Two scenarios for Century City in 2050

Subways are very expensive to build. Tunneling costs around $250 million per mile and stations cost around $200 million a piece. However, subways dramatically increase accessibility (and land value) within a quarter mile of stations.  Putting the station next to underutilized land will create future development pressures.

What might happen if the Century City subway stop was located at Santa Monica and Avenue of the Stars instead of the current center of Century City at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars?

The Los Angeles Country Club, to the north of Santa Monica Blvd, has 36 holes.  The holes are split into a North Course (north of Wilshire) and a South Course (between Wilshire and Santa Monica).  The LACC could reconfigure the South Course to 9 holes and sell the roughly 50 acres that will be within a quarter mile  of the Subway Station for development.

Last week the old 8-acre Robinsons May property next to the site sold for $148.3 million, or about $18.5 million per acre.  (incidentally, back in 2007, it sold for $500 million, or $62.5 million per acre).  With a subway station, a healthier real estate market, and City of Los Angeles Zoning policies, and inflation the site could probably once again sell for $60 million per acre in 2020 after the subway opens.  The Country Club (owned by its members) would get $3 billion , a pretty healthy sum considering 27 of the 36 holes will still be open for play.

Here's what Century City looks like today:

Here's what Century City might look like in 2050 with the Purple line on Santa Monica Blvd and half of the South Course developed.

Another Century City grows north of Santa Monica

With the station at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars, the golf course is more than a quarter mile away and won't have the same development pressures.  Here's what Century City might look like in that case:

Development pressures result in growth near the station.

The point is that in 40 years, the Metro Westside Extension Purple Line stop will be in the heart of Century City, regardless of whether it's built at Constellation or Santa Monica.  Those in Beverly Hills opposed to having tunnels under their homes today should consider the future effect of a second Century City with little or no roadway capacity increases.

I believe that the subway should be sited at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars.  The point of this post is to illustrate that placing the subway station will have consequences for the future of Century City.  Short-sighted and predominantly unfounded arguments that a subway should not be placed under homes will have long-term consequences that will likely increase traffic on residential streets in Beverly Hills.

Big Blue Bus is now on Google Transit

Try it out at maps.google.com

Sign the Bruins for Transit Petition to Support the Subway to UCLA

Back when we were transportation planning graduate students at UCLA, Sirinya and I helped start Bruins for Traffic Relief, a student club founded to promote reliable, quick, and affordable transportation access to and from the UCLA campus.  Its now 2.5 years later, Sirinya and I now work at UCLA, and the club is now known as Bruins for Transit.  The mission remains the same.

The group has put together a petition for the UCLA community to voice their support for the Westside Subway Extension to Westwood/UCLA.  Signing the petition takes about 15 seconds.  You can tweet your friends using the shortened link http://bit.ly/B4TWSE 

If you have additional comments you would like to share with the Metro Board, email them to WestsideExtension@metro.net by October 18th. You can find more information on the project and the environmental review documents at the project's web site.

Here's the text:

To the Honorable Metro Board of Directors: 

Whereas, UCLA is a major cultural and employment institution in Los Angeles that attracts a large, diverse population of of over 60,000 students, staff and faculty in addition to medical patients, arts patrons, and other visitors 

Whereas, a subway to Westwood/UCLA would greatly improve quick, affordable transit access to the campus for this diverse community and is expected to see up to 14,000 boardings per day at a Westwood station 

Whereas, a subway to Westwood/UCLA would allow students greater access to internships and job opportunities in Downtown, Miracle Mile, Century City, Hollywood, and other areas served by Metro 

Whereas, a subway to Westwood/UCLA would allow quicker access to UCLA from affordable neighborhoods served by rail and bus transit, which will allow UCLA students, who face increased tuition and fees, faculty and staff, who face who furloughs and pay reduction, to reliably access the campus from affordable neighborhoods outside of the Westside 

Whereas, a subway to UCLA would accomplish an array of public benefits that extend beyond UCLA, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, a new travel option for those who require or seek alternative transportation, and lower transportation costs for residents and employees of all income levels in Westwood and elsewhere along the expanded system 

Whereas, Bruins for Transit campaigned for Measure R in 2008 because it would fund the subway to Westwood/UCLA. 

We, the undersigned, strongly support the Westside Subway Extension and urge the Metro Board to approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report and select Alternative 2, extending beyond Westwood/UCLA, as the locally preferred alternative.

Get Big Blue Bus on Google Transit!

Big Blue Bus has raised fares and changed schedules, but they're still not on Google Transit. They've consistently promised to go on Google Transit but this promise has been consistently delayed. Pressure Big Blue Bus to join Google Transit by signing the petition below and getting your friends to do the same:

http://www.petitiononline.com/smgt/petition.html

In two weeks, we will present them with the petition, and work to get them on Google Transit. If they fail to respond with a date and plan to get on Google Transit, we will raise the issue with the City Council and major customers of Big Blue Bus, such as UCLA and Santa Monica College.

As we saw with Metro, there is strength in numbers. Let's get the Big Blue Bus to realize how many of their frequent, occasional, and potential riders value Google Transit.


Petition wording:
To:  Santa Monica Big Blue Bus

Whereas, we ride transit regularly and would benefit from better schedule information or would ride transit more often if schedule information were easier to access.

Whereas, many of us use Google Maps to locate businesses, and find driving, biking, walking, or transit directions, and we find this interface familiar and easy to use.

Whereas, Google Maps for Mobile is available for or included with the four leading smart phone operating systems: Android, Blackberry OS, iOS, and WebOS.

Whereas, the unavailability of Big Blue Bus directions on Google Transit creates unnecessary confusion for transit riders who use Big Blue Bus.

We hereby request the following:

1) That by 10/30/10, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus commit to and publicize a date by which its scheduling data will be available on Google Maps (Google Transit); and,
2) The Santa Monica Big Blue Bus publicize its progression through the steps needed to migrate its data to the GTFS format, reach a licensing agreement with Google, upload the data to Google, test the data, and make the data available to users of Google Maps for Mobile or the Google Maps Web Site.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

11024 Strathmore will help meet many community goals, but will it be built?

A new development project proposed in Westwood's North Village would help meet many community goals:  improving housing affordability, reducing traffic congestion, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  However, the project may never get built because members of the Westwood Design Review Board, which has oversight on design matters, thinks it's "too bulky" and the units are "not great places to live."  

The Design Review Board considers the project on Wednesday, September 15th at 4:30 PM at the 11214 Exposition Blvd at Sepulveda in the LA DOT's Henry Medina Building.  I will be there to speak about the regional greenhouse gas reduction benefits of this project.  I encourage you to come and speak as well.  Pay the meter (this is parking enforcement's district headquarters) or take Culver City Bus Line #6.

The 11024 Strathmore project has received approval from the Planning Commission, is consistent with the Specific Plan, and provides more parking than required by code.  The developer has made numerous concessions over the past 18 months including:

a)      breaking-up the monolithic building mass into two distinct buildings,

b)      adding an elevator to eliminate bridges between the two buildings,

c)      eliminating a project entrance along Strathmore Drive,

d)     decreasing Project height at the corner of the site,

e)      tapering the building height to mirror the natural grade change along Strathmore Drive,

f)       setting back the top floor of the building to improve site lines 

(the developer lists over 20)

I'm not going to judge whether or not the Design Review Board's disapproval is in fact based in design elements under their purview, or a move to restrict new development which could affect properties they own.  I do want to express some of the benefits of the project from a local and regional perspective:

While many students would love to live in a palatial estate, such as the nearby Playboy Mansion, none can afford it.  Instead, students pack into on-campus dorms, near campus apartments, and a variety of neighborhoods in West Los Angeles and Palms.  Many prefer North Westwood Village because of its proximity to campus and fellow students.  However, because there are far more UCLA students who want (demand) to live near campus than there are available apartments (supply), apartment prices are very high.  A failure to build sufficient apartment units to meet this demand has also led to efficient parking problems.  Prices are so high that many students choose to double up in bedrooms (considering triple-occupancy dorm rooms are more expensive), or convert dens and other living areas into sleeping areas.  Any additional supply of housing units to the neighborhood will help ease affordability issues. Construction costs rise with square footage and space-efficient apartment units allow students and young professionals, who haven't accumulated a household of furniture, to pay less rent.  While it is likely that a new construction project will be priced higher than existing apartment units, the new supply will create a cascading effect which will improve affordability at the lower end of the market.

Increasing unit occupancy has increased the effective density of North Westwood Village, but has also led to issues with parking. Students, faculty, and employees living in the area will walk, bike, or skateboard into campus.  However, transit service through the area is poor, given its density, and many residents who commute to campus also maintain a car for trips outside of Westwood.  In a letter supporting the project, UCLA Professor and parking expert Donald Shoup noted that the last Census showed that more residents of North Westwood Village walk rather than drive to work, but that the neighborhood has the second-highest density of cars in all census tracks in large cities in the United States.  It's no wonder that cars are parked anywhere and everywhere in North Westwood Village.

The 11024 Strathmore Drive addresses this issue by unbundling the cost of parking from the cost of housing.  Those who wish to live near UCLA without a car will pay less for rent. They'll be able to park bikes for free in the 94 bike stalls.  Those who want to bring a car will have to pay to park it.  If not enough people in the building are willing to pay to park, the developer can sell to nearby residents, alleviating some existing parking hassles.  

The project will reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.  How so?  Too often in the past, the solution to traffic congestion has been to restrict densities in areas where people want to be.  Instead of promoting pedestrian in bike traffic in places where people want to be, such density restrictions lead to more traffic congestion everywhere.  The collective effect of neighborhoods rejecting new development has been that new development locates at the fringes of regions - where there are no established neighborhoods to reject developments.  However, this also means that people who would rather live within 5 miles of the places they want to be now live 50 miles from the places they want to be.  This hasn't done anything to alleviate vehicle traffic in the places people want to be: they're still going there.  If anything, it has exacerbated traffic congestion in areas where people want to be by making it more difficult to access these areas without a car.  By adding 90 miles to the daily trip, it also causes significant traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.  

People want to be at UCLA.  The proposed project is two blocks from the UCLA campus.  By unbundling the cost of parking from units and providing free bike parking, the developer has taken measures to reduce the impact this development will have on the neighborhood.  The existing lot has been a scar on the neighborhood since the prior building was demolished in 2005.  

Westwood residents to Metro: Bring us the subway! Please be careful!

Last night we attended the special Westside Subway Extension meeting where metro discussed the impacts of tunneling under a residential area.  Jody Litvak and David Meiger from Metro did an excellent job explaining the need to study 12 potential routings between Century City and Westwood, the testing metro has been doing in the area (seismic, water, and other hazards), how deep the subway would go (70-110 feet below the surface) and how Metro expected no observable surface impacts from tunneling or operations.

Jody presented a slide on damage to subway systems resulting from earthquakes: there hasn't really been any.  Even in the 8.8 Chile earthquake this year, the subway reopened the next day with no tube damage. The surface fared less well.  I guess the subway is the place to be during an earthquake.

(via The Source)

On the subject of earthquakes, the Santa Monica fault runs along Santa Monica boulevard, which complicates the Santa Monica-Westwood Boulevards routing.  It also means that Metro will likely need to reinforce and widen the tunnels where they pass through the faults.

This meeting was the first time Metro presented the specific properties the different route options would tunnel under.  Something I didn't know is that property rights extend to the core of the earth and that metro purchases easements for their tunnel right-of-way. The following two routes are, in my opinion, the most probably routings as they go between the Constellation station in the heart of Century City and the off-street UCLA Lot 36 option in Westwood.  Both stations will have higher ridership and lower community impacts than the on-street Santa Monica and Wilshire Blvd options.  The routing is subject to change as the engineering process progresses.

The Direct Option minimizes the distance the subway travels under homes:

The "Cross-Country" option has smoother curves and travels a longer distance under homes.

Metro had been studying a Santa Monica to Westwood Boulevard option because it would appear that it would travel under fewer homes.  They call this the "Westwood Loop" However, subways can't make hairpin turns, and this option still travels under a large number of properties:

Metro will release a presentation that counts how many homes each route will tunnel under (via The Source)


It would also be more expensive and result in a much longer travel time (via The Source)

When the public comment period came, I was expecting a slew of residents who were opposed to the project and didn't want the subway going under their house.  The KTTV Fox 11 News reporter was also expecting some opposition:



There were 16 public comments.  Fifteen were supportive of the subway and one commenter asked a question without expressing support or opposition to the subway.  I think the lack of comments opposing the subway is a testament to the well-thought out presentation that addressed uncertainty with tunneling, earthquake hazards, and surface vibrations and noise from subway operation.  If there was public concern and opposition amongst attendees before the meeting, the informative presentation quelled these fears.

In fact, one of the commenters is an architect who works worldwide on sound sensitive studios and facilities.  He said that, in his opinion, with almost 100 feet of dirt between the subway tunnel and a building serving to absorb vibrations, that there would be no detectable impact from the tunnel operations.  He also won the "from the neighborhood" award (commenters often disclose how long they've been living in the area) - he was baptized in the church where the meeting took place.

SB 375 Explained (Urban Planning degree not required)

California’s Senate Bill 375 (passed in 2008, sponsored by Senate President Pro tempore Darrell Steinberg) is often discussed and frequently misunderstood, even by urban planners.  In this entry, I attempt to explain the Act to an audience with no background in urban and regional planning, using fewer than 1000 words.  To be up front, I think the goals of SB 375 are good goals, although I could think of many ways to improve upon the language of the bill.

For several decades, metropolitan areas in California have engaged in separate processes to plan for housing growth and new transportation infrastructure.  A side effect of these separate processes, which have not always been coordinated, is that the transportation system has not always been able to accommodate new growth.

Senate Bill 375 requires that regional governments coordinate their regional housing and transportation planning activities into a single process and plan.  This plan is known as a Sustainable Communities Strategy.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local government agencies to understand the potential environmental impacts of their actions, and, where possible, to lessen the environmental impact of their actions.  One of the many actions a local government takes is approving new real estate development projects.  For a real estate development, a normal part of the environmental review process has been to examine the effects of traffic coming to and from the development, including the air and noise pollution from that traffic.

In the environmental review process, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation is somewhat counterintuitive.  When evaluating an individual real estate development, it appears that a local government, or a developer, can reduce the air pollution emitted by a new housing development by building fewer households on a given lot (a decrease in density).  However, when all of the greenhouse gas emissions emitted by traffic coming households, businesses, and other buildings around a region are examined, it is found that greenhouse gas emissions are lower per person in areas and regions where households and other buildings are closer together (an increase in density).  This is because people drive less, and fewer emissions, when the places they want to go are nearer to each other.

Rather than require California local governments and real estate developers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from traffic going to and from individual buildings, with SB 375, the California legislature decided that a regional plan (the Sustainable Communities Strategy) was the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from traffic.  There are three primary reasons for this.   The first is that the options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are most effective at the regional level. The second is that greenhouse gas emissions have local effects, rather than global effects, and are not immediately harmful to local health, unlike other air pollutants.  The third, as previously mentioned, is that regional greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced (on a per person basis) when emissions in certain areas are increased.  

Regional governments have computer simulators that forecast where new real estate development will locate, and how much people will travel between the various places they want to go in a metropolitan area.  These computer simulators can also predict what the resulting greenhouse gas emissions will be. 

When preparing and submitting a Sustainable Communities Strategy, the regional government must use these simulators to demonstrate that their plans will meet or exceed regional targets for per person greenhouse gas emissions reductions.  This will require that in the Sustainable Communities Strategy, a region commit to funding transportation infrastructure and implementing transportation policies (in the Regional Transportation Plan), and to steer new housing into areas near transit, jobs, and retail (in the Regional Housing Needs Plan).  Specific transportation infrastructure projects could include new highways, but also passenger rail, busways, bikeways, and carpool lanes.  Specific transportation policies may include transit improvements, unsubsidized parking, and congestion management.

The Federal Government requires that a Regional Transportation Plan only include projects that the region will be able to fund. In some cases, a regional government may not have enough money to fund sufficient transportation infrastructure and policies to demonstrate that it can meet its per person greenhouse gas reduction targets.  In this case, a region can submit an Alternative Planning Strategy instead of a Sustainable Communities Strategy.  The Alternative Planning Strategy requires that the regional government demonstrate how they would meet their per person greenhouse gas reduction targets if more money were available.

Legislatures decided to provide regional governments with incentives to pursue a Sustainable Communities Strategy instead of an Alternative Planning Strategy.  One of these allows real estate development projects consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy and that meet certain criteria to be exempt from a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement that the greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles be considered as part of the environmental review process.  The impact of these greenhouse gas emissions will have already been considered as part of the regional transportation plan’s environmental review process.  

The California Air Resources Board will administer SB 375 rules.  The Air Resources Board is currently developing these rules. 

I hope you found this basic information useful.  Of course there are many more intricacies to the SB 375 and regulations than are covered here.  Email me if you’d like to discuss these.

The Parlor-Santa Monica's Permit Woes

The Parlor is a popular sports bar in Santa Monica that's currently facing issues with the city planning commission and area neighbors. It's a great place to watch sports, with dozens of flat panel TVs, and a fun atmosphere. Its proximity to the future MOS-IV subway stop at 16th & Wilshire and the existing Metro Rapid stop at 14th & Wilshire make The Parlor great destination for those looking to catch a game and ride Metro.

However, The Parlor has run into a few legal issues since it applied for a permit to open the top floor for guests. Here's a summary of the issues currently facing the Parlor:

1. The Parlor is operating without an active parking variance. A parking variance allows for a business to operate despite the fact that it can't provide the amount of on-site parking required by code. In fact, the building's parking variance expired in the early 1980's when the Cinch took over the restaurant. Without a current parking variance, the city can deny a business the right to operate. The Parlor has no on site parking.
2. The Parlor has been operating the unpermitted second floor for a while. This increases the capacity of the Parlor over what the expired parking variance would have allowed.
   
3. The Parlor has a Type 47 liquor permit, subject to operating restrictions. A Type 47 permit allows beer, wine, and liquor service at a "bona fide eating place" with a complete food menu (not just sandwiches and salads) where patrons come to have a meal "in good faith" in the absence of loud music or dancing. Typically, this means that food sales must be at least 65% of total sales, although this rule is not set in stone. Most restaurants which serve liquor in Santa Monica have this permit type (i.e. El Cholo, Barney's Beanery). This permit type is generally easier to obtain than a Type 48 Permit, which allows for liquor sales without food (i.e. The Gaslite or Zanzibar).
4. Patrons leaving The Parlor late at night have disrupted neighbors. This could result in fines and disciplinary action if neighbors file a formal complaint with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Thus far, community opposition has been focused locally, opposing the operation of the 2nd floor.
5. The Santa Monica Planning Commission imposed operating restrictions on the Parlor which would make the place operate more like a restaurant than a Sports Bar, and the building owner Parlor has appealed these operating restrictions to the city council. For the all the juicy details, you can see the Staff Report and read a Santa Monica Daily Press article. The City Council will take up the issue again in February.

It would seem that from a legal standpoint, the Parlor's challenges are insurmountable. I doubt they'll continue operating as they currently do. However, the Parlor's parking variance woes bring up an interesting question:  

Should businesses within 1/4 mile of a high quality transit stop (such as the one at 14th & Wilshire) be required to provide as much parking as businesses outside this zone? 

New residences in such an area can have required parking waived in many areas of the state.. Concentrating nightlife around transit might generate more social benefit than concentrating other uses around transit. While having transit accessible nightlife may cause more young people to choose to live near the transit system, having transit available as a sober ride home could also cut down on driving under the influence, resulting in safer roads for everyone.