PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2001 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 1315 VALLEY DRIVE 7:00 P.M. MINUTES

Chairman Koch brought the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

1. 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

 

2. Flag Salute
Vice Chairman Lombardo led the Pledge Allegiance.

3. Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the March 14, 2001 were approved as written; minutes of the February 7, 2001, meeting were approved as amended.

4. Public Comments

Point of order by Commissioner Winnek asking that all members of the public addressing the Commission state and spell their names for the record.

No comments at this time.

5. Correspondence

Fax from Mr. James Lissner regarding the Sepulveda Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Signal Improvement Project. Mr. Lissner was not present to speak to this item.

Item was received and filed.

6. Items for Commission Consideration

a. Request for Proposals for Construction Management/Inspection Services as needed

Mr. Williams explained that the services being requested would help augment the limited department staff; that there are several street improvement projects coming up that will require close supervision as they are both state and federally funded, which requires a degree of expertise that the consultant can provide.

Discussion revealed that the purpose of the proposal is to develop a list of qualified firms from which several will be selected with whom costs will be negotiated for the various projects. An agreement will be issued for a fixed amount and Task Orders will be issued for each of the projects. A dollar figure cannot be determined until the scope of work for each project is decided. These projects are those which have or will have City Council approval.

MOTION by Commissioner Winnek to approve item 6a as recommended. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

2. Request for Stop Signs on Ardmore Avenue at 30 ^th Street to Create a 3-Way Stop Control Intersection

Mr. Garland presented his report which included the further study of the 30 ^th Street and Ardmore location as directed at the March 14, 2001 Commission meeting. Staff recommended that a 3-way stop control be created and, since pedestrians currently cross Ardmore at 30 ^th Street and are accustomed to accessing the Greenbelt via the informal footpaths, have no marked crosswalks, hardscape or sidewalk type improvements.

Point of order by Commissioner Winnek asking that public comment be limited to three minutes with one minute for rebuttal.

Coming forward to address this issue were:

Butch Kuflak, 666 Longfellow
Asked if crosswalks would help to identify the intersection in addition to the stop sign, to which Mr. Garland responded that if a crosswalk would be put in at this location it would entail improvements, including a sidewalk, which are not considered appropriate for this location.
Mr. Kuflak noted he is happy the stop sign is being put in but what about the people with wheelchairs. Mr. Williams responded that the intersection 100 feet away at the north leg of 30th Street has a wheelchair ramp and sidewalk, which make it a safer place for an individual to cross. Also, it is the City’s position not to put any more hardscape on the Greenbelt.

Chris Howell, La Carlita Place
Supports Staff recommendation to install the stop at the intersection. Suggested checking out what’s been done in Manhattan Beach to allow wheelchair access to the Greenbelt using hard-packed granite.

Jim Deutsch, 707 30th Street
He agrees with recommendation to install stop at this location. He has discussed the Greenbelt hardscape with other City officials and proceeded to present an alternative for the crosswalk.

Anita Beals, 703 30th Street
Stated she felt that all the neighbors wanted was a stop sign to slow traffic and make it a safer neighborhood.

Theresia Thompson, 616 Longfellow
She knows the stop sign is needed to get to the Greenbelt. She is very concerned that there is no way to get across to the Greenbelt if the cars don’t slow down. Traffic wasn’t as heavy in the past. Can something please be put in to allow senior citizens and mothers with babies access to the Greenbelt.

Pete Stehman of 2915 Tennyson Place
Has lived in his home for 50 years. He feels that the intersection is busy enough to require a stop sign. Really need traffic light at the next intersection with Artesia but that’s another issue.

J.C. Agajanian, 2802 Tennyson Place
Stated he is here to support stop signs at 30th; that there is a basic need is to slow the cars down so that residents can turn on that street. Asked Mr. Garland if any wheelchairs or mothers with baby carriages were seen when doing the traffic study. Mr. Garland responded that he had not seen any wheelchairs and just one or two strollers and they did not cross at 30th, they went down the street.

Robert Mork, 663 Longfellow
Is opposed to additional signage while empathizes with his neighbors, he is opposed to solving problems with more signs. Stated that Ardmore has gone from no signs to two signs in the last two months. He asked about putting a barrier at 30th Street to prevent pedestrians from crossing and directing them down Ardmore to where it joins with Valley. He said he’d like to have Commission reconsider.

Chris Howell – rebuttal
Noted that it is really a long time safety issue – residents want to use 30th Street to get onto Ardmore, don’t want to have go to Longfellow because there is a better line of sight.

Discussion among the Commissioners pointed out that

• no measurable difference was seen in the traffic studies done before and after the installation of the stop sign at Duncan
• while a stop sign at that location was not warranted according to Caltrans criteria, the sight distance problem was the driving factor in Staff’s recommendation rather than speeding problems
• there is a great deal of difficulty getting out onto Ardmore from 30th Street

MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to approve Staff’s recommendation to support the Request to create a 3-way stop control intersection. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Lombardo.
Ayes: Keegan, Koch, Lombardo
Noes: Cheatham, Winnek
Absent: None
Abstain: None

Mr. Williams noted that the next step for this item will be to go before the City Council for approval and if the City Council approves it by resolution, the sign will be installed within 30 days. This will be on the Council agenda at the April 24, 2001, meeting.

c. Resident Petition Requesting Trial Traffic Management Plan in North Hermosa Beach

Mr. Garland reported that residents of Longfellow were requesting via petition a partial closure of 30th Street blocking westbound traffic and a partial closure of Longfellow also blocking westbound traffic in addition to several other traffic-related changes. Since so many petitions had been received asking for a variety of traffic-pattern revisions, Staff was recommending that a more comprehensive report than originally requested at the March 14, 2001, meeting be prepared. The boundaries of this study would be Gould Avenue on the south, Prospect Avenue on the east, Valley Drive on the west and Manhattan Beach Boulevard on the north.

Discussion among the Commissioners followed determining that discussion with the Manhattan Beach Public Works Department would be part of the study and that no resistance was anticipated.

Coming forward to address this issue were:

Butch Kuflack, 666 Longfellow
Applauds Staff’s recommendation to look into this. Mr. Kuflack asked whether or not Manhattan Beach had coordinated with Hermosa Beach with any of their decisions. North Hermosa will be greatly impacted by the changes being made by Manhattan Beach.

Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste
Asked that traffic counts on Gould Avenue be made part of the study.

James Deutsch, 707 30th Street
He said that those who signed the first petition feel that the closures should not be considered or approved until the City completes the complete traffic study. Noted that the original request was to do the study of 30th Street and what would happen with the closure there. He still feels that closing 30th Street at the east end is the answer to the problems of the residents of 30th Street. He would like the Commission to consider a trial closure at that location. He is against partial closure of either street.

Chris Howell, La Carlita Place
He endorsed the Staff report, feels the study including neighbors on Gould is very important. He added that if BMW dealership leaves it could drastically change the area depending upon what types of businesses went into that location. The proposed 57,000-sq. ft. building at Sepulveda and Longfellow is designed around the traffic signal at Longfellow – while the building is on hold at this time, anticipated traffic could cause great traffic problems.
He added that at the last meeting some thought they wanted a cul de sac at the 700 block of 30th Street but that is not his motivation – he wants to see problems with businesses reduced rather than exacerbated by the influx of vehicles.
Would like to see BMW dealership remain and expand to cover area.

J.C. Agajanian, 2802 Tennyson Place
Spoke with BMW General Manager who said they plan on staying. Also, he agrees with the scope of the report – that all of the area should be taken into account.

Discussion among the Commissioners resulted in the following motion:

MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to support Staff’s recommendation incorporating the petition received requesting trial traffic management plan in North Hermosa with the petitions previously received regarding 30th Street and Longfellow Avenue and initiate an area-wide traffic study for the area north of Gould Avenue. Seconded by Commissioner Winnek.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

d. Review of Newsrack Location Requirements and Limitations

Mr. Williams advised that the City has an ordinance that regulates newsracks, which is very specific, as to what criteria has to be met to be able to be legally in place. When upgraded newsrack vigilance, application of the code to existing locations, only 3 locations were acceptable. The department, therefore, is in a situation where help from the Commission is needed to decide whether or not to try to relax some of the criteria noted in the code. With the help of the Commission, will need to review the code, field check locations, give the department some guidance so department will be better able to advise Council on how to rectify this issue.

Discussion ensued which revealed the following:

• This part of the code was originally developed in the ‘60s
• Code not enforced in the past because department always hit the same wall – stringent criteria made enforcement difficult
• Once current problems with enforcement are resolved, will be able to respond to citizen and business owner complaints regarding the proliferation of newsracks within the City.
• Department was asking that the Commission look at the situation in depth taking into consideration the actual locations of the newsracks
• Will be reassessing the Municipal Code not for the purpose of regulating speech or any first amendment issue, but solely for public access to our public thoroughfares – only those in the public right-of-way
• Most cities have something similar to this
• A committee could be appointed to review with Staff
• The $15 fee was established by the City Manager’s office

MOTION by Vice Chairman Lombardo to establish a sub-committee consisting of Commissioner Winnek and Commissioner Cheatham to work with Staff to review the criteria for newsracks in the public right-of-way. Seconded by Commissioner Winnek.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

e. Draft of the MTA Long Range Transportation Plan

Plan provided as an information item as well as an item to help familiarize the Commissioners with what the MTA is doing for long range transportation planning to ease congestion throughout the county area. Mr. Williams noted that the City is concerned more with traffic operations than transportation planning.

Discussion of the plan ensued noting that while there was potentially quite a bit of funding available for new bike paths, the City would not be looking into the possibility until it was voted on by the residents. This is a receive and file item.

f. South Bay Cities Strategic Transportation Investment Portfolio Study Report

Item provided as an information item only.

MOTION by Vice Chairman Lombardo to receive and file items 6e and 6f. Seconded by Chairman Koch.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

7. Commissioners’ Reports

Commissioner Lombardo reported on the recent Energy Summit in Redondo Beach. She felt that no solutions had been presented. Mr. Williams also attended and said the bottom line was consumers would have to pay more and to make it easier on yourself "conserve, conserve, conserve".

Discussion of the energy situation brought out the following:

• The only part of the undergrounding that would be affected would be the Rule 20A projects.
• The response to the Commission’s inquiry about the feasibility of taking over the City’s Rule 20A project and complete it. According to Edison they aren’t sure that could be done. If the City did that, it could be looked at as a gift of public funds. The public has already paid for this work through rate paying and if the City went out and did the work and paid again, it would be like the residents were paying twice. Edison isn’t sure that the City can do that and it isn’t something Edison wants to get into at this time.
• This is not the best time for cities to band together and purchase energy in order to bypass Edison.
• Best thing to do would be to ride it out and conserve.

8. Council Agenda Items

The items are presented to keep the Commissioners informed as to what is going to City Council.

Mr. Williams pointed out the item concerning the state’s relinquishment of Artesia Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Harper (8b). Discussion of the item ensued regarding the condition of Artesia Boulevard and that the City will be receiving a sum of money for the repairs; the City is looking at having a joint project with Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach for the repairs to Artesia Boulevard once it is relinquished.

9. Items Requested by Commissioners

a. 

1. The feasibility of widening of Ardmore will be addressed at a later date.
2. City taking over the Rule 20A project – not sure that can be done.
3. The time has not been available to do a comparison of the Pavement Management Study vs. Service Requests to establish priorities for pavement work.

b. Response from Caltrans

Information only – the Caltrans engineer has responded to all points raised by Mr. Lissner.

10. Other Matters

Under Other Matters, Mr. Williams requested that the meetings be changed to the second Wednesday of the month starting in June.

MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to change the meeting days to the second Wednesday of the month beginning June 13, 2001. Seconded by Commissioner Winnek.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

Commissioner Keegan inquired about the status of the undergrounding. Mr. Williams advised that by the end of May they’d be able to power up the Myrtle District and then move over to the Loma District. Don’t have firm date for when the poles will come down.

Public Comment:

None

Commissioner Keegan then commented on the CIP for the repair 21st Street with Ava and Springfield. He stated that he felt that Ava was being worked on quite a bit ahead of when it was due and that there are other streets that, according to the Pavement Management Study, were more in need of repair. Discussion of the project brought out the following information:

• The Pavement Management Study is used as a guide in conjunction with Service Requests indicating where residents are having difficulty.
• Projects may move ahead of others for a variety of reasons, sometimes based on a commitment made to a community that the work would be done.
• Recommendations can be made to change the order in which projects can be done.

Commissioner Keegan went on to suggest that alternatives to Ava and Springfield be researched – move another project forward in place of Ava and Springfield. He’d like to move Various Streets #3 Street Improvement project ahead of Ava and Springfield.

Commissioner Winnek recused himself from voting as he lives on Ava Avenue. He stated that as a resident of Ava Avenue, he knows that the residents of 21st Street, Ava and Springfield all want to have their streets paved – especially 21st Street as it is highly travelled. In addition, Ava Avenue has numerous cuts in the concrete with many patch jobs. He would like to see this street included in the project.

Discussion of the project brought up the following:

• Ava and Springfield are cul de sacs
• The streets in Various Projects #3 are all through streets and are rated lower than Ava
• Commissioner Keegan only wants to remove Springfield and Ava, not removing 21st Street
• The department is Service Request driven. That is how the department gets feedback from the community.

Further discussion resulted in the following motion:

MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to remove Ava and Springfield from CIP 01-163 Street Improvements, 21st Street, Ava and Springfield and push up Various Street Improvements #3, which includes 6th, 7th and 9th Streets. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Recused: Winnek

Additional discussion resulted in the following motion:

MOTION by Commissioner Keegan to establish a Capital Improvement Program Sub-Committee to review the Five-Year Plan and to make any amendments or adjustments for future years to include Commissioner Keegan and Commissioner Cheatham. Seconded by Vice Chairman Lombardo.
Ayes: Cheatham, Keegan, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None

Adjournment

At 11:10 p.m. Chairman Koch adjourned the meeting noting the next meeting will be May 2, 2001.