"." CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Date: February 5, 2008 To: The Honorable City Council c/o City Clerk, Room 395, City Hall Attention: Hono¡able Wendy Greuel, Chair, Transportation Committee From: ~ .Qon, General Manager ~~~rtment of Transportation Subject: Operation of Olympic and Pico Boulevards (Council File 07-1199) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the City Council, subject to the concurrence of the Mayor, adopt the recommendations identified in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) report dated November 19, 2007. 2. That DOT be directed to report in six months on the impacts of implementing peak period parking restrictions and directional signal operation along the Olympic Boulevard/Pico Boulevard Corridor. BACKGROUND At the meeting of the Transportation Committee of December 3, 2007, the Committee heard the DOT report dated November 19, 2007, which indicated that the proposed measures would improve traffic flow for vehicles traveling westbound on Olympic Boulevard and eastbound on Pico Boulevard. The report also indicated that motorists would have travel choices for improved directional flow and that the proposed measures would reduce commuter traffic on residential streets. However, the report cautioned that the addition of peak period travel lanes would have initial adverse parking impacts. The Transportation Committee requested that DOT report back with more information on the impacts of the proposed peak period parking restrictions. DISCUSSION Peak Period Lanes - General Both Olympic and Pi co Boulevards between Centinela Avenue and a point easterly of La Brea Avenue are classified as Major Highways - Class 11. Major Highways generally operate with two full-time lanes in each direction, with continuous left-turn channelization and one additional lane in each direction during selected peak periods with parking during off-peak periods. Peak period lanes on Major Highways that are at least one-mile in length are signed as Anti-Gridlock Zones. Figures 1 and 2 (attached) show the existing preferential parking districts, as well as existing and proposed peak period restrictions for Olympic and Pico Boulevards. As shown, most of Olympic Boulevard has both AM and PM peak period lanes along the FEB 0 8 2008 TRANSPORTATION The Honorable City Council 2 February 5, 2008 Operation of Olympic and Pico CF 07-1199 subject reach. However, Pico Boulevard has a mix of applicable sides and hours, with several key segments lacking peak period lanes. Figure 3 (attached) shows all streets in the City that are Anti-Gridlock Zones. As shown, there are several in the Metropolitan area, including Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, Washington Boulevard, La Cienega Boulevard, La Brea Avenue, Crenshaw Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. The City's experience is that older retail districts on Major Highways can be successful, vibrant, and sustainable with peak period parking restrictions. Examples include: . La Brea Avenue from Wilshire Boulevard to Melrose Avenue . La Cienega Boulevard from Cadillac Avenue to Olympic Boulevard . Crenshaw Boulevard from Vernon Avenue to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard . Olympic Boulevard from Western Avenue to Vermont Avenue . Santa Monica Boulevard from Amhurst Avenue to Sawtelle Boulevard . Vermont Avenue from Santa Monica Boulevard to Fountain Avenue . Pi co Boulevard from Beverly Glen Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard. Consistencv with the General Plan The Transportation Element of the General Plan identifies operational and performance criteria for a Major Highway - Class II. It indicates "4 full-time through lanes, 2 part-time parking lanes, 1 median/left-turn lane..." and "...three travel lanes in each direction during peak hours..." as features of these streets. The same document, under Policy 18, indicates that peak period parking restrictions that would add travel lanes should be implemented in the Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Freeway corridors. Olympic and Pico Boulevards lie in the overlap of those two corridors. The applicable reaches of Olympic and Pico Boulevards are in the West Los Angeles and Wilshire Community Plans. The West Los Angeles Community Plan was adopted July 27, 1999 and the Wilshire Community Plan was adopted September 19, 2001. Both plans list several transportation issues including, "Severe traffic congestion along rnajor transportation corridors and intersections...". Both Plans recommend as policies the implementation of increased peak period parking restrictions as a method to be considered to alleviate traffic congestion. Recently, the Council adopted and the Mayor approved a report to begin the preparation of a Citywide Transportation Strategic Plan (see Council File 07-2655). The initiating motion cited that Los Angeles County is the "...most congested metropolitan region..." in the nation and that it has "...a mature highway and roadway system with limited options for expansion...". The draft mission statement in the report includes the objective to "Maintain, preserve and optimize the existing transportation infrastructure." The Honorable City Council 3 February 5, 2008 Operation of Olympic and Pi co CF 07-1199 Focused Parkino Studies DOT undertook four focused parking studies, one on Olympic Boulevard and three on Pi co Boulevard, in order to assess the initial parking impacts of the PM peak period restrictions. It was presumed that the AM peak period restrictions would be minimally problematic, since most businesses are not open during the AM peak period. The reach studied on Olympic Boulevard was Centinela Avenue to Sawtelle Boulevard. Those studied on Pico Boulevard were Centinela Avenue to Gateway Boulevard, Doheny Drive to La Cienega Boulevard, and La Cienega Boulevard to La Brea Avenue. The studies were conducted on December 11-13. Parking was inventoried during the 5 PM to 7 PM period. Because this was the holiday season, it is believed that business and parking activity were greater than normaL. The study inventoried the number of general spaces (i.e. not including loading zones) and the number of vehicles parked in those spaces on the north and south sides of the street. The study also included the same type of inventory on side streets within 300 feet of Pi co Boulevard and in parking lots with driveways serving businesses on Pico Boulevard. Only a percentage (20% to 50%, depending on site-specific characteristics) of the unused parking on private lots was determined to be available for vehicles displaced from parking on Olympic or Pico Boulevards, since parking associated with a private commercial development would not generally be available for patronizing another business. With this information it could be assessed if the number of vehicles that would be displaced from using Olympic or Pico Boulevard during PM peak period could be accommodated on a combination of the side streets and parking lots. If so, the difference between total supply and demand would be a surplus on each side of the street and within each segment (between signalized intersections or 800 feet, whichever is less). If not, a deficit would be shown. Figures 4 through 7 show the surpluses and deficits in parking. Figure 4 shows the . summary for Olympic Boulevard between Centinela Avenue and Sawtelle Boulevard. As shown, only 2 of 12 block segments would have a deficit, with a large overall surplus of 142 parking spaces. Figure 5 shows the summary for the reach of Pico Boulevard between Centinela Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. As shown, the deficit would vary from 2 to 11 spaces per side per segment, ~ith a slight overall surplus of 5 spaces. Figure 6 shows the summary for the reach of Pi co Boulevard between Doheny Drive and La Cienega Boulevard. As shown, the deficit would vary frpm 3 to 7 spaces per side per segment with a large overall surplus of 63 spaces. Figure 7 shows the summary for the reach of Pi co Boulevard between La Cienega Boulevard and La Brea Avenue. As shown, only 3 of 34 segments would have a deficit, with a large overall surplus of 173 spaces. For those segments with small deficits, it should be recognized that, over time, patrons would adjust to the business hours and shop either before or after the peak period, as evidenced on numerous other Major Highways. However, it is recognized that a transitional period is required for patrons and businesses to adjust to the peak period restrictions. The results for each of the fOtJr segments evaluated suggest that the initial adjustments in parking would be manageable. The Honorable City Council 4 February 5, 2008 Operation of Olympic and Pico CF 07-1199 Valet Parking A number of restaurants along Pico Boulevard were observed to have valet parking. Most of them start their operation after 6 PM. In some cases, the valets assist patrons off-street in parking lots. In other cases, they assist them in on-street designated passenger loading zones (white curb). Finally, some valets were observed operating on-street in general parking spaces, but without passenger loading zones. Implementation of peak period parking restrictions would not impact valets who operate from the parking lot. It would impact those who need to operate on-street, in that their service would need to begin after 7 PM or they would need to operate in any available parking lots until 7 PM. Another option for consideration to help restaurant valet service may include passenger-loading zones installed on side streets, immediately around the corners. Parking Suoplv Strateoies After meeting with community and business groups, as well as with Council Offices, DOT is now proposing that some of the AM and PM peak period restrictions be deferred for Phases 1 and 2, in order to facilitate a transitional period for adjustment. Under the transitional plan, the proposed AM peak period parking restrictions on Pico Boulevard between Centinela Avenue and Gateway Boulevard would be eliminated. The proposed PM peak period restrictions on Pico Boulevard between La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard and between Centinela Avenue and Gateway Boulevard would be implemented only on the south side during Phases 1 and 2 of the project.