RPVCCA_SR_2010_01_23_01_PVDE_Impro_StudyMEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
RAY HOLLAND,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS *
JANUARY 23,2010
PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
PRELIMINARY STUDY REPORT
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer .-n fJ
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Palos Verdes Drive East Safety Improvements Preliminary Study Report and
modify the Citywide Traffic and Roadway Safety Goal of improving traffic and roadway
safety in residential neighborhoods and on arterial streets to include an implementation
plan.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted Tactical Plan for 2009 sets goals for the two year period ending
in December 2010.Milestones 1 and 2 of the Citywide Traffic and Roadway Safety Goal
reads as follows:
1.By June 30,2009,subject to the City's receipt of a requested $280,000 state grant,put
out for bid the construction of the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway safety improvements.
This item will be brought back to the City Council for further direction if the City does not
receive the requested grant award.
2.By November 30,2009,following the implementation of the FY 08-09 Palos Verdes
Drive East roadway safety improvements referenced in Milestone No.1,present a
conceptual planning report to City Council to address additional traffic and safety
improvements on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Milestone No.1 is work in progress.The Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE)roadway
safety improvement early action project,designed to improve signage and guardrails along
PVDE,will be implemented while studies for a multi-modal transportation system,as
referenced in Milestone No.2,on PVDE are in progress.A grant in the amount of
$280,500 has been awarded to the City for design and construction of the project.
Construction is expected to begin as early as September 2010.Considering the current
progress of the project,milestone no.1 is revised:
"By September 30,2010,award a construction contract for the PVDE early action safety
improvement project."
1-1
Palos Verdes Drive East Preliminary Study Report
January 23,2010
Page 2
Milestone No.2 is work in progress.The PVDE Preliminary Study Report,completed by
Willdan Engineering,is the first step towards creating a multi-modal transportation corridor
that is safe for all users.The report,provided to Council under a separate cover,is the
result of successful collaboration among the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC),the public
and staff.The revised milestone no.2 reads:
"By April 30,2010,present an implementation plan to initiate priority projects as
recommended by the conceptual planning report entitled "Palos Verdes Drive East
Preliminary Study Report,January 2010".
During the plan development period,staff participated in several team meetings that
included Willdan Engineering and the TSC.The meetings were designed to develop a
plan of action to engage the community in the process.
Subsequent to the team meetings,three community workshops were held to receive public
input regarding PVDE.Each workshop had an unprecedented attendance and concluded
with excitement and hope by the residents.The three meetings combined yielded 150
participating residents.Table 1 summarizes the workshop dates and number of attendees:
3
Jul 15,2009
Jul 20,2009
August 15,
2009
PVDS -Diamonte Ln
Diamonte Ln -Via EI Miro
Via EI Miro -Cit Limits 70
The PVDE Preliminary Study Report represents successful participation and fact finding by
all parties involved and is fully supported by the Traffic Safety Commission.We expect
representatives from the Commission to be present at the Council meeting to advocate for
approval of the preliminary plan and moving forward to the implementation phase.The
TSC meeting minutes are included as an attachment to this report.
Staff is requesting City Council to approve the PVDE Preliminary Study Report and if
deemed acceptable,amend the tactical goal to include updated milestones.
ALTERNATIVE
As an alternative,the City Council may choose to take no action at this time or to continue
this item to a future Council meeting.No action would result in staff not proceeding with
the PVDE Preliminary Study Report and no proposed modifications to the Citywide Traffic
and roadway safety tactical goal.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approving staff's recommendation will not result in any adverse impacts to the General
Fund.Completion of activities associated with milestone no.1 is fully funded by Highway
1-2
Palos Verdes Drive East Preliminary Study Report
January 23,2010
Page 3
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)grant funds.The cost to complete milestone no.2 is
approximately $50,000 and is included in the Traffic Management Program of the FY 09-1 0
budget.
FISCAL IMPACT MATRIX
NA
N/A
Yes
50,000
General Fund
One-time &initial fiscal ear cost
Amount to add to future annual operating
bud et
Potential future savin s
Permanent addition to annual staff hours
Attachment:
TSC meeting minutes
1-3
was moved due to the Memorial Day Holiday;she referred to the Tactical Go r the
Oversized Vehicle Ordinance due on May 31 and explained that S .Engineer
Dragoo would make a presentation later in the meeting.She e ed that she is
working with him on the public outreach program for the Neigh ood Permit Parking.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that although the Oversi ehicle Ordinance is due
on May 31,if they look at the month of June,this Co Ission is tasked to satisfy the
Tactical Goal of the Neighborhood Permit Parking P)by June 30.She reported that
she and Senior Engineer Dragoo have dec'to coordinate their efforts into one
project and move the NPP to May 31 so ff can have a concerted effort to present
both to the City Council at the same . e on May 19,which would be the last Council
meeting before the deadline.
Chair Kramer suggested staff needs more than one day and cannot wait until the
May 18 meeting of the affic Safety Commission to resolve these items.and have them
to Council the next day.He asked if that is correct.
Senior En'er Jules responded that is why staff scheduled the Neighborhood Permit
Parkin ducational Outreach Plan for tonight,requesting that the Traffic Safety
Co Ission accept the recommendation of the Committee and direct that it be
arded to the City Council for consideration.
Senior Engineer Jules continued with the month of July,explaining that a Tactical Goal
is due July 31 for a Palos Verdes Drive East Neighborhood Meeting,stating that more
than one meeting will be necessary.She explained that she randomly selected three
dates for these meetings for the Commission to approve or modify.She explained that
staff could break up Palos Verdes Drive East into segments,agree on the radius for
notification,which is typically 500 feet,but if staff is aware of special residents who
should be included staff can notify them also,but she would recommend notification by
letter,especially if staff has names and addresses.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Swank commented that there are many people who use Palos Verdes
Drive East who do not live in the neighborhood but attend a school,such as Marymount,
and she wants to make sure that the Commission gives them a voice in what the Traffic
Safety Commission is talking about.
Chair Kramer commented that there are many non-residents;that Rolling Hills uses
Palos Verdes Drive East exclusively on the east side of the City.
Senior Engineer Jules suggested that staff could add a notification or some type of
advertising in a local newspaper,the Daily Breeze,and the Palos Verdes News.
Commissioner Swank asked about having a weekend meeting to accommodate those
who cannot attend during the week.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
April 20,2009
Page 3 of 431-4
Senior Engineer Jules explained that it is up to the Commission.She stated that she
would recommend having one meeting on the weekend for people who work different
hours and could not attend an evening or morning meeting.She would also
recommend having a morning meeting and one in the evening.
Commissioner Swank suggested that the equestrians should be notified.
Senior Engineer Jules recommended that the Commission tentatively set the dates and
times for starting notification.In the past,staff constructed huge signs for public viewing
and posted them for weeks at a time to get the word out so that any user of that
'neighborhood would know that there were upcoming public hearings.Staff used this
type of notification for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan public hearings.
Commissioner Swank mentioned that the Fourth of July event is not on the calendar as
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes celebration.
Chair Kramer referred to the notification issue and stated he likes the idea of contacting
the local newspapers.He suggested notifying each of the other three City Halls on the
peninsula so they can take responsibility for notifying their residents as they see fit and
welcome them to participate.He commented that the Traffic Safety Commission
traditionally meets on the fourth Monday of the month,and the July calendar shows the
third Monday,and asked if that is correct.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it was a tactical error and she will correct it to
indicate the fourth Monday,which is July 27,2009.
Chair Kramer stated that he prefers to have one weekend meeting,but the weekday
meetings should be held in the evening because,based on his experience,attendance
at morning meetings is not very good.
Commissioner Swank asked if the Commission could use the July 27 meeting for a
forum.
Chair Kramer responded that the Commission discussed this previously and decided
that with such a full agenda they did not want to combine a Traffic Safety Commission
meeting with one of the community workshops.If one of their regular meeting agendas
does not have much to consider,the meeting could be cancelled,but for planning
purposes staff should leave the current schedule of Commission meetings on the
calendar.
Commissioner Klatt agreed with Chair Kramer about the weekend meeting.
Chair Kramer asked for suggestions about the time of day and day of the weekend for a
meeting.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
April 20,2009
Page 4 of 431-5
Commissioner Nejad suggested Saturday because Sunday is usually a family day,and
he prefers a Saturday afternoon.
Commissioner Swank commented that some people like to get business taken care of
in the morning and when the City Council meets on a Saturday,it is usually in the
morning,although she has no preference.
Commissioner Klatt suggested late morning rather than starting at 7:00 or 8:00 am.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested starting at 10:00 or 11 :00 a.m.
Chair Kramer asked if that would present problems for staff.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it would not.
Chair Kramer suggested 11 :00 a.m.as a starting time and asked how much time the
Commission should allocate for the meeting.
Senior Engineer Jules recommended two hours,or three hours maximum.She
explained that staff could structure the meeting with a staff presentation,comments
from the Commission,and then open the floor for input from the community.She
commented that there is a multitude of ways to design the meeting,but she thinks three
hours is more than enough time and two hours would probably be appropriate.
Commissioner Swank asked if the weekend meeting would be tantamount to a public
forum or a workshop,and if different rules would apply.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it would be a workshop,and different rules would
apply;it would be less formal,a timekeeper might not be required.She suggested that
the Commission would probably want to establish some rules because there would
probably be a large number of people attending but,in general,they would have more
flexibility in how to handle the meeting.
Chair Kramer expressed concern that if there is a large crowd they could not have
everyone talking for half an hour.
Senior Engineer Jules suggested that the Commission might want to have the
attendees submit their comments to staff in written form on a card and staff could
compile the comments.
Chair Kramer asked if anyone prefers specific dates,either for a weekday or on the
weekend,commenting he thinks the Commission and staff are agreeable to a late
morning Saturday meeting for the weekend workshop.He suggested that the weekend
meeting should be the last in case people were unable to attend a weekday meeting.
He commented that at a weekend meeting the Commission has more flexibility time
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
April 20,2009
Page 5 of 431-6
wise to give everyone an opportunity to speak.He suggested that the last meeting
scheduled for July 28 could be pushed forward to Saturday,August 1,2009.
There was no opposition from the Commissioners or staff.
Chair Kramer referred to the Traffic Safety Commission meeting on July 27 and stated
that he prefers to not have more than one meeting in one week;he suggested having a
meeting the week of July 12 and one during the week of July 19 as proposed on the
July calendar for July 15 and July 23.He asked Senior Engineer Jules if there are any
other conflicts.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that there are no conflicts with those dates.
Chair Kramer clarified that everyone agrees that the weekday evening workshops would
be held at 7:00 pm on Wednesday,July 15 and Thursday,July 23;the July 28
workshop would be deleted and moved to Saturday,August 1.
Commissioner Swank asked about the venue.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that once the dates are established she would work
on the location.
Commissioner Swank asked if one meeting could be held along Palos Verdes Drive
East.
Senior Engineer Jules stated that the majority of the meetings would be held on Palos
Verdes Drive East;previous neighborhood meetings were held at Miraleste
Intermediate School where there were acoustic problems,but staff would try to stay
close to the border.
Chair Kramer commented that Miraleste Intermediate is the obvious location;the only
room large enough is the gymnasium,which has poor acoustics.He asked if
Marymount College has an auditorium as a potential venue.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that Marymount probably does have an auditorium
but she does not know and will work on it.
Senior Engineer Jules referred to the August calendar on circle page 9,which shows
that the July 28 workshop was rescheduled to August 1 and the regular Traffic Safety
Commission meeting would be held on August 24.The September 2009 calendar
showed a Traffic Safety Commission meeting on September 28.The October 2009
calendar showed a Tactical Goal deadline on October 31 for the technology safety
solutions presentation to City Council.She explained that a date should be set in
September for the Commission to approve the Technology Committee
recommendations so that staff can prepare a report,possibly for the Council meeting on
October 27.For November 2009,Senior Engineer Jules pointed out that the Tactical
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
April 20,2009
Page 6 of 431-7
Goal due November 30 is to present Findings of Palos Verdes Drive East Conceptual
Safety Improvement Study,which is not for the Commission but for staff.
Chair Kramer asked if the Study would be brought before the Commission.
Senior Engineer Jules said she would recommend that it should.
Chair Kramer explained that in prior years the Commission had one joint meeting for
November and December early in December.He commented that the calendars show
no meetings for November and December and proposed that one meeting be scheduled
in December on the seventh or the 14th •
There was unanimous agreement to hold the meeting on December 7,2009.
Commissioner Swank asked about the Review and Evaluation of Palos Verdes Drive
South after T erranea opens.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that it is a placeholder to carry the item over to 2010.
Commissioner Swank commented that she does not see where the Commission would
present the results of the workshop comments to the City Council and asked what
would be done with all the information gathered.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that it is noted on November 30,which is the due date
for the Tactical Goal to present Findings of Palos Verdes Drive East Conceptual Safety
Improvement Study to the City Council.She explained that the results of all the
workshops completed in conjunction with the reviews and updates will be presented to
Council in one report.
Commissioner Swank questioned why it is necessary to have the community workshops
in July 2009.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that the deadline for the Tactical Goal for Palos Verdes
Drive East Neighborhood Meetings is July 30,but the results of the meetings are not
due until November 30,2009.
Commissioner Swank expressed concern that the Commission has the neighborhood
meetings and then no one does anything with it until later on.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that something would be done in between the
meetings and the final Study,and that there is a lot to do.
Commissioner Swank stated that the community should know what happened to the
information given to the Commission.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
April 20,2009
Page 7of431-8
Chair Kramer explained that in the same way that information is disseminated from the
Commission,there will be staff presentations,all the workshop inputs will be
consolidated,the Commission would have discussions amongst themselves and work
with staff as they begin developing a comprehensive plan,and the Commission will
review the plan.He explained that the comprehensive plan will be on the agenda at
future Traffic Safety Commission meetings,there will be Minutes with those
discussions,and,as the plan starts to congeal,there will be opportunities for residents
to speak to the Commission at meetings before the final plan is submitted to the City
Council.
Commissioner Swank was satisfied with Chair Kramer's explanation.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that all the tasks described by Chair Kramer must be
completed within three months,which is not a lot of time.
Chair Kramer commented that he was hoping the Commission could have the
workshops earlier but there is not time to prepare,saying that they have a very
ambitious agenda for the Commission and especially for staff.He offered the
Commission's help to staff if needed.
ACTION TAKEN:
Commissioner Swank moved to approve the amended calendar for 2009 as
follows:
April 20
April 15
April 18
May 2
May 3
May 18
May 31
June 22
June 30
July 15
July 27
July 23
August 1
August 24
September 28
October 26
October 31
November 23
November 30
December 7
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,Hesse Park
SR2S Grant Application Due
Aids Training Ride
Palos Verdes Marathon
Honda Ride
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,Hesse Park
Tactical Goal:Oversized Vehicle Ordinance
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,City Hall Community Room
Tactical Goals:(1)Neighborhood Permit Parking Educational Program
(2)Palos Verdes Drive East Safety Grant Update
Tactical Goal:Palos Verdes Drive East Neighborhood Meeting
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,City Hall Community Room
Tactical Goal:Palos Verdes Drive East Neighborhood Meeting
Tactical Goal:Palos Verdes Drive East Neighborhood Meeting
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,City Hall Community Room
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,City Hall Community Room
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,City Hall Community Room
Tactical Goal:Technology safety solutions presentation
No Traffic Safety Commission Meeting
Tactical Goal:Present Findings of Palos Verdes Drive East Conceptual
Safety Improvement Study
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting,location to be determined
Seconded by Commissioner Klatt.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
April 20,2009
Page 8 of 431-9
Commissioner Nejad suggested that,if the Committee is going to
Schonlau,they ask if the technology would recognize multiple cars,r rd multiple cars,
and not make a mistake recording speed and other informatio n addition,can the
technology actually distinguish who is doing what whe 0 or three cars are
approaching at the same time.
Senior Engineer Jules will schedule the technology report on the agenda for Mond ,
August 24,2009.
Commissioner Klatt commented about the poss·. y of false alarm ratings and other
issues.
Commissioner Parfenov mentioned c following too closely,just like the hand-held
radar,wherein only the speed of t irst car is measured,and some cars might not be
affected.
ACTION TAKEN:
Commissioner ank moved to continue further discussion of the Technology
Report to th ugust 24,2009 regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission,
seconde y Commissioner Parfenov.
Mo·n approved:
es 5,Nays 0
5.PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS
Recommendation:
Approve the workshop agenda and format.
Senior Engineer's Report
Senior Engineer Jules reviewed the dates selected at the last meeting for the Palos
Verdes Drive East Workshops:
~Wednesday,July 15,2009,7:00 p.m.at Miraleste Intermediate School
~Thursday,July 23,2009,7:00 p.m.at City Hall Community Room
~Saturday,August 1,2009,10:00 a.m.at Miraleste Intermediate
Senior Engineer Jules noted in her Staff Report that the Traffic Safety Commission
anticipates that these workshops would be informal and designed to be information-
gathering sessions.She recalled that the Commission decided to hold all the
workshops along Palos Verdes Drive East,but there were some scheduling conflicts for
the July 23 workshop.Tentatively she has it scheduled at City Hall until she can
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 27 of 441-10
confirm that Miraleste Intermediate is available that evening.Her report outlined a
sample agenda for the workshops as follows:
1.Opening Remarks by Staff (describing the project/problem)
2.Breakout sessions
3.Display boards/visuals
4.Comment Cards to be submitted to Traffic Safety Commission or Staff for
compilation
Commission Questions of Staff
Commissioner Swank suggested that the City Hall Community Room might be good
because it would draw people from other areas.
Chair Kramer pointed out that the Community Room might not be big enough.He
suggested looking into scheduling Hesse Park for that meeting.
Senior Engineer Jules will confirm at Hesse Park if it is available.She suggested that,
since they have options,perhaps they could hold one meeting at Miraleste,one at
Hesse Park,and one meeting at PVIC if the schedule allows.
Commissioner Parfenov said he personally thinks having it at Miraleste would be
beneficial because residents might be more inclined to attend a location closer to home.
Chair Kramer agreed that it is beneficial to have the majority of the workshops on that
side of the Peninsula since residents there are most affected.
Commissioner Nejad agreed with that.
Chair Kramer commented on the discussion of dividing Palos Verdes Drive East into
segments and having a concentration on one segment for each workshop.
Senior Engineer Jules confirmed that is correct and explained that they would work out
the details at this meeting.She referred to the posted map of the entire length of Palos
Verdes Drive East,and suggested dividing it into three segments and each segment
would correspond with each meeting.
Chair Kramer questioned whether they want to divide it into thirds specifically along the
linear length of the roadway,or does it make more sense to look at it more from the type
of roadway.For example,the switchbacks up to Marymount College,specifically
encompassing Ganado,he thinks that a whole lot has to happen there.Even though it
is a small percentage of the overall roadway,it might be wise to devote an entire
meeting just to that section.
Senior Engineer Jules agreed because the issues are specific to that stretch of the
corridor.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 28 of 441-11
Chair Kramer suggested dividing the remainder of Palos Verdes Drive East in half.
Senior Engineer Jules suggested cutting it at San Ramon.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested cutting it off at Calle Aventura.
Commissioner Swank asked,if they divide it that way,does it preclude people who
cannot make it to the other two meetings from commenting on other areas of Palos
Verdes Drive East.She believes the Commission should provide the opportunity for
attendees to comment on the entire roadway.
Chair Kramer agreed,and suggested the meeting should be focused on a particular
section of roadway,especially in terms of Staff Report;however,they cannot restrict
public comments and that would provide an opportunity for those who want to talk about
other segments of Palos Verdes Drive East.He agreed with Commissioner Parfenov
that the first section should be cut off at Calle Aventura.He suggested that the second
section should be Calle Aventura to beyond Miraleste near the Library at Clevis Road.
The third segment would begin at Clevis Road and go north to the City Limit near
Conestoga.The next question is,which segment of roadway should be assigned to
which workshop.Chair Kramer suggested putting the Palos Verdes Drive South to
Calle Aventura (Segment 1)at the first meeting on July 15 so they would have an
opportunity to revisit that.The July 23 meeting would focus on Calle Aventura to Clevis
(Segment 2).The August 1 meeting would focus on Clevis to Conestoga (Segment 3).
Chair Kramer suggested discussing how the meetings should run.
Senior Engineer Jules suggested first talking about notification.She reported that
Public Works has a budget for this;all methods normally used for notification are
listserv,the website,and direct mail.Staff has huge signs that state the basics such as,
there is a meeting that will be held regarding traffic issues in this community;it provides
the option to add the day,date,time,and location of the meeting.
Chair Kramer asked if the URL for the website is shown on those signs.
Senior Engineer Jules responded no;that it was over six years ago that the signs were
prepared,but that does not prevent staff from creating a placard to post the web
address.
Chair Kramer explained that his thought is that,unless drivers get out of their car and
write down the information,they would not be able to read the specifics;whereas,if they
have a website they can go home and find all the information.
Commissioner Swank asked if the City is required by law to post notice in the
newspaper.In addition,she asked if the Traffic Safety Commission is under the Brown
Act when they hold the workshops.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 29 of 441-12
Senior Engineer Jules responded yes they would be bound by the Brown Act.Staff
would post the meeting as they usually do for the regular meetings.
Commissioner Swank suggested contacting Palos Verdes News saying that there will
be a meeting and see if they will do an article on it.
Chair Kramer agreed,and suggested asking the newspapers if they can publicize the
workshops ahead of time,send a reporter to the meetings,and a report on progress
might be beneficial.
Commissioner Nejad asked if staff has locations in mind for the signs.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that they do not.
Commissioner Nejad suggested putting them at stop signs to give drivers an opportunity
to get closer to them.He commented that Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes
Drive East would be great locations,or on Miraleste where traffic comes to a halt.
Senior Engineer Jules reported that the last time the Traffic Safety Commission did this
staff posted at Miraleste and Via Colin ita for the uphill traffic when drivers come to a
stop before turning onto Palos Verdes Drive East.They have two signs.
Commissioner Swank asked about posting signs in places other than Palos Verdes
Drive East;she believes this corridor affects the entire City.
Chair Kramer commented that Rolling Hills Estates has main intersections at Hawthorne
Boulevard,Crenshaw,and Palos Verdes Drive East,and they have very strict
restrictions on putting up banners.Banners must be specific dark green ink with no
other color,and permission must be obtained from the City of Rolling Hills Estates.The
banners are inexpensive,made from a canvas material,and it might be beneficial to
have one of those posted for the Tuesday night meeting.He would also like to see a
more prominent place on the website on the homepage;something specific,so that
people do not have to go through the Traffic Safety Commission site to get there.
Senior Engineer Jules will investigate the possibilities for Chair Kramer's suggestions.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested contacting specific groups such as the Equestrian
Committee,so they can send notices to their mailing list;also the cyclists and others.
Commissioner Swank commented that there is a Council meeting June 30 and under
Mayor's announcements,perhaps the Mayor could say that the Traffic Safety
Commission will be holding workshops on these dates.
Commissioner Nejad asked how far in advance they need to know.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 30 of 441-13
Senior Engineer Jules responded that sometimes they could get it on the schedule the
day before;if it is written up,she can give it to the City Manager to decide.
Commissioner Nejad suggested that the Commission wants to give people enough time
to plan ahead,and the same goes for the signs;at least a couple of weeks.
Chair Kramer asked if it makes sense to draft a letter to the three other cities,their
Mayors,Council,and Public Works Department;just to inform of this process,give them
the dates,and encourage them to participate.They can publicize it within their own
communities,particularly Rolling Hills whose residents use Palos Verdes Drive East
often.
Commissioner Swank suggested stating a goal,including a statement that the Traffic
Safety Commission is having these workshops and they hope to address "X"so the
Commission does not hear everything involving traffic safety in the entire City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
Commissioner Nejad agreed,saying if they do not,Marymount could come up again.
Chair Kramer proceeded to the agenda format and commented that the workshops
should be as informal as possible.There should be an opening presentation,a brief
introduction,then turn it over to staff,staff would give a targeted report on the area of
the roadway that is the focus of the evening,and then open it up for discussion,
depending on the number of people.If 100 people show up and want to speak,the
Traffic Safety Commission would have a difficult time giving everyone an opportunity to
speak,so they will have to play that by ear.
Commissioner Swank suggested that either the Mayor or a Council member introduce
the Chairman because this is part of the City Council goals and it shows that the City is
concerned and wants to address this issue.
Chair Kramer stated that if the Mayor or any City Council member wants to be there,
absolutely,but it is not mandatory of course.His understanding is that it is the task of
the Traffic Safety Commission to be the forerunner on this;they gather the information
and provide a report to Council,so they do the legwork for them,but they are certainly
welcome.
Senior Engineer Jules asked if,in the event they have 100 plus attendees,the
Commissioners think it would be a good idea to implement a postcard-type comment
submission as opposed to speaking.
Chair Kramer responded that it is a great idea.Residents could write down their
comments,send them in;the Traffic Safety Commission would also encourage e-mails
as public input.He suggested that would also be good to have in the Commission's
general notification;state that if someone could not attend one of these meetings,they
encourage people to send an e-mail or write to the Commission at City Hall.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 31 of 441-14
Commissioner Klatt asked if there would be a time restriction on presentations.
Chair Kramer responded yes;if they have a large turnout,there would have to be time
limits.He explained that he would like to leave time to digest some of the comments
made,and then have an opportunity for the Commission and staff to comment on
suggestions,ask questions,and have some discussion at the workshop.The
Commission does not have much time outside of the workshops;they have their regular
meetings,but only so much time to devote to these comments.He would like some
time to discuss some of the specific recommendations while they are fresh in their
minds at that meeting.
Senior Engineer Jules asked about the possibility of having breakout groups or sessions
where paper is overlaid on the section of roadway,two or three Commissions as well as
community could look over and make notes.That is her idea of a workshop,but does
not know if it is appropriate if they have 100 plus people.
Chair Kramer explained that his concern is being cognizant of the Brown Act.If they
have more than two Commissioners huddled together,his understanding is that would
be a violation.
Commissioner Swank said she likes visuals and suggested putting the roadway
segment on the wall and attendees could make notes on the display.
Commissioner Nejad suggested numbering areas and asking people to write comments
on paper and identify the number of the corresponding area.That would be more
legible and easier to track than having people writing on the map.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested callouts on the map,suggesting that it is less formal
and some people do not want to speak in front of a group.He agreed that e-mails
should be encouraged.He also suggested that having two Commissioners per table
with three tables would not violate The Brown Act.
Commissioner Swank referred to breakout sessions with the open space issues,and
her opinion was that she did not think the breakout sessions worked.The City Council
was there,there were probably 100 people there,and they had volunteers who did the
note taking of the people.Her experience was that the person taking the notes did not
write down everything,they wrote down what they wanted,and that was the problem
there.She commented that this would alleviate the problem of the Brown Act.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested that it would be worth having residents write their
comments because that is the physical evidence.
Commissioner Nejad commented that the only problem is how many people will show
up and want to write on the map;the Commission needs an alternative route in case
they get too many people and they all want to write on the map.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 32 of 441-15
Senior Engineer Jules suggested,in response to a suggestion of multiple copies,that
they have ten or twenty copies and at the very end,staff would collect them all.One
recommendation was that the writer could put their last name in a bubble next to their
comment,staff can track it,make sure it is addressed,and would know the originator of
the comment.
Commissioner Nejad asked if that means staff would contact the person in the future if
staff has questions.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that often times people want to know that their
comments are being included,so if staff compiles all the sheets and the comments are
identifiable by the commenter,it can be on a spreadsheet and subsequently distributed
or included in the document to City Council.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested pre-setting the bubbles and letting people draw the
line so that there is only a line for the name and a comment;he asked if it is mandatory
to put the names there,because some people might not want to be identified.
Senior Engineer Jules responded no,that it is not mandatory.
Chair Kramer referred to keeping the meeting informal.He suggested a semi-formal
presentation,and then split into groups in three areas;if they were at Hesse Park for
example,they could have one in the room,one in the hallway,and one in another room
down the hallway so the noise level does not get too high.There would be one or two
Commissioners and one or two staff members with each group and have a roundtable
discussion with input from attendees.He is picturing himself surrounded by this group
with everyone throwing ideas,and he does not want to be a note taker,he wants to be
able to understand and digest.If they have this type of piece of paper being considered
with many copies so people can make notes,send e-mails;he is throwing this out as a
suggestion and wonders how that might work.
Senior Engineer Jules stated that she likes that and it is what she is thinking,but she
would not recommend that the Commissioners serve as note takers;she would solicit
the note takers from staff.Then the Commissioners can discuss,listen,deliberate,and
exchange ideas and it is staff's job to write down the details and transcribe.
Chair Kramer commented it would be worthwhile to do some of that,but he would also
like to put the burden on the citizens making the comment.It is one thing for them to
just shout out something;it is another thing to take their good idea and put is on a piece
of paper.
Senior Engineer Jules said she views it as dynamic,as both of those things happening,
so the commenter would make their bubbles,draw their lines,put their initials,and
probably talking or not.Then she sees staff looking over their shoulders with a notepad
making notes.The documentation would be in two places,not only on the paper,but on
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 33 of 441-16
notes as well.People could talk and say things that they do not necessarily write on the
paper.With the notes,they can capture the essence of the comment,which might be
more descriptive.
Commissioner Nejad suggested picturing that;suppose that they get 100 people,they
have three different groups,and there would be approximately 30 people at each table.
That would be a challenge.
Commissioner Swank suggested going with five groups.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that five groups would be her recommendation;five
stations with one Commissioner at each station.
Chair Kramer asked if there would be adequate staff to handle that.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that they would get enough staff.
Commissioner Swank asked if the intention is to reduce the number of speakers.
Chair Kramer said that would be the result;they need to be in groups for a specific
period,reconvene,and talk a little about the main things the Commissioners heard and
digested.More importantly,after the first workshop,he would like to discuss how that
format worked for the Commission,and they can make a decision at that time whether
to continue that format or try something else at the next workshop.He asked if Sgt.
Creason anticipates being a participant in these workshops and encouraged him to do
so.
Sgt.Creason responded that he would except for the first one when he will be on
vacation.
Chair Kramer asked if Deputy Knox would be around.
Deputy Knox responded that he would.
Chair Kramer asked Deputy Knox to share his thoughts based on this discussion on
how he might fit into this workshop.
Sgt.Creason responded that he and Deputy Knox would be available to answer
questions.
Commissioner Swank commented that she does not anticipate this being about
enforcement issues with everyone.
Sgt.Creason responded that he anticipates there might be some questions about
collision histories and that type of thing.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 34 of 441-17
Chair Kramer explained that he is thinking about Palos Verdes Drive East and Ganado,
brainstorming about what they can do to improve that,and not simply rely on
enforcement as they are doing now because it has limited success.Commissioner Klatt
asked if there is a way to create a videotape of driving the roadway in both directions
and put that on a monitor during the meeting and rolling it in a loop to provide a virtual
drive along the roadway.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that they have a video already,and she will double
check with Miraleste Intermediate about the IT setup.Several years ago,they had
some challenges with their auditorium,but she will reconfirm.
Chair Kramer suggested that the video be edited and divided into the three segments
the Commission selected to avoid haVing to wait until getting to the other end of Palos
Verdes Drive East before it comes around again.He asked if that sounds like a
reasonable format for the evening.They start together,have a presentation,break into
as many groups as they can support depending on the size of the participation,
reconvene at a specific time,have a discussion period,and decide the next step.Under
that format,they do not have a formal public hearing where they have a timer,speakers,
podiums,and things like that.
Senior Engineer Jules said that is correct,they will not.
Commissioner Parfenov asked if,during the wrap up after the discussion,the meeting is
still open to the public to stay and listen to the deliberations.
Chair Kramer said absolutely it is open to the public.He asked if,at that point,the
Commission then wants to open the meeting up to further public input.He summarized
that the workshop starts at 7:00 p.m.,allocate half an hour for the presentation,group
tabletop workshop sessions from 7:30 p.m.to 8:30 p.m.,reconvene at 8:30 p.m.for
discussion,and open it up for public comments at 9:30 p.m.That would give another
opportunity for people who did not talk during tabletop discussions.
Commissioner Swank agreed because some people will arrive late.
Commissioner Nejad commented that some people want to make sure their voice is
heard.The Commission needs to gauge it to see how much time they want to give
each speaker depending on the number of people in the audience;one minute,two
minutes,three minutes,that decision must be made then to determine the time
allocation for each speaker.
Chair Kramer explained he would hope by that time they would have a small number of
people who feel that they need to speak.
Commissioner Nejad said he is hearing from people;they are emotional about it and
they do want to speak about it to the whole group.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 35 of 441-18
Commissioner Klatt suggested that comments would be made after the first group of
speakers and that will start more discussion when people from the workgroups hear
something that is important to them after the workgroup discussions.
Commissioner Swank explained that the Commission's purpose is to gather more
information,and any method they can use to get that information is valuable.
Assistant Engineer Murphy suggested making it clear to people that they do not have to
stay until the end if they already made their point,and the purpose is to get many types
of discussion going.
Chair Kramer asked if everyone agrees that the Commission should have many
different opportunities for people to speak,so they do the tabletop,reconvene,and then
open it up for public comment.
Commissioner Swank added,plus the cards the attendees can send in.
Chair Kramer agreed and explained that e-mails and everything else are essentially
offline,beyond the workshop,and would fall into the category of late correspondence for
the next meeting,and asked if that is correct.If someone submitted a postcard at the
meeting,staff could copy that,e-mail it to the Commissioners,they could review it for
the next workshop,and it could go into the Staff Report,but the postcards would most
likely not be reviewed on the night they are submitted.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that is correct.
Commissioner Nejad asked if one week is enough for the staff to process all the
information that is received.
Chair Kramer explained that he is not expecting a detailed Staff Report for the second
Workshop summarizing the first workshop.He does not believe there is a need for that.
Senior Engineer Jules agreed.
Commissioner Swank suggested the Commission might need another meeting in
August because they have the Technology Report on August 24,which must be
finalized for the Council.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that the Commission is meeting on July 27,2009.
Chair Kramer explained that is correct unless they decide to skip that.That is a
Commission meeting and is not part of this workshop.The Commission's question is:
Within that format,do they want to have this tabletop discussion,reconvene,and then
have a more formal public comment session.
Senior Engineer Jules responded yes.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 36 of 441-19
Commissioner Parfenov commented that they want to give people an opportunity to
speak,but some people might write on the map and that would be sufficient for them to
voice their concerns.In terms of getting all the late correspondence to the Commission,
he suggested that could be done at the end when everything is over.For example if
staff receives four or five e-mails presented for July 15 he does not think it is necessary
in his opinion for staff to give a report on them to the Commissioners in one week by
July 23.The data could be provided as part of the package at the end when the
Commission discusses Palos Verdes Drive East comprehensively.
Chair Kramer opened the Public Hearing.
Tom Redfield,31273 Ganado Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,noted that he represents
the Revival and Renaissance Coalition and he supports the staff recommendation.Mr.
Redfield commented that he is very appreciative that the Council has this as a topic for
Rancho Palos Verdes goals;secondly,this project can be as big as the Commission
wants it to be or it can be going through the motions,and whoever shows up during
vacation time will show up.His impression is that Palos Verdes Drive East is the
biggest single project in Rancho Palos Verdes history as far as streets,roads,and all
the related issues,and is the worst designed piece of junk the Council ever dumped on
anybody,with its extraordinary dangers and complications.Mr.Redfield explained that
Director Bell gave an answer to the City Council a few months ago about what the
Council thinks the cost would be to do a "write up".He has not heard that the estimate
has changed from possibly $14 million dollars.Mr.Redfield stated that the Traffic
Safety Commission would have to do this right and have effective workshops and
suggested that summertime is the worst time for workshops with vacations and other
events.If the Traffic Safety Commission wants to make this as big as the Council wants
to make it,and if the Commission agrees that Palos Verdes Drive East is the toughest
challenge,he suggests that they contact the newspapers.The reporters at the
Peninsula News and the Daily Breeze could write massive articles and publicize them
as they did on Marymount for example.The public could be asked to submit their
written concerns and thoughts in advance so the Commission has a chance to sort
through the issues.He suggested other sources such as doing a video for Channel 33
as they did for Terranea and Trump;the Commission must think about how much help
they can get.
Mr.Redfield referred to the segments and said he thinks it is a mistake to break Palos
Verdes Drive East up at Calle Aventura because Senior Engineer Jules and Traffic
Engineer Rydell have done much work over the years.He thinks it would be helpful to
the groups if they were given some areas on which to focus and comment.He gave an
example of what will happen:Residents want a stop sign at Palos Verdes Drive East
and Ganado,and there will be many people jumping up and down;unless the Coalition
is wrong,the State would not allow the City to put a stop sign on that steep,blind,
dangerous,short curve.Assuming that is correct,the Commission might want to share
some information with the public to avoid impossible requests,for example,that speed
limits cannot be changed every 15 or 25 feet;it is a half mile.Therefore,Senior
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 37 of 441-20
Engineer Jules and the experts broke it up into half-mile sections.One of the issues
would be not to stop at Calle Aventura since the wide stretch is a key part of the
Marymount section.
Chair Kramer explained that he was trying to get to the end of that wide stretch,and
asked Mr.Redfield where he would recommend that segment be ended.
Mr.Redfield responded,wherever it narrows.
Deputy Knox stated that it ends at Diamonte Lane.
Mr.Redfield explained that Senior Engineer Jules and Traffic Engineer Rydell studied
this area and the plan was to make the narrow road wide and just two lanes because
when Marymount students and others come up that hill and they have people driving 35
to 40 mph and it is like a speedway.Deputy Knox gets half his tickets because drivers
are going 70 to 80 mph to get there before that person following the law.He suggested
that there are many good ideas that staff have already developed.He commented on
the Ganado intersection,saying that it is a nightmare and many serious accidents are
not reported because there is no injury.The thought is that the Commission would add
that wide stretch;do not cut it in the middle,because it is really an integral part of the
problem coming up from the switchbacks.
Chair Kramer commented that is a good point and was his intent.He explained that
when going northbound on Palos Verdes Drive East and past Marymount College,there
is a flat wide straight section there.His intent for changing the meeting there was where
it narrows down,and Diamonte Lane might be a better delineation than Calle Aventura.
Mr.Redfield explained that the section that narrows down is more or less homogeneous
except one chunk and the biggest challenge.He suggested that the Commission might
want to separate that area and have another meeting,because there are many people
who want traffic signals at the intersection,and they need them for a couple of hours a
day because the school is a nightmare in the afternoon.There is no solution.There is
Miraleste Drive,Miraleste Hills coming up,the school,the library,and the prep school.
Even though it does not deal with this portion per se,the Commission might want to get
feedback from the Sheriff and their helpers to direct traffic there during those peak
hours.He suggested that the Commission might want to get some thoughts out to the
public because they might have a riot if many people attend.The rest of that segment
is winding and narrow all the way down to the City Limits or Palos Verdes Drive North to
the reservoir,but the Miraleste Drive chunk is unbelievable.
Chair Kramer closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Kramer thanked Mr.Redfield for his comments.He asked Senior Engineer Jules
about changing the delineation for their first and second meetings from Calle Aventura
to Diamonte Lane.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 38 of 441-21
ner Swank asked if the r
ineer Jules responded y
correctly.
ler clarified that the agE
>rkshop and the Com"
I that the July 27 Comn
3y would have to decie
not.
~KEN:
)ner Klatt moved to ap
IS follows:
Inesday,July 15,2009,
rsday,July 23,2009,7
Irday,August 1,2009,
1.Staf
2.Tabl
3.Con
4.Pub
5.Fins
by Commissioner SWl
)n Discussion
er clarified that the Moti
ation for July 23,2009 \
ner Klatt reported that I
ner Parfenov reported .
Ind possibly from the Jl
~omment about summe
n.
Senior Engineer Jules supported that.
Commissioner Parfenov supported the change.
Chair Kramer asked what the deadline is for the City Council on the revie
Verdes Drive East.
Senior Engineer Jules reported that it is December 31,2009.
Chair Kramer concurred that summertime might not be the best time for the
suggested that they might want to have additional public comments after thE
the workshops go and before they make their final recommendations t
Council.
Mr.Redfield suggested that the Commission contact all the Presidel
homeowners'associations and get feedback.
Chair Kramer asked what type of presentation staff will make during the worl
whether staff has had an opportunity to study these issues and "
recommendations at this point.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that staff is in a fact-finding mode but they
conceptual report that was completed by the consultant.Staff has ;
information,she will be inviting the consultant to do the technical port
presentation,and she is confident that this can be done.Council has gi
Works the goal and they intend to meet it,even if it means that staff
preliminary report.A recommendation could be that the Traffic Safety C
would like to hold more workshops when schools open.She does not ,
scared away from meeting the goal.
Chair Kramer reviewed the workshop agenda that would include a pr
tabletop discussions,Commission discussion,public forum,and possit
Commission discussion after that.He explained that the Commission doe:
timing tonight,but suggested thinking about how much time the staff and
need for the initial presentation.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that she would gauge that and let the C
know,but staff plans to keep it brief.
Commissioner Parfenov referred to the visuals suggesting that the maps she
out and asked if they would be provided by the consultant.
Senior Engineer Jules responded yes the consultant would provide the maps.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested the maps should be at least 24"x 36"so
are visible.
Traffic Safety Com
1-22
Chair Kramer explained that when the Commission reviewed the calendar they had to
consider the deadlines for submission to the City Council and it was necessary to
schedule the workshops in the summer.
Assistant Engineer Murphy suggested that people who are on vacation could always
write to the Commission or staff.
Commissioner Swank commented that depending on the comments received,the
Commission might want to schedule a September meeting.
Chair Kramer pointed out that there would only be four Commissioners present at the
July 15,2009 meeting since Commissioner Klatt would be absent,so they should only
plan on four tabletop presentations at that time.
Motion approved:
Ayes 5,Nays 0
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1.Fourth of July Activities Report
Senior Engineer Jules presented slides showing pictures of dr ogos for "Share
the Road"to be used on buttons for participants and staff 0 e day of the event,
the buttons will be courtesy of the docents,it will be a ared responsibility with
the City helping with production and volunteers om the docents helping
fabricate the buttons.The preferred logo with s't modification would include
the City logo behind the words "Share the Roa '.
Chair Kramer asked if it is clear from j the logo that it is the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes,or does that need to be ore explicit.
Senior Engineer Jules respond that if that means adding the words Rancho
Palos Verdes she would say ,this is a button.
Commissioner Parfenov mmented that he likes the one on the left because the
City logo is more visi ,unless the City logo is brought out to the right of the
button proposed.
Senior Engine Jules explained that the final will show the City logo larger and
the brightne will be increased,similar to the one that Commissioner Parfenov
is referrin 0 on the left.The "Share the Road"might be dimmed or shaded
that the City logo stands out.The Commissioners expressed support
for th esign described.Senior Engineer Jules explained that there would be a
ski anner hung with the same design,and it could be used throughout the year
or ture years for any events the Traffic Safety Commission has such as public
treach activities.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
June 22,2009
Page 41 of441-23
Senior Engineer Jules responded th ere is expense associated with it and there are
criteria for installation of guardra',ut staff can definitely look into it.
agenda is for audience comments for items not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
1.PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Recommendation:
Review the public comments and Draft Conceptual report submitted for the Palos
Verdes Drive East Safety Improvement Project.
Senior Engineer Jules introduced Ruth Smith,Traffic Engineer and Project Manager
from Willdan,who attended the first workshop at Marymount College and authored the
Palos Verdes Drive East Preliminary Conceptual Report that the Commission and staff
have received.Senior Engineer Jules explained that Traffic Engineer Smith will give a
brief synopsis of the preliminary report and reported that the goal for this meeting is to
review the report to receive comments,questions,and concerns from the
Commissioners and suggestions for areas of improvement for anything missing from the
report.Staff will also review the summary of public comments for feedback.Staff's goal
is to get directions from the Commission regarding how they can improve on what staff
has done thus far.Staff will then bring this item back for a final draft before it goes to
the City Council for a presentation in January if they can meet that goal and,if not,in
February.Senior Engineer Jules suggested that January is an appropriate time,
considering what the Commission will accomplish during the holiday schedule,
explaining that the Commission will consider an Informational Item to review the
calendar and their'objectives.
Traffic Engineer's Report
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that this is part of an effort to develop a multi-modal
corridor for Palos Verdes Drive East to serve all the different types of transportation
such as vehicles,bicycles,pedestrians,and equestrians,which has not been done in
the past but the need for it has been recognized.This is an effort to examine and
evaluate the existing conditions through traffic counts,investigating available rights-of-
way,and assessing what is needed such as bicycle lanes,sidewalks,and equestrian
trails.This is very preliminary but this report is prepared to give the City something to
start with to determine where to focus their attention and then develop a comprehensive
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 6 of 531-24
analysis,design,and implementation.The first step was a Palos Verdes Drive East
Early Action Report in 2008,and that report was to address immediate issues such as
accidents,alignment,collisions,and guardrails,particularly in the switchbacks,and to
solve other immediate problems.The Palos Verdes Drive East Preliminary Conceptual
Report was then built on the Early Action Report.Staff did traffic counts at various
locations,equestrian counts,bicycle,and pedestrian counts at various times on
weekends and weekdays for comparison purposes.This information helped determine
what is needed.It became clear from the accident data that there is much activity
around the schools and they seem to be where the primary improvement is needed in
addition to the high accident area at Bronco.Staff also looked at the General Plan
Circulation Element and the Conceptual Trails Plan,which focuses on equestrians and
pedestrians,and Palos Verdes Drive East is one of the primary roadways included in
that plan.The plan indicates that north of Miraleste would involve mostly equestrian
and pedestrian.South of Miraleste would involve pedestrians,no equestrians,and
provisions for bike lanes.The plan includes recommendations for lists of paths and
walkways and staff developed recommendations for trail design standards of five feet
for sidewalks,four feet for the trails,and six feet for clearance for the equestrian trails.
It did not include bike lanes,but bike lanes vary in range from three feet to eight feet
and Traffic Engineer Smith stated that she thought three feet was too narrow,especially
with the roadway and curbs.She recommended five feet and said that eight feet would
be the best,but there is not enough room.
Traffic Engineer Smith reported that staff used the GIS (Geographic Information
Systems)on the entire length of Palos Verdes Drive East and found the right-of-way.
They inserted lines for potential bike lanes,sidewalks,and equestrians on both sides.
Staff is not recommending equestrians and sidewalks on both sides because the
Conceptual Trails Plan does not recommend that;the Plan recommends that
equestrians and sidewalks be only on one side.Staff found that there is enough right-
of-way to make these improvements.The problem is in the terrain,which does not
necessarily support the improvements.The City asked that staff identify both the areas
where improvements are feasible,so that something could be done immediately.Staff
will identify areas where improvements could be done with some effort and not a whole
lot of cut and fill where there is fairly level ground on both sides to widen the roadway.
When she talks about widening the roadway,Traffic Engineer Smith explained that she
means widening the right-of-way,but not widening the pavement to accommodate the
vehicles,because it is 12 feet in each direction,occasionally wider.The idea is to start
with 12 foot lanes in each direction and add five feet on each side for the bicycle lanes,
resulting in 34'of pavement;then adding five feet on one side for sidewalk and adding a
minimum of six feet for equestrians for a total of 45 feet.Traffic Engineer Smith
explained that the narrowest available right-of-way was 50 feet wide;they could fit
everything in,and it is just a matter of accommodating it.In some areas,there could be
sidewalks on both sides and she would recommend that in some locations,and
equestrians might want space on both sides.Those things would be determined in the
comprehensive study.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26.2009
Page 7 of 531-25
Senior Engineer Jules explained that staff faces one challenge despite the fact that
there is plenty of roadway room.There is an extreme amount of encroachment along
Palos Verdes Drive East where there are private improvements in the public right-of-
way and staff will have to deal with that.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that that aspect came up in some of the public
comments.Based on all the information,staff identified areas referred to Conditions 1,
2,3,and 4,and Traffic Engineer Smith reviewed the conditions.
Condition 1 -The pavement is wide enough already and staff could just stripe and re-
stripe it and install bike lanes.Considering what is feasible,it might not be a popular
thing to do;people might have other ideas about what they want,but staff is saying this
is where this could be done.
Condition 2 -There is enough width to construct two bike lanes and a sidewalk with
minimal cut and fill,it would be more effort than the first but would not be very
expensive.
Condition 3 -The terrain is relatively steep,but it still might be feasible to install
improvements without impossible expense.
Condition 4 -Physical restrictions are so steep and so narrow it would be prohibitive to
widen the roadway to make it work.This is just a small section,about one-tenth of a
mile out of a six-mile length.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that improvements would be feasible along most of the
length.She reported that areas that appear to have the greatest needs are areas
where there is already some room around the college and the intermediate school.She
pointed out the color-coding on the map in the report.
•Condition 1 (blue)consists of one area near Miraleste Intermediate and another
near Marymount College.
•Condition 2 (green)consists of an area near the beginning of the roadway,
another area near the Library and north of the Library south of Mustang,and
another area north of Miraleste adjacent to the north of Condition 1.
•Condition 3 (plum)consists of the Bronco area,an area on the south side of
Miraleste near Marion Drive,and another at the switchbacks.
•Condition 4 is too narrow and steep to improve and it would be prohibitively
expensive to develop.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that the extreme encroachment is at the Condition 4
location;the right-of-way goes up to residents'front door.
Chair Kramer asked if that is north or south of Via Colin ita.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 8 of 531-26
Senior Engineer Jules described it as north of Via Colin ita and the houses are on the
east side.
Commissioner Swank asked if the encroachments are on City land.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it is City property up to the residents'front door
and she is almost positive that the encroachments happened before the City
incorporated.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that once staff identified the segments and what could
be done,staff prioritized them as to what and when improvements could be done as
shown on page 50 of the report;noting that,in theory,improvements should be done
simultaneously.Staff would prepare the design,re-design the striping,and re-stripe the
roadway;it would not be a lot of work and not that expensive to do.
Chair Kramer asked if the design would be done up front or one phase at a time.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that it is part of the comprehensive study and staff
would look at Condition 1 first because it would be easy to do and part of the design
establishes feasibility.Staff can estimate based on their observations but,until they do
surveys and have Civil Engineers review the areas,staff cannot say exactly what is
possible and what it would cost.The next step would be to design and possibly do a
preliminary design,saying the costs in the report are very rough estimates and are
based on many assumptions,but it gives the City some idea of what they are looking at
for some of the projects.In looking at Condition 1,staff decided that is something that
could be done immediately and,if they have the money,it should not be too expensive
to also re-stripe.After that,each of the other Conditions would be progressively more
expensive and would take more effort to design;the City can decide if they want to
design,do concept design,see what it involves,and then decide in what order and if the
improvements should be made,and she would recommend doing it that way.The City
might decide that some projects are not feasible or are too expensive.
Senior Engineer Jules referred to sequencing of the work and explained that the goal is
to create linkages and,from a City standpoint,staff wants to make an improvement that
enhances and adds to a link.Staff would not want to do a bike lane followed by nothing
followed by a bike lane;staff would strategically implement some of the improvements.
That might mean that striping a bike lane might be affordable.If Public Works were a
recipient of grant money that would allow staff to implement a Condition 2,they would
prefer to do a Condition 2 combined with a Condition 1 as long as it feeds into the
creation of the link.There is a strategy behind all the recommendations.Staff already
knows there is a five-year CIP (Capital Improvement Program)that is approved,they
already know,program-wise,which streets are being resurfaced.Staff has Miraleste
Drive programs,portions of Palos Verdes Drive East programs;they might decide to
forego resurfacing a section of the roadway for the greater benefit of implementing
portions of this plan,so there is some give and take,but they will use this plan as a
blueprint to help staff strategize all of their improvements.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 9 of 531-27
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that the Commission can see from the Condition
numbers that one is adjacent to another;the same idea of trying to extend the links,
especially for bike lanes,not stopping and starting.
Commissioner Klatt asked if staff is recommending that both of the improvements in
front of the college be done first where there are two segments in one.
Senior Engineer Jules responded affirmatively.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that the City has their own strategy,especially when
it comes to funding;that staff might delay and just do it all at once,which makes it less
expensive,is less disruptive to the public,and completes a longer link.She commented
that as the terrain gets more difficult,the cost goes up.She referred to page 58 of the
report containing the estimated costs,stating that the cost for Conditions 1 through 4
totals $1.4 million for that segment when the design and construction are done together.
Of everything staff looked at within the special interest area,one of the favorite places is
the segment between Miraleste Intermediate School and Miraleste Drive and,looking
back on this,she suggested that staff could have done more with that.For that area,
they are recommending bike lanes between Via Canada and Miraleste because that is
where the children go to Miraleste after school every day and many comments were
received on that segment of roadway. The pedestrians are a real problem for motorists,
especially since there is no signal at Miraleste,but staff will look at that later.Staff
considered installing roundabouts or traffic circles,especially at the five-legged
intersection,but that was too long to install a roundabout.Staff examined where
Crownview Drive comes into Palos Verdes Drive East and considered a roundabout or
a small traffic circle,but it is too small for a roundabout and too big for a traffic circle.
She was frustrated that they could not come up with a better way to handle that
intersection,but staff is recommending a high-visibility crossing.The Federal and State
guidelines have new rules for signs for pedestrian crosswalks so they need to be
upgraded and the City could do that quickly if they wanted to.She is also
recommending high-visibility crosswalks from the point of view of making them more
ladder-striped and more visible,although she found that drivers do not see the
crosswalks;drivers see the people in the crosswalks.Most drivers cannot see
crosswalks very well and people step out thinking a magic line will protect them and it
does not,and the car wins every time.She suggested that ladder-striped crosswalks
are slightly easier to see,they do stand out more for the motorist,and that might make it
more helpful for the motorists.The new signs are actual signs right at the crosswalk
with arrows that point to the crosswalk and are much more visible than the signs used in
the past.
Commissioner Nejad commented that he has seen the new crosswalks in downtown
Los Angeles;they are colorful,bright,and visible.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that it depends on the paint used,but agreed that
things could be done to make them more visible to drivers.She suggested that the
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 10 of 531-28
biggest concern is controlling the children,and she does not know that they can,but
they can do things that help guide them across the street.
Chair Kramer asked if there is a Crossing Guard during school rush hours.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that there is a Traffic Controller,not a Crossing
Guard.
Sgt.Creason explained that she is a civilian employee.
Commissioner Parfenov clarified that she is stationed between Via Canada and Palos
Verdes Drive East north of Miraleste.
Chair Kramer asked if the Traffic Controller is present in both the morning and
afternoon.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that there is concrete sidewalk on the west side of
Palos Verdes Drive East and staff is recommending putting sidewalks on both sides to
encourage people to walk to school.They would extend sidewalks above the school up
to Colt.At Miraleste,a traffic signal could be installed;the City wanted staff to consider
installing a traffic circle or a roundabout,which they did.Without doing a survey of the
area it is very difficult to develop a good design;the one staff came up with is big
because the two legs of Miraleste are so far apart there is a huge median between
them.There are different approach angles and it gets very complicated so what is
presented is a very rough draft.The traffic circle is huge,it goes into the hillside,which
is steep,and staff is recommending preparing a more detailed design if they decide to
install it.
Chair Kramer pointed out an area on the map within the traffic circle.He described the
possibility that a driver going downhill southbound at a reasonable rate of speed might
want to make a left turn onto Miraleste Drive from within the traffic circle.Typically,the
vehicle within the circle has the right-of-way.What occurred to him is that there is very
little time to hear a car approaching from the other direction,and the approaching car
would assume that the other vehicle would proceed through the circle.When the
vehicle suddenly makes this turn,that area could become a dangerous point.
Traffic Engineer Smith agreed that it is possible,and stated that she is not thrilled with
this design.She explained that she is not sure if staff wants to put more time into it to
make it right because the terrain is so difficult.The widening on Miraleste makes it
more difficult because it is necessary to have particular angles for drivers to enter and
exit a traffic circle or a roundabout for it to work right and keep the speeds down.A
roundabout is iterative;the minute one thing is shifted,another is shifted,which is
another reason staff could not get a better design in the time available.
Chair Kramer asked if there is a reason why the median between the two Miraleste
Drive lanes could not be narrowed.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 11 of 531-29
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that it could be narrowed.Not understanding all the
ramifications,she was reluctant to suggest additional modifications to accommodate a
roundabout.Staff would have to do a certain amount of modification to achieve it and
she does not know if that would be acceptable.If the City wants to move forward with
this idea,those things would have to be investigated and discussed.
Commissioner Parfenov referred to the comment about the traffic signal,and asked if
that is a possibility.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that staff did not go into much detail and explained
that it does meet the warrants and it was already studied.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that it is the number one signal on the priority list.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that it is aT-intersection with a wide median so it is
like two different small intersections with southbound drivers turning left,but there are
not as many conflicts.She stated that it would be an interesting intersection to signalize
and it is a much more simple intersection.Some of the comments from residents
questioned that if a signal were installed it would only be used during the problem hours
three times a day when school is in session,and now the signal is running all the time.
Residents asked what would it be used for the rest of the day.She suggested it could
flash yellow,not her favorite solution,but there are alternatives.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested giving more green lights to traffic on Palos Verdes
Drive East and having them turn red when there is a certain amount of queuing on
Miraleste.He talked with the Traffic Controllers and the Principal at the school and from
his personal observation,he sees that the bottleneck does not happen at Via Canada
and Palos Verdes Drive East;it happens at Miraleste.Many people are going
southbound trying to make the left turn and,because there is not enough left-turn
pocket to make a left,people queue up on Palos Verdes Drive East and cause a
bottleneck,making it almost impossible to go through.In addition,there is a shopping
plaza.He stated that he does like roundabouts and thinks they are more efficient at
moving traffic through than a traffic signal at an intersection.However,in this situation
he leans toward a traffic signal,especially since it is number one on the signal priority
list.
Commissioner Nejad asked if Marymount is responsible for the traffic signal at this
intersection as part of the expansion project.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that Marymount was responsible for a fair share
contribution toward the cost of the signal as a mitigation of the project;now their project
is being re-defined and there might be new impacts associated with the cost,and the
Commission will hear that at a future meeting.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26.2009
Page 12 of 531-30
Commissioner Swank referred to roundabouts and said that it is fine if drivers and
pedestrians know what they are doing,but when tried in the United States,people did
not have a clue about how to handle them.The roundabouts create more of a hazard
than what is already there.She suggested being cautious about using them because
they are new.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that roundabouts are not as pedestrian friendly,
although pedestrians do cross one street at a time.They do have some issues,but the
City wanted to consider that possibility.
Commission Questions of Staff
Commissioner Parfenov referred to prioritizing the improvements proposed as
segments one through ten,addressing the lowest number first,but his concern is that,
from a financial standpoint,the City might not have the money for the most important
problems such as the intersection of Bronco,which is number 8 and the switchbacks,
which are number 10.He suggested looking at another prioritization from a fiscal
standpoint and considering cost overruns.Referring to Miraleste,Commissioner
Parfenov asked if staff considered the use of crosswalks with cobbles.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that cobbles are difficult to walk across in high heels
and are tough to maintain.These days a lot of work is made of stamped concrete
rather than bricks that break as in the past,but stamped concrete is tough to walk on,
especially in heels,and she believes it would also be difficult for handicapped people in
wheelchairs so she does not recommend that.She suggested making the crosswalks a
different color,being careful to still have two yellow or white lines,whichever is
applicable.She explained that many places have white concrete as well as crosswalk
lines,which are not reflective and people do not see them.Traffic Engineer Smith
suggested caution about going that direction where they have pretty colors and
concrete to the edge and then it is still not visible,particularly at night.
Commissioner Parfenov pointed out that the figures in the proposal are very nice.
Chair Kramer agreed with Commissioner Parfenov regarding prioritization and
suggested that rather than looking at the projects from the perspective of what is easiest
and least expensive first,perhaps they should instead consider where the City should
focus first on Palos Verdes Drive East,and asked how staff could achieve that.
Traffic Engineer Smith suggested going back to the accident locations and the public
comments and re-evaluate based on safety issues.In discussing things with the City
she keeps coming up against the problem that the City says to focus on issues one
through four,but maybe three really needs attention and it depends on what the City
would like to see and what would help staff and the Commission the most in developing
how to go forward.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 13 of 531-31
Senior Engineer Jules stated that the Traffic Safety Commission's priority is safety,not
cost.One of the reasons they looked at this corridor was because of the unsafe nature
of many of the features along the roadway.She reiterated that Public Works'number
one priority is safety coupled with the current CIP,where they can capitalize on
opportunities of improvements,coupled with other improvements.Staff knows that Cox
Cable is about to undertake major cabling along Palos Verdes Drive East.As a result of
the cabling staff will have to resurface the road so there is an opportunity there to get a
new roadway coupled with telecommunications improvements and,if the City can match
funds,maybe staff can install the sidewalks and bike lanes.She explained that safety is
first,opportunity is second,and coordination of linkages is next.That is how she is
looking at it unless the Commission thinks otherwise,but that is the order in which she
would like to approach the improvements.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that that makes sense.
Assistant Engineer Murphy commented that some solutions are good and not
expensive.
Commissioner Parfenov commented that there have been many accidents on Bronco
but it is listed as Phase 8.He understands that it might be expensive and might not
necessarily bring quick results,but this is where the accidents are,even though he
understands where Senior Engineer Jules is coming from.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that this report was drafted in February of this year
when she and Assistant Engineer Murphy were just onboard.Their philosophy has
changed since the initiation of this report so things will be added and modified for the
next go-around.She did not want Traffic Engineer Smith to spend energy modifying
this report for this meeting,absent the Commission's opportunity to weigh in,but from
staff's point of view there are things they know will be modified coupled with the
Commission's comments.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that staff is focusing on the multi-modal part of the
report tonight,trying to include bike lanes,sidewalks,and cost controls but going
forward,safety can and should be considered.
Commissioner Swank expressed appreciation for Senior Engineer Jules comments
about priorities and suggested that any future reporting list those types of priorities.She
asked why the Commissioners did not get the report before the workshops,saying that
she has a better understanding now and would have been better able to respond to
residents'questions.Commissioner Swank clarified that the memorandum from the
Traffic Safety Commission stating that Workshop #2 is scheduled for Monday,August
24,is incorrect;the Workshop was scheduled for August 1,and she asked that the
record show that because it had to be rescheduled to the 24 th •She explained that some
of the Commissioners made plans to attend on August 1 but knew they could not attend
on August 24,2009.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 14 of 531-32
Chair Kramer asked that the record show that the reason for rescheduling was the
death of Councilman Gardiner.
Commissioner Swank addressed several issues.She explained that the Conceptual
Trails Plan was prepared in 1993 and the PUMP (Public Use Master Plan)Committee
has reviewed all of the trails,not only in the Portuguese Bend Preserve,but some of the
trails go into Palos Verdes Drive East.She believes that Public Works should extract
that information from the Planning Department report because the PUMP Committee
spent two or three years preparing the report and she would like to see their
conclusions.She commented that the Commissioners and staff have all agreed that
school safety is important,emphasizing Miraleste Intermediate and Marymount College.
Regarding concrete sidewalks,Commissioner Swank asked if there is something
magical about concrete as opposed to granite sidewalks.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that there is higher maintenance with decomposed
granite trails as opposed to concrete sidewalks.
Commissioner Swank asked if there is a large difference in cost.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it could be;when decomposed granite trails are
designed and constructed staff often finds,especially with sites like PVIC (Point Vicente
Interpretive Center),which is adjacent to Terranea,that if there is a small glitch in the
design or construction,there are runoff problems.The City ends up with ruts in the
debris due to runoff resulting in removal of a section of the trail,re-installation and re-
compacting,whereas if they had a concrete sidewalk,it would not be an issue.
Commissioner Swank explained that the reason she asked is that the decomposed
granite is friendlier to pedestrians and dog walkers.It is easier to walk on and has a
rural aspect;concrete looks so structured.She understands the cost issue but thinks it
is something the City should consider.Regarding cyclists,Commissioner Swank stated
that her impression is that the Commission really pays attention to the cyclists and,
while they are important,she thinks pedestrian paths are equally important.The reason
some people do not use part of Palos Verdes Drive East is because there is no place
for them to walk.
Traffic Engineer Smith asked for opinions about having sidewalks on both sides of
Palos Verdes Drive East instead of just one side.
Commissioner Swank responded that she thinks having sidewalks on just one side is
fine as long as there is access to get from one side to the other if there is no
engineering reason for having just one side or if two are required.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that the sidewalk issue was raised in the trails study.
Many asphalt sidewalks of varying length stop and start.She would recommend
concrete because it is durable,it generally has a curb and gutter,and it protects
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 15 of 531-33
pedestrians from the traffic,although based on the recent accidents it might not make a
difference.
Commissioner Swank suggested that asphalt is dangerous because it breaks off and
can cause pedestrians to trip.She would rather have concrete.
Commissioner Nejad asked if staff figured out the cost,section-by-section,foot-by-foot,
or followed a general formula to come up with the totals.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that she did not do the estimates herself;they were
done by Civil Engineers who examined each of the segments,and she assumed that he
estimated for each segment to determine the total.She does not know what process he
used to arrive at that number.
Commissioner Nejad asked if there is an average cost overrun;for instance,if it would
cost $1 million,is there an average of a percentage over that.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that would be factored in the conclusion and the
numbers presented are rough estimates.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that it is usually 10%or 15%.
Chair Kramer commented that this report is not a design but just a rough concept.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that this report just gives an idea of the cost;whether
they are talking about millions of dollars,hundreds of thousands of dollars,or a few
thousand dollars so staff can start making plans for the future.
Commissioner Klatt reported that he has run out of questions and reiterated what other
Commissioners said and is glad that safety is the biggest concern.He expressed
surprise that someone considered a roundabout for the intersection at Palos Verdes
Drive East and Miraleste.He commented regarding the crosswalks and visibility issues,
and suggested overhanging flashing lights as he has seen in Redondo Beach.He does
not know the cost but these could be used,especially around the schools.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that her concern is that they are overhead and the
children are at ground level.The drivers could see the lights from a distance but they
are not focused on the children.The lights should only be on when the children are
crossing because drivers get used to them and start ignoring them.One nice thing is
that the lights are solar powered and do not require the expense of bringing power to
them.She likes the in-pavement crosswalk lights because they are down where drivers
will focus on what is in front of them.They are very effective,more so than overhead
flashing beacons.They can have timing;they are not quite as visible during the day as
at night.They must be property installed to be visible when approaching.The main
discussions about in-pavement crosswalk lights is detection;pedestrians push a button,
and in her mind that is not good because it is a crosswalk and traffic does not have to
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 16 of 531-34
stop if no one is in the crosswalk.At a traffic signal,traffic does not have to stop,but is
obligated if pedestrians are in a crosswalk.She prefers the type where pedestrians are
detected passively so that pedestrians are more careful when they cross the street.
Traffic Engineer Smith has seen pedestrians walk right up to the street,push the button,
and step right onto the street,commenting that they still have to allow the vehicles to
slow down and stop so she prefers the in-pavement crosswalks,but the pavement must
be in good shape or the lights do not stay in place.
Chair Kramer referred to sidewalks on one side of the street only and said that it is his
understanding that bike lanes must be installed on both sides of the road.He thinks
that is unfortunate because on the downhill side,bikes are traveling at traffic speed and
bike lanes are less needed,but are needed on the uphill side.He acknowledged that
the report is not a plan,but an evaluation.He commented,based on public comments,
that the areas where the road is very wide encourage speeding,specifically around
Miraleste Intermediate and Marymount College,and some of the discussions centered
on narrowing that road to two lanes.He asked if the Traffic Engineer Smith had any
thoughts about narrowing that road down from four lanes to two lanes.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that it would reduce the capacity of the roadway,
although it would allow staff to install some turn lanes.She is a big fan of left-turn
lanes,especially when there are so many driveways and side streets;she would rather
have a two-lane road with a left turn lane in the middle rather than four lanes without it
because it is so unsafe for everyone including pedestrians.It also provides more
roadway to do other things such as deceleration and acceleration lanes to help drivers
get on and off the roadway,especially around the college.
Chair Kramer agreed and does not think that the existing short four-lane section
currently is a long enough section to take a load off the street;it simply seems to let
drivers pass during that short period because they know it is narrowing down.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that she was surprised that the road has been that
way for forty years.
Chair Kramer referred to Traffic Engineer Smith's comment that the General Plan
addresses bike lanes south of Miraleste and equestrian trails north of Miraleste,but it
sounds to him that the overall plan would try to accommodate both on the entire length
of the roadway.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that that is what staff was asked to do;to look at a
multi-modal corridor rather than what was done in the past.
Chair Kramer mentioned the short problem area south of Miraleste where right-of-way
comes up to residents'doorway and stated it will be difficult to overcome that as well as
many other areas with the same problem.He asked if there is a recommendation now
about how to deal with that.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 17 of 531-35
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it would be a Council item;the only way she
could deal with it is to face the facts,give staff's recommendations,and let Council
make the decision because staff needs a policy on how to treat this problem.She
explained that this situation is causing many problems in Public Works.It puts them in
the middle;Public Works is given the task to make certain improvements and at the
same time,their hands are tied because of the encroachments.
Commissioner Nejad referred to comments that some of the encroachments existed
before the incorporation of the City.
Chair Kramer commented that they are long standing;people have probably been in
their houses for forty or more years and it has always been that way.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that the solution would be a combination of Council
action and City Attorney's office,and it will be a big deal.It must be couched in some
way with safety being the main consideration.
Commissioner Swank referred to Tarapaca,the landslide,and along the switchbacks.
She knows that is a priority of the current City Council,and candidates running for the
new City Council have listed the landslide or potential on Palos Verdes Drive East as
their number one priority.Anything the Traffic Safety Commission wants to do about
that roadway near the switchbacks at least must acknowledge that elephant and state
whether the Commission thinks that whatever they do will or will not affect the elephant.
Commissioner Swank referred to paragraph one on Page 4 of the report regarding the
City selling property.It is referred to as a Defacto trail.She asked if there is information
available regarding why the City sold the property.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that it is her understanding that someone wanted to
develop the property and that is all she knows.
Chair Kramer reported that it is a trail area.
Commissioner Swank explained that,being on the Equestrian Committee,she is aware
that there has been a furor over that,and she is prepared to answer the question.
Another reference is made about the sale in paragraph two on Page 16 of the report,
which states that the City sold the property to private development.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that Palos Verdes Drive East switchbacks are
nowhere near Sunnyside Ridge Road,and the report states,"This trail linked Palos
Verdes Drive East directly to Sunnyside Ridge Road ..."
Chair Kramer said that is incorrect;that it is a big area and he does not recall that there
is any opening from the street.
Commissioner Parfenov reported that it was an open field but now there is a house and
no trail.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 18 of 531-36
Senior Engineer Jules reported that the City has some issue with connectivity;there
were improvements in a backyard that prevented equestrians from going through,so
the City had to work with the property owners to get the area cleared.She explained
that this happened years ago.Staff will go back and research the area to figure out the
status and they will ensure that the document reflects current conditions.
Commissioner Parfenov stated that comments in the report and from the public
consistently report speeding,and if improvements will be made on this road,surfaces
would be paved and the road might look wider,and it might encourage speeding.It
might not if staff uses visually restrictive views,and staff would know better how to
control that.Speeding is his concern because of all the comments about it.He asked
about sharing the sidewalk and the equestrian path,referring to Senior Engineer Jules'
comments about runoff on a decomposed granite path.He suggested soft chopped
pieces of wood,which would be good for pedestrians,dog walkers,and equestrians,
and asked if staff has considered that as an alternative.He referred to his sketch,
which showed 28 feet of right-of-way northbound and 28 feet southbound and
commented that there is sometimes an issue with 56 feet running into the bottlenecks
where there is a right-of-way restriction.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that the curb-to-curb width would be 34 feet.
Commissioner Parfenov asked if that includes the sidewalk and the equestrian path.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that the two could be combined,but she was not sure
that was what the Commission wanted to do so she was giving the option of considering
the two separately.She confirmed that there is enough room there.
Commissioner Parfenov expressed appreciation to staff for considering his comments.
Chair Kramer thanked staff for an outstanding report.He recognized a consensus
among the Commissioners to redo the prioritizations of the plan and asked that it be
reflected here with safety being number one.He mentioned the specific high accident
locations such as Bronco,Ganado,and others,and stated that the Commission as a
group would recommend that they be prioritized as a number one issue.
Traffic Engineer Smith suggested updating the accident data because the report
indicates figures from 2006 and 2007.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that the grant application submitted a couple of weeks
contains accident data for five years.
Commissioner Swank asked if the Commission would have a chance to look at the
revised report.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26.2009
Page 19 of 531-37
Senior Engineer Jules responded yes,and explained that this document is
representative of this Commission.
Chair Kramer clarified that the document would be publicized and opened up for public
comment before it goes to City Council.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it is publicized now,this is the opportunity for
public comment,when it is revised it will also be the public's opportunity to comment,
and when it goes to Council the public will have an opportunity to comment.
Commissioner Swank questioned,if this report goes to the Council in January,when
would the Commission have an opportunity to look at the revised report.
Chair Kramer suggested saving that discussion for the scheduling item under
Informational Items.He suggested keeping in mind that this report is not an
engineering plan;it is a plan of attack to determine how they start the engineering plan.
Senior Engineer Jules agreed,explaining that the report is conceptual and preliminary;
an opportunity for staff to show what exists,and a way to prepare a plan of attack as
Chair Kramer stated.She explained that the document would also be used as a funding
mechanism.She will use this report to apply for grants,funding opportunities,and to
complement Public Works'five-year CIP (Capital Improvement Program).She stated
that this document is very important and sets the stage for future improvements and
future funding.
Chair Kramer agreed that Public Works needs to take the opportunities,particularly
financially,and pointed out that,if Marymount College,Cox Cable,or others make
improvements,Public Works needs to be able to jump on that as well.
Senior Engineer Jules stated that in that case she could use this document to confirm
with developers that their projects are consistent with this plan.
ACTION TAKEN:
Chair Kramer moved to direct staff to enhance the existing document for
prioritization, taking into account,(1)safety,(2)coordination,and (3)appropriate
linkages of the corridor,to make those improvements show the Commission a
very clear prioritization plan,and bring the revised document back to the Traffic
Safety Commission,seconded by Commissioner Parfenov.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Swank asked if the Commission's comments would be included in the
revised report.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 20 of 531-38
Chair Kramer asked the Commissioners what recommendations they like included in
this document in terms of these comments and questions.
Commissioner Swank questioned whether they should be recommendations.She just
thinks that the report should address,in more detail,such issues as PUMP (Public Use
Master Plan).She asked that Chair Kramer revise the Motion to include concerns
expressed by the Commission.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that she wrote down the Commissioners'comments
and offered to review the list of suggested revisions.
Chair Kramer explained that he did not hear any comments by the Commissioners that
he disagreed with and suggested a revised Motion to include all of the comments and
recommendations to the report.
Commissioner Parfenov stated that he would still second the Motion because he was
under the impression when Chair Kramer made the Motion that all the comments would
be included.
Chair Kramer asked how extensive the list that Senior Engineer Jules prepared.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that the only comments she noted that were outside
of the safety prioritization were the following:
•Consideration of treated crosswalks,
•Including the PUMP Committee's report on coordination,
•School safety,
•Consideration of decomposed granite trails versus concrete sidewalks,
•Consideration of overhead flashing beacons,and
•Tarapaca
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that,because this is very raw,she does not know if the
Commission wants to get into too much detail.They could say that these things could
be done,but they will be examined in the next step and there will be much more
involvement in the design and where to go next.Specific improvements,flashing
beacons,and crosswalk lights are not too important at this point;however,these items
could be included in the report so that they are not forgotten.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested adding the traffic control device at Miraleste and
Palos Verdes Drive East and consideration of a traffic signal versus a roundabout.
Chair Kramer explained that that location was presented in the report,and he is not
sure it is appropriate to have it in this document because it is a specific design issue,
where this document serves as a blueprint of how to go forward.The crosswalk being
discussed is a specific design concept issue and it gives the impression that staff is
already thinking about installing a traffic circle at this location,and he is not sure he likes
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 21 of 531-39
that.His concern is that putting that in the document makes it sound like staff is leaning
in that direction.
Traffic Engineer Smith questioned that,if they are talking about safety,do they want to
talk about what improvements would address safety or are they just identifying an area
that needs to be addressed first because of safety issues.On the other hand,do they
want to determine if it is a safety concern and what could be done to resolve it.
Chair Kramer explained that he would personally like to see in the report that these
areas have a clear need for safety and have a brief listing of some of the possible
mitigation measures specific to those locations.He suggested not making it sound like
a direction already chosen,but explain that a traffic circle or a traffic signal at Miraleste
are just some of many options.
Commissioner Swank suggested that the Motion is premature because the Commission
has not discussed the comments received at the workshops,and asked if they intend to
include those comments in this evaluation.She asked if Chair Kramer would be willing
to withdraw his Motion.
Chair Kramer asked if the review of the public comments is part of this New Business
item.
Senior Engineer Jules responded yes.
Commissioner Parfenov commented that many of the comments go into specifics and
he asked if the Commission wants to get into the specifics of each location along Palos
Verdes Drive East.
Commissioner Swank explained that the Commission would be remiss not to
acknowledge those comments and consideration that the Commission would look at
them.She thinks the Commission must address those comments some manner
because people will ask about the workshops.
Commissioner Klatt asked if staff should comment on them in the report,for example,
ten residents had concerns about a particular intersection.
Senior Engineer Jules envisioned that the Commission would go through the report and
then review the comments.She and Traffic Engineer Smith prepared spreadsheets
including all the comments;they identified the com menter,included the comments,
summarized the comments,and gave a response.Her goal is to review each of the
comments with the Commission and get feedback.If it is something that is a common
theme,staff received and noted it appropriately.If it is something staff thinks has
enough weight to be addressed in the preliminary report,they made note of it.Senior
Engineer Jules explained that she concurs with Commissioner Swank that the
Commission is obligated to review the comments,hear them,understand them as a
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 22 of 531-40
body,and not just say that we took your comments and didnot really consider them.
That is her idea and she turns to the Commission for direction.
Chair Kramer agreed,withdrew his Motion,and suggested hearing the public comments
and revisiting the Motion following the review.
Review of Public Comments
Senior Engineer Jules explained that the review would include public comments from
Workshops 1 and 2 and correspondence outside of the workshops,which were all
received through e-mail.If someone called her with a comment,she asked them to
submit it in writing.She asked if the Commission wanted to know the names of those
making comments and the Commission decided that the names were not necessary.
The spreadsheet noted the exact unedited comments as submitted in writing.The
Commission and staff revised the "Responses/Notes"column on each table during
discussion and it is up to date as of the 10/26/09 Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
Commission Discussion follows each table.Senior Engineer Jules read each comment
into the record as follows:
Workshop 1:July 15,2009 (Total Speakers (9),Comment Locations (18)
6.Rename Crest Consider renaming "Crest Road"(on the east
Road on east side of RPV from PVDE to the City of Rolling
Comments noted
for follow-up by
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 23 of 531-41
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 24 of 531-42
Commission Discussion
Senior Engineer Jules,Commissioners,and staff made additional comments on some
issues as follows:
Note:Comment numbers refer to first column of table.
Comment 8
Senior Engineer Jules reported that staff has already met with the homeowner
regarding the vegetation.
Comment 10
Commissioner Swank asked if staff knows how many accidents involve Marymount
students and how many speeding tickets were issued to students so that resident
comments could be verified.
Sgt.Creason explained that collisions are evaluated individually,records are only kept
for one year;records of citations are kept for a couple of years at the station.
Chair Kramer commented that it is a moot point because the Commission's role is to
have a safe mode of transportation for whoever uses the roadways whether they are a
resident,a student,or someone visiting the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Swank suggested that it be so stated when comments are made about
"those Marymount kids";that the Commission is concerned about safety for everyone.
Chair Kramer suggested that it goes back to the prioritization and that section around
Ganado is clearly a dangerous intersection and needs to be at the top of the priority list.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested that it all comes down to excessive speeding and
misbehavior,and it should be evaluated as such.
Comment 11
Senior Engineer Jules commented that this is actually contrary to the previous ten
comments.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 25 of 531-43
Chair Kramer commented that when he sees a vehicle ready to pull out of Ganado,it is
a very scary situation.Drivers hope that the cyclists see them and do not pull in front of
them.
Senior Engineer Jules asked how the Commissioners would see this comment as
contrary to the majority of comments.
Chair Kramer stated that he does not see this as any different,other than to review the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Ganado and improve safety at that
intersection.
Senior Engineer Jules stated that she sees it as different because the speaker is not in
favor of narrowing the roadway.
Chair Kramer said he would agree with that except that it increases velocity and the
speaker is in favor of increasing velocity.
Senior Engineer Jules reported that she spoke with the speaker and he is not in favor of
narrowing the roadway as reported;he wants the four-lane roadway retained.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested that it boils down to better striping and whether
there is a lane and a bike lane based on the speaker's comment that sometimes the
cyclists end up in a lane,which might prohibit some turning.
Chair Kramer explained that the cyclists are sometimes in the turn pocket because they
are on the right side of the road and the cyclists will sometimes erroneously stay on the
right side and not merge out into the lane for through traffic.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that the speaker is talking about coming downhill
approaching Ganado where there is a right turn lane onto Ganado.The speaker
experiences,when he is at Ganado wanting to turn left or go uphill,that a cyclist will
come down the hill very fast in the right-turn lane;he will not see them,and there is an
opportunity for disaster.
Chair Kramer expressed agreement and suggested that it needs to be part of the
design,but he does not think the consensus is to leave it as four lanes.
Commissioner Nejad stated that the consensus is whether it is safe;if safety is four
lanes then it should be four lanes,but if safety is two lanes,it should be two lanes.
Chair Kramer explained that he is not a Traffic Engineer but he does know that Deputy
Knox cites many speeders in that area,and having a wide-open four-lane road seems
to increase speeds.He thinks narrowing that section of roadway will help calm traffic to
a certain extent.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 26 of 531-44
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that this one of the key traffic calming principles;
narrow the roadway and reduce the speed,and it depends on how much you have to
narrow the road.
Commissioner Nejad referred to Palos Verdes Drive West as drivers enter Palos Verdes
Estates where the roadway narrows;there are parked cars,with one or two lanes on the
outside to ride in and suddenly,there are more accidents.
Chair Kramer suggested that at some point the City should revisit that section of Palos
Verdes Drive West and consider roadway narrowing.
Senior Engineer Jules suggested that now would be the time to repave and stripe.
Chair Kramer explained that Palos Verdes Drive West stays two lanes in Palos Verdes
Estates.
Commissioner Nejad stated that,from his own experience,as soon as he sees red
taillights and sidewalks,he thinks what do drivers do now.Somehow,the road appears
to be narrow;it causes a reaction,and makes drivers aware of the potential of people
coming onto the street.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that Palos Verdes Estates has the narrowing effect
and the stop signs.
Commissioner Swank said it seems that there are Officers out there all the time.
Chair Kramer mentioned that the speed limit is much lower in Palos Verdes Estates and
it changes in steps and from Rancho Palos Verdes into Palos Verdes Estates it
changes from 45 mph to 30 mph.
Comment 12
Commissioner Swank reported that the Commission has already addressed this.The
Chair was going to work with Recreation and Parks about doing a special permitting
process for the donut ride,so the Commission is addressing that issue separately.
Comment 13
Chair Kramer reported that he has not seen traffic tie-ups during ingress/egress at
Marymount.They do not seem to have the rush hour like Miraleste Intermediate.
Senior Engineer Jules pointed out that class times are different because Marymount
does not have fixed start and end times similar to middle schools.
Commissioner Swank said she does not see how this could be included in the traffic
analysis.
Chair Kramer asked if the speaker is suggesting four lanes instead of two lanes.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 27 of 531-45
Senior Engineer Jules responded that staff should follow up on this suggestion.She is
thinking ingress/egress,which is not a Rancho Palos Verdes right-of-way.
Comment 16
Senior Engineer Jules reported that this is a process requiring a Resolution,record
research,and changes to official maps.She explained that the work is in progress.
Comment 18
Senior Engineer Jules reported that,on the hillside,many students walk in the street at
Miraleste instead of crossing at the crosswalk on the Miraleste Plaza side.The
commenter suggests installing a fence to conceal pedestrians from the travel lanes.
Commissioner Parfenov reported that,from his personal situations,many students walk
on the southbound side so they cross at the intersection..
Chair Kramer asked if the comments were written on index cards,maps,or all of the
above.
Senior Engineer Jules responded they were submitted on all of the above and then
consolidated.
Other comments not addressed required no discussion beyond the staff response
noted.
Workshop 2,July 20,2009 (Total Speakers (5),Comment Locations (16)
4.Speaker4 Follow-up for Public
Works maintenance
Jthink th$maI~rityof lhe fUJ1d$sh()ltld~used
to fix all thepo~~P/E~$arid trimb~ckbrush(for.
.visibility eXitjng$tre~ts).This would.help the
automobiiesarldcYclists.......
Ban motorcycles Ban the motorcycle$.Marymount delivery down COlrnment n01:ed.
~t~~:;DE .b~:~~:.c~tcl~~t~)(~d~~~,~~t:~e~~:~~al.
Reclassify as .......
local street
Trim vegetation Keep vegetation trimmed down on the
switchbacks so you can see traffic ahead.
PVDE-
switchbacks
~RldgeRct···
Speaker 2
P\lOE-.
general·.
3.Speaker3
PVDE..;.
general
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 28 of 531-46
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 29 of 531-47
Commission Discussion
Comment 1
Chair Kramer suggested that this might also be mitigated if staff installs sidewalks and
there would not be asphalt;there would be a curb at that location so cars would not be
able to park there.
Comment 2
Chair Kramer suggested that when staff examines some of the areas,one of the issues
is reduced visibility around the curves partially caused by the vegetation.Part of that is
how do they mitigate that and control it going forward;he would imagine that must be
part of the design process,which is not in the initial plan currently.
Comment 3
Senior Engineer Jules stated that the City does not have the authority to ban
motorcyclists on public streets.Consider including in detailed traffic analysis.
Chair Kramer stated that the City would not make this a one-way street.He asked how
Marymount gets deliveries.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that delivery vehicles should not come up the
switchbacks;they should go Miraleste up and through.
Commissioner Nejad asked if Marymount communicates that to the vendors.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that Marymount should do that or local law
enforcement would communicate it to the drivers.
Chair Kramer asked if there is a law that states trucks over a certain size are not
allowed on the switchbacks.
Senior Engineer Jules responded yes.The switchbacks are not a designated truck
route and trucks are restricted.
Comment 4
Chair Kramer stated that he does not understand that comment because the
switchbacks are more grading of surrounding roadways than vegetation.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that this is part of Public Works'normal course of
business.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 30 of 531-48
Chair Kramer asked if the City owns the land.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that the City owns the land within the rights-of-way;if
it were overgrown brush on private property,Code enforcement would be involved.
Commissioner Nejad asked if the City has a specific schedule for trimming bushes and
trees or is it handled case-by-case.
Assistant Engineer Murphy responded that there is a schedule but in addition to that,
staff receives calls and handle them on a case-by-case basis.
Comment 5 -This comment consisted of four issues.
•Issue 1
Chair Kramer suggested noting that this is part of the plan to evaluate this
intersection.
•Issue 2
Assistant Engineer Murphy suggested that it is just another north/south route and
the alternative is to improve Western.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested looking at the traffic counts at the entrances
to the City to estimate the cut-through traffic.
Senior Engineer Jules agreed if the traffic counts were taken at the same time.
She does not think that was done and staff would have to take an isolated count.
Chair Kramer suggested that part of this plan was to examine and design a better
intersection in that entire area and he thinks that is a sufficient comment.
•Issues 3 and 4
Chair Kramer suggested noting that this is part of the plan to evaluate this
intersection.
Comment 8
Commissioner Parfenov explained that,where the southbound traffic creates a
bottleneck at Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste,trying to make a left turn is difficult
because there is not enough space in the pocket to turn left.
Chair Kramer commented that the left-turn pocket would hold two or three vehicles tops.
Comment 9
Chair Kramer stated that La Vista Verdes,just north of Diamonte,is a street that comes
out onto Palos Verdes Drive East at a very sharp angle.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 31 of 531-49
Senior Engineer Jules stated that it is a private road.She received a couple of phones
call.s regarding that problem and Deputy Knox does a lot of law enforcement there.
Commissioner Nejad explained that it is truly terrifying;even making a right turn is
difficult and drivers must come out at a very slow speed or you tend to drift into the
opposite lane.
Chair Kramer asked if the history of that intersection is available and suggested that it is
probably high on the list of dangerous intersections.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that is safety and the comment in the table is
appropriate.
Comment 10
Chair Kramer explained that Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Subida is near La Vista
Verdes at Palos Verdes Drive East and is another bad intersection.He knows there
have been a number of collisions at that intersection,although it does not look that bad
when driving by,whereas it is obvious at La Vista Verdes.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that it is almost a mirror image of La Vista Verdes
and drivers come in at a steep angle.
Chair Kramer stated that going into Via Subida is the very steep slope;coming down,he
thinks there is some vegetation there,and if a driver is trying to make a left turn and
someone is coming up the hill,it could be hard to see from that direction.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that a collision history was included in the Agenda
packets.
Commissioner Parfenov referred to circle Page 101 of the Sheriff's Department Traffic
Collision Report from 1/1/07 -6/30/09 and pointed out that there were two accidents
listed at Via Subida on 11/5/07 and 12/25/07.
Sgt.Creason pointed out a summary of five collisions that took place at Palos Verdes
Drive East and Via Subida on circle Page 88.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that she and Traffic Engineer Smith would follow up
and look at the individual collision reports because out of the five there were three
accidents involving a vehicle versus a fixed object.
Comment 12
Senior Engineer Jules commented that when the City finishes Palos Verdes Drive East,
staff would deal with Western.
Chair Kramer asked if Western is part of Los Angeles.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 32 of 531-50
Senior Engineer Jules responded that it is part of Rancho Palos Verdes,Caltrans,and
City of Los Angeles;it is a three-horned monster.
Other comments not addressed required no discussion beyond the staff response
noted.
E-mailed Comments
Total E-mails (53),from (20) members of public,regarding (39)locations
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 33 of 531-51
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 34 of 531-52
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 35 of 531-53
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 36 of 531-54
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26.2009
Page 37 of 531-55
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 38 of 531-56
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 39 of 531-57
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26.2009
Page 40 of 531-58
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 41 of 531-59
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 42 of 531-60
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 43 of 531-61
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 44 of 531-62
Commission Discussion
Comment numbers refer to Column 1 of the table.
Comment 1
Chair Kramer suggested that a left-turn lane on the northbound side could be
considered in the detailed plan,but does not need to be in this document.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that this area was part of the grant application
recently submitted.
Commissioner Parfenov referred to shoulders for bus stops and asked if that would be
considered transit.He suggested that it is more of a transportation issue than transit.
Comment 5
Senior Engineer Jules explained that as part of Marymount's study,a recommendation
was made that Marymount institute a Parking Management Program,one of which
includes restricted parking on Palos Verdes Drive East outside of the campus.Although
the commenter has good ideas,staff knows there are plans and recommendations to
restrict parking on Palos Verdes Drive East or to implement a parking program.Staff
knows this from working with planning and processing the application from Marymount.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26.2009
Page 45 of 531-63
Commissioner Swank referred to the equestrian issue and suggested that it is important
for the Commission to show separately that they would address equestrian research,at
least in that area to acknowledge their concerns in the evaluation.
Senior Engineer Jules assured Commissioner Swank that the equestrians would
definitely be part of the evaluation;it is not separate,it is inclusive.
Comment 8
Chair Kramer stated that some of those comments would be included in the plan.
Senior Engineer Jules mentioned that cooperation and coordination with other
improvements is her second priority and it includes storm drain improvements and curb
improvements that are scheduled along Palos Verdes Drive East.It is not just Cox
Cable and T-Mobile;it is everything that Public Works does.She has had coordination
meetings with their water quality area and pavement management area and staff is
coordinating their efforts along Palos Verdes Drive East.She reminded that staff is not
addressing Palos Verdes Drive East in a vacuum;any and every increment impact that
could be conceived is being considered as inclusion,and it just needs to be translated
into the report.
Commissioner Nejad said for example that the cable company installs on Palos Verdes
Drive East;how long would it be before the City could implement its overall plan to
improve,or what happens after installation of the cable.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that the City could have the cable company post a
bond so the City has the money in place to use in coordination with the other
improvements,and that is how she would want to approach it.Public Works knows
what they want to do;typically,they would require that the cable company resurface
after cabling is completed.
Chair Kramer asked,if they did that,would the cable company put down a temporary
patch over their work.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that the cable company would have to repave the
trench similar to what the City did on Palos Verdes Drive South.You would see a patch
that is backfilled and paved,but would be a narrow patch in the whole roadway and the
idea is to repave the entire roadway after the patch.
Comment 9
Chair Kramer commented that the curve in the road is much like the switchbacks.The
City could mow the vegetation down to nothing,the hillside would still be in the way,and
drivers need to see around that curve south of Conestoga.Maybe the commenter is
talking about the vegetation on the other side of the guardrail where the vegetation has
grown into the equestrian pathway and not the roadway.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 46 of 531-64
Comment 10
Chair Kramer reported that a speaker at the August 24 Traffic Safety Commission
meeting was livid about what she considered excess signage along the roadway.
Commissioner Swank suggested that people who do not have horses do not
understand that horses require certain consideration.
Senior Engineer Jules reported that guardrails would be addressed with the results of
staff's early action report;they have a grant for that so they will be implementing a
guardrail improvement project this fiscal year.
Chair Kramer asked Traffic Engineer Smith if the idea is that a guardrail should be
installed in some places to separate some of the sidewalks,bike paths,and equestrian
trails from the roadway,commenting that there are guardrails in some places;or is the
idea to do away with the guardrails and widen the road.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that she does not think the goal is to do away with the
guardrails;the City has accepted the money and has entered into an agreement and
she does not think the City can remove guardrails.
Chair Kramer suggested that might pose a problem if the City wants to widen the
roadway and install a sidewalk or a bicycle lane because that might be where the
guardrail is located.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that staff could design around the guardrail and
incorporate it.She does not see that a guardrail would prevent staff from achieving
multi-modal status unless they are limited by right-of-way and/or topography.
Comment 14
Chair Kramer asked if that area is designated as "safe crossing",or has staff decided it
is hard to get across the street.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that staff,in conjunction with members of the
Equestrian Committee,agreed that it is hard to cross the street,but that Bronco is the
best location for a "safe crossing".(NJ)
Assistant Engineer Murphy asked about the commenter's reference to passage.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that she thinks they are just trying to walk through an
area or are on horseback and cannot get through because of vegetation.
Comment 19
Commissioner Parfenov referred to the comment that "...Our traffic has increased
substantially since the sinkage on Western."and he disagreed.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 47 of 531-65
Chair Kramer stated that Public Works repaired the sinkage,and he wondered if a
decrease in traffic was noticed after it was repaired.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested that it would be part of the traffic analysis,and he
would defer to staff to determine what should be done.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that they would need a before and after,and the
existing counts were taken after that incident.
Commissioner Swank suggested that Western is important,but that is beyond the
scope of what the Commission is considering now and they have enough on their plate;
they could go back to Western later.
Comment 21
Chair Kramer explained that one problem with a bike lane on a steep downhill section is
that it could be dangerous for the cyclist to stay in the bike lane when traveling at a high
rate of speed.Most times a cyclist will move into the roadway and take a lane,which is
legal,but people do not know that. Drivers see a bike lane,the speed limit is 30 mph,
the cyclist is going 35 mph,the drivers want to go 45 mph,and they think the cyclists
should be in the bike lane.In answer to a question,Chair Kramer explained that a bike
lane is six feet wide and not much room to maneuver when going 35 mph,they come up
on debris and rocks swept to the side of the road by vehicles,and it can be dangerous.
It is much safer going at traffic speed in the middle of a lane.
Comment 30
Chair Kramer asked what is the vertical bank.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that it is the topography.
Commissioner Parfenov explained that it is like the side of a hill.
Chair Kramer clarified that coming out of Diamonte and look across the street there is a
hill in front of you.
Commissioner Parfenov explained that the Sheriff's Deputies sometimes park and they
can see drivers coming out fast from the curve from the hills on the north side of
Diamonte Lane.The speed limit at this location is 35 mph and Deputy Knox had to
speed up to catch a driver going 53 mph coming out of the curve.
Comment 31
Chair Kramer commented that this is a worsening safety situation.
Traffic Engineer Smith suggested the commenter is saying that it narrows the roadway
so there is less room for the cyclists.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 48 of 531-66
Chair Kramer explained that it is a certain-width road whether someone is on the
sidewalk or not.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that a sidewalk replaced a shoulder;before that,the
cyclists were riding on the shoulder.
Comment 36
Chair Kramer explained that the commenter is talking about eastbound on Miraleste,on
the downhill side where there is a wide shoulder and diagonal stripes with bots dots.He
explained that a bicycle riding there must be in the middle of the lane,which is not a
problem because the cyclist is going easy traffic speed down the hill;it is a problem on
the uphill side.
Comment 37
Chair Kramer asked if that is a common crossing between Bronco and Headland.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that she understands it is a main connection.
Chair Kramer suggested some crossing control is needed similar to what is being
considered at Miraleste Intermediate.
Comment 39
Senior Engineer Jules reported that the commenter had some very compelling photos of
sign blight.
Other comments not addressed required no discussion beyond the staff response
noted.
Commissioner Swank asked if staff sends thank-you notes to all of these residents.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that Public Works usually sends a follow-up thank-you
letter to anyone who speaks or makes a comment regarding an item.
Chair Kramer reported on a new policy that when anyone addresses e-mail to the Public
Works e-mail address,staff responds and copies to the Commissioners.
ACTION TAKEN:
Chair Kramer moved to recommend changes to the draft report entitled
"Preliminary Review of Palos Verdes Drive East"dated February 28,2009
prepared by Ruth Smith,Traffic Engineer and Project Manager,Willdan
Engineering,to include prioritization of (1)safety,(2)opportunity of coordination,
and (3)linkage.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 49 of 531-67
Chair Kramer further moved to include the comments by the Traffic Safety
Commission and the appropriately-noted comments from residents received at
Workshops 1 and 2,and via E-mail,seconded by Commissioner Parfenov.
Motion approved:
Ayes 5,Nays 0
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
The Commission recessed at 11 :00 p.m.and reconvened at 11 :03 p
RECEIVE AND FILE:
None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1.School Safety Update
Commissioner Klatt reported that his ri -along with Deputy Knox gave him an
opportunity to ride by Crestwood Stre Elementary School.He has attempted
several times to contact the Principal ut has never had a return phone call.He
observed that the school is very w marked,it has a high volume of traffic and
drivers tend to double park,but eputy Knox does a good job getting traffic
moving and citing drivers.He'waiting for a callback from the Principal so a
meeting could be arranged to cuss the possibility of having some of the school
staff help with the drop-offs d pick-ups because they have no one out there to
help.
Commissioner Swank a ed if there is a parents;program to help out.
Commissioner Klatt id there did not appear to be one.
Senior Engineer ules explained that the school is located on Crestwood
between Wester:and Miraleste.
Chair Krame uggested contacting the Principal's Secretary,explaining who he
is,and his rpose,which might be an effective way to get the message through,
based on s experience.
Commi ioner Klatt explained that he has identified himself and left several
return hone numbers including his home number,but he will try again.
Se or Engineer Jules reported that Crestwood is one of the two schools that are
in os Angeles Unified School District,so Rancho Palos Verdes does have slight
allenges with those two because they are outside of the City's school district.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
October 26,2009
Page 50 of 531-68
Chair Kram
F
IS Item would not come back to the Commission before
2.PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Recommendation:
Approve the Final Draft Preliminary Review Report for Palos Verdes Drive East
and authorize staff to forward a recommendation to City Council for
consideration.
Senior Engineer's Report
Senior Engineer Jules reported that after last month's meeting when staff and the
Commission reviewed all the comments received for Palos Verdes Drive East,staff and
the City's consultant,Willdan,talked about the Commission's recommendation on
modifying the report.They have incorporated all the recommendations into a report
entitled "Preliminary Review of Palos Verdes Drive East",referred to as the 2009 Final
Draft,dated November 30,2009.Tonight staff will give a presentation to highlight the
changes made to the report before the Traffic Safety Commission when compared to
the report that was given at the October 26,2009 Commission meeting.
Traffic Engineer's Report
Traffic Engineer Smith provided copies of the comprehensive revised report and copies
of the slide presentation.She reported that staff modified the last study and continued
to focus on the multi-modal corridor as they envisioned in the original study.They
expanded it to include a Public Use Management Plan (PUMP),Preserve Trails Plan,
updated the traffic collision database and traffic collision rates,added Key Areas of
Interest,which came out of the discussions at the workshops and with the
Commissioners at the last meeting,and developed integrated corridor improvements.
Traffic Engineer Smith reported that the Preserve Trails Plan (PTP)is part of the PUMP
adopted by the City Council in April 2008.PUMP identifies trail routes/uses in the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve.The San Ramon Reserve element of the PTP includes the
Palos Verdes Drive East Switchbacks.She referred to Exhibits 5 and 6 on pages 17
and 18 of the study,commenting that there were no real changes to that.
Traffic Engineer Smith reported on the Traffic Collision Update that staff used the most
recent figures and updated to June 30,2009 with the locations and types of accidents
shown on Exhibits 12-A and 12-B on pages 29 and 35.
Senior Engineer Jules referred to Exhibit 12-A-1 which gives a representation of the
magnitude of collisions at specific locations.She directed the Commission's attention to
the area between Bronco and Headland,where there is one of the highest collision
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 13 of301-69
rates along Palos Verdes Drive East in the same area where staff has applied for a
Highway Safety Improvement Grant.
Traffic Engineer Smith pointed out on page 35,Exhibit 12-B the four locations with the
highest collision rate.
Chair Kramer referred to page 33 and explained that he was under the impression that
Ganado Road was a severe accident area and on the map,it does not appear to be as
bad as Bronco.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that not all accidents are reported and these are just
reported accidents.
Senior Engineer Jules commented that Ganado is a very vocal community,more so
than others are.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that just the last three years are reflected;she did not
bring the entire list that goes back to 2003,which might have shown more.Staff tried to
focus on recent collisions.
Commissioner Swank asked if the Commission would see a definite change or a
consistent trend.
Traffic Engineer Smith responded that she thinks would be consistent.She explained
that staff used the same segments on page 35 that were used for the previous report for
the multi-modal study so these are consistent types of terrain and roadway width for
these segments.The segments are different lengths because of the individual types of
segments,but the collision rate is what is key and does not have anything to do with the
length because it is based on lower vehicle miles.She referred to Table 1 on page 34,
"Summary of Collision History",which starts at the north end of Palos Verdes Drive East
to the south end but is not in order of collision rate severity.She compared Table 1
collision rates to the same areas on the map on page 35,using examples of collision
rates for Marion to Colt of 2.30 and Colt Road to Via Canada of 1.35,commenting that
the highest collision rate is in the area of Miraleste Intermediate and Miraleste
Elementary combined.She explained that 2.30 and 1.80 at Bronco Drive/Headland are
both higher than the Caltrans average,indicating that they have safety issues.Normally
this would cause staff to determine whether improvements could be made to bring the
rate down or investigate the accidents to see if they are the kind of things that could not
be mitigated. The third one is Diamonte to Ganado Drive at 1.61;that is just about the
same as Caltrans.All the rest are below 1.0 and are not considered to have a collision
problem.
Chair Kramer asked if below 1.0 is considered acceptable.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 14 of 301-70
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that anything below 1.61 is considered acceptable or
not indicative of a problem and staff would not necessarily focus on those areas for
improvements.
Traffic Engineer Smith continued with a review of the multi-modal corridor analysis,
referring to a map on page 54,which highlighted and listed the segments identified as
Key Areas of Interest as follows:
•Deadman's Curve (south of Conestoga)
•Bronco Drive/Headland Drive Area
•Miraleste Intermediate School Vicinity (from Marion down to Crownview)
•Miraleste Drive/Miraleste Plaza Area
•Via Subida/La Vista Verde Drive Area
•Marymount College/Ganado Drive Area
•Switchbacks
Chair Kramer commented that Deadman's Curve on the map on page 35 does not show
up as one of the areas highlighted on page 54 as having a high accident rate.
Traffic Engineer Smith concurred,referring to page 29,and pointed out that there are
quite a few collisions south of Conestoga,but in the curve area they are not showing
any reported accidents except for one reported pedestrian involved with a parked car,
but she does not have any details.She continued her presentation,reviewing photos
and concerns in each segment beginning on page 55 of the report.Deadman's Curve
area is an equestrian trail that is heavily used,it is in poor condition,is heavily
overgrown,and impedes passage of equestrians.Bronco Drive/Headland Drive Area
has a crossing at Bronco in the middle of the hairpin turn and it is difficult for traffic to
see anyone crossing.
Senior Engineer Jules directed the Commission's attention to the guardrail that is
pictured and explained that the area is the ideal area for the equestrians to traverse
from Headland to Bronco.She met with Madeline Ryan in the field to talk about the
equestrian path and alignment and whether it is preferred to be on the east or west side,
the east side being pictured with a guardrail and cyclists going downhill;the entrance to
Bronco is considered to be the west side.In the past,equestrians would travel on the
west side of Palos Verdes Drive East and traverse behind the guardrail,come to the
corner of Bronco,and turn right.The problem is that there is a utility pole with a guy
wire,the vegetation from the property encroaches the public right-of-way,and it is
difficult for a horse to traverse in between.The idea is to move the trail on the opposite
side,which she calls the east side,behind the guard rail and create a crossing at the
end of the rail,across Palos Verdes Drive East over to Bronco. The equestrians prefer
to be protected with guardrails versus the bots dots,which are on the west side of the
street,so staff has a conflict between cyclists and equestrians and the use of the bots
dots.By using the guardrail as a protection for the equestrians,staff can eliminate the
bots dots and the bikes.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 15 of 301-71
Commissioner Parfenov asked if Senior Engineer Jules is suggesting that the crossing
would go right into the curve.
Senior Engineer Jules said no;it would be before the curve.
Chair Kramer said it seems to him that wherever staff puts the crossing for the
equestrians,one way or another there could potentially be a car coming around that
curve when the horse is in the middle of the road.
Senior Engineer Jules agreed and said that is why staff wants high visibility warnings
and advanced signage,but that was the preferred location.
Traffic Engineer Smith continued with the Miraleste Intermediate School area,which
goes from Marion Drive to Crownview,and explained that the focus is a five-legged
intersection at Via Canada,Miraleste Intermediate School Drive,and Crownview.There
are crosswalks on each of the legs.She referred to the photo on page 60,describing
the intersection as oddball shaped,the terrain is not flat,it curves,and it is difficult to
see the crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East.The sidewalks are narrow,there are no
intersectional controls to assist children in crossing except a crossing guard,there is
poor visibility as approaching the intersection,and it is a high accident area.
Commissioner Parfenov pointed out the lack of a pedestrian walkway on the west side
of the street and children walk on the shoulder of the roadway.
(BK)
Commissioner Parfenov commented that Sgt.Creason said the children tend to go in
groups and spill into the roadway.
Traffic Engineer Smith reviewed Miraleste Drive/Miraleste Plaza.She reported that
students head there after school and it is on the far side of the intersection.The
students troop across the crosswalk,block the traffic trying to make a left turn from
Palos Verdes Drive East onto Miraleste and drivers on Miraleste trying to pull out onto
Palos Verdes Drive East.This happens in the morning and afternoon during the peak
hours because the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East backs up.She referred to the
photo on page 63,which shows a short left-turn pocket that accommodates
approximately two cars,traffic backs up,and it causes sideswipe and rear-end
collisions.
Traffic Engineer Smith reviewed the Via Subida/La Vista Verde Drive Area photos and
concerns on pages 64-66.Both Via Subida and La Vista Verde Drive intersect Palos
Verdes Drive East at acute angles,making it difficult to see oncoming traffic.There has
been a reported traffic collision at each location in the last three years.The primary
concern is making the turn out from both streets.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 16 of 301-72
Traffic Engineer Smith reviewed the Marymount College/Ganado Drive area photos and
concerns on pages 67-70.Concerns included motorists going faster in the four-lane
section and having trouble merging back to two lanes,confusing striping,poor line of
sight at Ganado Drive that is right on the curve and steep terrain,and Ganado Drive
located at the gateway to the switchbacks where motorists speed going downhill.She
explained that it is difficult to exit Ganado due to a landscaped area that blocks the view
of Palos Verdes Drive East,noting that there have been collisions at that location.
Traffic Engineer Smith reviewed the Switchbacks area photo and concerns on pages
71-73.Concerns included a roadway too narrow to adequately accommodate
multimodal users,especially bicycles;the Tarapaca Landslide near the hairpin turns is
eroding the hillside below them.She explained that the landslide on one side is altering
the course of the streambed in the middle and is undercutting the roadway on the other
side or getting close to it.She explained that Exhibits 24A and 24Bcame from the
City's website.
Senior Engineer Jules reported that the City is undergoing preparation of a Project
Study Report to document the landslide and solutions so they can apply for Federal
funding for Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East as well as mitigation
of the streambed erosion.
Traffic Engineer Smith reviewed the Integrated Palos Verdes Drive East Improvements
that included the Multimodal Corridor original study,Key Areas of Interest,Planned
Corridor Improvements,and Integrated Palos Verdes Drive East Corridor
Improvements.She reviewed the feasible improvements for Key Areas of Interest listed
on pages 83-85 of the report as follows:
Deadman's Curve
•Rehabilitation of the equestrian trail to proper standards (including the
accommodation of pedestrians)
•Brush clearance,as needed
Bronco Drive/Headland Drive Area
•Widen Palos Verdes Drive East to 14-foot travel lanes
•Provide a 10-foot equestrian/pedestrian trail behind a guardrail
•Provide a high-visibility marked crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East at Bronco
Drive,with flashing beacon-augmented crossing warning signage,and advance
warning signage with flashing beacons.
Miraleste Intermediate School and Vicinity
•Upgrade the signage and advance pavement markings for the crosswalks on
Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Canada and at Crownview Drive to meet current
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Device (CA MUTCD)standards.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 17 of 301-73
•Provide ladder striping for the two crosswalks on Palos Verdes Drive East,noted
above,and possible IRWL (in roadway warning lights)and possible flashing
beacons to make them very visible to viewers.Flashing beacons usually operate
only when children are arriving and leaving school.For the crosswalks,staff
could have people press a button or they could be detected passively so people
are detected by infrared or camera so the lights flash but people would not know
they are flashing.
•Provide sidewalks on both sides of Palos Verdes Drive East from Colt Drive to
the south side of Miraleste Drive
•Provide bike lanes on both sides of Palos Verdes Drive East from Colt Drive to
the south side of Miraleste Drive
•Provide bike lanes on both sides of Palos Verdes Drive East from Colt Drive to
Miraleste Drive.
Commissioner Parfenov mentioned the flashing beacons and explained that he has
seen them configured so that a pedestrian presses a button and,in 60 seconds,the
beacon flashes yellow-orange and asked if that is correct.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that typically the flashing beacons are on a timer.
They are set to start when students arrive,stay on until they are at school,and start
again when students leave school.There are many different ways to configure them.
Commissioner Parfenov explained that the City of Los Angeles has a combination of a
flashing light that either stays dormant or flashes yellow.When a pedestrian presses
the button to cross,it flashes red,similar to stop and go,and simulates traffic signal
lights.
Traffic Engineer Smith suggested that would actually be a pedestrian signal.That is an
option but it is more expensive.
Miraleste Drive/Miraleste Plaza Area
•Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive EastlMiraleste
Drive (this location meets the CA MUTCD traffic signal warrants)
•Widen Palos Verdes Drive East from north of Miraleste Drive to south of
Miraleste Drive to extend the existing southbound left turn lane for adequate
storage and to provide an acceleration/storage lane for vehicles turning left from
Miraleste Drive onto Palos Verdes Drive East (the acceleration would not be
needed with a traffic signal).
•Install a roundabout at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive EastlMiraleste
Drive (instead of a traffic signal).This action would require further study for
feasibility.
•Install sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of Palos Verdes Drive East from
the intermediate school drivewayNia Canada to the south side of Miraleste
Drive,to provide safe passage for the children.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 18 of 301-74
•In combination with sidewalks,install a high visibility crosswalk located on the
south leg of Palos Verdes Drive East at Miraleste Drive (alternative to a traffic
signal).Encourage intermediate school children to cross there instead of at the
intermediate school drivewayNia Canada.That way the children would not be
crossing along the east side and blocking traffic and it would eliminate some of
the conflict.
A more detailed and comprehensive study would identify the most appropriate and
feasible improvements.
Via Subida/La Vista Verde Drive Area
•Due to the physical constraints in the area,feasible improvements are not readily
apparent.A detailed and comprehensive study would be able to identify
appropriate and feasible improvements to these intersections.
Marymount College/Ganado Drive Area
•Reduce Palos Verdes Drive East from four lanes to two lanes.
•In conjunction with the lane reduction,provide a two-way left turn lane.
•In conjunction with the lane reduction,provide right turn/deceleration lanes on the
southbound side,where feasible.
•Install bike lanes on both sides of Palos Verdes Drive East.
•Construct sidewalks (pedestrian linkage)from Crest Road to Vista Del Mar on
the east side of Palos Verdes Drive East.
The following actions would improve the overall traffic safety at Ganado Drive,in
particular.
•Improve the visibility at Ganado Drive by reducing vegetation in the raised
median to the north.
•Provide advance-warning signage on Palos Verdes Drive East north of Ganado
Drive regarding the intersection.
•Provide high-level warning devices both at Ganado Drive and in advance of
Ganado Drive for southbound traffic.
A more detailed and comprehensive study is needed to determine the feasibility and
desirability of the noted actions.
Senior Engineer Jules added,regarding visibility with the vegetation,as much as the
neighborhood complains about the visibility issue with Ganado at Palos Verdes Drive
East,they also covet their vegetation that creates a green barrier for them.They want
one thing but are not willing to give up another thing.
Switchbacks
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 19 of 301-75
•Upgrade guardrails (funded)
•Reduce lanes to 12-feet wide to provide additional paved shoulder to provide
more room for the cyclists.
•Improve all drain inlets to be bicycle friendly.
•Widen roadway to provide bike lanes on both sides.
Planned Palos Verdes Drive East Corridor Improvements
Several improvements are planned for the Palos Verdes Drive East corridor by both the
City and by other agencies.Implementing improvements suggested in this report in
conjunction with the planned improvements would reduce the cost to the City and make
them more feasible.The following improvements,as indicated on Page 86,Exhibit 32,
are planned for implementation on Palos Verdes Drive East in the near future:
•City Project:Local repair/removal of various cracked asphalt in the Sunnyside
Ridge/Deadman's Curve area -next 3 months.
•City Project:Storm drain upgrades between the east and west legs of Headland
Drive -next 6 months
•City project:Catch basin improvements from Palos Verdes Drive South to the
North City Limit -this fiscal year
•California Water project:Water mainline improvements,including asphalt
overlay from Miraleste Drive to Bronco Drive
•Upgrade and improve the guardrails from Conestoga Drive to Palos Verdes Drive
South,as noted in the Palos Verdes Drive East Early Action Report,within the
next 2 years.
Integrated Palos Verdes Drive East Corridor Improvements
The proposed multimodal improvements and safety improvements noted previously
have been prioritized based on the following three considerations:
1.Safety
2.Coordination with other planned/proposed improvements
3.Linkages to other segments
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that based on that,staff came up with the
improvements entitled "Proposed Priority of Integrated Palos Verdes Drive East
Improvements"shown in Table 3 on page 90 and the locations are illustrated on the
map on page 91.She explained the priority list as follows:
Proposed priority 1 is Headland Drive to Bronco Drive
•Because it is one of the high accident locations,the storm drain upgrades in the
area are already planned and,in conjunction with that,the equestrian/pedestrian
paths and bike lanes would be upgraded/provided.Wherever possible staff
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 20 of 301-76
would widen the roadway and provide the other amenities from Headland to
Bronco.
Proposed Priority 2 is Bronco Drive to Miraleste Drive
•Proposed actions are to study the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and
Miraleste to determine appropriate improvements.
•Widen Palos Verdes Drive East in conjunction with the water mainline
improvements;provide sidewalks,equestrian paths and bike lanes as
appropriate and high-visibility crosswalks at Via Canada.
Proposed Priority 3/Deadman's Curve
•Widen Palos Verdes Drive East in conjunction with the asphalt repairs to
provide/upgrade equestrian/pedestrian paths and bike lanes to the bend west of
Horseshoe Lane.
•May require delaying the asphalt repairs
Proposed Priority 4/Bronco Drive
•Install a high visibility equestrian crossing when funding is received.
Proposed Priority 5/is Marymount College/Ganado Drive
•Conduct a study to determine the most appropriate improvements along the 4-
lane segment to narrow it to 2 lanes and at Ganado Drive
•Implement the improvements when funding is available.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that staff would probably apply for Federal funds to
make those improvements.
Proposed Priority 6/is Via Subida/La Vista Verde Drive &Via Frascati to Calle Aventura
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that she included Via Frascati to Calle Aventura
because it is along the same area.
•Widen to provide sidewalks and bike lanes in conjunction with Marymount
College/Ganado Drive Improvements or sooner,if feasible.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that is an area where the improvements would not be
too drastic because the terrain is relatively flat and wide.
•Study the intersections at Via Subida &La Vista Verde Drive to determine
actions that would improve visibility and access.
Proposed Priority lIThe Switchbacks
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 21 of 301-77
•Narrow the travel lanes/widen the roadway to provide bike lanes in conjunction
with the catch basin and guardrail improvements,if possible.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that these improvements might be done sooner
rather than later,depending upon the availability of funds.
Proposed Priority alThe bend west of Horseshoe Lane to Headland Drive &Miraleste
Drive to south of Miraleste Drive
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that Miraleste Drive to south of Miraleste Drive is
outside of the Key Areas of Interest;the terrain is not too accommodating to widening,
but it is feasible.
•To provide continuity,widen to provide sidewalks and bike lanes in conjunction
with improvements to the adjacent segments.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that all the priority items are discussed in detail in the
report.
Commission Questions of Staff
Chair Kramer stated that he is interested to hear the Commissioners'opinions about the
prioritization.He thinks staff has done a tremendous job and does not find fault with
any of it.He mentioned a small segment of the roadway on the map on Exhibit 33,
page 91 that was a problem at the Commission's last discussion and staff just jumped
over it.
Traffic Engineer Smith explained that the terrain is too steep to do anything in that
section and that is why there are no recommendations.
Chair Kramer commented that on the east side of it there is a steep drop-off,a canyon;
on the west side,the road cut in there.
Traffic Engineer Smith commented that it is very narrow and she does not think there is
much right-of-way.She said it would be excessively expensive,but could be added if
desired.
Commissioner Swank commented that she thinks the report was very good and was a
valuable exercise,and what staff summarized from previous discussions was very
good.If this issue goes to City Council in January,she asked what types of questions
staff anticipates from Council Members.
Senior Engineer Jules reported that this item is scheduled for January 19,2010;
however,she is building in some latitude because she wants to do an A++presentation
to the Council.If time is an issue,she will buy some time to do it right.To answer
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 22 of 301-78
Commissioner Swank's question,Senior Engineer Jules explained that she was not
here when the tactical goal was developed,the Council has two new members,and
staff just does not know what to expect.
Commissioner Swank encouraged all members of the Traffic Safety Commission to be
present at that presentation and asked staff to let the Commissioners know when this
item is finally set for City Council.
Chair Kramer asked staff to e-mail the Commissioners in advance when it will be on the
Council agenda,or if the scheduled date changes.
Chair Kramer commented that this is a preliminary plan,an initial evaluation.Willdan
has done a tremendous job of highlighting areas that need further study.Council can
take it any way they want,but he is trying to get a feel for how this would likely progress.
If they cut off a portion and say do this as first priority,that would then have to go first
for study,design,and presentation before any work gets done.He asked if that is
correct.
Senior Engineer Jules responded in agreement.She thinks the approach during the
Council presentation is that staff has identified key areas of interest;staff is
recommending or asking for direction or authorization to proceed on a further study of
Projects 1,2,and 3 for example.She has to go to the budget and present options to
the Council.She has to say X amount of dollars are available and this is what staff can
do,for example A,B,or C.Council will look at those options and say yes or no to
moving forward with those options.Council could say they want staff to concentrate on
A and reserve a little for Band C the following year.She must be really creative,
especially with the funding,and the fact that staff has planned funded projects makes it
even more attractive to Council for staff to move forward and receive authorization to do
further studies.If staff gets authorization to do further studies,that would be a full-
blown design with the intent to implement.
Commissioner Swank stated that her only comment would be the concern that the
presentation emphasize community input and the workshops,and that the Traffic Safety
Commission has given the public many opportunities for input.
Chair Kramer explained that he is assuming that part of the design process would be to
come back to the Commission,have more community input,and have more workshops.
Commissioner Swank agreed,commenting,especially with two new Council Members
who might not be aware.
Commissioner Nejad asked if staff would be able to ask for Federal funding before the
full design or do they need the full design before asking for Federal funding.
Senior Engineer Jules responded that they do not need the full design before Federal
funding.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 23 of 301-79
Commissioner Nejad asked if staff could submit this report.
Senior Engineer Jules explained that this report would serve as a basis for a grant
application.
Commissioner Nejad asked if the Federal Government would also provide money for
the studies.
Senior Engineer Jules stated that some programs do allow money for design.There
have been some design projects for Crenshaw and Crestwood and the City received
money for design and bills through Federal funding.
Commissioner Nejad asked if staff would pursue that for some of the studies if Council
gives permission to proceed.
Senior Engineer Jules responded,absolutely,and referred to page 91 of the report.
She explained that on some of the key projects like numbers 1 and 4,number 1 is
already funded;on number 4,which is Bronco at Palos Verdes Drive East,staff has
already applied for Federal funding.For Priority Project 2,staff already has money
programmed for resurfacing of that entire stretch of Palos Verdes Drive East.California
Water does the water main and that frees up almost one million dollars worth of money
that staff could apply to Priority Project 6.If staff does it right,staff would be able to
implement many of these projects.It would not all happen at the same time but
strategically,if they do it right,it would incrementally get them where they want to go.
Commissioner Nejad asked,realistically,what time period are they looking at from
having a full design to implementation,for example,two years,four years,or five years
for the whole corridor.
Senior Engineer Jules responded she would honestly say five to ten years because the
City will receive money for some programs but the money would not be received until
2013.The Federal Government has the money allocated but the City will not receive it
for a certain number of years.The City will receive money for design during the first
one or two years and construction money two years thereafter.She suggested that,in
the scheme of things,the Commission must consider how long the City has not done
anything.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested that staff emphasize to the City Council that it would
cost X amount of money,and with an innovative approach to cost sharing it would cost
only this much.
Chair Kramer asked how staff provides cost estimates to Council so they could make an
informed decision and say yes,we want to allocate priorities 1,2,and 3 and we have
this budget for you.
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 24 of 301-80
Senior Engineer Jules responded that staff has a budget,they have cost estimates for
Priority 4.She has cost estimates for Priority 1,which is currently in design.
Chair Kramer asked if the estimates are in this document.
Senior Engineer Jules said no,because this document is the preliminary review.She
does have cost information that she thinks she will incorporate in the staff report to
Council.
Chair Kramer asked if the Commissioners see any changes that should be made to this
report before it is submitted to City Council at the January meeting.
Commissioner Parfenov suggested that a comment be added regarding the area
between 6 and 8 on page 91 that is not color-coded because improvements are not
feasible.
ACTION TAKEN:
Commissioner Swank moved to approve the Final Draft Preliminary Review
Report for Palos Verdes Drive East and authorize staff to forward a
recommendation to City Council for consideration,seconded by Commissioner
Klatt.
Motion approved:
Ayes 5,Nays 0
RECEIVE AND FILE:
None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1.School Safety Update
Peninsula Montesorri School
Commissioner Swank rais a red flag on one of her schools,Montesorri in
Golden Cove.While it is t City property and the City cannot control the parking
lot,people are gettin p in arms about parking in Golden Cove,getting access
to and from that ,and it is going to create a problem.Everyone is blaming
Montesorri an e mothers because they stay all day.It is a required part of the
program a ontesorri to provide a specific number of volunteer hours.
Volunte then decide to go to Starbucks,although she does not have anything
factu on that except that one day she could not find a parking place at 10:00
a uring the week.She anticipates that,from a school safety standpoint,the
ommission will need to look at this once Trader Joe's is open.The City is being
Traffic Safety Commission Minutes
November 30,2009
Page 25 of 301-81