The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-10-06; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Request for a stoplight removal at intersection of Concord Street and Elm AvenueCITY Of CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMMISSION REPO RT OF: October 6, 1986 ITEM NO.D-7 LOCATION: Intersection of Concord Street and Elm Avenue INITIATED BY: Ms. Josephine Manfredi, 2702 Olympia Drive, Carlsbad, CA BACKGROUND: The signal at this location was installed and energized in June 1986. Ms. Manfredi has written a letter to Mayor Casler (attached) requesting that this light be removed. Additional correspondence is also attached. DATA: At the meeting of September 17, 1985 the City Council approved the installation of a traffic signal at this inter- section in lieu of demolishing a portion of the stucco wall on the northeast corner of the intersection (see attached minutes). The signal was one of several alternatives available to the City Council. A memo from the Traffic Engineer to the City Council dated September 12, 1985 recommended removing a portion of the stucco wall to achieve the minimum necessary sight distance. Ms. Manfredi has presented a petition signed by many residents on Olympia Drive to have the signal removed. Removal of the signal will not eliminate the sight distance problem for vehicles exiting Concord Street onto Elm Avenue when looking for westbound vehicles approaching the intersection. Motorists entering onto Elm Avenue from Concord Street must wait for the signal to change in order to provide a safe exit. Driver and pedestrian impatience in waiting for a green signal on Concord Street (and subsequent red on Elm Avenue) will defeat the purpose of the signal. Removal of the Traffic Safety the stucco wall traffic signal traffic signal is not recommended by the Coordinating Committee unless a portion of that blocks sight distance is removed. The would not be necessary if there was adequate TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMMISSION REPORT OF: October 6, 1986 Continued ITEM NO.D-7 sight distance in an easterly direction when exiting Concord Street onto Elm Avenue. CONCLUSION: Safety of motorists and pedestrians on Elm Avenue at this intersection is paramount and cannot be compromised. Deci- sions have been made in the past by the City Council not to remove a portion of the stucco wall which is causing the problem. Therefor, with the sight distance restriction as it currently exists, the traffic signal is the only viable solution. RECOMMENDATION: After review of the alternatives, the Traffic Safety Coordi- nating Committee believes there are two (2) alternatives from a safety and liability standpoint. Removal of a portion of the stucco wall to improve sight distance would allow the traffic signal to be removed. If the wall is not removed, the signal must remain. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that the traffic signal remain, unless a portion of the stucco wall is removed. NECESSARY COUNCIL ACTION: Removal of the signal must be authorized by the City Council. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92006-1989 Office of the Mayor August 27, 1986 etitp of etarlsbab Ms. Josephine Manfredi 2702 Olympia Drive Carlsbad, CA .. 92008 Dear Ms. Manfredi: The decisions to place a stop light at Elm and Concord, and to cul-de-sac Olympia Drive, were made after at least two hearings before the City Council. Many residents of the area spoke and the Council had received letters and phone calls in favor of those actions. The City of Carlsbad engineering staff had also studied the problem and thought this the best solution. I regret you feel you are having problems with the signal. • I noted you have copied your letter to the Traffic Safety Commission. Perhaps they will find an acceptable alternative. Sincerely, ~ER~ Mayor TELEPHONE (819) 438-5699 2702 Olympia Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 August 23, 1986 Tels (619) 434-2556 RECEIVED Mary Casler Mayor of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 CITY OF CARL$3AD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Dear Mayors Many thanks for taking a few valuable moments out of your busy schedule to read my letter. I hope this letter will help you understand why the residents of Olympia Drive are upset and disappointed. When we purchased these homes on Olympia Drive, (which by no there was no mention in any of the papers we signed, that in (2) traffic lights were to be installed on Elm and Concord. Standard Pacific of San Diego. Tel# (619) 27g--2042, means are cheap) the future two The builder i~ These traffic lights are causing many problems, not eliminating them. Drivers are trying to "Beat the Light" so to speak,· and they are speeding up or down Elm Avenue, Residents in Carlsbad Heights are now using Olympia Drive to eliminate the light. They come speeding down the street where many small children live and play, Some families have problems sleeping with the "Red Hand" glaring into their bedroom windows. Some of us have tried to sell our homes because of these factors and the would be buyers are turned off by the signal lights. They have decreased the value of our property and have caused the residents of Olympia Drive "Mental Anguish" in many different ways. Traffic lights such as these are not suited in a residential neighborhood , They are for business locals. We are pleading for you to have these lights removed. They have only caused problems not eliminated them. Stop signs will do the job. I will be looki ng forward to hearing from you. S~ncerely, 1 • =-Ji-2-c r, lu ,T/_h .; Josephine Manfredi (__.,--; 1 r 1/ }i' a ~'I/ ?J r. ✓ P.S. Am enclosing a copy of this letter to Traffic and Safety Commission, Bob Johnson 2702 Olympia Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 September 9, 1986 Bob Johnson City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Dear Mr. Johnson, SEP 9 1986 CITY OF CARLSBAD DEVELOP. PROC. SERV. DIV. Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from the Mayor of Carlsbad written to me on 8/27 ,86 in answer to my letter to her on 8/23/86, Also enclosed is a letter which I have received and a few residents on Olympia Drive have received from Standard Pacific of San Diego, A few neighbors and myself have visited some residents on Olympia Drive and most are in favor of removing the signal lights at the corner of Elm and Concord, We are getting a petition signed. Their complaints are as follows: (1) The lights are not serving the purpose for which they were intended. Drivers are coming out of Concord without waiting for the signal to change, (2) One resident who went around last year for the petition not to tear down the wall on the Elm and Waterbury side has sold his home. Evidently he was not pleased with the light situation either in the back of his home. (3) The lights are causing mental anguish to the families on Olympia Drive. In some homes they shine into the living quarters all day long and in others into their bedroom windows causing sleepless night. One man has had a mild heart attack because of this and I too, am very upset and nervous about:, the ligr,ts as are other families all the way up on Olympia Drive, All we can see is a hughe stop light glaring at us from our back yards spoiling the beautiful view we used to have and paid dearly for, No doubt our properties have decreased greatly in value, John Hammond of Standard Pacific has seen these problems in a few homes he visited here on Olympia Drive. His letter was in response to his viewing the homes. (4) As I mentioned in my letter to the Mayor the people are trying to"Beat the light" and are speeding up at Elm Avenue at a high rate of speed. (SJ Most residents want an alternate route. Carlsbad should not allow all this building in this area with only Elm Ave. as a means to get to thei~ destination. Another cut off around Vista Way, or wherever should be built as a means of eleviating some of the traffic on Olympia Drive, (6) Most people feel caution light or "Slow Down" signs is the best solution . (7) People do not want another signal light to be installed on Pontiac and Elm. We also want the Signal light at Concord and Elm removed. Sincerely, rr-1~-J 'n~_,()./r\fv-,t~, Josephine S, Manfredi Tel : (619) 434-2556 September 5, 1986 . Mr. & Mrs. Manfredi 2702 Olympia Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Manfredi: STANDARD 0 F SAN PACIFIC DIE G 0 Thank you for the courtesy you extended to me last Tuesday afternoon regarding your displeasure with the recently installed traffic signal on Elm Avenue at Concord Street. Please be patient until we can discuss the possibilities with City Staff. We will be contacting you with further information as soon as possible. Very truly yours, STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO ~l:;-r General Superintendent JH:jk 7290 Clairemont Mesa Blvd./ San Diego, California 92111 / (619) 279-2042 2 702 CJl ·_::~.p:a Uri ~·,2 Carl:~'i.:crJ , Ci1 . J :20O c~ September 11 , 1986 J ,::i hn Ha::i..11 ond , Ge neral Su;:ie.::-in'.:.encen-c Standard Pacific o f San DiEgo 72 90 Clair e~ont Mes a 3lvd San Diego , Ca . 9 2111 Dear r-:r . Ha;nmo:1c : Thank you for your letter of September 5 , 1986 . CITY OF CARLSBAD D.EVELOP. PROC. SERV. DIV. I hav e personall y delivered a copy of yo ur letter t o Bob J c~~so~, Traffic Engineer , City cf Carlsbad . As you know, acting i n behalf of the r esidents on Oly,r.pia Drive, I wrote a lecter to Mary Casler , Mayor cf Carlsbad , on Au ;~s= 23, '26 . In case you miE placed -che copy of the letter I sent t o you , : a~ enclosing a nother copy alo ng with a copy of her letcer in res~2~se -co mine , v,hich is dated l-.c1gust 27 , 1 986. As I mentio:-.cc in ':.r:e l e':.;:.e:: I wrote t o our 1-~ayor on August 23 , 1986, no resident c:: Cl 2-r.:_ria c ~-i-,-e was t c ld, nor was chere a ny ffiention in the papers we signed ~~en we purchased our homes fro~ Standard Pacific , that there ~oul~ be tra~~-c lights i :1 scalled at t he ccrne:::: o f Elm and Concc'rci , or side c: Elm and Waterbury mic:;ht have t o be torr. dmm . wonder th2.t the resicents are upset? As you muse already know , these lights are t otally usEless . ~ri~e~~ a r e speeding out of Ccncard without wa iting f ~r the lights t o tu~~- Stud~ncs whc -cake the bus are doing the same . They dash acres~ tjE street without wai-cin9 f or che signal lights cc cr1ar.ge . ;,;E:, i:_:-,':' residents have been watchi~g since the lighcs were i nsta:le~ at different t~~es of ciay and night cc see just ho~ Da ny reside~::~ a~ the hia terbury exit obey the era ff ic sL:;nals tha-.: \,ere i ,~.s t2-~ le::i . • .. -2 have agreed that almost every driver and pedestria~ 9r 0ceed as :~=-j~~- these traffic lights do not exist . In yotlr :et ter cf September 5 , 1986 whict you wrote t s sc~e res i t 2n':s on Ol yrr.pia Drive , you have asked tha~ the ~e~id~n~s De ;:2~:.:.e:-.:: '\.;.:, r.:-! Standard Pacifi c of San Diego until you can disc~ss ciis ~a=ter ~it_~ the City Council Staff at Carlsbad . I believe there will be a :c ~~:i: me eting soon , a nd we advise you to contact Bcb J ohns o~, Traffic En0 ~~~er City of Ca rlsbad , as to the t i me , da te, and place ~her e thi~ ~s0::~~0 will be teld . You can reach hi m at (619) 436-1161 , ex::e~~~cn ~~e~ in r egard to this meeting . We hope ':o see yoc t h ere ;,i:::1 c. scL:::_-::-:. t o this prc bler.i . I aIT'. sure !Ticre names will !:-,e added in the next :e,A· C=->=' c.cc -,-.-- the remaining neighbors . ~incerely P . J\ j --\ -. r~ :·cv.' ~ e~:cl <"' i • -: pr1 j ~ j I C L. • • i r· f' -)?-rJ<?~7-r.7c) ✓<Z ,:_//11/.;o r5--:r; L;:;· r 'O 1· c-;, 1 v--ffJ -" (J___ yJ ., ~ i l CJ ~ h Lr-c September 12, 1985 TO: FROM: CI T Y -CO U .NC I L TRAFFIC ENGINEER REMOVAL Of WALL -ELM AVENUE AND CONCORD STREET BACKGROUND: Standard Pacific is the developer for CT 74-4, Spinnaker Point, located in the vicinity of Elm Avenue and Concord Street. In March, 1983, a stucco wall was build adjacent to the development along Elm Avenue and on a portion of Concord Street (see Exhibit A). This wall was not shown on any previous plans; neither the tentative map, improvement plans nor the grading plans. At the time of construction the City's inspector informed the contractor that the wall was not per the approved improvement plans. Since construction the developer has been approached several times to correct the situation until at the end of August a certified letter was sent with a deadline of September 6, 1985 to comply (see attached correspondence marked as Exhibit B). DATA: The wall is 5-1/2 feet high and has a wood core covered with stucco. The face of the wall is approximately one and one-half feet within the public right-of-way. Elm Avenue in this area is designated as a secondary arterial street with a curb to curb width of 64-feet within 84-feet of right-of-way. The design speed is 40 miles per hour. City Standards call for a minimum sight distance for 40 mph as recommended by the AASHTO Polic on Geometric Desi n of Hi hwa s and Streets. That distance is 750-feet see Exhibit C . The available sight distance, as determined from field surveys, is 220-feet which is adequate for a vehicle approaching at 30 mph to be able to stop in time to avoid a collision. (Signs have been placed preceeding the intersection warning of the side road [Concord Street] and advising drivers of the need to reduce speed. This measure is temporary only because compliance with City Standards by removing the wall will render them superfluous.) Rick Engineering, consultant for the developer, has analyzed the minimum amount of wall which must be removed to provide the 750- feet of sight distance. Their analysis recommends varying the wall height between 3.5 feet and 5 feet as dictated by the verticle and horizontal alignment of Elm Avenue as it approches the Concord Street intersection (see Exhibit E). . ---.... City Council Removal of Wall -Elm Avenue and Concord Street September 12, 1985 Page: 2 On September 3, 1985, Council members received a letter from Mr. Charles Macklin regarding this issue (see Exhibit D). In that letter several measures are suggested pertaining to general traffic operations which are addressed as follows in seriatum. 1. Speed: Until recently Elm Avenue was closed east of Pontiac. Any speed survey to establish a speed limit would have been meaningless. After opening Elm Avenue, it was necessary for local traffic to become familiar with the road in order to obtain a valid survey. That survey will be completed in the near future and presented to the Council for establishment of a speed limit. 2. Stop Signs: A 3-way stop intersection cannot be justified by any of the warrants used to evaluate such a need. For the very reason it is suggested, reduced visibility, the result would probably be more accidents. We can not recommend a three-way stop at this time. 3. Crosswalk: There are three legal crosswalks at Concord Street and Elm Avenue. Marked crosswalks are used only to indicate where to cross when it may be confusing to the pedestrian otherwise. Experiencce with crosswalks has demonstrated that pedestrian vehicle accidents are more likely to occur within and because of marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks can not be recommended in this area. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Require removal of the entire wall both east and west of Concord. Because the wall is within the right-of-way and was built without approval, we can require the removal of the wall. This would provide the necessary sight distance. It would not be a satisfactory solution to residents whose property abuts Elm Avenue. 2 .. Require removal of the entire wall east of Concord. The sight and so The same with this distance problem is to the east of Concord Street removal of the wall to the west is not essential. situation concerning residents' desires would apply alternative. 3. Reduce the speed on Elm Avenue. City Counc il Removal of Wall -Elm Avenue and Concord Street September 11 , 1985 Page: 3 The on ly reasonable means of reducing speeds i n the area is a c on s t ant enforcement effort. Because of manpower need s for highe r p riority locat ions, it is not feasible to do more than irregular surveillance. In addition, the plans were approved for a 40 mph design speed. Traffic operations and safety can not be compromised by a situation which can be corrected. 4. Requi re removal of a por t ion of the wall t o achieve th e minim um 750-foot sight distance. As s ho wn in Exhibit E, the entire wall need not come down to achiev e the minimum recommended sight distance. Though the original intent of no wall would have provided an improved margin of safety, this alt e rnative will provide adequate sight distance. Some residents will still be impacted but for t he most part the wall will remain. 5. Do no th ing. This a l ternative will satisfy those residents adjacent to the wall bu t does nothing for traffic safety. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends alternative 4 which removes those portions of the wall neessary to achieve t he minimum sight distance. Prior to rebui ld ing the wall cap, staff will field check the adequacy of the sigh t distance. ~~ KENT SEARS Traffic En g ineer KS:lch LOCATION MAP l.o~c.o .-d ·0{'. __,.,.._-----------~ ~------· :7 ; : lon \,0-c.. 7 ~r .. PROJECT NAME SPINNAKER PT. -WALL REMOVAL VICINITY MAP N.T.S. PROJ. EXHIBIT NO. NA A __________________________ ....., ____ --"'------. , (\ MINUTES September 17, 1985 Page 8 (CT 74-4) (99 ) 21 . REMJVAL OF WALL -ELM AVENUE AND COOCO;RD STREET. City Engineer Gene Donovan gave the staff report as contained in the Agenda Bill, using a transpar~ncy to show the site. He stated that this afternoon Bob Allen had proposed to construct a traffic signal at Elm and Concord at Standard Pacific's expense, and, in addition, Standard Pacific "'10Uld provide $15,000.00 for the City's maintenanc:e of this signal for the next five years. He added the land under the wall "'10Uld revert to the residents and they would ai.rn the land they t hought they owned originally. Bob Allen, representing Standard Pacific, 7290 Clairerront Mesa Boulevard, addressed Council, stating t his agreerrent \oiOl.lld enable the residents to retain the wall. This \oiOl.lld be of benefit to the residents and to the City. He reiterated Standard Pacific's willingness t o install the signal and provide maintenanc:e for five . years in the arrou.nt of $15,000.00. Charles Macklin, representing the neighbors, indicated t hey concurred with the proposed solution. Edwin Perea, 2701 Olyrrpia, expressed his c:onc:ern with t raffic problems en Olyrrpia, stating they were as great as those en Concord, and suggested a two-way signal at Elm and Concord, to include Olyrrpia. He added that the children are picked up~ the school bus on Olyrrpia, and there should be sdlool crosswalks. Counci l directed the City Attorney to draw up nocuments approving the settlement as proposed~ Mr . Allen and enter into an agreement with Standard Pacific. The City "'10Uld stay enforc:ement action until tonds and the agreement are rrade for the installation of the traffic signal. (41) 22. CLCSED SESSIOO ~IN:; PENDIN'.; LITIQ.TIOO. Council authorized a closed session to discuss Holt Castaneda et al pursuant to Governrrent Code Section 54956.9(a). Council adjourned to a closed sesseion at 9:12 p.m., and re-convened at 9:25 p.m., with ro action taken. v. Council Ment>er Chick left at 9:15 p.m., due to illness. AnJCXJRN-1ENI': By proper rrotion, the ~ting of Septeiooer 17, 1985, was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully subnitted, Casler X Lewis X Kulchin X Chick X X Petti ne X Casler X X Lewis X Kulch i n X Chick X Pettine X 10-8 SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Traffic Manual 10-1979 or unloading passengers for time limit speci- fied or for depositing mail in adjacent mail box. d. Green -indicates time limit parking speci- fied by ordinance. e. Blue-indicates parking only for vehicles identifed by license or placard issued to handicapped persons. Traffic Manual SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Plgure 1~1 TYPICAL SCHOOL SIGN INSTALLATIONS W83 I SCHOOL I W85 WHA INSTALLATION A INSTALLATION B ISCHOOLJ W85 SPEED WM LIMIT R2 25 WHEN CHILDREN R72 ARE PRESENT INSTALLATION C INSTALLATION D NOTES: • Installation C is for use on streets having speed limits other than 25 mph, but may also be used instead of Installation A in any school zone. • Omit W65 when W63 is used away from the school zone. • Any of the Installations A, B, or C sign assemblies may be fabricated as a single unit. 10-9 1-1• Figure 10-2 SCHOOL LOCATED ADJACENT TO A PARTIALLY CONTROLLED INTERSECTION IN AN AREA WITH SPEED LIMIT GREATER THAN 25 MPH I; JI - • C NOTES: t I • Installation C to be located on contiguous highways not to exceed 500 feet in advance of school grounds, depending on approach speeds and visibility. • Installation B is optional. ., 'T',-..---~ l~lw66A IISTALLATIOI I I .. l!m)wss SP[[D LIMIT R2 25 R72 IISTALLATIH C t 12 rn (") :I: 0 0 r )> ::x, m )> ,, m C m rn -I ::x, -)> z rn )> .,, m -I -< ► A Figure 10-3 SCHOOL LOCATED IN 25 MPH BUSINESS OR RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH MANY SCHOOL CROSSINGS A'T' ~W66 111 I ., l':-lw66A Ill W63 ... ci)W63 iSCHOOLI W65 IISlllLATIOI I ...... IISlllLATIOI A A a -t -I ~ i----~ 8 ~--~~11 ... A ~ . ~ - - SCHOOL NOTES: • Installation C may be used instead of Installation A in the school zone. • Installation B is optional. • W63 at remote locations optional. • Remote crosswalks and pavement markings shall be white. • SLOW SCHOOL XING pavement markings are not permitted in advance of stop signs (CVC21368). .,. I •' Ill I Ill I Ill I .... 11 -I .... W63 C!bw63 W63,t -t .. a, ::: c;· s:: a, ::, C a, u, (') ::c 0 0 r- J> ::D m J> ~ m C m u, -I ::D -J> 2 u, J> .,, m -I -< Traffic Manual SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 10-12 ---------------------------------~1113 Figure 10-4 SCHOOL ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY AT MID-BLOCK LOCATION WHERE FLASHING YELLOW BEACONS ARE WARRANTED R2 i NOTES: SP[[D ;---------7 LIMIT R21 r-=7 1 45 i L:::_J~ ! t 8 • Installation C to be located on contiguous highways not to exceed 500 feet in advance of. school grounds, depending on approach speeds and visibility. • Installation B is optional. SP[[D LIMIT R2 25 l.;?.:..I R72 INSTAUATON C t R2