SR-012709-8dCity Council Meeting: January 27, 2009
Agenda Item: ~-~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: .Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning & Community Development
Subject: Preliminary Concept Designs for the Ocean Park Boulevard streetscape
Project
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review the two proposed design alternatives for
the Ocean Park Boulevard streetscape project, and direct staff to proceed with
additional public participation, refinement of concepts and input from the Planning
Commission.
Executive Summary
This staff report summarizes the work to date on the Ocean Park Boulevard streetscape
project. Staff is returning with two design concepts for the City Council's review and
direction to refine both concepts through the public review process before returning to
the Council to approve the final design.
The. Ocean Park Boulevard streetscape project provides a range of enhancements to
Ocean Park Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and Neilson Way. The two concept
plans being presented to the City Council were developed through an extensive public
outreach process that has involved Ocean Park residents, business associations, the
School District, and community bicycle and. pedestrian advocates. Staff has also
involved other City departments to help identify and resolve key issues and concerns.
Materials for this project and a description of the public outreach can be found at the
project's website http://www01.smgov.net/planning/greenoceanparkblvdwest.html.
While both concept plans include bike lanes, street furnishings, pedestrian lighting, and
center medians, each alternative approaches the project from a unique design
perspective. Alternative A emphasizes separating the pedestrian from traffic by adding
.five feet of landscaped bioswales or parkway strips adjacent to the sidewalk along the
boulevard. Alternative B emphasizes enhancing .the visual beauty of Ocean Park
Boulevard by adding landscaped center medians that vary 12-20 feet in width, which
provide the opportunity for significant tree canopy in select locations. The medians will
also enhance safety and the pedestrian experience crossing Ocean Park Boulevard.
1
Alternative A, because of its inclusion of bioswales at the curbs throughout the length of
the street, introduces significant additional means to reduce urban runoff pollution from
storm water discharges into the Santa Monica Bay in comparison to Alternative B.
Based on Council direction, staff will review the proposals with the Planning
Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission before scheduling a final public
workshop in winter 2009. At that time, staff will provide the community with refined
drawings and detailed cost estimating for the purpose of identifying a preferred
alternative that is also feasible within-the current CIP funding. Following the public
workshop, final project cost estimates and environmental analysis will be completed
prior to returning to the Council to approve the preparation of bidding documents. This
project is also subject to review by the California Coastal Commission.
The current three year GIP includes $4.5 million for this project. Modifications to the
concept may be required to fit within current CIP funding. If the concept exceeds CIP
funding, Council will be offered options for providing additional funding and/or
modifications to reduce costs.
Background
The desire to enhance the character, scale and visual appearance of Ocean Park
Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and Neilson Way has been an identified
community priority for over a decade. Previous planning efforts that sought to transform
Ocean Park Boulevard from a major east/west traffic corridor into a more pedestrian
oriented street were popular within the community, but the projects were unfunded and
were ultimately abandoned. Most recently, however, during the "Placemaking" public
outreach series of the Land Use and Circulation Element. (LUCE) update, the Ocean
Park community rekindled an interest in reclaiming the street as a unifying public open
space forresidents, bicyclists and pedestrians.
In June, 2007, at the request of the Ocean Park community, Council directed -staff to
prepare a streetscape improvement plan that would also incorporate best practices in
sustainability. To that end, Urban Studio was selected to develop a conceptual design
and analysis for a single "refined" alternative in January 2008. This contract was later
modified. on July 23, 2008 to provide design development, cost estimates and traffic and
civil engineering analysis for an additional alternative.
2
Community Outreach
In collaboration with key City departments, staff and the consultant team have been
actively working with community stakeholders in the Ocean Park area to develop
concept plans that seek to improve the functional and aesthetic qualities of Ocean Park
Boulevard. Over 4,000 invitations were mailed to residents and business members to
announce two community workshops. The first workshop was held at John
Muir/SMASH Elementary School on March 3, 2008, and drew over 60 participants
interested in exploring the range of issues, concerns and general ideas surrounding the
Boulevard. Through a variety of interactive exercises and a facilitated discussion, the
participahts' ideas were synthesized into the following objectives and expectations:
Increase pedestrian and vehicular safety;
^ Reduce noise caused by higher vehicle speeds along the corridor;
^ Enhance landscaping and green connections;
^ Create safer bike paths;
Provide more pedestrian crossings; and
^ Bring the "park" back into Ocean Park through sustainability measures.
At a second community workshop held on April 23, 2008, three alternative approaches
were presented that addressed the desired outcomes. Of the three directions
presented, the community indicated a preference for two, which are the subject of this
report. The third direction included aClass Igrade-separated bike lane, but did not
garner strong support from participants. The two remaining concepts present distinct
strategies for meeting the desired outcomes.
At the two community workshops that have been held to date, residents, business owners, community bike
and pedestrian advocates have provided essential input and have collaborated with staff and consultants fo
author two concept designs.
3
Discussion
The project area is located along
nine blocks of Ocean Park
Boulevard between. Lincoln
Boulevard and Neilson Way, and
includes over a half mile of
vehicular right-of-way, more than
6,000 linear feet of pedestrian
sidewalks, as well as the 4ih Street
overpass and several pocket
parks. As a crowned street, Ocean
Park Boulevard sheds storm water
to a network of curbside gutters, which drain into a subsurface catchment system that is
serviced by the Santa Monica Reuse Facility (SMRF) before being deposited into the
Santa Monica Bay.
In general, Ocean Park Boulevard is among the widest streets in Santa Monica,
typically stretching 64 feet from curb-to-curb, and accommodating one lane of traffic in
either direction. However,. because of changing topography, interfaces with north/south
cross-streets, Big Blue Bus stops and private driveway entrances, the street's curb-to-
curb width varies greatly along the project area from 52 feet to 75 feet. Sidewalks
widths, too, are irregular, fluctuating between 6 feet and 8 feet, and accommodate tree
wells that contain 12-year old Cassia trees. As a result of these conditions, each block
must be individually analyzed, taking into account a set of static design criteria as well
as site-specific variables that affect sidewalk width, open space, and landscaping.
4
In developing alternatives for this project, it was necessary to define a set of design
criteria to guide the creative process. Planning staff and the consultant team met with
staff from Fire, Police, Community Maintenance, Engineering, Environmental Programs,
Big Blue Bus, Solid Waste, and the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District and
identified the following constraints:
Design Constraints
1. Emergency vehicle access. The design must provide a minimum 20 feet width in
both directions to allow emergency and bus apparatus to move around traffic.
Center medians must break at least every 150 feet to allow emergency vehicles
to cross into opposite lanes;
2. Parking. The concept design needs to approach parking from a variety of
standpoints including access and parking. to Main Street and the beach, and
resident parking;
3. Big Blue Bus. The design must provide 180 feet of uninterrupted transition
length at each bus stop;
4. School security. The design must maintain the security fence at Olympic High
School;
5. Operations. Accessibility for City operations such as street sweeping, solid
waste collection, utility access and landscape/tree maintenance must be
maintained.
Through extensive field study and geographic analysis, opportunities along the
Boulevard were identified that have the potential to improve the look, feel and function
of the street. The following opportunities are addressed by each alternative concept
design:
5
Ocean Park Boulevard is characterized by narrow sidewalks, underutilized public spaces and a wide
right of way that limits neighborhood connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Design Opportunities
1. Crossings. Opportunity to create improved neighborhood connections at
strategic intersections through crosswalk installations or improvements;
2. Urban runoff. Opportunity to enhance storm water retention by incorporating a
range of sustainability measures such as bioswales, infiltration pits -and
landscaped medians with tree canopies;
3. Bike lanes. Opportunity to promote non-vehicular circulation by providing a
cohesive network of 6 feet wide Class II bicycle lanes,
4. Open space. Opportunity to maximize greenway through reprogramming of
existing pocket parks, and by enhancing pedestrian space at the sidewalk; and
5. Views of the Pacific Ocean. Opportunity to create a significant viewpoint at the
4~h Street overpass.
Based on these opportunities and constraints and on extensive community input during
the public workshops, two draft alternatives have been developed.
Alternative A
~ ~ .. ~~' sG. tF-
~ '
i .;
` ~ - ' - = ~~
~, ,~
~~ ~'~ ~''v B i
.t~a""^-~~.
`-"'"
5 ft. Sidewalk EMensions `~ ~' ~ °, ~:"
' (biosavales or parkway) Landscaped f~e~'ns-;~---b,~ '~"~ `"'8 °' ' - ' "' `s S°'-Y-0'
Average 10 ft. width, 96ft. length ~.~n~ ~°-~
Alternative A emphasizes enhancing the pedestrian space through a combination of
physical changes to the street and the installation of new street furnishings like
pedestrian lighting, benches, bike racks and trash receptacles. This .option will widen
almost 2000 feet of sidewalk at specific locations, and incorporates landscaped
bioswales adjacen# to the curb to buffer the pedestrian from vehicular traffic.
Pedestrian-oriented light poles are proposed at 60 foot intervals to supplement the
existing lighting system. A wider Class II bike lane will provide cyclists with 6 feet of
right of way on either side of the street, and new bike racks will be located at key
6
intersections, pocket parks; bus stops and schools. New trash receptacles are also
proposed.
Landscaped Center Median
Alternative A provides seven landscaped medians that are an average 10 feet in width and 96 feet
long. Alternative A also includes 4 foot sidewalk extensions to provide additional space at the sidewalk
and to move cars further away from property lines.
A limited number of landscaped center medians (7) will be provided along the Boulevard
to calm traffic and to provide acharacter-defining feature for the street. Some of the
proposed medians will abut existing crosswalks, and will provide a refuge halfway
across the street for pedestrians. Additional opportunities to provide new crosswalks
between 6t" Street and Lincoln Boulevard at Highland Avenue and 7t" Street .are being
explored for feasibility. Alternative A also proposes modest changes to physical barriers
that enforce turn restrictions for motorists, such as curb extensions. and "pork chops,"
and incorporates enhanced signage to facilitate safe vehicular and pedestrian
movements:
Alternative B
~ ~ Sk
:.
- R*<]
za
v as Izv to~v iiv a~m r m
aw
7
..A
RLTEpNpi1YEAAtl pfetlh Th OPBT kF c_G_n sPla_n a~~s
xcwv~vxeownnnpnaenx~vEwrwrexumwaccr J ..
Alternative B emphasizes reducing the scale of Ocean Park Boulevard through the
extensive installation of wide landscaped medians (15 medians that combine to total
more than 1500 feet in length). Like Alternative A, this option also includes the
installation of wider Class II bike lanes in both directions, and new street furnishings
including pedestrian lighting, benches, bike racks and trash receptacles. Alternative B
also proposes the same modest changes to physical barriers as Alternative A that
channel vehicular movements, and signage that enhances safe use of the street by
pedestrians and motorists alike.
Medians have the potential to calm traffic and reduce accidents at conflict points, while
also enhancing the character of the street by converting a significant portion of asphalt
into. a green open space amenity. Wide medians also have the potential to capture
rainwater and reintroduce it back into the ground. As is the condition in Alternative A,
some of the medians proposed by Alternative B will abut existing crosswalks, which
provide a clear benefit to pedestrians crossing the street. Again; additional
opportunities to provide new crosswalks, particularly in the stretch between 6~h Street
and Lincoln Boulevard, are being explored.
Alternative 8 provides extra wide medians that average 14 feet in width and 105 feet in length. Large
medians such as those that are proposed have the potential to provide a larger tree canopy. Medians
also calm traffic and provide refuge for crossing pedestrians.
Comparison of Two Alternatives
The .two concept alternatives present distinct approaches to realizing the goals of the
project. Preliminary civil engineering analysis reveals the strengths and weaknesses of
8
each concept, and also raises important policy questions that should be considered
before moving to the next phase of work.
Alternative A
• 7 landscaped center medians that
total over 650 linear feet. Average
10 feet in width and 96 feet in
length. Largest median is 14 feet
wide
^ 13 Sidewalk extensions (bioswales
or parkway strips) of 4-5 feet that
total almost 2000 linear feet
• Trees in center medians and
sidewalks or parkway
• Class II 6 feet wide in-street bike
lanes (east/west).
® New signalized crosswalk
opportunities at Highland Ave. and
7cn Street
• 15 landscaped center medians that
total over 1500 linear feet. Average
14 feet in width and 105 feet in
length. Largest median is 20 feet
wide
^ 2 Sidewalk extensions {bioswales
or parkway strips) of 4-5 feet that
total almost 250 linear feet
• Trees in center medians (trees in
existing sidewalks is currently being
explored)
• (Class II 6 feet wide in-street bike
lanes (east/west).
• New signalized crosswalk
opportunities at Highland Ave. and
7t" Street
• New or additional pedestrian
Lighting
^ New curbs and physical barriers
("pork chops") that restrict vehicular
turning movements
• Higher estimated cost compared
to Alternative B. Detailed cost
estimates are still being developed
^ Nevv or additional pedestrian
Lighting
^ New curbs and physical barriers
("pork chops") that restrict vehicular
turning movements
• Lower estimated. cost compared
to Alternative A. Detailed cost
estimates are still being developed
9
Alternative A includes a modest number of landscaped medians and numerous
sidewalk extensions in the form of landscaped bioswales or parkway strips that affect
nearly 2000 linear feet of sidewalk, which provide desirable pedestrian. and
sustainability benefits. While additional greening and landscaping of the Boulevard in
Alternative A will reduce more storm water runoff than in Alternative B, the long-term
functionality and maintenance costs of bioswales need to 6e considered. Adding new
landscaped area to the Boulevard is proposed in both alternatives, but the ongoing
maintenance costs associated with Alternative A is expected to be greater due to more
intense landscaping"and installation requirements.
Since it is critical to maintain traffic lanes that can accommodate buses and emergency
vehicles, a choice must be made between increasing the sidewalk. and parkway width
and widening the center medians. The number, length and width of the medians
proposed in Alternative A are much .less than in Alternative B, and the difference
between their size and scale is notable: Alternative A's medians average 10 feet in
width, 96 feet in length, and total approximately 650 feet in combined linear length.
Alternative B's medians average 14 feet in width, 105 feet in length, and total
approximately 1500 feet in combined linear length.
Alternative B's larger landscaped medians result in a very limited amount of sidewalk
extensions and fewer bioswales or parkway strips. Because the street is crowned at the
center, Alternative B's rainwater capture is mainly limited to the area of the new
medians.
Early draft estimates of construction costs show that both Alternative A and Alternative
B are feasible projects that do not exceed the $4.5 million CIP budget. It is anticipated
that Alternative A will be the more expensive option because of greater construction
costs associated with sidewalk widening, new curb and gutters and landscaped
parkways.
10
Additional Public Outreach and Next Steps
Based on input and direction from Council, staff will continue to refine the concepts
presented in the two design alternatives. This phase of work will also involve continued
interdepartmental collaboration to ensure. compliance with the design criteria and
adopted City policies. Both alternatives will be presented to the Ocean Park community
at a future public workshop this winter with the intent to identify a community preferred
concept design. At that time, staff will return to Council with the preferred concept
design, cost estimates, traffic analysis and recommendations for approval to prepare
construction bid documents.
Environmental Analysis
Staff is currently reviewing both concept designs for conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because both concepts involve the minor alteration
of an existing street and sidewalk facility that do not have a significant effect on the
environment or on the flow of traffic, it is anticipated that the concepts will be
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In addition, the proposed project
will have beneficial environmental effects as the quantity of storm water runoff will be
reduced and improved in quality before being discharged into the Santa Monica Bay.
Financial Impacts & Budget Options
The current three year CIP includes $4.5 million for design and construction of the
proposed improvements. Staff will also evaluate the potential increased maintenance
costs associated with the improvements prior to construction. Updated estimates will be
made when the concept plan is nearing finalization, and modifications to the concept
may be required to fit within current CIP funding. If the concept. exceeds the CIP
funding, Council will be provided options for additional funding or modification of the
concept:
Prepared by:
Peter D. James, Associate Planner, Planning and Community Development
11
Approved:
~~
Eileen Fogarty
Director
Planning & Community Development
Department
Forwarded to Council:
City MJanager
12
ATTACHMENT A
Plan View Examples: Alternatives A and B
13
It~rnativ
if
~~ ~~
r~~~
~~ ~'~;~
~~
,~+~
~~
--=-
_-__
t
+ir ~~ J~lf ~ ?,
,r--
~rl~ ~+
~___'
t---~
r
__r
~~ I~
~; ~~
~~-
~~
~~
,~
;Q
I~~rnativ
~~~ ~
G` , i
p ~ If
9 ~
h
)+II I~I
~I
JJff~'
l ~
~_
B
~-- ~~
~a -
~~ ----
,
1~
~~ ~~ ~l j
~`,~
~, .
t ,
1 ~~
1 j
L____,
~~~ ~~
!,__
! ~ ~
r
)fff 1 _
1
~
I~
~ ~
J ~
~~ ~
~ i
i
t
~i ~! ~~ ~ ~
11
~
(1
!l
L j
~ 1j
7 ~
;11 ,~ -~_
,
,
_
~
~~~
,r~.
;~
ATTACHMENT B
Cross Section Examples: Alternative A and B
14
Alternative A
2'-0.. 2'-0"
T-0" 5'-0"' 6'-0" f 12'-0" 1 Q'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0" 5._~"' 7'-0"
74'-0"
__
Alternative B
2'-0..
~ _ x
20'-0"
74'-0"
2'-Q° ''
~~ _~
ATTACHMENT C
Overview of Schematic Concept Designs: Alternative A and B
15
®~ .°
a~
®~
~~.~~ ®~
~.~.,~~d~.~~ .,.
~.e
° a,.~ ~ .~..~,~~ ~~
~' _
~
~
~e ~~
Pe
~~.a~
~
~
~~
,~.~~,., ~ ,
~ ,mea
~ ~
"
~
..
re,~ ,
~o.m
.~~ .M~~o,emaFl
~.~a
~.~,
o~,.e~Ma~
~~a~
b,o~m,
.~~P~.~ ~ ; ~ ,
.a~ d,.,~.
~,Fl a ~ ~~a
e~,o,~a~.a
w~ :° ~~~ •~ i"
" ~
o wa
ro~
e ~~o-w vervwm.
vv
~ .. ,.~ ,~i~°m
~
~
~ ~ ~ }~ i,
~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ [ ~ ' ~
:i,
':~ .':~ f ~ ~
' F~l i
:~.7 ~ ~E:.. ~'' ~.:.a I c' i Q 7.. s.i ~
®,~
®~"
ALTERNATIVE B: Maximize Medians & Consequent Curb Space
OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE B: Maximize Medians & Consequent Curb Space
OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
-aew~re,ow~s~s~~~:
N
O 0 IU 130 (eet
~~60