Loading...
sr-102963-8aCITY OF SANTA MONICA DATE: October 23, 1963 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Ernest N. Mobley, City Manager SUBJECT: Parkway ;'laming A parkway is generally recognized as that area between the curb and the outside edge of the sidewalk. There may be exceptions, but for the most part this area is part of the street right of way and is public, not private, property. Ixi residential areas, the property owners maintain this area as though it was their own. They do so for the sake of the over-all appearance of their property and neighborhood, but the result is again that public property is being maintained at no expense to the City. The problem, where it exists, is created by the £act that the aesthetic treatment given some parkways is sixth as to be incompatible with the public safety and convenience. To be specific, while safety and convenience dictate that passen- gers should be able to enter or leave a motor vehicle from the curb side, they are prevented from doing so by the ivy, geraniums, cacti, fences, and sundry other obstacles to be found in a number of parkways. Several approaches are possible: 1. Permit nothing but turf in parkways. Require the removal of ali other types of planting, which would include the removal of fences, hedges, stonework, etc. 2. T~ermit the property owner to landscape the parkway as he desires, pro- viding that public access be guaranteed by requiring the property owner to construct either (1) an 18 in. concrete walkway from curb to sidewalk evexy 25 feet or (2) an 18 in, strip of concrete walkway along the entire inside length of his curb. 3, Take no action other than that already being taken which is, on a complaint basis, to compel the removal of parkway obstructions which we find on investigation to be truly hazardous. -1- To: The Honorable City Council Subject: Parkway Planting 'dde are recommending the third alternative. Yn relationship to the number of parkways which would be affected by a change in policy, the number of complaints, and complainants, are small indeed. While there is no question but that some parkway plantings are a nuisance to the motorist, to force their reanoval, ox some expensive alternative walkways, would cause more resentment and opposition than the situation really warrants. -'fir . ,~,,~ EFtNE5T N. MOBLEY City Manager .H-uNt/I/cc cc: City Clerk City Attorney Director of Public LlTOrks CITY OF SANTA 2.~lONICA DATE: October 24, 1963 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Ernest N. Mobley, City Manager SUBJECT: Obstructions and Encroachments into the Public Rights of Vv ay Within Sidewalk Lines Throughout the City a variety of situations exist with respect to the relationship of private property lines to sidewalk lines. A representative sample of these situa- tions, not necessarily all-inclusive, is as follows: 1. No sidewalks. Property line may be anywhere from directly behind curb to several feet inside curb, depending on width of street with respectta total width of right of way. This is no longer usual. 2, A sidewalk is in place but the property line begins at the inside edge of the sidewalk, with no set-back. This is also uncommon, 3, A sidewalk is in place but the property line is anywhere from 5 ft. to 7 ft, within the inside edge of the sidewalk. Fifth Street between VTilshire and California is an example. This, too, is unusual. 4. The sidewalk is in place and the property line is from 12 in, to 1& in, within the inside edge of the sidewalk, This is the most common situation. iVlost property owners who are concerned about the appearance of their lots will run their grass, plantings, hedges, walks, fences, etc. , right down to the inside edge of the sidewalk, regardless of the location of the property line. It is undeniable that every such case wherein the property line is somewhere inside the sidewalk line constitutes an encroachment into public property. If the hedge or planting has, for lack of trimming, been permitted to extend into the sidewalk area, it becomes a hazardous obstruction as well. It is also undeniable that the plantings and landscaping are a maintenance of public property at no cost to the City and that the great majority of this planting, even though it may encroach into public property, is neither hazardous nor an incon- venience to the public. °1- To: The City Council Subject: Obstructions and Encroachments into the "?ublic Rights of Way Vlithin Sidewalk Lines Unless the City Council decrees otherwise, it is our intent to proceed admini- stratively to do the following: 1. Accomplish the removal of all existing obstructions to safe and convenient use of the public sidewalks and thereafter to maintain that condition on a combination inspection and complaint basis. 2. ?%~ith respect to existing encroachments which are inside the sidewalk line and which do not constitute a hazard nor interfere with £ree use of the side- walk; to neither force their removal, nor assent to their presence. ,~~.~s.s,-+,s~ `'dam ERNEST N, S/IOHLEY City iVIanager ENIvI/cc cc: City Clerk City Attorney Director of Public Works -2- CITY OF SANTA ivIONICA DATE: October 23, 1963 TO: The Honorable City Council FRONT: Ernest N. Mobley, City ivlanager SUFJECT: Vision Impaixments, Residential Intersections Of considerably greater gravity and importance than parkway plant- ings are the tall hedges, fences, and walks on or near the property lines of corner lots in residential areas, Where these obstructions exist, they constitute a serious hazard to motorists approaching the intersection. There is presently in our Municipal Code no section under which we can compel the removal of existing structures so located on private property. In some cases, the removal will involve considerable expense and inconvenience to the property owner. This condition, however, I consider a serious and continuing menace to the public safety. I am therefore recommending that the City Attorney be instructed to bring back to your honorable body for its consideration an ordinance establishing a visibility standard at residential intersections. A suggested draft is attached. ..---Lr . ~v~c~./,,T.- ERNE5T N. MOBLEY City Manager ENM/cc cc: City Clerk City Attorney Dixector of Public Works Parking & Traffic Engineer ~~~ 633 ~~~'6a~5 °8T}eo ~%o3Y~.C'~3 ~~~e C4c W i4;~'i ~7 ~@~~ ~ ih~tq~z yoga fox yo~.ax c~xd no~z,Yi~x~; ~;xa ®~ ~~a .~:~.~'~___ ~~as~~~n ;fay ~ ~~oFd~d I~~a ~o ~~ ~.^ax~ t~~z ~12a ~s ~~d~~, ~ $$~o Yao~a 4;I~s~ ~~x ~';~,bla~ ° s~ x•apux°~ ~ai5.~. ~~ xa~d~ fo~° fYra~anv~~~dn ~o tern co,ar~scila ~Y~~~ ~a~.ll ~~~.~.~~4oa ~~y f~cuhar d~:~ov~s~,ioxx ~~ ~ ~s vo ~~~~~ ~?~o~~d Yea d~~~sa~ ~~~i~+r> ~~ o~r~a~ n d" ~ ~°a ~€:~asa i~ ~ cxed~.~ 4:0 ~5.'Va~ Go ~ 3v ~ $71 r~~:: "GP2~'Y° ~Yav C23li.f3 G' Of 2 ~'b~£+3~;. ~'>~~~. ~LY~d~ O~ ~' a . . ~"e~$9 °G ~. i6~1CPS.°.&. L;~~e ~ 1 1 - ~-'-"~19 Y~.°xa~°T. ~C-Y" YLC7 Y..f+01"'f;a ~4$0 ':J~a~ ~~' ~ ~ S$1g" ~'~u~u~~ 3 C5N1 tlg .~ Ei 'f© ~>~ ad Y SS ~;sC'Y ~.L?CY 3:?~~ ' M p~. Y ub oYa.L j'' Pte. `~p LYg 'L `~"v"Ll ~ ~ d~~.1~~3 ~6 ~`.~~1~52 ~ ~° - S. t`.:.Ta.'F~2cd.ero ye'~~ R 7 YFi+FSd»a'e"ato~.T: tY7-o~~ ~~~Ya~' ~C2~:s;aQ3 r~?~d ti sg3 CI~°+~• ®~¢..p~~~y,~{;Yni x ~v .e EXa'~O Ct Z} I'a23'6a r13.'~;~ ~.k16~'~Il~ 3.'Q"o ~ ~+pV.4:~. ~~ 6K+U'.&I a tl.f.4G . CI SL &CI~Gs"°., ALL ~i C'i G'~~Y'S Eo'6.°3.~ j3.".'QrY3.f; Cb ~ CYl u.xs~C ~3 $~~~~ °„~ . C}®Om~~-X1~^ xi rr C~c',/ ~ ~~~ 1~ ~ p "~ i y' %' a. k~>; k~ ~;,i; i"- ~`" ~;~