"." 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. Such an arrangement would allow patrons to use parking on the north side to patronize businesses on either side. The AM and PM peak period restrictions could be deferred until Phase 3 (preferential directional flow) if or when it is implemented. Based on the parking study conducted along Pico Boulevard, only implementing new PM peak period parking restrictions on the south side of the street while allowing parking on the north side between Centinela Avenue and Gateway Boulevard and between La Cienega Boulevard and La Brea Avenue would not result in a deficit of required parking spaces. There is a surplus of 35 on- and off-street parking spaces between Centinela Avenue and Gateway Boulevard and a substantial surplus of 276 on- and off-street parking spaces between La Cienega Boulevard and La Brea Avenue.

In addition, it is now proposed that the restricted hours on Pico Boulevard be from 7 to 9 AM (versus 7 to 10 AM) and 4 to 7 PM (versus 3 to 7 PM). This transitional approach has been discussed with all impacted Cûuncil ûffices and a task fûíce of various Neighborhood Council representatives who were receptive to the new strategy and who indicated that they would inform their respective Neighborhood Council boards.

Another measure that can be considered for future City Council action would be to modify the availability of time limit parking in preferential parking districts adjacent to Pi co Boulevard. In Preferential Parking Districts 85 (Council District 5), 119 (Council District 5), and 129 (Council District 10), the restriction is "2 Hour Parking 8 AM to 6 PM, The Honorable City Council 5 February 5, 2008 Operation of Olympic and Pico CF 07-1199

No Parking All Other Times". Modification of this restriction to allow parking "7 AM to 7 PM..." could provide an option for peak period restrictions during the 7 to 10 AM (or 7 to 9 AM) and 3 to 7 PM (or 4 to 7 PM) hours.

Another measure that can be considered for future action would be to establish more public off-street parking lots or structures. The best opportunities for developing additional parking would be when several properties are being considered for redevelopment. At that time, DOT would actively discuss joint development opportunities with the developer and the affected Council Ofice.

Communitv Outreach

Since the initial hearing on this matter before the Transportation Committee on December 3, 2007, DOT staff has made presentations at the following community outreach meetings, as shown below:

_."' Date Community Group Location

12-3-07 South of Robertson Organization (SORO) Hamilton High School Neighborhood Council 12-12-07 South Carthay Neighborhood Association Temple Beth Am

12-13-07 Westside Neighborhood Council Board Westside Pavilon

12-18-07 CD-5 Traffic Task Force (2 meetings - Robertson Recreation business and community leaders) Center 12-19-07 Multi-Neighborhood Council Task Force Palms/Rancho Park Library

1-2-08 Multi- Neighborhood Council Task Force West Los Angeles Library

1-8-08 Century City Chamber of Commerce Century Plaza Hotel

1-9-08 CD-11 Task Force i Daniel Webster Middle Sch.

1-14-08 Westside Neighborhood Council , Temple Isaiah 1-15-08 Mid City West Community Council Committee 543 N. Fairfax Avenue

1-23-08 Multi- Neighborhood Council Task Force West Los Angeles Municipal Building 1-30-08 Multi- Neighborhood Council Task Force West Los Angeles Municioal Buildino 2-12-08 CD-5 Open House Robertson Recreation Center The Honorable City Council 6 February 5, 2008 Operation of Olympic and Pico CF 07-1199

These 13 meetings were in addition to the 14 community outreach meetings in which DOT participated regarding the Yaroslavsky proposal in April through July 2007. The Yaroslavsky proposal assumed uniform and continuous peak period parking restrictions.

It is noted that these 13 additional meetings included interested residents and businesses. However, the nature of the community groups tended not to include those stakeholders concerned about City-wide mobility. At the meetings, DOT heard concerns regarding how the changes in traffic operation might impact local streets. In addition, many persons expressed concerns over business viability with peak period parking restrictions. The large meetings served as an opportunity for residents to express a wide range of traffic, land development, and community concerns. The smaller multi-neighborhood council task force meetings of ten persons or less were more productive, since it allowed an interactive dialogue and a search for mitigations to expressed concerns.

Business Outreach

As mentioned earlier, business owners and representatives expressed concerns over the potential impact of the parking restrictions on the viability of the various businesses along Pi co Boulevard. The Mayor's Office of Housing & Economic Development, with support from the affected Council Offices and DOT, has committed to work with the businesses in the area to address parking requirements. The Mayor's LA Business Team will host meetings specific to local businesses and chambers of commerce along Pico Boulevard to inform the of attendees of government resources available to help the businesses grow, facilitate communication among stakeholders for shared parking opportunities, and ensure the responsiveness of the City to their requests during this transitional period.

Attachments

JEF:je C:\Document and Seings\42\My Documeri\JFjsher\OIYiiic & Pico2008\OIympic&Pic CF 07-1199 2-5-08.do FIGURE 1 OLYMPIC - PICO CORRIDOR AM PEAK HOUR PARKING BEVERLY HILLS \ LEGEND o o OLYMPIC/PICO BLVD ~, ~, ~ m m MAJOR/SECONDARY STREET o ------~ COLLECTOR/LOCAL STREET ~ ~ ------CITY BOUNDARY w H w, :u EXISTING RESTRICTIONS m OLYMPIC II BLVD ~ PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ~""""'J EXISTING ANTI-GRIDLOCK ZONE PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION ,

S5! "1'" 12 ~

"If

SANTA MONICA FW

CULVER CITY NlTIDSC¡ FIGURE 2 OLYMPIC - PICO CORRIDOR PM PEAK HOUR PARKING BEVERLY HILLS \ LEGEND o 0 OLYMPIC/PICO BLVD ~ ~ ~ MAJOR/SECONDARY STREET o COLLECTOR/LOCAL STREET ~ ~" z , ~ ~ -----I~ _. - - CITY BOUNDARY ~ ~ 'U ~ ~ r- ~ EXISTING RESTRICTIONS . o. ' OLYMPIC II BLVD ~ PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS k,,",," 'J EXISTING ANTI-GRIDLOCK ZONE PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

~ "' ~

SANTA MONICA CULVER CITY NOTTOSC LATX FIGURE 3 Moving LA Forward CITY OF LOS ANGELES ANTI-GRIDLOCK ZONES .

1 "\ -, \,I-" ~-"'iI~), ¡ '\\ (

"1,/-"'-""'-"" " " ? ..r , (ì)\~ 'fj/~( ; r ¡,'",,- ; It¿,/. "\ \ "l N -l , ./,t:,~k~~;~i, j./. j --' -'-'~----i '-

- ~!

LeQend

ESideLine t'- N Side Line SSideLine J/ WSideLine II BNS Both N-S Lines _ SEW Both E.W Lines , Freways Major Strets Seondary Streets W+E MinorSlrets

E -. Q ..:: m W .. )- W ~~ WoZ CI :: I- z . In -W i. In C) :: (J i. c( (J 'I ! cc a. c( In a. W~CC In In ai ai .. ..:: -i- :: cc W a. (J C)a.! ~ i.- - QI- Q :: i. Z In Q ""oZ-W i. ai CJ ~ ..i. ~~ ~o~ :E cc ai w"" a. Q. :E :: a. m.. CJ -a. :E ..)- o- -. Q ..~ m ~~~ Ow I- ~ ~ C) Z~o I- - ff tn C) W CJ W .~z~ a.ic CJic .., - ca tn a. w~ca tn tn ai ~ .. :: l- :)D.W .. - ~a. i.2 £!Q! :: w La 0 I- ~ tn Q w ai-z w w CJ ~~~ D. ::

~oca ai w La a. . :: Q D. ..~ m o CJ- -D. -. .. r I~I Q .L s 03¿, rrtl 8 ~7 , I r2 ;: ~ cil .. - ~ .. a 1\1 mN31:: a: 0: I- Cl CI l- l- :i CI ~~ li I 0: OW ~ rJ 1 I- Z ~ z !! ~ 3/Vllc'H J Wu 31\ v.u.

èlc, 3Nèln08~3YS ;:z cc tn - .. '. W tn C) 0 s a~0=la38 r t: iS a~0.:a38 U W c: U Z I- lS ( èlO.: CD _ . LS -lVOaNVN3HS it A. c: , S HVoaNvN3H, tn A. W ~ ai tn tn /.n¡ 0 lS HyoaNV ai ai Q p ~31S00M,t Q (; :: l- :: cc )- r¡ lS ~3lS00M A... -~ C)D.z ,~ r- lS ~3iSO( i: u. :i .." ~ PS.lè:380~ Q :: W LL-QW 0 :z i- Z tn Q 1š l: Q Ii Ii Ii W -0 !:$:. ~a of )I~V~:t 0 '0ãf r ~§5 'f t= :z.. 2 ff Q :i -- 0 Ü F" ~ ~~I~I'" ~~~ D. :E $:- "- ;; c% ü ). l;. ~o - 3/W VINOI\Il CC ai 3JVVINOrll / W LL ~a ~33'!~I.tlB~ .~ ,i L.l _ ~~S=èlJ l:G lS3èj~ a. . èla lS3~:: ~a ls3~:D ).a1S3~:: :E Q ~ D. ~ ~. ie3J .V i- 0ÐN'v~a ~ ).!i Alè:3, 11' -' en n ,. J == ~ ~ t - t; 3JV0l31=lN I~ -',,~ o 0: 8 \. a ~ ~a N3 oar-;: l:á AN3 oa u- ~ -D. ,.~ I / - ~ "'Ii :£A~S j\ l'A~~"-~' ~ :i:; èf Í'~ Ð A~n;: ¡; __ 0 A~Ô7:£~l_\~-,~ & .L ~& 0"-~'1 ~"§II&~ J./I~ ;:r 110I 5:'no""~~~ ~ ~ :£A~a'U "f--__ gr'" -. ~,-:; :£110_"'" '1~'V ~~ 110 "'I ii W ~, -Cl7& ..~,,~s00:£11 /l "l " "'~ +¡¡ ,I" 'no O:£Ðtv" ',-: _I~:iI-- ~ if Ifii.i 0 '-AV3~,.5oa. ~ :£~ :£110"". ~ ~ 1-- 0:.J li__ ~ , ic i -- ~ I==~, --,.~~~ W ,. J §.. in:; '~~ :~,& )- ai ~'~"'J1,,, ~I + a: 0o~ ai i: J 0:-- Av., o ic ,/,~r:~ ~Q"" ~,,~-~ L--~ 01l:£A07"~ I- .. ~J J. Ll '; æ" Zo .W. i'o . '- a ¡¡ ~'l ..:;I '" ': 'd~ ' ~ I- OA 7& ;~o:a. 7õÐOIIl -~ £ Fi f-~ __æ ..~ Z · !1A7&Ii:£SI)~'¡ ,. ~ % 1. -Q ~~~ I~ :i u t;r;~ ~,.~'" :o/I "- 11"'7.'",,"' J. L Z ,-: C) ~ '" ~ .. æ i: --~---i:"'~j¡--l~ J" Jl ~I,'" oA7& \ ~~ % W :. ic Slli)" !2a. .. ~ ~Co"j It.~o a , . ~\~Nn.. ,( ai ai C) '"~",o "'¿ :: ic W :£A~ , § 'b ~ì --: C)A.Z --;; a 10--- i'òîÐ"" "; f"~:£A~ :;&:;'VS.J,-- ~~""~S 77/- . : 1.0--QW " IIo--¡;..,,"'S "':;OÐO""1/ 01-- iV fi,.ÐNi(71) §; iV~oJs Ð""(71) _ CJ o "':;OÐO ' W. fi,I';'1 ai ic èf' -- a l.1 3AV3:£S:£"':;Ð ~v.,.~ O&Ð :;Ð/oo- -- fillO it "'30Ð 110 "':£~O ~O "'3~~ W.. tn A. :E W tn U W ~~~~II ,... OA.~- °llÐ f.'"~__ -- ~ ~ 3~ J.' '"J. 3Ð "'110 c: U ic:. ai0 a. c: W 1. . --"-- ""',,'., - 'I" EË2 r -, fi¡ """III~" ~ tn a. --0,'" '''IO~SJ. I is ~ ä¡ JJ", r.it ""'1~:. ~ tn tn D. . ì§/~~ "'Iaq-l LH :; l- -:""'b1 ~A;, __ 0 ~ ! J.S J.NIOq I~ .. - :E Q a. U ..1 - A. :: ~k,-.§ ~. ~lJ 'J.SA.IAJ.NiOoJ '" . a: i. .. . !.:;J.J."'~~-- 'Y;;s,:1i ~-- , ~.it ~ .L !j o :: W i: ~.a ~i i; ~1I\t SIIOSNII\tJ.S o!2 Z tn ci o t¡ Ðl:;J. 110 "'Ill~ W o C) ~ ,~s:;" J. W CJ- ;~ ,f¡o:~ i. 8 Wg:fi l. J. Cl~&SJ.lÐ'3~J. i2 . __il .. ~~ -A. . ..~~ 31VOON\~O ~ '-\ lá!-- ift," 1J. 'n,¡-,us:;, .. J. 'n'Aì1~-- J. Jã\ 1 -: :£IIOAll mNjlOVlL 7V ,/",,,1, "" _ t'~ fi-c,) t: '" § / ;i3VH'''¿-.., ..