TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
David N. Carmany, City Manager
FROM:
Richard Thompson, Community Development Director
Nhung Madrid, Management Analyst
Erik Zandvliet, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT:Title
Appeal of the Parking and Public Improvements Commission Decision to Deny the Request to Remove One Public On-Street Parking Space Adjacent to 217 4th Place
HOLD PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Line
_____________________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the Director and the Parking and Public Improvements Commission recommendation to maintain the one on-street parking space and install four feet of red pavement striping adjacent to the walkway at 217 4th Place.
Alternatively, the City Council may:
1. Uphold the appeal and remove one public on-street parking space adjacent to 217 4th Place, or.
2. Continue the item for further review.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Changes to the traffic markings and/or signage can be funded through existing Public Works Department operating budget.
BACKGROUND:
The City has record of two work orders associated with the installation of the parking space adjacent to 217 4th Place. The first work order, dated February 12, 2004, requested the initial installation of an 18’ parking space delineated with parking tees and an 8’ painted red pavement marking to the west of the parking space (Attachment 1). The second work order, dated March 31, 2004, requested a 3’ supplemental red pavement marking to be installed just east of the newly marked parking space adjacent to the property’s front entrance (Attachment 2). No other records were found to determine if there was a citizen request or a staff evaluation for the installation of the parking space.
In June 2012, the City received a Traffic Request from Ms. Mary Anderson, owner and occupant of 217 4th Place to evaluate and remove an existing on-street public parking space adjacent to the front of her home on the north side of 4th Place just east of Bayview Drive.
Staff reviewed Ms. Anderson’s request and based on the Traffic Engineer’s evaluation, staff could not support removing the subject on-street parking space. The Traffic Engineer concluded parking spaces were already limited, and the parking space was consistent with the City’s practice, therefore, the request was denied. Staff forwarded these findings to Ms. Anderson on July 27, 2012.
On July 30, 2012, Ms. Anderson responded to the City’s evaluation and requested that the subject parking space be relocated to the south side of 4th Place to better facilitate access to her property since the City would not remove the parking space. Staff reviewed the request with the Traffic Engineer and the Director of Community Development, and was still not able to support removing or relocating the public on-street parking space adjacent to 217 4th Place. Staff informed the resident of this conclusion on August 7, 2012.
Public roadways are open for public use and the needs of all users must be considered on an equal basis, including those wishing to utilize public parking spaces. Public on-street parking is very limited within the City, especially in the Coastal Zone. It is the City’s policy as well as the Local Coastal Program policy to make every effort to preserve existing public on-street parking spaces; therefore, staff could not support the request. Staff was also not able to approve relocating the parking space to the south side of 4th Place because this relocation would change the overall consistency of parking restrictions in the neighborhood.
On October 19, 2012, Ms. Anderson filed an Appeal of an Administrative Action to the Parking and Public Improvements Commission appealing staff’s evaluation to deny the removal and/or relocation of the subject parking space adjacent to 217 4th Place. Due to this pending appeal, staff requested Public Works refrain from reinstalling the pavement markings (parking tees and red striping) for the subject parking space after the previous markings were covered by the recent slurry seal project in the Sand Section.
On December 6, 2012, the Parking and Public Improvements Commission held a public meeting and heard presentations from staff and the appellants, Ms. Mary Anderson and Mr. Peter Goodwin (Attachment 3). Following both presentations, the Commission held a lengthy discussion, considered Staff’s recommendation, reviewed all three alternative options provided, and recommended retaining and moving the subject on-street parking space westerly a small amount and installing red striping in front of the walkway to 217 4th Place to better facilitate access to the property (3-2 vote, Adami and Stabile dissenting). This action does not affect any parking prohibitions on 4th Place, maintains the consistency of parking restrictions on numbered east/west “Place” alleys, and preserves one legal parking space on this roadway segment (Attachment 4).
DISCUSSION:
On January 15, 2013, a staff report with the Parking and Public Improvements Commission recommendation as mentioned above was presented to City Council, however, the staff report was pulled from the Consent Calendar. The City Council directed staff to schedule a Public Hearing Appeal, which is why this item is before the City Council tonight. The appellants, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Goodwin object to the Parking and Public Improvements Commission’s recommendation to retain the subject parking space located adjacent to their property at 217 4th Place.
The appellants have submitted additional information that they believe shows the subject parking space violates several Municipal Codes as well as pictures showing the lack of consistency in parking prohibitions in the area (Attachment 5). To address these concerns, staff has provided the following information for Council consideration:
Page 7: Homer Place at Bayview Drive
The appellants have indicated on the photo that there is “No Parking” on the north side, and “allowed parking” on the South Side of Homer Place. This is accurate. The parking restrictions on Homer Place were reversed because allowing parking on the south side created one additional on-street public parking space for four parking spaces as opposed to three on-street public parking spaces on the north side of the street.
During the PPIC meeting, staff did incorrectly state that only the north side of Homer Place is within the City limits. To clarify, Homer Place is entirely within the City, whereas Homer Street is the bordering street between Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, where only the north side of the street is within the City’s jurisdiction.
Page 8: 8th Place at Bayview Drive
The appellants have indicated on the photo that there is “No Parking” on the north side and “No Parking” on the South Side of 8th Place. Staff verified that the posted sign on the north side of 8th Place states, “No Parking in Front of or Opposite Garages or Carports” and the south side states “No Parking This Side” which is consistent with the neighborhood.
Page 9: 2nd Place at Ocean Drive
The appellants have indicated on the photo that there is “No Parking” on the north side and “allowed parking” on the South Side of 2nd Place. Staff verified that the posted sign on the north side of 2nd Place states, “No Parking in Front of or Opposite Garages or Carports” which is consistent with the neighborhood. The south side of the street should have a mid-block sign that states “No Parking This Side” which is also consistent. However, due to a home currently under construction, the sign has been removed by the contractor for the duration of the project but will be replaced when construction is complete.
Attachment 6 provides an aerial view of the “Place” alleys between Homer Place and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. This map highlights the overall consistency of parking restrictions in this area of the City.
Page 15: References to Municipal Codes
14.12.010 Section B - Authority to Install Traffic Control Devices.
The appellants state, “We know of no such notification.”
As stated in this Municipal Code, “give notice to the public” is a reference to the requirement to post proper signs or other traffic control devices in order to enforce a specific restriction (parking prohibition, street sweeping, speed limit, etc.). The traffic control device (sign) gives notice to the public of the restriction since it applies to all road users.
10.12.010 Section B - Residential District, Specific Purposes.
The appellants state, “The parking space restricts access to our open space.”
This references the purpose of the code section and is not a requirement. The specific purposes are accomplished through the actual Codes within 10.12.
10.64.150 Section Driveways -Visibility.
The appellants state, “Parking space is a mere 3 feet from 221 4th Place carport access.”
This code section applies to private property adjacent to a driveway, not the public street; therefore, it does not apply to this parking space.
Traffic Engineer’s Evaluation
In January 2013, the current City Traffic Engineer conducted an independent evaluation of the original request to remove the parking space in front of 217 4th Place. The City Traffic Engineer based his evaluation on his professional engineering judgment along with the following general practices:
1. The number of public parking spaces should be maintained and increased wherever possible for the benefit of the public.
2. Due to the unique traffic conditions of every street, street-parking restrictions shall be considered on a case-by-case basis.
3. Only current parking and traffic conditions should be considered in the evaluation of public parking spaces.
4. Streets in the Sand and Dune sections of the City should maintain a minimum 10’ wide travel lane without obstructions.
5. A minimum 24’ back-up distance should be provided at private driveways.
6. When parking restrictions are posted, they should be posted in a similar manner to maintain consistency with driver expectation.
7. Parking may be prohibited to provide greater sight distance or necessary turning radius at intersections at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer.
8. Parking should not block access to a private walkway in areas where the street parking directly abuts the property line.
9. Parking restrictions may be considered if parking is a factor in a recurring collision history.
10. Illegal or improper parking activity shall not be a factor in considering parking restrictions.
11. The City will consider changes to parking restrictions pursuant to a petition of the majority of residents on the affected street section.
The City Traffic Engineer noted that no additional parking spaces would be added if parking was prohibited on the north side, in fact, one space would be removed. The City Traffic Engineer also considered the possibility of relocating the public parking space to the south side of 4th Place, and concluded that the conditions on the south side of 4th Place are similar to those on the north side, (i.e. one space along property line with Bayview Drive to the west and private walkway to the east). Therefore, there were no overriding reasons that parking on the south side would be superior to the north side. Further, parking prohibitions on the north side would be different from the majority of parking prohibitions in the vicinity, which may be confusing to unfamiliar motorists. Based on the above, the Traffic Engineer supports the previous conclusions of staff and the Parking and Public Improvements Commission.
However, The City Traffic Engineer does not object to the transposing of current restrictions to the opposite side, if so desired by the majority of the adjacent residents on 4th Place between Bayview Drive and Highland Drive, thereby establishing one parking space on the south side of 4th Place east of Bayview Drive adjacent to 400 Bayview Drive instead. It should be noted that the potential for motorists to hit the corner of the wall at 217 4th Place would increase, because the travel lane would be closer to the wall when making turns (see Attachment 7). At this time, the parking petition and letters previously submitted to the City do not indicate a majority of properties in favor of switching the parking restrictions (Attachment 8).
Public Hearing Notice
By way of mailed notices, all properties within 500 feet of the appeal location have been notified of tonight’s Public Hearing Appeal (Attachment 9). Staff received one comment when the item was presented to the Parking and Public Improvements Commission, which can be found in Attachment 3 Exhibit C.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the Director and the Parking and Public Improvements Commission recommendation to maintain the one on-street parking space and install four feet of red pavement striping adjacent to the walkway at 217 4th Place.
Alternatively, the City Council may:
1. Uphold the appeal and remove one public on-street parking space adjacent to 217 4th Place, or.
2. Continue the item for further review.
Attachments:
1. Work Order from February 12, 2004
2. Work Order from March 31, 2004
3. PPIC Staff Report for 217 4th Place Appeal Including Exhibits A - C
4. Draft Minutes Excerpt from the December 6, 2012, PPIC Meeting
5. Additional information provided by Appellant on 12/6/12 - 15 pages
6. Aerial Map
7. Existing/Alternate Conditions Aerial
8. Petition to remove/relocate space
9. Mailed Public Hearing Notice