Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Glendale Downtown Specific Plan Policy Review

2,038 views

Published on

Presentation to City Council of the Downtown Specific Plan Policy. City of Glendale, CA. Community Development Department.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Glendale Downtown Specific Plan Policy Review

  1. 1. Downtown Specific Plan / Mobility Study October 21, 2014 City Council Study Session 1
  2. 2. Why are we here? • Concerns over pace of DSP development • Concerns over impacts of DSP development • Concerns over DSP development design • OEM: Operate, Evaluate, Modulate • Direction from City Council 2
  3. 3. Agenda • Policy Context of DSP (Alan Loomis) • DSP Creation / Design Standards (Alan Loomis) • Mobility Study (Mike Nilsson) • Economic Returns (Phil Lanzafame) 3
  4. 4. Downtown Specific Plan Long-Term Goals • Protect Neighborhoods from Development Pressure • Adopt Mobility Policies to support new development • Promote Downtown Business Community • Create an 18-hour Downtown • Promote Quality Development • Platform for additional investment 4
  5. 5. Hillside Acquisition (2003-Present) • 724 acres acquired for hillside preservation 5
  6. 6. Multi-Family Down Zoning (1986 / 1990) • Created Design Review • Downzoned many areas • Reduced multi-family densities • Changed some multi-family zones to single family zones 6
  7. 7. Greater Downtown Strategic Plan (1996) • Extensive Community Participation • Established the Vision for today’s Downtown 7
  8. 8. HARVARD ST COLORADO ST ELK AVE Town Center Plan (1996) CENTRAL AVE BRAND BLVD LOUISE ST 8
  9. 9. Americana at Brand (2003) 9 HARVARD ST COLORADO ST ELK AVE CENTRAL AVE BRAND BLVD LOUISE ST
  10. 10. East Broadway Mixed-Use Zones (2004) 10
  11. 11. Downtown Specific Plan Principles • Create and maintain a vibrant urban center • Shopping, dining, working, living, & entertainment, all within a short walking distance • Sound transportation planning • Prevent inappropriate development • Cause excellent development • Easy to understand and follow • Powerful physical image • A good place to do business • Policy Trade-Offs include: • Intensification/”urbanization” of uses • Short-term construction impacts • Long-term land-use decisions 11
  12. 12. DSP Stakeholders • Downtown Property Owners • Glendale Partners • Glendale Chamber of Commerce • The Glendale Historical Society • Glendale Galleria • The Americana at Brand / Caruso Affiliated • Northwest Homeowners Association • Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council • Glendale Transportation Management Association • DSP Advisory Group (9 meetings in 2006) 12
  13. 13. DSP Approval Process • Hearings by: • Arts & Culture Commission • Transportation & Parking Commission • Historic Preservation Commission • Design Review Board • Recommendation by: • Planning Commission • Adopted by: • City Council (4-1) – November 7, 2006 • Program Level EIR • Probable Residential Development = 3,980 units • Probable Commercial Development = 1.7M sq. ft. 13
  14. 14. Downtown Specific Plan Downtown Glendale will be an exciting, vibrant urban center which provides a wide array of excellent shopping, dining, working, living, entertainment and cultural opportunities within a short walking distance. 14
  15. 15. DSP Height and Density Based on Existing Skyline 15
  16. 16. DSP Height and Density Prior to DSP: No Height Restrictions 16
  17. 17. DSP Height and Density DSP Introduced Height Restrictions 17
  18. 18. Architectural Design / Quality DSP Architectural Guidelines do not dictate style 18
  19. 19. Architectural Design / Quality Architecture, like fashion and design, is subject to trends 19
  20. 20. Architectural Design / Quality Current trend is flat, modern, and contemporary San Diego Portland Denver Toronto 20
  21. 21. Architectural Design / Quality Current trend is flat, modern, and contemporary AVA, Little Tokyo The Waverly, Santa Monica The Dylan, West Hollywood One Santa Fe, Arts District 21
  22. 22. Architectural Design / Quality Glendale projects are generally following this trend 22 But not always…
  23. 23. Architectural Design / Quality Glendale projects are the work of Award-Winning Architects and Developers The Dalton, Pasadena By Studio One Eleven (YMCA) • 2009 SCDF Design Award, Commercial/Mixed Use • 2009 Gold Nugget Grand Award for Outstanding Mixed Use Project WestGate, Pasadena By TCA (ICIS, Lex on Orange, Triangle & Link) • 2005 CNU Charter Award • 2004 AIA Orange County Award of Honor 23 AVA H Street, Washington DC By KTGY (Nexus on Central, Chandler Pratt) • 2013 MFE Award for MidRise Project of the Year • 2013 MHN Gold Award for Best Mid-Rise Project
  24. 24. Architectural Design / Quality Glendale has high level of quality control 24
  25. 25. DSP Incentives - Height/Density Bonuses • Adaptive Re-Use • Affordable Housing • Green Building (LEED Silver) • Green Building (LEED Platinum) • Historic Preservation • Hotel • Museums / Art Galleries • Public Open Space • Signature Design 25
  26. 26. 26 Public Open Space • 12 projects Green Building (LEED Silver) • 2 projects Hotels • 2 projects Affordable Housing (DSP) • 1 project Affordable Housing (SB1818) • 2 projects No Incentives • 5 projects
  27. 27. 27
  28. 28. Multi-Family Development 2006 – Present (Built, Under Construction, and/or Active Entitlements) Total Multi-Family City-Wide 4844 units Multi-Family Zones 258 (5%) San Fernando Road 1398 (29%) Downtown 3188 (66%) 28
  29. 29. Multi-Family Development 2006 – Present (Built, Under Construction, and/or Active Entitlements) DSP SF Rd Multi- Family Zones City Total Potential 3980* 2000+ 2862** 8842+ Total 3188 1398 258 4844 * Per DSP Program EIR (2006) ** Per 2009 Housing Element 29
  30. 30. SCAG Compass Plan 30
  31. 31. Mobility Improvements (2007-2012) • Prepared in tandem with the DSP • Established transit & pedestrian-friendly policies • Reinforce DSP vision 31
  32. 32. Glendale Daily Vehicle Trips (2005) Entering Exiting 328,945 (40%) 313,893 (39%) Internal Trips 173,300 (21%) 32
  33. 33. 33
  34. 34. Parking Management • “Park Once” approach: • Reduces congestion • Encourages longer stays, promoting an “18-hour Downtown” • Manages existing resources versus constructing new infrastructure 34
  35. 35. Parking Management • 2008 – Pay-by-Space meters installed, Parking Rates adjusted • $750,000 – increased yearly revenue from parking meters • $60,000 – average meter revenue growth per year • 2013 – Permit Parking District Ordinance adopted in South Brand • Can expand into downtown-adjacent residential areas • $694,000 grant – Wayfinding to Downtown Parking resources (2015) 35
  36. 36. Transportation Demand Management • Consists of programs to encourage alternative modes, reducing driving/congestion • TDM Programs are managed by a Transportation Management Association (TMA) • “Go Glendale”= City’s TMA • Programs include: • Reduced Price Transit Passes • Car share (Zip Car) • Rideshare programs • Yearly ridership assessment 36
  37. 37. Transportation Demand Management • TDM Ordinance (2011) • DSP projects to be part of TMA, conduct TDM programs • “Go Glendale” TMA – implement programs as membership expands • 2,500 du under construction in DSP (82%) required to be TMA members • 35% increase in TMA membership over the past year • $750,000 grant secured to manage commuter programs 37
  38. 38. Transit Infrastructure • Policies focus on improving the efficiency of transit resources, including operational improvements • Mobility Study included a full route analysis in the DSP area 38
  39. 39. Transit Infrastructure • Fare structure updated to maintain bus operations • CNG Fueling Facility constructed • Real-time bus arrival information installed – new shelters, online • $10.4 million – grant funding for new buses • $12.7 million – Beeline Maintenance Facility (2016) • East/West Corridor – priority for Metro, currently under study 39
  40. 40. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements • DSP Vision – creating a vibrant urban center (2006) • Establishes walkability as a priority • “18-hour Downtown” • Safe & Healthy Streets Plan (2011) • Ped/Bike Policy Document • SCAG Compass Blueprint Award-Winning Plan • Bicycle Transportation Plan (2012) • Ped/Bike Infrastructure improvements 40
  41. 41. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements • 28 miles of Bike Infrastructure installed • 5 miles to be installed in 2015 • 36% increase in biking since 2010 • $5 million dollars in funding available for future improvements • Focus – improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians 41
  42. 42. Street Improvements • Important to move cars efficiently and safely through Downtown • $21 million – road improvements since 2006 • Brand Boulevard • Colorado Street • Central Avenue • Future enhancements – Glendale Avenue access improvements • Submitted $440,000 in grant funding for Downtown Streetscape Plan 42
  43. 43. One-Way Street Alternatives Brand / Central between Colorado and Goode 43
  44. 44. One-Way Street Alternatives Orange / Maryland between Broadway and Goode Glenoaks Boulevard SR-134 Freeway Colorado Street Glendale Avenue Pacific Avenue Maryland Avenue Orange Street 44
  45. 45. One-Way Street Alternatives Orange / Maryland between Broadway and Goode Maryland Avenue Extension Monterey Road Glenoaks Boulevard SR-134 Freeway Colorado Street Glendale Avenue Pacific Avenue Maryland Avenue Orange Street 45 Orange Street Extension Central Avenue Orange Street Brand Boulevard Maryland Avenue Louise Street SR-134 Freeway Goode Avenue Sanchez Drive
  46. 46. One-Way Street Alternatives California / Lexington between Pacific and Glendale Glenoaks Boulevard Lexington Drive California Avenue San Fernando Road SR-134 Freeway Colorado Street Glendale Avenue Pacific Avenue 46
  47. 47. One-Way Street Alternatives California / Wilson between San Fernando and Glendale San Fernando Road Glenoaks Boulevard SR-134 Freeway California Avenue Wilson Avenue Colorado Street Glendale Avenue San Fernando Road 47
  48. 48. Freeway Access Enhancements 48 • Mobility Study Proposed One-Way Streets Parallel and Adjacent to 134 Freeway One-Way Operation Doran Street Geneva Street Monterey Road SR-134 Freeway Lexington Drive Glenoaks Boulevard One-Way Operation Goode Extension & Maryland Flyover Orange Street “Punch-Thru”
  49. 49. Frontage Road Concept 49 • Freeway Frontage Roads still under review in “Space 134 Freeway Cap” study
  50. 50. Downtown Development Fees • $25M Park Impact Fees • $12.8M School Fees • $5M Urban Art Fund • $1M Transient Occupancy Tax • $1.35M In-Lieu Parking Fees • $10.6M Building / Permit Fees • More than $55M in fee-related income 50
  51. 51. Downtown Specific Plan Property Value Growth 51
  52. 52. Downtown Specific Plan Sales Tax 52
  53. 53. Downtown Specific Plan Office Occupancy 53
  54. 54. Downtown Specific Plan Long-Term Goals • Protect Neighborhoods from Development Pressure • Adopt Mobility Policies to support new development • Promote Downtown Business Community • Create an 18-hour Downtown • Promote Quality Development • Platform for additional investment 54
  55. 55. What’s Next? • Investment is slowing • Full impact of higher fees not yet felt • Easy-to-Assemble sites are diminishing • Many desirable sites are controlled by the City 55
  56. 56. Potential Council Actions • Remove or Revise Incentives • Review Approval Process • No Change / Allow Market Impacts to be Understood • Direction to Staff • Question / Comments 56
  57. 57. 57 Downtown Specific Plan / Mobility Study October 21, 2014 City Council Study Session

×