This document summarizes a city council study session on the Downtown Specific Plan and mobility study. It provides background on why the study was initiated due concerns over development pace and impacts. It then reviews the plan's goals of protecting neighborhoods, adopting mobility policies, promoting business and an 18-hour downtown. Finally, it outlines development under the plan, including housing units built, and improvements made to parking, transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that support the plan's vision.
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
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
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. Greater Downtown Strategic Plan (1996)
• Extensive
Community
Participation
• Established the
Vision for today’s
Downtown
7
8. HARVARD ST
COLORADO ST
ELK AVE
Town Center Plan (1996)
CENTRAL AVE
BRAND BLVD
LOUISE ST
8
9. Americana at Brand (2003) 9
HARVARD ST
COLORADO ST
ELK AVE CENTRAL AVE
BRAND BLVD
LOUISE ST
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. 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. 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. 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
19. Architectural Design / Quality
Architecture, like fashion and design, is subject to trends
19
20. Architectural Design / Quality
Current trend is flat, modern, and contemporary
San Diego
Portland
Denver
Toronto
20
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. Architectural Design / Quality
Glendale projects are generally following this trend
22
But not always…
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
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
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
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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Frontage Road Concept 49
• Freeway Frontage Roads
still under review in “Space
134 Freeway Cap” study
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
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. 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. 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
Downtown Specific Plan / Mobility Study
October 21, 2014 City Council Study Session