The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_06_16_06_Del_Cerro_Park_Area_Parking_PlanCITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CORY LINDER, DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND PAIEKS Lo DATE: SUBJECT: DEL CERRO PARK PARKING CAPACITY UPDATE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NO. 3, CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH) REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER WW RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Direct staff to proceed with establishing Neighborhood Permit Parking with the Del Cerro, Rancho Crest and Island View HOA's and return with a Resolution establishing the permit programs for Council approval; 2. Approve Parking Alternative 1a or Alternative 4 and direct staff to proceed with striping modifications along Crenshaw Blvd after establishment of Neighborhood Permit Parking programs in Del Cerro, Rancho Crest and Island View neighborhoods; 3. Direct staff to proceed with soliciting proposals for parking management and operations services for pay stations or meters along Crenshaw Blvd and at Del Cerro Park 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Parking continues to be an issue on Crenshaw Blvd near Del Cerro Park and the entrance to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. In anticipation of the summer season and high Preserve patronage, staff is recommending establishing Neighborhood Permit Parking programs in the Del Cerro, Rancho Crest and Island View neighborhoods and modify the on -street parking configuration along Crenshaw Blvd to allow for striped, angled or parallel parking stalls that are equipped with pay stations and/or meters. Staff believes this combination of improvements will protect the surrounding neighborhoods from non- resident parking, impose a parking fee for non-resident use of the City Park and Preserve, while maintaining public parking for the enjoyment of the residents in the rest of the City. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION To be ready for what is expected to be another high -use summer at the park and nearby Preserve, Recreation and Parks and the Public Works departments are working together on an integrated plan to increase the parking capacity for Del Cerro Park and provide a funding mechanism for parking enforcement while preserving adjacent neighborhood parking. Crenshaw Boulevard has been the source of traffic issues since 2012 primarily due to the ever-increasing demand to enjoy the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) and Del Cerro Park. The Preserve is accessed from a multi -use trailhead that is located at the end of Crenshaw Blvd where Burma Road begins. Since 2012, complaints regarding circulation, access, parking, safety, and speeding have been received by the Public Works Department. The Traffic Safety Committee discussed this matter on two occasions and have developed a list of phased improvements. City Council has supported the phased approach and has approved the following improvements: Established "No Parking Any Time" restrictions on Park Place (Completed 2012) Painted red -curbs near the intersection of Park Place at Crenshaw (Completed 2012) Established "No Parking Any Time" restrictions on the northeast side of the Crenshaw Blvd Extension road.(Comp/eted 2013) The following improvements are scheduled to be completed after July 1, 2015: Construction of a Decomposed Granite (DG), ADA compliant sidewalk on the southwest side of Crenshaw Blvd to connect the existing sidewalk north of Park Place for a continuous walking path from the on -street parking on Crenshaw Blvd to the entrance to the Preserve. These improvements will include 2 ADA access ramps at the intersections of Crenshaw Blvd at Park Place and 1 ADA access ramp at Crenshaw Extension at Burrell Lane. This is a safety-related improvement to channel pedestrians to walk along the roadside, onto the sidewalk and out of the street. This project was approved by City Council at the November 18, 2014 2 meeting, however during the budget process this project was removed from the Capital Improvement Program. Based on the safety needs of Crenshaw Blvd, staff is requesting City Council's reconsideration of this project. As of late, the popularity of the Preserve and the recreational amenities in Rancho Palos Verdes has sky -rocketed. Social Media has put Rancho Palos Verdes "on the map" and on weekends/holidays and days with great weather, the trails, parks and beaches are heavily populated. As a result, the public parking spaces are fully utilized, forcing visitors to park anywhere and everywhere, including the nearby neighborhood streets. Due to this increase on visitor activity and in response to community requests, staff is requesting the City Council to consider the next stage of improvements to address the issue. Del Cerro and the Nature Preserve are public facilities for all residents to enjoy. We are seeking a solution that may not please some of the residents but will provide maximum access and opportunity for the majority of residents. Some of the recommended improvements are neighborhood -driven while others are staff driven. However, it is important to note that the improvements listed below are sequenced and coordinated for maximum effect: ❖ City to consider parking zones for this area to designate visitor parking from resident parking and formulate a plan to manage and enforce the parking operations. ❖ Reconfigure the existing parallel parking to a parking arrangement that maximizes the number of spaces while provide for safe and efficient movement of vehicles. This action could result in a change in the parking capacity, depending on which configuration is selected. ❖ Del Cerro HOA to consider establishing permit parking to protect their neighborhood from parking impacts associated with Del Cerro Park and Preserve use. ❖ Rancho Crest HOA to consider establishing permit parking to protect their neighborhood from parking impacts associated with Del Cerro Park and Preserve use. ❖ Island View HOA to consider establishing permit parking to protect their neighborhood from parking impacts associated with Del Cerro Park and Preserve use. ❖ Consider initiating anew speed zone survey for Crenshaw Blvd between Crest Rd. and Burma Road to reflect conditions on the weekends/Holidays and times of greatest use. 9 ❖ Consider traffic improvements at the intersection of Seacrest Drive and Crenshaw Blvd to allow for safer U-turn and turn -around maneuvers. On April 27, 2015 the Traffic Safety Committee held a public meeting to discuss the proposed improvements. A draft copy of the meeting minutes are attached to provide insight into the discussion. At that meeting the committee considered several parking concepts to address the issues. Those concepts are outlined below: Parking Zones To address the parking issues on Crenshaw Blvd near Del Cerro park and the Preserve entrance, the establishment of a combination of parking zones, when implemented collectively, should result in a parking management plan that protects the neighborhoods, provides parking for RPV residents and limits public parking by visitors from out of the area. The concept includes: • Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones in Del Cerro, Rancho Crest and Island View HOA neighborhoods. • Completely restricted Parking Zone on the Crenshaw Blvd Extension Road • RPV Resident Recreational Parking Pass • Pay -To -Park Public Parking Zone (with Pay stations) on Crenshaw Blvd The exhibit below depicts the conceptual parking zones. 11 Establish Neighborhood Permit Parking in Del Cerro, Rancho Crest and Island View HOA Neighborhoods A critical component to the success of the parking concept is the creation of a neighborhood permit parking program in the various neighborhood adjacent to Del Cerro Park, the Preserve and easily accessed from Crenshaw Blvd to mitigate the potential impacts of parking on Crenshaw Blvd. Staff has met with the HOA Board of Directors from Del Cerro HOA, Rancho Crest HOA and Island View HOA and all three have indicated that they may be interested in establishing a Neighborhood Permit Parking Program. In fact, the Public Works Department is in receipt of petition from Del Cerro HOA and Rancho Crest HOA. Both petitions satisfy the minimum requirement of 60% support. Staff has verified the signatures on the petition and have included a copy as an attachment to this report. Personal information has been redacted for the protection of residents, however, the original petition is on file in the Public Works Department. Parking on Crenshaw Blvd To improve parking conditions and safety along Crenshaw Blvd, staff has engaged our consulting traffic engineer to evaluate parking alternatives that will improve safety. The consulting engineer analyzed the existing parallel parking configuration and looked at reconfiguring the parking stalls to an angled configuration. The parking alternatives are listed below. 5 Existing Conditions — Parallel parking on both sides of Crenshaw Blvd. Alternative 1 a — A combination of front -in angled parking (60 degrees) and parallel parking Alternative 1 b — A combination of front -in angled parking (45 degrees) and parallel parking Alternative 2a — A combination of back -in angled parking (60 degrees) and parallel parking Alternative 2b — A combination of back -in angled parking (45 degrees) and parallel parking Alternative 3 — Parallel Parking on one side of Crenshaw Blvd only. Alternative 4 — Parallel parking on both sides of Crenshaw Blvd but with a removal of spaces in the narrow widths of Crenshaw near Seacrest Drive. The table below summarized the parking spaces associated for each alternative Al • Pay -To -Park (Parking Pay Stations or Meters) As a means to control and manage parking by non-residents, staff is considering the concept of Pay stations or metered parking for the parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd and Del Cerro Park. The Recreation and Parks Department researched other communities' experience with vendors that would be able to install, administer, and enforce on -street parking program. It might be possible to take advantage of other recent local agency procurement of similar services in order to expedite this project if so desired by the City Council. Staff researched meter stations as opposed to single stall parking meters to be installed along Crenshaw (approximately 3-4) and one in Del Cerro Park. It is possible to limit the stay of Preserve users in order to maximize turnover. Revenue collected from the stations would fund the cost of the enforcement and maintenance of the stations. Additional revenue could possibly fund improvements within Del Cerro Park. Public Opinion about the Concepts Traffic Safety Committee The parking concepts were presented at the April 27, 2015 TSC meeting where the public was invited to participate. The committee deliberated and rendered the following recommendation regarding the concepts: Neighborhood Permit Parking — Supports the 3 surrounding HOA's to establish a Neighborhood Permit Parking Program Crenshaw Blvd Parking Alterntives — Support Alternative 1 a (Front -in angled parking @ 60 degrees) as the preferred alternative. The TSC 7 Total Number of Spaces Scenario West side East Side Total (Southbound) (Northbound) Existing Conditions 40 42 82 parallel parkin Alternative 1 a 64 0 64 front -in angled parking @ 60 degrees) Alternative 1 b 56 0 56 (front -in angled parking @ 45 degrees) Alternative 2a 67 0 67 (back -in angled parking @ 60 degrees) Alternative 2b 58 0 58 (back -in angled parking @ 45 degrees) Alternative 3 40 0 40 (parallel parking on west -side only) Alternative 4 37 31 68 (reduced parallel parking on both sides) Pay -To -Park (Parking Pay Stations or Meters) As a means to control and manage parking by non-residents, staff is considering the concept of Pay stations or metered parking for the parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd and Del Cerro Park. The Recreation and Parks Department researched other communities' experience with vendors that would be able to install, administer, and enforce on -street parking program. It might be possible to take advantage of other recent local agency procurement of similar services in order to expedite this project if so desired by the City Council. Staff researched meter stations as opposed to single stall parking meters to be installed along Crenshaw (approximately 3-4) and one in Del Cerro Park. It is possible to limit the stay of Preserve users in order to maximize turnover. Revenue collected from the stations would fund the cost of the enforcement and maintenance of the stations. Additional revenue could possibly fund improvements within Del Cerro Park. Public Opinion about the Concepts Traffic Safety Committee The parking concepts were presented at the April 27, 2015 TSC meeting where the public was invited to participate. The committee deliberated and rendered the following recommendation regarding the concepts: Neighborhood Permit Parking — Supports the 3 surrounding HOA's to establish a Neighborhood Permit Parking Program Crenshaw Blvd Parking Alterntives — Support Alternative 1 a (Front -in angled parking @ 60 degrees) as the preferred alternative. The TSC 7 Pay to Park (Pay stations or meters) - Neighboring HOA's wanted to support an alternative that resulted in the least amount of lost parking spaces. They chose front -in angled parking over back -in angled parking because it was a new phenomenon that they felt would not be supported by the community and could result in accidents. Does not support pay stations or meters. Does not want Crenshaw Blvd to be the first with this type of parking management program. In addition to the public meeting with the TSC, staff met with board members of the neighboring HOA's (Del Cerro HOA, Park Place/Burrell Lane HOA, Rancho Crest HOA and Island View HOA) to further discuss the parking concepts being considered and to ensure that we fully engaged the community. In regards to the parking concepts, the following are the opinions of the HOAs: Neighborhood Permit Parking — The three HOA's that are directly impacted by Crenshaw Blvd support establishing a Neighborhood Permit Parking program. To date, petitions have been received from the Del Cerro HOA and the Rancho Crest HOA. Copies of their petitions are included as an attachment to this report. Personal information has been redacted for the protection of private information. The original petition is on file in the Public Works Department. It is expected that the Island View HOA will submit a petition for permit parking as well. Crenshaw Blvd Parking Alterntives — Support Alternative 3 (parallel parking on west -side of Crenshaw Blvd only). The Del Cerro Community supports this alternative because they would like to see the number of spaces reduced, thus limiting the number of parking spaces along Crenshaw and providing maximum roadway width to minimize conflict and improve safety. Board members from the Island View and Rancho Crest HOA do not support Alternative 3 but do support Alternative 4. They are concerned that if too many spaces are eliminated, visitors will park further north along Crenshaw. Pay to Park (Pay stations or meters) - Does not support pay stations or meters. Staff Staff is recommending the City Council to consider the issues and proposed concepts to address the parking issue along Crenshaw Blvd. Although the concepts presented are a change from what exists today, Del Cerro Park and the Nature Preserve are City amenities to be enjoyed by all residents. No one solution will satisfy all the residents however a combination of improvements may result in the least impacts to all. Staff's recommendations are: Neighborhood Permit Parking — Support establishing Neighborhood Permit Parking in the 3 surrounding neighborhoods. Any modification to parking on Crenshaw Blvd will directly impact the neighborhoods. Permit parking will protect the neighborhoods from non-resident parking. Crenshaw Blvd Parking Alterntives — Support Alternative 1a or Alternative 4 which modifies the parking to yield the greatest number of parking spaces but creates a layout for improved safety. Pay to Park (Pay stations or meters) - Support pay stations or meters to control or manage the parking opportunities on Crenshaw Blvd. This imposes a fee on non-residents and serves a tool to control the duration that a visitor is parked. Residents with a Resident Recreational Parking Pass can obtain an annual pass and park for free. Implementation Phasing The proposed parking concepts must be sequentially phased for maximum benefit. Phase 1: Establish Neiahborhood Permit Parkina Proarams Before any parking stall modifications can occur, the neighborhood permit parking programs must be in place. Two of the three potentially impacted neighborhoods have already submitted petitions. This process is well on its way and the permit programs can be established with City Council concurrence and approval. This action could occur within the next 30 days at minimal cost to the City. The anticipated costs would include purchasing the signs for the permit parking programs and ordering the parking decals. Phase 2: Modify Crenshaw Blvd Parking After establishment of the permit parking programs, the striping along Crenshaw Blvd would be modified to accommodate the desired parking layout, revised travel lanes and red -curbing. This improvements could take approximately 2 weeks to complete. Depending on the desired layout, the cost of re -striping ranges between $7,500 to $10,000. 01 Phase 3: Metered Parkin Recreation and Parks researched other communities' experience with vendors that would be able to install, administer, and enforce on -street parking fees. It might be possible to take advantage of other recent local agency procurement of similar services in order to expedite this project if so desired by the City Council. Staff researched meter stations as opposed to single stall parking meters to be installed along Crenshaw (approximately 3- 4) and one in Del Cerro Park. It is possible to limit the stay of Preserve users in order to maximize turnover. Revenue collected from the stations would fund the cost of the enforcement and maintenance of the stations. Additional revenue could possibly fund improvements within Del Cerro Park. The anticipated cost for establishing metering or pay station parking ranges between $25,000 to $35,000 to start up and approximately $14,000 for on-going maintenance and operations of the program. These costs are estimates only. If City Council considers metered or pay -station parking, staff would solicit proposals to firm up anticipated costs. Phase 4: Resident Recreational Parking Pass The feasibility of an annual resident recreational parking pass program has been explored and would allow for residents to park in the metered parking areas at no cost or at a nominal annual fee that is to be determined. These annual passes will be distributed by the Public Works Department, similar to the Neighborhood Permit Parking program, to city residents upon confirmation of proof of residency. The permits can be decals that are placed in the lower left corner of the driver's windshield and are easily seen by parking monitors. The cost to administer this program will consist of purchasing decals and possibly informational signs. The decals cost $2.50 each. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may direct staff to limit the parking stalls located in and around Del Cerro area; however, the result may be an increase in illegal parking. The Council may direct staff to not install parking stations and not charge for parking. This directive may result in a continuance of existing conditions of illegal parking and overcrowding. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the implementation of staff's recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action could result in a fiscal impact to the current FY 2014-2015 budget. The preliminary estimate of cost of the proposed parking configuration ranges from $7,500 to $10,000. Purchase and installation of the meter stations could range from $25,000 to $35,000. Ongoing enforcement and operations of the meter stations is approximately $14,000 annually. If Council chooses to move forward with pay stations or parking meters, staff will return after circulating a request for proposal for the parking services. 10 Attachments: • Appendix A—Conceptual parking configurations along Crenshaw Boulevard (page 12) • Appendix B — Correspondence Del Cerro HOA Neighborhood Permit Parking Petition (page 18) • Appendix C — Correspondence from Del Cerro HOA regarding parking along Crenshaw Blvd. (page 51) • Appendix D — Copy of Rancho Crest Neighborhood Permit Parking Petition • (page 116) • Appendix E — Draft Meeting Minutes April 27, 2015 TSC meeting (page 122) 11 Appendix A INI V 'ALC rry r �O N.T.S. i NOTES: A. Parking is recommended to be prohibited along east curb of Crenshaw Boulevard. B. The northbound and southbound travel lanes on Crenshaw Boulevard are recommended to be 12 feet. LEGEND \� — Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings — Proposed Pavement Markings No. of Angled Parking Spaces No. of Parallel Parking Spaces THIS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, ITIS NOT TO BE USEp FOR T PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. Q ITERLS ._ __. City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE 5a Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative la - Front -In Parking at 50 degrees 12 x\� Note A X\� \ s �<< \ —Note B LEGEND \� — Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings — Proposed Pavement Markings No. of Angled Parking Spaces No. of Parallel Parking Spaces THIS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, ITIS NOT TO BE USEp FOR T PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. Q ITERLS ._ __. City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE 5a Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative la - Front -In Parking at 50 degrees 12 Appendix A --11 �, I 1�1- CD \I �.vrE:yv�n NOTES: A. Parking is recommended to be prohibited along east curb of Crenshaw Boulevard. B. The northbound and southbound travel lanes on Crenshaw Boulevard are recommended to be 12 feet. Note B "Parking tb parallel Spaces 13 Total 1 56 LEGEND — Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings — Proposed Pavement Markings ® No. of Angled Parking Spaces �# No. of Parallel Parking Spaces TWS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. IT I$ NOT TO 5E USED FOR PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. N.T.S. ITERTS City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE 5b �`- Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative lb - Front -In Parking at 45 degrees 13 n O • Appendix A NOTES: t A. Parking is recommended to be prohibited along east curb of Crenshaw Boulevard. �l 4 B. The northbound and southbound travel lanes on Crenshaw 4 Boulevard are recommended to be 12 feet. 11 I ,I 1 I1 �1 ,1 1, . No. of Paragal Parking Spaces to 1, Total 67 Note A t \� as Note B I Fr_F=Nn — Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings - Proposed Pavement Markings No, of Angled Parking Spaces No. of Parallel Parking Spaces THIS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. i N.T.S. ITERIS; City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE 6a Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative 2a - Back -In Parking at 60 degrees 14 Appendix A O y�{� Ra NOTES: 5 A. Parking is recommended to be prohibited along east curb of Crenshaw Boulevard. B. The northbound and southbound travel lanes on Crenshaw > 1 Boulevard are recommended to be 12 feet. 1It i a 1 ` t ,, 11 t 1, } 11` No. of Parallel Parking Spaces 12 Total 58 `\ Note \. _,,—NoteB LEGEND Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings Proposed Pavement Markings No. of Angled Parking Spaces No. of Parallel Parking Spaces THIS CONCEPTUAL OUT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. rT IS NOTTO BE USED FOR PERMITTING OR CON57AUCTIDN PURPOSES. 2 �\ 10 Q4 Qv Q- Q� N.T.S. ITERIS; ,___ City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE 6b Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative 2b - Back -In Parking at 45 degrees 15 Appendix A LEGEND F— Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings Proposed Pavement Markings No. of Angled Parking Spaces ® No. of Parallel Parking Spaces THIS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR IL W STRATNE PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOTTO BE USED FOR PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NOTES: A. Parking Is recommended 10 be prohibited along east curb of Crenshaw Boulevard. B. The northbound and southbound travel lanes on Crenshaw Boulevard are recommended to be 12 feet. No. of Parallel Parking Spaces 37 Total 37 Note B N.T,S. �TEPJ ;,,.._ City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE 7 Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative 3 - Parallel Parking along West Curb 16 Appendix A ',41f o \ y`t�L�ryl�yRo LEGEND Existing Red Curb (No Parking Zones) Existing Pavement Markings Proposed Pavement Markings No. of Angled Parking Spaces ® No. of Parallel Parking Spaces THIS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HAS 6EEN PREPARED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. IT ISNOT TO BE USED FOR PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 10t41�� A. Parking is recommended to be prohibited along east curb of Crenshaw Boufevard in this section. B, The northbound and southbound travel lanes on Crenshaw Boulevard are recommended to be 12 feel. R <z. M\ a a \ 4 �a \� Note A 10 �. Qv y Q� ITE"S, - - City of Rancho Palos Verdes FIGURE s Crenshaw Boulevard Angled Parking Analysis Alternative 4 - Parallel Parking along West & East Curbs 17 Ap Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA 1 June 2015 To: Honorable Mayor Knight and City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, On behalf of the property owners of the Del Cerro residential development, the Del Cerro Homeowners Association hereby requests approval of a neighborhood permit parking program for our community. Attached is a petition indicating the specific program parameters being requested. The parameters have been coordinated with City staff. The petition has been signed by the owners of 96 (80%) of the properties within Del Cerro_ The requested program includes all streets in the Del Cerro community in their entirety: Oceanaire Drive, Crestwind Drive, Amber Sky Drive, Coveview Drive, Moonmist Drive, and Seacrest Drive. We request that permit parking apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Background Information The Del Cerro community consists of 120 properties (119 homes and 1 undeveloped lot), most of which were developed around 1960. The community is located at the southern end of Crenshaw Blvd. adjacent to the main entrance into Portuguese Bend Reserve. There is only one entrance intolexit from Del Cerro — via Seacrest Drive at the end of Crenshaw Blvd. The homes are larger than average with large back yards, so the development attracts large families, often with multiple generations living under one roof. The Del Cerro Homeowners Association board of directors has coordinated the request for approval with City staff on behalf of the residents. Membership in the HOA is voluntary, with ninety-three percent (93%) of the residents being dues -paying members. All property owners (both HOA members and non-members) were asked whether they would like to implement a permit parking program within the community --- and, if so, what parameters should be requested. Survey results indicated there was strong support for such aLprogram, and the attached petition contains the parameters that are 1 18 Appendix B Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA desired. All owners and residents were notified of the results of the survey and the HOA's intent to circulate a petition for signature. Neighborhood Conditions Currently Being Experienced The number of visitors to the Portuguese Bend Reserve has increased dramatically in the last two years. On weekends, there are typically up to 150 vehicles continuously parked on Crenshaw Blvd., Park Place and the Crenshaw Extension. As recently as a year ago, there were typically 10 — 12 vehicles that would spill over into Del Cerro on weekends -- generally considered a minor nuisance for residents. However, as various hiker and biker organizations have begun promoting the nature preserve on their websites and on social media, the number of visitors has continuously increased. In addition, the Los Angeles Times published an extensive article last January describing the attributes of the preserve, including beautiful photos of Catalina Island taken from the preserve - and the number of visitors skyrocketed almost immediately. In recent weeks, our neighbors have counted up to 45 vehicles parked on Oceanaire near Seacrest for most of the weekend, beginning with the slamming of car doors at dawn and continuing until dusk_ In addition, a few cars have been parked on Crestwind and Amber Sky. Interestingly, visitors generally will try to park as close to the trailhead as possible, often preferring to park in Del Cerro when there are still spaces available on Crenshaw slightly farther away from the trailhead — even though they have come to the preserve to enjoy a nice hike or other exercise. In addition, we are now regularly seeing over 100 vehicles parked on Crenshaw, Park Place and the Crenshaw Extension on weekday mornings and fully expect visitors to begin spilling into Del Cerro during the week as schools close for the summer and vacation season begins if no action is taken. Visitors often open car doors and let children and dogs (off -leash) out onto the streets without looking to see if there is traffic coming. In addition, they often leave their doors open while changing clothes/shoes, talking on their cell phones, or waiting for friends to join them. These actions make it very difficult for residents to enter and exit the neighborhood safely_ When cars are parked on both sides of the street (some with doors open), traffic cannot safely pass in two directions at the same time. We even find cars parked next to fire hydrants, putting Del Cerro residents' lives and property at risk_ Preserve visitors often leave trash on the streets and along curbs -- burning cigarettes, empty fast food containers, plates, utensils, banana peels, dirty diapers, etc. On Monday mornings, several of our residents carry plastic bags and mutt mitts on their morning walks thrdugh the neighborhood to pick up debris left by weekend visitors. 2 19 Z Appendix B Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA Often, there is no place for residents or their invited guests to park in front of residents' homes. The mail carrier has complained that she has trouble delivering weekend mail to homes near the Del Cerro entry because access to many mailboxes is often blocked by cars parked next to them. Most importantly, crime has dramatically increased in Del Cerro in the last 2 years. In our neighbor of 119 homes, five home burglaries, one attempted break-in, four mail thefts, one car break-in, and four incidences of vandalism/ property damage have occurred since the beginning of 2013, including one family's landscape retaining wall in the front of their home being tagged with graffiti. Many residents feel that the crime has increased because people have become aware of the community via continued advertising of the preserve. The cumulative result of these conditions is unsafe traffic conditions, congestion at the exit from Del Cerro, an unkempt look to the neighborhood, and an overall negative impact on resident safety and quality of life, community peace, tranquility, attractiveness and ambience, and property values. Key Program Parameters Being Requested The following program parameters are considered crucial to success of the program: s Permit parking to apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Vehicles are routinely parked on lower Oceanaire and, to a lesser extent, on Amber Sky and Crestwind every weekend and on many holidays — with associated noise, unsafe traffic conditions, and debris left by uninvited visitors. As summer approaches and more people become aware of the preserve, residents expect that the conditions being experienced primarily on weekends to extend to weekdays on a regular basis. Vehicles are already being seen regularly during the week on Crenshaw, Park Place and the Crenshaw Extension, and residents expect to see spillover into Del Cerro on week days. In addition, residents feel that parking by permit only may deter criminals from entering the neighborhood. As a minimum, requiring visible permits to be displayed will facilitate the identification of unrecognized or suspicious vehicles by residents as they travel through the neighborhood or walk the streets and may highlight potential criminal activity. i All of Del Cerro to be included in permit parking program N 20 _3 Appendix B Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA All of Dei Cerro needs to be included in the permit parking program to prevent spillover to areas outside of the immediately impacted areas and to anticipate the likely progression of impact in Del Cerro as more people begin to park in the community (unless the permit parking program is implemented). Also, it is critical to the support of the program by residents to minimize the potential negative impact of signage on the ambience of the neighborhood by limiting the number of signs while assuring enforceability. City staff has indicated that if the entire neighborhood is included in the program, a maximum of 2 signs at the entry on Seacrest on existing sign posts stating that all of Del Cerro is covered by the permit parking program would be sufficient notification. • Up to 30 guest parking permits per household per year allowed Several residents have hosted frequent gatherings of family, friends and church members for many years. This number of guest permits will allow these residents to continue the same activities that have occurred for years without complaint. Development of an online process for residents to obtain resident and guest parking permits An online process will enable residents to obtain permits in an expeditious manner. Staff has indicated that development of such a process is underway and should be available by summer 2016 at the latest. Conclusion Del Cerro residents believe that implementation of this permit parking program will improve traffic and parking conditions substantially, and enable the community to return to the safe, quiet, peaceful and attractive neighborhood that residents have enjoyed for many years. It is our understanding that the Del Cerro community will not be required to pay for the expenses of implementing and maintaining the permit parking program. As you may be aware, we are also working with City staff on ways to improve traffic and parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. A restricted parking program needs to be implemented in Del Cerro before any measures are taken to improve conditions on Crenshaw in a manner that would reduce parking availability there. Otherwise, Del Cerro will experience further parking spillover until restricted parking is implemented in the neighborhood.. 112 21 Y Appendix B Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA We want to express our sincere appreciation to Public Works staff members for their support in working with Del Cerro to tailor a workable program that meets the needs of the community. Thank you for your consideration of our request for permit parking in Del Cerro. Your prompt approval of our request will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding our request, please contact Kathy or Al Edgerton (310-544-7390 or alnkathye(&,msn,.com). Respectfully submitted, Megan M re President Del Cerro Homeowners Association 5 22 Appendix B 5/812015 Del Cerro Permit Parking Petition Owners of property in the Del Cerro community request that a permit parking program be implemented with the following parameters: • The program will include all streets in the neighborhood in their entirety: Oceanaire Drive, Crestwind Drive, Amber Sky Drive, Coveview Drive, Moonmist Drive, and Seacrest Drive. • Permit parking will apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Since the entire Del Cerro community will be included in the permit parking program, a maximum of two signs notifying visitors to Del Cerro of the permit parking program will be placed on Seacrest (on existing sign posts) and that no other signs be placed in the neighborhood. 0 Process for obtaining permits: o Property owners may obtain resident permits for vehicles they may want to park on -street. It is understood that the current price is $2.50 per permit and permits are valid for the life of the car as long as the owner continues to own property in Del Cerro. (One-time verification of property and vehicle ownership will be required.) c Property owners may obtain up to 30 guest parking permits which will be valid for one year, as some residents currently have frequent meetings at their homes requiring parking for up to 30 vehicles at one time. It is understood that guest permits currently cost $0.25 per permit (per year). o A non -owner resident (tenant) may also obtain resident and guest permits under the same terms as property owners, with the written approval of their landlord. o The City of RPV will implement an online process for obtaining resident and guest permits. It is understood that RPV is currently implementing such a process and expects to have it operational in about 3 months at the earliest and by summer 2016 at the latest. Until the online process is operational, residents may obtain permits by requesting them at the RPV Public Works Dept. front counter at City Hall or by mailing the application and all supporting documentation to the RPV 23 �' Appendix B 5/8/2015 Public Works Dept. Staff will mail permits to residents after all information is verified. • For larger special events that a resident may host once or twice a year, the hosting resident will notify a designated HOA representative of the planned timing of the event. The HOA representative will call the RPV Public Works Dept. and request that enforcement be temporarily suspended in the area of the special event during the applicable time period and will notify nearby residents of the pending event. • Upon City Council approval of the Del Cerro permit parking program and after a reasonable time for the City to notify residents of approval of the program and to install signs and for residents to obtain desired permits, the Sheriffs Dept. will begin active enforcement. If a resident sees a vehicle without a proper permit, the resident should first try to determine if the vehicle is owned by a nearby resident or invited guest. If that does not appear to be the case, the resident may call City Hall during business hours (310-544-5252) and request that the vehicle be cited and towed away. After business hours, a resident should call the non -emergency phone number of the Sheriffs Dept. Lomita Station (310-539-1661) to request assistance. If the vehicle of an invited guest is improperly cited, the hosting resident may submit a request to the City that such a citation be cancelled, upon presentation of appropriate substantiation of the cause of the error. 2 24 1 Appendix B Ts I • I � � CM I .� I ' l ;�Qa im N K O I N m cum I c ami 9 E o '� UE i N ° rn Cf".r O I 'o V ' `I 1 N I W E £ lG co ' pi. 3� C! cr N I m i o I N 44'l Q Q I 1 i N w i 63 I I � �. , _ N f t�LO cn CL n io 40 'fir i o a m m W Q to m T d� tv O .rte.•. C) 3 m i= tl 4n ai i I Qmas �I 4vo I a ti' I .' N , i cr c ii i I to 'o ' I E I i OU m r I O I Q F' tl Ur o 1 U i j IP ii i _ O LCL o ! o c V) E o c m W ci I m w CU m ¢i } I _0 m i n m rn �o ! c ro i I cr I C.3 p� Y m i i ! I : i I I m I U Y t I i p r N I Y N U{4 T I r i i N R I C0 LL -a ca i �• E 4r rL m E r-' 7 1 m ly l! { i m vi Q I tn, m i i 1 £ 4D! I N I m ' f �, i r G7 m N 1 C4 I I1E t.� I m r 1 c i ie IE rnfd _ iU 9 W m 1 t0 q' an dmm "i�¢ !l_ i mp y Gi m i I as 1` o I al UIf m! h i m I _E o � �e I i _ > ar m m, .c a E i n m I i m i a o 4 ! b m l m m m E Z i ra I w i co m o �� W i P 7 M i m X '_ 4 I d T; co ! LIL T�� L� ri «) 117 LO v a} cS { C p o Jm U Q I CL v I ; tl ai m L vl I m i E i i {to I Q D t � p I I r; N{ c*s i d I I i- a, i o .- ! c tl �� v' r 4 `D `� °' C2 c x o a m m 91 I v I I i r I ID i EIa) m E� mU -�- I'D_ 1 _ d 25 Y S I OZ/1 I/S I 3o I zi3vd JSSZX,islbdoSui--pza5essoiuLx a� da�� pnnai i�tu/[a�oo'anti itEuz ��,i usy:sd Y ' L s+ c r, cn t] a e 2& 27 � I 1 G E I y Y N tl � s• 1 I ' � ll11 E Ll 75 7 t O FL p_a +� C c T 2 IY C1 :].. �_ __ LL � z a -- M i 7 N O O _ C � Cl _ cD `` C U 'a a: m c c } C m O n m min O d fC _N b o O p L] m O c W r W m '� d U C1 6 m jcG S i m 47 Za tl r" Gl G L C D ri7 my _ Ql L Nv ua' m m y a N mU - G m R 2 O a ? J C >es_- a xs o c m d d.G N E r pC C a u U �j L3 flf O t Q CA � un U >U' v L3 a d% o C _ = u V N r m Q} G m m m N = m D m 2 Q ca m05 L G [}L - ('t '3 ^' C C-7 m n. L © Q7 o W O } C C V 4 � s ma m m m a � G O a O - c 6 d c 5Z O } O O C C Y Q p D m F a m m Gj @ m m � � C 6 z 4 O F Appendix B m J 9 O L C N d1 C`1 } r L J r r SY c5 LL -C C O OrJ O U Oar CL 4D g C3 -5� �' ai eg O U r �21 o i O r 63 U) C:1 4 G7 C i r Lf < Q 0 27 " 28 /{ C Q @ wp+ tn C ro I O � 4 Q E! C C a `iaN C m N E ap t E m � V m U C1 ar m w o +t m E m B CL lua m IIl yN m� c� 1, C, ti a E .m. Q � ;.' o Q�C a 7 to m m t o a c ID > � c 01I m u - Ff -- --- --- '-- a a a. o o- O o = G O U tr�id t F G a y 9 0 d# .i7 G 3 ca p � E � E II o a E c E a o o m a a U t c ®� E I C Of iJ c V ami m � a c a a � � E ❑ � � crn m � m �. o n a E m m` oty m us ¢ asc aro) m a no E R— ID tm 7 3 m m q) o °o 2 m a ro o init a c m ro #j m oa Lafl. C, UJ o W '2 d o N d d. U Q u- (Yfy J c m m D F m w ,5 m m m m ard c a Q ryryc E o h o W c a `crn m Z m m _ ❑ d i I ro .� [J 2a ip a X U` J 5 v a omeo c R a n ro c o w I - o L a3 a ur -D is o c o ,R riF cri a cn m 4 N { '+� ca W rn o N c U) o p m p l7 v o Emma) m s� 0]m o EdFmo a 28 /{ Appendix B Q i m m C a n 'rn Y e m o rn rl mat � U '- 0 o aa� c n N m j? CD Y 1 y I 14 C a 22a j m at N E O > o E > cE= N a+ 0 _ rn ; I a m � C N CO 'N L m a I `I m I c m m x W m C? � D � j CD , ma m -11 c n E Oh 1 to i 1 omy a m a I m o �---- a)ccC71 CL L i i ca m 0 i cn C = o m 4 + � rn a m a 9 � " CL ag N l C f y a m I at o n e I m I f �� a > 2 C O U I - o m a mCL - f'---- m E o a f a f we C m m t I Qt ♦C�. C t N i 6 .m i 1 E d J C i i ! E mn E m i s i m I i u m u ut = o rn I n O al — U iL7 -X I m CCl O '" ) .�1 ;1..� (V! w Sf f atm Ca E CO jCU CD a a7o ' wC vi m m i s `0 m 1 tm; i X I w i c n o c l a l R o C m +n E¢ m o co � is I S I R i� �' I co f I s� X cu - m I E f I 1 CD ! c7 a 2 y = I m m 1 ¢ 1 7 I °t1 i m a I I vS m y i E a m t m J S0 l ; a J Qt 1_2 m i t t a `o ur E N c l y C °I aC o> u7 i 'a c l U or m � c o = C m I oaim o w � i X j'I l cl"t5 zo f �J❑f m � E o cm 1 0 .s m n o a` 1 i m 1 m �: } c i c !, '; aJ o 3� '' I 7 'ra O N f tl I .0 � E . 1 p m 3 rn a a E' m > r c rn J w C,n 1 aai Y O E i 'm; O Q i Y U IY 66 Q r J -1 � I' Q U I Cl p O a C 1 aat i mU nv J o o� m I I I i J i `a - 4 1 no i o .0 'm y i L a f i ED [) m Y ` 1 1 1+ 1 cm m I o N M y r �i I tD 1 t- m I m �. C O O 0 1.3 ni if�t Cit fa€ (V N 6*t N cy CO ! M M M M (•5 M I M M M 0 m{n m l w y c d i! at I i I I i iIi i ] m m m I J i a E D j C+ � 1 E d irs ❑ f— �' a t � I e i i C i I i 1 29 I.W— Appendix B 30 � N , 'O -D N Y .�` > Q 0) 0 aS c m i _C N � I SCJ_E Ed O -E N m o Q 03 IR 0 U w a E m m N' Cip cc ZI. o m 3 a m ffi cG @ U M N toO ? :E� mn N i ® r m IU 171 Q s? N Q CL m j a .c c m .co 0. U A I o C1 �6 m E C U m ffi .�. U V 4 N,O � r O D '� U G g r O' .stm ` P O 3 [6 I •u`1 z my 0 y d C 4 2� E 7E N a CO D g E OL ©a o aCD w o E m ai U0 E € mX o a N 'E I a V C ® E ru to m .Y v CD e i 'ca cir N m m 4 C O m CO -?. J E j (v CO 17 ^. y L 5-D �_ Tj C J C N r O ON E Q. ¢ C GI ! E 6 J Y N m S] m a E d E 4 a U U 'Q N �' _ FmA. G i C71 r L' - Ul C Y ❑ N C C $ [C 1 E O m N D vas d �'+ m ar Ri E] R a B a C m °� (D Y 'o n 1 o m C m Q r m ] t0 v❑ m C a+ min sFE D zy v m ca 0 m m E a cc m o t E ro �. _ -S _r E C - m �. tJ a. - x_ 10 Y .[` rn o c t Cl ' b ' a) X co M 7 %_ W CiS C7 Ci C ¢ e Y lC U_ tU ¢. R W J a '7 ¢ U I� ID 'a 47 7 v-, it .m @' O 0 h E -2"- _ -® _ ca U ❑ o c o = m C>'C 2 y to G Ip 0 •0 ,Q E . m b Y 0 0 e�3 N m C' in CO ' h d0 (m O N' m m [�] q' Cl) m 4) co fO C) r- i -I CO m 0n Cl) tG T O OC b LV N N N N (�d N N N U3 a � AS N u) T' Q O I E w ° 3 U ID 1 o m u CL 6 2 IL 30 Appendix B r 1 i a E I ica 441 w [] 0 Q) I _[ I �[ I m II { y Im r m Y-- ! I Ur I ' I (� I U t °a I 'a I i u27 I O m c l I `✓ F �I II o L `m 4' w c i c f I I E Imo • ! x c c i o I> { w c 0 1 m 6 1 9 '? m l w 0I w f °ts I T 111 E Q E o m; F too o f F. c c UJ i oG 7, II c v U w. w! d 1 m E I o k m w w' tnR I o l a @{ m 06 E m{ w to .19 m l l a E j �cl m I A I I N e7 G V' iui I CO r co I UI GN m 'V' I LO I �o i I- a0 O7 U [V i (V N [V N N N N I C, m ['� e? M M co i m I m m m 31 l -f I , I ao�m� I 6 Q, 'oI I , Q. w a p G N I O I a 3 c 4 1 -� •> V c Lm , I o rn ¢ N wCL I W .>✓' rw{ C = j E E fa. i m I n tea cc w j y I 0 U m 1-' L am... O 1 i 4D I ! I I v�� C7 > xi a c I I I Q om— a 1 w [� c I fl ua Q� a i E E I I e4i M c o w I c InD 0 w o I I i`1 e a I 7CDCol I I N ! q m O w fj no w I w tyy o us 0I Cl •p w ID tu I ! m I o., E r z G' m w v I - 0 cr i a cu N i b w w, 2 JJ a:' CD 0N if i D :N 0 CL IL m o w. rn>os Q I 0 Y ca cu a E a. N I O c O- n j a o 0 o ra.l y w I I 15 m w I os C3ED CI O it I o o o Nn u) Q I I muYi r 1 i a E I ica 441 w [] 0 Q) I _[ I �[ I m II { y Im r m Y-- ! I Ur I ' I (� I U t °a I 'a I i u27 I O m c l I `✓ F �I II o L `m 4' w c i c f I I E Imo • ! x c c i o I> { w c 0 1 m 6 1 9 '? m l w 0I w f °ts I T 111 E Q E o m; F too o f F. c c UJ i oG 7, II c v U w. w! d 1 m E I o k m w w' tnR I o l a @{ m 06 E m{ w to .19 m l l a E j �cl m I A I I N e7 G V' iui I CO r co I UI GN m 'V' I LO I �o i I- a0 O7 U [V i (V N [V N N N N I C, m ['� e? M M co i m I m m m 31 l -f ao�m� I 6 Q, 'oI I , Q. w a p G N I O I a 3 c 4 1 V c Lm W .>✓' n C = j E E fa. i m I O I 0 U m 1-' I E I L1 C7 > xi a c I I I w [� c I fl ua Q� a E I I o w I c InD 0 w o I I I CD ! E w I I N ! q m O w fj w I ad.�ID m I aE av E r z ff w v I - 0 cr i N i b w w, 2 JJ a:' CD 0N :N 0 G IL m o w. rn>os Q I 0 Y a E a. N I O c O- n j a o 0 o ra.l y w I I m w I os C3ED CI O it I o o o Nn u) Q I I muYi e N Q ICD �A 431;CL I ¢gin I ��' a l r 1 i a E I ica 441 w [] 0 Q) I _[ I �[ I m II { y Im r m Y-- ! I Ur I ' I (� I U t °a I 'a I i u27 I O m c l I `✓ F �I II o L `m 4' w c i c f I I E Imo • ! x c c i o I> { w c 0 1 m 6 1 9 '? m l w 0I w f °ts I T 111 E Q E o m; F too o f F. c c UJ i oG 7, II c v U w. w! d 1 m E I o k m w w' tnR I o l a @{ m 06 E m{ w to .19 m l l a E j �cl m I A I I N e7 G V' iui I CO r co I UI GN m 'V' I LO I �o i I- a0 O7 U [V i (V N [V N N N N I C, m ['� e? M M co i m I m m m 31 l -f Appendix B I� R � E� i F I �>�• h y ►v I ! v" I v! v v I CD CL 0 o N I 1 I n o aP C t v > m a rn a- m ) C U a 0 ' m a !U 0 N I 4 m E71 Q I m m v y 'w a c l j Pp i9 N O o I¢ co E o { U D a � � L I, m +E� I 0)I o LL II 1 1{ I C Z �F Ix CD N N CID CD a UI I C � QP C U i I} i x d I a m O '� m La C3 y v ca I mn 3 E m _o I aP f,P CL w f 7 a.0 l6 w QP , O! Ls rn� L i Y. m t F N v m I QC'-� o �. m b !y ID = U m ? B v 3 N I > = i - )r b 0 'p C I n.��o s .0 C a a m y L S o x 16 w Em .5 T ZI :,f 0 E ErL o c o tm CL 0 1 U m U N 6 Q I a -Fr--a ao CD x Od c I Ql Q I U d pV C E ® N N U C] I o m N Ei m Wu m m ICU, a _ GP 3 I (P g a. m f m a m q rn J o> Q. C,LR v ICS M > ¢ w i I C> a m a 1000 c ! CO, n ° m c t 0. �� 0)va m a a A 6 O c I 1 U7 cu 70 L m 4V m na m E o <t Appendix B I� R � E� i F I �>�• h y ►v I ! v" I v! v v I CD CL 0 v a I v� v IIli v I i I I I � i i i l i 32 /s co t � m m l i I c l j (u c .j I i I o I¢ D I1Iff 6) +E� I 0)I o LL II 1 1{ I G (W II �F Ix I X o I i I} i x d I a m O '� y ti Y � 4' _� � c�i� � j I v a I v� v IIli v I i I I I � i i i l i 32 /s Appendix B o I • o m o i � ca L ° E1 CL w G N N 2 - CD ' U 7 d L N N CD r ® 4D m ° N C m a m a " Uc • >, m •7c o � 'a � it , to m m m , ¢7 _c U N U I m N I'D m` M i m O ' i vm mo n ' I�� pCo m W i i f ' O ca 10 ol CD + ®s m I ro i I I �I "'l, tl il� i✓f l I ,ilr / IV �— V f a© m I L +t:r e C r W I I J2 1 1 LL' G ..•` C Q7 I Z �• I O 'Y in ,� , I Q •.,.. I m 0_ E C 0 i �; I saP ID W.15 •f ;- �: -1! '�' I ! �.. c m r m �U� � ` °D wQ !mm .t -oCv ! 'CDC ;II I ii I Ii {I III Yi Wa [ o i rn? a' co '34c Cb 0 1I v m E a m c E i a l I w i ro n l I—; n i I y i a l a .110, p 'arI v Cl v �i ai a vs o I m! I i41) _� , L I p? ds o! o? i U i o w ocm I I I m} ml clf ro_=I o I�lvl cl }cnl € c c js I Nob m `3 vex EL cm_rn, o I tC { 3 a y I I �i es 3 I w I! w I v mi a Q I rn O i t� ! °5 I i� l `° i m i ° I w i I Q i o l a y o. l 0 h I 1 0 og m c U) I c l l l r u Cf I x 1 '� I c Cd mG a m v v c rn c l v > I m s W o { j ! ca ro o _U_ I WCL I C V G �" a I C o m E I O. o f v I C T6 E YrL v E to } Ono i o r I, ! �v m ! r ®' C' ciLO v 7 I >= Q 6 ! ca v) I ~ I = ! ! I I i ID a a iiL { i 33 4 r Appendix B 7E o �a uJ n G c4: to [C N `G C ct Cv� � A ID 2 N N "J• Z m i co L^ Cv S` 7 _ 'C- r-% C7 C.'.Ev ry � L I W G 34 11 T> N � i G C -_ �i L nl •�: -. L3 Ci W CC i .73 C O -'S It L n C E 4Y cl r. rr. L cr ? •. X r � r r`r as � =' c a n J C- ^ n ED 12 Appendix B 7E o �a uJ n G c4: to [C N `G C ct Cv� � A ID 2 N N "J• Z m i co L^ Cv S` 7 _ 'C- r-% C7 C.'.Ev ry � L I W G 34 11 Appendix B 35 /W CZ: Li T� 4z :s JIn 1 AjL 35 /W Appendix B c 36 m cl — 'D -a ;= 14 a 5 al E"� I m v 3: ;s ;l, �R v C' c o ? 4 Im � 41 � 4 A' � i b9 `° • at '3 i) �nt 3 C C��4a -. G✓a _ q I 34 i C co:to , tr - F `x r r1yi �i a4 ^ I E Oj it fu 41 E3 ,y G Sit 4 1tj U I 'a I s V7 .F lCV r' 'in N n f' m CsLV 'O ` C [1 on !mom, It m LLi I a ' e 1 tea I g E m --(�� cd i:i tG cti O ! ? L ii} I 4. �e ur W w [X o5 1 U lL ' d� O ry = cm n E4 (� 't til �r S 1 i a! .c [a -G I I LC C ?. I. 6 7 Y' r5 is r CJ O 4+ W lu ' Qa}4 Si sR�" ��qq N U N� t m o `7 o 'Z YS U V• ..i N '4._ UJ `& m LC! d la Ll ck i - t; •• C, C 's9 R3 aj in i Ch •- r e- s- r r y- ON �F C I At E 'li ' •i I CL i# c 36 Appendix B w m � O r Of I lb Nw A7 U a a i n \ m -C C y w t5 E 6 m m "C, c c tR O , !1 w Q, N � O U l7 O7 N C • •D i CPm _, I I m , C Q coo' GU aC h 1R o t II� m m v a Q N II I O 74�i r✓\ /iCD M' o. m m ®M o i N o ! r v5 c 1 m , S I' C � m n D a' — a ' C I I d C ,� I +a •� � W � en I d CQ ! ! E I 1 G m 0 I- _� I o 4VI m, v ax I ; U o� o_� i i m nn� o U F ! i I I �• I I _' i � If .til t ! �,�� . Q c CD 0 m ami cr cc tU v vj I I �i c m 1 ' a mwum c —! ZZ pW U_ iR U�. oiC7+ N' ! a m. Ram I a! •o v! I m ro Q CO E I m m i W i C L} U m o- m i t o R i c ro , w 3 i Y w I m e� y I r i -i I a f I a! m 3i ! W I W m I a m m Q I v m! os I! C C!{ f o! c5 I! S 'tl LLo I m m a a+ O Q C w -C i I r j N ® G! C -5i. _ UU �o�E i ,°» ! II U�� N R N o a a nv ; i ! as®U n p { Q O dCD 4a co C7 `Q ! 4t ! M1 coI W N >` m U it -C3 CL o C Dcr ; 37 `0 Appendix B 38 -7-r c. o v z -46 cu c C n c• J ✓ n % er � tc cn — a = � tv to tn p r a sa L �! ' L �I l• ��7 '� � Cv w Lr cc L _ i >: Z t15w QJ !.t C. ,.., M i ff_ v 38 -7-r Appendix B "'" I > N I I I I a y I N i � m p I CL N _ • I ❑ N � J 11 m 61 N O I ! N C 9 I ! I I I I_� I- — --�__ 0_---------�--I r� d Et o i m i i c E N l EI E I I o- I � � m 4 70 = N C L i C CD rp ' U .c I 1 c ! 4, 4�°� a I n i — I c e m o 7 Q rn m r I I I o}mm Q CL CL I • (U Rs 4 O I 2 C QJ 7 0 vy I > i t 100 ro a a IL ' o I w i j cc E n m co m - p I c is " U g c I aoi CD i 14 E ID 1:1. I _ C to r W E 1 jI �. I Q m E o O 1 " `` I- N I N 1 N m i BQOM m V N o r I a L D m o CL , [31 I Appendix B "'" I � m p I I f pf � ❑ N m O � � I I ! I I I I_� I- — --�__ 0_---------�--I I N odi -00 a t j cc E n m co m - p I c is " U g c I aoi CD i 14 E ID 1:1. I _ C to r W 1 jI �. I Q L O 1 " `` I- N I N 1 N m +II O I II 14 I -V m ❑ " p W as a I [31 I c L U i s C I I t C c I m m ED 1 I I p v G, B. ¢ I O N �S J t = O utS D` q3 ca = oil U -a � I p b3 G Ls `p I LL i (6 U UJ 4y O A C tlS S+ W O C t6 rL I U ° U I o o m m c Z a 10 1 crn m "• .o I nxoi s N 5 a m '" I •N 1 05 (+Q1 G. I a N i4 I I p .G p O C I m m nS Z _ • O N I d o t4 w cb I T ! tY] ❑—. . 3C is U J +4 ❑ a I} o I CL o 1 O CGU 7 d vii 0. I I I C •� f C y y4 d Q G1: m N 1 E I 4 h ow o Y ��' c •� p �� 'a r m a �P��N to 0, I I � ro y, O ' CW O mm N ! L7 i o- Ch f ! I x N I i I I I I IRE a) y I I 7 I I c Q 39 d -L y/C Appendix B y `N NJ I 1 ' I I q I i i I I To j C CD O I C I LL .bEO U I U Y I 9 n{ 67 i x I I I Ol I it j i g y p I C I c i Q r N , c] � to fb � t•• � c0 I f r 3 b rn v = C _a O P m o c I Q 9= m .�.. p a7 f0 O W C O L 6' is TJ _ m a c :3cr E o 20Ea ;i r m m m E m rt o a ' C a) ID 4 Y m 4) a ql SO a) 1` E I cz 'P W O > m N 0) Q r O m ^ � F C @1 i .0 5 G i O N a� •C N r .E i CD t6 t 5 1 2J m m -O b m C � Y C ' m I O ._ ql CL m o arc , W I✓ , P = n I r cc ! M•+ � ��. N I T 1 j C �I _� ' E E I I ! l o n o M j 0 14 4/ O m ¢ v®'gym X ; E j aLm z5 Tk m U I ZJ f E U) .•c, ami f U C N O ,° '• > c cr m � i i m A I m j = C ra^ m m CL jo Ea m EP E b C ry , al P TJ I m m m m a O C Ll i ti 1 P I m t B m m s I y • cu m 1 n l ' D 43) ti} 3 p '0 o E WU�a I - um p q ap I t` i rn o ti a jD a ' CC, 'C -0 X I m o o pa CL f!J , TJ -3 cu N .�. 1 E P a5 Il5 ❑ a �' Z --- d y/C Appendix B y `N NJ I 1 ' f31 , ICi i i l� iTJ 'V' { r17 [fl 40 j I I q I i i I I To j C CD O I C I LL .bEO U I U Y I 9 n{ 67 i x I I I Ol I it j i q5 {76 c i Q r N , c] � to fb � t•• � c0 I f r f31 , ICi i i l� iTJ 'V' { r17 [fl 40 j Appendix B 41 �$ - $ \\w \ \ {\\\ ƒ \ \\ \\ \ \ \j$5 / a<ao /[ ƒ Appendix B 41 �$ Appendix B 42� 0 N 0CD I t~ c a > m fl 0. N � C N N E E6r c R N W CD w w '�5 o s= o c ` R p y D c m a n q r v o 1tl r E N N a_rppE'' = R N w R V Y NL w w' U ldC .9 w N R y(U `1 R N d N O p N �• N L d w Rr m � C 3~3m �, v o coT E cm> 'ter' C b w a ° o _ rn a 0 0 J-- [ t /y V � � O. yam,,, R . J" /� " CL L C 73 Rps p R N C U Q rn 3 o UmEw w N a m U w ++ E U O w C 3 .N C ( n Y 1 w 7 N C C o U rL N E b d a m � a to 1 G 0 o U c D r 6 c t w Y 1 w w r rn c a a, z i U) w } E E Q r CL CD0 4 dl () N a !- V t to: T I w w U > U x w O � ❑ c a � m •OU o � Q. S C w E m E, m E 2 c co � ca _ a o R 65 N w C o ® U � w C m _ �. Y G y cn 7 w tC L C U TS W W QTi N T w L T3 lb Vl Q' M O LS.i m R G C N N m E a� E OC r z r c 'C N LL R ail R 3 �t 61 r = b a23 _fl E o E m rn u7 w d 2 r 2 rR t" Y 2 � 1 r � 3 a� � m a ut '� o Q °a N N w (cn E_ w R R p R a2S co dy _E (n (n � o c _ 75 C E fJ] 0 O Y L P n7cC O CE �E U� w C c -jC fa aCC$ a A Qy Y TS o f C 2 C O 0 > Q w W ® C o� w 0(9 wR _ M J S CI) C7 Q 0 Y Q Q U U U Q o t So o'E o m o D Q a m `m c a o c , R w C n 0 rwrr 'O 'o R n O D C C -Y- O Z7 r N M CD (D t� m m r cl) P t'- Y O N _ N N N n N V` N 'o (D O p R N N w U) a 4-7 Em w U tn n 3 76 = > 42� Appendix B �u 43 �� m 'C12 CD L D > 4 O! Q N .L C tl U C6L C aiai Q C N @ L �} m CD @ N 4 m�N C O m C 4 m .G Q Oor - m EN N EM @ L m m y m E c @ mai ID @ n > i C @ @ @ V W Y C 3 m m ` U w O N N Q @ O] m m co i m LO -0 m O m o w CL N L tm C C ... Oca CLC C>' am Q -d CD � -0 Y y Q n'- U m m Ltl c 0. ad .• mo�C w c E N � N C C o U i C @ CL m E 4 a V N p do N L O cr C m 4 O m C Y d d 'r� E E Q CL @ L E mno LL Q @ H 4 U @ O n C? 0 ? A N @ y @ U"N U �x E p n A c o IV @ E0w ami mcn L o m U C m a tl a y a m L c E cr .0 N U ... m m O Z'] O @ T N 'C T@ m R U LIJ l co OI @ G L . �..� LL U tl ❑`p L E @ IDD-y Q m Q w '� m a7 w L J - LO m 'm N to 9 � `o C — � c U co N v N -mo @ a m � Y ¢@ Q 7 L 'O �. m U m N 7C ali C p C a N T m N 4 C U m a�j aT1 O d C C R E C m ca p° 3 or Y i m v `m E m d rn C c O E c O ro m o @ N @ @ Q m m r� w Y 4 m J ❑ 4 [4 C7 ¢ d Y 2 ¢ d t) (ca) U C ¢ v _a c ¢ ° Q a L m Uo 0 n aCL N `@ � .N Q j C a1 @ a W N (D 'r -m ,,., a Q w a) N u] [D 1� M Mr r m O r N M ti t(] 0 C T o C' 24 Q � '4 v 3 N N N N N N N c ��4 a @ m mm U ,a 3 ami EQ ma �cr m a U �u 43 �� Appendix B y 6 7 ` 4 o ❑ � '❑ L N Y C b ? fa D ❑7 R N N OU, C � � N .0 �N C ❑ � 0 N E O Q a ❑ EO C C t N > cr G OI ` E N a G v as a m m m G W U cod N U d N fC U ID a m o --- o � � N o O 7a � aN Ql E Emm G} LSD m G co Ua] x Li 0.2 d (6 a] 5 ❑ [U9 tp ' f L � N C _ O N ❑ G as o Ca � N o ❑ a L a cuEbo a V d. Eo N G t 6 c G m .L � w ❑ � m .a rn cr x .� O •Y � O m d7 aS N T C �a m z o EEEQ 7CL H U N O n U Z o rn O � C A L) a U w Qm Z o R i] C R U C O N 41 O 4) 0 C4 o u f m E O C of O U U N coo L 0 N E L r O O l6 C VI G U N CI) CD C j C a a> d cm .G N � m t(D G O a1 ❑ i Appendix B t45 a b' v s C a > 0. U 7° 0 N � O m m 16 tl1 '✓I D N G o C r ° v +� E oc R E 5 ° 0E -E N m ° br �._ m ° u E rq � �° E v G o a m ° m m T w m y a v P o M 1w 3: m m v 10 = m E rn Q) v`ro b so o y o a caoE 11 i C 'C CI CL LA i1 mn a E ° U?`°f� 6 Cri O N -o w cn S VL cc o 1 N CL O 1 m E ti V 1��2° N o 3 u c O L L � C � c m cm 2 _.. o s m y Z 3 � 3 5, m c o tU Z c ..�'E N E€E� C w d EcL,o n ° L) N O ` j F 4 Q 4 N N U}vic � m � c o ❑ c 3 ° n ° ` U N cr � j� > W O C N U Q. ma d m m c'�i m a� c wc U a m_ E a m c E m -7 — W c w w N m n E w a E °C 2 .c m C Ci co s c co al Lo E y rn (I m 0° m c a r x m c DL Y Il.i i 3 �.+ UCi �P C S:i o N f0 E Y ami 'n m n. a Q CO ca 'b otS 'Fa Cn O — c 10 � c � to tmo o o m r� 0) mc[l m �, CL ca �, E�ad t6 p N m v ru ° E c0 a ° N J 6 2 Q 2 t0 C7 C Q L] `L "2 b Q ° ❑ w U w U w Cl C Q v b rn> M y j°- m c mU m .N o C � � � (y a Zn N 16 b C M ir) (D ti co m r m 0 N M CO a C Y o° b Ln a .O ti a W Ecu w m 3 U m m 'o o iu t45 a b' Appendix B y O c E ❑ a) O C = b J m O P R N r C' o P � ¢ m L C } C 47 U N C O � C p u a oo E c E E P V _rn 'X O N cc t a a N �w°Ern d1 N m ca C �EE`` V 7 D ? r b a ? NN O N P n N ca N O m -c N M1 313E m m E ? � `o D b m O m C, m O n� m O C i N O _ouj m Q1 Q c`n o y m is O o o c O C m N C � O U N C —m O N a L To EO a N o a- 2-2 o C N L C tr . c e N L C X, C II C O z N ?, Q. � 'C (I] d O o E E E o_ CD aai 0 oa o' a 0 U N U 'Zi O Fm - r o m d F n mm No E 0 Q❑ C v i N o m R. L T L) -1-5 m E C m N m � 'O O m = C m 4 a) U) N O 7 py m L C T L R E m E cL E P a)C m r J O m E N O m o.5 U P 6 � P LL ¢ Cf)o m 4 a21 atS o N ❑ W 0 7 .... U� N 01 U E O N o ad .6 O� m c p -' o E C 0 Q N C o ) 1 0 m UocL o a N m P N C C >_Sq m o L a 4 N N. m O d C C 00. c x o P E� `m wan a) (D c a a in E m t•J N 0 'a NO - C E Q * 7� _ m iL O 2r 46 1? Appendix B 47 3D c rn = b 7 m O � R (3 7 0 Q O Ul Ll N cc tm ~ a7 N N Q C Q ul E Ola O r Q'._ � a o U DS m m j3 N E a7 c N fl! N •C ca .� •� EE55 �:./ m (D m y L ) a a L y N C N al CD d =1 a w3va �° C m m co v N N O N >` N y -L m ca �a c� c a 1 E v v m o � o ca o 41 to Q7 Q. eO N L — U of :3C :s m cQ fT M L C C O Lr >cq W v Q m to m Q Q O C a o a1 c `m 3W o, c Q d N ] p 0 C N C C .� it a1co 0 w Ql Q a _ c_ , C O y m = m N O Z d y C9 D E Ea ami c EQa M a U U N p L O F F � i G .N R T cD �; �` L3 7 N E N Ul � ❑ c Q O v Q � N Cil la - � U C C to N E N m i B C p C atuy.Q� to m n`r L N U ;`o. m m � m N T m N m Q ` m N E fl N C E w > m E EDp E CL 'F= a) a) F- C E y r N 2 U v C to m m E E py Q Y m mc: LL] m E la ltl Q rm Q o j a Q Q N O Q c D N U wO 'C N{� U � O' 2~ Q O o6 L (� 7cu C 7 t m m N G 'C C y a cu Y Li O o o a, o c o fa („) O. a ° Q L a c m O E v Na O a p .__ O r N M 'e Ln [D �.542 Em m o Q p Q = O CL 6 47 3D ` ,> N Q � O C b l I i I [ I V N i I 0 0 m I -- T E 'x c C-4 C { N a ❑ Q Q c Y o j i m Cl. Q�5c E L I 1 C m-0 ti h O7 I 1 C fC N m a -Ri C y ry ! d ' 1 i " Y N C j N C o> `a' y c!3 'o 11 r O IOD a1 b m 1 C ^ E i cc N m m ISL I LIt - ,fl I E f m tm s a m � K- 6 � FD IO � Q1 .L > N of C U T d m CD e a O � m t7n a 0 R C'o Cc os 7 rJ R 6 . H b { "to- a �U > i L C `o. °- I 1 j m O 'ED0 a ° �fmp�0�4m1 m C) c aU1 I Ln E a a' CL 3a U - m N a ix Appendix B C C II a l �- L Ta m r= � }- m w I !7 W II v o ds 06 R Lo 48 3! OcLcn CL V N O L T E 'x c Ol { N a ❑ Q Q ° U j i � Cl. y j O amm — m Coo m � coC m N C o> `a' y c!3 'o 11 r ; q�j C I C cc N m m ISL I LIt - ,fl I E f CC F ® OI E I IO C � Uf a � K- 6 � FD IO � Q1 .L O2 cc o in R a O 'C7 a os 7 rJ R 6 . H b 1 �U a0 o i C `o. °- I 1 ° �fmp�0�4m1 aU1 I Ln E a a' CL 3a U a a Appendix B C C II a l �- L Ta m r= � }- m w I !7 W II v o ds 06 R Lo 48 3! Appendix B 49 ( ® {2\cm \)\ \ \\ z a�2 k\�_0 \ ) Eo 0 —E k i & / a /�2 k[� a E - 2 - g \\ \ � \ 0CO j �`o CtsCD Cl) 01 a»/� \LD 20 cu Z - 2§/ cu \_ 1 \\k« OD § $ E Sa&% <CCL0 _ m _ - ®&/% _ E $a£{ .G I ` :��/ 0 �2�r - fQ. _ k ) M C:) � \\_ƒ\ in ° k L E CL t E 2 0M § k 0 � §/Rf d . e)/ # E /) CD f� \ § fAfCL; { VU { f,/ In>0� k f0f§ cu e e [ / j \/[/ ) p 6 ] \ { �.t§/;Z5 c � 4 } [ / iE @ w / - / \ - 04K2 0 k < - m ® j ) Im k 7 { �. / I f F f E f 2 f§ MM {!&¥ / cc a). 2 / 2 § R $ /\/ \ \CL \ c _ cel e a / 3\\ 2 0 ® k/ ) cq n » Lo _ & C -cr - } . \ /\60 2 £ 49 Appendix B 50 3-3 � \»\ \ ) /\\\ \ \ � \ �\\\ \ � L) LL 71 .7! � \ \� \ \ \ � y _ \}\z � \ \\\\ \_ \ \� t3 ^! \\{ �` / \ f 50 3-3 Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA 8 June 2015 To; Honorable Mayor Knight and City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes CA Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you for the opportunity to address parking and traffic issues that the Ciel Cerro community is experiencing as a result of the increasing number of visitors to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve — and the Portuguese Bend Reserve ("preserve") in particular. Discussed below are Del Cerro residents' responses to the recommendations that City staff has made to mitigate the parking and traffic conditions that our residents are experiencing. (The responses address staff recommendations included in the staff report to the City Council on April 21, 2015 and in the staff report to the Traffic Safety Committee on April 27, 2015.) As you may be aware, representatives from the Del Cerro Homeowners Association have also been working closely with City staff to design a permit parking program acceptable to the Del Cerro residents that will reduce the number of preserve visitors parking in the Del Cerro community. Del Cerro HOA has submitted a petition for a permit parking program under a separate cover letter for your review. The Traffic Safety Committee strongly supported implementation of such a program in Del Cerro at its April 27, 2015 meeting. City staff and the Del Cerro HOA recognize that a restricted parking program needs to be implemented before any measures are taken to improve conditions Crenshaw in a manner that would reduce parking availability there. Otherwise, Ciel Cerro will experience further parking spillover until restricted parking is Implemented in the neighborhood. Background Information Del Cerro is a community of 120 properties located at the southern end of Crenshaw Blvd. — adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. The community has a single entrance into/exit from the neighborhood which is at the intersection of Crenshaw Blvd. and Seacrest Drive, across Crenshaw from Del Cerro Park, and a few hundred feet from the main entrance into the preserve. 51 Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA Currently visitors to the preserve begin arriving shortly after dawn on weekends and holidays and continue arriving all day. By around 10.00 am, vehicles are parked on both sides of Crenshaw from the end of Crenshaw (at Seacrest) up almost to Crest Rd. This situation continues until well into the afternoon. We have even Noticed over the last few months that on weekday mornings, over 100 preserve visitors' cars are frequently parked near the adjacent trailhead - on the Crenshaw Extension, on Park Place, and on Crenshaw Blvd. This number will undoubtedly increase as summer approaches and the school year ends. Visitors open their vehicle doors without looking for passing cars often letting their children and off -leash pets out of the cars without proper control.Street-side doors are often left open while visitors change their clothes and shoes, take equipment out of their cars, chat with companions, use their cell phones, etc. — apparently oblivious to the passing traffic in a 40 -mph speed zone. Many visitors treat the end of Crenshaw as a parking lot, walking in the middle of the street while cars are trying to pass instead of using the sidewalks on either side of the street. The result is that cars entering or exiting Del Cerro must often drive down the middle of the street (crossing the yellow line into the lane for opposing traffic). Often 2 cars going in opposite directions cannot pass at the same time. The current speed limit on the segment of Crenshaw south of Crest Rd, is posted at 40 mph. However, travelers cannot possibly pass through that area safely at that speed on weekends. Drivers frequently make U-turns at the end of Crenshaw to exit the area or to find a parking place on the other side of the street, restricting traffic flow into/out of Del Cerro, the Crenshaw Extension (including Burrell Lane) and Park Place. At least two accidents have occurred when a driver decided to make a U-turn, apparently without realizing there were other cars behind him, and the 2"d driver (traveling behind the 1 St driver) didn't realize that the 1 st driver- was making the U-turn and hit the 1$c driver's door. In one of the accidents, the driver making the U-turn was taken away in an ambulance. Some drivers follow the curve of the street and continue onto Seacrest, then make U- turns at the intersection of Seacrest and Oceanaire, Clogging traffic flows there. Other drivers make U-turns from parking spots on Crenshaw or from the traffic lane in the middle of the block to find a parking place on the other side of the street or to exit the area. All of these actions interrupt traffic flow and create very unsafe driving conditions for residents entering and exiting Del Cerro and for the visitors to the preserve. 2 W Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA Del Cerro Recommendations to Mitigate Parking and Traffic Conditions on Crenshaw Below is a list of the actions that the Del Cerro community recommends that the City take to improve parking and traffic conditions on Crenshaw as well as the rationale for each. The recommendations were developed by conducting a survey to obtain resident responses to City staff recommendations contained in staff reports to the City Council on April 21't and to the Traffic Safety Committee on April 27th. Ninety-one responses were received — representing 76% of the 120 Del Cerro properties. The results indicated strong support for the recommended actions listed below — varying from a minimum of 86% support up to 98% support. A summary showing the level of support for each recommendation is attached to this letter. I. Establish a "No Parking Anytime" zone on the Ciel Cerro side of Crenshaw Blvd, from Seacrest Dr, to Valley View lid. Del Cerro supports the City staffs recommendation to prohibit parking on the Del Cerro side of Crenshaw Blvd. from Seacrest to Valley View, That action will provide wider traffic lanes for vehicles to enter and exit the neighborhood. Since parking will only be available on the ocean side of Crenshaw, visitors will be more likely to walls on the existing sidewalk rather than walking in the street to and from the preserve. The Traffic Safety Committee also concurred with this recommendation - 2. Establish the Crenshaw Extension as a 'No Barking Anytime" zone. Del Cerro supports the City staffs recommendation to eliminate parking on the Burrell Lane side of the Crenshaw Extension. (Parking is already prohibited on the Del Cerro side of the Extension.) This action will improve the ability of Burrell Lane residents to enter their street safely and for first responders to access homes on their street. It will also improve the ability of first responders to enter the preserve to protect our homes from fres or to rescue an injured preserve visitor. The Traffic Safety Committee also concurred with this recommendation. 3. Extend the red -striping next to the Crenshaw -Park Place intersection approximately 2-3 car lengths to improve visibility for cars exiting Park Mace. The current red -striped No Parking zone is not long enough to provide sufficient visibility of on -coming traffic to assure a safe exit from Park Place to Crenshaw — especially when the first or second vehicle is a high-profile one such as an SUV, Extending the E 53 Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA red -striping an additional 50 ft. or so will help to smooth the flow of traffic at the end of Crenshaw. 4. Conduct a speed zone survey during peek weekend usage time. Del Cerro supports this action. At the end of Crenshaw, the current 40 mph speed limit is far higher than drivers can safely travel when vehicles are parked on the street and visitors walk in the street toward the preserve_ The Traffic Safety Committee also supported this action, recommending an immediate speed zone survey to assess conditions now as well as a second survey to be conducted after all of the No Parking zones are implemented and the parking lanes are modified. 5. Initiate a phased approach to parking on the ocean side of Crenshaw., fsr phase. Leave parallel parking on the ocean side of Crenshaw as is, while implementing recommendations ## through #4 above. Assess the impact on congestionttraffic conditions. 2nd phase: Re -consider adding angle parking where the street widens only if parallel parking, recommended No Parking zones and speed limit reductions (recommendations ##9 through ##4 above) do not sufficiently mitigate existing traffic problems. The majority of Del Cerro residents strongly prefer to maintain the existing parallel parking arrangement on the ocean side of Crenshaw. It would provide better separation between parking and traffic lanes, allowing traffic to flow safely while visitors enter and exit their vehicles. Del Cerra residents do not consider either front -in or back -in angle parking on Crenshaw to be safe, as either option interrupts the flow of traffic while drivers exit or enter their parking spaces. 4 54 Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA 8. Analyze possible options to eliminate U-turns at the end of Crenshaw without causing vehicles to continue into Del Cerro and make U-turns at the Oceanaire- eacrest intersection or in the lower Oceanaire cul-de-sac_ Review options and recommendations with Del Cerro residents before seeking City approval and implementation. The large number of U-turns that occur at the end of Crenshaw causes unsafe traffic conditions for Del Cerro residents trying to exit or enter the neighborhood. Residents have witnessed 2 accidents due to U-turns being made. Del Cerro requests that consideration of any potential solutions include an assessment of the impact on Ciel Cerro's neighborhood entry and the Del Cerro Park, and that the potential solutions be reviewed with Del Cerra residents before approval and implementation. 7_ Add a decomposed granite walkway on tate ocean side of the Crenshaw Extension from Park Place to Burrell Lane — as long as the pine frees don't have to be removed. Del Cerro supports the addition of a decomposed granite walkway on the ocean side of the Crenshaw Extension from Park Place to the preserve entry point, as it would act as an extension to the existing sidewalk north of Park Place providing an off-street walkway for visitors to enter the preserve and would blend in with the natural bucolic beauty of the area. An important aspect of the plan would be to maintain the pine trees that line the edge of Del Cerro Park at the end of Crenshaw. 8. Do not establish a pay -to -park zone on Crenshaw. Del Cerro does not support the installation of pay stations or parking meters and associated signage on Crenshaw, as it would turn the ambience of a quiet, semi -rural residential area into a commercial -looking zone. The pay stations and signage would intrude into the view corridor of residents whose homes look out over Crenshaw to the Alta Mira Canyon, Del Cerro Park and the nature preserve. No other residential area in Rancho Palos Verdes has pay -to -park zones. Del Cerro shouldn't be the first. Even though the City staff recommended establishing a pay -to -park zone on Crenshaw to provide revenue to the City, the Traffic Safety Committee did not support doing so. 6i 55 Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA 9. Do not construct a permanent ori -site parking lot in Del Cerro Park. In the April 2151 staff report to the City Council, staff suggested constructing a permanent parking lot in Del Cerro Park as a possible future option to accommodate additional parking space for preserve visitors. Del Cerro residents strongly oppose converting a portion of Del Cerro Park into a parking lot for preserve visitors_ The park serves a very different purpose from the preserve's purpose. It is the neighborhood's equivalent of a small town village square or village green where neighbors gather to chat, take their children and grandchildren to play, socialize their dogs; have picnics, and even host pancake breakfasts to thank our first responders for their efforts in fighting the wildfires that have put our homes and lives at risk. Using a portion of this small neighborhood park to provide additional parking for the preserve would be giving undue priority to the preserve's visitors over the neighborhood residents. Turning part of the park into a parking lot would be degrading the quality of life that the neighborhood has enjoyed since the park was established as a passive recreation neighborhood park in 1932. Demand for preserve parking in the area is virtually unlimited and will likely continue to be so. Once part of the park is converted to a parking lot, over time there would likely be continued pressure to convert larger and larger portions of the park into parking space until the entire park is consumed. The Traffic Safety Committee also did not support converting part of Del Cerro Park into a parking lot. Conclusion A fundamental question that the City Council needs to decide is whether the City is obligated to provide as much parking as possible for visitors to the preserve — even at the expense of the adjacent neighborhoods' quality of life_ There appears to be a dichotomy in the City's approaches to parking at Gateway Park and at the Crenshaw Blvd_ entrance into the Preserve. The City staff has repeatedly stated in workshops held to obtain public comments on the Parks Master Flan that the "City is not required or obligated to provide parking" at Gateway Park, even though parking space at that park has been included in preserve -related plans since 2004 0 00 Appendix C Del Cerro Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes CA (before the preserve was acquired) T including the NCCP (approved in 2004) and the Coast Vision Plan (approved in 2008). In contrast, the underlying premise in both the April 21 'It staff report to the City Council and the April 271h staff report to the Traffic Safety Committee regarding traffic/parking issues at the Crenshaw entrance to the preserve is that more parking space is needed to accommodate preserve visitors. Del Cerro residents do not believe that adding parking space to accommodate as many vehicles as possible is appropriate, as that would draw more vehicles to the area and increase traffic congestion at the southern end of Crenshaw. Quite the contrary, If the City Council feels that more parking space must be made available to accommodate increasing numbers of visitors to the preserve, we would recommend that the City make parking space available at City Hall or other locations and provide shuttle service from the parking area to all entrances into the preserve — not just the trailhead at Crenshaw to improve the distribution of visitors throughout the preserve. We greatly appreciate the City Council's willingness to take the steps needed to improve the conditions that are compromising the quality of life of Del Cerro residents. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Megan Moor President Del Cerro Homeowners Association rA 57 8 June 2015 Appendix C Del Cerro Recommendations to Mitigate Crenshaw Traffic/Parking Problems Following are the results of a survey of Del Cerro property owners/residents regarding City staff recommendations to mitigate traffic/parking problems on Crenshaw Blvd. Please note that Del Cerro recommendations #5, #8, and #9 below differ from City staff recommendations presented in staff reports to the City Council on April 21, 2015 and to the Traffic Safety Committee on April 27, 2015. Figures in red below indicate the number of respondents who agreed or disagreed with each recommendation as Fisted. The percentages shown in red reflect the percentage of responses that agreed with each recommendation. Total Respondents as of 6/7/15; 91 Responses (76% of 120 Gel Cerro properties) 1. Establish "No Larking Anytime" zone on Del Cerro side of Crenshaw Blvd. Agree 87 98% Disagree __ 2 from Seacrest Dr. to Valley View Rd. 2. Establish the Crenshaw Extension as a "No Parking Anytime" zone. Agree rE, (mox,) Disagree _ 8-.-- 3. Extend the red -striping next to the Crenshaw -Park Place intersection Agree 82(98%) Disagree ..._. approximately 2-3 car lengths to improve visibility for cars exiting Park Place. 4. Conduct a speed zone survey during peak weekend usage time. Agree 78.(L2°/s) Disagree 7..� 5. Initiate a phased approach to parking on ocean side of Crenshaw: Agree €34 (95%) Disagree 4_.. 1 St phase: Leave parallel parking on the ocean side of Crenshaw as is, while implementing recommendations #1 through #4 above. Assess the impact on congestion/traffic conditions. 2nd phase: Re -consider adding angle parking where the street widens only if parallel parking, recommended No Parking zones and speed limit reductions (recommendations #1 through #4 above) do not sufficiently mitigate existing traffic problems. 6. Analyze possible options to eliminate U-turns at the end of Crenshaw without causing vehicles to continue into Del Cerro and make U-turns at the Oceanaire-Seacrest intersection or in the lower Oceanaire cul-de-sac. Review recommendations with Del Cerro residents before seeking City approval and implementation. 7. Add a decomposed granite walkway on the ocean side of the Crenshaw Extension from Park Place to Burrell Lane – as long as the pine trees don't have to be removed - 5. Do not establish a pay -to -park zone on Crenshaw. 9. Do not construct a permanent on-site parking lot in Del Cerro Park. Agree 8i-J9G"l) Disagree 3 Agree /2 (m,%.) Disagree 1.2..._ -- Agree 77 ($7q). Disagree 12 Agree 84 98% Disagree —2--., Appendix C .June 8, 2015 To- Nicole Jules Deputy Director, Public Warks Dept. City of Rancho Pales Verdes, CA Nicole, Attached is a set of photos that depict the parking and traffic issues in Ciel Cerro. The photos are intended to support our petition for permit parking. Please include them with the petition. We will bring a set of photos addressing the parking and traffic issues on Crenshaw Blvd. tomorrow. Thank you very much. Kathy Edgerton we Appendix C 8 June 2015 Photos Depicting Parking and Traffic Problems in Del Derry • 1, N 4� A, .�a Appendix C Pal Iq ' '�;1�2=fir®�� .� �• .s . mm Ij .I1� 4u i •,f --- - ' a -.. qlmra 210 I k N I A, WWI, 4W lip eL Z .,'l I A S'4 Air 10. Driver was able to stop the car a few feet before hitting the resident's truck {2nd of 2 photos). 68 \\\ Im , . � «/ �� \ � �■ \� § A Im , M.. f 4b 4 9 ,4r� f ,4r� M, -, � -,: ---, M;. c 0 ,F i 1t 3 : V !!F Y4 .. .a LA } !F Appendix C Nicole, Mi1irWA11[47 Attached is a set of photos depicting traffic and parking Issues on Crenshaw Blvd. Please attach the photos to the Del Cerro HOA letter submitted yesterday regarding recommended actions to mitigate the traffic and parking issues the community is experiencing. Thank you very much. Kathy Edgerton 74 Appendix C Jure 2015 Photos Depicting Traffic and Parking Issue on Crenshaw Blvd. 75 f i; - _:,rµ •4" s _ fir, ��i',.�+.� . i� r J i 4 , PF'o —1 .1 — #� .41 1 t tv 71 $ � c .0 0 E § C 2 0 2/ _0 `§ 7 @ � CL O 0 05 E . A:! @ 2 2 � - . ■ � � § § 0 Q $ E U 2— $ ? R @ \ 2 $ E � : m "'; �+ a t 0 v 1-1 .- pl, v. PN. v i a t a 0 E 0 T c� cts(D E4- m CD a cu c� Appendix C U) co 0 0 (1) cz 32 E m E a) -r— A U) U) m 0 CL .2 Z . I Im '- e m U U) 01- o cn CL U U) e CM0 C M C C� ,. U) 0 " 0 CL �-0 C cu E to T" -rim le Mk it fq I f n AIR&& G Appendix C Y Me c L E y} !CL CO to mrLD E co c O Q US -0 FL LJ ,_ , U) m _ O N O y..o v M- :Y t �Si� d�14 '•. '�Tk � xr ,�a f < •i •. j � Y� � - Y.' iia* d G' �r 9F r1 3�M1 k s i F} v.d�� L-A a ly for �A, I 3 Appendix C AS; lK -'P�z Appendix C Appendix tv c E U O (D — L a7 C tU C N E V) -CCD C O M 'D 0 r- -0 cc (D 90 7R Q AR7 4f Appendix C a 4A t Sill"Illf; -, 11 W. -I IN Appendix C Appendix D RANCHO CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION c/o Cammarata Management, Inc. 20039 Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 June 4, 2015 Mayor Jim Knight and City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Request for Permit Parking On Valley View Road Dear Honorable Mayor Knight and City Council Members: On behalf of the property owners of The Countryside, a planned unit development on Valley View Road, the Rancho Crest Homeowners Association hereby requests approval of a neighborhood permit parking program for our community. Attached is a petition indicating the specific program parameters being requested. The parameters are identical to that of the Dei Cerro community permit parking program. The petition has been signed by the owners of sixty-five percent (65%) of the properties within The Countryside. Twenty signatures were collected in two days. Some property owners were unavailable. The Rancho Crest Homeowners Association is a condominium development of 31 homes in a planned unit development on Valley View Road. The neighborhood is named "The Countryside." Valley View Road is a cul-de-sac and all homes in "The Countryside" community face Valley View Road. Valley View Road is one block long. All home owners on Valley View Road are members of the Rancho Crest Homeowners Association. The requested program includes the only street in The Countryside community, Valley View Road, in its entirety. We request that permit parking apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Background Information The Countryside community consists of 31 properties which was developed between 1981 and 1986. The community is located near the southern end of Crenshaw Boulevard, between Crest Road and Seacrest Drive (the entrance to Del Cerro). The Countryside is on the east side of Crenshaw Boulevard and it is directly across from the 116 Appendix D Mayor Jim Knight and City Council Members .tune 4, 2015 Island View community. Valley View Road is a cul-de-sac and there is only one entrance to the neighborhood. The homes are larger than average, so the development attracts large families. The Rancho Crest Homeowners Association has coordinated this request with the Del Cerro Homeowners Association. The terms of the request for permit parking are identical to the request of the Del Cerro Homeowners Association. If the City approves the Del Cerro parking permit program, the parking permit program for Valley View Road would be identical. There would be minimal additional time and expense to the City to administer the program. Neighborhood Conditions Currently Being Experienced Visitors to the Portuguese Bend Reserve have increased dramatically in the last year. On weekends, there are typically up to 150 vehicles continuously parked on Crenshaw Boulevard. Crenshaw Boulevard parking on weekends is often packed. Cars are now regularly parked on the weekend on Crenshaw Boulevard back to Valley View Road and beyond. On Memorial Day there were at least eight cars, believed to belong to Reserve visitors, parked on Valley View Road at one time. If the City allows permit parking in Del Cerro and reconfigures the parking on Crenshaw Boulevard, there could be 80 or more cars which will lose their existing parking spaces. Reserve visitors would park their cars on Valley View Road as the closest alternative available parking. Eighty additional cars on the street would overwhelm Valley View Road. It would exhaust all of the available street parking and leave no street parking available for residents. There would be traffic flow problems and no space for cars to turn around. If the City grants permit parking to Del Cerro and reconfigures parking on Crenshaw Boulevard, the existing parking problems will migrate to Valley View Road as the closest available parking location. The usage of the Reserve has been increasing. Even without a change in parking restriction on Crenshaw Boulevard, Valley View Road is still likely to be used for Reserve parking as the closest available parking location, as visitors increase. Key Program Parameters Being Requested The following program parameters are considered crucial to success of the program: Permit parking to apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Residents feel that parking by permit only may deter criminals from entering the neighborhood. At the minimum, requiring visible permits to be displayed will facilitate the identification of unrecognized or suspicious vehicles by residents as they drive through or walk on Valley View Road, and it may highlight potential criminal activity. ItA 117 Appendix D Mayor Jim Knight and City Council Members June 4, 2015 2. All of Valley View Road to be included in permit parking program. All of Valley View Road needs to be included in the permit parking program to prevent spillover to areas outside of the immediately impacted areas and to anticipate the likely progression of impact as more people begin to park on the street (unless the permit parking program is implemented). Also, it is critical to the support of the program by residents to minimize the potential negative impact of signage on the ambience of the neighborhood by limiting the number of signs while assuring enforceability. If the entire street is included in the program, a maximum of one sign at the entry of Valley View Road on an existing sign post stating that all of Valley View Road is covered by the permit parking program should be sufficient notification. 3. Up to 30 guest parking permits per household per year allowed. Several residents have hosted frequent gatherings of family, friends and church members for many years. This number of guest permits will allow these residents to continue the same activities that have occurred for years without complaint. 4. Development of an online process for residents to obtain resident and guest parking permits. An online process will enable residents to obtain permits in an expeditious manner. 5. Identical permit parking program to Del Cerro. Since the permit parking program will be an identical program to Del Cerro's permit parking program, it will reduce City costs for the program. Since the permit parking program will be identical to the Del Cerro's permit parking program, it will be easier to educate Reserve visitors about the permit parking program and to direct visitors to the available parking. Conclusion Valley View Road residents believe that implementation of this permit parking program will prevent the spill-over of the existing problems to Valley View Road, and enable the street to continue to be the safe, quiet, peaceful and attractive neighborhood that residents have enjoyed for many years. 3 118 Appendix D Mayor Jim Knight and City Council Members June 4, 2015 It is our understanding that the Valley View Road residents will not be required to pay for the expenses of implementing and maintaining the permit parking program. We support the permit parking program proposed for Del Cerro. We support changes to the parking rules on Crenshaw Boulevard which will improve the safety of visitors and residents alike and at the same time improve traffic flow. Thank you for your consideration of our request for permit parking on Valley View Road. Your prompt approval of our request will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding our request, please contact Joan Olenick (310-344-1433 orjoa_nolenick(a-)gmail.comj. Respectfully submitted, Douglas But& Rancho Crest Homeowners Association Parking Committee Butler\Rentals\ValleyView\PermitParking\ Knight&CityCauncil-ParkPermitReg4. Ltr-WORD-060415 119 Appendix D T '- a� Q v a cy� U [4 Y o e > a o E N a N UN ra W aa. Q h o m -a U O d o n ox o f0 N C U tm O b N C 10 CD U � Q N q O � O W "C N O O t7 d N ay L Q > t3 m O C T O m o m a m N = Q) a `O _ m E 4 v o at=m C m0 C m N Q Nro a OL N C E Q v Q ` S _I o c �q Y ca U Q L a _ C Y o v a o c U m m o - d v 3 - ja> a 4 �i D N a a - ro m o o a� ' C i L N v N a 0 m O � N A L d N 0 cCo O d O F- 'Q a C ) C NN -0 j a o y a Ea L o` E v �J w m m E� ro CX , o e {� ID m Q7 cE Ql a Y V rel cd a v CJOQ ti v N E 0 C Q Vi O mC. -- CL a' m L E a r) �Vl 1f`�i �`' J' VE E CL jLo ;a V 1 J 4 120 Appendix D C T - ca c� a) a �— G 9 � vo NCLQ ai E y . A E p N V 0 N N Q L Q O N 0 c U y o F Y f0 q a O C V C U d L v �' E a o T O ? Vl 'gyp Y by LQI a) E O F R G b a) p O O U 41 y b ro O (U y - a Cl) cr N G 7 L - O E u o m G� ED m i !1 m m L o N CY) co 0i' of O W c N m 0 E o n o L G a o 6,� U ¢ IO O o U a o = U 0 0 - -- - tn o m O 7 p n i p O o L o- 4 E CL C, O � c � o o_r Z G_1 C a 0 y m Z U1 ° a 0. __ > m V a N Cca - cC O O = L R 67 N 3. y G 7� Gt c % y g Q N d i E j `p N O_ A 4) O L E E E U E E 0 d0) ca C y x O 'O ` N E CL @ V m aL m m > O m 3713, 1 cn y K _Q U N N E Z � al d N a ccl (U \ ` 7 N Cf0 C i O 0 7 N U N QCi O N W� LE 3 j-- - - - � m mo 7) N m c o c G O c a y o p 0 O C e0 a C71 Q- Oa NG ra o ti c a N N 0 C, @ .5 0 3 I m 0 0. b9 N N y E 6 L C , 7 N L 121 Appendix E study in order to do an "apples -to -apples" comparison. She stated that the same intersections, Crest Rd. at Crenshaw Blvd., and the two roadway segments, Crest Rd. west of Crenshaw Blvd. and Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Rd., were considered. She also mentioned that the three different scenarios looked at were the existing conditions in 2014 in comparison to the projected conditions from 2007, the existing conditions plus the ambient growth to 2022 including the project conditions and the existing conditions plus the ambient growth including the cumulative projects plus project conditions; no significant traffic impacts were found on any of the three scenarios. Senior Engineer Countryman indicated that the next step to take if the TSC concurred with the Staff's recommendation to approve the traffic study update report in order to be presented to the City Council in July, 2015 for consideration. Committee Discussion and Staff Questions Chair Self asked if there was any reason to doubt the survey or believe that is worse than what is being presented. Senior Engineer Countryman stated that what was analyzed from previous report to the updated report, shows that no significant changes have occurred on the contrary traffic conditions have improved compared to what they had thought it would be. Action Taken: Committee Member Kramer moved to accept the City report to be presented to the City Council, seconded by Committee Member Guerin. Motion approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0 Absent: Committee Member Ott 2. CRENSHAW BLVD ANGLED PARKING Recommendation: Consider the parking alternatives for Crenshaw Blvd and provide a recommendation for implementation. Deputy Director Jules proceeded with a power point presentation which included a brief overview of the item's history and recommendations for parking alternatives. She stated that this item has been brought to the TSC in two separate occasions to mitigate the parking issues in the area due to the increasing demand to visit the Nature Preserve. She also mentioned that the City received letters of concern regarding the parking issues in the area and the condition of the Del Cerro Park from the residents, Park Place HOA, Burrell Lane HOA, Del Cerro HOA and a hosts of individual residents in late 2011. The issue was first brought to the TSC in 2012 where it was recommended to take action to alleviate the parking conditions. These recommendations were brought up before the City Council where several improvements were authorized as a first step. She stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to recommend the next level of improvements. She indicated that the City has done some Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 4 of 16 122 Appendix E improvements such as established a "No Parking Any Time" signage on Park Place in 2012, painted red -curbs on Park Place and on portions of Crenshaw Blvd. in 2012, posted "No Parking Any Time" signs on the eastside of Crenshaw Extension in 2013; it was also added that a DG trail from Park Place to the Preserve entrance is "on the way". She proceeded to go over the recommendations for that night which included various parking zone concepts, parking reconfiguration on Crenshaw Blvd. from Seacrest Dr. to Valley View Rd., Del Cerro Neighborhood Permit Parking and new speed zone survey for Crenshaw Blvd. She stated that the primary goal is to protect the neighborhood by establishing the parking permit program in that area. She did make the clarification that this program cannot be imposed by the City but it needs to be requested by the neighborhood where at least more than sixty percent of their community needs to be in agreement. It was also recommended for the program to be established before doing anything else. Another recommendation would be to fully restrict parking on both sides of Crenshaw Extension. This will eliminate the pedestrian vs. vehicle conflict; only emergency, service and maintenance vehicles will have access to this zone. Other proposed items to be considered are the "Pay to Park" zone along Crenshaw Blvd. and an RPV resident -only parking zone at Del Cerro Park. Deputy Director Jules, re -instated that these are only ideas the City is proposing to help manage the parking situation in that area. She proceeded to go over the Crenshaw Blvd. Parking Assessment prepared by Iteris Inc. where it was noted that only a certain parking configurations can be considered due to the various road widths. The first option presented was Alternative la, front -in parking at sixty degrees, which will accommodate fifty angled spaces and fourteen parallel spaces between Valley View Rd. and Park PI.; these parking spaces will be on the southbound of Crenshaw Blvd. with no parking spaces along the northbound. This configuration will have twenty less parking spaces compared to the current eighty four parallel parking spaces (assuming a twenty five feet length per parking space) along both sides of Crenshaw Boulevard. The second option given was Alternative 1 b, front -in parking at forty five degrees, accommodating forty three angled spaces and thirteen parallel spaces along the southbound of Crenshaw Blvd. Alternative 2a, back -in parking at sixty degrees, was the third option which provides fifty four angled spaces and thirteen parallel spaces along southbound of Crenshaw Blvd. Another option Alternative 2b, back -in parking at forty five degrees, will accommodate along southbound of Crenshaw Blvd. forty six angled spaces and twelve parallel spaces. Alternative 3 would allocate parallel parking along southbound Crenshaw Boulevard only. Another option would be to leave parking conditions as is. Deputy Director Jules asked the TSC to rank the options given from one to three, one being their prefer option followed by their second and third choice. The selected options will be presented to the City Council for consideration. She also reinstated that future improvements need to take place in phases. The first phase she recommended was to implement the residential area permit parking program. Second phase would be to select one of the parking alternatives presented tonight; followed by the third phase if the TSC agrees to implement a Pay -to -Park Zone for visitors and create a Resident Recreation Parking Pass at no cost and for residents only. The last phase (which is optional) would be to construct an off-street parking lot at Del Cerro; she did state that Del Cerro community does not favor this idea. Deputy Director Jules proceeded to give more detail regarding the Neighborhood Permit Parking process. Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 5 of 16 123 Appendix E She mentioned that the City has been working with the neighborhood to mold the program to the community needs; she also emphasized the need of having at least sixty percent of the neighborhood support via petition; the parking permit program initially needs to be requested by the community and at no cost to their residents. She stated that once the program is in place, at least one sign needs to be erected in the neighborhood to inform the public of such parking restrictions, each resident will need to purchase a decal for $2.50 per vehicle and any guest passes can be managed through the HOA if the community chooses to do so. Last point made was the need for the program enforcement in order to be a success. Committee Discussion and Staff Questions Chair Self asked if it was necessary to implement the permit parking program to the entire neighborhood or if only certain streets can have parking restrictions. Deputy Director Jules responded that the program can also be implemented only to certain streets and boundaries should be established as where the parking permit program starts and ends; this option will increase the number of signs posted in the neighborhood. She did recommend to implement the parking permit program to the entire neighborhood in order to minimize parking "spilling" onto the adjacent streets where the program has not been implemented. Chair Self also wanted clarification on the sixty percent support since the Del Cerro community has an optional HOA participation. Deputy Director Jules stated that the sixty percent support should be from the entire neighborhood regardless whether they belong to the HOA or not. Vice Vlaco wanted to know if "spilling" still occurs with all the existing parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd. including the parking spots at Del Cerro Park. Deputy Director Jules stated confirmed. Committee Member Kramer wanted to know what the road classification is for Crenshaw Blvd., especially on the portion south of Crest Road. Deputy Director Jules indicated that the portion north of Crest Rd. is a minor arterial and the portion south of Crest Rd. is classified as an access road. Committee Member Kramer also asked if the City currently has other areas where you pay to park. Deputy Director Jules stated that there are no pay to park areas in the City right-of-way only at the Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. Another question Committee Member Kramer had was the maximum number of parked vehicles reported in the previous traffic report. Deputy Director Jules mentioned that seventy-nine vehicles were counted on a holiday Monday — Martin Luther King Day. She also stated that she has been noticing an increase in parking demand in that area every year. Committee Member Kramer was also interested in the width of the travel lanes shown in the alternative designs. Deputy Director Jules stated that the design shows the parking spots length to be twenty feet with a four feet buffer between the parking area and the travel lanes, and a twelve feet width for each travel lane. She also made clarifications regarding the unfeasibility of widening the road due to limited right-of-way in the area; it was also discussed that the City is contemplating making improvements on Crenshaw Blvd. at Seacrest Dr. in order for vehicles to turn around to exit the area. Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 6 of 16 124 Appendix E Chair Self wanted clarification as whether the Coastal Commission had control over this part of the Preserve. Deputy Director Jules stated that the area where the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over is south of Palos Verdes Drive South. Chair Self also asked what was the staff's recommendations for this issue. Deputy Director Jules mentioned that the City does not have a preference for any of the parking scenarios but she did want to make note that the City's top priority is safety; also finding a solution that is fair for all and acceptable by the community. Chair Self also wanted to know if there was an expected growth number in visitors to the Preserve. Deputy Director Jules stated that she will do a follow up on that since she did not have any numbers at the moment. Committee Member Guerin asked what the cost estimate is to re -stripe the road. Deputy Director Jules stated that it would cost between $7,500 and $10,000 dollars. Committee Member Guerin also wanted to know if there are any statistics for any accidents/fatalities in the area. Deputy Director Jules mentioned that there were no fatalities nor accidents reported in the last five years for that area. Committee Member Guerin also asked what is the advantage of reconfiguring the parking striping and how it is going to be paid. Deputy Director Jules stated that the money obtained from the "Pay -to -Park" program will be "paying" for the new parking configurations. She also added that the intention of the "Pay -to -Park" program is to regulate/minimize the number of visitors in that area. Public Comments Ana Paludi Mrs. Paludi stated that one of the reasons her family moved to the City is so their kids could go to the City's schools, also for the beauty of the area and being close to the Preserve. She does not want to prevent others from enjoying the area, her main concern is safety. She has seen people opening their vehicle doors, taking their children out, backing up, poor parking and poor citizenship creating animosity. She is surprised that no property owner has done something to a visitor because things are getting to a "boiling" point. She amazed how fast things progress for it seemed eighteen months ago, she could drive into her community and see at the most fifteen cars; now days she sees about twenty five cars park along the road. She states that the efforts the City is doing to provide more parking is counter intuitive to what the neighborhood is asking for; it does not help the community, it helps more visitors to come to the area. She does want people to come and visit the City's facilities but she would like to see some type of payment being enforced. She states that when her family and friends walk trails, they are picking up things. She is worry their property values will be going down, especially if the park is taken away. She thanked the Traffic Safety Committee for listening and taking their comments. Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 7 of 16 125 Appendix E Pat Carroll Mr. Carroll wanted the TSC to consider the disadvantages that might exists when vehicles back up into traffic from the angled parking spaces; he is concerned with the visibility issues this might present and with the possibility of traffic accidents. Megan Moore Ms. Moore, current president of the Del Cerro HOA, presented to the TSC with some photos of the various activities occurring along the road. She stated that the typical number of vehicles in the area can go up to fifty or sixty vehicles parked at ten in the morning on Crenshaw Blvd. from Valley View Rd. to Crest Road. She mentioned she does not understand why there are fifty vehicles parked on a Monday and that last Tuesday, she saw about hundred vehicles parked on the road; the neighbors expect the numbers to grow during the summer. She also stated that there are other issues; people polluting, people running in the middle of the street, opening their doors, changing clothes, sit and talk to each other, change bike and hiking gear, people believe that is a parking lot and that is ok to walk in the middle of the road when this is a forty-five mph zone all the way to Park Place. She also added that vehicles park in front of fire hydrants and that there has been instances where the traffic signs have been brought down when people try making a u -turn at the end of the road; accidents have occurred in this area. She also mentioned that there is a gentleman in the neighborhood that is agrees with providing more parking spaces at Del Cerro Park but most of the neighbors are in disagreement; they do not want to see their beautiful park being reduced. Miriam Varend Ms. Varend stated that she is a member of the Del Cerro HOA; she also mentioned that about ninety to ninety-two percent of the households in the community participate in the HOA. She believes that the traffic configurations provided in the traffic report do help to alleviate the problems and promotes safety as well. She also believes that eliminating parking along the northbound of Crenshaw Blvd. will discourage people from walking in the middle of the road and it will also provide a wider area for vehicles to pass in the opposite direction. She stated that the forty-five degree angled parking is preferred if angled parking is what prevails. She stated that they strongly support the speed survey and the DG trail which will provide a clear path towards the Preserve and keep people out of the streets; it will also help to preserve the ambiance, beauty and peacefulness of the area. She stated that the neighborhood has an issue with signage for it will affect the ambience of the area. She stated that there are concerns with the pay stations; they want to know how they look like, how many and where these stations will be placed, and how are they going to affect the aesthetics and the views of the area. She also stated that the neighbors have a concern with pay parking in the residential area vs. commercial area. She is also requesting to remove two to three of the parallel Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 8 of 16 126 Appendix E parking spots along Crenshaw Blvd. close to Parking PI. in order to increase visibility and safety. She thanked the TSC. Kathy Edgerton Mrs. Edgerton stated that she is a member of the HOA board as well. She wants to talk about the neighborhood parking permit program; she stated that during their last survey, approximately seventy-nine percent of the hundred -twenty home owners supports a 24/7 parking permit program. She mentioned that one of the neighbors observed about forty-five vehicles parked on Oceanaire Dr. for almost the entire Saturday on February and she also observed about thirty-five cars two weeks prior to that Saturday. She stated that they believe that once the summer comes, they will see more vehicles coming into Del Cerro. She stated the reason the Del Cerro neighborhood is requesting the 24/7 parking permit program is because they have seen an increase in the number of burglaries in the past eighteen months. She mentioned that they believe the reason why this is happening is due to the number of visitors to the area thanks to its popularity through the social media and L.A. Times. She also added that there are too many issues with the parking permit program: one is the current cumbersome acquisition of the permits, the potential number of signs, the number of parking permits that can be issued per household and the lack of an online service to obtain the parking permits. She thanked Deputy Director Jules and the Staff for their efforts and for working with community to customize the parking program to their needs. She stated that the community is trying to have the signed petition ready before the next City Council meeting on May 19, 2015. She also wanted to share the discontent among the neighbors of the idea of creating a parking lot in the Del Cerro Park for that has been their village square where they meet with their neighbors, they chat, they socialize their dogs, they have used that as their first responding meeting spot during emergencies such as the fires occurred in 2005 and 2009. Lastly, she wanted to mention the accidents occurred in that area; their neighborhood sign has been brought down a few times during u -turn maneuvers at the end of the road. Al Edgerton Decline to speak since his wife had already covered all issues/comments for that night. John Girardi Mr. Giardi stated that he lives in Burrell Lane and that his main concern is safety which seems to be the main consensus that night. He believes that there is certain degree of thoughtlessness amongst the visitors for it seems the hike starts at the moment the engines turn off; the doors are opened, the strollers and the bikes come out to the travel portion of the road. He also believes the traffic report and the speed survey are critical to the issue. He mentioned that the residents of the area are aware of the forty mph speed limit but the visitors do not seem to be mindful of the speed limit; excessive speed is a real issue. Other issues Mr. Giardi wanted to talk about is the many things happening at the end of the Crenshaw Extension which is a narrow road; vehicles make u -turns, vehicles parked on one side of the road and pedestrians cross in the middle of Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 9 of 16 127 Appendix E the road. He also added that the residents on Burrell Ln. have limited visibility when exiting their street due to the vehicles parked along Crenshaw Extension. Chair Self Closed the Public Comments Committee Discussion and Staff Questions Chair Self asked where will the overflow traffic is suspected to go. Deputy Director Jules stated that the next possible location would be Valley View Road follow by St. John's Fisher parking lot area, also some possibilities on Crest Road between Crenshaw Blvd. and the Rolling Hills gate, on Crenshaw Blvd. north of Crest Road. Chair Self also wanted to know the number of signs needed for the parking permit program. Deputy Director Jules stated that one sign could be enough, however, if the program is implemented only on selected streets, than more signs will be needed. If the program is established in the entire neighborhood, this would reduce the number of signs; she would recommend to place the signs on Seacrest Dr. which is the entrance/exit to the community. Committee Member Kramer asked if the TSC can make a recommendation for a parking permit program or is it strictly for the residents. Deputy Director Jules stated that the initiation of the program is strictly for the residents, however, the TSC can concur with their petition and support the community. She mentioned that Staff cannot impose the program. Committee Member Kramer stated that he encourages the community to enable the neighborhood parking permit program as this issue has been brought to the TSC in two separate occasions and although action has been taken, this has not been enough to remediate the situation. He also stated that his concern with the other parts of the Staff proposal is that the problems could spread to other neighborhoods. He does not agree with doing nothing for safety reasons. He believes that there is no one solution that satisfies all the criteria but he wants to choose the best and safest solution for all residents and visitors. Chair Self stated that he opposes to the idea of changing the park into a parking area for the sake of the property value in that area. Chair Self also shares the same concern as Committee Member Kramer; he worries that there will be a "snow ball" effect with the parking. He also recommends the residents of the area to pursue the neighborhood parking permit program. Committee Member Kramer wanted to add that he is not in favor of the back -in parking alternative and considers it to be a problem. He would like to re -assess the speed zone in the area and perhaps reduce the speed limit in that area. Another thing he is not in favor is the "Pay -to -Park" option; he stated his dislike for parking meters and he does not want this to be the first area where you have to pay to park in the right-of-way. He does not believe that paying to park will discourage people from coming back to the area. Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 10 of 16 128 Appendix E Committee Member Vlaco wanted to know how many parking meters or parking stations would be placed in that stretch of the road. Deputy Director Jules mentioned that this is only a concept idea to see if it was accepted by the community and the TSC. Committee Member Vlaco also added that acquiring a parking permit at City Hall could be an option or parking at City Hall. Chair Self asked if the City has offered to provide a shuttle to take the visitors to the Preserve. Deputy Director Jules mentioned that she has heard of that idea before and that it was something that would need to be explored and the cost of the shuttle would be at the tax payers' expense. Committee Member Vlaco asked how easy would it be to modify the neighborhood parking permit program once it gets implemented. Deputy Director Jules stated that the changes would be done via resolution, therefore, Council action is needed. Committee Member Kramer wanted to know if there are currently any parking problems at Valley View Rd. Deputy Director Jules stated that she is not aware of any problems. Committee Member Vlaco asked Deputy Director Jules what her thoughts were regarding extending the red curve. Deputy Director Jules responded that she supports it. Chair Self asked if the proposed alternatives were just concepts and if further design was needed. Deputy Director Jules stated that the choices presented were concepts and detailed design is needed. Committee Member Vlaco asked for more details regarding the D.G. trail. Deputy Director Jules stated that the trail will be along the southbound of Crenshaw Extension from Park Place to the Preserve entrance. Committee Member Kramer wanted clarification on the sidewalk existence along Crenshaw Blvd. north of Park Place. Deputy Director Jules stated that there is existing sidewalk on both sides of the road. Chair Self asked how long would it take for a speed survey to be conducted and presented to the TSC. Deputy Director Jules stated that a Consultant can possibly start working in the next couple of weeks. Committee Member Kramer asked if the results of the speed survey would be affected if the re -configuration of the striping changes. Deputy Director Jules stated that the speed results of the existing striping conditions might vary from the proposed striping and that a new speed survey might be necessary. Chair Self asked if the City currently has any angled parking spaces or if most of the parking spaces are right angled. Deputy Director Jules stated that at the Pelican Cove Parking and at the Pelican Cove pull-out there is angled parking. She also believes that Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 11 of 16 129 Appendix E the parking at the Abalone Cove Shoreline Park pull-out is angled parking as well. She did mention that although all these areas are angled parking, they are located on pull- outs on the side of the road and separated by a raised concrete median. Chair Self asked for more details regarding the size and type of the proposed paying stations. Deputy Director Jules stated that this is just a concept and further detail will be part of the design. Chair Self also asked if the purpose of the pay stations was to discourage people from coming to visit the area or was it to mitigate the parking issues in the area. Deputy Director Jules stated that the pay stations will serve as a revenue generator and that most of the beach Cities currently have pay parking. Chair Self asked if they also have parking cops to what Deputy Johnson stated that they do. He also stated that they have CSO, Community Service Officers, that take care of that. Deputy Director Jules also added that the City is looking into a program where a company is responsible for doing the enforcement, toll collection and management of the pay stations; she also mentioned that these companies can also enforce the parking on other parking areas within the City. Committee Member Kramer asked for further detail about the parking for RPV residents only at the Del Cerro Park. Deputy Director Jules stated that City can issue a recreation parking pass for residents only; she also mentioned the possibility of extending the parking pass to other parking facilities within the City. Committee Member Kramer also asked Deputy Director Jules if what has been asked from the TSC is to make a recommendation to the City Council of all the alternative solutions presented tonight. Deputy Director Jules stated that the City is seeking a recommendation from the TSC of all the solutions presented or any other proposal the TSC might come up with. Chair Self stated that he is in favor of the front -in angled parking. Committee Member Kramer agrees with Chair Self; he believes that there is no one solution that will resolve all the issues and regardless of the actions taken the problem will persist. The TSC proceeded to rank their recommendations Committee Member Kramer stated that his first choice is the sixty degree front -in parking due to the number of parking spaces this option provides and that it might prevent "spillage" into other parts of the area, seconded by the forty-five degree front -in parking; his third option is to do nothing. Vice Chair Vlaco stated that her first choice is the sixty degree front -in parking followed by the forty-five degree parking for these two options give more parking spaces; she stated she has no third option. Committee Member Guerin stated that his first choice is to leave it as is with the possibility of adding pay to park in the future; he selected this option because this will Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 12 of 16 130 Appendix E give the most parking spaces and it might prevent "spillage". His second option is the sixty degree front -in parking followed by the forty-five front -in parking. Chair Self stated that his first choice is the sixty degree front -in parking, seconded by the forty-five degree front -in parking followed by leaving as is option. Committee Member Kramer also wanted to add that he is in favor of eliminating all parking along Crenshaw Extension. He also mentioned the need for a design that accommodates a safe u -turn maneuver at the end of Crenshaw Blvd. by Sea Crest Dr. Lastly, he wanted to know if there are parking issues or restrictions at Island View Rd. Deputy Director Jules stated that there are no restrictions for it is a public street and there are no issues reported. Vice Chair Vlaco asked the other TSC members if their ranking decision will change if the speed is reduced in this area. Committee Member Kramer stated that he is counting in having a significant speed reduction, therefore, his ranking decision will remain; Chair Self and Committee Member Guerin concurred. Committee Member Guerin asked Deputy Johnson if there are any issues with the patrol or if he has cited people in the area. Deputy Johnson stated that he has cited people for going over forty mph going uphill leaving the neighborhood but the majority of the incidents he sees are people opening their doors into traffic, people putting their bicycles in the travel lane while changing gears, kids, dogs, parking in front of fire hydrants, people double parking and people waiting for parking space in the travel lanes. Deputy Johnson mentioned that some of the problems that might occur once the new parking configuration takes place is that people are not going to want to wait for a vehicle to park and they might go around it into the opposite travel lane causing a head on collision. Chair Self asked Deputy Johnson if he had seen businesses in a tent out on the street. Deputy Johnson stated that he has heard of them but has not seen them yet. Chair Self also asked if there is an ordinance against that and therefore get cited. Deputy Johnson stated that that is considered vending, therefore, it merits a citation. Committee Member Kramer asked Deputy Johnson if has cited anyone for going below the speed limit when the conditions are bad, foggy perhaps. Deputy Johnson stated that he has not; he notices people driving slowly accordingly to weather conditions. Committee Member Kramer asked Deputy Director Jules if she envisions a double yellow line striping in the proposed design. Deputy Director Jules stated that yes due to the reduction of the travel lanes to accommodate angled parking, double yellow line striping will be used in order to prevent vehicles from making a u -turn at an unsafe area. Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 13 of 16 131 Appendix E Action Taken: Committee Member Kramer moved to make a consensus recommendation to make the sixty degree front -in parking as their first option, followed by the forty- five degree front -in parking and do nothing as their third option. Committee Member Kramer stated that this is not unanimous but a consensus recommendation. Furthermore, he noted that the TSC agrees with staff to eliminate all parking at the Crenshaw Extension between Sea Crest Dr. and the Preserve entrance; also recommends staff to make appropriate design improvements to take into account visibility, safety and u -turn; they do not recommend pay to park or RPV only restrictions. Finally, the TSC concurs with implementing a Neighborhood Parking Permit Program at Del Cerro neighborhood pending approval by their residents. This motion was seconded by Vice Chair Vlaco. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes 3: Committee Member Kramer, Vice Chair Vlaco, and Chair Self Nays 1: Committee Member Guerin Absent: Committee Member Ott Action Taken: Committee Member Kramer moved to add motion to recommend Staff to immediately revise the speed zone survey on Crenshaw Blvd. and pending any changes to the roadway revisit with another speed zone survey, seconded by Committee Member Guerin. Motion approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0 Absent: Committee Member Ott COMMITTEE MEMBER ORAL REPORTS None. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Residential Street Rehabilitation Project — Areas 1, 5B, and 9 Senior Engineer Countryman stated that the slurry seal work started today in area one; she also indicated that the grinding/overlay work on Crest Rd. from Hawthorne Blvd. to the neighborhood below Ralph's store will start on Wednesday. Asphalt repairs in area nine which is the eastside of town will begin as soon as the contractor is done with the slurry seal in area one and area five. The completion of the project is expected to conclude at the end of the summer. Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 14 of 16 132