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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Requested a temporary (6-month) closure of 30th to
determine feasibility of permanent closure
- Requested a comprehensive traffic study of the area
during the same 6-month period
- Requested approval of the 3-way stop at Ardmore Ave. and
30th Street
- Would like Caltrans to address the possibility of moving
the traffic signal at Longfellow to a Manhattan Beach
location
Also highlighted the following reasons for the closure among
others:
- Providing a buffer between new commercial uses and
existing residential neighborhood
- Providing a safe residential neighborhood in order to
prevent accidents on 30
th
due to BMW test drives, vehicle deliveries and increased
traffic – resident’s vehicle had been sideswiped
by a car-carrier
- Encouraging BMW to remain while enhancing the
City’s tax base through an SPA zone
- Exploring new alternative uses and the effect on our
neighbor should BMW leave
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.
- January Monthly Activity Report
- Project Status Reports
- Utility Undergrounding Projects Status Reports
- CIP 95-507 Valley Park Improvements – Approval of
Plans, Specifications & Estimates
Items Requested by Commissioners
- Status of safety lighting at Aviation Boulevard and
Prospect Avenue – in working condition at this time.
- Inquiry as to why the raised landscaped medians on
Sepulveda Boulevard in Manhattan Beach and not Hermosa Beach
– letter to Caltrans requesting information.
- Inquiry regarding a parking study on Pacific Coast Highway
prompted by Mr. Lissner – letter sent to Caltrans
requesting information.
- Sepulveda Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Signal
Improvement Project – comments addressed earlier in the
evening in item 6a.
- 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.