HomeMy Public PortalAboutStaff Report - Las Tunas Streetscape DesignCity Council
February 11, 2016
Page 2 of 6
3. In February 2015, Council was presented with traffic impact analyses for Option A
and two alternate roadway designs: (1) a variation of Option A that replaced back-
in angled parking with parallel parking; and (2) a configuration-commonly known
as Option B-that eliminated one eastbound lane but retained the corridor's two
westbound travel lanes (Attachment "C"). Findings concluded increased peak hour
traffic impacts with Option A, including a 5-15% traffic diversion rate to adjacent
east-west streets. Analyses for Option B revealed similar impacts, particularly to
eastbound traffic, as well as a 7.5% traffic diversion rate to nearby north-south
arterials. Staff was ultimately directed to further refine a streetscape design
concept for Option B.
4. In June 2015, Council reviewed a revised Option B design concept that retained its
proposed lane configuration, but incorporated cost saving measures like
maintaining existing sidewalks and street trees where feasible. Public testimony
cited concerns of increased traffic and diversion, public safety access and the
inclusion of bicycle lanes. Council requested that staff, along with the Las Tunas
Revitalization Standing Committee, explore additional streetscape designs.
5. In December 2015 upon the Standing Committee's review, staff presented Council
with a comprehensive review of all design options to date, including a new
alternative commonly known as Option C (Attachment "D"). This streetscape
design retained the existing Las Tunas roadway configuration, while incorporating
bike lanes and other safety enhancements required by the Metro grant. Public
testimony included support of Option A, as well as opposition that cited concerns of
traffic impact and public safety. Staff received Council direction to further explore
next steps in finalizing a revised Option A streetscape design (replacing back-in
angled parking with parallel parking) that would allow project construction in 2017.
6. In January 2016, the Standing Committee convened to refine a final recommended
design for Option A (that included the removal of back-in angled parking). Public
comment again indicated concerns with the streetscape design. The Standing
Committee directed staff to explore another alternative-potentially outside the
scope of previously presented streetscape design-for future Council
consideration.
ANALYSIS:
Tonight's discussion requests the following direction:
• Does Council want to proceed with the Option A streetscape design, as revised with
parallel parking; or
• Does Council want to consider an alternate revitalization concept?
City Council
February 11, 2016
Page 3 of 6
Las Tunas Streetscape Designs
Three Las Tunas streetscape designs have been developed to align with local
revitalization goals, as well as funding conditions of the Metro grant. Staff has determined
there are no other design alternatives to present that would provide additional substantive
differences from Options A, B, or C (while maintaining the bicycle lanes, which are a
required component of the Metro grant).
Pursuant to Council direction in December 2015, staff has revised the Option A
streetscape design by replacing back-in angled parking with traditional parallel parking.
This modification would increase sidewalk width by approximately 5' on Las Tunas
between Cloverly and Golden West avenues (Attachment "E"). It would also avail the area
with more public space for creative and destination-oriented activities.
Should Council desire implementation of the modified Option A streetscape design, staff
will return March 15 to seek approval of a series of actions that ready the design for
construction. Conversely, if Council wishes not to pursue the streetscape design, staff
requests authorization to notify Metro that the project will not proceed and that the City
cannot accept its grant funding.
Alternate Revitalization Concept
Per the Standing Committee's request for an alternate revitalization proposal, staff is
recommending development of a comprehensive Las Tunas revitalization strategy that
addresses the following five themes. Should Council desire further exploration, staff will
return with a detailed proposal later this spring.
• Mobilize stakeholders to set a vision.
As a key stakeholder, the City is in a position to engage and mobilize a set of
diverse stakeholders to develop core aspirations for the future of downtown. For this
to be successful, stakeholders must include Las Tunas business and property
owners.
Ideally, the end product of this initial collaboration should be a realistic strategy that
sets a detailed vision for downtown, including a five-year work plan of priority actions
that have the greatest strategic impact. Recommendations identified in the plan
should help market downtown, in addition to guiding future city budgets and
services, proposed projects and future partnerships.
A stakeholder partnership should continue after strategy completion, providing input
contained in this report's other initiatives, e.g. prioritizing future infrastructure needs,
exploring long-term financing models and revisiting existing downtown plans. It is
desired that this partnership eventually evolve into a business improvement district
City Council
February 11, 2016
Page 4 of6
model, whereby Las Tunas property owners or merchants can self-govern desired
improvements and revitalization activities.
• Explore financing models to fund future revitalization efforts.
Downtowns in the San Gabriel Valley-such as Pasadena, Alhambra and
Monrovia-benefited from long-running redevelopment authorities and revenue
streams that allowed for comprehensive and continuous revitalization. But no such
authority ever was created for downtown Temple City. While those authorities were
dissolved statewide in 2011, recent legislation (AB 2) now allows cities to establish
community revitalization authorities. Staff recommends further investigation into
whether the downtown area would qualify for these authorities, and what are defined
as eligible activities.
Las Tunas' aging infrastructure represents high future costs and a potential deterrent
to private investment. Consideration should be given to a long-term financing plan
that amortizes infrastructure replacement and repair costs over time, allowing
available City funding for other revitalization programs. The State's iBank loan
program-recently used by the City of San Gabriel to fund $3.8 million for street
repairs-merits further review, as does new legislation (SB 628) that allows
communities to establish enhanced infrastructure financing districts.
Finally, as outside grants can cover a portion of downtown revitalization costs, it is
recommended that a matrix of funding opportunities be developed annually for
capital infrastructure investments, community planning and technical assistance.
Having knowledge of their funding objectives will assist in planning and packaging
future infrastructure projects inclusive of a larger downtown capital improvement
program.
• Identify short-and long-term infrastructure needs.
The planning, funding, design and construction of infrastructure improvements
provide a number of end benefits. In the case of downtown, new infrastructure would
further private investment, make the area "development ready," and create a unique
sense of place for Temple City residents and visitors alike.
At this time, there is no known condition assessment of the downtown infrastructure
system. It is recommended that a study be completed to identify existing
infrastructure demand, capacity and adequacy, as well as to determine a list of
specific upgrades required in the short-and long-term. From a programmatic
perspective, the assessment would inform on the prioritization, cost and funding of
critical infrastructure improvements. And from a funding standpoint, study findings
could assist the City with future grant applications while allowing developers to
secure bank funding (particularly if its known that infrastructure work is needed in
advance).
City Council
February 11, 2016
Page 5 of 6
• Esta_!)lisbfinancial incentive programs.
Communities across the nation avail incentive programs to help revitalize their
downtowns. These programs are based on unique needs, from wanting to attract
certain businesses and niche markets, to ensuring that prospective developers are
undeterred by the additional costs of rehabilitating a historic building.
Incentive programs generally take on three categories: occupancy, physical
improvement, and development. Occupancy incentives are geared to attract
targeted businesses downtown, usually in exchange for a start-up grant and/or local
sales tax rebate. Businesses, as well as property owners, also may benefit from
physical improvement incentives via matching grants for facades, signs and other
exterior improvements-most which come with high price tags. Finally, those
wanting to build or substantially rehabilitate a downtown building can receive
development incentives through the deferral or waiving of permit fees, along with
receiving municipal funding for certain public infrastructure improvements.
While many communities have seen financial incentives work for their downtowns,
small businesses have especially found the incentives worthwhile to their bottom
lines. Should Council wish to pursue this effort, staff will bring back case studies of
similar programs including an analysis of their eligibility requirements, fund sources
and variations of fiscal impact for potential programs.
• Continue programming of the downtown parking strategy.
A critical document for the downtown's continued revitalization is the Parking
Strategic Plan, adopted in 2012. The Plan carries recommendations to increase
parking supply, manage parking and revise existing parking standards.
While efforts are underway to develop a new parking lot at 5800 Temple City Blvd.
and possibly expand the existing municipal lot on the 5900 block of Primrose
Avenue, needed is the identification of future work efforts. The availability of parking
continues to be a main concern of downtown business owners, many who rely on it
to serve their patrons and ultimately, their livelihood.
GJTY STRATEGIC GOAL:
Actions contained in this report align closest with Strategic Plan goals of economic
development, sustainable infrastructure and enhanced quality of life.
City Council
February 11, 2016
Page 6 of6
FISCAL IMPACT:
Direction received from tonight's deliberations will result in various levels of fiscal
impact:
• Moving forward with Option A commits the City to a $21.5 million capital
improvement project, of which $7.4 million would be covered by grants: $6.9 million
from Metro and $500,000 from the Air Quality Management District. The remaining
$14.1 million requires funding from various City fund sources including the General
Fund reserve, the Lighting and Landscaping District, and local transportation funds.
Based on financial projections through FY 2017-18, the General Fund contribution is
estimated at $7.3 million.
• The cost of an alternative revitalization strategy is unknown at this time. The effort
would further identify required projects and programming, as well as a discussion of
potential costs and funding sources.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Option A Summary Matrix
B. Option A Streetscape Diagram
C. Option B Streetscape Diagram
D. Option C Discussion (incl. analysis of various streetscape designs)
E. Amended Option A Streetscape Rendering (removing back-in angled parking)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Option A Summary Matrix
Note: This streetscape design was previously known as Concept Alternative 3.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Option A Streetscape Diagram
ATTACHMENT "C"
Option B Streetscape Diagram
ATTACHMENT "D"
Option C
Notes: Slides 18-59 provide analyses of various designs.
Slides 48-59 highlight Option C.
ATTACHMENT "E"
Amended Option A Streetscape Rendering
Note: This streetscape design replaces angled back-in parking with parallel parking.
ATTACHMENT "E"
Amended Option A Streetscape Rendering
Note: Renderings include motorist and pedestrian views.