New details and renderings on proposed Joint Development at North Hollywood Station

 

The planned Joint Development at North Hollywood Station between Metro and NoHo Development Associates LLC (the developer) returns to the Metro Board of Directors this month. Metro staff is recommending an 18-month extension of the exclusive negotiating agreement with an option for 12 more months; here’s the staff report.

The staff report also includes new renderings and details on the development and new transit center that would be built on the four parcels totaling 15 acres that Metro owns at the busy Red Line and Orange Line station.

The current plan would include 1,250 to 1,500 housing units (with 20 percent of those designated as affordable units), 80,000 to 120,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space near the entrance/exit to the subway, 400,000 to 500,000 square feet of office space and two-plus acres of open space.

The development would also include a new transit center where the Orange Line stop is presently located. The transit center would include 12 bus bays for the Orange Line and future bus rapid transit lines, 14 local bus bays, electric bus charging facilities for the Orange Line and other buses, and a new portal to the subway (three total) to accommodate increased crowds.

And, yes, there would be transit parking. The proposal includes 915 dedicated park-and-ride spaces (the current lot has 951 spaces), reflecting current and projected demand for parking at the station.

Other improvements include extension of the existing street grid to improve neighborhood walkability and station access, a Metro Bike Hub (which is already in the works), new bike infrastructure, pedestrian and streetscape upgrades to make walking safe and an attractive option and a dedicated drop-off and pickup area,

The extension of the negotiating period gives the developer time to entitle and environmentally clear the project with the city of Los Angeles and finish the Joint Development Agreement and Ground Lease terms, both of which are subject to Metro Board approval. The process to develop the site began in 2015; please see this Source post for more background.

The Metro Board’s Planning Committee is scheduled to consider this item at its meeting at 11 a.m. on Wednesday. The meeting will be live-streamed; a link will appear here when the meeting begins.

To learn more about Metro’s Joint Development program, please click here. The program allows Metro to collaborate with qualified developers to build transit-oriented developments on Metro-owned properties.

26 replies

  1. 20% affordable housing is way to small an amount. That amount should be, at least 50% affordable housing especially near transit. Nothing else is acceptable.

    • Even with free land, 50% Affordable doesn’t pay for itself. The region does get a trickle of tax dollars from the state and federal sources, but for something this scale it would take a decade or more. All while nothing else in the city gets any subsidized housing built.

      Or the parking lot could remain there forever…..

  2. 20% affordable housing is a pittance.

    The developer would be getting cheap taxpayer land and building for people who can afford high prices with the luxury of parking their car and having a subway literally under their feet.

  3. Instead of preparing for electric buses on the Orange line just go ahead and replace the existing bus line with light rail

  4. Need to leave space for the Orange Line to be extended west to at least the Burbank Metrolink Station or Downtown Burbank as a rail line (since some day, the existing Orange Line will be converted to rail) as the proposed North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid type project is a total waste of money. Also make sure the Red Line can go north on Lankershim in the future as well.

    • Burbank Metrolink Station is NOT West of North Hollywood, it is EAST! Please learn better directions!

    • I thought this too, but on second thought it seems likely that such an extension would likely come with the future LRT conversion and the line would likely be aerial or underground (can’t imagine LRT would be designed to cross Lankershim at grade) so it wouldn’t be necessary to leave a lot of room at this moment.

    • Something tells me you are not looking at the bigger picture. The goal is to not only convert the Orange Line to LRT, but the NoHo-Pasadena BRT to LRT as well, essentially becoming 1 long East-West rail Line from Chatsworth to Montclair.

      Also, did everyone sudden forget about the Yellow Line that’s supposed from 7th/Metro to NoHo as well? That’s supposed to be LRT as well.

      So no, the NoHo-Pasadena BRT is not a waste of money, it’s placeholder until we can actually build a respectable LRT and not the hot mess the Expo Line currently is.

      All this could occur below grade at NoHo by the way.

      • I’ve Never heard of the Yellow Line! With Metro converting ALL rail lines to letters, What letter would this line be and, more importantly, Why is this line necessary when we have the Red Line?

        • “Why is this line necessary when we have the Red Line?”

          Because the Red Line doesn’t have a Stop at Echo Park Lake, Edendale, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, Glendale Galleria/Americana, Downtown Glendale, and nowhere near Burbank.

          No, Metrolink or Operating next to Metrolink is NOT the solution here. I’d say read the Long Range Transpo plan. Although Rail to Glendale had been Proposed since the 80s, it’s still falling under the tier 1 or tier 2 unfunded category.

          Something tells me though, that after the NoHo-Pasadena BRT is open, the chances of at least getting a rail line to directly serve Elysian Park, Echo Park, Silver Lake and Atwater Village are pencil slim to none, which is a shame because parts of the P.E. ROW still remains there and parts of it are still wide enough to support Express trains from day 1 as well.

  5. I know this might be crazy talk but the Red Line really should continue further north from NoHo. At least to the North Valley or even better, Santa Clarita.

    • Very good idea that has been proposed. An extension to the San Fernando/Sylmar Metrolink Station should be undertaken as there are many people who would use it. Somewhere, it could be brought up to grade, like BART in the San Francisco area, and run alongside the tracks that already exist on San Fernando Road.
      At some point, high-speed rail will be running there, just prepare for both at the same time.

    • Yes, I agree with that! But if we do that, we need a greater amount of bus lines running to different areas not presently served by transit and they need to be EXPRESS running, say every 10 minutes during rush hour and every 20 minutes during off-peek periods and Weekends.

  6. As some who uses the Red Line regularly, but driving to the lot, I encourage the development to be phased such that the new parking structure (and associated TOD) is constructed before the surface lot is removed, so that there is continuity of parking for those that do commute to the station, and use transit the rest of the way.

    • If, like I proposed, we had more buses going more places,then there wouldn’t be the need for large parking lots! More people would use buses to get to/from rail stations.

      • The reality is many LA commuters will readily use rail transit, but would not consider riding a bus. The North Hollywood & Universal City Lots are prime examples.

        • If you get to the NH station at 8:30 am, all of the non-reserved spaces are taken. Lots of reserved spaces available. But Metro will not take any more people for the reserved spaces. Development of the parking lots is stupid unless a multi-level structure is built. That should have been done back when the subway was being built. Gold Line got its. Gardena Transit Center has its free parking. But again, the 818 get the screwdriver.

  7. Please use the lines letter designations in the The Source in all articles. If the Sources readers get the lines down cold, we can help others. Also, the WSAB, ESFV, and Sepulveda Pass lines should have a provisional letter and it should always be used (in conjunction with the name.)