Loading...
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.