TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Marisa Lundstedt, Community Development Director
Nhung Madrid, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT:Title
Downtown Specific Plan Project Update and Next Steps (Community Development Director Lundstedt).
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the Downtown Specific Plan Project update and provide direction for the preparation of the Administrative Draft Specific Plan.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report summarizes the Downtown Specific Plan’s progress to date, which includes the following:
• Outreach and engagement efforts that have been completed thus far;
• A recap on the outcome of Study Session #1 where the City Council provided direction to the project team on design strategies and concepts;
• A summary analysis of the feedback received at Community Workshop #2;
• The Advisory Committee’s recommendations for incorporating the feedback into the Administrative Draft Specific Plan; and
• How to incorporate City Council’s feedback into the Administrative Draft Specific Plan.
Based on the input received on the items mentioned above, the project team is seeking direction from City Council for preparation of the Administrative Draft Specific Plan.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No fiscal impact at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Since June 2014, the community has been engaged in an ongoing discussion of the future of Downtown. The community has provided a tremendous amount of time, input and feedback through dozens of outlets including City Council meetings, Commission meetings, workshops, stakeholder interviews, and the City’s newest public engagement platform, Open City Hall. Attachment 1 provides a detailed summary of the outreach and community engagement efforts the City has undertaken since commencement of the Downtown Specific Plan project, which kicked-off in May 2015 with Michael Baker International (MBI), the Consultant hired to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan.
In addition to those outreach activities summarized in Attachment 1, the project team has engaged in several stakeholder and focus group discussions. The project team has met and still continues to interact with several key stakeholder groups, along with groups that share common interests in the Downtown to discuss the ideas and preferences for physical changes, additional and/or revised regulations and guidelines for future development, as well as economic development strategies to help maintain and enhance the Downtown’s small town character and economic viability.
These discussions build upon the stakeholder outreach that took place during the ULI visioning week activities in January 2015. Because a wealth of information was received through the initial ULI interviews, the discussions with the groups have focused on delving deeper into the important questions facing the Downtown’s future. The individuals that have participated in the discussions represent a broad cross-section of the community, including Downtown and citywide residents, members of the Downtown Business and Professional Association and the Manhattan Beach Commercial Property Owners Association, local merchants and business owners, realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and Cultural Arts Commissioners.
Moreover, the project team has been collaborating with the Downtown Specific Plan Advisory Committee since inception of the project to listen to their impressions of the Downtown area, feedback on project deliverables, including the Specific Plan document, and public outreach activity and workshop results. To date, the Advisory Committee has met on three occasions, and at their most recent meeting on November 17, the members shared their impressions of Workshop #2 results and final perspective on the Draft Plan content. The Advisory Committee input has also been incorporated into the discussion contained within this staff report.
City Council Study Session #1
On October 20, 2015, the project team presented an overview of Workshop #1 and workshop outcomes to the City Council. The Council directed the project team to move forward and/or further explore the following design strategies and concepts summarized below.
Downtown Development
Participants were asked for their preferences pertaining to maximum building height, as well as the mix of ground floor commercial uses and retail tenants on Manhattan Beach Boulevard and elsewhere in Downtown. The public preference was in favor of the following:
• Two-story maximum building height limit in the Downtown (existing requirement in most of the Downtown Commercial District)
• More retail/restaurants on the ground floor
• Balance of local retailers vs. chains (which all must fit the scale and character of the Downtown)
Opportunity Sites
The ULI Study recommended four downtown locations for specific development opportunities to help Downtown maintain its market viability, increase parking, provide space for start-ups, and improve the Downtown’s vitality. Of the four sites, participants were asked to identify their top preferred sites which resulted in the Vons Site and the Skechers Office Building Site (228 Manhattan Beach Boulevard) ranked highest.
Parking Strategies
Participants were asked to select their top three of the eight parking strategies that were either included in the ULI study or developed by the project team. The City Council directed the project team to continue to explore all viable solutions to reduce impact on residents such as employee parking, managing existing parking supply, and increase biking options.
Functional Alternatives
Participants were asked to select a preferred strategy for implementing a mobility and/or urban design recommendation posed by the ULI study. Council directed the team to pursue the public preference on direction of minimal change to the transportation network in the Downtown area.
Visual Preference Survey
Participants were asked to select streetscape amenities and a preferred style. The public preference is for the Specific Plan to provide options for a custom furniture and amenities palette to reflect Manhattan Beach’s unique style, artistic culture and history.
Mobility Trade-offs
Participants were asked to consider modifications to the streetscape to better accommodate alternative modes of transportation and parking. Modifications included the following options:
• Converting public parking spaces on Manhattan Beach Boulevard if other on-street parking was provided nearby
• Converting parking spaces to create mid-block crosswalks and provide curb space for bike racks, public plazas, and streetscapes
• Converting streets to one-way streets, then converting the extra width to parking spaces/public amenities
• Partial street closures close to the Pier to create specialty parking and public spaces
City Council directed the project team to pursue the public’s preference regarding minimal change to the transportation network and to explore all viable solutions that do not dramatically change the streetscape.
DISCUSSION:
With the Downtown Specific Plan project being an iterative process, each outreach and community engagement activity serves the purpose of informing the next step in the process. The project team received clear direction from the City Council on how to move forward with all topics that were presented at Workshop #1, as mentioned above. The City Council also provided direction to the project team to further explore other viable options (see Parking Strategies), which requires additional community input to further refine possible solutions. Several of these possible solutions were presented to the community for input at Workshop #2 which is discussed below.
Workshop #2 Overview
On November 16, the project team held Workshop #2 as a part of that continued engagement with the community to answer questions about the project and solicit input on possible solutions and strategies for preserving and enhancing the Downtown’s small beach town character.
The format of the workshop included five interactive stations and input was received through a small group rotation station exercise. During each activity, participants were asked to provide input through voting which was followed by a brief discussion on their rationale for how they voted. Participants were also encouraged to write their comments on the station’s posters and/or a separate worksheet. Attachment 2 provides a detailed summary of the each station’s voting preferences and transcription of all public comments received at the workshop that were either written directly on the station posters, on a post-it note affixed to the poster, or via comment cards.
Workshop #2 Results and Advisory Committee Recommendations
This section summarizes the community’s feedback received during Workshop #2, the Advisory Committee’s recommendations, and clarifying questions to City Council. The questions below are intended to provide the consultant team with the direction needed to incorporate the appropriate solutions and strategies into the Administrative Draft Specific Plan. The feedback, recommendations, and questions to City Council are organized by each workshop station.
Station 1: Parking Improvements and Mobility & Infrastructure
Station 1 included two posters: Parking Improvements and Mobility & Infrastructure. For the Parking Improvements poster which provided five parking strategies, participants were asked to vote for their one most and one least preferred parking improvement strategy within and around the Downtown.
Workshop Outcomes:
Parking Improvements:
• Participants responded most favorably to managing employee parking and (better) utilizing existing parking lots and structures. While the Advisory Committee did not dedicate much time to these recommendations, several committee members did express concerns with requiring staff to park remotely.
• While many participants supported providing additional parking supply through the construction of parking structures, almost as many participants selected this as their least preferred option. Consistent with previous outreach activities, those in opposition to expanding the Downtown’s parking supply are generally concerned about how the additional parking will attract more visitors to the district, which would neutralize the benefit of the additional parking, and thus not result in any added benefit.
• Participants responded least favorably to increasing turnover of vehicles (demand pricing) because of the opposition to paying more for the service.
• Providing a City operated valet program received the least number of votes and input was divided. The Advisory Committee generally supports the recommendation as an efficient method to better accommodate the Downtown’s numerous users, including families residing in the City and users who wish to spend longer than a couple of hours in the district. Several Advisory Committee members emphasized the importance of providing valet stands in locations that minimize impacts on Downtown residents. Queue lines of four to five cars waiting at a stand are not considered desirable.
Mobility and Infrastructure
• For the Mobility and Infrastructure poster, participants were asked to vote for their three most preferred solutions out of the five available solutions. All of the solutions received considerable support; and the Advisory Committee recommended that all of the solutions be incorporated into the Specific Plan. This is reflective of the community’s support for accommodating alternative modes of transportation with the Downtown, provided the implementation of the recommendations doesn’t significantly reduce the on-street automobile parking capacity. Workshop participants and Advisory Committee members voiced the desire to implement technology improvements that measure and display “available number of parking spaces” signs provided that the signs do not further perpetuate the perceived visual clutter of the Downtown’s existing municipal signage.
City Council Questions:
1. Does the City Council support incorporating the recommendation of managing employee parking and (better) utilizing existing parking lots and structures in the Specific Plan?
2. Does the City Council support incorporating longer range possibilities to increase parking supply (as in possible structures in Downtown) in the Specific Plan?
3. Does the City Council concur with the community’s input and direct the project team to omit strategies for instituting demand pricing at Downtown meters to encourage turnover in the Specific Plan?
4. Does the City Council support omitting the recommendation to provide a City operated valet program or continue to explore expansion and management of the valet program as a parking solution in the Specific Plan?
5. Given that all of the proposed solutions received considerable support, does the City Council support incorporating all of the mobility and infrastructure solutions recommendations in the Specific Plan? These recommendations include the following:
a. Add technology improvements that measure and display “available number of spaces” signs at parking structures and entrances.
b. Create shuttle / valet / rideshare drop-off areas to encourage use of employee shuttles and ridesharing, without impacting flow of traffic.
c. Install bike racks and bike parking corrals throughout Downtown to accommodate bikeshare and regular bike parking needs.
d. Encourage walking by improving pedestrian walkways and crossings through the use of a four-way / diagonal pedestrian crossings (scrambles), warning signs, signals, lighting, etc.
e. Encourage biking by improving / adding bike facilities such as Sharrows, bike lanes, and buffered / protected bike lanes.
Station 2: Public Spaces and Walkways
For the Public Spaces and Walkways poster, participants were asked to vote for their three most preferred recommendations out of the five solutions presented. While widespread support appears to exist for the solutions presented, there was also a minority of workshop participants that support making no changes to Downtown’s public spaces and walkways. Although this was not included as an option at the station, staff felt inclined that it be noted within the report.
Workshop Outcomes:
• While all of the solutions received some support, those solutions that addressed the provision of additional pedestrian spaces and other improvements to existing bulb-outs were most popular. Consistent with the results recorded for the Mobility and Infrastructure activity, the community supports accommodating additional and improved pedestrian space and the accommodation of alternative modes of transportation within the Downtown, provided the implementation of these solutions does not greatly reduce the Downtown’s on-street parking supply. Many Advisory Committee members also support these solutions on the basis that they will improve the Downtown’s sidewalks’ function and appearance, and contribute to the district and the City’s cultural identity.
• The placement of patterned/colored paving at the Beachhead/Pier received the least amount of support. Based upon the Advisory Committee’s reaction to this solution, the community may be concerned about the use of bright colors in prominent locations, such as the Beachhead site, that would draw unnecessary attention to the street and away from the pier, the beach, and the ocean. A more neutral, earth tone palette would likely be more palatable.
City Council Questions:
1. Does the City Council support incorporating all of the public spaces and walkways recommendations in the Specific Plan? These recommendations include the following:
a. Create additional mid-block crossing and pedestrian spaces (i.e., small plazas, seating areas, and locations for kiosks, trash receptacles, and newspaper stands, etc.)
b. Improve existing sidewalk bulb-outs (extensions) and turn under-utilized planting and / or furniture areas into pedestrian spaces.
c. Enhance the beach plaza and sidewalk on the south side of Manhattan Beach Bopulevard west of Ocean Drive by removing on-street parking and replacing it with bike storage, seating, planting areas, and enhanced paving.
d. Add patterned / colored paving to call attention to the pier at the intersection of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and the pier.
e. Reconfigure on-street parking at select locations to create additional pedestrian space.
Station 3: Public Art, Design Character, & Wayfinding
For the Public Art, Design Character, & Wayfinding poster, participants were asked to vote for their three most preferred solutions out of five solutions presented. While all of the solutions received votes, some solutions were more popular than others as noted in the workshop outcomes. In addition to the solutions presented at the workshop, several workshop participants and Advisory Committee members expressed considerable support for undergrounding the Downtown’s remaining above ground utilities.
Workshop Outcomes:
• The intensification of regular maintenance efforts and installation of character-enhancing street lights that provide for pedestrian safety received widespread support. Many participants also supported upgrading improvements at major intersections and investing in highly useable streetscape furnishings. Public art and wayfinding signage received the least amount of support. A few of the community’s comments did however, reference that the Downtown is already beset by excessive and inconsistent signage that has created visual clutter.
• As a possible additional solution, workshop participants and Advisory Committee members expressed considerable support for undergrounding the Downtown’s remaining above ground utilities.
City Council Questions:
1. Does the City Council support incorporating all of the Public Art, Design Character, & Wayfinding signs solutions into the Specific Plan? These solutions include the following:
a. Upgrading improvements at major intersections
b. Invest in highly used streetscape furnishings
c. Engage local artists to create public art that expresses the identity of Manhattan Beach and provides historical context and education
d. Provide signage that identifies public destinations and reflects / promotes the identity of the beachside community (in conjunction with the City wayfinding plan).
e. Intensify regular maintenance efforts to address poor plant health, pedestrian repairs, cleaning and upkeep of waste receptacles.
f. Install street lights designed to reflect the small town beach character and enhance pedestrian safety.
2. Does the City Council support the Specific Plan addressing the underground of remaining above ground utilities into the Specific Plan?
Station 4: Building Design & Character and Private Space Design
Station 4 included two posters: Building Design & Character and Private Space Design. For the Building Design & Character poster, participants were asked to vote for three out of the seven character defining building elements that they most prefer for the Downtown. The elements received fairly even support. Several conclusions can be drawn from these responses:
Workshop Outcomes:
Building Design & Character
• The participant’s widely support the use and design of building elements that will perpetuate the district’s low scale and small beach town character. Most participants said they loved the eclectic styles of Downtown buildings and wanted to maintain the building variety. Participants also support incorporating building elements that will activate street-facing facades. Some participants support using elements in the manner consistent with the building’s architectural style and to perpetuate the diversity of styles present in the Downtown. Other participants expressed a preference for encouraging and/or requiring elements that are relatively less expensive to incorporate.
Private Space Design (outdoor dining options)
• For the Private Space Design poster, participants responded most favorably to the movable front facades that open up private property dining onto the street. The next two options of providing setbacks/courtyards on private property and sidewalk seating/dining both received substantial support, although concerns were expressed that sidewalk dining should not limit pedestrian access as is the case in some areas currently. Providing balcony dining received limited support from the participants as there was a concern that this type of outdoor dining could generate noise impacts.
City Council Questions:
1. Does the City Council support incorporating Building Design and Character elements and other elements that help achieve the community preferences for design character, in the Specific Plan?
2. Does the City Council support incorporating all of the Outdoor Dining solutions (sidewalk seating, movable front facades, setbacks/courtyards, balconies) in the Specific Plan?
Station 5: Business Development and Relations
For the Business Development and Relations station, participants were asked to vote for their three preferred solutions for fostering business development in a manner that preserves the Downtown’s small town character and quality of life. While all of the solutions received votes, some were more popular than others.
Workshop Outcomes:
• Participants voiced the most support for having businesses undertake efforts to better attract residents and other desired markets. A number of participants also supported the community strengthening retention efforts to help existing retail tenants grow, expand and creating a proactive recruitment strategy to attract desired tenants, and forming a downtown restaurant/drinking establishment task group to discussing solutions to issues concerning the community. Exploring ways that businesses can improve their storefront presence, customer service, and hours of operation to meet the needs of the consumer received the least amount of support.
City Council Question:
1. Does the City Council support incorporating business development and relation strategies related to having businesses undertake efforts to better attract residents and other desired markets, strengthening retention efforts to help existing retail tenants grow and expand, and to form a Downtown restaurant / drinking establishment task group in the Specific Plan?
Next Steps
As mentioned, the Manhattan Beach Specific Plan team has engaged the community on a number of occasions to evaluate the ULI study’s recommendations and the development of content for the Downtown Specific Plan document. Tonight’s meeting represents the next step in this outreach process before the project team commences drafting the Administrative Draft Specific Plan.
Staff anticipates unveiling the document to the community at the project’s third community workshop tentatively scheduled for March 2016. Following the draft plan unveiling at this third workshop, the project team will meet one last time with the Advisory Committee members to receive final feedback on the document and the workshop, which will be synthesized and presented to the City Council during Study Session #3. Staff envisions that this last study session will provide an overview of the project direction to date, and focus on the review of the Administrative Draft Plan.
Following Study Session #3, the project team will incorporate the necessary revisions into the Public Draft Specific Plan, prepare draft changes to the Local Coastal Plan and the Municipal Code, and complete the requisite California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Staff anticipates bringing the project forward to the Planning Commission in Spring 2016 and ultimately to the City Council for final adoption in June 2016, prior to the expiration of the moratorium.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST:
Workshop #2 outreach and marketing materials included a half page color display ad in The Beach Reporter, e-notifications through the City’s website, information on the dedicated Downtown page at: www.downtownmbdefined.com <http://www.downtownmbdefined.com>, posting on the City’s social media outlets, email notifications to previous workshop attendees and notification to all of the Manhattan Beach Schools through their weekly newsletter.
In addition, the City collaborated with the Downtown Business and Professional Association to distribute window posters for display in Downtown storefronts, staff participated in in-person engagement at the Farmers Market, and distributed flyers and posters to merchants and local businesses citywide. Information was provided to the community through the “Next Door” neighborhood social network site. Furthermore, City staff was interviewed on a local radio show, “South Bay 360” to discuss the project status and to promote the most recent workshop. Workshop #2 was also televised on the City’s public access channel and has been made available on the dedicated Downtown webpage. Lastly, the Advisory Committee has been very instrumental in spreading information to the broader community.
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the direction that City Council provides during tonight’s study session, the project team will develop the Administrative Draft Specific Plan. Loreli Cappel, Project Manager with Michael Baker International will be present at tonight’s meeting to provide a presentation and to further discuss the results of Workshop #2 and how to incorporate the feedback from the Community and the Advisory Committee into the preparation of the Administrative Draft Specific Plan.
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the Downtown Specific Plan project update and provide direction for the preparation of the Draft Specific Plan.
Attachments:
1. Downtown Specific Plan Outreach Summary
2. Workshop #2 Station Posters, Voting and Public Comments
3. Downtown Specific Plan Project Update PowerPoint