MARCH 5, 2007 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2007 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2007 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES

MINUTES

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA

TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 5, 2007

 

CALL TO ORDER:  Chair Shepherd called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM at Rancho Palos Verdes Community Room

ROLL CALL:            PRESENT:   Chair Shepherd, Commissioners Bilezerian, Klein, Mevers, Parfenov, Vice Chair Willens

                                    ABSENT:      Commissioner Wright

ALSO PRESENT:   Jack Rydell, Traffic Engineer, Wildan; Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer, Public Works; Deputy Reece Souza, Sheriff's Department; Frances M. Mooney, Recording Secretary

FLAG SALUTE:       Commissioner Willens led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Bilezerian moved to place Public Comments before New Business, seconded by Commissioner Willens.

Motion approved:
Ayes 6; Nays 0

CHAIR’S COMMUNICATIONS:

Chair Shepherd deferred her comments until the end of the meeting.

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REPORT:

Deputy Souza reported that the Sheriff’s Department conducted a checkpoint at Ganado and Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) on Saturday, February 24, 2007, resulting in five vehicles being impounded for driving without a license, either because a license was never issued or was suspended.  He also reported five technical arrests and releases for driving without a license.

Chair Shepherd asked how long the checkpoint was conducted, and if the drivers were residents or non-residents.

Deputy Souza responded that it was an 8-hour session, and most of the drivers without licenses were non-residents.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

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

Stanley and Marilyn Kritzer, 3832 Pirate Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, were present to request a status report from Staff regarding the proposed traffic signal at Forrestal and Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS).

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that this issue is still with the Trump organization in negotiations between them and Staff to finalize the improvements they have agreed to install along PVDS.  He reported that since the last meeting the status is similar.  He reported that he was told just before this meeting that Staff can expect something within 60 days and he is assuming that in April Staff will have some notification of the status.

Mr. Kritzer suggested that Staff may have something to report by the March 26, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting.

Chair Shepherd asked if Staff knows when the Trust expires.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that the Trust has not been established, and will be established at the point where the City accepts the project as complete and that has not occurred to date.  He explained that once the Trust is established it continues for possibly three to ten years depending on the condition imposed by the City Council.

Mrs. Kritzer asked if that means they will have to wait for three to ten years before the signal is installed.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that the condition remains in effect for that period, but it does not mean that the signal will be delayed for that length of time.

Mrs. Kritzer clarified that this is the segment of negotiations that Staff is working on now with the Trump organization.

Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that that is correct.

Tom Lyons, 4375 Miraleste Drive, explained that he lives across from the Miraleste Canyon Estates, which is in San Pedro.  Mr. Lyons explained that he has lived there for 12 years and has put up with people parking in front of his home.  He explained that he has to call the police department every few days to have cars tagged, and that people leave their broken down cars in front of his house.  Mr. Lyons explained that when he asked a driver not to park there the driver was verbally abusive; that drivers now know that after three days Mr. Lyons will call the police, so they drop off one car and take the other one and repeat the sequence three days later.  He explained that cars are lined up on Kinsridge Drive all the way down because, as he understands, the condominium gives residents a parking space per bedroom and an extra space costs $50.  He stated that a condominium resident told him that he is very happy that Miraleste is so wide so he has a place to park his second truck.  Mr. Lyons explained that it is an eyesore in the City, the drivers dump their trash out of their cars in his front yard, and his neighbors are all unhappy about it, but trying to get them to do something about it is another issue.  Mr. Lyons suggested enacting “no overnight parking” so the condominium complex would be forced to change their policy so the residents can have more parking, which he states is available.  Mr. Lyons explained that he watches residents walk two blocks where someone picks them up and drives them into their space at the condominium complex.  He explained that there would be cars in front of his house day in and day out for months at a time if he does not call the police.  He reported that down the street, which is San Pedro, there have been motor homes parked since last year and the Los Angeles Police Department will not do anything about it.  Mr. Lyons stated that Los Angeles Councilperson Janice Hahn, who pretends to care about these issues does not do anything about it, and she has talked about enforcing a moratorium in San Pedro, which would then bring all the people from San Pedro across the street to park in front of his house.  He explained that he is here to request that someone address the issue of parking.

Chair Shepherd pointed out that the Commission could not make a decision tonight.  She stated that it certainly is a parking issue, and referred to the Recreational Vehicle (RV) and oversized vehicle parking issue that the Commission studied several months ago, knowing that Torrance, Los Angeles/San Pedro planned to implement an ordinance or restriction and the overflow would come into Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV).  Chair Shepherd explained that the Commission studied the issue and sent a recommendation to the City Council on oversized vehicles and RVs.  She reported that the Council has referred the issue of off-street parking for other vehicles back to the Traffic Safety Commission.  Chair Shepherd suggested that Mr. Lyons track the progress of this on the Commission agendas, and advised that the Commission has approximately three months of backlogged items, but may consider parking issues within the next two or three months.  She suggested to Mr. Lyons that it would be helpful if he could bring some of his neighbors to a Commission meeting with him since there are so many related issues involved such as permits, overnight parking, and others.

Mr. Lyons referred to newspaper articles regarding no parking at all, which he believes will not work; he referred to Rolling Hills Estates’ restriction on overnight parking unless the resident calls the City for permission.  He suggested that permit parking would require knowing who does or does not have a permit, and he believes that is more of an option for the City.  He also mentioned Friendship Park where there is no parking between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am.

Chair Shepherd suggested that Mr. Lyons could call Staff for information, e-mail Staff to remind them that he is still interested when this item is scheduled, or add his name to Listserv to receive notification through e-mail.  She emphasized that the Commission will study parking.

Mr. Lyons thanked the Commission for re-striping Miraleste Drive down to one lane and giving them a left-turn lane because it made a huge difference.  He stated that all his neighbors appreciate it because they can now make a left turn on Kinsridge or pull out into the street.

OLD BUSINESS:

There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS:

  • TOSCANINI DRIVE, ET. AL. TRAFFIC CALMING

Recommendations:

1.         Accept the resident petition requesting installation of speed humps on the following roadways:

      • Toscanini Drive between Mt. Palomar Place and Mt. Shasta Drive.
      • Mt. Shasta Drive between Mt. Rainier Road and Bloomwood Road.
      • Bloomwood Road between Mt. Shasta Drive and the East City Limit.
      • Mt. Rainier Road between Mt. Shasta Drive and Mt. Rose Road.
      • Mt. Rose Road between Mt. Rainier Road and Bloomwood Road.
  • Consider public comment regarding the proposed installation of twelve speed humps on the above roadways.
  • Direct Staff to identify funding sources for design and construction of the speed humps including, but not limited to:
    • 2007/08 Fiscal Year Budget Request.
    • Funding mechanisms to be contained in the updated Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program procedures.
    • Grant possibilities.

Traffic Engineer’s Report

Traffic Engineer Rydell presented slides with a summary of the issues and aerial views of the locations and proposed modifications.  He also presented his Staff report, which explained the background of this issue as follows:

“Staff has received numerous requests from residents on Toscanini Drive, Bloomwood Road, Mt. Shasta Drive and other streets in this neighborhood regarding speeding and excessive volume on these local streets. Based on this feedback, Staff initiated a study to determine traffic conditions. At the June 27, 2005 Traffic Safety Commission meeting, a report was presented confirming that several streets experienced speeds well above the 25 mph speed limit. Based on this information recommendations were presented by Staff and approved by the Traffic Safety Commission for the following:

  • Install one (1) additional speed limit sign on Mt. Shasta Drive.
  • Install five (5) 25 mph pavement markings adjacent to existing and proposed speed limit signs on Toscanini Drive, Bloomwood Road and Mt. Shasta Drive.
  • Install one (1) 25 mph pavement marking independent of the speed limit signs on Bloomwood Road.
  • Request additional targeted enforcement from the Lomita Sheriff Station.
  • Place the City’s radar feedback signs for two months each on Toscanini Dr w/o Mt. Shasta Dr and on Bloomwood Rd near Mt. Rose Rd
  • Toscanini Drive and Bloomwood Road.
  • Create and arrange distribution of lawn signs and educational pamphlets.

“These actions were all implemented and volume and speed data was again taken in June 2006. The delay in taking the “after” study was due to delays in distributing the lawn signs to area residents. The intent of the “after” study was to allow all of the actions identified above to be in place for 90 days before taking fresh data.

“This data showed that some streets continued to experience speeds well above the 25 mph speed limit. Based on this information and a review of the area, it was determined that additional traffic calming actions were justified for this neighborhood. Since this neighborhood is a system of roadways, much like the Mira Vista neighborhood, and not a single problem street, it was appropriate to expand the use of traffic calming tools to additional streets to address the problem on a neighborhood-wide basis.

“This information was presented to the Traffic Safety Commission at the August 28, 2006 meeting. Staff advised the Commission that petitions were being circulated by the neighborhood for speed humps, per procedures set forth in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The petitions have now been received.”

Traffic Engineer Rydell continued reviewing his report which presented volume and speed data as follows:

 “Speed data discussed in this report is the “85th percentile” speed. This measurement, also known as the prevailing speed of traffic, is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. It is a primary guide in determining what the majority of drivers believe is a safe and reasonable speed. Because of this, it is a key component in establishing speed limits. The 85th percentile speed is used by many agencies, including Rancho Palos Verdes, to identify when speeds become excessive for a particular street. The percentage of vehicles exceeding the 25 mph speed limit is also discussed in the report. Volume data is presented as a 24-hour count, identified as “vehicles per day” (vpd).

“Volume and speed data for the first set of counts (“before” data) was taken between January and May of 2005 at various key locations within the subject neighborhood. The data was obtained using the City’s StealthStat radar devices, which are capable of recording both the speed and volume of vehicles. Locations were chosen in an attempt to record the free-flow speeds of vehicles, considering factors such as horizontal and vertical alignment, posted stop controls and other physical features. The StealthStat devices were left in place and ran continuously for periods of approximately 40 hours (which is the life of the battery without recharging). The results of this count are as follows:

 

Location

24-hour

Volume

Prevailing

Speed

% Exceeding

Speed Limit

Bloomwood Rd e/o Mt. Hood Ct

1,888 vpd

36 mph

79%

Caddington Dr e/o Mt. Palomar Pl

934 vpd

28 mph

24%

Mt. Ranier Rd w/o Mt. Rose Rd

563 vpd

30 mph

39%

Mt. Shasta Dr s/o Toscanini Dr

3,319 vpd

28 mph

24%

Toscanini Dr e/o Mt. Palomar Pl

2,103 vpd

37 mph

79%

“Volume and speed data for the second set of counts (“after” data) was taken in June 2006 by an outside count company using pneumatic tube counters. Of specific interest were Toscanini Drive and Mt. Shasta Drive, which showed prevailing (85th percentile) speeds of 37 mph and 33 mph respectively. These two streets had 86% and 79% of all motorists exceeding the speed limit. The results on Bloomwood Road were surprising in that an improvement in traffic conditions was shown. However it is Staff’s belief that the counts were taken too close to the all-way stop controls at Mt. Hood Court. To address this issue, Staff took additional speed counts using a handheld radar gun. This count, which targeted free-flow vehicles on Bloomwood Road that were not in close proximity to the stop signs, revealed a prevailing speed of 37 mph with 90% of all motorists exceeding the speed limit. The results of the “after’ count are as follows:

 

Location

24-hour

Volume

Prevailing

Speed

% Exceeding

Speed Limit

Bloomwood Rd e/o Mt. Hood Ct

1,917 vpd

37 mph(1)

90% (1)

Caddington Dr e/o Mt. Palomar Pl

409 vpd

30 mph

54%

Mt. Ranier Rd w/o Mt. Rose Rd

491 vpd

29 mph

44%

Mt. Shasta Dr s/o Toscanini Dr

1,803 vpd

33 mph

79%

Toscanini Dr e/o Mt. Palomar Pl

2,041 vpd

37 mph

86%

        • – Data taken by staff with a radar gun.

A comparison of the “before” and “after” data is shown in Attachment B [of the Staff report].”

Traffic Engineer Rydell pointed out that speeds did not get any better, and on Mt. Shasta speeds got worse.  He referred to note (1) above that the data for Bloomwood Road in the June 2006 count was taken with a radar gun.  He explained that as he looked at the counts taken with the pneumatic tubes, which were taken by an outside count company, the ones on Bloomwood seemed absurdly low for the speeds.  He stated that he believed that either the counters were too close to the stop sign on Bloomwood Road or there were vehicles parked on it, and he was not comfortable with the data.  He reported that Staff took additional counts of free-flow traffic with a radar gun in February 2007, which showed speeds that were consistent with what he would have expected, and consistent with conditions existing during the June 2006 counts.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that this issue was brought before the Traffic Safety Commission and this Commission authorized the community to pursue the petition process.  He reported on the Staff involvement with the community and the petition progress outlined in his Staff report as follows:

“At the direction of Staff, the neighborhood circulated separate petitions for speed humps for Toscanini Drive, Mt. Shasta Drive, Bloomwood Road, Mt. Rainier Road and Mt. Rose Road. The last two streets were included due to the possibility of diverted traffic if speed humps were installed on the primary route through the neighborhood. Also included on the petition were the following clauses:

  • “The final design and location of the speed humps, signs and/or markings will be determined by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. For your information, speed humps in Rancho Palos Verdes are the full width of the street, 3 inches high and 12 feet in length.”
  • “Speed humps, signs and/or markings may be placed in front of my residence.”
  • “The proposed traffic calming tools may have a direct impact on my property and travel activities.”

“These phrases were included to ensure that anyone signing the petition was fully informed of the potential consequences of the devices. It was also intended to reduce the amount of effort required from Staff to address resident concerns about location, signs and markings, as was experienced during the Mira Vista neighborhood speed hump project.

“The five petitions were returned and reviewed by Staff to verify legitimacy of the signatures. A summary of the results is as follows:

 

Street

Fronting

Properties

 

Signatures

Percent

Support

Adjacent

Properties

 

Signatures

Percent

Support

Toscanini Dr

37

28

76%

44

30

68%

Mt. Shasta Rd

27

23

85%

28

24

86%

Bloomwood Rd

36

31

86%

37

32

87%

Mt. Ranier Rd

26

19

73%

29

21

72%

Mt. Rose Rd

23

17

74%

24

18

75%

“Fronting properties as identified above are defined as properties that take their address from the specific street. Adjacent properties are defined as properties that are contiguous the specific street, but take their address from a different street. For example, a property at the corner of Toscanini Drive and Mt. Palomar Place would have side frontage on Toscanini Drive but an address on Mt. Palomar Place. Properties that did not take their address from the street being considered for speed humps were not contacted by the neighborhood leadership, however that does not necessarily mean that they would not be in favor of traffic calming. The two different types of analysis are included to address questions that may arise regarding this issue.

“As shown, all five streets are substantially supportive of speed humps. Furthermore, all streets exceeded the minimum level of support of 60% as specified in the NTCP (Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program). Based on this information, the residents in this neighborhood have satisfied requirements in the City’s NTCP and it is appropriate to proceed with their request for speed humps.

“Staff has reviewed this area, taking into consideration the roadway network, volume and speed data, street vertical grades, horizontal alignment and existing traffic controls. To adequately address the situation on a neighborhood basis, it appears that 12 speed humps would be required. Four would be located on Toscanini Drive with two each on Mt. Shasta Drive, Bloomwood Road, Mt. Rainier Road and Mt. Rose Road.”

Traffic Engineer Rydell reviewed his recommendations, commenting that, based on the information in his report; the community fulfilled their obligation for conducting the petition process, signatures were verified, and a sufficient number were valid.  He reviewed the information in the report pertaining to funding this project as follows:

“It is anticipated that the project, including design, will cost approximately $50,000 as itemized below.
Costs:


Design

$  7,000

Construction

$30,000

Signing and Marking

$  7,000

Inspection

$  6,000

 

 

Total Costs

$50,000

 

 

Funding: To be determined

$50,000

“Funding for this project is not currently available to the Public Works Department. Funding may be requested through the 2007/08 fiscal year budget process, although there is no guarantee that funding would be available at that time either. As an option, Staff could seek funding from outside sources, such as State grant programs. Staff annually pursues funds from these sources and traffic calming is an eligible project. One particular grant opportunity is the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) grant. This grant application is due by April 13, 2007, with funding for the successful applicants available in October 2007.

“As part of our efforts to update the NTCP, funding contribution for traffic calming devices by the requesting community is under consideration. The subject neighborhood may wish to consider contributing towards the cost of this traffic calming project in order to expedite its implementation.”

Traffic Engineer Rydell expanded his explanation of Staff Recommendation 3, “Direct Staff to identify funding sources for design and construction of the speed humps including, but not limited to” as follows:

  • Determine whether it is part of next year’s budget request,
  • Determine whether it is a part of the soon-to-be promulgated Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) update that the subcommittee is working on,
  • Or, whether it is to be grant funding that is available.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that those are the options Staff has considered to date.

Traffic Engineer Rydell pointed out the alternatives on circle page 9 of the Staff report as follows:

“ALTERNATIVES

1.         Direct Staff to request funding from City Council for design and construction of the speed humps prior to the 2007/08 Fiscal Year Budget Process.

Traffic Engineer Rydell pointed out that because the City Council has directed Staff to update the NTCP, it might be premature to pursue Alternative 1.  He stated that the subcommittee is very close to completing their draft to present before the full Commission.  He explained that there are provisions that may be changed in the current NTCP, and they might want to finalize that before moving forward to the next NTCP.

2.         Consider other traffic calming actions as may be determined.

3.         Delay further action on this project pending City Council approval of the updated Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.”

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that Alternative 2 is standard; Alternative 3 is related to his comments on Alternative 1 regarding delaying action temporarily until the NTCP update is completed when the Commission can review the update and determine how it fits the needs of the community.

The complete Staff report is on file in the Public Works Department.

Chair Shepherd opened the Public Hearing.

Jim Russell, 28614 Mt. Palomar Place adjoining Toscanini, explained that he is one of the original owners in this tract and stated that he is in favor of speed humps everywhere, but more specifically his concern is Toscanini.  He stated that the Commission would be hard pressed to find another street in the surrounding community that is downhill and as long as Toscanini without stop signs or speed humps.  He stated that he witnesses the traffic personally four days out of seven because he walks his dog down Toscanini into other areas, and he assured the Commission that all the information collected by Staff is validated by his personal observations.  He stated that his mother-in-law lives on Trudie Drive, which adjoins Capitol Drive; that speed humps were installed on Trudie Drive and he has observed while visiting her that the speed humps have significantly slowed down the traffic.  He stated that the Commission has his endorsement on speed humps.

Dan Imbagliazzo, 28608 Mt. Palomar Place, stated that he is Mr. Russell’s neighbor.  He explained that the part of Toscanini from Western to the first speed hump proposal is downhill and is Evil Kneevil’s launching ramp to the rest of Toscanini, and it really is a problem.  He explained that, for those who live just off of Toscanini, the amount of through traffic to other neighborhoods is horrendous and the speed humps will not only divert some of the traffic onto Western Avenue, it will slow people down.  He suggested that people, who do not live in their neighborhood and do not want anyone speeding in theirs, do not mind speeding in this neighborhood.  Mr. Imbagliazzo stated that they need some help and they appreciate the Commission’s time and effort; and whatever way they can find to get the money he would appreciate very much and it would be an addition to their neighborhood.

David Roberts, 1229 Mt. Ranier Road, stated that speed humps would be helpful.  He explained that drivers come down Mt. Ranier and take the corner onto Mt. Rose Road and you do not know if they will make it.  He stated that a few years ago Staff put a line there, which did help because people coming up Mt. Rose were cutting that corner.  He explained that the residents could sometimes hear cars speeding down Mt. Ranier are a problem because there are many new kids in the neighborhood and he would really appreciate it if the Commission could do something about that.

Oscar Esteban, 1253 Bloomwood Road, stated that he believes a few more humps are needed.  He referred to the aerial map and pointed out the problem area at the intersection of Bloomwood Road and Mt. Rushmore Road.

Chair Shepherd closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Shepherd thanked the speakers for being brief.  She stated that the Traffic Calming Program subcommittee is very close to finalizing their revisions, and they hope to have something to present at the April meeting.  She explained that, with the revisions, this community could take advantage of some of the suggestions and programs that the subcommittee has integrated into the new Plan for funding.  Chair Shepherd explained that, because the completed revisions are so close and because there is no funding for this project, even if Staff took it to the City Council it would probably have to be postponed for a full year before funding is available.  She explained that grants and other types of alternative methods of funding are part of the new program.  Chair Shepherd stated that she wants the Commissioners to know that; that she wants them to understand that Alternative 3 on circle page 9, which is to delay action on this project until finalization of the Traffic Calming Program, might be something for the Commission to consider as they deliberate about this issue.  She clarified that the community has met its warrants for the counts, the speed, and the percentage of petitioners in favor of a traffic calming tool; that having reached this point, the Commission should consider an additional funding source as a part of any plan.

Commissioner Parfenov asked where Staff hopes to find funds.

Chair Shepherd responded that she is not at liberty to disclose that at this time, but she is hoping the subcommittee can bring it before the Commission at the April meeting.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved to adopt Alternative 3 on circle page 9:

3.         Delay further action on this project pending City Council approval of the updated Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.

Seconded by Commissioner Bilezerian.

Commission Questions of Staff

Commissioner Parfenov asked Traffic Engineer Rydell if, during the collection of data, the StealthStat was used for the “before” data and pneumatic tubes for the “after” counts, and he asked if there are discrepancies in the results between the two methods of obtaining data.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that there is not much difference.  He explained that with the pneumatic tubes they get every vehicle that crosses over.  The StealthStat uses a radar device similar to a radar gun, and it will also record every vehicle that comes into its field; however, if there are a couple of vehicles one right after another, it will probably count that as one vehicle because it may not be able to discern that in the same way as the tubes.  However, he stated that they are perfectly acceptable for use.

Commissioner Parfenov asked why Staff collected data with the StealthStat for the “before” counts and the “after” data with the tubes.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that there was a staffing operational issue.  At the time Staff did the “before” counts the StealthStats were operational, and when it was time to take the “after” counts, the StealthStats were not available, so they used the tubes.

Commissioner Mevers had no questions.

Commissioner Klein commented that the guidelines as they exist require a traffic volume of at least 1500 vehicles per day, and Mt. Shasta does not have that many, and he wondered why Staff still recommended speed humps there.

Traffic Engineer Rydell pointed out that there were 1800 vpd in the “after” counts taken in June 2006.  The other reason is that Mt. Shasta is being utilized as part of a route between Toscanini and Bloomwood Road when looking at this as a neighborhood rather than individual roadways.  He explained that, to address traffic-calming needs on Bloomwood and Toscanini and ignore Mt. Shasta would not provide the residents of Mt. Shasta with the protection they need.

Commissioner Klein asked if some less expensive measures, such as striping the roads for parking on both sides and making the wider streets like Bloomwood, look narrower, might be an option at less cost to the City and still might have a speed reduction.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that it is an option and the neighborhood discussed this and chose to pursue speed humps.  He explained that they have the option to pursue what is most desirable to them, similar to other neighborhoods the City has completed.

Commissioner Bilezerian asked if there are any other neighborhoods in the City currently where there is the same problem; where Staff has identified speed humps and the cost but there is no funding, or is this the first.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that the problem with this is that it is a large neighborhood and a large amount of money.

Commissioner Bilezerian asked if there is any other neighborhood or area in the queue for grant funding that is prioritized.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that other neighborhoods are waiting to be brought before this Commission for traffic calming, but they will not be presented until a new Traffic Calming Program is in place.  He added that the new Traffic Calming Program would include the funding options that are available.

Commissioner Bilezerian clarified that there is nothing in the queue now, and this will be the first neighborhood submitted for grant funding, suggesting that he is trying to determine if there are other neighborhoods competing with this neighborhood for grant funding.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that he believes this is the only one, and the other neighborhoods have not satisfied their obligation for the Traffic Calming Program.

Chair Shepherd clarified that Commissioner Bilezerian is asking about grant funding, and asked if Staff is applying for grant funding for this project.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that Staff is not applying for grant funding for this project at this time; that grant cycles are on an annual basis throughout the year.

Commissioner Bilezerian suggested that when the guidelines are approved shortly, potentially there could be other neighborhoods coming in to compete against City funding.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that one of the proponents of the updated Traffic Calming Program will be a prioritization process, and the subcommittee has not yet determined the method.

Commissioner Bilezerian suggested that that could mean that if funding were available in the 2007/08 budget or later, neighborhoods would compete against each other for this funding based on a priority structure.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that it is possible but they do not know for sure because the subcommittee has not decided on the prioritization process; that it may be first come, first served, but he does not know.

Commissioner Bilezerian explained that this is what he wants to make clear for the public; that even if Staff applies for funding or if they identify City funding, there may be other neighborhoods asking for the same thing and the prioritization structure will help in determining who qualifies and in what order.

Chair Shepherd stated that when the subcommittee presents to the Commission they will have more than just grants; there will be a number of things presented as alternatives, not only what this body could approve and recommend to City Council, but that the community will know will work for them.  She stated that realistically, without a plan and without some of the alternatives the subcommittee is trying to bring forward, the Commission could not put speed humps in the queue.

Commissioner Bilezerian explained that he is just trying to find out if there are other neighborhoods that the Commission has approved in the past that have the same caveats.  He asked if in neighborhoods where the City has completed the installations, there is any estimate, feedback, or knowledge on what it costs to maintain the speed humps and signs.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that in Rancho Palos Verdes there are only two areas with speed humps; one is Basswood and the other is Mira Vista, and they have not resurfaced Mira Vista since the installation so they do not have a cost for that.

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that an overlay was done on Basswood and the speed humps were removed and replaced, so there was a lesser cost based on economies of scale associated with a larger project, and the speed humps actually reaped the benefit of that.

Commissioner Bilezerian asked how long after installation did the City do the overlay on Basswood.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that the overlay was done in 2005/06, and the speed humps were installed probably in 2002, before he was employed by RPV.

Commissioner Bilezerian suggested that $4500 was spent on speed hump installation; four years later they were removed and replaced for slightly more.  He asked what the plan is for Toscanini Drive and the other streets as far as overlay or rehabilitation.

Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that the City has a pavement management program but he does not know where these fall within that program.  He stated that Staff could check on that.

Commissioner Bilezerian stated that he believes that is an important element to this program.

Chair Shepherd addressed Traffic Engineer Rydell and stated that she will make a note that, when they meet again, they should talk about that aspect in the body of the revised Traffic Calming Program.  She asked Senior Engineer Dragoo to note an action item for the next meeting, as an information item, an answer to the questions about the cost per hump when the City must maintain or re-slurry the pavement, compared to the cost of installation of the speed humps.  She asked that he also obtain information about how often the City must replace speed humps because of damage due to degradation.

Commissioner Bilezerian asked, if the Commission selects Alternative 3, will they still be able to approve Recommendations 1 and 2, or does it matter.  He further clarified that Commissioner Willens Motion was just to delay the action, and his question is:  Since the petition has been submitted and the testimony heard, should the Commission take action to approve Recommendations 1 and 2, not approve Recommendation 3, and consider Alternative 3.  Commissioner Bilezerian asked that, if the Commission does not approve the petition now, do the residents have to resubmit the petition, or should the Commission accept the petition and the public comments at this meeting.

Chair Shepherd responded that the residents do not have to resubmit the petition because when the Commission receives the revised Traffic Calming Program they may see other elements that may peak the interest of the Commission and the residents as other alternatives.  If the Commission decided on a traffic circle for instance, the residents who signed the petition with the understanding that speed humps might be installed in front of their home may say that they are not in agreement with that particular traffic calming tool (a traffic circle).

Commissioner Parfenov asked if the residents would then have to submit another petition.

Chair Shepherd explained that if the community wanted speed humps but the Commission did not want to recommend speed humps to the City Council, they could recommend something else to the Council.  She explained that, in fairness to the community, if the Commission wants to recommend something else, the residents would have to have another petition showing support for that item.  As an alternative, Chair Shepherd explained that the residents could attend a Council meeting and say they want speed humps, but the Council can say they do not want speed humps and direct the community to re-petition for support.  She clarified that they would have to re-petition if an alternative was selected.

Traffic Engineer Rydell suggested that the Commission accept Recommendations 1 and 2 and do not accept Recommendation 3 because it says you are accepting the recommendation for speed humps, and that is fine for speed humps.  He explained that they do not know that the exact type of speed humps presented in the petition will still be in use.

Commissioner Parfenov referred to the matrix on circle page 8, the item of expense for inspection of $6,000, and asked if that is the same as maintenance.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that construction and inspection are involved in installation.

Commissioner Parfenov clarified that it does not include maintenance.  He also referred to the second sentence in the last paragraph on circle page 8 “The subject neighborhood may wish to consider contributing towards the cost of this traffic calming project in order to expedite its implementation.”  He asked if he is correct in interpreting this to mean that the community can contribute to speed up the process.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that this might be included in the Traffic Calming Program to expedite the process.  Since funding is a major problem, some agencies have resident contribution programs for funding in a traffic-calming crisis.

Commissioner Willens stated that he would like to modify his Motion.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved that the Traffic Safety Commission adopt Recommendations 1 and 2 on circle page 3 as follows:

1.         Accept the resident petition requesting installation of speed humps on the following roadways:

      • Toscanini Drive between Mt. Palomar Place and Mt. Shasta Drive.
      • Mt. Shasta Drive between Mt. Rainier Road and Bloomwood Road.
      • Bloomwood Road between Mt. Shasta Drive and the East City Limit.
      • Mt. Rainier Road between Mt. Shasta Drive and Mt. Rose Road.
      • Mt. Rose Road between Mt. Rainier Road and Bloomwood Road.
  • Consider public comment regarding the proposed installation of twelve speed humps on the above roadways.

Commissioner Willens further moved that the Commission not adopt Recommendation 3, but that alternatively they adopt Alternative 3 on circle page 9 to delay any further action beyond accepting Recommendations 1 and 2 on circle page 3, pending City Council approval of the updated Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, seconded by Commissioner Bilezerian.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Parfenov referred to a speaker (Oscar Esteban) who brought up the issue of having more speed humps on Mt. Rushmore, and asked why this street was not considered.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that there is an all-way stop on Bloomwood and Mt. Hood; if people are coming from north Mt. Shasta Drive from the City of Los Angeles, down Mt. Shasta and Bloomwood, there are five potential impediments.  If they come through Mt. Ranier Road, down Mt. Rushmore Road and through Bloomwood Road, there is another speed hump on Mt. Ranier, there is an all-way stop at Mt. Rushmore and Bloomwood, and there would be another speed hump at the east end of Bloomwood.  Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he felt that these controls equalize the situation, and he did not believe that it would be so much better for motorists if they divert there.  Secondly, he explained that there is no problem on Mt. Rushmore; Staff did pursue this and if there were a problem in the future, Staff would evaluate it at that time.

Commissioner Parfenov questioned if Traffic Engineer Rydell does not believe that traffic will be diverted.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that he does not believe so, considering the controls and the proposed speed humps.

Chair Shepherd addressed the two speakers who live on Mt. Rushmore, and commented that she is sure they will be back to speak to the Commission if traffic increases on their street, and the Commission would address the issue at that time.

Commissioner Parfenov asked Traffic Engineer Rydell if Staff would pursue CalTrans grants.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that CalTrans is one of their major sources for grant funding.

Commissioner Mevers referred to the petition and asked under what rules the Commission would not accept the petition.

Chair Shepherd responded that they would not accept it if it was not valid; the community has been approved by Staff as having met the City’s criteria for percentage and Staff has broken it down by alternatives.  She stated that the Commission could look at the petition and add up the signatures, adding that Staff validates the authenticity of the signatures as well as the numbers.

Commissioner Mevers questioned that there is no reason for not accepting the petition.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that from Staff’s perspective there is no reason, but the decision is up to the Commission.

Motion approved:
Ayes 6; Nays 0

RECEIVE AND FILE:

Action Items Matrix

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that the Agenda was prepared without Staff review and he apologized for the condition of the information.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that he would like to defer discussion on this item until the next meeting.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:

1.         Public Works Department Report.

  1. Via Rivera Traffic Calming Update.

 

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that the Commission approved this item and Staff will present it to City Council, but it was bumped from the March 20, 2007 agenda.

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that Via Rivera is tentatively scheduled for the Council agenda on April 6, but the agenda is filling up, and scheduling is at the City Manager’s will.

Chair Shepherd stated that if this item were bumped further, the subcommittee would have the new Traffic Calming Program to the City Council before Via Rivera, which may cause it to be reviewed under updated provisions.

  1. Long Point Development Review Update.

 

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that Staff has completed plans as they relate to traffic for the on-site as well as the Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) plan (PVDS traffic signal and signing and striping at the intersection).  Staff is still reviewing the traffic control plans, and he has given them sufficient approval to prepare a set of final control plans.  He explained that the plan for PVDS, which would be construction traffic control, is to separate construction traffic from through traffic on PVDS.  Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that there would be many very heavy construction trucks on the road, and explained that PVDS is two lanes in each direction around the entrance.  He explained that in the eastbound direction Staff will move the traffic from the outside lane to the number one inside lane and provide a very lengthy transition storage lane on the right in the outside lane for the traffic to turn into, and move the bike lane over as well.  He explained that in the westbound direction Staff will not change the bike lane, but will try to get through traffic to the outside lane and let the construction traffic use the number one inside lane.  Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that heavy truck traffic would be required to use Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW) to access the laden trucks after coming down Hawthorne and on PVDW into a right turn into the development.  He explained that the alternative is PVDS, and Staff does not want laden heavy vehicles going over the landslide because it would destroy the road.  He explained that unladen vehicles would be allowed to turn right and exit that way.  Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he is encouraging the employee traffic to do the same--go down Hawthorne and turn right in.  He added that he is encouraging right in and right out as much as possible, especially with heavy vehicles, because he does not want westbound heavy vehicles turning left across the through traffic.

Commissioner Mevers asked who is paying for the road changes and, later on, repairing the damage to the roads.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that the developer would pay; that it is a construction zone so it is all done with temporary traffic controls, the developer is required to pay for installation, and there is a bond for them to repair the roadway.

Commissioner Klein asked if, when the roadway is repaired, consideration would be given to installing some concrete areas where there is stop and go, such as a traffic signal so the asphalt does not get pushed around as much by heavy vehicles that might follow at some other time.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that once the construction is complete there would not be many heavy vehicles, the only reason for the temporary measures is for construction, and PVDS does not experience heavy traffic.  He explained that the area that will be signalized (PVDS and the entrance) would be resurfaced with asphalt.

  1. Palos Verdes Drive East Comprehensive Study.

 

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that Staff is planning to make the next meeting solely the public hearing for this issue.  He explained that Staff is tackling the big-ticket items now, and this is the next one.  Traffic Engineer Rydell reminded the Commission that their goal is to develop an appropriate roadway for RPV; he suggested that the Commission forget what is there currently, and stated that what is in place now has issues.

Commissioner Mevers questioned if, when the Commission studies the PVDE issues, they are looking at them in terms of traffic calming or trying to improve PVDE so it can handle more traffic or reduce the traffic going through it.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that that is for the Commission to decide.

Commissioner Mevers referred to the pending new guidelines for traffic calming, and asked if the Commission will have to wait until they see what the new approaches will be, or will they just proceed with this.

Traffic Engineer Rydell suggested that traffic calming would be completed before PVDE.

Commissioner Bilezerian commented that it is an arterial.

Commissioner Mevers stated that PVDE is arterial, and that is why he asked if traffic calming is a goal.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that the goal is for the Commission to decide how they want to utilize PVDE, what its purpose is; that it may or may not be an arterial ultimately considering the final development.  He stated that that is why it is a comprehensive study; anything is on the table for discussion, and that is what the community is looking for from the Commission.  Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that there are no ground rules now, and that is why the next meeting is just for public input to determine the problems.

Senior Engineer Dragoo asked if the meeting for this issue would be held at Hesse Park.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that it should be held at Hesse Park if it can be scheduled, but he has not been successful yet.  He stated that ultimately he wants to go to Hesse Park because the Commission needs those facilities.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that there are temporary outdoor restrooms at Hesse Park due to construction.

Chair Shepherd stated that she does not believe that attendance at the first meeting on this issue would exceed the capacity of the Community Room at City Hall.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that there would be much public notification because many people have expressed interest.  He stated that notification would be in the newspapers, and a lot of public input is necessary.

There was a discussion of potential problems with the restroom facilities.

Chair Shepherd suggested strictly controlling the three-minute limit for speakers or reducing speaker time to two minutes to accommodate a large number of speakers and try to closely adhere to their 10:00 pm adjournment.  She suggested that there is no way to determine public attendance.  She explained that she knows that the Equestrian Committee, the Board, and some members of the committee will be present.  Chair Shepherd stated that she is sure the Emergency Preparedness Committee will be there, and some other members of the community will attend.

Commissioner Klein suggested that all the residents from that area who usually attend Commission meetings would attend that meeting.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that there is a mixed-use interest such as bicyclists, equestrians, school people, and all the residents up and down PVDE, and it could get busy and confusing very quickly.

Chair Shepherd suggested that it depends on how the issue is marketed; if it is marketed in excess of what the Commission normally does, then they need Hesse Park, and if that is what Staff is planning to do they are probably right, but if they go through the normal channels she would not expect a large crowd.  She suggested that if Staff will advertise it in the Peninsula News and the Daily Breeze that would be different.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the only purpose of the meeting on this issue is to obtain public input, so they must notify them.

Commissioner Parfenov commented that the City Council has had meetings at Hesse Park and restrooms have not become an issue.

Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that the restrooms inside the building are shut down; however, the Council is having meetings at Hesse Park, and they have had one meeting so far since construction began.

Chair Shepherd suggested, if the Commission decides to have the meeting at Hesse Park based on the level of marketing and it would be necessary to have functional restrooms, why not postpone the hearing until Hesse Park has facilities in working order.

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that construction at Hesse Park began on February 21, 2007 and it will take 60 days to complete.

Commissioner Willens stated that the City Council is preparing to select a new Traffic Safety Commission and, if this Commission talks about PVDE and then passes it on to new Commissioners, it does not make sense to have a public hearing on PVDE in March.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that everything Staff has to present is big-ticket, and asked if the Commission would just be on hiatus until they see what happens.

Chair Shepherd clarified that Staff was planning to meet on March 26, 2007 for the public hearing, and she suggested that Commissioner Willens has a point regarding appointments to the Commission.

Commissioner Klein suggested that if the hearing was held the public comment would be on record and a summary could be prepared.

Chair Shepherd disagreed and stated that it is difficult for a Commission to make a decision based on information they have not personally heard, comparing it to making a decision based on a Staff report without ever having visited the site.  She suggested that it would be a disservice to the community.  She stated that she does not believe they will be ready in March, suggesting that maybe they do not need another meeting in March.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he does not have anything to present to the Commission except major issues.

Commissioner Parfenov explained that the Technology Subcommittee was planning to bring in their report.  He explained that the report was given to Commissioners at the last meeting for review and comment, and the Subcommittee planned to insert the comments and present the final report at the next meeting on March 26, 2007.

Chair Shepherd asked Traffic Engineer Rydell’s opinion from a public hearing aspect, knowing that the Commission may be in transition.

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that he does not know what is going to happen, but Staff is motivated to going ahead with the projects in progress.  However, if the Commission does not think that there is benefit to doing this until the Commission is appointed, he does not have anything to present in March because he only brings big-ticket items before the Commission.  He explained that he has not had time to do small investigations and has a backlog of traffic investigations.

Chair Shepherd asked for opinions from the Commissioners and a discussion of the potential applications for positions on the Commission followed.

Commissioner Bilezerian asked if Commissioners appointed by the City Council would be sitting on the March 26 meeting.

Chair Shepherd stated that she believes the new Traffic Safety Commission will be in place for the April meeting; that the deadline for submitting applications is Friday, March 9, followed by interviews conducted by the City Council.  Chair Shepherd asked the Commissioners to express their opinion regarding whether to have a meeting on March 26 or not.

Commissioner Bilezerian stated that it does not make sense for this Commission to discuss issues that may be carried over to another Commission.

Commissioner Willens agreed with Commissioner Bilezerian and stated “not on these big issues”.

 

Commissioner Klein presented a counter-argument that if the Commission could tabulate the public comments into categories the new people would know what the issues are; for example, 15 out of 60 spoke on this, etc.  He suggested that it would be a way to capture the information from the public hearing so it would not have to be heard again.

Commissioner Bilezerian suggested that he is probably the best person to speak on this since he is the newest member of the Commission.  He explained that he attended his first meeting in April 2006 and many issues were unfamiliar to him.  He explained that he was at a disadvantage by having to read all the previous documentation, so he would not want to put that burden on a new Commissioner.

Commissioner Willens stated that it is not just the same as being there and hearing it.

Chair Shepherd agreed, saying especially on a big item like this; that this will be a major study that could have implications in four or five areas including equestrians, pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles, etc.  She expressed agreement with Commissioners Bilezerian and Willens.  She acknowledged that the data could be compiled, but she believes it would be better for newly appointed Commissioners to attend the hearing.   She explained that she does not know if all seven current Commissioners will be appointed or whether they will apply, and many times if the Council does not have a large enough pool they will extend the application period.

  1. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program update.

 

Traffic Engineer Rydell stated that the subcommittee is making very good progress on this project and expect to present their recommendations in April.

  1. HSIP Grant Application.

 

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he is writing the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant application now and Staff is requesting money for two different projects:  (1) citywide stop sign replacement and, (2) protected left-turn phasing for Crenshaw Boulevard and Crestridge.

  1. Palos Verdes Drive East Interim Lane Reduction Project update.

 

Traffic Engineer Rydell reported that this project was implemented today.

Chair Shepherd asked the Commissioners to drive this area of PVDE to get a feel for what the Commission requested so they can respond to phone calls and provide feedback at the next meeting.

Traffic Engineer Rydell presented slides of the project locations, and pointed out the temporary modifications made with delineators and roadway markings.

Commissioner Bilezerian stated that he does not recall if the skip-stripe was supposed to be converted to a four-inch white edge line.

Traffic Engineer Rydell explained that he was trying to keep the cost down.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if the delineators have flashing red lights.

Traffic Engineer Rydell responded that they have no flashing red lights because they are type two barricades, and he did provide good turning radius.

Chair Shepherd pointed out the red curbing, and explained that many students park at the white curbing on the south side of Crest Road.  She stated that two residents have called her to question if the students will now come into Casalina and park in front of the homes.  She stated that she gave them Traffic Engineer Rydell’s telephone number, and suggested that there are several options such as permit parking if it becomes a problem.  Chair Shepherd explained that there is not much space for the students to park away from the homes.

Commissioner Mevers commented that he noticed red curb on the side of the road, but not in the crosswalk; he saw a car parked in the crosswalk wondered if the driver could be fined.

Deputy Souza responded that the driver could be fined, and stated that crosswalks are protected in and of themselves and do not need red curb.

Commissioner Parfenov commented that in some areas even the crosswalks have red curb.

Deputy Souza stated that it is just because someone chose to paint it, but it does not make a difference.

Commissioner Bilezerian explained that anything along the curb bordering an intersection is part of the intersection and is enforceable without red curb.

Deputy Souza agreed.

Commissioner Parfenov explained that that was his understanding, and asked why some are painted and others are not.

Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that it just depends on the painter.

2.         Other Traffic Safety Commission Business.

  1. City Council item regarding oversized vehicles

 

Commissioner Mevers reported that he watched the Council meeting on TV when they talked about oversized vehicles, and was confused about the discussion.  He asked Chair Shepherd to clarify what happened.

Chair Shepherd stated that the item was about parking of all vehicles, and reminded the Commission that they split the oversized versus other vehicles to not confuse the issues.  She explained that the City Manager changed that item on the agenda and the Commission had no knowledge of that.  She explained that the City Council began deliberating about the issue of all parking in the City, and the article in the newspaper appeared to give the perception that the Traffic Safety Commission had not reviewed anything related to parking including oversized vehicles and RVs.  She stated that the writer said that everything would be coming back to the Traffic Safety Commission so it was confusing.  She explained that she was perturbed and voiced her objection because the Commission should have been informed that it was going to the City Council, making it appear that the Commission was not doing their job.  Chair Shepherd stated that the Council sent it back to the Commission but it is not on the high priority list at this time.

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that he told the Council that Staff has been ready to come to Council with a report and recommendations from the Traffic Safety Commission regarding the RV parking but the Council agenda has been very full and this item has been delayed since August.

Chair Shepherd stated that it has been deliberated by the Commission and should have gone to the Council and taken that spot.  She explained that, had she known, she would have asked Staff to let the Council know that the Commission’s item should have been scheduled before an item, referring to parking of all vehicles, that has not been considered by the Commission.

Commissioner Mevers explained that he was expecting the Council to discuss oversized vehicles.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that the original charge was for the Traffic Safety Commission to review parking including oversized and regular vehicles.  He stated that when the City Manager asked Staff to give a progress report, that is when the City Council decided that they were not prepared to decide and take a step to make a ban on City parking, and it was decided that it probably would not be a good thing.

Chair Shepherd explained that the Council wanted the Commission to look at it on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, but they did not want to talk about it without it coming from the Commission.

Commissioner Parfenov suggested that since there is nothing for the March 26 agenda, even though the overall parking ban is not a high priority, he asked if there is Staff time and resources to schedule that for March 26.

Chair Shepherd stated that it comes back to the same issue of pending Commission appointments.

  1. Commission Roster

 

Senior Engineer Dragoo distributed a roster for Commissioners to update at the request of the City Clerk.

  1. March 5, 2007 Agenda

 

Chair Shepherd asked that Staff not allow what happened with this month’s agenda to happen again, and explained that she is not pointing a finger at anyone because it may be due to Staff changes.  She explained that the agenda was sent before it was reviewed by Staff and had to be re-sent; in addition, she stated that it went out to about 150 people plus 1,000 on Listserv before it reached the Commissioners.  She stated that the public should never see the agenda before the Commissioners see it, and she saw it only because she is President of the homeowners’ association, which is the list of 150 people, and that was what triggered a message to Staff asking why the agenda went out before being seen by the Commissioners.

            d.         Meeting with Emergency Preparedness Committee Chair

Chair Shepherd reported that she is meeting with Chair Richard Smith, of the Emergency Preparedness Committee on Wednesday, March 7, and they are working on an evacuation plan in the event of a disaster.  She explained that the type of disaster might determine the type of evacuation plan, location, or vehicles that would be used, whether it is horses, cars, or bicycles.  She explained that they want input from the Traffic Safety Commission.  Chair Shepherd stated that Commissioner Klein has asked to participate on that subcommittee and they need two more, although the Commissioners may want to wait until appointments are final.  Commissioners Parfenov and Commissioner Mevers volunteered to serve.

Commissioner Mevers asked if members would attend their meetings or would the subcommittee attend the Commission meetings.

Chair Shepherd explained that in preliminary meetings with Richard Smith they have talked about first having a joint meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission and the Emergency Preparedness Committee, where the public can attend and speak.  The second option would be that only the subcommittee members would meet, but she is not certain if the Brown Act would permit that and it should be clarified with the City Clerk.

Commissioner Mevers asked if Commissioners would be permitted to meet to discuss something with only an invitation to the public to attend without participating.

Chair Shepherd stated that she does not know the answer, but she has sat in joint meetings that were noticed and the public attended and did not participate as speakers.  She explained that the public was there to gather information and occasionally the public was allowed to make a comment from their seat.

Commissioner Mevers suggested an organizational procedure to allow the public to listen to what is discussed.

Chair Shepherd stated that she believes if it is noticed as a public meeting and someone wants to speak on the item, the person must be allowed to speak, but she is not sure.

e.         Technology Subcommittee

Commissioner Parfenov referred to the report “Application of Technology to Traffic Management” prepared by the subcommittee and asked if the Commissioners had comments, corrections, or suggestions.  He explained that the copy provided at the last meeting was a draft, and they want to prepare the final report and present it with the Traffic Calming Program (TCP) and make it an action item.  Commissioner Parfenov stated that since the technology solutions in the report go hand-in-hand with the TCP proposals the subcommittee would like to make the report an attachment or a separate document, emphasizing that the two items should be scheduled at the same meeting.

Chair Shepherd stated that she is not prepared to talk about the report at this meeting.

Commissioner Parfenov clarified that the subcommittee would like it to be an action item and the City Council wants technological solutions.

Chair Shepherd acknowledged that this is the reason the subcommittee was formed.

Commissioner Parfenov reiterated that the subcommittee wants it to be an action item so that this document will be a reference for the Staff and for future Traffic Safety Commissioners.

Chair Shepherd suggested that it should be placed on the agenda.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if it is possible to put it on the April agenda as an action item.

Senior Engineer Dragoo responded that it could be done.

Commissioner Parfenov clarified that it would go on the April agenda as one of the action items.  He offered to mail a copy of the technology report to any Commissioner who does not have a copy.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Recommendation:

Approval of minutes of January 29, 2007

Commissioner Parfenov referred to circle page 24, third paragraph from the bottom, and provided the missing street name in his comments as Ravenspur Drive.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved to approve the Minutes of January 29, 2007 as revised, seconded by Commissioner Klein.

Motion approved:
Ayes 6; Nays 0

ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Shepherd emphasized that the next regularly scheduled meeting is not March 26, 2007, but is April 23, 2007, and there would be no meeting on March 26.

ACTION TAKEN:

Commissioner Willens moved to adjourn at 8:45 PM to the regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission on April 23, 2007, seconded by Commissioner Klein.

Motion approved:
Ayes 6; Nays 0

 

ACTION ITEMS:

1.         Chair Shepherd addressed Traffic Engineer Rydell and stated that she will make a note that, when they meet again, they should talk about that aspect in the body of the revised Traffic Calming Program.  She asked Senior Engineer Dragoo to note an action item to schedule for the next meeting as an information item an answer to the questions asked about the cost per hump when the City must maintain or re-slurry the pavement, compared to the cost of installation of the speed humps.  She asked that he also obtain information about how often maintenance of the speed humps is required because of damage.

2.         Commissioner Parfenov referred to the report “Application of Technology to Traffic Management” prepared by the subcommittee and asked if the Commissioners had comments, corrections, or suggestions.  He explained that the copy provided at the last meeting was a draft, and they want to prepare the final report and present it with the Traffic Calming Program (TCP) and make it an action item.  Commissioner Parfenov stated that since the technology solutions in the report go hand-in-hand with the TCP proposals the subcommittee would like to make the report an attachment or a separate document, emphasizing that the two items should be scheduled at the same meeting.

Chair Shepherd stated that she is not prepared to talk about the report at this meeting.

Commissioner Parfenov clarified that the subcommittee would like it to be an action item and the City Council wants technological solutions.

Chair Shepherd acknowledged that this is the reason the subcommittee was formed.

Commissioner Parfenov reiterated that the subcommittee wants it to be an action item so that this document will be a reference for the Staff and for future Traffic Safety Commissioners.

Chair Shepherd suggested that it should be placed on the agenda.

Commissioner Parfenov asked if it is possible to put it on the April agenda as an action item.

3.         Action Items Matrix

Senior Engineer Dragoo reported that the Agenda was prepared without Staff review and he apologized for the condition of the information.

Senior Engineer Dragoo explained that he would like to defer discussion on this item until the next meeting.

4.         Chair Shepherd explained that in preliminary meetings with Richard Smith they have talked about first having a joint meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission and the Emergency Preparedness Committee, where the public can attend and speak.  The second option would be that only the subcommittee members would meet, but she is not certain if the Brown Act would permit that and it should be clarified with the City Clerk.