PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2001

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 1315 VALLEY DRIVE - 7:00 P.M.

MINUTES

Chairman Koch brought the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Present: Commissioners Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo and Winnek
Absent: None
Also Present: Harold C. Williams, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Richard Garland, City Traffic Engineer
Michael Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent
Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department
Jeff Pletyak, LA County Department of Public Works

Chairman Koch led the Pledge Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the February 7, 2001 meeting were approved with noted corrections.

Coming forward to address the Commission at this time was:

James Lissner, Hermosa Beach Resident - Asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that his comments about noticing were specifically in regard to the 30 ^th Street closure project; that when he spoke regarding item 6 on that agenda, he was in support of the two left turn lanes but that he was averse to the elimination of the right turn lane eastbound on Gould at PCH.

Public Comment - None

Correspondence

1. South Bay Energy Summit announcement – taking place on Thursday, March 29 ^th at 7:30 p.m. hosted by the Mayors of Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach.
2. Letter from Mr. Howard Longacre with comments regarding Prospect and Aviation safety lighting, PCH traffic planning, the condition of City’s paving and the condition of the City’s water lines.
3. Fax from Mr. James Lissner regarding the 30 ^th Street closure. Mr. Williams noted that Mr. Lissner was in the audience and that he may want to speak to that issue himself.

Items for Commission Consideration

• Sepulveda/Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Signal Improvement Project

Mr. Williams reported that while had been before the Commission the preceding month and that a representative would be presenting a report in May, the County had advised that they were moving forward with the project and Mr. Jeff Pletyak was in attendance to present a report on the project and answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Williams then gave an overview of the project, noting no construction schedule was yet available but the County is moving towards getting permits from Caltrans.

Mr. Pletyak is the Project Manager for the PCH Traffic Signal Synchronization Project. He was asked by Mr. Williams to review the questions that had been forwarded for response.

1. Why not allow U-turns at various intersections along PCH?
   Mr. Pletyak advised there are multiple reasons for restricting U-turn access at every intersection and that each intersection is analyzed for particular characteristics and road conditions. Main criteria include: space – must be sufficient to allow making turn without it becoming a three-point turn; the type of operation put into the signalized intersection; traffic conditions, the overall volume at the intersection and accident history. He indicated that the distance required for a safe U-turn is 35’ from the edge of the left turn pocket to the curb.
2. Why parking is being eliminated on South side of Gould?
   Mr. Pletyak stated that without widening the roadway, they cannot accommodate the dual left turn lanes without eliminating the parking. Is the conclusion they’ve come to without taking more right-of-way.

• Question: Is there any way you can reduce the lanes by a foot to give allow for parking? Mr. Pletyak commented Caltrans has very strict guidelines on lane widths and they must follow their guidelines. In order to accommodate parking curb lane, a minimum lane width of 18’ is required and there isn’t enough at this location to meet the minimum. An evaluation report requesting the reduction to 11’ from 12’ and it appears they have approved the 1-foot reduction in the lane width. That is, however, the most that can be expected but it still does not allow for the parking to remain.

• Question: At the intersection of Aviation and PCH there is a delayed light, why is it delayed? The main reason is the safety factor for the pedestrian traffic crossing from the island at that intersection. Commissioner Keegan advised that one of the reasons they put in the delay was so that people leaving the Ralph’s parking lot would be able to exit in a safe and timely manner.

1. Intersection of Artesia/Gould – lack of crosswalk at the north approach.
   His best guess that when originally designed was that there was insufficient pedestrian traffic and felt that the three existing crosswalks were sufficient. There is no proposal to change or modify it at this time although it would reduce the efficiency of the intersection. Would interfere with the right turn overlap at the intersection. Allowing pedestrians to cross would delay the right turns of that intersection.

Commissioner Keegan and Mr. Williams noted that the intersection is not in the City’s jurisdiction.

• Question: In the lane where planning to eliminate parking at Gould and Sepulveda on the west side, would it be possible to allow parking when it isn’t prime driving time for eastbound traffic? When looking at the plans you’ll note that the two lanes on Gould have to cross Sepulveda and enter the two lanes on Artesia and if parking is permitted at various times, it would effectively close one of the lanes so that one rather than the two would be available. In addition, would have to provide a lot of advance warning. Also, would or could become a safety hazard as well as reducing the efficiency of the movement of cars through the intersection.

1. PCH at Second Street Intersection – installation of split phasing.
   Split phasing would have the northbound traffic have the green signal separate from the southbound traffic – taking a maximum of 20 seconds from the green on PCH. Was recommended by Caltrans because of the safety hazard of the offset approaches to the intersection.
2. Why is parking eliminated when installing left turn lanes?
   It actually depends on the individual situation for parking to be eliminated. They have very strict guideline standards to meet for the transition. Elimination of parking minimized as much as possible. Reason for dual left turn lanes is to improve the operation of the signal – allowing more traffic to move through the signal, possibly allowing for a shorter green time with more cars traveling through the intersection in the two left turn lanes.

• Question: Had Caltrans looked into the possibility of removing a light along PCH? Mr. Williams responded that he hadn’t had a response from Caltrans yet.

Mr. Pletyak noted that they are in the process of completing the plans and the permit process. They anticipate advertising the construction contract at the end of the summer, after awarded there is a 3-month period to allow the contractor to get equipment, supplies and crew organized with a timeline of approximately one year. Start date at about the end of this calendar year.

Public Comment

Coming up to address item 6a were:

Jim Lissner, - Hermosa Beach Resident - stated that the crosswalk got lost when Manhattan Beach added dual left lanes from southbound Sepulveda to eastbound Artesia, about two years ago. There was a crosswalk at that time and they eliminated it because it would take away some green time and the efficiency of traffic along PCH. Lack of a crosswalk at this location entices those children going to Mira Costa to jaywalk rather than walking the three in-place crosswalks to cross Sepulveda Boulevard. That the crosswalk is in the City’s jurisdiction as it serves our City and that we need to talk to Caltrans or "these people" about it. He feels there is sufficient room for parking in front of the hotel and the condominiums to stay by possibly cutting down the size of the traffic island.

Garrison Frost, 2900 Tennyson Place - Has been very concerned with the traffic situation. He would drive his children to school so they would not have to jaywalk. Mr. Pletyak did not address the fact that the children have to use that intersection to get to school. The crosswalk is an absolute necessity.

Chris Hollow, 2966 La Carlita - Concurs that anything that could discourage short vehicle trips, like the crosswalk at Artesia and Gould, would be helpful and that the safety issue concerning the high school kids is important.

Commissioner Winnek feels that while the crosswalk is both a Caltrans and City of Manhattan Beach issue, a letter to both articulating the concerns expressed would be appropriate.

Mr. Williams advised the department would be happy to send a letter to Caltrans and the City of Manhattan Beach and invite them to address the Commission on that issue – why crosswalk not there & why would resist putting it in.

Commissioner Keegan asked if we have jurisdiction over that side of the street. Mr. Williams responded that we have no jurisdiction over PCH at all. We will have it over Artesia in a few months – once Caltrans relinquishes Artesia to the City. Adding that we have the right to comment whether or not the area in question is in the City’s jurisdiction.

Commissioner Keegan also asked that the department address the removal of one crosswalk at the Pier/PCH intersection when contacting Caltrans – the other of the major intersections with PCH. Mr. Williams agreed to do so.

Discussion resulted in the following motion:

MOTION by Commissioner Winnek to reject Staff’s recommendation to support the Traffic Signal Improvement Project as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Keegan.
Ayes: Keegan, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: Cheatham, Koch
Absent: None
Abstain: None

Further discussion resulted in the following motion:

MOTION by Commissioner Winnek to recommend support of the Traffic Signal Improvement Project with regard to 2nd Street, 5th Street, Aviation Boulevard and Pier Avenue/14th Street and modify the recommendation to the Artesia/Gould aspect to include a crosswalk on the north side and to maintain parking on the south side of Gould. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

• Request to Close 30th Street East of Sepulveda Boulevard at the BMW Dealership and Request to Install Stop Signs on Ardmore Avenue at 30th Street

Mr. Richard Garland, City Traffic Engineer presented his report, which included advantages and disadvantages of the closure with his recommendations that the closure of 30th be sent back to staff for further study and that the request for the Stop signs on Ardmore be sent to City Council for approval.

• Commissioner’s Question: Is SPA zoning – is that a Planning Commission item? Yes, we do not deal with zoning here.

Coming forward to address this issue were:

James Deutsch, 707 30th Street - North Hermosa Beach Committee presentation highlighting the following:

Also highlighted the following reasons for the closure among others:

James Lissner, El Oeste Resident - advised that Gould has the highest traffic level in the City – 13,000 cars per day. Noted that he’d requested that Gould and El Oeste be noticed for this item. It costs $100 for traffic to be measured on a street. Gould not included in the count – should be for complete baseline. Closing 30th and Longfellow would add traffic to his street noting Gould is a residential street only. Suggests that better policing could eliminate the illegal test drives. Air marginally breathable but they want to put hundreds of cars on his street. He hopes that they will at least notify residents on Gould and El Oeste when streets are closed and measure the traffic on all of the effected area – do all the days at the same time.

Bill Salmon, 609 30th Street – stated he is in favor of the 3-way stop at 30th and Ardmore – often sees cars on the wrong side of the road on Ardmore; feels closure of 30th may clog Longfellow and more research is needed; advised that people race on the downhill portion of 30th to Ardmore; trucks are an issue – southbound on Sepulveda they can’t make the turn easily onto 30th from Sepulveda – really no room for a truck there. BMW does a better job of unloading cars on Sepulveda. Not sure how barricades would work – eastbound or westbound barricades. Supports further investigation.

Chris Howell, 2966 La Carlita - Has been meeting with all neighbors in the area for about a year. Agrees with Mr. Lissner that noticing neighbors on El Oeste and Longfellow related to this issue is important. He feels that the BMW dealership has recently gone above and beyond to address these concerns and the CUP violations. Feels they have dramatically reduced their test drives and truck traffic lessened. Two minor accidents by trucks – a power pole knock down and a neighbor’s car was hit. Would like to see a barricade when sees neighbor hood children playing in the street. Would like to see signal moved to Duncan as Longfellow has become a magnet for traffic due to the way projects are being designed and developed in Manhattan Beach. Duncan is a much wider street.

John Hudgins, 723 Longfellow - Basically opposed to the closure of 30th Street, thinks STOP at Ardmore good idea. There does not appear to be an integrated strategy for controlling traffic between Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. Need to emphasize that Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach should consider the overall traffic factors.

Theresa Thompson, 616 Longfellow - Traffic into chiropractor and childcare building bring about much traffic. There is much pedestrian traffic. Where are all the cars going to go if 30th closed. Somehow, some way there is a need to cross Ardmore to get to Greenbelt and a way to get into and out of the Greenbelt. There needs to be something there .

Garrison Frost, 2900 Tennyson Place - He’s very sympathetic to all the arguments for closing 30th and Longfellow, which is incredibly busy. There have to be alternate solutions. Even though signed the original petition, he would not like to see 30th closed; would like to see crosswalk at stop sign when put in at 30th and Ardmore; doesn’t want to see Longfellow closed; have to put some sense into the timing of the traffic light at Longfellow and PCH.

Robert Wickwire, 2900 Amby Place - He agrees with the Stop sign at 30 ^th and Ardmore; suggested that if 30 ^th is closed would be asking for trouble with people turning around at the dead end – accidents would be inevitable with people backing out; trucks do most of their unloading on PCH on east and west sides; closure would inconvenience 82 families. Traffic won’t be stopped by barricading the street. Will just keep moving traffic north.

Lawrence Thompson, 616 Longfellow - Totally against barricading the streets – one-way is the way to go.

Anita Beals, 703 30th Street - Truck off-loading cars at 10:30 p.m. on 30th last night and it happens at least twice per week. Where is Hermosa’s enforcement of posted signs on 30th – both red curb and no left turn in particular? Is for 30th and Ardmore stop sign. Thinks closure of 30th at least should be tried.

Bill Waters, 729 30th Street - Owns property but moved out because of the problems – thinks closure should be tried.

Darlene Blainey, 702 Longfellow - agrees that the 3-way stop is essential. Is essential not to try the closure, do a study before closure for the safety of the people on Longfellow.

Bill Ralston, 3001 Tennyson - He is against the closure, appreciates what his neighbors are trying to do but is leery of the closure and feels will only increase traffic on both Tennyson Place and Longfellow.

J.C. Agajanian, Jr., 2802 Tennyson - He is against trials, feels it should be studied – would like to know what portion of the traffic is commercial and what portion is residential. Understands would benefit some residents but what about the inconvenience to the 82 families; seniors on his street are concerned about access by emergency vehicles. Represents a lot of people against the closure of 30th Street.

Skip Beals, 703 30th Street - Studies can be done forever, if the closure isn’t tested no one will know if it ever will work. Both 30th and Longfellow should be tested. Manhattan Beach is trying to redirect all of their traffic into our area. Will be busier on Longfellow once the new commercial buildings are in. Felt it is an unfair situation for North Hermosa. Test can’t hurt anything but studying takes too long .

Discussion by Commissioners

Commissioner Winnek pointed out that Stop sign at 30th and Ardmore would invite pedestrian traffic, which Mr. Garland confirmed, and that a crosswalk should be included for Greenbelt access. One of the petitioners had suggested flashing yellow lights as an alternative to the three-way stop, which he thought, was a good idea. Asked Mr. Garland to confirm that Caltrans guidelines did not warrant a stop sign at this location, which he did.

Commissioner Cheatham noted that several good arguments for each side of the closure issue had been presented and that he agreed with Staff’s recommendation to do further study. Would like to include in the further study the Stop sign at 30 ^th ; he has some concerns about putting a stop sign at the location – frustration at number of stop signs on Ardmore at the present time – feels bumps in the road, flashing lights may be better ideas.

Commissioner Lombardo asked if even though a situation does not meet Caltrans’ criteria, could there be other reasons to install the stop sign, with visibility being one of them. Mr. Garland responded that visibility would be a consideration. She then asked if signs were posted prohibiting commercial trucks from using the streets in question.

Mr. Williams responded that signs are posted to prohibit commercial trucks – but signage alone doesn’t work, some policing is necessary. Commissioner Lombardo then asked if the department could contact the Police Department about stepping up enforcement to which Mr. Williams responded in the affirmative.

Commissioner Koch commented that listening to both sides of the issue, further study makes sense for the 3th Street Closure and, if the consensus of the community is that the stop sign would help them, feels he would go along would go along with Staff’s recommendation to approve the stop sign.

Commissioner Keegan thanked everyone for coming then noted that he felt that all aspects of the area should be addressed a bit further before closing a street based on BMW traffic alone. These aspects include the development across the street which will be a 60 or 70 thousand square foot building, exits going into the neighborhood, the parking of the BMW’s at Friendly Hills, the employee parking at Friendly Hills, etc. Also, asked about the traffic signal at Longfellow – is it possible to change the light so that they’re not allowed to go through but only go right or left – via the use of arrows. So the development - housing 250 to 380 occupants and as many vehicles – should be taken into account in our study. Also examine the Longfellow impact before making a decision on the closure of 30th Street.

With regard to the stop sign, need to go forward with it but take into consideration of a crosswalk – a landing – any way to get onto and across the Greenbelt – look a possibility of slips and falls in creating a way down to the beach now that have created a way to the beach.

The discussion among the Commissioners resulted in the following motion:

MOTION by Commissioner Winnek to send the item for the installation of the stop sign at Ardmore avenue and 30th Street be sent back for further study with respect to pedestrian traffic and be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Keegan.
AYES: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Winnek
NOES: Lombardo
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

MOTION by Commissioner Winnek to support Staff’s recommendation to send the request to close 30th Street west of Sepulveda at the BMW Dealership back to Staff for further study. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.
AYES: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

• Project No. CIP 00-171 Ardmore Avenue Street Improvements – Various Locations – Review of Plans - taken out of agenda order.

Mr. Tristan Malabanan, Project Engineer, presented his report – giving a description of the project, which includes tree removal, replacing of deteriorated concrete, sidewalk reconstruction, at various locations Ardmore Avenue from Gould to the south end.

Commissioner Cheatham asked about Ardmore being slurry seal. Mr. Malabanan responded that the entire length of the street would be slurry sealed with the exception of the deteriorated areas which would be reconstructed.

Commissioner Koch asked about tree removal and how many trees will be removed. Mr. Malabanan responded that 2 eucalyptus trees, and 1 on private property, 7 fruit trees that will eventually be uprooting the side walk, and two juniper trees at the auto body shop.

Commissioner Cheatham asked if there were any plans to replace the eucalyptus trees to which Mr. Malabanan replied that they would not be replaced because there actually is not enough room for the trees as there is no other pathway at that location.

Commissioner Cheatham asked if residents were encouraged to plant trees or grassy areas to which Mr. Williams replied that the department tries to discourage that because it causes maintenance problems as well a hazard. Residents also complain that there is not enough walking areas – that they have to walk their kids in the street so wherever possible there should be a sidewalk at least 4’ wide.

Commissioner Cheatham inquired at to whether or not the owner of the private property where the one eucalyptus will be removed had been contacted to which Mr. Malabanan replied that several attempts had been made with no success. The tree is a safety hazard. The neighbors have trimmed the tree for their own safety. With regard to the juniper trees, Mr. Malabanan advised that if that location were to be sold, the developer would be responsible to bring the property to the current standards.

Commissioner Cheatham asked if it was possible to widen Ardmore Avenue at 2nd Street as part of this project – taking 1½ feet from the sidewalk planning to put in. Mr. Williams advised that could look into it and see what that cost could be and if it would be feasible. Right now the money available is for roadway improvements, not for widening the roadway. Mr. Malabanan added that the funds supplied by the state are for reconstruction, not for widening the right of way and they have guidelines as to how their money is to be spent.

Commissioner Koch inquired about how this is a time sensitive project and Mr. Malabanan responded that the construction portion of the project had to be awarded by April 1, 2001. Commissioner Koch asked about the practicality of meeting this deadline and was advised that it would be met.

Commissioner inquired about the construction underway on Ardmore between 1st and 2nd Streets. Since they are required to put in sidewalks, why are we subsidizing this work for them? Mr. Malabanan replied that City’s contractor will do the work to the City’s specifications and that they are in negotiations with the developer with regard to reimbursing the City.

Public Comment

Coming forward to address this issue was:

Elaine Trotter, 151 Ardmore – lives next to the eucalyptus trees and supports the project for both safety and economic reasons. They block the view of cars, limbs fall off the tree landing on cars, branches mingle with the overhead wires when have high wind, the roots interfere with plumbing and destroy both the sidewalk and street. The City has repaired the sidewalk in the past and now has to do it again.

The discussion among the Commissioners resulted in the following motion:
MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to support CIP 00-171 Ardmore Avenue Street Improvements, Various Locations, Option 1. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.
AYES: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

List of Proposed CIP Projects for FY 2001-02

Mr. Williams presented the projects that staff is proposing for the coming year’s budget. The Commission is asked to review the list and take on the prioritization of the projects listed.

Review and discussion of the projects resulted in the following:

Mr. Williams agreed to look into the projects recommended in the Pavement Management Study versus the projects that have surfaced by way of Service Requests and resident complaints while noting that Council approved these projects when the Five-Year Plan was approved.

MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to ask the City Council for additional $500,000 in funding for street repairs in fiscal year 01-02 for the first meeting in April. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
AYES: Cheatham, Keegan
NOES: Koch, Lombardo
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Winnek

MOTION by Commissioner Cheatham to approve the CIP projects as stratified in the Commission discussion. Seconded by Commissioner Keegan.
AYES: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

Commissioner’s Reports - None

Commissioner Keegan asked about the poles coming down by the end of July in the Loma Area undergrounding project and Mr. Williams advised that he believes they will be down on time.

Commissioner Keegan asked about the poles on Pier Avenue – doesn’t look like they’re going to finish them. Mr. Williams responded that Edison and PG&E indicated they would hold back for about six months before they went ahead with their Rule 20A project and that he thinks the City should wait and see what happens at the end of the six months.

Commissioner Keegan then suggested that the City set a "drop dead", do the work and then be reimbursed by Edison when they get their funding back. Mr. Williams responded that it is something to look into.

Council Agenda Items

Items presented for information purposes only.

Items Requested by Commissioners

1. Status of safety lighting at Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue – in working condition at this time.
2. Inquiry as to why the raised landscaped medians on Sepulveda Boulevard in Manhattan Beach and not Hermosa Beach – letter to Caltrans requesting information.
3. Inquiry regarding a parking study on Pacific Coast Highway prompted by Mr. Lissner – letter sent to Caltrans requesting information.
4. Sepulveda Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Signal Improvement Project – comments addressed earlier in the evening in item 6a.
5. Commissioner Cheatham’s inquiry as to the dampening the foghorn on the east facing side – baffles have been ordered and received; to be installed as soon as possible.

Public Comment: None

Adjournment

At 11:10 p.m. Chairman Koch adjourned the meeting noting the next meeting will be April 4, 2001.