DECEMBER 12, 2005 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2005 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES

MINUTES

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA

TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

DECEMBER 12, 2005

CALL TO ORDER: Chair Shepherd called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Parfenov led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Commissioner Mevers referred to the Bronco Drive Traffic Control item that was scheduled for the cancelled October meeting, and asked why it was not rescheduled for this meeting.

Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that, in the interest of time, Staff would place the item on the next agenda in January.

ACTION TAKEN:

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

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

CHAIR’S COMMENTS:

December 13 Planning Commission Scoping Meeting – Marymount College:

Chair Shepherd announced that this meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, December 13, 2005), and she did not commit to the attendance of the Traffic Safety Commission at the joint meeting. She explained that the Traffic Safety Commission was unaware of the joint meeting until a public notice had already been prepared. Chair Shepherd explained that she has not responded because she wanted feedback from the Traffic Safety Commissioners regarding receipt of the agenda packet for that meeting and their availability to attend. Chair Shepherd expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of notification for this meeting, as well as past lack of respect for the Traffic Safety Commission as a body. She stated that it was not possible to respond until after this meeting, when the Commission could determine if a quorum would be available; yet, the public notices were prepared announcing a joint meeting without the Traffic Safety Commission’s knowledge. The Commissioners indicated that there would be a quorum of four available to attend the joint meeting. Chair Shepherd stated that if she were unable to attend the entire meeting, she would appoint someone to act in her place if Vice Chair Willens cannot attend. Chair Shepherd explained that Chair Paul Tetrault of the Planning Commission described the meetings’ purpose as information gathering from residents and Marymount College rather than an exchange.

Commissioner Wright stated that he sees the meeting as a convenience for the residents and the College so they do not have to attend separate meetings with the Traffic Safety Commission and the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Lewis opined that the purpose is two-fold; (1) to take the pulse of the community on traffic issues, and (2) to have the Traffic Safety Commission speak about traffic issues.

Chair Shepherd stated that it is important for someone from this Commission to attend to respond to questions if necessary.

Commissioner Willens expressed two concerns:

1. He would appreciate it in the future if the Traffic Safety Commission is asked, rather than summoned, when expected to participate in meetings of the Planning Commission or any other body.

2. He referred to Item 4, Recommendation 2 on page 1 of the joint meeting agenda of December 13, 2005, which states, “Receive any input on the environmental issues to be analyzed in the project EIR from the Planning Commission and Traffic Safety Commission”. Commissioner Willens explained that the Traffic Safety Commission has never addressed this as a body, so they could not provide input as a body to the Planning Commission without it ever having come before this Commission. Commissioner Willens suggested that any input this Commission provides at the joint meeting would be “off the cuff”, and would not represent a decision of the Traffic Safety Commission.

Commissioner Lewis stated that he would expect the schedule to include a Staff report, followed by public comments, Planning Commission response; and then the Traffic Safety Commission would be asked for comment.

Commissioner Willens commented that if the Planning Commission asked what the Traffic Safety Commission thinks about an issue, how will they respond. He explained that he has never seen the documentation before—that he found out about it three days ago.

Chair Shepherd stated that it is a valid point, and it is one of her concerns. She suggested that TSC would be there to absorb the information presented as it relates to traffic and parking. Chair Shepherd suggested that the issues can then be discussed with Staff and scheduled for discussion at the January meeting in preparation for the next joint meeting. She explained that there are two additional meetings; one on January 10, 2006 with the Planning Commission and the City Council, which will be a brainstorming session, and another scoping meeting in late January. She suggested that this would give the Commissioners a month to review and absorb the information. Chair Shepherd commented that, for the Planning Commission to ask the Traffic Safety Commission to participate in something without asking if they are prepared, if they are interested, and if they will participate—just telling them to be there—is disrespectful; and she is going to address that in the future.

Commissioner Willens suggested that this is the same as the RV issue when the Planning Commission asked them to look into traffic issues as they relate to RV parking. He reiterated that input at this joint meeting would be given as if it was coming from the Traffic Safety Commission, as opposed to individuals on the Commission.

Commissioner Klein commented that it does not have to be an official position as a Traffic Safety Commission if the Commissioners give their comments and clearly state this from the outset.

Commissioner Willens agreed, saying that he does not see that as a problem as long as someone says that and the public understands.

Commissioner Lewis asked if the traffic Staff would be there.

Chair Shepherd responded that they have been summoned as well.

Commissioner Lewis asked about the time of the meeting.

Chair Shepherd explained that the Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:00 pm and the joint meeting scheduled for 8:00 pm. She explained that staff mentioned that it would be over at 9:00 pm, but she anticipates that it will last longer than one hour based on her experience.

Chair Shepherd allowed one public comment because it is related to the previous discussion.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Ganado Drive, pointed out that this information was not properly communicated to the Traffic Safety Commission. He explained that his group is supportive of the issue, and is working with Staff to coach everyone properly on the various items. Mr. Redfield commented that he would not be concerned about the Commission having to make a presentation, and that he agrees with the Commission’s interpretation of the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Redfield explained that he has been member of the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Marymount expansion for eight years. He explained that, in their opinion, the on-street traffic and parking issue is so severe that that alone should stop any chances of expansion. He described it as an impossible situation, and traffic and parking will be incredibly important. Mr. Redfield encouraged the Commissioners to attend or watch the meeting, commenting that this will be a “holy war” and the Traffic Safety Commission will play a vital role.

Chair Shepherd announced that, although the Agenda was approved, she would like to discuss the school assignments at this time instead of where it is currently scheduled.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the Agenda to consider Item 2(a) of “Informational Items” at this time, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

2. Traffic Safety Commission General Business

a. School Representative Assignments

Staff distributed a list of suggested items to discuss with school representatives upon implementation of the Traffic Safety Commission’s School Liaison Program.

Chair Shepherd explained that, in compiling the list of assignments, she tried to assign at least one school chosen by each Commissioner, and she would like to discuss the remaining assignments. In the interest of time, she requested that this item be deferred until the meeting in January when the list will be included in the agenda packet. There being no objections, the item will be rescheduled.

SHERIFF’S STATUS REPORT:

Sgt. Creason distributed the report for the quarter ending September 30, 2005, which reported total collisions of 22 on average for the quarter compared to 27 for the same period in 2004. He pointed out that injury collisions are down by one, to seven; and 320 citations were written compared to 219 for 2004.

Sgt. Creason reported that the City has hired another Deputy for traffic enforcement, and he started in early December on the day shift from 11:00 am to 7:00 pm on Tuesday through Saturday. Sgt. Creason explained that the new Deputy is writing an average of ten citations per shift for the past week, with no less than eight and no more than 13; that the Deputy is covering areas supplied by Sgt. Creason and a list from the City.

Chair Shepherd commented that the Deputy is very visible in the City.

CONTINUED BUSINESS:

1. CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST

Recommendation:

1. Approve the Traffic Signal Priority List as identified in Attachment A for submittal to City Council for approval.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his Staff report and explained that Staff delayed it because they were waiting for a formal written response from Los Angeles County that still has not been received to date. He reported that this Priority List was requested by City Council. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that this is an important issue because traffic signals are very expensive at approximately $150,000 each, which is the reason for prioritizing the signals. He reported that Staff has identified eleven locations that justify a signal. Mr. Rydell referred to the list on circle page 6, pointing out that the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Via Rivera is number one on the list. He explained that it was changed from the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Los Verdes Drive because of the results of updated studies as requested by Chair Shepherd, pointing out that all counts are current within one year. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the intersection of Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard is a four-way stop and will always stay at the bottom of the list; that the oldest count was at Western and Peninsula Verde Drive, which is a Caltrans-maintained location, and Caltrans would design and install the signal. Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that the locations have changed due to updated information regarding accidents; that volumes will not significantly change unless there is major development near the locations, or other factors that may fundamentally change the characteristics of an intersection.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Willens asked for clarification that the Commission is not approving installations—only the list, which will then go to the City Council for decision on how many, if any, will be approved based on financial considerations and other factors.

Commissioner Mevers asked if the Commission could say that they have looked at the availability of alternatives to installing a traffic signal, and should that be part of the recommendation.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that what is presented is the benefits of signalization, and the issues are related to volumes and the warrants are satisfied. He referred to Via Rivera and stated that nothing else will address the problem, adding that this is true in most locations, which are all justified based on volumes.

Commissioner Mevers explained that Via Rivera is less than 350 meters from the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne, and suggested a right-turn only. He stated that at the next traffic light drivers could make a U-turn, which would be a slight inconvenience, but would not require spending $150,000 trying to fix the problem.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is probably not a reasonable solution. He pointed out that it is a different situation from Ravenspur Drive East for two reasons: (1) Ravenspur Drive East is less than 300 feet from the signalized intersection; (2) from that point north on Hawthorne there is a signal synchronization system, and if one is affected the cycles must be adjusted, and timing for all signals is affected. Palos Verdes Drive West does not have this system so it is not affecting anything else.

Commissioner Klein requested verification that the signals are set to activate on demand for Hawthorne.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that most urban signals are semi-actuated, which would be true on Hawthorne.

Chair Shepherd suggested that all appropriate options or alternatives have been exhausted, and asked if there is a budget this fiscal year for traffic signalization.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he does not believe there has ever been a budget for signalization, and it is his understanding that it was always done piecemeal. He suggested that Staff could now do some forward thinking about a budget for a certain number of signals each year.

Commissioner Lewis referred to Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal near the Trump golf course, and asked if this is one of the intersections where the Trump organization agreed to pay the cost of the signal.

Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that the Trump organization would pay their fair share as a percentage of the total cost and the funds would be pooled to install the signal; however, the City does not have the funds to contribute. He commented that the underground work is completed. Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that, in order to elevate the Palos Verdes Drive South/Forrestal signal on the priority list and move it to number one, it would be necessary to fund it without City funds because all the locations are competing for City funds. He opined that this location would stay at number nine until there is a bond in place for a certain period—possibly three or five years.

Chair Shepherd suggested that there could be other reasons for the City Council to re-prioritize.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Staff is pursuing and evaluating ways of acquiring the funds to use for the signal prioritization program.

Chair Shepherd asked if the money would come from a grant.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that Staff is negotiating a grant on the condition of updating development, and the Traffic Signal Priority List is for the purpose of further negotiation.

Chair Shepherd asked when the clock starts ticking on the funds placed in trust from Trump development.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that Staff has not started that time yet; that it is three or five years, but it will be from the point of acceptance by the City.

Chair Shepherd suggested that as long as that window is open, if negotiations are not successful, Staff could bring the issue back to the Commission and they could make a recommendation to the City Council that the Commission suggests moving the location up, or begin design phase rather than allowing the time to run out and jeopardize the funds. Chair Shepherd referred to Terranea and the golf course opening, and stated that there will be more traffic.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if Staff has considered using pivotal money.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Staff has considered using grant money, which cannot be used for new signals, but can be used for upgrading signals. He explained that there are other costs involved in signals that are not necessarily construction such as design and preparation before full construction.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if Staff could provide an estimate for maintenance per year for the new signals.

Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that a ballpark estimate would be approximately $12,000 for one signal.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he would guess approximately $8,000 depending on whether there are problems that need adjustment.

Commissioner Parfenov questioned whether there are funds or if these expenses are just handled as they arise.

Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that there is a budget for traffic signal maintenance, which changes from year to year. He explained that if a signal is working well the cost might be $2,500 for the year, whereas if it were changed to a flashing red that would be an additional cost.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if the Ravenspur issue would be on the next agenda.

Senior Engineer Dragoo said he doubts it.

Chair Shepherd opened the Public Hearing.

Frank Glaser, 30184 Via Rivera, explained that he has been working on this issue for over two years. He complimented Staff on the work on Vallon and explained that he uses it all the time. Mr. Glaser explained that he represents about 375 homes inside the area, and commented that when Terranea is completed it will be deadly to try to get in and out of Via Rivera. He commended the Staff on completed projects and offered help from the community in any future projects.

Amos Thompson, 30146 Via Rivera, stated that he would agree with the comments made by Mr. Glaser.

Chair Shepherd closed the Public Hearing.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Klein moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council the acceptance of the Citywide Traffic Signal Priority List as written on circle page 6, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

NEW BUSINESS

1. CITYWIDE RED CURB INSTALLATION POLICY AT INTERSECTIONS

Recommendations:

1. Establish a policy to install red curb (No Stopping Anytime) as follows:

a. Where a dedicated right-turn lane exists on an intersection approach, install red curb for the entire length of the right-turn lane.

b. At non-signalized intersections, install 20 feet of red curb on the near and far sides of the intersection, subject to the provisions of Recommendation a).

c. At signalized intersections, install 40 feet of red curb on the near side of the intersection and 20 feet of red curb on the far side of the intersection, subject to the provisions of Recommendation a).

2. Establish a policy to install 6 feet of red curb on both sides of alleys and multi-use driveways.

3. Submit a recommendation to City Council to authorize the Director of Public Works or his/her designee to install red curb per the above policy.

4. Do not install “NO STOPPING ANYTIME” signs to supplement intersection
red curb.

Traffic Engineer’s Report

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his Staff report, explaining that the purpose of this policy is to help Staff streamline the process of installing red curbs in the City; that, at present, all requests for red curb are brought before the Commission, and every request takes several months to resolve because of the heavy backlog. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the Public Works Department would like to have authorization to resolve these requests within certain limitations. He explained that most requests involve visibility issues, access limitations, and pedestrian safety, adding that the recommendations are based on Caltrans guidelines. Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that whenever Staff receives requests involving a different situation it will be brought before the Commission, and Staff does not intend to undermine the authority of the Commission. He explained that requests would be evaluated by Staff observation, Traffic Safety Commission observation, and City Council.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed the recommendations, emphasizing Recommendation 4, and explained that during Staff investigation for Highridge Road, which was requested by Commissioner Parfenov, Staff discovered that there were signs supplementing red curbs in many locations, and Staff does not believe this is necessary.

Traffic Engineer Rydell also reviewed the following alternatives:

1. Modify the red curb policy to identify different lengths than recommended.

a. Benefits
i. Unknown
b. Disadvantages
i. Does not follow guidelines set by Caltrans.

2. Deny recommendation to allow Director to install red curb on his/her authority.
a. Benefits
i. Would provide a public forum for all red curb requests by requiring presentation of each item at the Traffic Safety Commission.
b. Disadvantages
i. Delays action of citizen requests pending scheduling items for the Traffic Safety Commission.
ii. Increased Staff costs to City to prepare Traffic Safety Commission reports.

3. Allow “No Stopping Any Time” signs to be installed in conjunction with red curb.
a. Benefits
i. Increased visual clutter.
ii. Increased initial and maintenance costs.
iii. Additional non-necessary fixed object hazard in public right-of-way.
iv. Existing signs may need to be replaced to provide uniformity with respect to arrows and locations.

4. Consider other actions as may be determined.

Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to Attachment B on circle page 24 of the Staff report, which is pages 3B-21 to 23, entitled “MUTCD 2003 California Supplement” from the California Traffic Manual and explained that this information was provided for reference.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Mevers asked that in lieu of an official report, the Commission receive an update at their meeting that Staff completed a project and that it fell within the established guidelines.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that these projects would continue to be reported under “Informational Items” to keep the Commission informed.

Commissioner Klein asked why the red curb size changed when going from non-signalized to a signalized intersection.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that signalized intersections have much more volume than non-signalized and there is a de facto right-turn lane. He stated that it increases the efficiency of the signal and its purposes is as stated in Item 1 on circle page 21 as, “To maintain a through travel lane where lane widths are not sufficient to allow stopping, such as right-turn lanes approaching intersections”. He stated that Staff does not want to use more red curb than necessary.

Commissioner Parfenov referred to Item 3 on circle page 21 regarding the use of red curb “To maintain clearance at multi-use driveways from vehicles encroaching into the driveway”, asking if this would refer to large housing units.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that this would include apartments, condominiums, townhomes, or wherever more than one residential unit accesses the driveway.

Chair Shepherd raised the subject of red curb in front of mailboxes, explaining that when service vehicles are parked in front of mailboxes in residential areas the postal service does not have to deliver, and can leave a note requesting the resident to pick up their mail at the post office. She asked for Staff’s thoughts about the possibility of installing red curb in front of rural mailboxes so that service vehicles will not park there.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he has studied this issue; that it is true that the post office may not deliver if cars are parked in front of the mailbox, and that Rancho Palos Verdes has many drive-up mailboxes. His research revealed that technically a postal truck cannot stop at a red curb, and it is a gray area.

Chair Shepherd suggested a yellow or green curb, or other appropriate restriction.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that they do get calls every month on this issue, and they have used white curb, which redefines parking depending upon the need, but he explained that Staff cannot put red curb in front of everyone’s house.

Chair Shepherd described her experience with this problem, and that of her neighbors.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that there is not a clean solution to this problem.

Chair Shepherd opened the Public Hearing.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Ganado Drive, explained that he wanted to comment on his experience with Staff and the former Traffic Committee, and stated that Ganado is a very dangerous intersection at Palos Verdes Drive East and his group is delighted with the overall results of work done to make it safer. Mr. Redfield stated that their impression is that there is no need to bring these issues to the Commission and they support almost all of Traffic Engineer Rydell’s recommendations; that if the Commissioners were comfortable with them he would recommend letting Public Works take care of these issues. Mr. Redfield added that they have found that the “no parking” signs are very ineffective in his area; that part of the problem is that he does not think the Sheriff’s Department tends to police parking where there are “no parking” signs. However, he explained that the red curbs have dramatically reduced people parking where the “no parking” signs were. Mr. Redfield stated that there are too many signs in the City as stated by Staff, and his group supports that; they are not effective, and there is really no code enforcement in the City, although you can call the Sheriff’s Department and they will respond, but it happens over and over again. He reiterated that the red curbs are much more effective. Mr. Redfield addressed Sgt. Creason and suggested that the Deputies are more likely to ticket if people are parking in violation of a red curb than if there are miscellaneous signs here and there, and asked if that is accurate.

Sgt. Creason responded that the red curb is more visible, and explained that it is his personal experience that it is a violation either way.

Mr. Redfield encouraged the Sheriff’s Department, now that there is enforcement full-time in the afternoon, to police this issue. He explained that as Staff installs the red curbs, the public will be adjusting to them, and some people in the neighborhoods do not like them at first for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Redfield stated that they do fade; they get dull, which he said is good; they do not look fire-engine red for very long, and after two or three months the comments subside and they are accepted. In summary, Mr. Redfield stated that he hoped the Commission supports the recommendations, and his group certainly does.

Chair Shepherd commented that Mr. Redfield was very persuasive in his presentation to City Council in getting the extra Sheriff’s Deputy for traffic.

Mr. Redfield explained that it took him three years to get the position approved at a cost of approximately $116,000 for 20 months for the new Deputy as opposed to approximately $200,000 for a new traffic signal. He added that there have been many compliments from residents and the Mayor regarding the work done by the Deputy.

Chair Shepherd closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Klein asked how long it takes and will the entire red curb have a major impact on the City’s budget for maintenance.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that the paint would be very visible for a couple of years.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that Staff tries to schedule repainting every three to five years from installation, although it is not always possible; that, because of ongoing maintenance, they do not install red curbs indiscriminately.

Chair Shepherd commented that whatever goes forth, the Commission should be sure that whenever they approve something like this it is noted in the report that there was a discussion and the alternatives were reviewed.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he is also the Traffic Engineer for the City of La Mesa, California, near San Diego. He explained that he has an ongoing problem there with the Police Department because, when writing tickets, if they have any issues with the signage they do not write the ticket or they are thrown out. As a result, they are constantly modifying signs, and there are always points of confusion with signs. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that signs are knocked down, put in the wrong location, or are confusing, and he deals with that on an ongoing basis in La Mesa. He explained that, as a rule, red curb is not installed for more than 100 feet—beyond that, signs are used.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved that the Commission adopt the “Citywide Red Curb Installation Policy at Intersections” as recommended by Staff as set forth on circle page 20, Items 1 through 4, seconded by Commissioner Klein.

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

2. AVENIDA FELICIANO SPEEDING

Recommendations:

1. Place the City radar trailer on Avenida Feliciano per the current deployment schedule.

2. Place the City’s StealthStat radar measurement devices on Avenida Feliciano to obtain 24-hour speed and volume measurements, and provide the resultant data to the Sheriff for their use.

3. Request additional speed enforcement from the Lomita Sheriff Station.

4. Coordinate a lawn sign program with neighborhood leadership.

Traffic Engineer’s Report

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his Staff report, and explained that Mr. Gerald Claude Nolls requested this investigation and Staff conducted an initial survey of conditions on Avenida Feliciano with respect to speeding. He referred to the diagram on Attachment A of the report and described Avenida Feliciano as a 30-foot wide unstriped local roadway with sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements on both sides with no posted speed limit signs; however, the 25 mph residential prima facie speed limit applies to this roadway. He explained that fronting development is single family residential; the roadway is relatively straight with a slight downgrade, and terminates in a cul-de-sac to the west of Avenida Del Mesa; and there are no posted stop controls on the subject roadway. Traffic Engineer Rydell pointed out that this area is different from any other speeding case Staff has considered so far, and commented that there is no reason for drivers to be on this roadway unless they live there. He explained that it is necessary for the Commission to have this information because the weighting given is slightly different from some of the other situations.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the area is at the north end of the City and is an east-west street, and handheld radar measurements were taken in September 2005 during the afternoon peak period. He explained that if there are less than 100 samples it is statistically insignificant from a Staff perspective, but the information derived was provided for reference as follows:

% > Max
85th % S.L. Speed 10-mile pace

35 mph 73% 40 mph 23-32 mph

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Staff believes the appropriate action at this time is enforcement and education, and Staff will continue to monitor the area. He referred to education, saying they have radar trailers scheduled at least four times a year for locations being monitored; and lawn signs will be discussed with neighborhood leadership. Mr. Rydell pointed out that missing from the recommendations are speed limit signs or pavement markings; explaining that they were not recommended because there is no bypass traffic—these are people who are already on the street—and this is a situation where signs and markings are not necessary because the residents know it is 25 mph. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that anything more for this street would require a petition from the residents, and until now Staff has a request from only one citizen.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed the alternatives as follows:

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 before Staff involvement.
iii. Redirects Staff resources prematurely.

2. Install additional speed limit and/or pavement markings on Avenida Feliciano
a. Benefits
i. Would provide additional notification to motorists of the legal speed limit.
b. Disadvantages
i. Limited anticipated effectiveness based on effects of previously installed signs.
ii. Increased maintenance costs for signs and/or markings.
iii. Increased visual clutter.

3. Consider other traffic controls as may be determined.

Commission Discussion

Chair Shepherd suggested that this item could have been a receive and file, and she does not believe it needed to be an agenda item on the basis of one complaint until it goes to the next step. In addition, the resident was not present.

Commissioner Willens asked if Staff talked with Mr. Nolls about the recommendations; that he is not at the meeting, and that says something.

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that Staff explained the steps of the Traffic Calming Program to Mr. Nolls; that he would not tell Mr. Nolls in situations like this what the recommendations are, because he believes that Staff and the Commission should speak with one voice, and he does not know the direction the Commission will take. He explained that the petitioners always know when the item is scheduled because they are contacted directly.

Chair Shepherd commented that the Commission is spending time on something with no feedback from the resident.

Commissioners Willens, Klein, and Wright agreed with Chair Shepherd that the resident should appear to provide information to the Commission.

Chair Shepherd commented on the time spent on the investigation, Staff preparation of the report, site visits by the Commissioners--all for one resident among many.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he did not know Mr. Nolls’ rationale for not showing up, but when Staff talks to the complainants, they encourage them to bring their neighbors and area residents. Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Staff’s reason for bringing this to the Commission is to give the public an opportunity to speak.

Chair Shepherd suggested that if an item such as this is scheduled and there is no one to speak on it, the item could be deferred as a rolling item until there is some interest from the residents.

Commissioner Klein commented that in this case Staff recommended that the Commission do something.

Chair Shepherd responded that the Commission would not hinder whatever Staff does, but the Commission does not have to discuss it if no one is at the meeting to participate in the discussion.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that this is the only one where they did not recommend signs or pavement markings, and Staff was not certain that the Commission would like to do that. He stated that he believes Staff would prefer to have it rolled over.

Chair Shepherd noted the major projects that are backlogged such as RV parking, on-street parking, Marymount, and Via Rivera, and suggested that the Commission needs a policy on how to handle the small items.

Commissioner Parfenov expressed agreement about a policy, and asked how this case is different from Marguerite Drive.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Marguerite Drive intersects with Palos Verdes Drive West and had direct access into a residential neighborhood for people not familiar with the neighborhood.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved that the Commission adopt the Staff recommendations as set forth on circle page 26, Items 1 through 4, seconded by Commissioner Wright.

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

Commissioner Willens commented that this item was previously higher on the list.

Chair Shepherd stated that she requested that Staff move it to this position because she thought it was unfair for residents who attended to speak on scheduled, agendized items to wait until members of the audience spoke on unscheduled items. She explained that she was trying this as a pilot that is open for discussion if Commissioners disagree.

Tom Redfield, 31273 Ganado Drive, stated that he supports Chair Shepherd’s position regarding public comments, and that the City Council was concerned about this issue and they compromised and moved it up to 9:00 or 9:30 pm. He commented that it is not a problem with this Commission because their meetings are shorter, and he has no problem waiting because of the length of the meetings.

Chair Shepherd suggested that the Commission could always revise the agenda.

Mr. Redfield stated that he is now speaking on behalf of the Citywide Revival Renaissance Coalition as opposed to speaking as a member of the Ganado Board. He explained that the City Council has four strategic goals, one of which is citywide traffic calming, and that they have made good progress on all four goals. Mr. Redfield explained that one of the major things they fought so hard for was a Traffic Safety Commission to be proactive; they also spent three years trying to get the extra enforcement, and that was important; however, the reason for all that was to tie into the fourth strategic goal. Mr. Redfield expressed concern that it is not identified on the laundry list, and the Coalition thinks the Commission’s first priority should be to create a citywide traffic-calming goal as one of the major projects in this coming year. Mr. Redfield stated that the former Traffic Committee had a workshop with the City Council at which time the Committee was directed to upgrade the Traffic Calming Manual. He commented that this was before most of the current Commissioners were appointed, explaining that Traffic Engineer Rydell and former Staff member, Nicole Jules, did a fantastic job in developing a creative citywide Traffic Calming Program. Mr. Redfield explained that the basic difference was the Coalition’s perception, and he believes it can be supported.

Mr. Redfield explained that the former Traffic Committee was composed of a lot of Engineers, so everything was an engineering solution—more signs, more stop lights, etc.—as opposed to focusing on all three: education, enforcement, and engineering, and those are the three thrusts that the Coalition supports. Mr. Redfield stated that nothing has been done with it; in fact, there has never been a presentation partly because the primary concern of the former Director of Public Works was not on the traffic part of his overall responsibility, and it never moved ahead. Mr. Redfield explained that the second part was done by the Sheriff’s Department in response to the same strategic goal; and without being asked, Captain Zuanich and his team developed Team RPV, which was very similar but with some minor differences. He explained that their Coalition, without being asked, developed a comprehensive citywide plan including enforcement and education, again being very similar. Mr. Redfield stated that the Commission does not have to recreate the wheel in his opinion; that there is a starting point, a lot of good work has already been done, and this would enable the Commission to move ahead. He commented that the former Committee was not assigned to address citywide issues; it was to respond in a reactive way to the various individual communities, and the Coalition is not suggesting that the Commission do away with that.

Secondly, Mr. Redfield explained that the Coalition would like to suggest that Staff get involved, talk with Chris Knox, the new enforcement Sheriff, and provide him with a list of the hot spots so the City has some understanding of what he is doing. He explained that this would provide some monitoring, reports, and adjustments if needed in this 20-month program, which costs approximately $116,000, as a test for these 20 months. Mr. Redfield explained that there must be some method of feedback, and if the Sheriff’s Department provides feedback on their own performance, it is probably not as powerful. Finally, Mr. Redfield addressed RV on-street parking, saying that the charge was the overall parking on the streets including RVs, boats, trucks, trailers, cars, and other vehicles. He explained that it did not come directly from the Planning Commission to the Traffic Safety Commission, but from the Planning Commission to the City Council who supported their opinion that the Traffic Safety Commission would be best qualified to study the issues. He explained that there is a lot of interest in trying to have something more effective. Mr. Redfield thanked the Commissioners, wished them the very best in their endeavors, and expressed appreciation for being able to speak before the Commission.

RECEIVE AND FILE

None

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

1. Public Works Department Report

a. RV Parking Ordinance Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that at the next meeting in January 2006 Staff is scheduling a report with five separate comprehensive draft ordinances for the Commission to consider, explaining that the City Attorney has reviewed them and feedback was provided. He informed the Commission that, whatever direction they decide to go in the future, the City Attorney would be involved in rewriting to make sure the ordinances are correct. He explained that they include not only oversized vehicles, but at the direction of City Council, it will include on-street parking. He stated that Staff culled information from approximately 50 cities in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.

Chair Shepherd asked if they included La Palma, and Hawthorne, as well as our neighboring cities, and referred to an article in the Daily Breeze regarding a proposed ordinance regulating RV’s in the city of Hawthorne. Chair Shepherd suggested that Staff might want to look at that ordinance as well as La Palma, which is in effect.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Staff’s approach is exactly what the Commission requested; that there are options, with the pros and cons of each one; and their intent is to listen to the discussion, and Staff has no preference.

Commissioner Wright asked if the Commissioners will receive the reports early since there will be a lot of information to review.

Senior Engineer Dragoo stated that Staff hopes to get it to the Commissioners a week earlier than usual.

Chair Shepherd mentioned that she has not reviewed the next agenda with Staff and does not know what else is scheduled.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Via Rivera is ready, which is also a very substantial topic, so they will need to decide what to schedule.

Commissioner Lewis commented that when the Commission discussed RV parking it was evident that some residents have wanted action for a long time.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that Staff called it RV parking, but they are not referring to RVs in any of the ordinances—they are referred to as oversized vehicles.

Commissioner Mevers questioned whether there would be time for anything else on the agenda, considering discussion of five ordinances as well as public comment.

Chair Shepherd stated that this item might have to stand alone, and the Commission may have to double up on meetings in a month in the future to catch up and asked for Staff input.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that oversized vehicle parking and Via Rivera were direct instructions from City Council, and he does not believe they should be delayed, adding that Staff would support doubling up in January.

Chair Shepherd stated that she could not commit to two meetings in January.

Traffic Engineer Rydell commented that the RV issue has the potential for inciting as much community input as Mira Vista, and has a great deal of interest throughout the community on both sides of the table.

b. Golden Meadow Dr Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the work is in progress.

c. Mira Vista Traffic Calming Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the work is in progress.

d. Toscanini Area Traffic Calming Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the work is in progress.

e. Via Rivera Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that this is the next major item that the consultant to the Traffic Engineer is working on, and City Council asked Staff to re-evaluate the speed humps and return with some other viable options.

f. Hawthorne Blvd near Silver Spur Rd Traffic Control

No report.

g. PVDE Equestrian Access Plan Update

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that the Equestrian Committee is studying this and Staff provided them with a cost estimate for creative recommendations. He explained that OCS grant applications are coming due again and Staff will discuss submitting an application for a crossing on Palos Verdes Drive East with an OCS grant.

h. Radar Trailer/Feedback Sign Deployment Update

No report.

i. Ambergate tree trimming

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that a public speaker was requesting tree trimming in September or October 2005. He explained that, in checking the records of the Superintendent, he found they had just finished trimming in that area, and no additional trimming will be necessary this year.

Traffic Engineer Rydell referred to the formation of a subcommittee to study the Traffic Calming Program; specifically noting the importance of defining the petition process as to who will be involved in voting, and commenting that this will be a problem with Via Rivera. He suggested that the Commission expedite the creation of the subcommittee to concentrate on this issue.

Chair Shepherd explained that she has a list of action items that includes two ad hoc committees.

2. Traffic Safety Commission General Business

Chair Shepherd clarified her earlier comment regarding meetings in January; noting that there is another scoping meeting, and if the Commission commits to that plus an additional Traffic Safety Commission meeting, they will have three meetings in January.

a. School Representative Assignments – This item was considered earlier in the meeting.

b. Distribute City Maps

Senior Engineer Dragoo distributed City maps.

Commissioner Klein referred to an article in “Transportation Magazine” regarding traffic calming that points out the good and bad points. He distributed copies and suggested that since the Commission will be discussing the issue in the future, this will provide valuable background information.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Recommendation:

Approval of Minutes of August 22, 2005

ACTION TAKEN:

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

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

Approval of Minutes of September 26, 2005

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Klein moved approval of the Minutes of September 26, 2005 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:
Ayes 7; Nays 0

Chair Shepherd presented a list of action items for verification, and directed that the matrix of these items should be included in the agenda packet each time so that the Commissioners can see what is pending and who is responsible for completion. Items included were as follows:

Action Items:

1. The Trump set aside for the signal at Forrestal

Chair Shepherd stated that the Staff and Commission should make sure that the issue does not die. She asked that the Commission be provided with information regarding the cost of signal maintenance.

2. The receive and file on the Red Curb Policy

Chair Shepherd directed that Staff keep the Commission apprised of progress regarding installation.

3. Traffic Calming ad hoc committee

4. Technology ad hoc committee

Chair Shepherd stated that the Commission should address this in January.

Commissioner Klein asked if Commissioners could volunteer.

Chair Shepherd said they can volunteer and she has recommendations regarding membership.

Commission Discussion:

Commissioner Mevers asked if it would be wise to have the average cost of five-year maintenance following traffic signal installation added when discussing the base cost of installing the signal.

Chair Shepherd suggested that these are two separate items.

Commissioner Mevers stated that both items must be considered in the budget.

Chair Shepherd stated that she would prefer to see the maintenance separate to avoid confusion, but commented that Staff knows the approximate cost of the signal, and should be able to forecast the maintenance based on historical information. She explained that the maintenance cost is part of the action item.

Commissioner Mevers suggested that this information could be an attachment to the Staff report, itemizing the cost of each.

Commissioner Klein suggested that this would be taken into consideration by the City Council or whoever approves the signal to make sure they can support it.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that when the issue is forwarded to the City Council he would make a recommendation for funding, but would also submit a request in the line item budget to accommodate the maintenance requirement.

Commissioner Willens announced that due to the anticipated birth of their first child around March 10, 2006, his schedule to attend meetings will be uncertain, but he will do his best to attend.

Commissioner Lewis stated that he is available in January, but February will be a problem for similar reasons.

Commissioner Klein reported that he will be out of town on January 23, 2006 to attend a Transportation Research Board meeting and will not be available for the Traffic Safety Commission meeting on that date.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that Staff has not published the next meeting date because of the Planning Commission meeting.

Chair Shepherd noted that January 23 would not be a good date to schedule RV parking because only four Commissioners will be present at the meeting.

Commissioner Lewis suggested that the meeting be scheduled on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday before January 23.

Chair Shepherd explained that it is not necessary to schedule RV parking in January, and she does not know if the Planning Commission will ask traffic to attend their January 10 and January 31 meetings. She asked Staff to prepare a three-month calendar with the available options, so the Staff and Commissioners can identify their availability.

ADJOURNMENT:

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 PM TO REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING, DATE TO BE DETERMINED.