“MICHAEL KEMPS (incumbent)
”As demonstrated at the August 22, 2022 Special Meeting of the City Council, I provided leadership in response to overwhelming concern and criticism of the Two-Lane Roundabout, declaring the Roundabout dead. Concern was not limited just to the PVEadvocates group or those that frequent Nextdoor. Nor was it limited geographically to Malaga Cove and the immediately surrounding impacted neighbors. A large cross-section of the PVE community expressed concern around the numerous issues raised herein.

Going forward, the city needs to collaborate with residents, communicate effectively, and provide alternative options to address the issue. Most recognize that a problem exists, and that traffic delays vary based on time of day, weekday vs. weekend, and whether schools are in session. Rather than depending on County Measure M funding as a primary guiding limitation, residents have expressed interest in understanding first the options that are least impactful to the bucolic character of our City Center. On an increasing scale of inconvenience and construction cost, options to mitigate traffic should be reviewed by a traffic engineer, the City’s Traffic Safety Committee, and an ad-hoc of the City Council. With resident feedback, a recommendation can be made to City Council for one or more options to address the challenges.””

“VICTORIA LOZZI (incumbent)
”This is a challenging issue, for sure. For the segment of residents opposed to a roundabout, there is likely an opposite segment that is opposed to a traffic signal. With the benefit of hindsight, what I have learned from both public and private meetings is that we did not do enough to demonstrate to residents that there is, in fact, a traffic problem in the “Palos Verdes Drive West Corridor,” that is, between Via Corta and the flags triangle. Without buy-in that there is a problem to be solved, no solution will be satisfactory. So, I believe we need to go back to the drawing board, define the problem, get buy-in from the community that there is a problem (or not), then lay out possible solutions. If we determine that there is a problem to be solved, we may choose to bifurcate the construction of the two sections of PVDW, but we need to develop a holistic plan that addresses both areas together. In my opinion, the current traffic conditions are unacceptable, and what many vocal residents don’t see is the impact to those who live on “cut-through” streets. Drivers find many routes through neighborhoods to avoid the PVDW/Via Corta intersection, and not only is that unsafe for those neighborhoods, it just isn’t fair to those residents.””

“DAVID MCGOWAN (incumbent)
”A reassessment of traffic mitigation options is needed. The traffic problem is currently an hourly one for which temporary mitigation can be achieved by the continuation of traffic directors at the intersection at peak traffic hours. This is not a long-term solution due to the inherent risks, particularly during the winter months with inadequate lighting.

Any substantial expansion of the PV Drive West roadway width designed to mitigate congestion, regardless of the reconfiguration of the intersection, is antagonistic to PVE characteristics. The need for roadway expansion is driven by the projected traffic demand models. It is critical that future roadway reconfiguration options are based on high confidence projected traffic modeling.

Future studies need to consider both the Via Corta intersection and the “triangle”. The recent study separated the two intersections and in retrospect this was in error. Future studies must include a city-wide survey of residents followed by “focus groups”.

Residents will also be faced with how to finance these roadway changes. Some funding sources may require elements that jeopardize the bucolic nature of our city. If residents chose not to agree with any funding constraints are the residents prepared to pay for required changes?

Before any decisions are made regarding these intersections, I will strive to ensure that a realistic traffic demand model is established, all realistic mitigation options are considered, input from the residents as well as professional traffic engineers is obtained, and that the alternatives are clearly articulated and compared with one another.””

“DESIREE “DEZ” MYERS
”• Acknowledge what went wrong and reestablish trust with residents

Major development projects, particularly ones that change the character of the city, should absolutely require the support of the residents. It is critical for residents to know if Council agrees.

• Preserving PVE is essential to most residents. People did not move here for traffic efficiency. Options viable to residents are likely to exclude changing the city character and widening the streets, which is where many of the objections stemmed from.

• Fix the data collected which was used to compare the alternatives

Residents pointed out many flaws in the data collected by the city that led to the conclusion a roundabout would improve traffic flow.

• Recognize the city is missing critical records needed for decision making and take action to address. The city is missing:
o a zoning map of the city
o Measure A restrictions on the use Civic Center park which was being repurposed for the roundabout
o Toxic site information from the mobile station which is now the Civic Center park
We need to digitize our documents and place in our searchable tool, which we already own, called Questys. Let’s start using it.

• Determine how much of the $800,000 was spent on the (canceled?) roundabout design or whether funds remain to design a solution residents want.

Finally, recognize there is no perfect solution, but rather identifying the best solution is the goal.””