Joint Development at North Hollywood set to take a big next step





Attentive Source readers may recall that Metro is working to develop parcels the agency owns around the Red Line and Orange Line stations in North Hollywood. Renderings are above and the Metro staff report is below. The project team has sent this update to community members and stakeholders interested in the project: 

We are excited to report that Metro staff are recommending a combined development team comprised of the Trammell Crow Company (TCC) and Greenland USA to begin negotiations for development of the Metro-owned property surrounding the North Hollywood Red/Orange Line station. 

In Fall 2015, Metro’s Joint Development Team undertook a community outreach process that included meetings with local stakeholders, residents, business and property owners, community organizations, and public agencies. From the community input shared during this process, Metro developed the Guide for Development for the 15.6-acre North Hollywood site, which the Metro Board of Directors adopted at its December 2015 meeting.

The parcels that Metro owns in NoHo. Click above to see larger.

The parcels that Metro owns in NoHo. Click above to see larger.

Following approval of the Guide for Development, Metro released a Request for Proposals for the site to a short-list of developers selected through a Request for Information and Qualifications (RFIQ) earlier in 2015. On April 8th, 2016, Metro received one proposal submitted jointly by the short-listed developers, Trammell Crow Company and Greenland USA. Metro staff reviewed the materials received and determined that the TCC/Greenland proposal provided a range of development opportunities for the property that best aligned with the Guide for Development. The TCC/Greenland proposal presents a range of development opportunities for use of the 15.6-acre site, all of which include a large central square and community gathering space tying together the West and East sides of Lankershim, new mixed-use development and pedestrian and bike paths. 

Metro’s Board of Directors will consider approving a Short Term Exclusive Negotiation Agreement and Planning Document  (“Short Term ENA”) with the TCC/Greenland team at the Executive Management Committee meeting on Thursday, June 16th at 11:00 AM and at its regular full board meeting on the following Thursday, June 23rd at 9:00 AM.  Under the Short-Term ENA, Metro and the developer will refine their project proposal, working with community stakeholders and Metro Operations, to ensure that it balances the vision of the project stakeholders, while remaining financially feasible.  Stay tuned for upcoming community meetings and, in the meantime, please don’t hesitate to reach out to staff with any questions you may have about the next steps.

10 replies

  1. Will the units be condos or rentals? Great location to live and to work in downtown or in the Hollywood area close to the line.

  2. I agree with New LA Lifestyle, I lived in cities with metro transit systems that do not offer parking facilities at all, metro riders take street busses to get to the metro stations or live in the metro station vicinity, that’s why living close to metro station is a premium. If a Californian live a mile away from a metro station, they will still use their car to commute, this is the culture

  3. Demolish the parking lots and build some mixed use condos there. People won’t need to drive to the station if they can live within walking distance to the station. We need to stop this drive to the station mindset, it’s wasteful use of land space, land space that is much needed for residential buildings in rent-high LA. And LA needs to think of the future when cars will start driving themselves. Parking needs will be antiquated by then. Besides, many people are already using Uber and Lyft to Metro stations today.

  4. NoHo Bob is right. Like him, I drive to NoHo but my drive is at least 20 minutes from the Northern parts of the SF Valley. People who don’t like parking either forget about or do not care about the other people who are paying taxes to support Metro.

  5. One of the concepts I got from a meeting I attended about this was that the parking for tenants on the parking lot parcel on subway side would not be reserved. Which means that tenants would have an abundance of parking available in the weekday evenings when most needed and those going to the subway or Orange Line would have more parking to choose from when the those living in the buildings drive to work during the morning. In other words, the parking spaces would be used both day and night unlike the situation now. There is a total of 1,750 car parking spaces shown in scenario B. Which is not a significant increase in parking spaces from what it is now considering that 1.200 living units will be added, along with office space and retail.

    I take it that the parking for buses on the east side of Lankershim Blvd at the subway entrance will be underground from looking at the scenario A diagram. It looks like the the Orange Line terminus on the West side of Lankershim Blvd in scenario B is also going to be underground.

    If the Orange line (either bus or rail) is extended east of its North Hollywood terminus, under scenario B, does this mean it would travel underground till it gets to Vineland Ave?

    Chandler Blvd is also going to have protected bike lanes. How would the elevated path in scenario B integrate with that. Would those bicycling from the Chandler Blvd mixed use path east of Vineland Ave travel on protected bike lanes on Chandler Blvd west of Vineland Ave or is the elevated path substituting for protected bike lanes from Vineland Ave to Lankershim Blvd?

    There is going to be up to 200 more bicycle parking spaces within about a year from now at the old train depot. What is going to happen to those parking spaces under scenario B? There will also likely be a growing demand for bicycle parking. Does scenario A or B have plans to accommodate a growing need for an increasing amount of bicycle parking?

  6. Having gone to many of the meeting in our community, I don’t see how option A meets the requirements that we were told were on the property from the CRA. Also option A is not the wow project we wanted. If option A is presented let’s just keep things the way we have it, and wait for a developer with a vision.

    Parking at NoHo sucks and the Valley unlike the urban city is not always transit friendly. My options are:
    1. take a 45 min bus to NoHo station then 25min to do to DT
    2. drive 5 min to NoHo and 25 min to DT on the train
    3. Drive to DT 50 min.

    If we don’t have parking at NoHo option 1 is not doable so I would drive the entire way. With the parking I drive 10% of the way then use transit for 90%. That is why to promote transit in the suburbs you need the Parking. I do not think the 2000 metro spaces will be sufficient! The more parking you put the more transit riders you will get for most for the majority of the path.

  7. “Parking replacement” is slang for parking expansion. At $28k a pop lets see how high Metro can go! Howz about Metro requires zero parking, thus saving money and making housing more affordable? Why the public transit agency is so hell bent on massively expanding parking subsidies is beyond me.

    • The Extensoin to Pasadena may have an alternate route on Lankershim blvd, and Fwy 134. The extension might be converted to Light Rail. Funding for the project may be after 2030 ad.

  8. Just as long as the southern section of the now parking lot adjustment to Chandler is left open for any extension of the Orange Bus Line east or for the upgrade of the of the Orange Bus Line to rail in the future.