Downtown Specific Plan / Mobility StudyOctober 21, 2014 City Council Study Session

1

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

Agenda• Policy Context of DSP (Alan Loomis)• DSP Creation / Design Standards (Alan Loomis)• Mobility Study (Mike Nilsson)• Economic Returns (Phil Lanzafame)

3

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

Hillside Acquisition (2003-Present)• 724 acres acquired for

hillside preservation

5

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

Greater Downtown Strategic Plan (1996)• Extensive

Community Participation

• Established the Vision for today’s Downtown

7

HARVARD ST

COLORADO ST

ELK AVE

Town Center Plan (1996)C

ENTR

AL A

VE

BRAN

D B

LVD

LOU

ISE

ST

8

HARVARD ST

COLORADO ST

ELK AVE

CEN

TRAL

AVE

BRAN

D B

LVD

LOU

ISE

ST

Americana at Brand (2003)9

East Broadway Mixed-Use Zones (2004)10

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

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

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

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

DSP Height and DensityBased on Existing Skyline

15

DSP Height and DensityPrior to DSP: No Height Restrictions

16

DSP Height and DensityDSP Introduced Height Restrictions

17

Architectural Design / QualityDSP Architectural Guidelines do not dictate style

18

Architectural Design / QualityArchitecture, like fashion and design, is subject to trends

19

Architectural Design / QualityCurrent trend is flat, modern, and contemporary

San Diego

Portland

Denver

Toronto

20

Architectural Design / QualityCurrent trend is flat, modern, and contemporary

AVA, Little Tokyo The Waverly, Santa Monica

The Dylan, West Hollywood

One Santa Fe, Arts District

21

Architectural Design / QualityGlendale projects are generally following this trend

But not always…

22

Architectural Design / QualityGlendale projects are the work of Award-Winning Architects and Developers

The Dalton, PasadenaBy Studio One Eleven (YMCA)• 2009 SCDF Design Award,

Commercial/Mixed Use• 2009 Gold Nugget Grand Award for

Outstanding Mixed Use Project

WestGate, PasadenaBy TCA (ICIS, Lex on

Orange, Triangle & Link)• 2005 CNU Charter Award• 2004 AIA Orange County Award

of Honor

AVA H Street, Washington DCBy KTGY (Nexus on Central,

Chandler Pratt)• 2013 MFE Award for MidRise

Project of the Year• 2013 MHN Gold Award for Best

Mid-Rise Project

23

Architectural Design / QualityGlendale has high level of quality control

24

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

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

26

27

Total Multi-Family City-Wide4844 units

Multi-Family Zones258 (5%)

San Fernando Road1398 (29%)

Downtown3188 (66%)

Multi-Family Development2006 – Present (Built, Under Construction, and/or Active Entitlements)

28

DSP SF RdMulti-Family Zones

City Total

Potential 3980* 2000+ 2862** 8842+

Total 3188 1398 258 4844

* Per DSP Program EIR (2006)

** Per 2009 Housing Element

Multi-Family Development2006 – Present (Built, Under Construction, and/or Active Entitlements)

29

SCAG Compass Plan30

Mobility Improvements (2007-2012)

• Prepared in tandem with the DSP

• Established transit & pedestrian-friendly policies

• Reinforce DSP vision

31

Glendale Daily Vehicle Trips (2005)

328,945 (40%) 313,893 (39%)Internal Trips

173,300(21%)

Entering Exiting

32

33

Parking Management

• “Park Once” approach:• Reduces congestion

• Encourages longer stays, promoting an “18-hour Downtown”

• Manages existing resources versus constructing new infrastructure

34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One-Way Street AlternativesBrand / Central between Colorado and Goode

43

Colorado Street

Glenoaks Boulevard

Gle

ndal

e Av

enuePacific A

v enue

Maryland A

venue

Orange S treet

SR-134 Freeway

One-Way Street AlternativesOrange / Maryland between Broadway and Goode

44

Colorado Street

Glenoaks Boulevard

Gle

ndal

e Av

enuePacific A

v enue

Maryland A

venue

Orange S treet

SR-134 Freeway

One-Way Street AlternativesOrange / Maryland between Broadway and Goode

45

Cen

tral

Ave

nue

Orange Street Extension

Ora

nge

Stre

et

Bra

nd B

oule

vard

Mar

ylan

d A

venu

e

Loui

se S

tree

t

SR-134 Freeway

Goode Avenue

Sanchez Drive

Monterey RoadMaryland Avenue Extension

California Avenue

San Fernando Road

SR-134 Freeway

Colorado Street

Glenoaks Boulevard

Lexington Drive

Gle

ndal

e Av

enuePacific A

v enue

One-Way Street AlternativesCalifornia / Lexington between Pacific and Glendale

46

San Fernando Road

California Avenue

SR-134 Freeway

Colorado Street

Glenoaks Boulevard

Wilson Avenue Gle

ndal

e Av

enue

San Fernando Road

One-Way Street AlternativesCalifornia / Wilson between San Fernando and Glendale

47

Freeway Access Enhancements48

• Mobility Study Proposed One-Way Streets Parallel and Adjacent to 134 Freeway

Doran Street

Gen

eva

Stre

et

Monterey Road

Lexington Drive

SR-134 Freeway

Glenoaks Boulevard

One-Way Operation

One-Way Operation

Goode Extension & Maryland Flyover

Orange Street “Punch-Thru”

Frontage Road Concept49

• Freeway Frontage Roads still under review in “Space 134 Freeway Cap” study

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

Downtown Specific PlanProperty Value Growth

51

Downtown Specific PlanSales Tax

52

Downtown Specific PlanOffice Occupancy

53

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

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

Potential Council Actions• Remove or Revise Incentives• Review Approval Process• No Change / Allow Market Impacts to be Understood

• Direction to Staff• Question / Comments

56

Downtown Specific Plan / Mobility StudyOctober 21, 2014 City Council Study Session

57