CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 23, 2005
PRESENT: Chair Shepherd, Commissioners Klein, Lewis, Mevers, Parfenov, Willens, Wright
ALSO PRESENT: Jack Rydell, Traffic Engineer, Wildan; Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer, Public Works; Sgt. Paul Creason, Sheriff's Department; Frances M. Mooney, Recording Secretary
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Mevers led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer, advised that on Item 4 of the Agenda, sub-item 2, under recommendations should be removed.
Commissioner Willens moved to approve the Agenda with the correction to remove sub-item 2, and re-number the remaining recommendations under Item 4, seconded by Commissioner Klein.
This section of the agenda is for audience comments for items not on the agenda.
Ruth Barnes, 2601 East Victoria Street, #344, Rancho Dominguez, attended to discuss a sign on Palos Verdes Drive East at Miraleste Drive that states, "Warning - Not suitable for bikes". Ms. Barnes stated that she is not a resident, but has been bicycling around the Peninsula off and on for 30 years. She explained that she is a recreational bicyclist and she has had some incidents regarding the sign and that is why she is at this meeting. She reported that a number of motorists roll the stop sign at Miraleste Drive and turn right. She explained that she has had motorists swing around her at excessive speed and turn right in front of her at the Plaza, which is where the Fire Department is located at the street before Miraleste. She stated that she has gone around the building approximately ten times in the last three- to five months, and she does not want to lose her life on Palos Verdes Drive East at that intersection. She explained that she did some research and sent a copy of the state traffic code control devices from Merced and the Caltrans addendum, and that sign is not in there. She said she believes that it is an illegal sign, and she would like to see something done to have that sign removed. She suggested a "Share the road" sign, and stated that it is a sign that is legal. She reported that right beyond that sign, there is a 30 MPH speed limit, and within approximately 200 feet, there is a "School" sign. She stated that she has been talking to other cyclists and she missed her turn on Palos Verdes Drive East, was on 25th Street, and went north on Western and up 9th Street, which is a bike lane. She explained that she drove that route tonight, and she reached a point where she could not share the road. She stated that the next time she goes up there she is going to hog the road, because 21202 allows bicyclists to leave the right edge of the road and take the lane. She stated that she does not like doing that; she does not like holding up traffic and at least 12 cars passed her, but one was too close. She stated that tonight she drove that route, and the downhill side has at least 14 feet. She asked why they did not get 14 feet going up. Ms. Barnes asked when she would know if she has an agenda item. Chair Shepherd informed her that staff has her e-mail and will investigate and respond to her.
Chair Shepherd referred to the placement of staff reports in the Agenda packet and asked if this could be improved next month. Senior Engineer Ron Dragoo noted her request and said that he will take care of it.
1. Establish the Citywide traffic signal priority procedure
as discussed below.
Senior Engineer Ron Dragoo reviewed the staff report. He reported that Staff intends to present the list as approved by the Commission to the City Council at the meeting of June 7, 2005. He explained that Council asked the former Traffic Safety Commissionto prepare a signal prioritization list because of a traffic study presented to the Traffic Safety Commissionin 2002. He explained that the locations that they are prioritizing have gone through a procedure. He described Phase I as taking into consideration the data gathered regarding collisions, volumes of cars, bikes, pedestrians, and existing conditions to screen eligible projects. He explained that, in Phase II, the information from Phase I is used to determine which locations meet one or more of the eight Caltrans traffic signal warrants, as found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement. He explained that the warrants are analyzed in Phase III to find intersections that meet the warrants, the points associated with those areas are tallied and following that, their method for prioritization is based on the scores to determine what the needs are for signalization.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff is discarding the work done by the previous Traffic Safety Commission.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Staff did not agree with the approach used by the Traffic Safety Commission; that they felt fairly strongly that it was not analytical enough, it was more subjective, and that Staff was better off taking a fresh approach. He stated that this approach is taken from the City of Sacramento, which Staff felt had a very good prioritization approach.
Commissioner Willens asked how long the priorities last. Commissioner Willens asked how long it would be until the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List on circle page 62 must be re-prioritized.
Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that they usually re-evaluate the lists every three years, and that data is gathered as it is received as well.
Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that the list is revised annually based on injuries and accidents.
Commissioner Mevers stated that he does not understand how that changes the priorities.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is because accidents are a significant component of the prioritization list.
Commissioner Mevers referred to the number of different conditions analyzed to develop the list and, if accidents go up, does it result in more traffic lights at the locations.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that a location that was very low on the rankings in previous years might have three fatal accidents this year that could be corrected by a traffic signal. He stated that Staff must take notice of that.
Commissioner Mevers stated that it only shifts to a different priority level that has already been established.
Senior Engineer Rydell explained that the prioritization listing would allow them to budget for signal installation and decide where to put the funds, stating that signals are too expensive to install everywhere. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the budget is established for a certain amount of funds every year that may include one traffic signal for a City this size, but he is not certain of that; they would evaluate where they will spend the funds every year, wherever there is the most pressing need.
Commissioner Mevers asked if there is a technology available that would allow Staff to group vehicles to provide an interval between groups that would allow traffic to move in both directions. He referred to a peak-hour problem at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste. Commissioner Mevers stated that, at $150,000 each for a traffic signal, he thinks that is excessive, and asked what other method could be used.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that signal synchronization would work, but is something that Rancho Palos Verdes does not have except for Hawthorne Boulevard.
Commissioner Mevers stated that the problem at this intersection lasts approximately one hour in the morning and approximately two hours in the afternoon; that, other than at those times, there is no problem.
Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that prioritization factors consider that, and the highest total for peak-hour considerations would be ten points and would not have an overwhelming influence.
Commissioner Parfenov asked what the methodology is when collecting the required data.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that there are six components consisting of collisions, pedestrians/bicycles, average daily traffic volumes, peak-hour traffic volumes, speed, and special conditions. Traffic Engineer Rydell briefly described the means for measuring each component.
Commissioner Parfenov asked if these are real-time measurements or just occasionally.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that measurements are taken when the volume counts are done; they are 24-hour counts broken down to determine the average weekly volume.
Commissioner Mevers asked if only volume is considered, or do they consider when vehicles are traveling in both directions.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the Caltrans warrants take volumes for the highest hours of the day, and consider side streets as well as the main street volumes at the same time.
Commissioner Mevers asked if, in the event that the main street had a lot of volume but the side street did not and vice versa, that would reduce the priority of having traffic considered in the factors.
Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to circle page 48 illustrating average daily- and peak-hour traffic volumes and point allocations, and stated that it factors in that conflict. He stated that there is certainly judgment involved in this.
Commissioner Parfenov asked if this is applicable to Rancho Palos Verdes, since it appears that the volumes are less.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that most cities have some form of prioritization list to determine where they spend their funds. He explained that he canvassed a lot of cities throughout the country, and was impressed with Sacramento's list because the way points were assigned made sense to him; that the factors that were, in his professional opinion, the most critical, were the ones that were being employed.
Commissioner Mevers asked if there was a large variance in the methodologies.
Traffic Engineer Rydell responded affirmatively, and stated that the large cities consider different criteria; that in Rancho Palos Verdes the City Council makes that decision. He explained that, depending on who makes the decision, different cities feel that different aspects are important. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he was looking for something that they could understand; that Rancho Palos Verdes does not have that many signals in the City. He pointed out that Sacramento put a lot of weight on accidents, and he felt that was important; he liked the fact that they placed much importance on pedestrians, schools, and bicycles
Chair Shepherd commented on the recommendation to submit the list to the City Council for approval, and noted that the studies in Ranks 4, 5, and 1 on the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List were performed in 2001. She asked if the Commission could be comfortable sending forward data that is this outdated.
Senior Engineer Dragoo referred to Ravenspur Drive and Hawthorne (Rank 1 on the list), and informed the Commission that the City's Traffic Engineer and Staff had differing opinions when they looked at the overall score presented on the list. He stated that obviously, this is a safety concern, and it should be included.
Chair Shepherd asked if it was not ranked in the same way or did they decide to put it there even though it did not have as thorough an investigation as the others.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that as far as he was concerned the investigation was thorough unless the Traffic Engineer has different information, but there were conflicting ideas on the need for signalization here. He explained that he knows the City is very concerned about safety and very concerned that information presented to the public, the Commission, and the City Council is factual and represented accurately, and Staff believes that it is.
Chair Shepherd commented that today's data may be very different from the data in 2001 and may change its rankings. She stated that to go forward with three items that are high in the rankings with data that is four years old does not make her very comfortable.
Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that the information is accurate based on the dates they collected the numbers. He stated that it is his understanding that Staff needs to look at this information annually; he is not certain that they will fund the complete signal this year. He stated that it is his understanding that Staff will likely review the list again, not just internally, but there are operational concerns at the intersection and the County will be involved in this one specific location.
Chair Shepherd stated that she is hearing uncertainty, and stated that when the Commission is sending something forth as a recommendation for the Council to approve, the Commission has an obligation to present information that is as accurate and up-to-date as possible.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the data is fine and the only data that is going to significantly change is collisions and injuries; that the volumes, pedestrians/bicycles, and vehicular typically do not change much unless there is major development, which they do not have in the area. He stated that it is not feasible to rewrite an entire analysis every year; that it is very costly and there will not be any change. He explained that this is why they do update the collisions every year because that will change.
Chair Shepherd stated that there has been significant development in that area.
Traffic Engineer responded that the development is not to the point where it will change the numbers.
Chair Shepherd stated that she is not suggesting every year, but she is expressing concern that three of the rankings are so outdated; however, she is taking the Traffic Engineer's word based on his experience that things do not change significantly enough to warrant the expense of more study.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he is not presenting this report because he does not agree with it; that his only involvement is with the methodology.
Chair Shepherd asked if she is to understand that the way the list was created was not in concert with the recommended approach.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the approach requires a certain amount of engineering judgment based on factors that go beyond the five criteria here. He explained that he does not agree that Hawthorne and Ravenspur Drive need to be signalized; that operationally it is a problem; it is too close to the adjacent intersection; and it is going to cause operational problems. He stated that it would defeat the purpose of having a signal synchronization system; that even though it is ranked as operationally having no problems, this is not a location where he would recommend a signal. He stated that, because it is the number one signal on this list, it is dropping down locations that he believes have significant merit.
Commissioner Lewis asked, when Traffic Engineer Rydell studied Sacramento and other cities' methodologies, if there was ever a factor for tweaking for Engineer's judgment.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that engineering judgment is used in all the cities. He stated that this gives them a very valuable tool that gives them that first cut, and without any extenuating circumstances, they would probably go for this. He explained that this happens to be one location that has some operational problems; when he sees it jumping to number one he cannot support it.
Commissioner Wright asked for clarification of the location, and was informed that it is the intersection on Hawthorne Boulevard at Indian Peak where there is a signal. Commissioner Wright referred to the accidents reflected, and Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the accident figures are current; they were accidents that were preventable through signalization. Commissioner Wright asked why the City ranked it number one.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the City believes it is a safety issue that can be corrected with signalization. He explained that the first step in the process is to identify those areas where safety is a concern. He explained that there may be an operational problem and, in his experience, as operational problems arise and exist, Staff involved in operations contact the County. He explained that he would expect the County to tell the Staff, if they are installing a signal at Ravenspur, that it is going to create a safety problem operationally.
Chair Shepherd clarified that the County is in control of the signal synchronization operations and the City does not do that.
Senior Engineer Dragoo concurred.
Commissioner Wright commented that this would involve twin signals, and he has seen them work safely. He inquired if the purpose is to protect against broadside collisions. He asked what would be protected most--pedestrians, vehicles, bikes--and what is meant by significant safety factors.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the significant safety factor is the collision score.
Chair Shepherd asked if this is the only way this can be addressed. She asked if there is a minority opinion, and suggested finding the other options.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the only minority opinion at this time is to not recommend it.
Chair Shepherd asked for clarification on the issues the City is trying to address.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that they are trying to address the overall safety of the intersection.
Chair Shepherd clarified that the safety issues are the reported collisions. Chair Shepherd referred to litigation in progress at another location. She stated that, if the Commission recommends something that is not based on sound data, they put themselves and the Staff in the position of having to explain and be deposed if something happens at that intersection because of an operational problem. She explained that she is asking Staff's opinion because they are here recommending something that could ultimately be an operational problem due to signal synchronization. She asked how the Commission could recommend something when there are two sides with equal merit.
Commissioner Klein commented that the Commissioners have to allow for judgment on the part of professionals, asking how can they differentiate between a score of 38 and 39. He stated that considering all the factors involved is dependent on the professional people who have to modify the strict analysis based on their judgment. Commissioner Klein referred to the statement in the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and stated that although these are recommended requirements, the manual always defers to the professional judgment of the Traffic Engineer.
Chair Shepherd reiterated that the Traffic Engineer does not agree with the recommendation, and that is her concern.
Commissioner Lewis asked, aside from Ravenspur, how Traffic Engineer Rydell thinks his methodology worked on the remaining intersections, and if he is comfortable with the order of those intersections.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he is very comfortable with the order of the remaining intersections, and stated that when you look at what used to be the top four intersections, he felt that they were all very worthy candidates. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Hawthorne and Ravenspur is a different situation, and the safety issue that bothers him is that if Hawthorne and Ravenspur become the number one criteria, then four intersections that have more accidents now are bumped below it, and it is a problem of safety.
Commissioner Wright asked--if the majority of collisions could be attributed to heavy traffic, people stopping suddenly, rear end collisions, inattention, or speed--is that a natural intersection or just where people come out from the nearby buildings.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is a T-intersection.
Commissioner Wright asked if the issue is that motorists exit Ravenspur and try to turn left.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that there are current safety problems at the intersection, which is why it ranked highest. He asked what would that definition be if they moved forward with the other intersections being ranked one through four or one through ten without this one. He explained that they had to consider the uniformity of their decision; that the City was concerned with the priority list as proposed; that the highest ranking, highest scoring intersection needed to be included in the list.
Commissioner Wright asked if Staff knows how many of the 12 accidents were broadsided.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that he guessed that all of them were broadsided.
Commissioner Parfenov commented that, when trying to turn left onto Hawthorne from Ravenspur, motorists cannot see oncoming traffic because it is obscured. He stated that vehicles are traveling at 35- to 40 MPH and can suddenly appear. Commissioner Parvenov described an accident at this intersection involving a broadside resulting in the need for an ambulance.
Commissioner Wright suggested blocking off left-turn ability for the traffic turning Southbound on Hawthorne Blvd. from Ravenspur.
Commissioner Mevers suggested right turns only at Ravenspur, and asked if that would help.
Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that this question was asked when they addressed safety issues, and the answer is yes.
Commissioner Mevers suggested that motorists could turn right, go to the nearby traffic signal, and make a U-turn, and it would not be too much of an inconvenience.
Chair Shepherd pointed out that there is another exit from the other end of Ravenspur and motorists can make a left turn onto Hawthorne at that exit.
Commissioner Wright stated that he tends to agree that a right turn only would avert problems such as broadside collisions. He agreed with Commissioner Mevers' suggestion regarding a right turn only at Ravenspur and a U-turn at the nearby traffic signal.
Commissioner Willens moved to reject Staff's Recommendations 1 and 2 on circle page 53 and alternatively consider these two Recommendations as two completely separate recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Lewis.
Commissioner Klein stated that it appears they are already two separate recommendations and suggested voting on Recommendation 1 and having another Motion to vote on Recommendation 2.
Chair Shepherd explained that this is another Motion and it is necessary to address the Motion now under consideration.
Commissioner Willens withdrew his Motion and presented a new Motion.
Commissioner Willens moved (for purposes of debate) to accept Staff's recommended as set forth in Items 1 and 2 on circle page 53.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Klein moved to accept Recommendation 1, which is to "Establish the Citywide traffic signal priority procedure as discussed" starting on circle page 53 of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Lewis.
Commissioner Willens stated that the Motion as phrased does not address Item 2, and he is not sure if this is procedurally correct.
Commissioner Klein stated that they are considering the recommendations one at a time, and believes this is permissible.
Chair Shepherd suggested that it is cleaner to look at the full recommendation, but stated that they can do it either way.
Commissioner Willens stated that he does not understand the relationship between Public Works Department or Staff and Staff's Consultant Traffic Engineer. He stated that he has a problem adopting a procedure when Staff and the Traffic Engineer are not in agreement. Commissioner Willens stated that he also has a problem with the age of the data even though the Traffic Engineer has assured the Commission that it would not be any different. He stated that he hears a lot of disagreement, and he is having trouble getting a handle on it because it sounds like they are having trouble getting a handle on it. He said that he would like to see some inclusion of some of the other factors that Staff and the Traffic Engineer have discussed which might make it easier to explain why certain intersections are being put higher or lower than others. Commissioner Willens stated that he would not support the Motion as it is currently being set forth.
Commissioner Lewis suggested that if Staff were to present a second set of methodologies with different factors to provide a choice of one methodology over another methodology, Commissioner Willens would be more comfortable with that presentation.
Commissioner Willens responded in agreement, suggesting that the Commission hear the other ideas as well and not just this one. He stated that, in that sense, he is saying go back to the drawing board and come back with more that the Commission can consider rather than this one plan with no consensus.
Commissioner Lewis stated that he thinks the City Council expects to see alternatives.
Commissioner Wright expressed agreement on the questions raised regarding disagreement between the Staff and Traffic Engineer, and would like the differing opinions spelled out.
Commissioner Klein asked if the Staff and Traffic Engineer are disagreeing over procedure or just the subjective part of the procedure.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he and Staff agree on the process. He reported that the first cut is, should an intersection be signalized or not. He explained that it should not be signalized if it does not satisfy any warrants; it should not be signalized if it will cause more problems by signalizing it than not. Staff and the Traffic Engineer disagree on that first step--whether this intersection should be signalized at all. He stated that they are in total agreement on the process.
Chair Shepherd asked what criteria was used to reach that determination.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that this was not his report.
Chair Shepherd suggested that the Staff present both the majority and minority opinions for the Commission's consideration. She reported that the Council directions made it very clear what they want the Commission to do. She explained that what the Council is trying to encourage and facilitate is that the Commission look at everything so that the Council can see what type of deliberation took place. Chair Shepherd explained that the Council wants to know what Staff wants to do; what are they recommending; what was their discussion, and what they were thinking. She explained that the Committee did not do that in the past and that applies to Staff as well. She explained that it is ok to disagree, but the Commission needs to understand so they can make their recommendations based on the sound judgment that they have seen everything.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he and Staff agree on the process, but do not believe it is beneficial for them to provide the Commission with six different specific options--just the ones that make the most sense. He explained that they disagree on the first cut, whether to signalize the intersection or not. Traffic Engineer Rydell suggested that there is no reason the Commission cannot vote on Recommendation 1; that Staff and the Traffic Engineer are in total agreement on this, and there is no minority view. He explained that they disagree on what specific intersections are going forward.
Commissioner Willens stated that it appears that whether something is or is not included on the list is part of the procedure; he asked how they could say that is separate from the procedure. Commissioner Willens summarized that it sounds like there is an analysis of intersections to determine the rank and score; then someone wants to change the way they are ranked, or they want to add an intersection that otherwise would not have been on the list. He stated that by doing that, or adding that subjective component, they change what the analysis has just done. Commissioner Willens stated that he does not understand what exactly that subjective component is by way of this Staff report, and he thinks it needs to be there. He stated that there is something else going into this that is not part of the statistical analysis, and he thinks the Commission needs to know what it is beyond just a generalization.
Commissioner Mevers said he thinks the Traffic Engineer said it failed system integration; that a signal at Ravenspur and Hawthorne will cause an additional traffic problem because it generates a short chute and bottles up traffic.
Traffic Engineer Rydell suggested that this dilemma might be addressed by the report on circle page 57, first paragraph under Phase III, "For locations where none of the Caltrans warrants are satisfied, the location is deemed inappropriate for traffic signal installation and no further action is required". He explained that the disagreement between him and Staff is that there are other reasons, besides just not having the warrants met, that the location would be deemed inappropriate; so it gets cut out before it even gets to that. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that they have looked at many other locations that are not on the list because, no matter how many points they have, they are not deemed appropriate. He suggested that they could modify that sentence to say that there are other engineering factors, specifically operational factors, which may deem a location inappropriate. He explained that once they say yes, this is a good candidate, that is when it should be ranked; that the whole purpose of this list is to prioritize the funds.
Chair Shepherd asked where in the sequence was the decision made that this intersection was inappropriate for the ranking of the traffic signal--did that come first--and the response was affirmative. Chair Shepherd asked if that would establish those that are rejected or accepted based on some factors that categorize them as inappropriate to go through this procedure.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that was his perspective.
Chair Shepherd asked Traffic Engineer Rydell if there is some kind of weighting or criteria that he used to reach his conclusion of whether or not it is appropriate to even study the location for a priority list.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that one issue would be that, if it does not satisfy the warrants, it will not appear on the list; the second was the operational issues, and he realized they would have greater problems by signalizing this locations than by not signalizing.
Chair Shepherd stated that if meetings with Caltrans or the County were included in the staff report, that would help. She explained that the Commission needs all the conversation, including the other agencies mentioned and their pro and con opinions. She stated that she wants it in their Minutes and she explained why. She explained that they do not have that thorough information in the report in her opinion, and they do not have all the factors to make that decision so that it will be documented.
Commissioner Willens stated that if he were to look at page 62 of this staff report and didn't know anything about what was discussed, he would have no idea how Hawthorne or Ravenspur got on the list, and said that is what he wants to see in the report. He stated that he cannot support it the way it is submitted. Commissioner Willens explained that he does not expect Staff to go back and start over, but needs more information incorporated into the explanation of how the procedure works.
Commissioner Wright stated that he wants to know why the Staff and the Traffic Engineer differ and he wants to see or hear it; why this signal is so dangerous.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that based on the Caltrans supplement, the total score on this specific intersection received a higher rank than any other location.
Commissioner Wright pointed out that they have a Traffic Engineer who is disagreeing with that and that it will make it worse; he asked to what degree will it make it worse--more accidents, increased traffic problems--and is there another solution to this issue.
Commissioner Parfenov referred to the studies in 2001 and asked if there is enough funding for more up-to-date studies at these intersections, especially at Hawthorne and Ravenspur Drive. He referred to earlier statements that traffic collisions are up to date, but he believes that traffic has increased.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the budget is stretched as well as the time involved.
Chair Shepherd asked if this intersection meets Caltrans warrants.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it meets Caltrans 1 and 2.
Chair Shepherd asked where the data came from if it only satisfies 1 and 2; and is there a safe number of warrants required to be placed on the list.
Traffic Engineer Rydell read from circle page 60 of the staff report, "The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal."
Chair Shepherd addressed Recommendation 2 on circle page 53 of the staff report, and asked if there is a Motion.
Commissioner Klein moved that the Commission reject Recommendation 2 as written on circle page 53, seconded by Commissioner Lewis.
Commissioner Klein explained that the purpose of his Motion is to clear out this Motion and have another one, which would address the concerns of the Commission and bring back the pros and cons of the recommendation.
Commissioner Willens stated that he supports the Motion, but would suggest amending the Motion to reject this Priority List and request Staff to return with another report that explains what the Commission has been discussing.
Commissioner Klein stated that he would accept the amendment.
Commissioner Willens re-stated the Motion as amended.
Commissioner Willens moved that the Commission reject Recommendation 2 as written on circle page 53, and request staff to resubmit this item with further clarification of its disagreement and alternatives, seconded by Commissioner Klein.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested this item be rescheduled for a specific date for reconsideration.
Commissioner Willens asked Staff if there is room for it on the next Agenda.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that he would reschedule it for the next meeting on June 27, 2005.
Commissioner Willens re-amended the original Motion.
Commissioner Willens moved that the Commission reject Recommendation 2 as set forth on circle page 53, and request that Staff resubmit this item at the next meeting on June 27, 2005 with clarification of the Staff and Traffic Engineer's disagreement and alternatives to that disagreement, seconded by Commissioner Klein.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
The Traffic Safety Commission recessed at 8:23 P.M. and reconvened at 8:37 P.M.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REPORT:
Sgt. Creason handed out accident photos to circulate while he explained that the Sheriff's Department just finished the first week of the "Click it, or ticket" OTS seat belt enforcement that continues through the first week of June. He reported that the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety, is paying for this program through a grant. He reported that in the first week they wrote approximately 150 citations for seat belt violations, just in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated that this was for all seat belts including drivers and passengers.
Sgt. Creason reviewed the details of the accident photos and the injuries involved. He explained that, because Palos Verdes Drive East has been a big issue lately, an enforcement strategy was presented by his Captain to the City Council at the last meeting and was approved. He explained that this enforcement strategy would start on June 18 and continue through the summer; that the Sheriff's Department will be focusing on Miraleste Plaza all the way to the South, and Team RPV will cover the remaining area.
Commissioner Mevers asked if the offenders are any particular age group.
Sgt. Creason stated that it goes the gamut; that, in talking with other Officers, they are issuing a lot of citations where husband and wife are in the vehicle where the passenger is not using the seat belt, and the officers will cite the passenger and also the driver for allowing the passenger to not use the seat belt.
Chair Shepherd commented that there is a chime in some vehicles that will not shut off until the driver fastens the seat belt, and that this is not always available for passengers.
Sgt. Shepherd stated that, with regard to Palos Verdes Drive East, they are targeting all vehicles including classical, motorcycles, or cars. He explained that since the last fatal collision in March they have increased their enforcement and have written over 100 citations, mostly to cars as opposed to motorcycles.
Chair Shepherd asked if it is difficult to catch a motorcycle if they do not want to stop.
Sgt. Creason said yes, that there will be two or three officers out there at a time when they begin this operation, and they can monitor at various locations.
Commissioner Mevers asked if, after issuing citations for several weeks, there is some kind of educational program other than just giving citations.
Sgt. Creason explained that "Click it, or ticket" is being flashed on advisory signs on freeways; it is being announced on TV and radio; and the campaign is statewide. He explained that the Sheriff's Department is required to do a survey to find out how many are not wearing seat belts to determine a percentage. He stated that a week later they would return to see if seat belt usage has increased.
Commissioner Wright thanked Sgt. Creason for the quick response to his question and the statistics provided regarding bicycle accidents.
NEW BUSINESS (continued):
2. QUAILHILL DRIVE AND MOONGATE DRIVE STOP CONTROL
1. Deny Request for posted stop control.
Senior Engineer Dragoo reviewed the staff report. He reported that the request was received from Frank Kottke who expressed concern about vehicles on Moongate Drive not yielding the right-of-way to vehicles on Quailhill Drive as well as traversing the intersection at high rates of speed.
Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that this is a T-intersection, with no accidents reported in the past three years ending December 2004; traffic counts are within the normal range, and stop controls are not appropriate at this time. He reported that "Yield" signs have been recommended as a possible solution to the problem, and double yellow centerline striping is being proposed. Senior Engineer Dragoo called the Commission's attention to the aerial photo on circle page 42 that shows the type of residential intersection under consideration; to circle page 41, which focuses on the street configuration; and to circle page 43 that shows a close-up of the intersection and the location of the proposed modifications. He stated that Staff is not quite certain that the "Yield" signs will improve the situation. Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that Traffic Engineer Rydell is recommending "Yield" signs and centerline striping. He stated that centerline striping may be a good choice at this location, and it gives law enforcement the ability to do something, but that this is actually an item that Staff would oppose. Senior Engineer Dragoo referred to the "Yield" signs, saying that there are many of these types of intersections throughout the City that function very well without a "Yield" sign and without centerline striping. He suggested that the Commission might choose to leave the intersection as it is or choose any of the alternatives presented.
Chair Shepherd commented to Traffic Engineer Rydell that he is not making presentations at this meeting on his reports as usual, and asked if these are his reports.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that his name probably should not be on the reports, and that he does not concur with the recommendations so he does not present. He stated that he does not believe in presenting recommendations with which he does not concur.
Chair Shepherd asked if the Commission should assume that, if he does not present, that he is not in agreement--that Staff changed his recommendations from the original.
Traffic Engineer Rydell responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Wright asked how Traffic Engineer Rydell disagrees with the recommendation.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he recommends the installation of a "Yield" sign and centerline striping in this particular case based on his conversation with the petitioner. He explained that the way the location is configured there is a problem with motorists coming down Moongate Drive not yielding, cutting off motorists on Qualhill Drive. He explained that based on his field observations and discussions with the petitioner he could see this happening, and thinks a "Yield" sign would be appropriate in this situation. He explained that when the people in the cul-de-sac are coming down Moongate they have to legally yield the right-of-way, and he is trying to reinforce that. He stated that, concerning the centerline striping, he did see people cutting the corner. He explained that centerline striping would do two things; (1) it would help reduce cutting of the corner, which is an issue coming north as well; and (2) centerline striping the intersection would again reinforce the idea to motorists coming down Moongate that they need to yield.
Commissioner Wright asked how the Staff position is different.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that their position is that, throughout the City, these intersections exist; that in terms of significance of this intersection, he does not believe the eight homes in the cul-de-sac that do not yield would necessarily need a daily reminder through a new sign being installed. He stated that he does believe there is value in centerline striping being installed, but motorists are required to yield at that intersection without a sign.
Commissioner Klein asked what are the costs of the striping and "Yield" signs.
Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the cost of the "Yield" sign is minimal; centerline striping is a little more, and he explained that it must be maintained once it is installed.
Commissioner Mevers stated that there are two issues; (1) a potential safety problem, and, (2) a problem was reported and the Commission needs to respond. He suggested that the cost is minimal and it would buy some goodwill.
Traffic Engineer Rydell commented that there are numerous T-intersections throughout the City, and stated that 99% of the time he would not post "Yield" signs, but at this location, his engineering experience tells him that it would improve the situation and be consistent with engineering principles.
Commissioner Wright asked, if the Commission agreed to a "Yield" sign and striping, would the City request enforcement from the Sheriff's Department at that intersection.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that enforcement is critical in areas where the motorist does not believe that he has a conflict so he doesn't stop on his own, and he views this as one of those. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that they are not requiring the motorist to stop, they are not even requiring any more of people than is already required by the vehicle code.
Senior Engineer Dragoo commented that it would give the resident with a complaint the ability to call in a violation.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that they encourage people to report violations.
Commissioner Willens asked how many times a year the City gets a complaint from a resident about putting in a stop sign, saying he is not sure he understands how many requests are seen by the Commission as opposed to how many they do not see. He explained that he is not prepared to install new traffic controls every time someone comes to the City with a complaint.
Traffic Engineer Rydell said the requests for stop signs are very common. He stated that they are typically requested for the wrong reasons such as speeding. He explained that out of the 120 investigations he has seen, approximately 20 are brought to the Commission for consideration.
Chair Shepherd stated that she has consistently had issues with making a change based on one request, especially since there is no consensus between the Staff and the Traffic Engineer. She would like to see a request supported by a homeowners' association or a group of residents, and know how many homes are affected.
Senior Engineer Dragoo clarified that what they are asking is for input from the Commission.
Commissioner Wright asked if Traffic Engineer Rydell spoke with anyone else at the location.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he only spoke to the person making the request. He explained that the vast majority of requests are made by one person, and that if it is a stop sign or a safety issue and is the proper traffic engineering approach it just takes one person. He stated that traffic safety is in the City's hands and it should not require a majority of the community to decide whether they want a stop sign.
Commissioner Lewis moved that the Commission approve Recommendation 1 on circle page 38 described below; and with regard to Recommendation 2, approve Alternatives 1 and 2 on circle page 39 as follows:
1. Deny request for posted stop control.
1. Install YIELD (R1-2) sign on the east approach of Moongate
Drive at Quailhill Drive.
Seconded by Commissioner Klein.
Commissioner Willens expressed sympathy, but has a problem with putting up traffic controls or signs based on one person's complaint, although he recognizes the Traffic Engineer's statement that the vast majority of complaints only come from one person. Commissioner Willens stated that he is concerned that this is the first time he has seen a situation where the Traffic Engineer disagreed with Staff twice and is not sure what to make of that.
Chair Shepherd stated that usually the Traffic Engineer and Staff have a meeting of the minds, and she does not understand where this coming from; that it is hard to come to a decision not really knowing where the clean information is and what politically is going on when there are conflicting opinions.
Commissioner Parfenov commented that this intersection is not really the problem, it is the cost; that Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the budget is stretched.
Commissioner Wright stated that without any other background and his inclination after working with traffic engineers in the past, he would say this presents a big enough concern for the Traffic Engineer that he believes the sign should be installed, and he tends to believe that this is what should happen, short of any other information.
Commissioner Mevers stated that, based on the Traffic Engineer's opinion that this looks like a bad situation could develop, and they are not talking about a great deal of money, he would agree with the Motion.
Commission Willens stated that the Commission must always weigh the benefit to the community against the City's desire to limit signs. He explained that the issue is not so much about the cost, or is it a problem to someone that would justify a stripe or a sign. He stated that the question is, given the City's general desire to try to keep it a rural environment free of signs, has this been taken into consideration by the Traffic Engineer.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that this is his position repeatedly in most of his investigations and is a big issue with him in the City. He explained that he still looks at every location to determine if the benefits outweigh the negatives of not doing anything. He explained the City is not changing the controls; just educating and helping to remind the community of what they are supposed to be doing, because apparently they have forgotten that at this location.
Commissioner Lewis stated that first, they should not do any harm; that there is no harm being done and he believes strongly that the Motion should be passed.
Chair Shepherd stated that she is very sensitive about the signage issue, and if it is a safety issue then it should be done. She stated that, in this case, motorists have a responsibility to do what is known in this environment. She stated that there are not accidents, there are not enough vehicles to even warrant this extended discussion, and she is against the Motion.
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes 4; Commissioners Klein, Lewis, Mevers, and Wright
3. CREST ROAD AND STARLINE DRIVE BUS STOP RELOCATION
1. Coordinate with the PVPTA to relocate their bus stop
from the northwest corner of Crest Road and Starline Drive to the northeast
Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that he and Staff agree on the recommendations presented, and he reviewed the staff report. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the request was originally made by Will Gassett, President of the Crestmount Community Homeowners' Association, and relayed by Mayor Clark, City Manager Evans, and Public Works Director Allison. He referred to circle page 74 and pointed out the current bus stop locations, stating that staff investigated the intersection of Crest Road and Starline Drive with respect to relocating the existing PVPTA bus stop from the northwest corner to the northeast corner. He stated that Martin Gombert, Assistant Administrator of the PVPTA, supported this action. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that on the southwest corner of the intersection is Mira Catalina Elementary School with a school crosswalk on the west leg and on the southwest, with an adult crossing guard assigned to this location. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the request was to relocate the bus stop to the east side of the intersection because there is no sidewalk on the southwest corner. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that everyone concurred that this should be done, but this would require modifications as outlined in the recommendations.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that relocating the crosswalk on Crest Road should not have a detrimental effect on the suggested route to school; that pedestrians traveling west on Crest Road can utilize the existing sidewalk on the south side. He explained that since there is no fronting development or sidewalk on the north side, west of the intersection, eliminating the crosswalk on the west leg would not reduce safety or guidance for westerly-bound pedestrians. He explained that pedestrians traveling north on Starline Drive could cross Crest Road on the east leg, with the help of the adult crossing guard, and then travel northerly as appropriate.
Chair Shepherd asked, regarding the corner of Lucania and Crest directly across from the location of the new bus stop, how does the Traffic Engineer feel about red curb there, so that children will be picked up further down Crest Road to avoid cars stopping in the crosswalk.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the red curbing on the other side is near the bus stop and is recommended so that when pedestrians are crossing cars are not parked up against there because if pedestrians stepped off of the northeast corner and walked into the crosswalk, vehicles going westbound would not be able to see them. He explained that they do not have the same problem on the south side, because vehicles are approaching from the left. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that although he is not opposed to it, he does not see an advantage to having a red curb at the location suggested by Chair Shepherd.
Chair Shepherd stated that, because parents do wait there, it is possible that parents could back up to come out of their parking position into the crosswalk while a child is there when the crossing guard is not present.
Traffic Engineer Rydell agreed with Chair Shepherd and added that the cost would be nominal.
Commissioner Mevers expressed agreement that the bus stop should be moved, but questioned the proposed location of the crosswalks. He stated that there is very little traffic on Starline Drive as compared with Lacania, and two crossing guards will be required instead of one. He suggested leaving the crosswalk on Crest Road where it is, and putting one across Starline, stating that the children would not need a supervisor because there is not much traffic.
Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that there are currently two crossing guards at this location.
Chair Shepherd asked how that crosswalk will be designed; will it be very visible, or just the standard two yellow lines, commenting that it is a very wide intersection.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that crosswalks will be relocated in kind, and there are flashing beacons at the location.
Commissioner Mevers commented that the only problem is traffic coming down the hill, although there is not much traffic when children are getting out of school in the afternoon.
Commissioner Willens moved to adopt Staff Recommendations 1 through 6 as set forth on circle page 71, as follows:
1. Coordinate with the PVPTA to relocate their bus stop
from the northwest corner of Crest Road and Starline Drive to the northeast
Seconded by Commissioner Mevers.
4. TOSCANINI DRIVE, ET. AL. TRAFFIC CALMING
The following Recommendations have been renumbered to delete Item 2 and re-number the remaining recommendations, in accordance with the Motion approved under "Approval of Agenda".
1. Install 25 mph speed limit (R2-25) sign on the west
side of Mt. Shasta Drive at the north line of Mt. Ranier Road.
Traffic Engineer Rydell presented the staff report, stating the City has received numerous requests from residents in the subject neighborhood regarding speeding and excessive volume on these local streets; that based on this feedback, Staff initiated a study to determine the current traffic conditions. He explained that the report is referring to that part of Toscanini Drive east of Western Avenue. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that they have taken the measurements and that is where they are now; they are presenting preliminary recommendations, and he and Staff are in complete agreement that they want to take a very methodical and careful approach to this. He explained that they want to focus on enforcement and education at this time.
Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to circle page 9 that shows the limits of the neighborhood; that key streets involved are Western Avenue on the west, Caddington Drive, W. Bloomwood Road, Mt. Ranier Road, W. Toscanini Drive, and Mount Shasta Drive. Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to circle page 10, illustrating stop signs and speed limits. He noted that on Bloomwood Road, east of the City Limits, the City of Los Angeles has speed humps. He explained that they obtained the data on circle page 11 with StealthStat radar devices, showing the following results:
24-hour Prevailing % Exceeding
Bloom wood Rd e/o Mt. Hood Ct. 1888 vpd 36 mph 79%
Traffic Engineer Rydell commented that motorists are cutting through the neighborhoods from the City of Los Angeles to wherever they go on Western Avenue, they are getting some significant speeds, and they have reason to be concerned. He stated that the values on Toscanini and Bloomwood have passed the thresholds in the traffic calming guidelines for considering traffic calming tools.
Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to pages 12 through 26 containing three graphs for each location obtained from the StealthStat, and stated that this information gives them an idea for each of the five locations showing the cars versus speed which means the number of cars traveling at each speed during the period that the count was taken.
Commissioner Mevers asked if the data was taken simultaneously or on different days.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the data was taken on different days for more than 24 hours; the speed data was taken for the whole period and reduced to an average daily traffic, a 24-hour volume.
Traffic Engineer Rydell continued, explaining that speed versus time is used to determine what time of day there are higher speeds; that cars versus time tells them how many cars are involved at any time of the day, for example on Bloomwood there is the greatest volume of cars at 6:00 pm and 9:00 am. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that this information helps them work with the Sheriff's Department as well as their engineering staff to determine the appropriate response. He commented that they cannot do much about the volume, but that he is more interested in the speed because this is something they can control. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that, with the information they have obtained and their objectives, they developed numerous recommendations; that it is important to do a good job on education and enforcement to meet the community's needs.
Traffic Engineer Rydell explained the recommendation regarding creative educational tools that will be used to implement Recommendation 5. He referred to circle pages 29 through 36 illustrating the lawn signs developed by him and the Staff, and explained that they will be looking for direction from the Traffic Safety Commission on the final selection. He explained that their goal is to have some signs specifically for Rancho Palos Verdes; that they may be standard throughout the City, or have individuality for each neighborhood; they will be professionally designed, they look good, and they serve the purpose of the objective. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the signs may slow traffic slightly; they will not have the same effect as speed humps; but the reasons they are recommended are:
(1) It will have a certain effect on motorists, who inadvertently
see their speed creep up,
Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to Recommendation 6 regarding educational pamphlets, commenting that they are designed for many purposes such as when to use stop signs, how speed limits are set, what traffic signals are for, pedestrian safety, and traffic calming, and referred to the sample on circle page 36. He explained that the City can design them, print them, and get the homeowners involved. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he and Staff will want direction from the Traffic Safety Commission; that ideas and drafts will be provided, and the Commission can choose those they like, and they are prepared to do it with the Commission's guidance.
Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to Recommendation 7, explaining that after 90 days they will test for results with speed and volume measurements, and based on the results of that data, determine the next recommendations.
Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that there was a slight disagreement between him and the Staff, and referred to the Agenda on circle page 2, Item 4, sub-item 2, which was his recommendation as follows:
2. Install 25 mph pavement markings as follows:
a. Adjacent to the existing R2-25 signs on Toscanini Drive
(3 signs) and on Bloomwood Road (1 sign),
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that pavement markings are an educational tool, a reminder; and there were some advantages to it if a motorist is driving down the street and does not see the sign; that pavement markings are in a completely different visual plane for them. He explained that they do not have the negative effects of visual clutter that additional signs would cause. He stated that they are trying to work with the community to solve their problem, and he thinks this is a very important recommendation to incorporate. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is important that the community trust the City; that these types of tools have a certain benefit; they are part of a good educational program, they are accepted traffic engineering, and it further emphasizes to the community that the City is thinking as broadly as possible to solve their problems. He stated that this is the appropriate, measured way to proceed. He explained that he and Staff differ on sub-item 2, but he believes that pavement markings should be included.
Chair Shepherd asked what Staff does not agree with in sub-item 2.
Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that it is a minor difference regarding the overall effectiveness; that the pavement markings on the road provide that much more information for people who are already rushing.
Chair Shepherd asked if there are any other negatives regarding installing pavement markings.
Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that additionally, it would be the cost of installation and maintenance, and the overall value.
Commissioner Willens asked if the Commission is being asked to vote or make a determination tonight as to exactly which educational tools they want to use, or are they asking the Commission to approve the general concept and revisit the selection from among examples at some future time.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that they want approval to develop educational tools to present for the Commission's consideration and selection later.
Commissioner Willens asked where are all the residents involved in this issue, and who brought this forward from the community.
Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that there were numerous people--that the names were given to someone to make phone calls--a homeowners' group and one of the Block Captains were contacting him frequently to find out when it would be on the Agenda. He commented that it makes him wonder if they were notified. He stated that they have the names of those who made requests.
Commissioner Wright asked if these people are prepared to participate, are they enthusiastic.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that part of their obligation is to get involved.
Commissioner Wright asked if the community has expressed that they are willing to back this 100%.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the Commission would have that information if the residents had attended the meeting.
Chair Shepherd stated that an important element of this recommendation is to be sure the Commission is recommending something that the community actually initiated, and that part of the puzzle is missing.
Traffic Engineer Rydell exlained that some agencies require a certain percentage of the lawn signs to be placed before they will consider anything beyond what is contained therein.
Commissioner Mevers asked if it is possible to contact the homeowners' group, and tell them that the City is considering these projects and they need to be involved.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that they know that from his discussions with them in telephone conversations, and he is very surprised that they are not at the meeting. He stated that, depending on what is done tonight, they will call these people and ask why they were not at the meeting.
Commissioner Mevers commented that he really likes Item 6 of the Recommendations. He asked if there is some way to avoid confusion by stating that the Commission is not planning to block off the access.
Chair Shepherd stated that the confusion will be when the Agenda item is public noticed, and that it cannot be described specifically enough in a public notice for people not to have a concern; that they will come and find out at the meeting.
Commissioner Klein stated that the highest speeds are on Toscanini, and there is nothing in the recommendations to deal with that; he asked why.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is included where they recommended the radar trailer on Toscanini Drive and Bloomwood Road, and he recommended more pavement markings. He stated that it was addressed because they knew Toscanini was one of the major issues.
Commissioner Klein asked why Staff and the Traffic Engineer are putting off consideration of speed humps on Toscanini.
Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that they want to exhaust less restrictive traffic calming devices before even considering construction. He stated that this is consistent with their traffic calming policy and that of every city they work with, as well as the City Council's requirement that this be done very methodically.
Chair Shepherd stated that the City Council would like the Commission to look at the schedule they use to consider enforcement and education before they consider engineering design as a final mitigation measure.
Commissioner Willens moved that:
(1) The item be continued to the next Traffic Safety Commission
Seconded by Commissioner Klein.
RECEIVE AND FILE
1. Public works Department Report;
Senior Engineer Dragoo presented a list of construction activities for Spring/Summer 2005. He commented that these projects are underway and briefly reported on the status. He explained that they will close the switchbacks for two weeks, signs will be posted, a crawl will be displayed on TV, and notification will be posted on the website.
2. Other Traffic Safety Commission Business:
a. Chair Shepherd referred to an article entitled "Plan
would deter traffic from residential streets" in the Saturday issue
of the Daily Breeze Newspaper in the San Pedro Supplement regarding Mira
Vista, stating, "We refuse to implement a measure to shift the traffic
to another local street or another residential neighborhood in Rancho
Palos Verdes or in Los Angeles. Our plan is . . .", signed by Yadi
Hashemi, Southern District Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff is aware of this, and referred to an issue
about 12 years ago regarding this neighborhood. She referred to a voluminous
report prepared at that time, strong disagreement between the cities,
and stated that the issue was never resolved. Chair Shepherd commented
that this article may be related to that same thing, or may just be a
traffic calming issue, but cautioned Staff to be prepared.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of minutes of April 25, 2005
Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Minutes of April 25, 2005 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Wright.
Commissioner Lewis moved, seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 PM to the regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission on June 27, 2005.