The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

1. Roll Call

   Present: Commissioners Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek

   Also Present: Stephen Burrell, City Manager
   Harold Williams, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
   Michael Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent
   Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department
   Kenneth Kim, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department

2. Flag Salute

   Chairman Winnek led the flag salute.

3. Approval of Minutes

   The minutes of the February 20, 2002 meeting were approved as written.

4. Public Comments

   The meeting was opened to public comments for anyone wishing to address the Commission on other items pertaining to Public Works.

   Roy W. Fulwider, 1126 Cypress Street

   Mr. Fulwider stated that a very dangerous condition exists north of his residence on Cypress Street. He said the 8 x 8 wood timbers in front of 1305 Cypress force him to walk in the street in order to pass. Mr. Fulwider stated that the City said it couldn't do anything about it since the condition has existed for approximately 30 years. He stated that this hazardous condition could result in lawsuits.

   Mr. Fulwider also stated that thirty (30) years ago, when this situation was first allowed, it was not an issue - traffic levels have increased dramatically. Mr. Fulwider said that his attorney has advised him to notify the City by letter that should they fail to rectify this situation they will be liable for any damages or injuries he might incur.

   He also stated that his attorney indicated that the City would be liable for punitive damages because he has informed them of the situation, and they have failed to do anything about it.

   Mr. Fulwider concluded by saying that he had called the road department regarding a gap in the pavement that he must drive over every day. After he told the road department that if he needed realignment of his vehicle, which would be very expensive, he would forward the bill to the City, they fixed the road the next day.

   Carol Schilz Speaking on Behalf of Leo & Nelda Schilz, 2951 La Carlita Place

   Ms. Schilz addressed the proposed development at 702 Marlita Place. The street is 'T' shaped and the proposed development wants to use part of the 'T' for its own use. The Schilzs feel that this would create a hazardous situation. She said that if the development is allowed to go forward, the proposed two-story garage eliminate the Schilzs' view, which is one of the reasons they originally bought the property. They feel that their property would be devalued by the loss of the view, sun, and light. The proposed development would create an encroachment problem because use of the street would be necessary in order to meet the set back limits. Additionally, the proposed 5 to 6-foot walls with ficus trees would also block the light.

   Discussion among the commissioners highlighted the following items:

   • The letter would be forwarded to the Community Development Department
   • If the entire section were to be vacated, parking would be lost.
   • If it goes to the Planning Commission, the Public Works Commission would like to be advised of the results.
   
   
   

5. Correspondence

   1. Letter from Mr. Roy Fulwider regarding wood timbers at 1305 Cypress Avenue.
      A response was sent to Mr. Fulwider by Harold Williams inviting him to attend meeting.
   2. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Leo Schilz regarding proposed construction at 702 Marlita Place
      A response was sent to Mr. & Mrs. Schilz by Harold Williams inviting them to attend meeting

   Both pieces of correspondence were addressed under item 4. Public Comments.

6. Items for Commission Consideration

   1. CIP 01-167 Street Improvements - Concrete pavement repair/replacement at various locations (PDF file)

      Mr. Williams presented the item. Mr. Williams indicated that the 2001-2002 budget allows $100,000 for the repair of potholes in the concrete pavement at various locations and that Staff has already identified $125,000 worth of work. Mr. Williams stated that it was difficult to know where to stop because the streets are in such bad condition. He would like the commission to advise which locations should be done and referenced Attachment 2, which reflects by address the amount of work to be done, and the cost of such repairs.

      Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.

      • Project funding, while removed from the current fiscal year, was actually deferred until the next fiscal year and therefore was not available for other projects.
      • Mr. Williams indicated this is a specific project number (01-167) in the CIP budget and only $100,000 is allocated.
      • This issue would be addressed at a later time.

      MOTION by Chairman Winnek to follow Staff's recommendation that the Commission review and advise. Seconded by Commissioner Howell.

      Aye: Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
      Nay: Cheatham
      Abstain: None
      Absent: None

   2. Request for red curb on Gould Avenue west of Pacific Coast Highway between the driveways at 2615 Pacific Coast Highway (PDF file)

      Mr. Williams presented the item, recommending that rather than install red curb on Gould Avenue, they utilize Resolution 01-6163 which allows for the installation of signs that state "No Parking - Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." This resolution allows for the restriction of the parking of vehicles that are six feet or more in height if within 100 feet of an intersection.

      Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.

      • Limited parking for the area had not been addressed by the Traffic Engineer in this report and the subject could be looked at a later time.
      • Commissioner Cheatham said he wanted to take this opportunity to state that the Public Works Department was doing a good job of advising the public.
      • There was general agreement among the commissioners that the signs would be a good idea. The signs would be placed from the alley to Pacific Coast Highway.

      MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to City Council that signs be installed on the north side of Gould Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and El Oeste Drive stating "No Parking - Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.

      Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Lombardo
      Nay: Winnek
      Abstain: None
      Absent: None

   3. Request for speed humps - Alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street (PDF file)

      Mr. Williams presented the item noting that the report was prepared in response to a request from Steven Delk, owner of Bestie's Pub & Grill on Hermosa Avenue. He indicated that the alley is one-way and that pedestrians often walk out of the building onto the alley. The speed limit is 15 miles per hour (mph), however the speed surveys observed vehicles traveling at speeds as high as 28 mph.

      Mr. Williams stated that the Traffic Engineer's suggestion would be the installation of speed humps on a trial basis. He noted that speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. Speed bumps are installed in parking lots and on internal private streets and are typically 1 to 3 feet in width and 4 to 6 inches in height. Speed humps are 12 feet wide and 3 to 4 inches in height, thereby creating a gentler rolling motion for motorists instead of an abrupt jolt. Speed humps are acceptable for installation on public streets, while speed bumps are not.

      Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.

      • There was a consensus among the commissioners with regard to the hazards in the alley.
      • The speed humps would include a break or opening left in the humps thereby allowing water to flow through the area.
      • There was no public comment to determine whether the local business owners or residents were in agreement with the request.

      MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to follow Staff's recommendation to install speed humps in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Seconded by Chairman Winnek.

      Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
      Nay: None
      Abstain: None
      Absent: None

   4. Request for Speed Humps - Hillcrest Drive between 18th Street and 21st Street

      Mr. Williams presented the item stating that input had been solicited from the residents in regards to a pavement reconstruction program for Hillcrest Drive. The input received indicated that there might be a speeding problem and that speed humps should be considered. The speed surveys showed a surge in traffic when parents were dropping off or picking up their children at the school on Prospect Avenue and then using Hillcrest Drive. The speed profile did not reflect a significant speeding problem.

      Mr. Williams stated that Staff's recommendation is to not install speed humps on Hillcrest Drive, as the reported speeding problem is not supported by the results of the speed survey. He explained that the use of speed humps is often discouraged on public streets because they may affect emergency response times for fire, police, and paramedic vehicles, and because many people consider them aesthetically undesirable.

      Public comments included the following:

      Blake Mitchell, 1910 Hillcrest Drive

      Mr. Mitchell stated that he was present and spoke at the last meeting. He said that the overwhelming majority of the homeowners on Hillcrest Drive wanted speed humps. Mr. Mitchell said that the ten percent of speeders represented a real hazard to children. He indicated that there was a crest in the middle of the street and that vehicles would slow for the crest and then speed off after the crest. Mr. Mitchell stated that in researching the speed humps which are in use in Santa Monica, emergency responders indicated that they were not concerned with response time, because they don't usually do over 40 mph. He also stated that 2/3 of the residents responded they were in favor of the speed humps.

      Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.

      • It was suggested that the commission wait until the subcommittee working on the safety program completed their investigation to see if their program helps the speeding situation.
      • It was suggested that a survey of the area be done to confirm the wishes of the residents.
      • Tabling of the item was suggested until discussion with the Traffic Engineer could be completed.
      • There was a question as to where the speed humps would be located.
      • It was noted that Staff would do the survey.

      MOTION by Chairman Winnek to table Item 6d and to direct staff to do a survey of the affected neighbors. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.

      Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
      Nay: None
      Abstain: None
      Absent: None

   5. Project No. CIP 01-159 Hillcrest Drive Street Improvements - Hillcrest Drive and Rhodes Street from 18th St. to 21st St. and 18th St. from Pacific Coast Highway to Prospect Avenue (PDF file)

      Mr. Williams presented the item, stating that at the January meeting a lot of discussion had taken place and that the residents of 19th Street did not want improvements, therefore 19th Street was deleted from the program.

      Mr. Williams noted that Staff recently went door to door to see what the people on Hillcrest Drive and Rhodes Street wanted. Saturday was not a good day as not many people were around. The residents who participated in the survey were all in favor of the improvements. Staff recommends that the improvements proceed as presented. Staff also indicated that the vibration problem needs to be addressed, but that is beyond the scope of this project.

      Mr. Williams stated that faulty pavement was not an issue as no pavement failure was found. There is one area where soil treatments will be taken to repair a sinkhole. He said that they couldn't guarantee that in a heavy rain, waters wouldn't pond in front of homes. Staff recommends that we proceed with project as designed.

      Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.

      • Crack sealing would be done and plastic sheets would be put down to minimize cracks through the concrete to the asphalt.

      Ted Ratliff, 1819 Hillcrest Drive

      Mr. Ratliff stated that there is a drainage problem and settlement of debris because of the slope of the street. He indicates that another engineering firm was supposed to review the situation. Mr. Ratliff feels that the current locations of the proposed storm drain catch basins and adjustment of the finish grades of the roadways will not help him with his drainage problem.

      A consultant for the project indicated that they could move the drain past Mr. Ratliff's driveway.

      Mr. Ratliff stated that if they move the drain that will take care of debris, but that because of the low spot it will sink back down again and that the design doesn't take that into consideration. Mr. Williams advised that the drain will be different and debris will not gather there and that they would look at that issue.

      MOTION by Chairman Winnek to approve the Hillcrest Drive street improvements as recommended by Staff. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.

      Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
      Nay: None
      Abstain: None
      Absent: None

   6. Temporary Closure of the first alley south Of 21st Street between Ardmore Avenue and Ava Avenue (PDF file)

      Chairman Winnek recused himself, as he is a resident of Ava Avenue; Vice Chairman Cheatham became acting Chairman.

      Mr. Williams presented the item, stating that at the February 20th meeting considerable discussion took place on this issue. At that time the commission suggested that Staff do further study regarding the circulation issues on the affected streets. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the recommended length of a cul-de-sac. According to Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, the maximum recommended length for a cul-de-sac is 1,000 feet. Ava Avenue, as measured from 21st Street, is approximately 800 feet in length, which is acceptable per the guidelines. This length is further reduced by the use of the drainage swale that is used as an alley between Ava Avenue and Springfield Avenue.

      Mr. Williams stated that the issue was raised that closure of the alley created problems to traffic on Ava Avenue. Staff found that there was no correlation between the closure of the alley and movement up and down Ava Avenue. Traffic volumes on Ava Avenue and 21st Street are well below the acceptable capacities of local residential streets. Staff has found no circulation issue to deal with. The issue is safety vs. convenience and Staff believes safety should take precedence. It is Staff's opinion that the use of Ava Avenue and 21st Street as an access route into and out of the Ava Avenue neighborhood is a safer and more conventional alternative as compared to the use of the substandard alley/drainage swale. Staff recommends permanent closure of the alley.

      Mr. Williams also addressed the parking issue, which Staff did not feel was a result of the closure of the alley and is typical of residential streets in Hermosa Beach. Additionally, the sight distance problem where the alley intersects with Ardmore Avenue is another reason to recommend permanent closure of the alley to vehicular traffic.

      Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.

      • The six-foot walls on both sides of the alley were not seen as a safety issue.
      • Mirrors weren't considered an option as there would be a great deal of liability if the mirrors were moved or damaged.
      • It was noted that CIP 02-184 was planned for 2002-03

      Public comments included the following:

      Terry Scott, 2026 Ardmore Avenue

      Terry's family has owned this property since 1926. There is no parking on Ardmore Avenue and therefore they must park on Ava Avenue. They use the alley as a way to get out of the area as Ava is too small to turn around in, even one car at a time. Cars are backing all the way up to 21st Street, which are a big hazard with young children playing in the area and a hazard on 21st Street. She wonders to whose benefit is this, since it is not a benefit to the property owners.

      Terry Cook, 2022 Springfield

      Mr. Cook stated that the City had to approve the use of bricks in a neighbor's driveway, so why was this wall approved. He felt that it was not fair that one property can dictate what other people in neighborhood could do. Mr. Cook stated that it is more dangerous to have the alley closed. He stated that it is unfair that approval was given for huge block walls to be built right up to the street, and it is unfair to everyone else.

      Chris Gerald for Irene Adams, 2018 Springfield

      Mr. Gerald stated that this driveway (alley) has been there for thirty years and he would like to know how many accidents have occurred there. He stated that La Carlita has a similar problem and that one person is benefiting. Mr. Gerald wanted to know who owns the alley.

      A discussion highlighted the following:

      • The area under discussion is public right-of-way and would remain so.
      • The walls under discussion are on the south side and on private property.
      • An R-1 development doesn't require a hearing, plan checks or permit issuance.
      • There were no variances.
      • The alley hadn't been vacated, just closed, therefore no change of ownership.
      • There are at least 35 other areas in the City like this - all walk streets.

      Jeff DuClos, 1932 Ava Avenue

      Mr. DuClos stated that he is a twenty-two year resident and that the City eliminated any option of the alley remaining open by allowing the walls to be built. Mr. DuClos said that the staff report is misleading - the 10-foot width of the alley is not the problem, the wall is the problem.

      Mr. DuClos said the area hadn't been cleaned up and that he slipped and fell due to debris in the alley. He wants to know if the City has responsibility for physical improvements to the area since their properties have been devalued by allowing the wall to be built and closure of the alley. Mr. DuClos recommends restoring to the way it was, making it more pleasant, and making it a walkway.

      Joanne Maisch, 640 21st Street

      Ms. Maisch said that at the corner of Ava Avenue and 21st Street the City has created a huge safety issue because of cars backing all the way up the street since closure of the alleyway. She feels that the City has now caused unsafe conditions and that they are much worse than before. She would like to see the study that was performed.

      Diane Sylvia, 1922 Ava Avenue

      Mrs. Sylvia stated that she supports the comments of Mr. DuClos. She stated that her husband is a civil engineer and that he indicated that the area needs to be terraced to help drainage. Mrs. Sylvia feels the alley is ideal for pedestrians and that the area needs to be beautified if the alley is going to remain closed.

      Additionally, Mrs. Sylvia would like to put on our agenda for the next meeting the proposal of closing the 2nd alley between Springfield and Ava, and address both problems at the same time.

      Riley Suggs, 2017 Ava Avenue

      Mr. Suggs stated his family has owned this property since 1946 and that there has never been an accident on Ardmore Avenue and the little alley. He doesn't feel that we should beautify the walkway for the benefit of the developer's front door.

      Irwin Fishman, 2011 Ava Avenue and 2012 Ardmore Avenue

      Mr. Fishman stated that the City has said that if it has been the "common usage", we must accept it. The residents have been using the alley, so we must accept that usage. His second issue is that a cul-de-sac can be up to 1000 feet long but has a turn-around, there is no turn-around here, it is an unfinished through street.

      Richard Churchhouse, 2019 Springfield

      Mr. Churchhouse said that the City should ask the builder to eliminate the obstruction and the City should accept any litigation. He feels that the City should not use being sued as an excuse. He also said that the street only allows use of one car at a time (due to parking on both sides of the street), and that a garbage truck or moving van eliminates use entirely. He wonders why garbage pick-up can't be coordinated with street sweeping day so that parking has been eliminated on one side of the street. Since closure of the alley, the use of the other alley has now impacted Springfield and both sides of the street are full of parked vehicles, can parking permits be addressed? Mr. Churchhouse said the City fell down on their obligation that there were mitigating circumstances in this particular situation and that the wall needs to be lowered or put at a different angle.

      Victor Winnek, Ava Avenue

      Mr. Winnek stated that he was making a request to the commission that they don't vote for Alternative 3 (open the alley to one-way traffic in the eastbound direction), in that it puts his property at peril. This recommendation would make the use of his driveway and garage obsolete. Mr. Winnek stated that he didn't want the City to take away any parking in front of his house. He stated that the matter should be taken up with the homeowner/developer regarding the wall. Mr. Winnek said that the developer had been personally served with notice of this meeting last Saturday and notes that the developer is not present.

      Mr. Winnek said that if this is used as an easement for drainage or foot traffic, that there is no crosswalk and the commission should consider this.

      Gary Powell, 1940 Ava Avenue

      Mr. Powell stated that he is not an expert, but that he is concerned that the City has provided no workable solution except for closing the alley down. He stated that taxes are high in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Powell said that if the culvert is truly for drainage and can't be made into a walkway because of no crosswalks and/or stop signs, then make it a culvert so that if the developer won't change the wall, it is blocked off. He said block it and put up a chain link fence making it solely for drainage and the developer wouldn't benefit from its closure. This way no one wins including the owner of this property.

      Commissioner Lombardo noted that during the joint workshop with the Planning Commission, there was almost nothing that could be done since everything was built to code.

      Further discussion brought out the following information:

      • Location of the door doesn't determine front or back yard, which is determined by set back.
      • That a new issue to close the upper section has been brought up and that needs to be addressed.
      • The developer used this to their advantage; Staff fulfilled their responsibility to make sure that this area was safe.
      • There are safety issues on both sides, whether open or closed.
      • It was noted that the drainage swale works and that there is a splash wall to slow the velocity of the water with it hits the Greenbelt - a very effective drainage swale as it protects homes from being flooded. It does its job by preventing the water from flowing back onto private property.
      • The City records indicate this is an alley.
      • The idea of parking permits should be pursued. This would be addressed in another arena. They are generally used in coastal zone areas only and it is a long process when talking about usage outside of these areas.
      • Developers may be easier to talk to than residents.

      MOTION by Chairman Lombardo to recommend to City Council that they talk to the developer about lowering the wall so that the alley can be reopened, and look into permit parking in the area. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.

      Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Lombardo
      Nay: None
      Abstain: Winnek
      Absent: None

7. The Commission Broke at 8:50 p.m.

   The Commission Resumed at 9:00 p.m.

8. Commissioners' Reports

   1. Commissioner Howell submitted the Traffic Safety Education Subcommittee Research report. Commissioner Howell stated that he and Commissioner Lombardo met with Traffic Engineer Richard Garland to discuss Manhattan Beach's traffic safety education campaign and how it might relate to Hermosa Beach. The commissioners felt that the start of the summer season or September with the start of the school year would be an ideal time to begin the campaign. Commissioner Howell indicated that their Commissioner's Report listed a few ideas in regards to the traffic safety campaign.
   2. Commissioner Howell also submitted his report, Manhattan Planning Commission Approves Skechers USA Development & Traffic Plan for Longfellow/PCH. Commissioner Howell stated that he attended the March 13th Manhattan Beach Planning Commission meeting where they approved a proposed 57,000 square-foot office development of the future headquarters of Skechers USA.
   3. Manhattan Beach Planning Commission said the project was designed to discourage use of residential streets. Additionally, the traffic study, which indicated that only 2% of project-related vehicle trips would impact adjacent residential streets, was believed to be low, but the Manhattan Beach Commissioners disagreed. Residents presented a list of concerns and suggestions, but the project was approved and there will be no further discussion.
   4. Commissioner Cheatham stated that he attended the March 10th meeting of the Infrastructure Guideline Subcommittee. He will provide recommendations at a future time. The Economic Development Review Committee will present their report to the City Council on April 23rd, tentatively. Commissioner Cheatham stated that it was impressive, that a lot of ideas are hitting the commission. He recommended that the Commissioners attend the briefing that will be given to the City Council.

9. Agenda for February Council Meetings

   1. Monthly Activity Report - Not available

   2. Project Status Reports - Not available

   Above items are presented for information purposes only.

10. Items Requested by Commissioners

    Copies of the General Plan were provided for all commissioners.

11. Other Matters

    Chairman Winnek proposed a motion, in reference to Item 6f, to recommend to the City Council that they add to the Municipal Code the definition of "alley." The purpose being to give a more complete definition of the term "alley," akin to the California Vehicle Code Section 110 which states:

    "An alley is any highway or roadway not exceeding twenty (20) feet in width which is primarily used for vehicular access to the abutting property."

    Mr. Burrell stated that it may be in the zoning code and that Community Development should be involved.

    Chairman Winnek again stated modify to "access of abutting properties."

    Mr. Burrell said that zoning codes are very precise and we don't want inconsistencies.

    MOTION by Chairman Winnek to request the City Council to identify an alley.

    Commissioner Cheatham suggested that they agendize until Staff can come back with recommendation.

    Commissioner Howell thinks that clarity is good, but wants Staff recommendation in order to get full impact.

    Chairman Winnek stated that since there is no 2nd to motion, motion fails.

    Commissioner Cheatham recommends bringing the item back as an agenda item.

    Commissioner Howell would like to state that in reference to Cypress Street (5a) it is difficult to traverse and that he would like to recommend negotiating with property owner to improve the condition.

    Commissioner Cheatham stated that in reference to a property up from the Comedy and Magic Club, an encroachment prior to 1996 is grandfathered by ordinance and can be treated as private property. He stated the only other option was for the City to put in a sidewalk and take back the property. Commissioner Cheatham stated that we could talk to the homeowner.

    Commissioner Koch asked if there is some history that allows encroachments.

    Mr. Burrell indicated that it had been a policy issue and that the City Council held a series of meetings and did a study on the issue. He indicated that they stopped when they had identified 4500 encroachments. He said that some of these issues would be addressed by the fixing of sidewalks and that we have seen a narrowing of the exemptions making history not as important.

    Commissioner Howell stated that in reference to the Skechers Development (7b) that inter-jurisdictional traffic issues should be studied.

    Mr. Burrell indicated that the City doesn't have an official position on the Skechers Development, that the Heart of the City does have an official position. He also indicated that they had expressed their concerns each step of the way.

    Commissioner Howell stated that we could change the traffic flow on our side.

    Mr. Burrell said that the City Council will take appropriate response and maybe they will have to sit down with the City Council.

    Commissioner Howell stated that the project is designed around Longfellow, which is half as wide as Duncan and he can give a report to the City Council.

12. Public Comments

    None.

    Mr. Burrell stated that the newsrack presentation would be at the beginning of the Council meeting on the 26th and that he was looking for written materials that he could give to the council members. Council will receive the information but won't take any action on it, it will be a presentation only and the City Council will make the decision. Mr. Burrell stated that the Orange County Register has three or four news racks at Rocky Cola Café, but they are empty.

13. Adjournment

    At 9:30 p.m. Chairman Winnek adjourned to the meeting of April 17, 2002.