Shared Vision for a Sustain - Californiasustain.scag.ca.gov/Documents/CBResources/SBCCOG_Vision_for_a...Mobility Case Study Findings ... Mobility Case Study No. 2 Segway –Self‐Balancing

Presentation Content

1. Growth Challenges2. Legislative Context3. South Bay Planning 4. Mobility Analysis5. Development Models6. Land Use Analysis7. Economic Analysis8. Next Steps9. Resources

Agenda

1. GROWTH CHALLENGES | South Bay

1

• Traffic Congestion• Limited Transportation Options• High Gas Prices• Aging Infrastructure• Poor Air Quality & Related Health Risks• Underperforming Retail • Unstable Revenue Generation• Changing Demographics (Youth/Senior)• Accommodating Projected Growth• Legislative Compliance (AB 32, SB 375)

Image Source: www.uvm.edu

Challenges?

Image Source: RBF Consulting

Image Source: www.nctimes.com

2

Consider Your Options . . .

3

Yes!

Call To Action!

• Consider Implementing South Bay Smart Suburb Vision

– Land Use Vision (Long‐Term)– Mobility Vision (Near‐Term)

• Consider Implications of Continuing “Business As Usual”

– South Bay Challenges Exacerbated – Growth (Change) is Inevitable– Opportunity to Manage Growth

4

Yes!

2. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT | California

5

California Legislation

Legislative Mandates to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions:

– SB 1771 (Alarcon, 2000): Requires statewide GHG inventory – AB 32 (Nunez, 2006): Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels– SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008): Reduce GHGs from passenger vehicles

Image Source: www.smartgirlpolitics.ning.com

6

SB 1771 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

• Legislative Requirements– California Energy Commission Required to Update Statewide Inventory of GHG Emissions in January 2002– Inventory Update Required Every 5 Years

• Inventory Used to Develop GHG‐Related Policies by Industry Sector

Image Source: www.thehui.wordpress.com

6‐A

AB 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act

• Landmark Legislation – Leading the Nation! • First Comprehensive Program in World

– Goal: Reduce GHG Emissions to 1990 Levels by Year 2020

Chart Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2009

7

AB 32 – Scoping Plan

• Adopted December 2008• Primary Strategies Evaluated to Reduce GHG Emissions

– Electricity & Energy (Renewable)– Transportation (Public Transit)– Cap‐and‐Trade Program– Forestry Protection– Urban Agriculture Programs–Waste & Recycling Incentives

7‐A

Image Source: www.roselawgroup.com

AB 32 – GHG Emissions By Sector

Chart Source: California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, November 2007

8

AB 32 – Reduction Estimates by Measure


9

AB 32 – Reduction Estimates by Measure


10

SB 375 – Redesigning Communities to Reduce GHGs

• Implementing Legislation of AB 32• Effective January 2009

– Goal: Reduce GHG Emissions from Cars and Light Trucks

• Integration of Related Approaches– Land Use Planning– Transportation Policies– Transportation Investments

Image Source: RBF Photo Library

11

SB 375 – Reduction Targets

DRAFT California Air Resources Board (CARB) GHG Emission Reduction Targets for SCAG Region

– Draft targets as of June 30, 2010– 2005 Baseline Year– 2020 SCAG Goal = 5% to 10% Per Capita– 2035 SCAG Goal = 3% to 12% Per Capita

12

SB 375 – Roles and Responsibilities

CARB (State):– Set GHG Reduction Targets for Years 2020 and 2035– 8‐Year Target Update Cycle

SCAG (MPO):– Develop Regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)– Include Strategies in Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

Sub‐Regions (South Bay):– Collaborate w/ SCAG on Regional SCS Development

Image Source: SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, 2008

12‐A

SB 375 – Agency Stakeholders

RTPAs within MPOs

MPO Areas

Non‐MPO Rural RTPA Areas

Los Angeles CountySan Bernardino CountyRiverside CountyImperial CountyOrange CountyVentura County

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) SCAG Sub‐Regions

12‐B

SB 375 – Process Chart

12‐C

SB 375 – Timeline

12‐D

3. SOUTH BAY PLANNING | Context

13

Images Source: www.commons.wikipedia.org

South Bay Cities

17 Jurisdictions– Beach Cities– Peninsula Cities– Inland Cities

Image Source: South Bay Cities COG

14

Images Source: www.discoverlosangeles.comImages Source: RBF Photo Library

South Bay Planning Context

• Transit Poor Sub‐Region• Highly Congested Streets• Dominant Street Grid • Dense, Low‐Rise Residential• Aging, Underperforming Corridor Commercial Uses• Abundant Single‐Function Centers

15

Images Source: RBF Consulting

• Accommodate Projected Growth – Help Cities Meet RHNA– Jobs/Housing Balance

• Provide Robust Mobility Alternatives– Reduced Fossil Fuel Reliance– Reduced Reliance on Transit Subsidies

• Relieve Traffic Congestion– Improved Air Quality

• Provide Vibrant Retail Centers – Concentrated Neighborhood‐Serving Retail

• Reduce Stress on Aging Infrastructure– Focused Investment

• Strengthen City Revenues

South Bay Cities COG Objectives

16

Images Source: www.graphicreflections.org

Sustainable South Bay Strategy (SSBS)

• 5‐Year Research Study– Land Use Vision: Distributed Commercial Concentrations– Mobility Vision: Short‐Range Circulation Mode

• Baseline Strategy for Inclusion in SCAG Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)• Local Use Vehicle (LUV) Pilot Program

17

4. MOBILITY ANALYSIS | South Bay

37

Complete Streets Legislation

Assembly Bill 1358 (2008) requires balanced circulation element accounting for “all users”

– Goal: Replace auto with bike, foot, or bus– Including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,children, persons with disabilities, seniors,movers of commercial goods, and transit users– Adaptation per circumstances expected– Act does not specifically highlightNEVs or Segways– Cities Must Integrate byJanuary 1, 2011

38


South Bay Mobility Vision (SSBS)

Multi‐Layered, Multi‐Modal Strategy– Customized to match South Bay;– 50% of retail trips within 3‐4 mile range– Carbon footprint reduced by replacing2nd & 3rd cars to Local Use Vehicles (LUVs)

• Walking• Segways;• Neighborhood Electric Vehicles;• Electric Bicycles/Scooters, etc.

– Electric, efficient LUVs serve short distance trips, minimize transport costs, parking space requirements, & use current infrastructure.

39


Mobility Policy Considerations

• Consider safety, right‐of‐way, and legal constraints• Select pilot program and complimentary land uses• Designate specific network using preliminary COG maps• Consider interface with other modes (bikes, peds, cars)• Determine adaptation in development project (preferred parking, incentives, charging stations, etc.)• Seek local, state, and federal funding support

– Sustainability– Air Quality– Transportation

39‐A

Mobility – Appropriate Transportation Modes

0 –½MileWalking

45‐B

0 – 5 MilesLocal Use Vehicle (LUV):

NEV, Segway, EN‐V, Bikes

≥ 5 MilesLong‐Range Vehicle:Auto, BRT or Subway

Mobility Analysis – LUV Pilot Program

Early Lessons Learned– 8 NEVs in use– Average month (early in program) results [INSERT JUNE; AVG DATA]:

•Average of 68 cold starts eliminated• Average of 180 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaced with NEV trips• Approximately 70% of trips within 2 mile radius

– Positive feedback among various demographic groups (families, singles, empty‐nesters)

40


Mobility – South Bay Cities Region

X‐X

Mobility – Local Use Vehicle (LUV) Network

Analysis of Existing Infrastructure/Documents– Includes Certain Bike Lanes:

• Class I Trails (Off‐Street trails)• Class II Lanes (On‐Street lane/shoulder)

– Doesn’t include Class III Lanes(Signed without right‐of‐way)– Includes low‐speed roads– Review based on:

• MTA Bicycle Network Map• South Bay Cities COG Speed Maps

41‐A

South Bay Network

42

Rancho Palos Verdes to Inglewood:(22 Miles)‐ Palos Verdes Estates‐ Redondo Beach‐ Torrance‐ Lawndale‐Hawthorne

South Bay Network

43

El Segundo to Carson:(13 Miles)‐Manhattan Beach‐ Lawndale‐Hawthorne‐ Torrance‐Gardena‐ Los Angeles

South Bay Network

44

Los Angeles (North End) to Ports Area:(23 Miles)‐Gardena‐ Carson‐ Torrance‐ Lomita

Mobility Case Study Findings

• Consider policies to support alternative mode use (NEVs, Segways, etc.) by resident and commercial populations• Adapt public infrastructure to support alternative modes•Work with private sector to create feasible business‐models for alternative transport• Support policies to incentivize private sector investment in transit‐like programs such as Jitney• Support land use development that strengthens nodes where served by existing transit and shuttle service. • Better link existing DASH‐like service

45

Mobility Review – Options Considered

Topics Reviewed– Operational Characteristics– Where Deployed– Cost of Use– Applicable Legislation– Public Infrastructure Required– Opportunities/Constraints to Commonplace Use– Applicability to South Bay Cities

45‐A


Mobility Review – Selected LUV Case Studies

• Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV)• Segway• Demand Responsive Transit (DRT)• Neighborhood Shuttle• Jitney (Shared Taxi/Shuttle)• Car Reservation System

45‐B


Mobility Case Study No. 1

Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV)– Low Speed Vehicle Serving Community or Citywide Needs (1 to 4 passengers)– Purchase/Operation Similar to Passenger Car

• $7,000 to $15,000 Purchase• $0.15 to $0.20/kWh• 0.233 kWh/mile• 40 Mile Range (equivalent to 150 mpg)

– No Direct Tailpipe Emissions– NEV Trails System Needed (Can Adapt to Bike Trail System)– Citywide Program/Legislation Required– Door‐to‐Door, On‐Demand Mode– Applicable to Replacing 2nd or 3rd Car– Pilot Program Underway

45‐C



Segway– Self‐Balancing Two‐Wheel Scooter (1 passenger)

• Ex: Security Patrol, City Tours– Electric, Low Speed, Short Range

• $5,000 to $7,000 Purchase• $0.15 to $0.20/kWh• 0.052 kWh/mile (5x NEV efficiency)• 16 to 24 Mile Range (equivalent to 250 mpg)

– No Direct Air Emissions – Legislated Statewide; Streets/ Sidewalk Debate Managed Locally

• Ex: San Francisco Prohibits Sidewalk Use– Flexible Lower Cost NEV Option, Learning Curve and Safety Concerns– Applicability for Individual User on Short Trip

45‐D



Demand Responsive Transit (DRT)– Agency‐Funded Taxi Service Serving Mobility‐Limited Persons (Ex: Elderly, Disabled)

• Ex: Carson Circuit DRT, Beach Cities WAVE– Flexible Route, Flexible Schedule– Minimal Costs to User

• $1 to $5 Round Trip (Torrance Transit)• Limited to City Region• Typically 1 to 2 Passengers

– Alternative Fuels Can Limit Air Emissions– Minimal Legislation/Infrastructure Needed– High Cost/Trip ($24 DRT vs. $3 Bus)– Subsidized Funding Required– High Cost Competes with Jitney– Low Applicability to South Bay

45‐E


Neighborhood Shuttle– High Frequency Agency‐Funded Circulator Shuttle Serving Dynamic Users

• Ex: Over 50 South Bay Routes, Lawndale Beat, Carson Circuit, Torrance Transit

– Fixed Route, Fixed Schedule– Highlight Key Operational Information

• Subsidized Low User Costs ($0.25)• Limited to City or Region• 1 to 40 Passengers

– Alternative Fuels Can Limit Air Emissions– Minimal Legislation/Infrastructure Needed– Neighborhood Strengthening, Circuitous Route and Funding is Agency‐Dependent– More Applicability with Land Use Intensification

45‐F


Jitney (Shared Taxi/Shuttle)– Public/Privately Funded Shared Taxi/Shuttle

• Ex: Fly‐A‐Way, SuperShuttle Service to Airport, Concert, Special Events, Casinos

– Flexible Route, Flexible Schedule– Typical Taxi/Shuttle Operations

• Pay‐As‐You‐Go• Limited to City or Region• 1 to 40 Passengers

– Alternative Fuels Can Limit Air Emissions– Minimal Legislation/Infrastructure Needed– Limited to Destination Activities– Competition from Publicly Subsidized DRT

45‐G


Car Reservation System– Pay‐As‐You‐Go Access to Shared Car

• Ex: ZipCar, Hertz Connect– User‐Defined Route and Schedule– Typical Passenger Car Operations

• $1,000 Initial Cost and $5 Hourly Fee• 300 Miles Per Tank of Gasoline• Typically 1 to 4 Passengers

– Alternative Fuels Can Limit Air Emissions; Higher Trip Chaining Means Reduced VMT– 1 Shared Car Removes 10 to 15 Personal Cars– Minimal Legislation/Infrastructure Needed– Limited Deployment (Downtowns, Schools)– High Applicability with Established Rental Network

45‐H

5. DEVELOPMENT MODELS | Concepts

18

Street Grid Spatial Structure

19

• 4 Miles Square• 25 Natural Walking Neighborhoods within ½Mile of Intersections• Street Grid Relatable to South Bay Cities

Typical Suburban Model

• Auto‐Centric Development Pattern• Dominated by Single‐Family Housing Tracts and Retail/Commercial Uses Located Along Corridors• Surface Parking in Large Concentrations at Street Edge

Images Source: RBF Photo Library

20‐A

20

• Street Grid Pattern


20

• Street Grid Pattern• SFR Tracts Develop


20

• Street Grid Pattern• SFR Tracts Develop• Development Continues

– Civic/Institutional– Parks/Open Space– Commercial Centers (Employment, Retail)


20

• Street Grid Pattern• SFR Tracts Develop• Development Continues• Commercial Corridors Develop:

– Major Arterials– Retail Corridors Connecting All Uses– Auto Dominant


20

• Street Grid Pattern• SFR Tracts Develop• Development Continues• Commercial Corridors Develop• SFR Tracts Continue

– Further Outside Core


20

• Street Grid Pattern• SFR Tracts Develop• Development Continues• Commercial Corridors Develop• SFR Tracts Develop Further Outside Core • Commercial Corridors Extend to Accommodate Development


20

• Few Concentrations of Compact Mix of Uses, Walkable Neighborhods• Aging and Under‐performing Commercial Corridors• Competing Public and Private Investment Due to Multiple Commercial Corridors


21

• Assumes No Change to Typical Suburban Format

Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) Model


• Model Supported by SB 375 • Densification• Uses Centered Around Public Transportation Hubs

Images Source: RBF Photo Library

21‐A

21

• Assumes No Change to Typical Suburban Format• Addition of TOD Corridor Development Only• Investment Now Focused Around Singular Corridor• Few Concentrations of Compact Mix of Uses, Walkable Neighborhoods• Aging and Under‐performing Commercial Corridors Remain


South Bay Smart Suburb Model

• Transition of Mid‐Block Strip Commercial to Residential• Intensified Commercial at Corners of Major Arterials• Street‐Fronting Buildings with Parking at Rear

Image Source: www.ci.gardena.ca.us

22‐A



22

• Compact Commercial at Intersections (Vibrant)• Transition of Mid‐Block Uses to Residential • Potential to Achieve 25 Walking Neighborhoods• Investment Focused Throughout Grid• Supportive of Local Use Vehicles (LUV)


22

• 1 Mile Corridor• ¼Mile Square Commercial Centers at Corners• ¾Mile Residential Mid‐Block


22

Development Potential– Proposed Corner Commercial (1/4 Mile Square = 40 Acres)

• Combined Corners Accommodate:– 870,000 SF (One Story) – 1.75 Million SF (Two Stories)

• Assumes 50% Lot Coverage

– Existing Mid‐Block Commercial (3/4 Mile = 24 Acres)• Approximately 366,000 SF (One Story)

– Proposed Mid‐Block Residential (3/4 Mile = 24 Acres)• Approximately 785 DUs (32 DUs/Acre)• Assumes 50% Lot Coverage (Two Stories)

6. LAND USE ANALYSIS | South Bay

23

South Bay Land Use Vision (SSBS)

Leave No Neighborhood Behind!– Jobs‐Housing‐Services Match

• Decentralized (Spatial Equity)– Compact Commercial Nodes Located at Corners of Major Arterials

• Neighborhood Serving Uses• Office/Employment Uses

– Density of One to Two Stories – Short Distance Access from Surrounding Residential Neighborhoods

• 1/2 Mile Walking Distance• 3 to 5 Mile LUV Distance

– Redevelopment of Larger Infill Parcels in Offset Street Pattern (Create Enclaves)

39

Image Source: Kevin Buchanan

Land Use Findings

• South Bay Smart Suburb Model Tailored to Region

– Meets Intent of SB 375– Resolves Many South Bay Challenges

• South Bay Region Needs Sub‐Regional Planning Guidance SB 375: Regional SCS Development

– Corner Commercial and Corridor Planning is Multi‐Jurisdictional

• Land Use Vision Most Effective When Adopted by South Bay Cities

24

Yes!

Case Study Findings

• Policy Plans Most Effective Means of Implementing Smart Suburb Model

– General Plan Land Use Element– Specific Plans (Corridor)

• Retail Tenants Adjusting to More Urban Commercial Format

– Concerns about Site Access and Parking at Rear– Street Fronting Retail Needs to Provide Pedestrian Access from Sidewalk

• Sensitivities Exist Regarding Residential Parking Requirement Reductions

– Affordable Unit Owner/Renters Indifferent– Market Rate Unit Owners Opposed

25


Land Use Case Studies

• Six (6) Detailed Case Studies– (4) Mid‐Block Commercial Transitioned to Residential

• Low to Moderate Density

– (2) Intensified Commercial at Corners of Major Arterials• Parking Located at Rear or On‐Street

• Examples of Smart Suburb Model of Development Difficult to Find in South Bay

– Development Has Occurred in Typical Suburban Fashion– Searched Other Counties: Orange County, Los Angeles– Commercial Search Modeled After Lomita Example– Residential Search Modeled After Redondo Beach Example

26

2008 Pictometry Image

Commercial Example: Lomita (Lomita Avenue & Narbonne Avenue)

27

Land Use Case Studies

Selected Case Studies (In‐Depth Review)– No. 1: Torrance, Artesia and Crenshaw– No. 2: Redondo Beach, Pacific Coast Highway and Francisca– No. 3: Anaheim, Brookhurst and Gilbert– No. 4: Anaheim, Anaheim and Santa Ana– No. 5: Glendora, Grand and Alosta

27‐A

2002 Pictometry Image 2008 Pictometry Image

Land Use Case Study No. 1 – Corner Commercial

Torrance (Artesia and Crenshaw)

27‐B

Land Use Case Study No. 1

Western Plaza – 0.63 Acre– Previous Use: Gas Station (600 SF)– New Uses: Intensified Commercial (9,350 SF)

• Street‐Fronting Retail: Wachovia Bank, T‐Mobile– Parking: 56 On‐Site Spaces at Rear of Property– Zoning: General Commercial (Since 1960s) – Project Approved and Permits Pulled in 2006– Project Complete in 2008– No City or RDA Subsidy – 2009 Land Value = $4.7 Million

27‐C

Land Use Case Study No. 2 – Mid‐Block Residential

Redondo Beach (Pacific Coast Highway and Francisca)

1994 Google Earth Image 2008 Google Earth Image

27‐D


Seasons Senior Living Apartments– 4.18 Acres– Previous Use: Elementary School (26,000 SF)– New Use: Intensified Residential (56,000 SF Lot Coverage)

• 150 Units (35.8 DUs/Acre) • 20% Set‐Aside for Very Low Income Senior Citizens

– Density Bonus of 10 DU/Acre for Affordable Senior Units– Parking:

• 150 Spaces and 25 Visitor On‐Site; On‐Street Permitted• Approved 1 Space/DU versus 2 Spaces/DU Typically Required

27‐E


Seasons Senior Living Apartments– Zoning:

• West Half Property: High‐Density MFR (28 DU/Acre) • East Half Property: Low Density MFR (17.5 DU/Acre)• General Plan: Permits Up to 52 DU/Acre for Affordable Senior Project Approved

– Project Approved in 1994– Project Complete in 1996– Redondo Beach Redevelopment Agency Financing

• Issuance of Tax‐Exempt Bonds Secured by Project Rents• 20% Guarantee of Bond Payments • $2 Million Loan from Housing Set‐Aside Funds

27‐F


Anaheim (Brookhurst and Gilbert)


27‐G


Cantada Square – 9 Acres– Previous Use: Target Shopping Center (89,700 SF)– New Uses: Multi‐Family Residential

• 82 SFR Court Homes (9.1 DU/Acre)• 1,750 to 2,650 SF Each• 41 Units Affordable Units (Low/Moderate)

– Parking: 2‐Car Garage/Unit and 108 Dedicated On‐Street Parking–West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area– Zoning:

• Previous: Commercial Limited; Brookhurst Corridor Overlay Zone• Current: Multiple‐Family Residential Zone (Allows Up to 18 DU/Acre)

27‐H


Cantada Square – Incentives:

• Developer Did Not Accept Waivers of Setback, Height, Building Separation and Minimum Landscaping Requirements• Developer Accepted Streamlined Entitlement Processing

– Pre‐Project Land Value = $10.2 Million– City or RDA Subsidy

• $5.75 Million Land Write‐Down• $1.02 Million Down Payment Assistance• No Tax Increment Financing• 2010 Unit “For Sale” Price = $300,000 to $600,000

– Project Approved in 2003– Project Complete in 2004– Site Previously Reserved for Anaheim Home Depot in 2001

27‐I


Anaheim (Anaheim and Santa Ana)


27‐J


Cantada Square – 5.3 Acres– Previous Use: Industrial Distribution Center– New Uses: Single‐ and Multi‐Family Residential

• XX SFR Court Homes (9.1 DU/Acre)• 1,750 to 2,650 SF Each• 41 Units Affordable Units (Low/Moderate)

– Parking: 2‐Car Garage/Unit and 108 Dedicated On‐Street Parking–West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area– Zoning:


27‐K

GOAL 3.1Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance City’s image and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.

Policies:• Designate existing underutilized mid‐block commercial uses for residential development

• Concentrate commercial uses at key intersections.

Corridor Residential (0‐13.0 DUs/Acre)

Anaheim – 2004 General Plan Update

27‐K

27‐L


Glendora (Grand and Alosta)


27‐M


Route 66 Plaza– 1.67 Acres– Previous Use: Gas Service Station (5,950 SF)– New Uses: Intensified Commercial (18,500 SF)

• Mix of Uses: Bank, Dentist, Jamba Juice, Other Retail• 1 and 2 Stories Fronting Street

– Parking: 96 Spaces On‐Site at Rear and Side of Property– Route 66 Specific Plan: Redevelopment Project Area No. 3– Grand Avenue Mixed‐Use Overlay; Grand Avenue Gateway (GRG)– Zoning:


27‐N


Route 66 Plaza– Incentives:

• 10% Parking Reduction (City Wanted to Issue More Reduction, but Developer Concerned with Tenant Expectations)• Streamlined Specific Plan EIR Processing

– No City or RDA Subsidy– Specific Plan Approved in 2003– Project Complete in 2007– Challenges with Retaining Tenants due to Market; Project in Mixed‐Use Area, but Surrounding Density Not Conducive to Locally‐Serving, Walkable Retail

27‐O


Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market– Tesco: United Kingdom Based Grocery Chain– First Store Completed in 2007– 135 Stores Built To‐Date (CA, AZ, NV) – Average Store Size: 10,000 to 15,000 SF– 2 to 3 Mile Customer Market– 50% Employees Located within 3 Miles– Urban and Suburban Retail Floor Plate

• Urban Ex: South Los Angeles; San Francisco– Prefer “Green” Building Locations– Donates $1,000 to Local Organization of Choice for Every New Store – 60% of Produce is Locally Source Images Source: www.gabreport.com

27‐P

7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | South Bay

28

Hypothetical Development Scenarios

Cities of Lawndale and Hawthorne

Image Source: Eagle Aerial Imagery, 2009

30

Haw

thorne Blvd

Marine Avenue

Prairie Ave

Existing Zoning

30

C‐M Commercial Manufacturing

NC Neighborhood Commercial

GC General Commercial

R‐1 Single Family Residential

R‐2 Two‐Family Residence

R‐3 Limited Multiple Residence

Haw

thorne Blvd

Prairie Ave

Marine Avenue

Candidate Areas (Land Assembly)

31

Total = 109 Parcels | 35 Acres

Inventory of Existing Uses

• Corner Uses– Neighborhood Serving Retail (Eateries, Specialty)– Hotel / Motel– Fast Food (Drive‐Thru)– Larger Format Retailers

• Mid‐Block Uses– Automotive Repair and Maintenance Shops– Small Offices (Vacant)– Thrift Store

Images Source: RBF Site Survey

32

Existing Development Pattern

31

Commercial Uses

Residential Uses

Proposed Smart Suburb Development Pattern

31

Scenario One – Entire Corridor

Analyze Net Change in Revenue Generation:

– Sales Tax: Intensified Corner Commercial– Revenue Tax: Transition of Mid‐Block Commercial to Residential

33

Scenario One – “Before” and “After”

34

Scenario Two – Corner Commercial

Pro Forma Analysis– Intensification of Commercial SF– No Residential– Reconfigured Site:

• Street Fronting Uses• Parking at Rear

33

Scenario Two – “Before” and “After”

34

Scenario Three – Mid‐Block Residential

Pro Forma Analysis– Parcel = 0.9 Acres– Lot Coverage = 22% – Two (2) Story Model– Total Units = 18 DUs– Average Unit Size = 850 SF– Three (3) Parking Scenarios:

• 1 Space/Unit• 1.5 Spaces/Unit• 2 Spaces/Unit

33

Scenario Three – Mid‐Block Residential

33

Pro Forma Analysis– Parcel = 0.8 Acres– Lot Coverage = 24% – Three (3) Story Model– Total Units = 23 DUs– Average Unit Size = 1,000 SF– Three (3) Parking Scenarios:

• 1 Space/Unit• 1.5 Spaces/Unit• 2 Spaces/Unit

Scenario Three – “Before” and “After”

34

8. NEXT STEPS | Summary

46

Next Steps

• South Bay Cities Council of Governments – Consider Formal Adoption of Shared Vision for a Sustainable South Bay Strategy– Presentations of Strategy to Individual Member Agencies

• City Councils• Planning Commissions

– Monthly Livable Communities Working Group (LCWG) Updates– Request SCAG to Integrate Strategy in Regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Required by SB 375

• South Bay Jurisdictions– Pursue Planning Grants that Support Shared Strategy– Consider Integration of Strategy in Key Planning Documents

47

9. RESOURCES | Additional Information

48

Resources

• Sustainable South Bay Strategy, July 2009 www.southbaycities.org

• California’s Climate Change Portalwww.climatechange.ca.gov

• California Air Resources Board (CARB)www.arb.ca.gov

• California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventorywww.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm

49

Acknowledgements

This is a project of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern California cities and other organizations in evaluating planning options and stimulating development consistent with the region’s goals.

The preparation of this report was funded in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)—Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, in accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. Additional assistance was provided by the State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency through a California Regional Blueprint Planning Grant.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, USDOT or the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. SCAG shall not be responsible for the future use or adaptation of the report.

2009 Grant Funded Demonstration Project

50

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

Wally Siembab, Special Projects ManagerSouth Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG)

[email protected]

51