SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES

MINUTES

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA

TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 26, 2005

CALL TO ORDER: Chair Shepherd called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM at Rancho Palos Verdes Community Room

ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chair Shepherd, Commissioners Klein, Lewis, Mevers, Parfenov, Willens, Wright

ABSENT: None

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:

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:

Ayes 7; Nays 0

CHAIR’S COMMENTS:

  1. Motion
  2. Chair Shepherd presented a Motion in writing for the Commission’s consideration.

    ACTION TAKEN:

    Chair Shepherd moved, that "in consideration of the importance of providing fair assessment, sound judgment and clear recommendations to staff and City Council…and as evident during deliberation on Item #2, Whitefox & Manitowac at the August 22, 2005 meeting…whereas only two of the six commissioners present had visited the site…therefore being unprepared to fairly evaluate existing conditions and impacts…"

    Chair Shepherd further "proposed and MOVED that the TSC adopt a policy that requires commissioners to visit all sites where traffic safety, education, enforcement and/or engineering items are agendized, requiring a staff report...I further propose that when unable to do so, we recuse ourselves from the item discussion and vote", seconded by Commissioner Lewis.

    Commission Discussion

    Commissioner Lewis stated that he fully supports the Motion, underscoring the need for the Commissioners to receive the Agenda packets in a timely manner so they have time to visit the sites.

    Commissioner Mevers stated that he can only think of two reasons for being that stringent in the Motion; (1) Staff is not providing enough information, and (2) the Commissioners are not able to reach a valid decision based on the evidence. He explained that it is a little too far, and is unnecessary.

    Commissioner Klein opposed the Motion, stating that even though the packets are timely, there are sometimes overriding circumstances that have prevented him from going to a site; and secondly, sometimes the item lends itself to a Commissioner bringing up general comments based on the pictures and the facts that may still be appropriate to the discussion. Commissioner Klein said that he thinks a Commissioner should be able to make these comments.

    Commissioner Wright agreed that all the Commissioners should visit the locations, and he stated that he has been able to do that except on one occasion. He commented that on some issues, the Commissioners could probably participate in discussion and vote on the issue even though they have not been to the location. Commissioner Wright suggested that if a subject is presented for a vote and Commissioners do not feel qualified, they should recuse themselves, stating their reason. He explained that he would prefer this option rather than making a blanket restriction; that he would not want to be excluded from every vote if he could make a decision based on the information provided.

    Chair Shepherd suggested categorizing certain types of actions that would require a visual inspection, commenting that issues such as red curbing would not require that; but others do, based on the issue before the Commission.

    Commissioner Wright stated that he would agree with that.

    Commissioner Mevers stated that if staff cannot document the information adequately, the only choice for a Commissioner is to make a visual inspection.

    Chair Shepherd stated that, although Staff is very thorough in providing information, there are times when it cannot substitute for the visual inspection. She commented that the eye can pick up a different dimension than those visible in pictures or reports.

    Commissioner Willens agreed with Commissioners Wright and Lewis; that he is supportive of the concept but does not support a blanket restriction, and is not sure how to do it another way.

    Commissioner Lewis stated that, in addition to the information provided by Staff, the public sometimes presents issues that were not contemplated. He stated that visiting each location should be a mandatory minimum prerequisite, and the times when Commissioners cannot do this should be so far between and so infrequent that a blanket rule would not prevent the Commission from functioning as a body.

    Commissioner Mevers stated that if the complaint as perceived by the resident is very different from the definition provided by Staff, then a visual inspection should be required in order to determine why there is a difference.

    Chair Shepherd requested clarification that Commissioner Mevers is suggesting that the Commission wait until they decide if the issue warrants that, as opposed to having the information in advance. Commissioner Lewis reiterated that it happens so frequently that he believes the Commissioners should plan to visit all locations.

    Commissioner Mevers stated that he disagrees because in his experience, Staff brings reasonably good recommendations, and he does not find the need to argue with them.

    Chair Shepherd stated that it is a frequent occurrence, and suggested that if Staff can make the recommendations without the Commission’s input, why does the City Council need a Traffic Safety Commission if the Commissioners are not prepared, uninterested and lack understanding of exactly what Staff is presenting.

    Commissioner Mevers commented that he could hardly think of something that none of the Commissioners have experienced that Staff brings in, aside from number crunching. He stated that he believes they have all had experiences with speeding problems and problems around schools, etc.

    Commissioner Parfenov stated that he thinks making site visits mandatory would be overkill, and does not support the mandatory position, although he personally visits all locations because he prefers to see them first hand.

    Commissioner Wright stated that one of the issues for him is that when he receives the packet on a Wednesday, depending on his work schedule, he can foresee that he may not be able to get to some of the sites. He explained that he still would be able to vote on the issues, and in some cases the issues are very clear as presented, referring to the red curb for the handicapped. He explained that he would recuse himself if he were uncomfortable with his knowledge of the situation.

    Commissioner Lewis stated that he would support the Motion, but would also support an alternative Motion stating that if Commissioners did not visit the location, they would say so.

    Chair Shepherd asked for Staff comments.

    Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the Staff reports are summaries, and to create a report that explains every situation at the site could take him a week for each investigation. He explained that there is a benefit to viewing the vast majority of sites; that what is also valuable is that when you see how things are actually operating at the site, subtleties are visible that do not show up in data. He stated that Staff can include that in their report to some degree, but believes it is very helpful for the Commissioners to make site visits because that may generate questions not in the reports that Staff can answer.

    Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that reviewing sites is definitely preferable. He explained that Staff presents topics that the Commission needs to be aware of that are based strictly on engineering judgment; and, in some cases, the Commission will rely heavily on Staff’s recommendation.

    Chair Shepherd stated that, in her experience being a member of the previous traffic committee, it has been very valuable to visit every site and sit and observe the traffic to see what residents are actually experiencing. She explained that if the Commissioners disagree with staff, the only way they can disagree is if they have experienced what Staff is telling them is out there. Chair Shepherd explained that many times Staff is saying the opposite of what the residents are saying, and the Commission may make a different recommendation to the Council based on their actual experience; that this is the reason for bringing this Motion to the Commission.

    Commissioner Parfenov stated that he agrees that it is beneficial to see what is going on at the site, but stated that he has an issue with this Motion is because there are no alternatives presented.

    ACTION TAKEN:

    Motion failed on the following Roll Call Vote:

    Ayes; Chair Shepherd, Commissioners Lewis, Willens

    Nays; Commissioners Klein, Mevers, Parfenov, Wright

    Commissioner Lewis presented an alternative Motion.

    ACTION TAKEN:

    Commissioner Lewis moved that the Traffic Safety Commission adopt a policy that requires Commissioners to visit all sites where traffic safety, education, enforcement, and/or engineering items are agendized, requiring a Staff report.

    Commissioner Lewis further moved that, when unable to do so, Commissioners would simply disclose, during the discussion that precedes a vote, that they were unable to visit the location, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

    Commission Discussion

    Commissioner Mevers suggested the possibility of receiving the agenda earlier, possibly by e-mail, so they know the locations.

    Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Staff has a large backlog of investigations, that they have tentative and future agendas, and they can provide a tentative agenda without the recommendations.

    Commissioner Klein stated that he is not sure that getting a list of the sites and a sentence about the issue would help much; that he is interested in seeing the Staff recommendations when he does site visits, and that helps him make an evaluation. He explained that the site might then require a second visit.

    Chair Shepherd suggested that technically, a Commissioner could say they visited the site, without doing so; but visiting the site without all the background information and Staff’s input would be the same as not going at all.

    Commissioner Wright clarified that, under those circumstances, they would get the location and the complaint; and explained that it would give him the opportunity to visit the site in advance, and determine if he needed to revisit it based on the recommendations.

    ACTION TAKEN:

    Motion approved:

    Ayes 6; Nays 0; Commissioner Klein abstained

  3. Motion

Chair Shepherd presented the following written Motion for the Commission’s consideration.

ACTION TAKEN:

"In response to the City Council’s objective to increase attention to traffic safety around school sites and the adjacent neighborhoods…Chair Shepherd MOVED that we assign teams of at least 2 commissioners per school in order to establish new and continuing relationships…to provide problem solving support and education to Administration (school administration), Parents, Students and Residents. In addition, when feasible, include our Resident Traffic Engineer in initial and subsequent visits for technical guidance and support", seconded by Commissioner Klein.

Commission Discussion

Chair Shepherd pointed out the list of schools provided in the agenda packet.

Commissioner Mevers stated that he is in favor of the Motion. He asked for a list of guidelines from Staff that would suggest items to be discussed when Commissioners meet with the school administrators.

Staff responded that they would provide this information.

ACTION TAKEN:

Motion approved:

Ayes 7; Nays 0

Commissioner Lewis proposed the following additional Motion on the subject.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Lewis moved to appoint the Chair to receive input regarding which schools each Commissioner chooses; and authorize the Chair to appoint or assign Commissioners to schools, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:

Ayes 7; Nays 0

Chair Shepherd directed the Commissioners to provide their choices to Administrative Staff Assistant Pam Mitchell by Friday, September 30, 2005.

SHERIFF'S STATUS REPORT:

Sgt. Creason provided a copy of the traffic report for the second quarter of 2005. He reviewed the report, stating that average collisions are down from 21 in 2004 and 20 in 2003 to 18 in 2005; and average citations are up to 330 in 2005 from 270 in 2004 and 264 in 2003. Sgt. Creason explained that this is due in part to the California Office of Traffic Safety seatbelt enforcement program from May 16 through June 5, 2005, reporting that 379 seatbelt citations were written during those two months. He reported an enforcement index of 77, explaining that the goal of the Sheriff’s Department is to keep this at 20 or higher, and that it is the ratio of hazardous citations and fatal or injury collisions. Sgt. Creason reported that the decoy vehicle was placed at Bloomwood and Mt. Hood during the past week; and during the previous couple of weeks it was in the Mira Vista neighborhood in the general area of Enrose and Crestwood.

Commissioner Mevers referred to accidents and citations, and asked if, other than seat belt citations, there were any other significant violations.

Sgt. Creason responded that they write more speeding citations than anything else, and that falls under hazardous cites in the report.

CONTINUED BUSINESS:

None

NEW BUSINESS:

  1. MONTEMALAGA DRIVE AND GRAYSLAKE ROAD, MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL

Recommendation:

    1. Deny request for installation of multi-way stop controls.
    2. Place radar trailer on Montemalaga Drive per current deployment schedule.
    3. Request additional speed enforcement from the Lomita Sheriff Station.

Traffic Engineer’s Report

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his report, stating that a request was received from Mr. Keith Beall in the e-mail attached who was concerned about access from Grayslake onto Montemalaga Drive, pedestrian safety, and overall safety in the roadway. Mr. Rydell stated that this is a T-intersection in the northwest corner of the City; Montemalaga Drive is a through street, and Grayslake is the stem of the T. He reported that the posted speed is 35 mph, and radar measurements revealed a prevailing speed of 45 mph. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that there is posted stop control on Grayslake. He stated that no intersection-type reported accidents occurred; there is a four-way stop control at Basswood Avenue, a traffic signal at Silver Spur Road, and crossing guards at the four-way stop at Silver Spur Elementary School.

Traffic Engineer Rydell presented a slide of the location, pointing out the site and the existing traffic controls. He reported that 24-hour counts were taken on 1/5/05 and were used to prepare a multi-way stop control warrant analysis; that the daily volume on Montemalaga was 5,887 vehicles and the volume on Grayslake Road was 647 vehicles, and the volumes on Grayslake did not satisfy the City’s warrant guidelines. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he measured visibility based on the prevailing speed of traffic as opposed to the minimum stopping sight distance per American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. He explained that this location also does not satisfy Federal or State guidelines. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that, based on the analysis, Staff is recommending that the request for multi-way stop control be denied; but they are recommending that the radar trailer be placed on Montemalaga Drive, with placement scheduled for six times per year. He reported that Staff would continue to coordinate with the Sheriff to provide enforcement both with and without radar trailer placement.

Traffic Engineer Rydell presented the alternatives that Staff has identified, stating that they are ethically feasible; although they do not believe they are the best recommendations. The alternatives were outlined as follows:

    1. Install multi-way stop controls at the subject intersection.

a. Benefits

i. Reduced delays for motorists on Grayslake Road entering Montemalaga Drive.

ii. Decreased speed on Montemalaga Drive in the immediate vicinity of Grayslake Road.

      1. Disadvantages;
        1. Increase delay and congestion on Montemalaga Drive.
        2. Increased potential for rear-end accidents on Montemalaga Drive.
        3. Increased liability for City due to warrants not satisfied.
        4. Increased maintenance costs for signs and markings.
        5. Motorist disregard for stop controls on Montemalaga Drive due to lack of perceived conflict may create a false sense of security for pedestrians crossing Montemalaga Drive.

    1. Install "Intersection Ahead" signs on Montemalaga Drive in advance of Grayslake Road.
    2. a. Benefits

        1. Provide additional notification to motorists on Monte Malaga Drive of the upcoming intersection at Grayslake Road.

    1. Disadvantages;
      1. Excellent reported accident history indicates that there would be little benefit to this action.
      2. Increased maintenance costs for signs.

    1. Consider other traffic controls as may be determined.

Commissioner Willens recused himself from this item, since he lives approximately half a block from this intersection. He asked to speak on the item.

Damon Willens, 5739 Wildbriar Drive, stated that there is definitely a huge speeding problem on Montemalaga because it is such a long stretch, with cars coming in and out off Silver Spur going in and out of Palos Verdes Estates. He stated that he walks Montemalaga in that stretch almost every day, and estimated that the average speed of traffic is probably significantly above 40 mph. He stated that increased enforcement is important, but does not believe that stop signs are the answer. He does not believe that signs would help because he suspects that the vast majority of people traveling through the area are familiar with it and are probably aware that there is an intersection there. Mr. Willens stated that he would support increased enforcement—the use of the radar trailer sounds good, and that would be a good start.

Commissioner Willens left the room for the remaining discussion on Item 1.

Chair Shepherd explained that she is familiar with the traffic patterns on Montemalaga because she visited the location and the Commission considered this issue previously. She explained that she tried to negotiate a left turn from Grayslake onto Montemalaga; she did not see a sight distance problem with a right turn and tried to anticipate the cars approaching her quickly, and she could see the benefit of a stop sign. Chair Shepherd stated that she supports the Staff recommendation.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Klein moved to adopt the three Staff recommendations as listed on circle page 30, seconded by Commissioner Parfenov.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Mevers stated that he reached the same conclusion as everyone else; that it is a speeding problem, but there was no indication as to how many people are going above the limit. He suggested that strong speed enforcement is needed, the Staff recommendations are about it, and he does not know what else to suggest.

Commissioner Lewis clarified with Traffic Engineer Rydell that one of the reasons for the recommendations was because stop signs are not considered good speed control.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded affirmatively.

Commissioner Klein asked when the speed limit was last checked on Montemalaga for purposes of setting the speed limit on that road.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that he does not have an answer for that because he does not know when the speed limit was set.

Commissioner Klein asked what the State requirement is for revisiting the speed periodically.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the requirement is every five, seven, or ten years, depending on certain qualifications. He explained that it is supposed to be checked every five years, and can be extended to seven years as long as the officers have provided a certain precedent and the equipment is certified; and it can be extended further to ten years if conditions have not changed substantially.

Commissioner Wright asked if 45 mph is considered an unsafe speed for this location.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is well above the speed limit, adding that they do not have a reported accident problem.

Commissioner Mevers commented that if the speed limit were elevated, that would make it more difficult for vehicles on the side streets trying to enter the main artery.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that the feeling when setting speed limits is that people typically drive at speeds they feel safe and comfortable with, and if the speed limit was raised it would not necessarily mean that people would drive faster.

ACTION TAKEN:

Motion approved:

Ayes 6; Nays 0; Commissioner Willens abstained

2. AMBERGATE DRIVE/MONERO DRIVE

Recommendations:

    1. Place the City radar trailer and feedback signs on Ambergate Drive and Monero Drive per current deployment schedule.
    2. Request additional speed enforcement from the Lomita Sheriff Station.
    3. Coordinate a lawn sign program with neighborhood leadership.
    4. Advise neighborhood leadership that a petition signed by a substantial majority (60%) of the residents on Ambergate Drive and Monero Drive between Granvia Altamira and Trailriders Drive is required for further traffic analysis by Staff. Staff would provide assistance in preparing the petition, but not in circulating the petition.

Traffic Engineer’s Report

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his report, stating that a request was received from Mr. Bill Keller to investigate excessive speeding; that this situation was previously reviewed in December 2003 at the request of several residents on Ambergate Drive, and resulted in the installation of additional 25 mph speed limit signs on both streets and additional enforcement by the Sheriff’s Department. He explained that Ambergate Drive is an extension of Monero Drive and it has a significant downgrade.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed slides of the subject location, describing the physical features and traffic controls in the area. He stated that radar speed measurements were taken on both streets in 2004 with the City’s StealthStat devices, and on 9/15/05 using a handheld radar gun as a follow-up to their improvements. He stated that StealthStat devices revealed 24-hour volumes of approximately 2,900 on Monero Drive and a prevailing speed of 35 mph and 24-hour volumes of approximately 2,300 on Ambergate Drive with a prevailing speed of 39 mph—all significantly higher than the 25 mph speed limit. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Staff separated the uphill traffic from the downhill traffic on Ambergate and found that it was very close; that 99% of vehicles on Ambergate Drive and 88% on Monero Drive were driving at the prevailing speed.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that both the StealthStat and the handheld radar gun generally produce the same type of data, although that is not always the case; that the StealthStat measures a 24-hour period, and will record every vehicle; the radar gun is used to ticket specific vehicles. He reported that this area has been included in the deployment schedule for the City’s radar trailers and feedback signs on the following schedule:

Ambergate Drive

Radar trailer – twice per year

Feedback sign – two-month continuous period during the year

Monero Drive

Radar trailer – twice per year

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that Staff would continue to coordinate with the Sheriff to provide enforcement both with and without radar trailer and feedback sign placement.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed the recommendations, pointing out that the lawn signs referred to in Recommendation 3 are part of the City’s educational program, and are intended to be consistent with the neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. He stated that Recommendation 4 should not be misconstrued, explaining that Staff does believe there is a problem. He added that it is time for the community to decide whether they are supportive of what the next actions may entail, so that Staff does not waste time, resources, and funds on a project that is not supported by the residents.

Traffic Engineer Rydell presented and briefly reviewed the following alternatives in his report:

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Request Staff to immediately commence additional traffic calming analysis.

a. Benefits

i. Address citizen concerns sooner.

b. Disadvantages
i. Does not follow process contained in approved Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
ii. Does not ensure sufficient community support for potential calming tools prior to Staff involvement.
iii. Redirects Staff resources prematurely.

2. Install additional speed limit and/or pavement markings on Ambergate Drive and Monero Drive.

      1. Benefits;
        1. Would provide additional notification to motorists of the legal speed limit.

      2. Disadvantages;
        1. Limited anticipated effectiveness based on effects of previously installed signs.
        2. Increased maintenance costs for signs and/or markings.
        3. Increased visual clutter.

3. Install white edgeline striping on Ambergate Drive and Monero Drive.

    1. Benefits;

    1. Potential traffic calming effects through visual narrowing of roadways.

    1. Disadvantages;

    1. Does not follow process contained in approved Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.

      1. Initial cost for installation as well as increased maintenance costs for markings.

4. Consider other traffic controls as may be determined.

Commission Discussion

Chair Shepherd stated that she takes issue with the Alternative 1 because it goes outside the Traffic Calming Program and the Commission should not override the City’s Traffic Calming Program procedure by having Staff bounce over several steps.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Staff believes that when they are asked for alternatives the Commission wants Staff to have them available. He stated that Staff is not recommending it, and that is why it is not a recommendation; but they are trying to accommodate the Commission’s request for alternatives, and that this may be suggested anyway. He stated that the alternatives are presented only for the Commission’s consideration, adding that he does not disagree with Chair Shepherd’s opinion.

Commissioner Lewis referred to circle page 10 of the report regarding traffic investigations, and asked if this is the radar gun report.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that these are the printouts prepared to provide the pertinent information, based on a minimum of 100 samples.

Chair Shepherd commented that she noticed there is a radar trailer on Ambergate Drive at 28119, and asked about the grade from Hazelridge down to Monero Drive.

A member of the audience responded that the grade is 12.5%.

Chair Shepherd commented that she noticed while visiting the site that some of the pavement markers need restriping and repainting, and suggested that Staff look into that. She also asked how long the lawn signs would be in place. She suggested that the TSC and staff consider a restriction on length of posting as part of the education component.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Staff has not discussed a duration for the lawn signs, and that he envisioned that is part of the educational process and Staff will then identify that issue and a solution.

Chair Shepherd suggested that Staff think about it so the ad hoc committee can talk about it.

Chair Shepherd opened the Public Hearing.

Walter Wey, 28113 Ambergate Drive, stated that he lives next to the house where the most recent radar sign was placed and he watches the drivers slow down when they see the radar sign, commenting that all of them have to slow down. Mr. Wey reported that in addition to the speeding problem there is a passing problem. He stated that if a driver goes 25 mph, others will pass at 25 to 40 mph; that he has trouble backing out of his driveway because of speeding traffic. He suggested the possibility of running the double yellow lines from Trailriders all the way up to Granvia Altamira. Mr. Wey also requested a sign that would say "Passing service trucks permitted carefully" or something to that effect; explaining that if there is a large waste management truck there, you have to get around it somehow.

Ann Stone, 28125 Ambergate Drive, stated that the radar trailer was between her house and that of the first speaker. Ms. Stone reported that she has lived on Ambergate for 36 years, and was involved in the original hearing in 2003. She stated that the traffic measures taken then have not worked because the residents will not obey the posted speed limit. She explained she remembers from the discussion that this is a 12.5% grade—a very short grade. Ms. Stone explained that she is tired of backing out of her driveway and being run off the road; she reported that she chased two women who have done that recently, and jumped out of her car and asked them, "What are you doing?" She reported that one said, "Well, you were stopped!" and that the other woman said, "Oh! It wasn’t illegal! it wasn’t illegal!". Ms. Stone stated that she talked to an officer, and on a street like that—one lane in each direction—it is illegal to pass on the right. Ms. Stone stated that most of this was discussed originally, and she has all the documentation. She reported that another problem is the pine trees that are on the side of the street where there are no houses, saying that she has asked to have them trimmed at the bottom, but that does not help. She stated that they should be laced out so that the top of the hill is visible. Ms. Stone stated that she would like to see double striping, no passing signs, and possibly an additional 25 mph "No passing" sign in the center of that hill on both sides. She stated that she would be glad to circulate a petition after the first week in November. She explained that another person would have been here but had a previous commitment.

Chair Shepherd asked Ms. Stone if the pine trees are on the City easement or on private property.

Ms. Stone answered that she believes they are on a City easement.

Senior Engineer Dragoo commented that they are probably street trees and Staff will investigate.

Steven Jeau, 28215 Ambergate Drive, reported that the speed limit in front of his house is 20 mph because it is more dangerous than other sections of Ambergate. He explained that what he noticed is that every night when he goes home, he slows down to go into his driveway; that everyone makes a quick stop, and he can sometimes hear brake noises. Mr. Jeau suggested that he does not think they were going 20 mph, and he thinks they were going at least 30 mph. He explained that it is very stressful when he goes home and he looks back to see if anyone is following him; he signals a right-turn 50 yards before his house to make sure they know he is going to stop, but sometimes that does not help. Mr. Jeau stated that he hopes something can be done about that.

Dorothy MacLellan, 6611 Monero Drive, expressed agreement with the previous speakers, and explained that she lives eleven houses from Granvia Altamira and she cannot get out of her driveway. She explained that she looks both ways, but by the time she gets out of the driveway, there are two or three cars there in the same lane in both directions. She explained that she has lived there since 1952, and suggested speed bumps.

Chair Shepherd closed the Public Hearing.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved to adopt Recommendations 1 through 4 on circle page 5 of the Staff report, seconded by Commissioner Wright.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Willens commented that there is a problem, and that he is supportive of the Traffic Calming Program as he has been in the past and will be in the future on this item. Commissioner Willens encouraged residents to work with Staff and within the community to follow traffic calming steps and work toward resolving this problem. He thanked the audience for appearing, stating that it is important to have 30 people here as opposed to having one or two; and that it is important for them to be here, even if they do not speak.

Commissioner Klein referred to the request for double yellow lines, and asked if that is feasible and within the regulations.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that double yellow lines are not installed in residential streets except around curves, and it is illegal to pass on the left of a double yellow line. He explained that residential streets are normally not wide; when there is service traffic doing their business, people are either forced to break the law or be stuck behind a truck, and that is the reason double yellow lines are not installed, except on curves.

Commissioner Klein stated that he also noticed that the striping is worn on sections of the road and suggested that it be repaired.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that Staff is aware of the situation and repairs are being made citywide, but it will take time to complete. He thanked Commissioner Klein for bringing it to Staff’s attention.

Chair Shepherd suggested that the intersections brought before the Commission be placed in a higher priority than those on routine upgrading list.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he would look into that possibility.

Commissioner Klein spoke to the audience, saying that before they request speed humps, they should drive over them, such as on Basswood, and make sure that it is what they want.

Ann Stone, a previous speaker, stated that her question concerns the law on striping, which breaks in front of her house and starts again going uphill, and there is a T-intersection there. She explained that cars are speeding while other cars are pulling out from the T-intersection, where there have been a few accidents; the striping allows people to go around, and it is a dangerous situation. She stated that there is striping for a distance of only four or five houses, then becomes double again, and breaks for the T-intersection. She suggested that it should not break before the T-intersection, and it should begin again after; because people pulling out of Brookford Drive do not have good visibility, either of the hill or what is coming around the corner.

Commissioner Wright stated that he assumes the increased enforcement will be implemented before the next meeting. He asked if the Commission could receive a report of the number of tickets written as a result, to determine the volume of traffic in the area.

Sgt. Creason stated that they will give it their attention.

ACTION TAKEN:

Motion approved:

Ayes 7; Nays 0

3. PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST AND GANADO DRIVE TRAFFIC CONTROLS

Recommendation:

    1. Retain the recently modified striping modifications on Palos Verdes Drive East in the vicinity of Ganado Drive.
    2. Install raised pavement markers on Palos Verdes Drive East north of Ganado Drive to supplement the existing southbound right-turn only lane striping.
    3. Install 53 feet of red curb on the south side of Ganado Drive from Palos Verdes Drive East to a point 73 feet east of the limit line, excluding the existing residential driveway.
    4. Retain the existing red curb on the east side of the Palos Verdes Drive East frontage road between Ganado Drive and the northerly terminus of the frontage road.
    5. Remove the existing stopping prohibition signs on the west side of Palos Verdes Drive East in the paved area south of Ganado Drive and replace with red curb, diagonal striping and "NO STOPPING" pavement markings

Traffic Engineer’s Report

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that this is a follow-up review that Staff conducted at the request of the Mediterranea Homeowners’ Association; and also internally, to verify the results after modification of striping on Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) to Ganado Drive. He explained that this issue was considered by the previous Traffic Committee and involved several issues:

    • Modify striping on PVDE as it related to the southbound right-turn-only lane, with acceleration lanes for both directions of travel for motorists entering PVDE from Ganado Drive;
    • Retain northbound left-turn lane from PVDE onto Ganado Drive;
    • Install red curb on the east side of the PVDE frontage road north Ganado Drive;
    • Install separate turn lanes on Ganado Drive for left and right turns.
    • Vegetation trimming/removal.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that public comment was received and the modifications were approved. He explained that, in addition to what was approved and implemented, the Homeowners’ Association raised other issues that required additional modifications. Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his comprehensive report that described his evaluation of the modifications already made, and additional concerns expressed by residents.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the recommendations are improvements based on what Staff observed and requests made by the residents and the homeowners’ association. He briefly reviewed the five proposed recommendations and pointed out the control devices and pavement markings pictured on the slide presentation. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Staff tried to address as many concerns as possible in this report at one time. He presented and reviewed the following alternatives:

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Request Staff to return PVDE striping to its former condition.

      1. Benefits
        I. Return traffic patterns to their previous conditions.

b. Disadvantages

i. Eliminates the traffic safety enhancements provided by the current striping.
ii. Eliminates the traffic flow enhancements provided by the current striping.
iii. Cost to replace striping.

2. Install flexible delineators instead of raised pavement markers on the southbound right-turn only lane on PVDE approaching Ganado Drive.

a. Benefits
i. Would provide additional visual and physical notification to motorists of the channelization, thus reducing non- compliance.

b. Disadvantages
i. Increased visual clutter may not be appropriate for this location.
ii. Potential for knockdowns, which may increase maintenance costs.

3. Eliminate or reduce the red curb on Ganado Drive west of PVDE.

a. Benefits
i. Would retain additional on-street parking.

b. Disadvantages
i. Would decrease the effectiveness of the right-turn only lane.
ii. May increase the sideswipe accident potential.

4. Replace the existing red curb on the PVDE frontage road with signs.


a. Benefits
i. Would decrease maintenance costs since signs are less expensive to maintain than red curb.
b. Disadvantages
i. Cost to remove red curb and install signs.
ii. Would increase visual clutter.
iii. Would limit enforceability if signs were knocked down.

5. Retain existing stopping prohibition signs on west side of PVDE south of Ganado Drive.

a. Benefits
i. Eliminate cost to remove signs and install markings and legends.
ii. Reduced maintenance costs.
b. Disadvantages
i. Would not improve limited effectiveness of existing signs.
ii. Retains visual clutter.


6. Consider other traffic controls or modifications as may be determined.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Lewis asked how long the modifications have been in place.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that it is approximately six to eight weeks.

Senior Engineer Dragoo commented that there was a lot of public input the first couple of weeks.

Commissioner Klein referred to the red curb in the right-turn pocket on Ganado, and commented that there are similar red curb lanes in other parts of the City where he has seen cars parked, which apparently need red curb paint. He asked if Staff plans to red curb all the right-turn pockets where a car cannot park.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that this was an issue that he believes was raised by Commissioner Parfenov recently, and Staff plans to bring a policy to the Commission for adoption that would address this exact issue. He explained that the California Traffic Manual does recommend that there always be parking restrictions in advance of an intersection.

Commissioner Klein commented that Staff recommended that the driveway should not be red-curbed, because it is not legal to park in a driveway. He gave a counter example of a visitor who was given permission by the owner of a house to park in the driveway, yet the vehicle code requires cars to not park there. Commissioner Klein asked if it would make sense to red-curb the entire curb section, including the driveway, as many citizens are not aware that it is illegal to park in a driveway even with the permission of the owner of the affected property.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that he does not think so, because they try not to sign or mark things that are already enforceable by the vehicle code. He explained that if they start marking locations such as this and someone parks in front of another driveway, they would retaliate by saying that the marking is not consistent with other driveways.

Commissioner Klein asked if he could not park in front of his own driveway.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that he could not.

Sgt. Creason stated that it is a citable offense.

Commissioner Willens asked if Staff has spoken to the person who lives at the address in front of where the red curb will be installed.

Traffic Engineer Rydell said he was told the residents have just purchased the house and have not yet moved in, but a notice was sent. He explained that this driveway is very close to the intersection, and a resident would not want someone parking there.

Commissioner Wright asked if Staff went with the bots dots because they are more attractive than the flexible delineator alternative, or was there another reason.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that they were less visually intrusive, they will have a strong effect, and they will have a lower maintenance cost, although both would work.

Chair Shepherd explained that the Commission voted to install tall delineators last month in a place where the Commission had an issue of drivers using a right-turn only lane to speed across an intersection, and the existing bots dots were not resolving the problem. She suggested that this is the first phase of a different issue to resolve the problem under discussion; that it is an effort to move vehicles back into the stream of traffic—not trying to keep drivers from going into an intersection.

Chair Shepherd opened the Public Hearing.

Mitchell Hahn, 31245 Ganado Drive, explained that he lives in the sixth house from the intersection, and is one of the first responders to accidents that occur at that location. He stated that the situation is bad, but this is worse, because it forces a merge and then a short turn, and people do not realize that the merge is in place. He described an experience where he turned on Ganado Drive heading up the road (referring to the slide) and two cars are approaching; the person on the inside has obeyed the markers and has forced the person on the outside across the double yellow lines, head-on toward him. He added that a bicyclist behind him adapted to the situation. Mr. Hahn suggested that the former situation is much better than what is proposed. He referred to Attachment C on circle page 52, explaining that he lives on Ganado and needs to get out onto PVDE and he never feels pressured to go across; in his opinion the traffic does not stack up at that location, and believes his neighbors will agree. Referring to the turn lanes in both directions, Mr. Hahn explained that this moved the former line so that the turn is more abrupt and drivers must slow down more, with faster drivers approaching from behind. He suggested that moving the yellow line narrowed the lane that the driver is entering. He stated that his most adamant concern is illustrated on Attachment D on circle page 53 and the fact that it requires an instantaneous merge and then a turn lane. He explained that the turn lane was fine; the residents were comfortable with it, and no one turning left on Ganado trusted anyone coming down the hill; whether they were in a turn-lane or not, they waited and eventually turned left.

Betty Riedman, 3668 Cliffsite Drive in the Mediterranea area, expressed agreement with the previous speaker, saying that the improvements to the right-turn lane off Ganado it much more difficult when coming from Marymount College going toward Ganado; it is a very sudden merge and an almost-immediate right turn. She reported that it has not stopped cars or bicyclists from going straight through, not only when making a left turn off Ganado onto PVDE. She explained that drivers must not only watch for cars, they have to watch for bicycles and motorcycles. In her opinion, bots dots will not make any difference; she has considered going straight through but has not. She is concerned that she will be merging to the left to get into the correct lane and hit another car, because it does not give the driver much warning and is very subtle. She stated that unless a person lives in the area, they are not aware of this configuration. Regarding turning right off of Ganado into the acceleration lane, she would not turn right there until she was sure no one was coming anyway, because if she turned right and a car was coming she would have to stop. She stated that there was not a problem before the striping was installed, there was not a stack-up of cars there; drivers waited maybe 45 seconds at the most to go either left or right, because they do not have that kind of traffic and she has never seen a problem at that intersection. She explained that, because the City made it narrower in the other direction, when people turn left onto Ganado off PVDE they cut the corner, and people turning right swing wide, so drivers must be doubly careful. Regarding the red curb, she said she never noticed it was there, and does not know why anyone would go there in the first place. She stated that those two issues need to be addressed, and she would like to see the right-turn lane restored to its previous condition, perhaps making it longer with better signage for "Right Turn Only". Ms. Riedman stated that her homeowners association was not happy with the striping; that residents have not objected because they thought Mediterranea was taking care of it.

Chair Shepherd closed the Public Hearing.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Willens asked if Staff made these modifications at the request of a huge group of people present at a Committee meeting a year ago. He recalled a very detailed discussion about the design of the intersection, including restriping, soliciting suggestions and comments from the residents, and asked if what Staff did was a response to that.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that modifications were implemented at the request of the Mediterranea Homeowners’ Association.

Chair Shepherd stated that she does remember that there were issues of cars stacking up, creating difficulty turning out of Ganado, and there were concerns about the way traffic had to merge because it was confusing, and part of the acceleration and deceleration lane going into the new striping was intended to improve that. She stated that the complaints were related to a different type of merging concern with the previous striping.

Commissioner Willens recalled that it was forcing traffic into the oncoming lanes.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that there were several issues. He reported that a resident commented that the homeowners’ association was very unhappy, and he met with them after it was installed. He explained that they were unhappy because they thought it would transition to one lane further up the hill closer to Marymount College. What he explained to the homeowners’ association was that the Traffic Committee decided not to go that far up because Marymount is in the process of expansion and they do not know how things will change as a result, and Staff will address those issues when the expansion is completed. He stated that the homeowners’ association was very comfortable with his explanation. He clarified that the issue was how far along Staff went to one lane—not that they went to one lane.

Chair Shepherd questioned the merge coming down PVDE, and thinks it was an issue with the area where bots dots are proposed and the right-of-way problem during merging. She explained that she drove it several times to try and relate to the feelings of residents, and does not know if alternative striping would resolve the issue of one driver trying to beat another driver before allowing them to merge. She asked Staff what would be the appropriate movement there. She commented that it is supposed to be a gradual merge and appears to be that, except that it is downhill; and drivers are increasing their speed as they go around the curve, and not giving right-of-way to someone trying to merge. She opined that it appears to be a matter of courtesy rather than a striping problem.

Traffic Engineer Rydell agreed that aggressive driving is an issue, and there is 1,000 feet of warning to move over. He explained that formerly, the merge took place near a curve with fast traffic in both directions, and that is the reason the warning was moved further up the hill to enhance safety.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if there is a warning sign north of Ganado that tells drivers the street narrows.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that there is a series of warning signs as well as arrows.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved to adopt Staff Recommendations 1 through 5 set forth on circle page 45, seconded by Commissioner Klein.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Parfenov agrees with Recommendations 1, 4, and 5 but has an issue with pavement markings because on Hawthorne and Ravenspur the drivers were just going through and that is what caused the accidents even though the sign said "Right Lane Must Turn Right". He believes that if the pavement markings are installed now, they will have to be replaced later with delineators, and that will be additional expense.

Commissioner Wright referred to bicycles, stating that with bots dots bicyclists can ride without taking a spill; he asked if, with the delineators, they can get around them or do they have to ride out traffic.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he would not expect them to ride on the edge line.

Commissioner Lewis stated that his only problem with earlier comments is that the Commission’s mandate according to the plan is to try education and enforcement first and engineering solutions last; and in considering engineering solutions, the least intrusive engineering solutions would be tried before the more drastic. He suggested that until the bots dots are proven ineffective in this area, it would be a mistake to install the more intrusive delineators. He also suggested that this is the type of issue where Commissioners should disclose during discussion if they have not visited the location.

Commissioner Willens stated that he understands the frustration of some people who are not satisfied with changes that were made to try to improve the situation, saying that everyone will not always be happy with the decision that any body makes. He explained that the Commission is trying to do what they can for the greatest number of people; he remembers spending much time on this last summer at some very late meetings when the Committee considered all recommendations in very minute detail, considered nit picking by some Committee members. Commissioner Willens expressed frustration that the Commission is now being asked to undo what the Committee spent all that time doing; although if they try something and it does not work, he is not saying changes should not be made to make it better and understands that it is a work in progress. He stated, however, that he does not see that here, and does not see any reason to change what was done after a trial period of only six weeks.

Chair Shepherd referred to the yellow center striping on Ganado that was moved over, and asked how many feet to the left it was moved.

Traffic Engineer Rydell answered that it was approximately two feet.

Chair Shepherd expressed agreement with Staff’s recommendations, and with Commissioner Willens that six weeks is not long enough to establish a pattern and adjust to a change. She believes the Commission should give it more time, and then consider tweaking, if necessary.

ACTION TAKEN:

Motion approved:

Ayes 6; Nays 0; Commissioner Mevers abstained

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

This section of the agenda is for audience comments for items not on the agenda.

Richard Smith, 5951 Armaga Springs Road, asked the Commission to consider how they might address moving citizenry out of their homes on the existing streets, saying that he believes it is a public safety and a traffic safety issue. He suggested that there are unique circumstances within the City and roadways; not the least of which are the areas that might or might not be there after an earthquake. In addition, he mentioned grass fires that cause road closures and evacuations. He reported on comments of a fire officer trying to move fire engines to areas where horse trailers were being evacuated, saying that this issue will always exist in the City. Mr. Smith asked the Commission to consider whether this is in their purview, agendize it in the future, and discuss the emergency issues relating to emergency evacuation or access to hospitals for a mass casualty incident. Mr. Smith stated that he is Vice Chair of the City’s Emergency Preparedness Commission.

Ray Van Dinther, 28180 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, left copies of a map for distribution to the Commission. She explained that she moved into the area three years ago because she has horses and wanted to move into an equestrian area. She explained that she lives between Bronco and Sunnyside Ridge on Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE), which is accessible to the trails, but is a very narrow road and consists of Dead Man’s Corner at one end and another Dead Man’s Corner at another end, commenting that is the reason she brought the map. Ms. Van Dinther reported that there are constant accidents in the area; there are 25 horses accessing the road along PVDE to get to the trails, and stated that it is deadly. She reported that since she moved there the City sold an area where residents had a designated trail, Sol Vista trail, which took the riders off a section of PVDE for approximately half a mile, preventing access to the trails. She explained that the equestrian sidewalk in that area is not a sidewalk, but a gentle slope; the cars ignore the equestrian sidewalk and equestrians proceed with great care and trepidation trying to navigate the area. Ms. Van Dinther stated that it is an equestrian area, the residents chose to live in an equestrian area, and they have horses there; she asked the Commission to consider how to navigate the equestrians carefully to get to the trails. She suggested putting this on the agenda for discussion and investigation. Ms. Van Dinther reported that the City has told her that PVDE is an arterial road, but where she is it is not an arterial road, but a very narrow road; she asked to receive information regarding the criteria for an arterial road.

Chair Shepherd responded that it is an arterial road.

Ms. Van Dinther questioned if there are no criteria for width.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that as part of the City’s General Plan that roadway has been identified as an arterial highway, which means that it is a significant roadway in the entire circulation system.

Ms. Van Dinther further questioned if there is no criteria for an arterial road to be a certain width. She described the roadway as approximately 16 feet wide.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that it is 24 feet wide with minimum 12-foot wide lanes.

Chair Shepherd asked Ms. Van Dinther to e-mail her map to Staff.

Anna Chu, 28191 Palos Verdes Drive East, stated that she has been a local resident since birth and moved into her current residence approximately six years ago, intending to bring in horses but chose not to. She explained that as she was talking with a neighbor at her mailbox she was almost hit by a car. She explained that the separation between the mailbox and the street is probably less than three feet, and she stated that she does not go there any more. She reported that their signs have been knocked down by speeding traffic. She stated that PVDE enters into Rancho Palos Verdes up until the first actual crosswalk, reportedly identified as 1.9 miles on which the speed limit is 30 mph. Ms. Chu stated that, although the Sheriff’s Department is using traffic enforcement and radar to encourage people to slow down, they only slow down when they get a ticket or when they see the radar, and when that is gone, they are speeding again. Ms. Chu stated that she is asking for "anything, anything". She explained that she begged for stop signs, but was told that it cannot be done on an arterial highway. She asked for traffic signals, such as on Crenshaw; but it still does not resolve the issue that people are speeding around dead man’s curve as mentioned by Ms. Van Dinther. She explained that this is most significant between Miraleste Intermediate School, referring to the Commission’s plan to improve safety around the schools—down to Sunnyside Ridge Road or maybe even Sailgate. She suggested that it is a very nice area for cars to test their maneuverability around turns at high speed; that if the City can put traffic signals in there it might help with trail access. She stated that she has a high school sophomore whom she will not let walk to the bus stop to get to the high school, because it is not even safe to use public transportation or get across the street safely. She requested any advice on what the residents can do to improve traffic safety in the area. She explained that she noticed reflectors on Palos Verdes Drive South at the entrance to and exit from the landslide area, and suggested installing them for ten or fifteen feet around curves as an audio cue to slow down—you are entering a dangerous area. She explained that they would not slow down emergency vehicles or patrol cars, but may slow down the vehicles that are treating it as a highway. Ms. Chu stated that she would appreciate any consideration given to this matter.

Kay Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, explained that she is a member of the Equestrian Committee. She requested that this issue be put on an agenda for a future meeting, and suggested the possibility of a joint committee with representatives from the Traffic Safety Commission and the Equestrian Committee to work out the details. She commented that the trails are used by hikers, bikers, and horses, and involves many folks.

Madeline Ryan, 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that residents feel very squeezed in the 28000 block of PVDE. She explained that they have met several times with the Staff and the City and have formulated several suggestions regarding what would work on PVDE, and that a couple of them are very costly. However, one suggestion they have not presented is to have "Horse Crossing" written on the street, explaining that there is a resurgence of horse-keeping; that it is a "Q" zone on the east side of the hill, and there are new younger families moving in, and they want a little pony for their child. She suggested that this is critical, and residents are hoping that the Traffic Safety Commission can understand that and help them. Ms. Ryan referred to the 24-foot street width, and suggested that if all the encroachments in the 28000 block were recaptured along PVDE, there could be a wide shoulder on the road in addition to the 24-foot road. She concluded, saying that those would be her suggestions.

Stanley and Marilyn Kritzer. Mr. Kritzer explained that they appeared before the Commission recently as individual citizens because of the danger of making a left turn at Forrestal and Palos Verdes Drive South. He explained that they understand that the Trump organization will pay for a traffic signal at this location; that they conveyed this to their Ladera Linda Homeowners’ Association, of which they are members, and were appointed as the Traffic Control and Safety Subcommittee of the association, and that is why they are at this meeting on this subject. Mr. Kritzer explained that they want to resolve this issue before the Trump organization completes their project. He explained that it is difficult to make a left turn out of Forestall onto Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS), and it will be worse after this project is completed in addition to Terrania Sails in the other area, emphasizing that the Trump organization is willing to pay for the signal. Mr. and Mrs. Kritzer stated that they want to know how to get the process started. Mrs. Kritzer added that they also have all the soccer players, 180 families, and Montessori, and this is their only access in and out of the area. Mr. Kritzer stated that here they have an opportunity to receive help early in this situation and they do not want this opportunity to pass them by, or wait for an accident to justify the signal. Mr. Kritzer suggested that the Commission tell them what is needed and they will try to get it if it will help. Mrs. Kritzer stated that if the City needs a petition, they would circulate it. Mr. Kritzer suggested that the City not give them permission to open the golf course until the issue is resolved, adding that he is not referring to the LPGA Event. He expressed support for the golf course, but suggested that this issue be resolved before Mr. Trump moves on to his next big project.

Chair Shepherd explained to the speakers that the Trump organization’s responsibility for the traffic signal is still in place whether he opens or not; that the traffic signal is part of an existing agreement and can be installed at any time, and does not end with the opening of the golf course—that it does not end for three years, which staff confirmed.

RECESS AND RECONVENE:

The Commission recessed at 9:30 pm and reconvened at 9:42 pm.

RECEIVE AND FILE:

NONE

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:

1. Public Works Department Report:

    1. RV Parking Ordinance Update
    2. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that the Staff is now working on how to assemble this Ordinance.

      Commissioner Klein asked when the Commission would see it again—two months, three months.

      Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that he would guess two or three months—that Staff cannot sit on it—and November and December meetings are combined, so possibly January.

    3. Golden Meadow Dr Update
    4. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that work orders have been processed for the signs and crosswalks.

    5. Mira Vista Traffic Calming Update
    6. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that the speed humps are installed; a preliminary radar study was completed in August between the humps on Crest, General, and Trudie, and the speed between humps on Trudie are down to 29 mph, and down to 26 mph on General. He explained that Trudie is a little higher because it is the route for students going to Marymount, saying that he got a reading of as high as 42 mph between the humps. When he did the counts, they were done at the humps and between them, and he will present information that is more detailed at a future meeting.

    7. Toscanini Area Traffic Calming Update
    8. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that the community agreed on their preferred lawn sign, the enforcement is ongoing, and the feedback sign is still in place.

    9. Hazelridge Dr w/o Lomo Dr Striping and Visibility
    10. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that this would not be presented to the Commission for approval because it is very straightforward. He explained that most of the informational items are in this category, but Staff wants to keep the Commission apprised of the status.

    11. Hawthorne Blvd near Silver Spur Rd Traffic Control
    12. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he did not get to that report, but it is not a critical issue.

    13. PVDE Equestrian Access Plan Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to the speakers at this meeting and reported that Staff has met with the equestrian group, and has started the process to define what must be done, adding that Staff is committed to finding a good crossing location that will provide adequate routes to and from trails.

h. Radar Trailer/Feedback Sign Deployment Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that they do have the final schedule, and it will be e-mailed to the Commissioners.

i. Miscellaneous Items received today (9/26/05)

Food Vendors

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that he received a summary of an enforcement issue that Sgt. Creason is working on at Grandeur with the vendors in the area. He explained that there have been a number of complaints recently.

Chair Shepherd asked if they are parked at the green curb for their own lunch before they go out to other locations. She commented that the curb needs repainting.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that they were parked at the green curb, adding that the majority of workers in the area know that the trucks arrive around lunchtime between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, and they gravitate there and get lunch. He explained that an order has been placed to repaint the curb.

Chair Shepherd asked if they are there to provide lunch, or to rest, and just happen to sell their wares while they are there; or was it their intention to sell.

Sgt. Creason explained that this is an ongoing problem for the past couple of years, and it comes and goes with enforcement. He explained that there are at least two vendors who park there, and the gardeners buy their lunch; he personally and the Corps Deputies have cited them, and the vendors have now been pushed into Palos Verdes Estates and are setting up shop on the other side of the City line. He reported that one of the Deputies cited a patron who parked in the limited parking.

Commissioner Wright commented that the vendors must have a business license, and asked if that is correct.

Chair Shepherd asked what the green curb allows.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that it allows short-term parking for a specified period.

Chair Shepherd commented that the previous Traffic Committee agreed to install green curb for the strip mall for deliveries.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that there are other options for that such as commercial loading zones, which are not short-term parking.

Chair Shepherd commented that she recalled they were installed because there was not enough available parking for loading and unloading for delivery trucks; but if it can be changed to yellow, which is specifically for loading and unloading, it might make it easier for enforcement.

Sgt. Creason stated that he would like to see the fine raised; that it is approximately $30 or $50, and the vendors consider it the cost of doing business and is just cheap rent for them.

Chair Shepherd asked if the Commission could recommend that to the City Council, commenting that it is not a safety issue.

Sgt. Creason explained that they are violating a City Ordinance.

Commissioner Wright suggested that if a business license is required and they are operating without one, it would be a misdemeanor.

Traffic Engineer Rydell suggested "No Parking – Tow Away". He explained that Staff has also considered an Ordinance prohibiting vending, as some cities have done.

Commissioner Parfenov commented on a Los Angeles Times article last weekend regarding the establishment of a special zone specifically for vendors and restricting them from all other locations.

Traffic Commissioners’ Workshop

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that the workshop would be held on Saturday, November 5, 2005; he will have Staff e-mail the invitation to the Commissioners; Staff will make reservations based on their responses.

Chair Shepherd encouraged attendance, and explained that the benefits include interaction with other Commissioners and community members, and information provided by speakers.

Alternatives in Staff Reports

Traffic Engineer Rydell asked for the Commission’s feedback regarding the alternatives provided in the Staff reports presented at this meeting. He explained that these were in-depth alternatives, and are very time consuming; he asked if this is what the Commission wants, or is there something specific that they want to see.

Commissioner Lewis responded that tonight it did not have much value because the votes were unanimous, but where the votes are closer, such a 3 to 4, the alternatives are much more valuable.

Commissioner Klein thought they were valuable.

Chair Shepherd stated that she liked seeing the benefits and disadvantages, and the alternatives could affect the minority vote, saying that she liked it.

2. Traffic Safety Commission General Business

    1. Items from Joint Meeting with City Council

Chair Shepherd explained that she will prepare a bullet-point list of items derived from the joint meeting with the City Council for quick reference, and to determine which items require action.

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that a request was received to place Bill Schurmer’s white paper on the November agenda, and Chair Shepherd will provide a copy to Staff.

b. Last meeting in 2005

Chair Shepherd suggested that the Commission discuss a date for the last meeting this year before vacation and holiday plans are made, and suggested December 5 or December 12.

Commissioner Lewis suggested the 5th because he may be in Europe on the 12th.

Commissioner Klein stated that he would be gone the two weeks before the next meeting in October.

It was decided to resolve this issue at the next meeting.

c. Sun Glare presentation

Commissioner Parfenov asked about his project regarding sun glare that was pulled from the Agenda.

Chair Shepherd explained that it was pulled because there was a full Agenda for this meeting, and the Commission needs a white paper or an executive summary from him describing the issue, his recommendations, the benefits and disadvantages, and an explanation of what the Commission should discuss and decide.

Commissioner Parfenov explained that he has prepared a report.

Chair Shepherd explained that she did not see his report, but anticipated that it would take more time than will be available, knowing the issues already scheduled. She explained that the Commission is backlogged with issues that residents are waiting for and it had to be delayed.

Commissioner Lewis suggested that, since this is a technology issue, this might be something for the subcommittee to review before it comes before the Commission.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if he should talk to Staff about putting it on the next agenda.

Chair Shepherd directed Commissioner Parfenov to submit his summary to Staff.

d. Responses for School Assignments

Commissioner Mevers asked if he is correct, that the Commissioners should provide Staff with their selections by Friday, September 30, and Staff will provide a checklist for guidance of issues to be discussed.

Chair Shepherd responded that the checklist would be agendized for discussion at a future meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Recommendation:

Approval of Minutes of July 25, 2005

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Klein moved to approve the Minutes of July 25, 2005, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Wright.

Motion approved:

Ayes 6; Nays 0; Commissioner Willens abstained because he was not present at the meeting.

Approval of Minutes of August 22, 2005

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Klein moved to approve the Minutes of August 22, 2005 as amended, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Commission Discussion

Chair Shepherd reported that she was unable to review the Minutes, and suggested postponing these Minutes to the next meeting.

Chair Shepherd proposed that a rolling list of action items be derived from the Minutes and be reviewed periodically for follow-up. She gave examples of items that require follow-up several months later that may be overlooked if they are not identified by subject and when they were brought before the Commission originally. Chair Shepherd offered to identify the action items in the Minutes and someone could keep a running list for reference, suggesting that the Recording Secretary could do this.

Commissioner Willens suggested that the Recording Secretary should not be responsible for this list.

The Recording Secretary agreed that she should not take this assignment because it is beyond the boundaries of her appointment to prepare the Minutes.

Senior Engineer Dragoo suggested that if everyone collectively reviews the action items from each meeting, he would verify that his list contains all the action items, commenting that he has three items at this time.

Motion failed of adoption.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Lewis moved to defer consideration of the Minutes of 8/22/05 to the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:

Ayes 7; Nays 0

ADJOURNMENT:

THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 PM TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 24, 2005.