Key Potrero Parking Meeting Nov. 28

After months of discussion and debate, a subcommittee of the Potrero Canyon Community Advisory Committee is ready to have a final public hearing about parking and access issues related to the Potrero Canyon Park project. Recreation Subcommittee Chairman David Card has finalized the Parking and Recreation Center Access document, which will be considered at the subcommittee breakout during the PCCAC meeting on Wednesday, November 28, at the park. ‘This document includes a listing of major arguments for and against each alternative proposal,’ Card told committee members. ‘Special thanks to Mike Aicher, Maria Rosetti, Chris Spitz and Rob Weber for their thoughtful input.’ ‘We intend to have a one-hour discussion of all the options and then a vote on each option,’ Card said. ‘Everyone on the subcommittee and committee will have a chance to be heard before the vote, and we will also take comments and questions from the audience before the vote.’ The subcommittee’s recommendations will be considered by the full committee on January 16. Following is a slightly edited version of the Parking and Recreation Center Access document, as space allows this week. We will publish the remaining material next week. 1. Introduction: (a) Coastal Commission Requirements: With respect to parking and access, the existing permit, as amended, requires (a) ‘automobile and bicycle parking at Palisades Recreation Center’; (b) ‘trail connections to PCH and to Palisades Recreation Center’; (c) ‘public parking of no fewer than 10 and no more than 30 spaces on City or Caltrans property at the southern end of the canyon to serve the park,’ to be provided ‘free of charge’; and (d) restroom facilities in the canyon or on adjacent public property. The permit states that ‘[i]f access for parking and/or construction of a restroom at the south (PCH) end of the Canyon is not feasible, the City will submit plans for these facilities at an alternate location for the review and approval of the Commission.’ The permit further requires the Canyon to be (a) ‘operated as a public park,’ (b) ‘include such uses as bicycling and picnicking,’ and (c) ‘open for all daylight hours for public use, according to the normal practices for operation of a public park in the City of Los Angeles.’ (b) Recreation & Parks staff notes: The reaction of Recreation & Parks (RAP) West Region Superintendent Debby Rolland to each of these options is set forth below, in order for the Committee to understand what options are feasible and which options face hurdles from the City department responsible for this project. This is from a September 11 walk around at the Recreation Center and Potrero Canyon with Rolland, her maintenance supervisor Patrick Kennedy, George Wolfberg and David Card. 2. Proposed Options for Compliance with Parking Requirements Note that many of the options presented are not mutually exclusive. All options are subject to approval by the Department of Recreation and Parks and other involved agencies and to a traffic and parking study to be conducted by the City prior to the completion of the project: (a) Recreation Center: Option 1: Add a few spaces to the main Toyopa lot by re-striping and making minor curb adjustments (e.g., near the library and the maintenance yard) that do not infringe on recreational green space. (RAP: OK.) Pro: Cheap and easy. Con: Not much benefit in new spaces. Option 2: Add about 15 new spaces to the Toyopa lot by adding a row of parking spaces next to the east side of the pine tree circle and moving the aisle and existing spaces opposite the circle closer to the maintenance yard. (RAP: May be OK, subject to staff review for practical feasibility. Will not move Maintenance Yard.) Pro: Meets Coastal Commission requirement of 10-30 spaces; adds spaces where they are needed. Will not hurt pine trees (5′ of circle removed), and takes away only a small patch of lawn and does not require moving the Maintenance Yard. The net effect is to add a row of 15 diagonal spaces at the circle. Con: Will add to the Toyopa/Alma Real intersection congestion, and won’t solve the parking needs of the Rec Center and new canyon trails. Will have to remove two trees (a big ficus, and what looks like a small privet that may be moveable). Option 3: Redesign the entire Toyopa lot to make it significantly larger, with varying degrees of reduction in green space depending on design (see the three alternative parking lot designs presented by the Huntington Palisades homeowners’ group). (RAP: No, will not give up existing recreation green space to parking.) Pro: Will add 60 or more parking spaces. Con: Will take away recreation green space. Option 4: Install a driveway gate and park ranger booth at the Toyopa entry to greet Recreation Center and Canyon visitors and to turn away non-park users. (RAP: OK, but won’t pay for a ranger at a gate.) Pro: Will free up Rec Center spaces now used by Village employees and patrons. Con: Need to identify funding, since RAP won’t pay for this. May have to be privately financed. May not be perfectly enforced. May add to the congestion at the intersection. Option 5.a: Widen the Frontera driveway for emergency vehicles and paint curb/post signs for no parking/tow away. (RAP: OK.) Option 5.b. Add a few new parking spaces along the widened driveway. (RAP: Ok.) Pro: Provides clear access for LAFD, LAPD, ambulance, etc., where people now illegally park. Option 5.b. adds a few spaces. Con: Wide enough now if no parking is posted and enforced along driveway. New spaces result in more traffic in residential area. Option 6: Add a few spaces to the Frontera lot by re-striping and making minor curb adjustments. (RAP: OK.) Pro: Cheap and easy. Con: Not much benefit in new spaces. Option 7.a: Move tennis employee parking (3 spaces now) from the Toyopa lot to the Frontera lot (but keep the 3 park employee spaces at the Toyopa lot). Add handicapped parking in the Frontera lot. These changes are intended to reduce in-and-out traffic at Frontera (since handicapped spaces at the park are rarely full, and tennis employees make fewer trips). Restrict all other parking at Frontera to two hours, seven days a week. (RAP: Ok; keep Rec Center staff parking nearest the old gym, for their safety.) Pro: Increases slightly the Toyopa parking spaces open to the general public. Handicapped spaces will have to be added for the new canyon use, and this is the most accessible location. May still leave spaces open to the general public (e.g. tennis players). Reduces in and out traffic, but also allows more users over time with time limits applying to all spaces. Con: Decreases parking for general public (tennis, baseball, etc.) at Frontera lot. Two hour parking for all spaces may increase in and out traffic. May add to Toyopa/Alma Real intersection congestion, and won’t solve the need for new parking. Option 7.b: Move both RAP and tennis employee parking (6 spaces now) from the Toyopa lot to the Frontera lot. Add handicapped parking in the Frontera lot, using all remaining spaces. No restriction on the length of time for parking (except no overnight parking). Post the entry to the lot as parking only for Rec Center employees, tennis concessionaire employees, and handicapped persons. These changes are intended to greatly reduce in-and-out traffic at the Frontera lot, even more so than Option 7.a. (RAP: No, as to moving Rec Center employee parking further away from the office). Pro: Will reduce in and out traffic at the Frontera lot, by eliminating all general public parking (except for employees and handicapped) and eliminating 2 hour restriction. Employees and some tennis players will get a little bit of extra exercise. Con: RAP is opposed to lengthening the walk by its employees to their cars (for their safety), even if it extends the walk to the car by the length of a tennis court (154 paces v. 100 paces). Tennis players will have to park in the Toyopa lot only, not both the Toyopa and Frontera lots as they do now. May increase the parking on residential streets. Will add to Toyopa/Alma Real intersection congestion, and won’t solve the need for new spaces. Option 8: Close the Frontera entrance to vehicle access, except for emergency and employee vehicles, by putting a gate across the driveway. (RAP: No, will not close.) Pro: Reduces traffic on residential streets around Frontera. Con: Eliminates 22 parking spaces for the general public, increasing the problems of Rec Center parking and residential street parking. Will add to the Toyopa/Alma Real intersection congestion, and won’t solve the need for new parking spaces. Option 9: Close the Frontera entrance to all vehicle and pedestrian access. (RAP: No, will not close.) Pro: Moves emergency access to the canyon to another part of the Rec Center. Reduces traffic in residential streets. Con: Moves emergency access to the canyon to another part of the Rec Center, so that the access point would be from the Toyopa parking lot. Both RAP and the LA Fire Department have rejected one alternative for emergency access from the Toyopa lot (driveway ramp west of baseball diamonds below Patterson Place), and RAP has rejected the other alternative (driveway ramp between the gyms and tennis courts). Eliminates a pedestrian access point to the Rec Center that’s been there for the benefit of Huntington residents since the Rec Center was built, which may increase traffic. Eliminates 22 parking spaces, increasing the problems of Rec Center parking and residential street parking. Will add to the Toyopa/Alma Real intersection congestion, and won’t add new parking spaces. Option 10: Post parking time limits or allow parking by permit-only in the immediate residential neighborhoods (parts of Alma Real, Toyopa and Frontera). Permit parking requires processing by government agencies. (RAP: Expressed no opinion.) Pro: Will limit or prohibit recreation parking, and may reduce traffic. Con: Will increase the parking problem for the Rec Center. Will restrict the parking for residents and their guests on their streets. May not reduce traffic. (b) PCH Parking: Option 11: Build a restroom and parking lot of 10-30 spaces at the Oxy site, with parking entry and exit via PCH. Consider requiring payment or meters at this lot. (RAP: No, does not want a restroom at the mouth of the canyon, for public safety and maintenance cost reasons. A parking lot requires a restroom per Coastal Commission, and there is a brand new restroom and parking directly across PCH in the beach lot. The existing restroom facilities at the Rec Center will be ample.) Pro: Satisfies 10-30 space parking requirement of Coastal Commission and adds a restroom for that lot. Without new parking at PCH, the new parking will be at the Rec Center’s Toyopa lot, putting the burden on the Huntington (traffic congestion and street parking). Con: Parking lot at PCH Oxy site will fill up with beachgoers, not canyon goers. Restroom will attract even more homeless to the bluff area, and it will be an attractive nuisance for vandals and other criminals. Restroom will be a big maintenance and repair expense. Sufficient restrooms are already available at the Rec Center and at the beach (at each end of the canyon). Better to add new parking at the Rec Center, where more parking is needed. Option 12: Parking and restrooms are available at the existing beach parking lot across the highway. Do not build new parking or restroom at the south end of the canyon (north side of PCH). Discourage or prohibit illegal parking there. (RAP: Ok.) Pro: More parking and restrooms at PCH are not necessary. Any parking at PCH requires a safe way for people to cross PCH. New parking and restrooms there will unnecessarily add to the construction and maintenance cost of the project. Won’t reduce the amount of parking needed at the Rec Center. Con: Parking and a restroom at the mouth of the canyon are for the convenience of canyon users. 3. Proposals for Access at the Rec Center and canyon rim (leaving for another meeting the issue of beach access at the south end at PCH): (a) Enhance the north entrances by providing entry landscaping, signage and information kiosks. (RAP: Ok.) Pro: Better looking and inviting entrances. Con: Unnecessary, and it may attract more people. (b) West Side of Baseball Fields: Add ramp or stairway from existing gate in west fence down to the west fork of the canyon (at the NW baseball diamond), with landscaping to screen the view into Patterson Place residences, and with a path from the Toyopa lot to the top of the stairs. The new ramp or stairway will cross the slope in a southern direction, to lead people walking down into the canyon away from the Patterson Place homes. Fence off the slope and drainage area between the southeast corner of the last Patterson Place home and the baseball diamond. Add a 10-15′ deep planting screen along the south property line of the Patterson Place & Hampden Place homes (using vines, shrubs and small trees); fencing there, if needed, will be at the property line (as is the fence between the Rec Center and the Alma Real homes). (RAP: Ok.) Pro: Offers a second way into the canyon from the Toyopa lot, in addition to the tennis court entry from the Toyopa and Frontera lots. Increases circulation by offering circulation alternatives. Avoids a dead end at the west fork of the canyon, which may attract people for inappropriate uses (homeless, vandals, etc.). Increases security by adding more eyes and ears on the trail in the west fork of the canyon. Planting can screen nearby residences. Fence on slope offers security to Patterson Place neighbors. Con: Affects nearby residents. (c) East side of Baseball Fields: Add stairway from existing opening in the east baseball fence down to the Frontera parking lot. (RAP: Ok.) Pro: The well worn dirt path there shows the need for a stairway with a rail for safety and convenience. Con: It won’t be used so much or needed if the parking at Frontera is restricted or eliminated. (d) West Rim Easements*: No new walkway or stairway easements will be proposed for West Rim public access. The status quo on the West Rim will prevail, although this issue may be re-considered much later in the process of lot sales and park construction if there is public support. Existing public utility easements and future lot sales will remain unaffected. (RAP: Expressed no opinion.) [*This Subparagraph 3(d) was already voted on by the Recreation Subcommittee, and is printed here for context only.]