westlake residents prioritized with one critical exception: affordable housing. It is this element that will most clearly distinguish a context sensitive transit village plan from a traditional TOD plan. As one resident leader said, It would be crazy for us to make all these improvement if then we cant afford to live in the neighborhood. In reporting on the Fruitvale Transit Village project, the Caltrans report recognized this challenge. The report explains that the community based non-profit sponsoring the Fruitvale project risks becoming a victim of its own success if improvements drive up property values and displace current residents. As the following chapters describe, Westlake residents clearly recognized this challenge and have made proposals to meet it.

19

This project seeks to empower Westlake residents with the skills and knowledge, technical staff, and organization they need to create their own plans for their own neighborhood.

As detailed in the introduction, resident participation is critical on multiple levels:

own neighborhood and often have insight into how to improve it.

focused on the challenge of improving the neighborhood without gentrification.

is also critical to finding those very particular measures that will be improvements for current residents, but not necessarily increase property values and the potential for displacement.

the constituency needed to implement non-gentrifying improvements.

To mobilize and sustain a high level of resident participation, this project combined the best of community organizing and participatory planning in a step-by-step process illustrated in the flow chart and photo essay on the next page.

leaders through one-on-one meetings and extensive individual follow-up. Our goal was not to fill the room at the first workshop, but rather one-by-one to build a group of potential leaders who were representative of the community and interested in being involved in a long term participatory planning process.

of workshops and working group meetings designed to engage resident leaders in the same steps a planning professional would take if charged with creating a master plan for Westlake. Our goal was not to collect the residents input, but to make the process fully accessible so residents could collect their own input, conduct their own research and develop their own proposals for action.

C H A P T E R 2Participatory Master Planning Process

20

This flow chart presents the step-by-step process residents went through to develop the proposals presented in the master plan. How this process unfolded on the ground is best understood through a series of photographs of the workshops with accompanying narrative.

Steps in the ParticipatoryMaster Planning Process

21

The first workshop began with each resident planner introducing themselves, marking their home on the neighborhood map and sharing their top three issue priorities with the group. Residents wrote each of their priorities on a 5 x 7 card and then organized the cards on the wall by category, creating an instant bar chart showing the top issues for the group.

22

The resident planners then went out into the neighborhood to survey other residents about their priority issues and photograph examples of community assets and challenges.

23

When residents returned from the field, they shared their survey results and pictures with the entire group, using current technology to immediately document and discuss their field research.

24

At the second workshop, the resident planners deliberated as a large group and in breakout groups like the one shown here to carefully distill down their wall full of priorities to four critical topic areas. After significant discussion, residents choose the following four areas as their focus for research and planning: Affordable Housing, Neighborhood Safety and Security, Access to Education, Access to Community Resources. Before the meeting adjourned, the resident planners formed Working Groups to follow-up on each topic area.

25

Between the second and third workshops, resident planners met 3-4 times in working groups on each topic to research the problems and possible solutions and prepare a presentation for the entire body. At the third workshop shown below, each working group presented a PowerPoint of its results, answered questions and received suggestions for next steps from the entire membership.

26

At the third workshop, working groups reports went beyond presenting research and general guidelines to offer specific proposals for action. For example, below the Community Center Access Working Group presents its proposal for a local transit line connecting community resources.

Between the third and fourth workshops, each working group met twice to refine its proposals and prepare a final presentation. At the forth workshop, working groups presented their recommendations for priority implementation actions. The entire body then developed a pro-con analysis of each working groups top priority action and voted to rank them. After significant debate and a second vote, preserving transit adjacent affordable housing came out as the clear top choice with expanded local transit between community resources being the bodys second priority. The residents other priority proposals included: reducing street crime and creating a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

27

Over the next three months, residents met and worked in committees to develop their plans and implementation proposals in each priority area.

Committees work included research, meeting with topic experts, field observation, surveys, policy development and design workshops. The housing committee met with top affordable housing experts, reviewed the pending transit adjacent housing proposals and deliberated to develop alternatives proposals, which appear on pages 63 and 64. The residents also conducted a comprehensive parking study to determine if parking could be used as a revenue source and parking reductions could be used as an incentive for building affordable housing. The safety committee conducted a neighborhood survey to target the transit adjacent streets with the greatest problems and then conducted a physical survey of each priority block mapping and photographing all physical features. They then conducted a series of design workshops to determine

and design the physical improvements that would have the greatest impact, which appear on pages 39 to 41. Finally, the neighborhood transit committee conducted research, expert interviews and field reconnaissance and planning workshops to refine their proposed internal neighborhood bike routes and additional DASH route. As pictured below, their field work included biking all the possible routes to determine the most advantageous and then measuring the street at each key point of the route to determine the feasibility of inserting new bike infrastructure. The results of their efforts are on page 34.

Defining categories and naming issues is a critical component to a community developing its own agenda and master plan. For this reason, the project did not try to impose the pre-existing Caltrans project categories on residents discussions. But as the following chapters show, the residents priorities and proposals fulfill the project categories, demonstrating the effectiveness and resonance of both.

28

Pedestrian, transit and bicycle mobility and access is the first critical area for improvement articulated in our project proposal. As described in the proposal:

The project will improve the pedestrian environment and pedestrian access to transit by planning appropriate improvements to intersections and sidewalks in the Transit Village. It will also plan a more attractive environment to walk in. In addition it will plan Class II and/or Class III bikeways in the area to enhance bicycle access, and safe, convenient bicycle parking near the Metro Station and nearby bus stops.

Without reviewing the proposal, residents organically chose to prioritize intersection and sidewalk improvements and bike lanes. Proposal for all three follow below. The sidewalk improvements are detailed in Chapter 4 as they are also a safety measure.

Significantly, residents not only wanted to improve pedestrian access to regional transit, such as Metro, but also prioritized improving local transit service to provide access to local community resources.

Below we have first presented master plan graphics analyzing relevant existing conditions and then presented maps explaining each of the improvement proposals in this topic area.

C H A P T E R 3 Transit Village Improvement Area 1:

Pedestrian, Transit & Bicycle Mobility & Access

29

!"

!!"

!"#

$%&'()*+,-.*)/'0122%//'3'+'04

!"#$%&'"()(*&+,-$./-(0&-'

1-&2#3$(43%%&5"(6$/78(,-"&

*"$-9(:&3%(;32"(

30

Local transit access map shows how well area residents are served by the transit network. Nearly all study area residents live within an 1/8 of a mile of bus stop as well as live within in of a mile of the Metro Station.

!"#

$%

&'(

)*"+,-#."/

0$%

1+'2-#."/

/"3$4+2"

!),,."-!'+"

!"+*),

5'+,(-#."/

4+2"

*+'),("4"$

*)'),+()

!6'4.,5$),

&'(

7$%

8$%

/.43%.'"

'+91+'$

4+:+;"$$"-1+'2

+4#+'+()

?@A@BCB>-$=DEF@B

!"#"$%$!"#"!%%!%!"#"&$%&$!"#"$%%$%!"#"!'$%%!'$%!"#"('!%)

*+,-./01+2,34"5.+67

84/2910:/,1;""""""!=&""""?1.3

Proximity to Transit

31

!"#"$

%&

'(%)*

($"

+%#+$+,-

-%&.

/(0

+%#+$+,-

12(-2

345

645

-0"+27#("'

89*

/+$:7#("'

'")9%+:"

!-22("7!$+"

;$+2,7#("'

%+:"

0+$-2,"%"9

!1$%(2;9-2

12(-2

89*

9*

#+%"20(+

.?4@ABACD4EF

)GDCCH70?F4?@

(FIAA@

)JDKKDFL

/AAC

0EHE7I?7+KDLAH

I?7)EF7#DM?F4?

0CDFDME7$AK?@A

*AKD?H

1FDIAH

!?CKAF47*DL5

.EM+@45N@7/E@G

$?MO777777770?F4?@

/?ABC?

(F7/@AL@?HH

0D4PJDI?

+QNE4DMH

+0-$2

=D@?7)4E4DAF

)NF@DH?

0AKKNFD4P

0ANFH?CDFL

0?F4?@

0@?E4?

2AJ7(FM

/@ALL@?HDR?

05@DH4DEFH71FD4DFL/AH47-SSDM?

$APEC7/ECKH

$?MAR?@P70?F4?@

)5?GDFE

.DHHDAF

0?F4?@

)4O7#DFM?F4

.?IDMEC70?F4?@

'?H4CEG?7

,EP7%ETA@7)D4?

.DIU0D4P7+INC4

%?E@FDFL70?F4?@

0EKDFA72N?RA

/@DKE@P705E@4?@

%+7+MEI?KP7AS7+@4H

V7"F4?@B@DH?705E@4?@

05E@C?H7'5D4?

"C?K?F4E@P

.EM+@45N@7/E@G

/@DKE@P70?F4?@

"HB?@EFWE

"C?K?F4E@P

XA5F7*O7%D?M54P

.DIIC?

.DLN?C70AF4@?@EH

%?E@FDFL70?F4?@

*AB?7V

/?EM?

/E@G

%ESEP?44?

/@DKE@P70?F4?@

+

0

!

%ESEP?44?

/E@G

*--#"$

+MM?HH74A

0AKKNFD4P

$?HAN@M?H

!"#$%&'(#)&*+,-#. (#&.

/,001$&'23(4%,1"-4%/,001$&'235",6"#0%

74*&-#.384"9&-4%51:.&-3;#-&.&'2?*1-#'&,$#.3/4$'4"

-@LEFDWE4DAFH7(FI?F4DSD?I7DF7!NDCIDFLH7%ET?C?I7+Y7!7V70

8,1'=4"$3/#.&@,"$?*1-#'&,$3;1$*/,001$&'23/.&$&-3,@3+,%3A$64.4%3/,1$'2B$*4)4$*4$'38-=,,.3A..$-43;,"37&$,"&'23A@@#&"%;#0&.&4%3B$38-=,,.%

C1&.*&$63DCD3B$*4E

//F5G/+A3!1',"&$6F4H3?-,$,0&-%3@,"3I,04$

C1&.*&$63D/D3B$*4E

8"&3+#$J#3;,1$*#'&,$B$%'&'1'43

32

Alternative DASH Route

Even though the Westlake District is well served by an intricate public bus system that connects it to the rest of the City of Los Angeles, resident planners felt the need for transportation modes that would connect all the community resources they regularly use in the Westlake District. With this in mind, and in a similar process to the internal bike route design, the Community Centers Committee first gathered information about the different community centers, public libraries, medical non-profit clinics, youth programs, childcare centers and other similar resources available to local residents. Next, they plugged all collected data into a blown up Westlake base map, discussed among themselves the possibility of missing information and ultimately designed a potential new DASH route that connects most of the resources represented on the map. To test their suggested DASH route, committee members drove the route multiple times. Resident planners finalized their proposal only after additional deliberations and analysis to confirm the route was to connect most of services in the community.

Residents understand the challenge to implement any new DASH route in the City of Los Angeles, particularly in light of the current fiscal crisis in the City. They also understand that in order to keep each DASH line running, the City of

Los Angeles annually spends one million dollars per DASH line, and that due to the current budgetary crisis, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) is currently revising DASH routes throughout the City in order to figure out what routes to cut or re-route. At the same time, resident planners also understand that the current Westlake District DASH route is the most successful route in the City of Los Angeles and plan to highlight this success to convince LADOT for a new route or re-route the existing one. Resident planners have also learned that the LADOT Preliminary Recommendations for Fare and Service Change for the Westlake route contemplate no changes other than a fare increase in the next 1-2 years.

As a first step of the DASH route implementation phase, and in order to increase its implementation possibilities, resident planners will seek the key support of Council District Office 1 and 13, because their proposed route runs through most of the Westlake and Pico Union District and will also cover some area of District 13th to the north. The proposed DASH route will also be formally presented to area non-profits, area high school principals, and parents whose constituents/students will benefit by the proposed route. Resident planners aim to obtain their support in order to gain necessary leverage to increase the possibility of implementation.

33

!"#$"

$%&'(#)

!"#$"

*+,

-+,

.%/.0.1$

2+,

%!).3

45/50%&

601

.%/.0.1$

0.'(.0+

753+%.85

+5'(%5

*+,

7.3,#"9+$"

(:;?1.3,@0;AB>

!"##$%&'()*+,"$-.+,!"##$%&'()/-"0-1#,

2+3&.14)5+-6&.+,/$74&.)81.&4&'(9:+%)5:1.+

5.;""4?5@)*"$'+,

!$--+%')>?5@)*"$'+

*+,&3+%'A,)/-":",+3>?5@)*"$'+

!

Resident leaders strongly advocated a new DASH route to connect the neighborhood and broader community resources to each other directly.

!"#$"

$%&'(#)

!"#$"

*+,

-+,

.%/.0.1$

2+,

%!).3

45/50%&

601

.%/.0.1$

0.'(.0+

753+%.85

+5'(%5

*+,

7.3,#"9+$"

(:;?1.3,@0;AB>

!"##$%&'()*+,"$-.+,!"##$%&'()/-"0-1#,

2+3&.14)5+-6&.+,/$74&.)81.&4&'(9:+%)5:1.+

5.;""4?5@)*"$'+,

!$--+%')>?5@)*"$'+

*+,&3+%'A,)/-":",+3>?5@)*"$'+

!

Potential Village DASH Route

34

Potential Bike Routes

Rather than waiting for the final City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan to see if it will call for the bicycle lanes in the Westlake Neighborhood that will fulfill their internal mobility needs, Community Center Committee members decided to design their own internal bicycle lane system and propose it for implementation to the City of Los Angeles.

Even though the final City Bicycle Master plan calls for two proposed bicycle lanes in the neighborhood, proposed lanes would only provide a north-south and east-west route through the neighborhood. Knowing this information, resident planners engaged in a series of meetings to discuss more appropriate bike routes in the neighborhood and concluded that the bike lanes in their neighborhood should first serve local residents needs and meet the following three objectives:

1) provide safety to high school students who already ride their bikes to local schools,

2) connect all local schools in the neighborhood which will result in an increase number of student bike riders, and

3) run along streets local residents use in the neighborhood to run their errands.

In an initial meeting to determine the best streets network for their internal bike system, resident planners used Westlake District base maps to draw potential routes. Following, they shared their suggested routes among all working committee members, defended their proposals and then worked collectively to design a preliminary final bike route draft. To put to the test whether their preliminary bike route was the most appropriate to achieve their three objectives for an internal bike system, committee members planned a weekend bike ride of the proposed routes; two days later, after having taken the bike ride, committee members reconvened to finalize their routes. What they came up with was a loop shaped bike route system which connects the only local middle school in the neighborhood, and two out of the three local high schools. This looped bike lane system also runs on a good number of streets commonly used by local residents.

We are aware that the implementation process of this intra-neighborhood bike lane system will face many challenges. We are also aware that for a successful implementation of our internal bike system, we will need the support of the local City Planning Department to include our intra-neighborhood bike system in their City wide Bicycle Master Plan. As a preliminary step to gain the Planning Departments support, we will first work for the backing of our internal bike plan from local PTAs, high school principals, high schools students, residents at large and local merchants. Once this support is secure we will proceed to do the work with our local Planning Department for final implementation.

35

6th Street and Burlington Ave. going West and competing with traffic

7th Street and Lucas on the way back to CCNP, in the background downtown LA

6th Street and Union Ave. one of the busiest intersections in Westlake

7th Street and Alvarado Street passing by MacArthur Park

A moment to debrief bike safety measures and note taking about the route

7th Street and Alvarado Street heading to CCNP

36

!"##$%&!'(%

)*+

!%,%'-.

//*+0$1"

'(20('*

'%#"

3*+

)*+

+"",%'

-(&!456578&9:;=8:&07;?

!"#$%&'()#&*#+,

-$).),%&'/01+12%'-#3",

/01+12%'()43%'5!067#6%'872+9/01+12%':$0%7&2+'!3$%%3

/01+12%';#7%

/01+12%';#7%''7?%#,0

37

!"#$#%&'()*+*,&-./0&%

!"#$#%&'()*+,+-&(.#/0&

)*+,+-&(123&

12342

567.189:

.4;9

76

:

:

?

38

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

39

Prototype Intersection Design #1

Alvarado St. & 3rd St.

Proposed Improvements

The residents design workshops resulted in specific recommendations for key targeted intersections that can also be applied to other priority intersections. The first example below shows how the intersection of 3rd St. and Alvarado St. could be improved with bulb outs, curb extensions, crosswalks and advance bars.

Existing Conditions

40

Burlington Ave.& 6th St.


The residents second intersection design addresses providing safe passage across the wide thoroughfares that cross the neighborhood. Residents recognized the potential for a combination of crossing islands and bulb-outs to create a much safer, more comfortable pedestrian experience.


Existing Conditions

41

Wilshire Blvd. & Park View St.


In their third prototype, residents planned for improving the crossing experience where islands were not an option. The potential impact of countdown signals was widely discussed and seen as a key improvement at this intersection and many others in the neighborhood.


Existing Conditions

42

5th StreetTo visualize the potential for re-designing neighborhood streets, resident planners worked with the project pedestrian planner on two before and after visualizations. The first on this page illustrates how relatively modest changes to an under-utilized back street could turn it into a "shared space" that would be a plaza and play area, but still allow vehicles when necessary.

Proposed Shared Space Concept

Existing Conditions

43

6th St. East of Alvarado St.

Resident planners visualized what would be possible if they implemented all the possible improvements to 6th St., one of the two main streets of the neighborhood. While all these improvements would be unlikely to occur on one site, the exercise showed that the potential of 6th St. was only limited by our imagination and what we could get implemented.

Proposed Road Diet Concept

Existing Conditions

44

Current conditions on Commonwealth Ave.

From a TOD perspective, our second improvement area, Safe and Healthy Communities, is inherently intertwined with our first, Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Access. In our proposal we explained our Safe and Healthy Community goals as:

pedestrian, transit stop and bicycle improvements will make travel by all three of these modes safer and more attractive. Intersection and sidewalk improvements will help pedestrians navigate more safely. The bikeway improvements will enhance the bicycling environment and thereby make it safer and more attractive to bicycle. The transit stop improvements will make passengers less vulnerable to crime at the transit stops and will make their wait at the stops more comfortable. All of these enhancements will encourage people to walk, bicycle and use transit more.

Actions in this area were the focus of our first award winning Caltrans project targeting bus stop improvements. During this projects workshops, residents immediately mentioned the bus stop improvement they had previously articulated and added wider sidewalks, safe routes to schools and crime reduction measures as health and safety priorities.

The residents began their planning process by reviewing and mapping crime statistics. They then walked the streets of greatest concern observing and photographing conditions. This qualitative field work let them to plan a survey to get more specific, verifiable data on which streets were seen as safe and dangerous and why. Armed with all this information, residents held two design workshops to consider what physical improvement would have the greatest impact on the streets with the greatest problems.

Biker on south side of 6th St. going westbetween Alvarado and Westlake St.

C H A P T E R 4 Transit Village Improvement Area 2:

Safe & Healthy Communities

45

!"#"$%&

'(")*+#,"-

./0

1)$2+#,"-

-"3/%)2"

!'**,"+!$)"

!")('*

4$)*5+#,"-

%)2"

()$'*5"%"/

('$'*)5'

!6$%,*4/'*

./0

7$5

7$5

8/0

9/0

-,%30,$"

$):1)$/

%);)&"//"+1)$2

)%#)$)5'

?@AB+C+3ADEF>GH++++++++++++++++++(=AIE@

!"#$%&'()"*+%,-".

/%'0.,& 1,2"3')45$6'&,$0

7,89

5$3

7,89

5$3

/%'0.,&!',)!'#,25$6')

Source: LAPD 2004-2009

Transit & Sidewalk Crimes

Mapping transit and crime data identifies priorities for prevention and enforcement on multiple levels. As expected, the areas with the highest pedestrian traffic report the largest number of incidents and would be one to target for prevention and enforcement efforts. The map also identifies that certain outlying stops have dramatically more crime than others. This again provides direction for targeting policing efforts and also suggests a next step in project field workanalyzing the low and high crime outlying stops to distill any lessons about what prevents or facilitates crime at transit stops.

46

!"#$%&'"

()**+",(-&".-&*/,0+"!

%&'"

1&-)*/"%"$

(2-%+*.$)*

!+%#3+-"

&%0&-&/)

4&-',0+"!

5$3

6$3

7$3

4898:;?,@(=ABAC8,1DCC=:=D?:

!"#"$%&'()

*"+',-.(&/01..'$'1)$2',3,."

4/5/6

7/5/8

9/5/:

7

;/5/6

8/5/4

74/5/7;

!

Source: LADOT 2004-2009

Pedestrian and Bicycle accidents are not distributed equally with the level of use, but rather concentrated at particular locations, providing excellent direction for targeting the implementation of safety measures.

Pedestrian &Bicycle Collisions

47

6TH

ALV

ARA

DO

Walking the streets of their own neighborhood with new eyes residents recognized physical conditions that were contributing to safety problems. While residents appreciated the vital street scene and wanted more street trees and furnishing, they clearly saw that the key problem and limit was lack of sidewalk width, which created conflicts between activities that could otherwise be mutually supportive.

48

!"#$%&'%$"(%)*'$+#,-(.*/'%

'$.(($0&,$(.'(1$&*,2

!"

#$%

&'()*+,-.

.-/$0')-

1"22,-*1('-

3('2!*+,-.

0')-

4'("2!-0-$

4"("2'!"

15(0,23$"2

6$%

7$%

.,0/%,(-

'0+'('!"

8$%

9'(:0'2!

;(!

49

This section of the sidewalk is on Wilshire Boulevard between Valencia and Witmer Street. The picture shows the impact of widening of the sidewalk by seven extra feet. In its original state, the sidewalk was only ten feet wide.

These pictures were taken one block away from each other at the intersections of Witmer Street and Wilshire Boulevard just west of Downtown LA. In the picture on the left the sidewalk is still narrow - 10 wide. The picture on the right shows the impact of widening the sidewalk to 17, creating a more inviting environment for pedestrians and business patrons.

10

7

17

Sample Pictures of Sidewalk Widening

50

!

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

?%=@A(&>BC@2DEFG=GH(%DG@DF

%EI=GJ('BDKJ.F=IEFA(%LEF@DF

2&(&ME>DIA(JN(&F@OP("G@DFQF=OD(%LEF@DF

%LEFCDO(*L=@D"CDIDG@EFA

9EM&F@LBF(.EFR.F=IEFA(%DG@DF

"OQDFEGSE"CDIDG@EFA

TJLG(-U(2=DML@A9=>>CD

,J(!DCIJG@(-=HL

-$$#"/

1MLJJCO(P(1@B>DG@VO9EWJF(/JB@DO !"#$%&'()*+,(&-$)(+

'./$$0&1&2*)."(3$,&4+,(+%

Schools & StudentsMajor Routes

Map of key student routes to elementary and middle school identifies priority locations for implementing safe route to school measures.

51

!"#$%&'(#)

*+,

-$./&'(#)

)#0+1$/#

2!%%(#&2.$#

2#$"!%

3.$%4&'(#)

1$/#

"$.!%4#1#+

"!.!%$4!

25.1(%3+!%

6.4

7+,

8+,

)(10,(.#

.$9-$.+

1$:$;#++#&-$./

$1'$.$4!

?>@AB0CBADEFG&)CBAHCHI

!"#$%&'()*"+*"',

-%.+/01*,()*"+*"',23%*4155"/#-.$++4(6+7'%&

-"0%8149(:"0%/"/#

!

As explained on the previous page, sidewalk widening can have a dramatic impact on the experience and safety of pedestrians. Virtually all the sidewalks in the commercial core of Westlake warrant widening as the map above shows. The high priority

locations are those with: 1) high levels of pedestrian traffic; 2) relatively narrow sidewalks, and 3) high levels of vehicle traffic.

ProposedSidewalk Widening

52

Sidewalk plazas can be a simple as two facing benches and as complex as a small park built right on the sidewalk. The key is to provide protected places to sit in the sun and shade, facing other visitors to the plaza and the view of an active street.

Sidewalk plazas in commercial and residential areas would nurture the existing public social culture of the neighborhood that already turns the sidewalk and street into the communitys living room on hot summer evenings. Along the main commercial corridors of Alvarado St. and 6th St., sidewalk plazas would provide a respite on a long shopping trip, a place to meet friends and family members before setting off and a community porch, where elders and young alike could sit, chat and watch the neighborhood go by. In residential areas, sidewalk plazas provide a place for parents and grand parents to gather while watching the kids and a place for neighbors to meet and catchup on whats new. Whatever brings them out, neighbors sitting watching the street increases safety and security.

Importantly, sidewalk plazas are a prime example of a non-

in the eyes of current residents, but is not improvement in the eyes of many developers and potential new affluent residents. Sidewalk plazas nurture the Latino and working class culture of using the street as a community living

but not by many potential newcomers. Similarly, sidewalk plazas in Westlake would also make Latino character of the neighborhood visibly and actively clear, again something appreciated by current residents, but not by many potential newcomers.

53

!

!"#

$%

&'(

)*"+,-#."/

0$%

1+'2-#."/

/"3$4+2"

!),,."-!'+"

!"+*),

5'+,(-#."/

4+2"

*+'),("4"$

*)'),+()

!6'4.,5$),

&'(

7$%

8$%

/.43%.'"

'+91+'$

4+:+;"$$"-1+'2

+4#+'+()

?@ABC"DEADF?G?DHI

!"#$%&'()*'&+&),-.&/"-012&34$/$#)53$&1)6-3!"#$%&'()781"0$11

!"#$%&'()9:;3-

54

Our original project proposal described this improvement area as follows:

As discussed earlier for the transit improvements to be contextually successful, the current low-income residents must be able to remain living in the neighborhood. The real estate market is pricing long time low-income residents out of the neighborhood, and without special provisions, pedestrian and transit improvements could speed this displacement. To counter this possibility, the project master plan and implementation strategy will include land use plans, alternative development strategies and policy and program proposals aimed at preserving and increasing the stock of affordable housing and the availability of living wage jobs.

During the workshop process, one of our resident planners explained it more succinctly:

Whats the point of improving the neighborhood if we cant afford to live here anymore?

Preserving and creating affordable housing is the definitive priority of our resident planners and the clear key stone to resolving the dilemma of how to improve the neighborhood without gentrifying it. Below we have analyzed the current state of the Westlake housing stock and presented proposals for how to insure future development will be inclusive and not lead to displacement.

Residents shied away from tackling job creation, and we did not try to persuade them otherwise because of the lack of actionable alternatives residents could realistically implement to make significant impact in this area. None-the-less, our analysis of the local job market did reveal an unexpected pattern that supports the implementation of sidewalk micro-businesses, which also make a contribution to our other improvement areas.

Residents carefully deliberated over the appropriate rent mix for each of the major pending developments,

considering factors including: 1) the level of public investment, and 2) the neighborhood median

income as compared to the County median income.

C H A P T E R 5 Transit Village Improvement Area 3: Strategic Planning, Policy and Proposals to

Promote Affordable Housing and Jobs

55

!"#

$%

&'(

)*"+,-#."/

0$%

1+'2-#."/

/"3$4+2"

!),,."-!'+"

!"+*),

5'+,(-#."/

4+2"

*+'),("4"$

*)'),+()

!6'4.,5$),

&'(

7$%

8$%

/.43%.'"

'+91+'$

4+:+;"$$"-1+'2

+4#+'+()

?@AB-3C=DE;++-"*,/?(((@>//(A%*B%&(>(7C2(D%/,("@(*B,(((((E,$*/>1,(D,*-"(F*>*%"&

FFGHHH-%=IJ?

!

!"#

$%

&'(

)*"+,-#."/

0$%

1+'2-#."/

/"3$4+2"

!),,."-!'+"

!"+*),

5'+,(-#."/

4+2"

*+'),("4"$

*)'),+()

!6'4.,5$),

&'(

7$%

8$%

/.43%.'"

'+91+'$

4+:+;"$$"-1+'2

+4#+'+()

?@AB-3C=DE;++-"*,/?(((@>//(A%*B%&(>(7C2(D%/,("@(*B,(((((E,$*/>1,(D,*-"(F*>*%"&

FFGHHH-%=IJ?

!

Source: 2000 Census

Housing Stock

56

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

?@ABCD(->EFGHI

JK8+LDF

!"#$%&'(")*+,,-.)'/0"*1&$(#$&*2.'$(*3$00'%"*4(5)6*+."'

7*8*9:9;*8*7:7;*8*

57

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

58

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

59

!"#

$%"&'(#)"*

+,-

.&/0(#)"*

*"1,2&0"

!$'')"(!/&"

!"&%$'

3/&'4(#)"*

2&0"

%&/$'4"2",

%$/$'&4$

!5/2)'3,$'

,-

6/4

6/4

7,-

8,-

*)21-)/"

/&9.&/,

2&:&;",,"(.&/0

&2#&/&4$

60

Housing Proposal #2: Progressive Density Bonus

A progressive density bonus provides incentive for affordable housing production which grows as more affordable housing is produced. This is a key point for residents, as it provides transit adjacent affordable housing.

Density bonus programs provide an additional incentive to build and build more affordable units. Modeled after the City of West Hollywoods successful ordinance, the policy proposal illustrated in this map offers progressively more density bonus as the developer provides more affordable housing, all the way up to a 100% bonus for 100% affordable housing.

Housing Proposal #1: Inclusionary Transit Adjacent Housing

Inclusionary housing is policy approach that requires a certain percentage of any newly built or renovated units to be affordable. Many cities have inclusionary housing programs that offer a bonus in allowable density for the inclusion of affordable units. This strategy is used in our Housing Proposal #2, below. In cases where public financing or special circumstances are involved, inclusionary housing policies will require a percentage of affordable units on all new units. For instance, California state law requires that 15% of all units in projects receiving community redevelopment funds be affordable. Recently, inclusionary requirements without public funding or compensatory bonuses were ruled unconstitutional by California courts. While the case is under appeal, it none-the-less poses a new challenge for crafting inclusionary housing ordinances.

Our focus on the mile around the METRO Red Line station revealed a potential opportunity for an effective inclusionary housing policy that would pass court muster. We would propose an Transit Investment Based Inclusionary Housing Zone that would require 25% or greater affordable units in all new construction and major renovations within mile of the Red Line station. If challenged in court, we believe this policy would be affirmed because the value of station adjacent property was significantly increased by the enormous public investment in the station and line, thus creating a constitutional basis for requiring developers to provide affordable housing.

This is not a new idea. Special requirements or assessments for landowners adjacent to major transit investments have been considered in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions. For residents, this type of policy is critical because it enables them to embrace the opportunities presented by new development without fearing loss of affordable housing and displacement. In the next phase of this project, we will further research precedents and best practices for these types of inclusionary

@AA02."B;$%C*+(3 -"2?$(%C*+(3 @AA02."B;$%C*+(3 -"2?$(%C*+(3DEF%70*:3

DGF%C*+(3%@AA02."B;$EGF%70*:3

EGF%C*+(3%@AA02."B;$HGGF%70*:3

HGGF%C*+(3%@AA02."B;$

IJH

DKDHI LKLIM DMG JDH

HGGF%7:+;.%N:( HGF%7:+;.%N:(O$P$;%0A%70*:3

HQKQDI G HKLRD G

IKIRQ IKIRQ IJH

61

!"#

$%

&'(

)$%

*)+

*,

-."/01#2"3

4$%

5/'61#2"3

3"7$8/6"

!-002"1!'/"

!"/.-0

9'/0(1#2"3

8/6"

./'-0("8"$

.-'-0/(-

!:'8209$-0

&'(

)$%

;$%

3287%2'"

'/?@-?A?BC?D,EF

!"#$%&'()*+,(&-$)(+

-+.$%("/0+&1%23+4

5%",42( '2*+6"078$9"(2$,

:2;

Documents

A Community Created Master Plan for an Improved Transit Village in