Mr. Morgan presented the item, which included copies of petition letters signed by the owners of property on the South side of 29th Street and pictures of homes with encroachments on 29th Street.
Mr. Morgan stated that new single family, new commercial, or 400 ft of additional remodel owners are required per code to construct a sidewalk, and curb gutter. Several streets in Hermosa have previously received exemption from this requirement by resolution. This is a one-way street with no access from Valley Drive and low traffic volume. In 2000, the north side was granted exemption from the sidewalk requirement. The south side was not included in that petition.
Considering public safety, the street could be unsafe for pedestrians. Sidewalks prevent curb encroachment and provide an area for car doors to open. Staff's recommendation was to deny the request.
Discussion among the Commissioners and staff highlighted the following:
- There is one development permit being considered at this time that would require a sidewalk on the south side of 29th Street.
- No safety issues or complaints from residents have been reported on the south side of which staff is aware.
- Council meeting minutes on this matter aren't clear as to why the request for exemption for the north side of 29th was granted other than that the residents wanted it.
- Mr. Flaherty stated the sewer is located on the north side of the street. He added that there have been sewer route problems in the past.
- The south side of 29th St. was not included in the original exemption request.
Commissioner Beste arrived at 7:24 p.m.
Public comments included the following:
Glen West, 420 29th St.
Mr. West stated that this is a very quiet one-way street with limited access. Twelve kids live on this block and he feels they are safe when they play out front. He's concerned that a sidewalk would take away a large portion of his yard - approximately 25%. Right now they have 3' in front of their picket fence, which he believes is more than enough room for folks to open their vehicle doors.
He added there are many renters on this block and that the property owners won't be selling any time soon.
He noted that there is a light pole near his house and asked what would happen to the pole if he's required to put in the sidewalk. His contractor quoted $4,400 to put in the sidewalk, a hefty amount, in his opinion, to make him meet the City's requirements. He also noted that he wants to save the "feel of the neighborhood."
He stated that he's not thrilled about "unfunded mandates."
Carl Swanberg, 425 29th St.
Mr. Swanberg stated that he lives across the street from Mr. West. He said that two properties at the east end of the street have put in sidewalks and they aren't that wonderful to look at. He feels that he'd rather see roses and greenery lining their street.
He also stated that he initiated the request for the exemption of the north side of 29th Street. He added that the Council said that if all the residents didn't want sidewalks, they wouldn't force the property owners to put them in.
Commissioner Cheatham asked why the south side wasn't included in the original request and
Mr. Swanberg responded with an apology to those representing the south side of the street, noting that in retrospect, he should have done so.
Mr. Swanberg went on to note that this is a very low traffic street.
Brad Smith, 445 29th St.
Mr. Smith lives at 445 29th and owns rental property on the south side. He is in support of not adding sidewalks to 29th Street. He feels that his ficus tree could be adding problems to the sewer lines. He also has a problem with the sidewalk width requirement.
He noted that what the residents have now works fine for them and asked why concrete should be put in since it wouldn't be used. If safety is an issue, wouldn't they, the parents, be concerned? If they thought the current situation was dangerous, they'd be requesting the sidewalk be put in.
He stated that he believes the feeling on the street is that the state is mandating more ADA compliance and that the City is extorting funds for this purpose. In closing he added that they already have sidewalks, they just aren't 5 feet wide.
Brad Levin, 436 29th St.
Mr. Levin lives at 436 29th Street and has rental property across the street. He has 2 kids and they play with the neighborhood kids. The residents treat the block as a walk street. If it were looked at closely, people would see that there is no need to develop the area - the property owners will not be changing the nature of what they've developed. Reducing the size of their
front yards would force the kids to play in the street. Most property owners have created a sort of pathway where the property meets the street.
Mr. Levin went on to note that both his properties were over fifty years old and that he wants to keep the character of the street unchanged. If people need to drive or walk in the area, the alley will be "plenty wide" once the construction there has been completed.
Eric Zimmerman, 2818 Ingleside
Mr. Zimmerman stated that he'd be echoing all that's been said so far. He noted that he and his wife chose this area for its character and adding sidewalks will detract from that character. He added that about half the structures are duplexes and they probably would not be changed. What would happen would be a hodgepodge effect. He also said that what they have now is like a cul-de-sac since there is no access from Valley Drive.
Robert Woody, 430 29th St.
Mr. Woody stated he owns the property at 430 29th St., which he now rents out. He did live there for 12 years and supports Mr. West's request for exemption for the south side of 29th Street. He has always enjoyed the rural feel of the street and said he believes he won't ever sell this property.
Discussion among the Commissioners and staff highlighted the following:
- Commissioner Winnek noted how difficult this is as the Commission has been asked to support uniformity throughout the City.
- The federal government mandates ADA compliance.
- 444 and 446 29th St. would also receive the exemption.
- 21st Street was the first street Commission recommended be exempt to this requirement.
- Vacation of the area had not yet been considered since the sewer line is under the north side of the street.
- Since the City is not maintaining this portion of the public right-of-way, the liability should be on the property owner.
- The City does not own the gas or water utilities.
- The sewer line is under the north side of the street.
- There is the concern that more groups will request sidewalk exemptions.
- Commissioner Winnek wanted an agreement with residents that they not pursue encroachments for a certain number of feet.
- The street already has curbs and gutters, so street sweeping is a non-issue.
- Commissioner Beste recommended vacation by City from a liability standpoint.
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to support the residents' request for the exemption of the south side of 29th Street, between Ingleside Drive and Morningside Drive, from the sidewalk requirement of SUBSECTION (b) OF SECTION 12.08.010 GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER 12.08 STREET, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. Seconded by Commissioner Winnek.
Ayes: Applebaum, Beste, Cheatham, Lombardo, Winnek
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Motion passed.
Mr. Morgan presented the staff report noting that this portion of Loma Drive is not eligible for a speed hump primarily due to the length of the street and the fact that it is a cul-de-sac.
A speed survey of the block of Loma Drive between 6th and 7th Street indicated that the 85th percentile of traffic is traveling at a speed of 15.7 mph and the top speed is 20 mph. While this is a longer stretch than the area in question, it is a good indication of the speed on Loma Drive.
Staff does not feel speed humps would be effective at the end of Loma Drive and that the residents may only be getting the perception that cars are speeding. This has proven to be the fact in other situations.
Comments among Commissioners and staff highlighted the following:
- There is an entrance to South Park at the end of Loma Drive.
- Traffic regularly enters and leaves the park parking area.
- It cost the City $3,000 each when 3 speed humps were installed. Cost for one hump would probably be under $5,000.
- No accidents have been recorded for this area.
Public comments included the following:
Frances Parker, 521½ Loma Drive
This street is the only entrance to the upper parking area of South School. During the school year every space is taken by after school staff. Parents park where there are no parking spaces. At night there are people around all evening. Loma has no sidewalks and lots of children. Many nannies are walking kids and can't avoid cars speeding at this end of the street. It's the busiest cul-de-sac anyone's ever seen. She feels the roadway isn't wide enough for two cars to pass each other.
Ms. Parker went on to add that there have been many near-collisions - drivers pull into residents'
driveways to avoid hitting other cars. Since people are unable to see down into the parking lot, many pull in then have to leave - using the only entrance/exit available. The gate has been removed. She said she believes speed humps could increase drivers' awareness of the speed at which they were traveling. In addition, she suggested that the speed hump could be added during the paving of Loma Drive.
She stated that her fear is that a frustrated person will come barreling down the street and hit someone or something - someone's child or pet.
Joanna Edwards 526 Loma Drive
Ms. Edwards said that Loma Drive is different from most cul-de sacs due to the volume of traffic going into the park. In fact, she doesn't believe it is a cul-de-sac at all because of the driveway into the park. She said she believes the comparison between Loma between 6th and 7th Streets and the portion under discussion can't be done. Said you can't compare one section of Loma with another. The sharp corner at the park entrance makes it much more difficult to see and people don't realize what's coming. There have been many near misses. She added that she'd hate to see an accident where a child is hurt or killed; they're looking to prevent such an occurrence.
Discussion among the commissioners and staff highlighted the following:
- Perhaps staff could come up with an alternative since this area does not meet the speed hump criteria
- A stop sign at the park access point was suggested.
- The speed hump will have no effect while a stop sign might for the visual deterrent factor with periodic enforcement during peak hours
- Enforcement of speed laws would be more of a deterrent than a speed hump.
- More concerns for the safety of children were expressed. This is a safety issue more than anything else.
- Ms. Parker suggested a "NOT A THROUGH STREET" sign would be beneficial.
- Mr. Morgan suggests sidewalks for safety of all on street since there will be a contractor there repaving the street it would facilitate the sidewalk construction also.
- The gate was taken out for security reasons and will not be replaced.
MOTION by Commissioner Applebaum to install speed humps on Loma Drive. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Ayes: Applebaum, Cheatham
Nays: Winnek, Lombardo, Beste
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Motion denied.
MOTION by Commissioner Winnek to deny the request for speed humps on Loma Drive and send the issue back to staff to bring it back to the Commission with other options. Commissioner Lombardo seconded the motion.
Ayes: Applebaum, Cheatham, Winnek, Lombardo, Beste
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Motion passed.
Staff will look into other methods of improving the safety of Loma Drive and report back to the Commission. Painting SLOW may be an option and has been effective on other streets. A suggestion was to put them in the parking lot not the street.
Mr. Morgan presented the request for the parking on Valley Drive. The residents are experiencing a parking hardship due to the improvement projects in the area. The stretch from 2nd to Herondo on Valley has two lanes and one lane could be eliminated.
Investigation of the area determined that the volume there is approximately 10 cars per minute at rush hour (6:00 p.m.). This is about 10% of the total daily volume. The Traffic Engineer doesn't believe there will be any difficulty when temporarily removing one traffic lane. It will provide the needed parking spots on a temporary basis.
T's and L's will be painted on the street, the existing lane striping will be painted out and delineators will be placed to aid in directing the right turns south onto Valley from 2nd Street. Parking on Herondo is metered with a two-hour limit making it unavailable for overnight parking.
In the future, the Commission may want to support going to Council asking for the parking to remain and add meters in a measure to generate more revenue.
Discussion among the commissioners and staff highlighted the following:
- Lines on the red curb the will be 50-100 feet there to make room for turns and about 16 stalls that will placed there.
- In 2 months they will be finished with the project and the spaces will be removed and they will be able to see at that time if permanent parking is needed.
- It is expected there will not be a noise problem due to car doors because the travel lane closest to the apartment windows will be removed by the parking spaces thus diminishing the noise overall.
- It does eliminate Valley Drive as a bargaining chip in whatever plans Redondo Beach has for the street. If the commission wanted to trade something off with Redondo Beach putting park there would take a bargaining chip away from us.
MOTION: Commissioner Lombardo moves to accept staff's recommendation for temporary parking on the west side of Valley Drive between 2nd Street and Herondo Street. Commissioner Beste seconded the motion.
Ayes: Applebaum, Cheatham, Winnek, Lombardo, Beste
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
