HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-22; City Council; 8532-1; Truck Routes Update of Municipal Codea
•° 4
o '
a
-o
b�
�v
a �+
A
0
41
Cd O
000 0
r ar 6
0
U1 •
0Cd
U
o
cc
10 s � �
0
N
(,
41
M •ri
.U)a)
o41u
z •� d
O
0 �+
P °x
Ow U
10 Q) W u
Cd (d
o r
z, 4 �(d W
M .a° H
0 �
U 00
00
1
N
N
zi
0
0
CL
CL
Q
Z
0
h-
t�
v
Z
0
0
0
CIT? '), F CARLSBAD -- AGEND 71ILL 1,�4, `2`' r:i�,,(�,/
AB# 532 `'-1TITLE DEPT. HD. ��,�
MTG. 04/22/8 TRUCK ROUTES CITY ATTY u,�
DEPT. ENG UPDATE OF HUNIC-IPAL CODE
CITY MGR.�i
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Introduce Ordinance No. L319'S amending Section 10.32.091 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code to designate La Costa Avenue from the
westerly city limits to E1 Camino Real as a truck route.
BACKGROUND
Section 35701- (Exhibit 2A) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC)
allows cities to prohibit the use of a street by commerical
vehicles or any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight. The
City's Municipal Code, Section 10.32.090 and 10.32.091, (Exhibit
2B) prohibits vehicles over 14,000 lbs. gross weight on all but
certain specified streets. (See Exhibit 1). The Ordinance was
adopted in 1'972 and last updated in 1982. It is necessary to
revise the Ordinance to update the list of designated truck
routes.
At the Council meeting of February 25, 1986, Mr. Allen Recce
requested to be heard concerning trucks in the La Costa Area.
After hearing statements from La Costa residents, Council
referred the issue to the Traffic Safety Commission for a
recommendation.
The March 6, 1986 Traffic Safety Commission meeting was held at
the La Costa Hotel at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was attended by many
residents of the La Costa area and representatives of the trash
hauling industry. (See Commission minutes Exhibit 5). Staff
recommended designating La Costa Avenue from the westerly City
limits to El Camino Real, Rancho Santa Fe Road from Olivenhain
Road to the easterly City limits and Olivenhain Road from the
westerly City limits to Rancho Santa Fe Road as truck routes.
(See staff report, Exhibit 2). The Traffic Safety Commission,
voted unanimously to recommend that only La Costa Avenue from the
westerly City limits to E1 Camino Real be designated as a truck
route. The Commission also voted to recommend the following,:
"All the roads listed in this motion should be posted with
the appropriate signs and any streets that have been used as
truck routes which are now prohibited should be signed with
the proper signs immediately after Council approval."
"The City Engineer should consider sound attenuation walls in
the design of Rancho Santa Fe road."
"The City of Carlsbad, City Council and staff petition the --
Department of Transportation, State of California, to resolve
the problem they have created which involves San Diego County
roads and roads of the City of San Marcos."
1
y t 14Y�
r Y
Page 2 of the Agenda Bill No.
The "problem" created by adapting the Commission's recommendation
is that Section 35702 of the CVC (Exhibit 2A) states that a
restriction is not efFective for any highway which is not under
the City's exclusive jurisdiction. Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Olivenhain Road are not within the City's exclusive
jurisdiction.
The City Attorney's interpretation of the CVC is that a decision
by Carlsbad to prohibit trucks from Rancho Santa Fe Road must be
decided upon by Caltrans. (Exhibit 3A). Caltrans has stated that
they will not consider it unless it involves a state highway.
Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road are not state highways.
(Exhibit 3F).
The County of San Diego, City of San Marcos, the City of
Oceanside, and the City of Vista have expressed their opposition
to any action to prohibit trucks from Rancho Santa Fe Road.
(Exhibits 3C,D,E).
It is the recommendation of the Commission and staff that as.the
conditions of the roadways and traffic patterns change, the truck
route schedule be re-evaluated.
FISCAL IMPACT.
None.
Exhibits
1/ Location Map.
2 N.l Staff Report.
3. Correspondence.
A. Memo from City Attorney
B.v Memo from Police Chief
C.✓ Letter from County of San Diego
D., Letter from City of San Marcos
E.r Letter from City of Vista
F.✓ Letter from Caltrans
Page 3 of the Agenda Bill No.
s
G. Letter from Debbie Davis
{ * H. Letter from Jeff and Judi Froning
1
i 4. '*"Ordinance. ;( i
E 5.'/ Traffic Safety Commission minutes of March 6, 1986.
LOCATION MAP
�1
�f
►D
1
z
4 a'
G'.,�.aiNdN Rai f
' eA- ? •
•
1
�L•r/wn1.. �` �v�.vf.11
a � �
cr
we 9m saw
v f
f
/
e
r-J,
f
f
� f
1
CJt��titN�tt^IN f
PROJECT NAME PROD. NO. EXHIBIT
March 19, 1986
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Traffic Engineer
TRUCK ROUTES - STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND
Section 35701 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) allows cities
to prohibit the use of a street by any commercial vehicle or any
vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight. (See Exhibit 2A) The
City's Municipal Code prohibits vehicles over 14,000 pounds gross
weight on all but certain specified City streets. (See Exhibits
2B and 2C.) Since adoption of the Ordinance, County territories
have been incorporated by the City. Roads within those areas by
not being included on the list of truck routes are officially
restricted to trucks. It is therefore necessary to update the
truck route schedule.
DATA
The roadways that should be considered for inclusion as truck
routes are as follows (see Exhibit 2C):
(1) Olivenhain Road - western City Limit to Rancho Santa Fe
Road.
(2) Rancho Santa Fe Road - northern City Limits to southern City
Limits.
(3) La Costa Avenue - western City Limits to Interstate 5.
(4) La Costa Avenue - Interstate 5 to E1 Camino Real.
(5) La Costa Avenue - El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
(6) Alga Road - El Camino Real to Melrose Drive.
(7) Melrose Drive - Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Section 35702 of the CVC (see Exhibit 2A) states that no
orddinance is effective with respect to any highway which is not
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the local authority enacting
the ordinance. Those roadways falling into this categozy are:
EXHIBIT 2
1/4
= City Council
Truck Routes - Staff Report Paoe: 2
March 19, 1986
1. Olivenhain Road - most of this road is in the County.
2. Rancho Santa Fe Road - the road is controlled by Carlsbad,
the County and San Marcos.
3. La Costa Avenue - Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate 5 - this
road is mostly within the County.
The remaining roads, La Costa Avenue (4) and (5), Alga Road (6),
and Melrose Drive (7), are within the sole jurisdiction of the
City ict Coorlallow trucksctosuserthese ing hroads,ether ithe sfollowiappropriate following items
restr
should be considered:
1. Roadway geometries.
2. Pavement condition.
3. Adjacent land use. .,
4. Present traffic and capacity-
5. Time travel comparisons.
6. Enforcement capabilities.
F
7. Other conditions.
La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road is a
Secondary Arterial roadway with two lanes in both directions.
i Factors in favor of restricting trucks are (a) the surrounding
land use is residential with many homes having access on the
Those
z street and (b) several sections of pavement are failing.
factors which indicate trucks should be allowed are: (a) truck
counts show that only 2.8% to 6.5% of the total volumes are
trucks (with approximately half being local trips), which 1s a
reasonable mix for this 'type of raod, (see Exhibit 2D), (b) the
Secondary Arterial classification intends that all types of
traffic would use the roadway and, (c) compliance with the
restriction will be low, making enforcement difficult- A
comparison �uskswererestrictedonLaCostaAvenue-
ftrnce itrtonerease of
1.1 miles l
Alga Road with its connection to Rancho Santa Fe Road via Melrose
Drive is classified as a Major Arterial and has two lanes in
either direction separated by a median. Factors supporting a
restriction are: (a) the adjacent land use is residential, (b)
EXHIBIT 2
2/4
City Council
Truck- Route - St-sff Report
March 19, 1986
Page: 3
there is •a steep hill between Alicante and Cazadero, and (c) the
intersection at Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road is controlled
only by a stop sign on Melrose, making entry onto Rancho Santa Fe
Road difficult. Those factors in favor of a truck route are:
(a) the pavement section is good, (b) only a few homes between
the El
Camino Real and Alicante have access on Alga,
classification intends for mixed use, (d) the volume of trucks is
within reasonable limits, (see Exhibit 2D), and (a) lack of
compliance will make enforcement difficult. The increase in
distance by restricting Alga will be 3.6 miles.
In the case of La Costa Avenue between I-5 and E1 Camino Real,
this section of 'roadway has been designated as part of the
oversize load highway system and as such cannot have trucks
restricted. As well, it acts as an important link between I-5
and El Camino Real.
In the case of Rancho Santa Fe Road and its natural extension to
E1 Camino Real on Olivenhain Road, the following factors lead
staff to recommend allowing through truck traffic: r
1. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Olivenhain Road is not solely within
Carlsbad's control. The City of San Marcos and County of San
Diego has stated they will not agree to a prohibition of
trucks. The City Attorney's interpretation of the CVC 'is
that Caltrans must be petitioned to decide the issue.
Caltrans have however, stated their position that they will
not become involved unless the road is a state highway. If
Caltrans is correct, Carlsbad cannot prohibit trucks.
The route serves an important function of a regional nature
as a route to inland areas and as the only road which serves
the only landfill operation in North County.
3. A revieww of the accident history shows that the accident
rate is very low. Of the recorded accidents only one, within
the last two years involved a truck. The accident history at
intersections also shows a very good history.
4. A survey of trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road found a peak of 4A
truck traffic. This is a reasonable percentage to expect on
a road which serves the function Rancho Santa Fe Road does.
5. If trucks are prohibited from Alga Road, La Costa Avenue and
Rancho Santa Fe Road, the only alternate route is Palomar
Airport Road. It is expected that the additional truck
icant adverse effect on Palomar
traffic will have a signif
EXHIBIT 2
3/4
7
r
laity Council
Truck Routes - Staff Repott Page: 4
March 15, 1966
Airport Road. For trucks going to the dump, city streets in
Gan Marcos, some in residential areas, will be adversely
impacted.
6. To prohibit Staffksfeel reasonable
Airportalternate
Road mayroute
notmust
be ae
provided.
reasonable alts: native.
7. Rancho Santa Fe Road is designated as a Prime Arterial.
Construction of the road to its ultimate design will take
place in the foreseeable future. The noise and pollution
expected will not be excessive for a Prime Arterial.
The
safety aspel:t and noise mitigation will be considered during
design of the ultimate roadway.
Because there are no compelling reasons to prohibit trucks and
while there are several reasons to allow trucks, staff is
recommending the inclusion of this roadway section as a truck
routs. _
.CONCLUSIONS
The following roadways must be designated as truck routes due to
the overriding factors mentioned before; Olivenhain Road
- western city limits to Rancho Santa Fe Road, Rancho Santa Fe
Road , northern city limits to southern city limits, and La Costa
Avenue - western city limits to E1 Camino Real.
The remaining roadways, Alga Road/Melrose Drive and La Costa
Avenue from E1 Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road may be
considered for exclusion of trucks. Because of the factors
i previously mentioned and because reasonable alternate routes are
' available, a truck prohibition can be recommended. This
' recommendation is for current conditions onl;, When Melrose
Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection is improved and the
avement sec ion or a os a venue is re aire an as roa wa s
an su seauen y ruc a erns c an a ese restrictions s ou
ld
be re-evaluated.
Exhibit 2A California Vehicle Code Secs. 35701
%d A4':6 and 35702
2B Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec.10.32.091
KENT SEARS 2C Location Map
Traffic Engineer 2D Truck Volume Data
KS:lch
Attachments
N
e—
Aiv,�.11il�
§ *05
357012.. (a) Any city may, by ordinance, prohibit the use of a street by any-
commercial- vehicle• or by any vehicle -exceeding a maximum gross weight•
limit, except.witir respect to any vehicle which is subject to Sections 1031 to.
1036,'inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code. '
(b) The:ordinance,shall• not be effective until• appropriate signs are
erected indicating either the streets affected by the ordinance or the streets
not affected; as the local authority determines will best serve to give notice
of the ordinance:, .
(c) No ordinance adopted t to this section after November 10
1969, shall apply to any state highway which is included is the.Na"
System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has
beapproved • by a two-tM•ds• vote • of the: California Transportation
Amended Ch. 130& Stab. 19EL fffw tv+ November 10: 190.
Amended Ch. 6M State; 19K Effective Jawary 1, 1961.
Amended OL Get. Stem 198L Effw&e Januar 1,1963.
35702, ►'No ordinance• propose& under. Section.357OV is • effective with
respect to any highway which is not under.the•exclusive jurisdiction of the
local authority enacting the ordinance, or, in the case -of any state highway
until the ordinance has been submitted by the governing body of the•loca�'
authority t4 and approved in writing by, the Department: of•Transportation.
In submitting a proms, ordinance to the department1br,approval, the -
governing body of the local authority shall dbaignate therein, an alternate
route for the use of vehicles, which route shall remain unrestricted by any -
local regulation as to weight 1t limits, or types of vehicles so long as, the••
ordinance proposed shall remain in effect The approval of the proposed .
ordinance by the Department of Transportation s&Hconstitute an approval
by it of the alternate route so designated No such ordinance which applies
to any: state highway included in, the, national system- of interstate and
defense highways, shall subsequent�)yy be discpproved until such disapproval
has been concurred itt by a four-fifttls_ vote of the California Transportation .
Commission -
Amended Ch.136S, Stab. 190. Effective November 10; 190--
Amended Ch. 50, Stam 1974. Et%ctive Jawary 1,19M, ,
Amended Ch. OM State 19ft-Etfecfte January 1.1981.
fwtnowt lif Neva ..
=03, ° No ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 35701 shall prohibit any
commercial vehicles coming (roman unrestricted street having ingress and
egress by direct;oute to and from a restricted -street when necessary for the.-
pu�ose of making ickups or deliveries of ggoods, wares, and merchandise.
From or to any building or. structure located on the restricted street or for.
the purpose of delivering materials'to be used in the actual and bona fide
repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure
uogon thhe restricted street for which a building permit has previously been
big UN F GedrsrCH-11 or Reps* Hihkfe ..
35704:" No ordinance adopted b`y. a city to decrease weight limits shall
apply, to any vehicle owned by a public utility or a licensed contractor while
necessarily is use in the construction, installation, or repair of any public ,
utility
Amended Ch, W, stab. 1950. Effective September 18. 190.
fN/ l"Y dsK Tax f NW* Rxpeeflfvn en Gy► sfr"w
35705.. Section: 35701 shall not be applicable to say city street on which -
money from the State Mghway. Account in the. State Transportation Fund,.*,
has been or is used fdr contraction or maintenance except in such case; as
the legislative body of the city, -after notice and hearing, determines to
EXHIBIT 2 A
0
0
011
—` 10.32.060--10.32.091
10.32.060 Restriction on use of freeways.
No person
shall drive or operate any bicyc a,-motor-d_iven cycle,
br any vehicle which is not drawn by•a motor vehicle upon
any street established as a freeway, as defined Section
604.5 of the state Vehicle Code, nor shall any pedestrian
walk across or along any such street so designated and
described except in a space set aside for the use of pe-
destrians; provided, that official signs are in place
giving notice of such restrictions. (Ord. 3005 S50).
10.32.070 Certain vehicles prohibited in business
district. a No person shall operate any of the follow-
1 g"ve� Iles in the'business district between the hours of
seven a.m. and six p.m. of any day:
Any freight vehicle were than eight and one-half feet
in width, fith iitsload, or any load extendsfmoreht vehicle so loaded t
any par than twenty feet to the
front or rear of the vehicle. may by written
(b) Provided, that the chief of police
permit authorize the operation of any such
hve Mileries for from
the
purpose of making necessary emergency
points within the business district. (Ord. 3005 578). _
10.32.080 Ridin horse on sidewalk. It is unlawful
for any person to re to be
i e, rive, grope °rav3dssidewalk.
propelled any horse across or upon any p
(Ord. 3049 S1)
10.32.090 Truck routes --Generally. The use of all
streets within the c ty, excepting t ose streets. described
in Section 10.32..091, is prohibited as to the following de-
scribed vehic- es.. Commercial trucks and trailer combina-
tions, commercial. tractor and trailer combinations, and all
three axle trucks in excess oof97 fourteen thousand pounds
gross weight. (Ord. 3090 (part),
10.32.091 Truck routes --Streets desi nated. Theorthe
-
n
bition set ort Sect on s a not app y t
following streets and portions of streets which are desig-
nated and established truck routes, as follows:
(a) Carlsbad Boulevard from the northerly city limits
to the southerly city limits;
(b) Elm Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard -east to inter-
state 5 Freeway; west to
(c) Tamarack Avenue from Interstate 5 Freeway,
Carlsbad Boulevard;
(d) Cannon Road, from Interstate 5 Freeway to Carlsbad
Boulevard;
(e) Interstate 5 Freeway# northerly city limits to
southerly city limits;
EXHIBIT 2B
1/2
•
1-0.3-.092--10.32.093
(f) Palomar Airport Road from Carlsbad Boulevard to
easterly city limits (by Carlsbad Raceway). (Portion of
Palomar Airport'Road is in county);'
-_(g) E1 Camino Real from northerly city limits to
southerly city limits;
(h) Pasco del Norte from Palomar Airport Road southerly
1150 feet. (Ord. 3146 51, 1982;, Ord. 3090 (part), 1972).
10.32.092 Truck routes --Vehicles allowed. Section
10.32.090 shall not apply to the following vehicles:
(a) Vehicles subject to the provisions of Sections
1031 to 1036 inclusive of the California Public Utilities
Code;
(b) Vehicles described in Section 35703 of the Vehicle
Code; and
(c) Vehicles traveling to or from perimanent commercial
parking facilities provided for them within the city. (Ord.
3090 (part) , 1972) .
10.32.093 Truck routes --Posting. All streets and por-
-tions thereof established by t is chapter as truck routes,
shall be posted with appropriate signs displaying in letters
not less than four inches in height, the words "truck route."
(Ord. 3090 (part) , 1972) .
Chapter_10.36
PEDESTRIANS
Sections:
1.0.36.010 Establishment of crosswalks.
10.36.020 Use of crosswalks.
10.36.030 Crossing at right angles.
10.36.040 Standing in roadways.
EXHIBIT 2B
2/2
161-1 (Carlsbad 8/82)
Ci'tr�t.•�N
Ta o • w ,
C.,o•,NNOn1 �0,
G
now moil
1 t - ,APtLL
G�
EXHIBIT 2C • �2
V
OZ lIUIHX3
Y
7
t>r
at
9
ig
U9 m
w to
V
S
1+
at
m
h
Ln
a
w
i
, Jo
f � ?
Q V
N tM to
1f% h co
MOM
In
ON
N tf% e-
9N
Y
u
•
N
•8-c•.•
N
r
i!
Q
2
MOB
• • •
O NtT
• • •
•
h NM
tThM
a% 0 WN
-it h N
• •
M to M
F-
• • •
tf1 N
•
t4 C4
r
N
Y O
tN
ll T
O
CO P.
V1 1^ co
r t7D �7
tT �O N
CD tl� r
• •
MM
•
NON
r—
r
z
�fco
N
.%DCD0
tnN�
mmO
(n =
tl� MM
N r
tb O %D
O
tJ)
Obe
�
Q
Z
�MM
re�-r
C%4
=m
�N
V-aM- V-
tpY
Z
g
.70�
t
co d7
h-O�t)^
M tf� a
10%
1�
0%
tTcoMMO
h
Ln
�
CQ)Ma
mrVam,
U1 M if
M N I+M
N
.tf N M
51 Ct
O
i7 M .a
N
w
w
w
Ln
f,
�
'
pp
tWi Z �•
•.
tl'lf�r
Q %0 N
T
t�DON.7
0, Q O
N
to WNcc
N
�O
.-M.7
N
FQ-hOMr
r% f 1�
cD
w
�" N tf
N
w
N N
•,
~
if CD Y1
h "N 10
�0
r
N M tT tl
iT N tf1
N
tT
M
M
^ M
M
J^ M
••
••
O ..
••
Ott
r
r
tT O 1f1
tT O u1
to
� r�
oo�
8
^ r
aon
tT fi •-•
sloes
M
1 .• 1
M
I .. 1
t
w
M ::
M ..
1« 1
1
m�It
aw.
co-T
MCO
..
O
o
to
rr
O
Z
La.
�
>
r
..i
66
ZQ
4 Y Y >.
Y Y >.
O.W Y >.
Y Y >.
Y Y >.
W Y W .-1
Q W Y Co-4
Q t0 Y W .-1-
W Y W 0-4N
vizt0 Y W"
t7C .01 W y «i
0 W tU ••4
Ili Wd•
N W •14
W Cc d rW1
Q tl IU
0. WtN
C. N 0. W
do.
O
O aO
c-C O
�3:
��4-
��-i
zz
lit
J • 1•-
!�
• 4- •
4�z
Q • -
Ll. Q G.
O
J C oo_
QQoa.
to
aCCL
oa.
%.01;
March 4, 1986
TO: Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: City Attorney
CITY TRUCK ROUTES
RECEIVED
"I " ^ " ... V• •� 06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINURING DEPARTMENT
At your March 6, 1986 meeting you will consider revisions to the
( provisions to the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishing truck
f routes. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the City's
( legal authority concerning truck routes.
The City's current truck regulations are established in Sections
10.32.090; 10.32.091, 10.32.092 and 10.32.093 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. There are special provisions for interstate
! trucks contained in Chapter 10.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The provisions concerning interstate trucks are not before you
for review and will not be discussed in this memorandum.
A city is authorized by Section 35701 of the California
' Code t nia Vehicle
Q-.prohibit the -use o£- City. streets • by ariy• commercial• ' " •' vehicle or- by 'any vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight limit:;
A city's truck route provisions are not effective until it erects
appropriate signs indicating either the streets upon whA ch trucks
_ are prohibited or the streets upon which trucks are
d.
In Carlsbad we follow the practice of posting those streetseupon
which truck travel is authorized since the Municipal Code
establishes a general rule banning trucks from City streets. A
city cannot restrict the use of its streets to passenger stage
corporations, e.g. busses (Gov't Code S35701(a), Public Utilities
Code SS1031-1036 inclusive); vehicles owned by a public utility
or licensed contractor while necessarily in use in the
construction, installation or repair of any public utility
(Vehicle Code S35704); or to commercial vehicles in certain
circumstances when using a restricted street as a direct route to
and from a destination is necessary to accomplish a commercial
venture (Vehicle Code S35703). In addition, a city may not
restrict trucks from using any highway which is not under the
city's exclusive jurisdiction unless the restriction has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the California Department
of Transportation (Vehicle Code S35702). For the purposes of the
Vehicle Code a street and a highway are the same thing. (Vehicle
Code S360, 590).
We have reviewed the provisions or Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 10.32.090 through 10.32.093 inclusive and have determined
that they comply with the provisions of the Vehicle Code. The
provisions prohibits certain commercial vehicles and vehicles
in excess of a certain weight from all streets with in the City
EXHIBIT 3 A
Page 1 of 3 ��
-2-
_except-as designated in Section 1-0.32-.091. Rancho Santa Fe
Road and Olivenhain Road are not listed in Section 10.32.091
and, therefore, are not authorized truck routes. However,
since Rancho, Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road are not within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad and since
the prohibition of trucks on those roads has not been submitted
to and approved by the Department of Transportation, the
provisions .of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are ineffective with
regard to those roads and therefore trucks currently may use
them.
As mentioned previously, truck routes may be established either
by generally banning trucks from all City streets and then
creating exceptions to that general ban or by authorizing
trucks on all City streets and then specifically designating
those streets which are restricted. Either method is legal,
however, the first is more easily administered particularly in
a city like Carlsbad where there are a large number of streets
upon which trucks are not authorized to operate. In a very
quick and incomplete review of the truck route ordinances of
other cities in San Diego County we have determined that
,Carlsbad,: Escondido, .•Vista, La •Mesa•; E1•'Cajon, •and Chula• Vista-,
_•prohibit trucks from all city streets except where -specifically
authorized by resolution or ordinance. San Diego and Oceanside
appear to allow trucks on any city street unless otherwise
prohibited. Some cities have different regulatory schemes for
commercial vehicles than for vehicles in excess of certain
weight limits. In Escondido, Vista, La Mesa, E1 Cajon and
Chula Vista, commercial vehicles are generally authorized on
any city street except as otherwise provided by resolution or
ordinance or apparently unless the commercial vehicle is in
excess of the weight limit established by the truck route
ordinance. The weight limit which triggers the truck route
provisions varies from city to city. In Escondido, Vista and
La Mesa the weight limit is three tons. In El Cajon and Chula
Vista the weight limit is five tons. In Carlsbad the limit is
seven tons.
The City's Police Chief and Traffic Engineer have provided or
will provide the Commission with the information required to
determine whether various streets particularly in the southern
area of the City should be added to the City's designated truck
routes. In addition to the factors outlined by the Police
Chief and Traffic Engineer for determining designation of truck
routes the Commission should consider the circulation element
of the City's General Plan and the City's standards for road
construction. The City has the authority to establish
different weight classification restrictions for different
streets of the City, although does not appear to be a usual
practice amoung cities in San Diego County.
EXHIBIT 3 A
Page 2 of 3 J�'
-3-
With regard to a -prohibition of trucks on- Rancho Santa Fe -Road,
it is our opinion that the City has the ability to prohibit
trucks along that route subject to approval of the prohibition by
the California Department of Transportation. This is
particularly true because there is a conflict among the affected
jurisdictions regarding Rancho Santa Fe Road as a truck route.
If the Commission finds it appropriate to prohibit trucks from
Rancho Santa Fe Road, the Commission should include in their
recommendation to the Council the reasons for that action and, in
addition, should designate an alternative route which trucks
could use in lieu of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The same
recommendation would apply to any of the roads Which are located
in more than one jurisdiction. The alternate route need not be
as convenient as the route from which trucka are prohibited but
must reasonably accommodate the needs of the Truckers.
The designation of truck routes is largely a policy matter and
the'Commission should get its recommendations from the Police
Chief and City Traffic Engineer. The City's power and the
restrictions on the City's power to establish truck routes are
clearly defined by the Vehicle Code provisions. So long as the
Commission. operates..within the scope• of the •Vehicle .Code
provisions there are no legal problems with establishing truck --
routes.
DAgXZ ` S . HEN-T* *
Assistant City Attorney
rmh
c: Mayor and City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
Police Chief
Traffic Engineer
EXHIBIT 3A
Page 3 of 3
fce
MEMORANDUM
TO: --Traffic Safety Commission DATE: 2-15-86
FROM: Vincent Jimno, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Truck Routes
The Police Department has been receiving an increasing number of com-
plaints and requests ,for information regarding commercial vehicles in
the southern portion of the city. Sections 10.32.090 through 10.32.093
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (M.C.) which address truck -routes have
not been ammended since 1972.
It is requested that the Commission review truck route regulations. As
part of that review it is recommended that the following three sections
be considered as additions to 10.32.091 M.C.:
(i) Rancho Santa Fe Road, from the northerly city limits Qo
the southerly city limits.
(j) Olivenhain Road, from Rancho Santa Fe Road to the westerly
city limits.
(k) La Costa Avenue, from the westerly city limits to E1 Camino
real.
In addition to a review of the related Codes it is also requested that
the pre -intersection signs be reviewed. It �s this departments recom-
mendation that signs similar to those exampled below he installed at
a;l major intersections.
Examples:
E/B Palomar Airport Rd. E/3 La Costa Avenue. N/B El Camino Real
at El Camino Real. at El Camino Real. at Alga Road.
TRUCK ROUTE TRUCK ROUTE TRUCK ROUTE
It is also recommended that roadways leading from major intersections
which are not truck routes be posted, "NOT A TRUC;C ROUTE". Scme of the
roads which we feel should be considered for this posting are; Levante
St., La Costa Ave.(east of E1 Camino Real), Alga Rd. and Melrose Dr.
(Melrose Dr. should be reconsidered as a truck route when it connects with
Palomar Airport Road).
Vincent Jimno,
CHIEF OF POLICE
EXHIBIT 3B
12
OZ %V E IS TH
fvy�tf` I feG
O
n
"sY ` Moo
MOCCG".-,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN, Director
Offices of:
County Engineer
County Road Commissioner
County Surveyor
County Airports
Flood Control
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Transportation Operations
City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
DEPARTMENT ENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING 2 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123
TELEPHONE: (619) 565.5177
February 27, 1986
ATTN: Kent Sears, Traffic Engineer
Subject: De -I, >-„ion of Truck Routes
This is in response to your letter of February 20, 1986 regarding the
designation of LaCosta Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road/Olivenhain Road;=
within the City as; truck routes.
Please be advised that the County procedure is to neither designate truck
routes nor restrict truck traffic (in general) on County roads. Specific
action regarding large/overload trucks is handled through our permit
process.
We note that the stated westerly limits for the LaCosta Avenue and
Olivenhain Road designations appear to be in error. Our records indicate
the portions of LaCosta Avenue between Pacific Highway (1st Street) and
Interstate 5 and the westerly three-quarters, of Olivenhain Road are within
County jurisdiction.
If you have any questions, please contact Larry ,curt at 565-5660.
very truly yours,
N.E SORLIE
� WSW Dirktas
Uof Public words
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN, Director
Department of Public Works
r
GMB:LH:jdl
cc: John Burke (0383) w/cc: City letter
Tom Garibay (0336) w/cc: City letter
EXHIBIT •3C
/K
C
k
6 of San O)arco5
108 VJ. RICHMAR AVENUE • SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
March 5, 1986 -- - 619/744-4020
Kent Sears
Traffic Engineer
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
TRUCK ROUTES DESIGNATION
Dear Mr. Sears;
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Carlsbad's potential
designated truck routes, particularly Rancho Santa Fe Road.
We concur with your recommendation to designate Rancho Santa Fe Road as a _ _
truck route. It is our understanding that the Carlsbad Traffic Commission .s.
will consider this matter at a March 6th meeting, -
Restricting use of Rancho Santa Fe Road would cause Carlsbad and other coastal
truck traffic usage of other Carlsbad and San Marcos streets. Use of such
alternate streets would impact more people and necessitate longer trips.
Rancho Santa Fe Road is an arterial street and is a logical truck route.
Please include these comments in all future submittals to Carlsbad's Traffic
Safety Commission and City Council.
Cordially,
GF.rK.Dawson
Cingineer
FKD:Ih
cc: R. W. Gittings, City Manager
Traffic Safety Commission
Kent A. Whitson, Consulting Traffic Engineer
EXHIBIT 3D
CITY COUNCIL
Lionel G, Burton, Mayor James D. Simmons, Vice Mayor Les B. Thibadeau
Pia Harris F. H. Smith
458
t
_N
City of Vista
City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Kent Sears
RE: REQUEST FOR TRUCK PROHIBITION ALONG
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
Dear Kent:
February 28, 1986
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Per our discussion on February 20, 1986, I have discussed the
proposal to prohibit truck traffic along Rancho Santa Fe Road
with Public works staff. The City of Vista is concerned with
the long term implications of this request. If trucks were
prohibited from Rancho Santa Fe Road, the most probable route
would be along Palomar Airport Road. At the present time the
City of Vista does not have any access points along Palomar
Airport Road which are open to truck traffic. In the future
as the industrial park develops, there will be connections
made between Sycamore Avenue and Palomar Airport Road. Once
this connection is completed, is when the impacts of the
prohibition will be noticed by the'City of Vista.
The route through the business park to Sycamore Avenue is a
logical alternative for trucks bound for State Route 78.*
Although these roads will be truck routes, the additional
trucks caused by the truck prohibition will adversely impact
the street system of Vista.
Rancho Santa Fe is designated as a major road and is an integral
connection of the regional traffic network. Due to the classi-
fication and location of this roadway, the .City of Vista feels
that Rancho Santa Fe Road should remain open to through truck
traffic. By leaving Rancho Santa Fe Road open to truck traffic
the distribution of trucks will be more uniformly spread through-
out the North County road network.
If you have any questions or need additional information on this,
please feel free to contact me.
XG _
Len Schatzmann LS:se
Office of The CityTrafficEngineer
600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1988 * VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 • 619/726.1340
EXHIBIT 3 E
_ ..
i� Q
STATE OF.CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OISTRICT 11, P.O. 80X 85406, SAN OIEGO 92198-5406
vEp
March 25, 1986
Donald E. Donovan, City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Dear Mr. Donovan:
RE
GEI� . y
opal 986
C�fl DF CARBAO
EN��NEER+N� g1�4A�
We have reviewed Section 35702 of the California Vehicle Code and the City
Attorney's interpretation of this section. Caltrans approval of an ordinance
restricting the use of a highway by commercial vehicles is only required if
that facility is a State highway. Since.Rancho Santa Fe Road is not a State 1
highway,µ each` city or county having jurisdiction over 4 section of .highway,
-would have to enact an ordinance covering the length of highway, under their -
jurisdiction. Any conflicts would have to be rLSOlved between the cities and
county involved. Caltrans would not intercede in a matter -involving only local
agencies and in which the State was not a party.
Sincerely,
W. R. DOTSON
District Direct
# By j *.
V. C. Barsi
District Traffic Engineer
Operations
VCB:jm
cc:JOGray
VCBarsi
JLarson
EXHIBIT 3F
__- -.?-(__.
P�
:bruary 14, 1986
To all Council members:
Many of us are extremely concerned with the current use of La Costa avenue as
an expressway for all trucks at any speed.
We feel that our residential area is in JEOPARDY of becoming a major truck route
due to the lack of enforcement on this issue.
Hany of the trash trucks could to alternate routes, especially since many of them
(ex: Oceanside Disposal, • Pacific Disposal) do not even pick up trash anywhere
near this area. I resent the fact that these companies be allowed to speed up and
down our RESIDENTIAL STREET simply because due to laziness no one has bothered
toenforce restrictions in usuage. These trucks and delivery trucks could very
erell travel Palomar Airport Rd. or Olivenhain and not be any worse for wear.
My question is this: Why are only private vehicles stopped for speeding La Costa
avenue?•-In*die year•i have"resided 6re•I have never, rieirer, never seen 'a'commercial truck of any kind, shape, or form stopped for speeding. I am on this road about' ' -
4-6 times per day besides cornering this street and I know for a fact that none -
have been ticketed despite their continual racing down the hill when empty,vith no
concerns whatsoever of who they might be disturbing.
At present time La Costa is a mess. With all of the problems in this area I can
see no reason why this area should not be of top importance to the Council. There
are so many things that need corrected. Let's start with making the streets safer
for our children and drivers by restricting these truckers off our RESIDENTIAL STREET.
After all the restriction applies - LET'S ENFORCE IT11111111111111111
Since r ly yours,
Debbie Davis
7525 Quinta St.
La Costa, CA 92008
944-7090
EXHIBIT 3 G
Le Mrs. J. Froaing
i 1 Nueva Castilla Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
944-6447
Council Members:
We are property owners Of a home located on La Costa Avenue and Nueva Castilla
Way. We purchased the home in November, 1985, well aware that La Costa Ave. was a
much -used resedential street. Our first goal was to have a wall built on the La
Costa Ave. side to offer greatly -needed safety, privacy and to act as a sound barrier.
We have resided here for three months now and have encountered several
problems during this time. First, we were horrified to read in the newspaper that
it is projected that more than a hundred thousand cars per day will be using La
Costa Ave. in the near future. Second, we have had great difficulty sleeping due
to the immense glare of headlights that comes through heavy draperies and outside
landscaping. Third, the extremely heavy trucks that travel La Costa Ave. actually
rattle the windows and cause the walls to vibrate. Last, after several visits to and
redesigns for the Carlsbad Planning Department, the wall we wanted to build has had
a stop -work order put on it. This is because we are on a corner lot and requires
"special approval" by the City of Carlsbad Building and planning Departments.
We immediately became aware of the La Costa community members and their efforts
to work with the City of Carlsbad in the areas of street use and abuse. We are
aware of similar noise levels on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
We are very interested in establishing a master plan for current and futur4r
development in reference to street use in La Costa. Extensive building is beginning r
on the East extension of La Costa Ave. This is causing very heavy truck and equip-
ment use .,on La Costa Ave. Future development, approved by the City of Carlsbad,
cannot be at the expense of the physical and mental health of established community
members. Have you considered the cost of City -built sound walls in the future due
to the detrimental effect on public health and safety from the heavy traffic? There
are harmful leve13 of noise decibels that are being ignored by the City. The
safety of small children has not been considered. The enforeekent of speed laws is at
a very minimal level.
Working to solve the problems should be a team effort by the community members
and the Citt of Carlsbad. Developers are not on the team. We should set the
precedents, not them.
We urge you to prevent La Costa Ave. and Rancho Santa Fe Road from being
designated as truck routes. We urge you to enforce speed laws along these same
streets. We urge you to consider stop signs or stop lights in the near future for
La Costa Ave. We urge you to listen to, consider and act upon the interests of
your fellow community members.
February 22, 106
Sincereljr. S7
U
JAAJ
off and Judi Froning
EXHIBIT 3It
2_ S
t
i
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
i ORDINANCE NO. 3198
AN ORD-INANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.32, SECTION
10.32.091 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION
OF SUBSECTIONS (i),Q) AND (k) DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY
STREETS -AS -TRUCK ROUTES.
I The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1:- That Title 10, Chapter 10:32, Section
10.32.091 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
addition of Subsections (i), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
"(i) La Costa Avenue from the westerly city limits to El
Camino Real"
"(j) Rancho Santa Fe Road from the southerly City limits
to Olivenhain Road and from questhtaven Road to the
northerly City limits."
"(k) Olivenhain Road from the westerly City limits to
Rancho Santa Fe Road."
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to
the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at
least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after
its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of -the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held the 22nd day of April Y,
1986, and thereafter
,2 t�(
l�
2
3
4
5'
61
7
8.
9'
10
11
12
13
14',
15
16 III
171
18'
19''
20
21
22''
23'
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held the 6th day of May , 1986, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ASSENT: None
MARY CA ER, Mayor
ATTEST:
1
Al ETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
a�
MINUTLO
Meeting of: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m.
Date of Meeting: March 6, 1986
Place of Meetina: La -Costa Hotel ThedL'er
COMMISSIOyERS
CALL -TO ORDER:
Chairman Fuller called the Meeting to order at
6106 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present - Chairman Fuller, COi"Is3loners Erwin,
Melideo, O'Day and Wood.
Absent - None.
Staff Members Present: Kent Sears, Traffic Engineer
Officer Shipley
Police Chief Jimno
Chairman Fuller introduced Police Chief Vincent Jimno,
who -explained the reasoi for this Meeting being held
at La Costa, at this time of day instead of the
regular afternoon Meeting of the Traffic Safety
Commission. He stated a number of people spoke before
Council regarding the designating of truck routes in
South Carlsbad. This matter was referred to the
Traffic Safety Commission for hearing and their•, consideration. ._The.LCity a-Costa-Hotel'allowea' —the i.
u'se the theater 'this to
evening. However, there is an
8:00 P.M. time limit. Hopefully the people speaking
will keep this In mind to give everyone a chance to
give their input.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The -Minutes of the Meeting held February I, 1986, were
approved as presented.
REPORT ON ACTION FROM PREVIOUS MEETING:
There was no report at this time.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Ocean Manor Motel Parkin
Chairman Fuller stated, for the record, the Commission
and staff toured the motel site on February 20, 1986.
Arnle Dumbrow addressed the Commission stating he
hoped Mr. Sear's recommendation would be followed to
make the street a one-way street and approve diagonal
parking.
Commissioner Erwin stated he preferred Alternative 1:
Remove existing perpendicular spaces and place
parallel spaces between obstructions.
Commissioner Melideo requested all the signs
Indicating private parking be removed. Mr. Dumbrow
stated the signs had been removed. Commissioner
Melideo stated there was still one sign there as of
Yesterday. Mr. Dumbrow assured her this sign had just
been overlooked and would be removed.
EXHIBIT 5
Fuller X
Erwin X X
Melideo X
O'Day X
Wood Ix
} MINUTE.,
March 6, 1986 page 2
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
COMMISSIONERS
Charles Garner, 2968 Garfield, addressed the
Commission asking whether the public would be able to
park there free.
Staff indicated this was a public right-of-way and the
public had every right to park there.
Mr. Garner stated none of the alternatives actually
served the public, with the exception of Alternative 6
which would leave the parking as it is. He added the
tree should be removed.
Staff Indicated the tree is on City property and has
nothing to do with Ocean Manor. Staff agreed the tree
Is the City's responsibility and the City would
benefit more from the diagonal parking rather than
parallel parking.
Commissioner Melideo stated she was concerned about
the parking. Staff indicated Elm Avenue parking would
remain angle parking.
Mr. Sears stated if Ocean Manor did any improvements
on their property, they would be required to widen Elm
Avenue at that time. Mr. Sears again indicated only
half -street Improvements had been required on Elm
Avenue at this time.
Commissioner O'Day stated anytime Ocean Manor would
come in for a project they would be required to
Provide underground parking. Kent Sears agreed this
would probably be a requirement.
Traffic Safety Commission determined to leave the
parking as currently exists in the Ocean Manor
Motel area, with the exception of removing the palm
tree at the north end of Garfield Street. Also, the
trash bin should be removed and put on the site of the
Ocean Manor Motel.
Commissioner Melideo stated she wants this item to
come back again for further study and Garfield between
Elm and Grand to be studied as to whether there will
be a parking district, public way or just what it will
be.
2. City Truck Route - Proposed Additions to the
A roved Truck Routes.
Chairman Fuller stated for the record, correspondence
had been received from several agencies. The County
of San Diego says County procedure neither designates
nor restricts truck traffic on County roads.
The City of San Marcos concurred with the designation
of Rancho Santa Fe Road as a truck route.
The City of Vista stated they were in favor of truck
traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
nebble Davis, La Costa, opposed trucks on La Costa
Avenue as a hazardous use.
Fuller X
Erwin X
Melideo X
O'Day X
Wood IX X
MINUM;
9�
0 �' y
March 6, 1986 Page 3 p 7
COMMISSIONERS � ��� � pFd►
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
Jeff and Judi Fronick opposed the use of La Costa
Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road as truck routes.
Chairman Fuller read the background on this item and
the recommendation.
Ben Smith, 3017 Azahar Court, stated he understood the
recommendations made by staff. He asked what happens
to Rancho Santa Fe Road with regard to residences on
that road would then have entrances onto that road.
He felt action on Rancho Santa Fe Road should be
deferred until something has been done to improve the
road. The park has been voted to be completed and the
road is not completed as yet. He added that Rancho
Santa Fe Road is not a road -- it is a cowpath.
Matt Schaker, 3109 La Costa Avenue, stated his
objection to trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road and the
Daon Development. He stated when the developers come
Into an area, they do not take into consideration the
long-term of f•ect. of. their, development. • He. -added.
itancho-Santa Fe Road is not maintained and is in
deplorable condition. All trucks, equipment trucks
and trucks delivering dirt and rocks travel Rancho
Santa Fe Road at speeds of 60 mph scattering dirt and
rocks over the roadway. He felt something should be
done to enforce the scattering of debris on the road.
He felt there should be consideration given to
eliminating trucks on La Costa Avenue and Alga Road in
the residential areas.
Leanna Gibson, 7426 Trigo Lane, stated her backyard is
approximately 30 feet away from Rancho Santa Fe Road.
She does not allow her children to play near the road
for fear a truck or car may come through the fence.
_ She stated the sound of the cars and trucks wakes them
up early in the morning and goes on all day. This
road should not be a truck route. Her two reasons for
asking Rancho Santa Fe Road to be eliminated as a
truck•route are safety and the noise.
Jim Popovich, 7436 Trigo Lane, stated his property
also backs up to Rancho Santa Fe Road, and he agreed
with the previous speaker. The road is dangerous and
the 16-wheelers pass the garbage trucks with the
garbage trucks going maybe S to 10 mph. He stated
there will be a headon someday that will be a grinding
crash. Mr. Popovich stated he understood why San
Marcos and Vista does not mind if this is a truck
route, as they do not smell the exhaust and hear the
noise. The trash to energy plant is in San Marcos.
They voted for it and they will make the money from
It. Why should the La Costa area be divided by a six -
lane freeway for the garbage trucks in San Marcos.
Mr. Popovich stated Palomar Airport Road is a viable
alternative to using Rancho Santa Fe Road. Palomar
Airport Road is commercial, industry and agriculture,
with no houses along the road. He stated all truck
traffic should be on Palomar Airport Road.
Z
MINUTE4
March 6, 1986 Page 4
g COMMISSIONERS
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
Morey Rabin, 7717 Morada Street, addressed the
Commission asking whether there was a City Ordinance,
.State Law or County Regulation stating that open
trucks must have a covering on them. He said the
trucks carrying stones, sand and dirt have open tops
and he has replaced the windshields in his cars
several times. He felt there should be enforcement to
make them abide by regulations and provide the
residents with a safe way of traveling.
Ed Marbrey, 3325 Piragua, stated there was not only a
danger to the children but also to the adults on
Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. These
streets are raceways and he recommended they not be
designated truck routes.
Bud Porter, 5394 Linda Vista Road, San Diego,
representing the disposal association, stated he
understood the problem and sympathized with the
residents. He stated in North County there is one
land I'M to handle.all, of, -the waste In.northern .San—
Diego City to*the County•bocder. Over one million
tons of waste a year go to the San Marcos plant and
they must have access to that plant. He commended
staff working out the options. He said the additional
mileage and costs would be a factor. In driving
Rancho Santa Fe Road he stated that was a dangerous
road and more dangerous than La Costa Avenue. The
Improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road must be made and
then La Costa Avenue could be closed to truck traffic.
His recommendation was that La Costa Avenue remain
open until necessary improvements on Rancho Santa Fe
Road are made.
Jeff Conne, 7601 Nueva Casadilia, stated he was a new
resident was not cognizant that La Costa Avenue was so
dangerous. He stated the roadway was just not built
for the speed due to the topography and the blind
curves. He stated drivers exceed tha 55 mph speed
limit and the noise pollution and trucks are a
nuisance. There are some things that can be done,
without impeding the traffic flow in order to help the
residents of the community. He said he had considered
speed bumps, but he knew that was not practical. lie
did suggest La Costa Avenue speed limit be reduced :o
40 mph. In certain areas with the blind corners aiid'
hills he would suggest 35 mph. He stated there should
be a limit on the late -hour trucks and better
patrolling by the Police Department. He felt they
could keep the big trucks off of La Costa Avenue by
building a height barrier and limiting the height to
10 or 11 feet. If the truck is too high, it cannot
make it through the barrier. He felt that modern
technology could be used to check whether the trucks
were using the roads and to alert the Police
Department. He felt the revenue from tickets and
fines would cover the costs of the use of the
technology.
2
,.,
MINUTE,;
March 6, 1986
Page 5
ACTION ITEMS•
--- (continued)
C4M-MISS;0NER-3"
Chairman Fuller stated trucks have a right to use the
streets. He said the Commission has concerns about
the roads and consideration of traffic circulation.
He suggested anyone having a problem with City
enforcement staff write a letter.
take care of those items. He stated hthisgComencmi lion,
the item under discussion tonight was limited to truck
routes and did not envolve enforcement.
Barbara Donovan, 2630 Abedul Street, spoke regarding
trucks on Alga Road. She recommended Alga Road not be
a truck route.
Chairman Fuller stated the recommendation was not to
Include Alga Road as a truck route.
Mrs. Donovan added this was an access route for many
people living on the north side of La Costa, is a
school bus route and should not be a truck route.
Bob Accetta, 7319 Muslo Lane, stated, he agreed ,with,
everyone, aInciuding•'the representative from the trash
hauling company, that Rancho Santa Fe is not a safe
road. He felt the trucks should be taken off of It
right now. The trucks could be diverted to alternate
routes, where it is safe, until something could be
done about improving Rancho Santa Fe Road. Citizens
should have input on planning in that area as far as
the road location and what is going through there.
Chairman Fuller reiterated all trucks cannot be kept
Off of the streets. They have a right to make local
deliveries, but it is possible to keep the through
traffic off of certain streets.
Lois Humphreys, 7647 Primavera Way, stated she had
several recommendationsntotkeep the trucksions to maeSOff aogred with
feLa Costa the
Avenue and Alga Road, but she also recommended the
Traffic Commission ask the City Council for better
Police monitoring to keep the trucks off. The
children ride the school buses on La Costa Avenue. If
a truck ran into a school bus, this could be a very
tragic affair. She stated Rancho Santa Fe Road as a
truck route is an Inappropriate use. Mrs. Humphreys
stated there are some sections of pavement In La Costa
Ato venue that are falling. Until Improvements are made
laneancho Santa Fe each direction # truckatraffic it �shouldre hnotobe way
allowed on that road. Also there are no sound walls
or any mitigation for the residents living along that
road. She asked the Commission to recommend, when
there
sound arelthreeplanes eachbefoway, guardrails, bushes and
along Rancho Santa Fe Road. y more houses are built
Mrs. Humphreys stated the children In that area are on
a year-round school schedule and must cross this
"freeway" where they are driving 55 mph. If this is
to he a truck rout, there should be better pedestrian
crossings, and, perhaps, overhead crossings.
MINUTE.
M.—h [. 19A4 O�n�
" COMMISSIONERS
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
Mrs. Humphreys commented separation of the La Costa
area makes it difficult to create a community. There
are three different school districts and the residents
feel they should not be divided by a giant freeway.
Chairman Fuller stated any change of road
classification is the fob of the Planning Department
and not the function of this Commission.
Neil Turner, 7329 Calle Alma, stated the proposed
truck routes are currently not truck route roads. He
.recommended that until, Rancho Santa Fe Road is
Improved, it should not be a truck route.
Debbie Davis, 7525 La Quienta Place, stated she would
like to answer the man from the trash company as far
as the cost factor. She spent several months calling
trash companies when she found their trucks speeding
on La Costa Avenue. She also called the City Managers
o? Oceanside and Carlsbad. Ms. Davis complained
about -the Jripp -of, ali.,ft-different trash'coi�panies "
And their picking up early in the morning making a
great deal of noise. With the school children and the
new school to be built in the area, there would be
danger to the children crossing the street. She
stated the trash trucks travel at 65 mph and are not
aware of the blind corners on the streets. She asked
the trash companies to please allow the citizens to
live their lives. She felt the trash trucks from
other cities should take other routes, and the cities
they are servicing should also help Carlsbad to keep
those trucks from the Carlsbad streets.
Marlene Palish, 7035 Alacante Road, agreed with the
other residents and stated the truck people are using
Alacante Road as a truck route. She stated there are
trucks on that street carrying dirt and rocks and
making u-turns in front of the homes. This use of
Alacante is causing the street to become cracked and
causing a great deal of discomfort to the residents.
A gentleman spoke about Rancho Santa Fe Road stating
the houses sit very close to the road. With the
trucks on that road and the speed on the downgrade,
there could be a disaster.
Karen Sims, 7562 Trigo Lane, stated it is difficult to
enforce the speed limit on Rancho Santa Fe Road
because there Is no safe place for the police to sit
In order to be there to enforce the speed llmit.
Sohn Waterstradt, 7312 Muslo Lane, stressed the unsafe
condition of the roads due to heavy traffic and needed
maintenance.
Council Member Kulchin spoke, thanking the audience
for coming to the Meeting. Mrs. Kulchin asked the
Traffic Safety Commission to listen to the residents
and consider their requests for no truck routes on
Rancho Santa Fe Road, Alga Road or La Costa Avenue.
MINUTES
March 6, 1986 Page 7
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
COMMISSIONERS
Marylyn Bellman-Brown, 2638 Luelernega, spoke stating
they realize there must be some truck routes In the
area, but they asked the Commission recommend to the
Planning Commission and City Council plans for sound
attenuation on those streets so the residents
sufferiry from the noise and the safety issues can be
safeguarded In the future. When the truck routes are
designated, funds should be made available to
construct sound attenuation walls concurrently with
the designation of those routes.
Alan Recce, 7442 Trigo Lane, presented a petition with
over 400 residents names on the petition. The
original petition had been sent to City Hall.
Chairman Fuller stated for the record that he had a
copy of the petition.
Mr. Recce used the land use map to show the areas of
Rancho Santa Fe Road where there re blind spots. He
stated the.. sound walls are ..too•lop and.must-be,higher
In order to mitigate`ttie noise from the trucks. In
some places on Rancho Santa Fe Road the houses and
yards are four or five feet below the roadbed. The
trucks would come right through a four foot wall or
fence. He had tested the sound on the road, and it
was 80 decibals. Mr. Recce stated the City has a
problem In that area and are responsible and liable
for the trucks going through the fences. Safety and
health of the citizens must outweigh the costs and
slight inconvenience to the trucks.
Dennis Price, 7515 Cadencia Street, addressed the
Commission stating the Commissioners should travel
Rancho Santa Fe Road with the slow traffic and the
passing on the hills and blind curves. He added on La
Costa Avenue there are 75 driveways entering the
street along with all of the street intersections on
the roadway.
Commission discussion followed, with the determination
the Impacts being described by the people here tonight
do exist and Rancho Santa Fe Road is not In good
condition. However, that road is a multi -
jurisdictional road, with Carlsbad not having a legal
right to close it at the present time. Any closures,
without the concurrence of the County, City of San
Marcos and others involved, would have to he decided
by the Department of Transportation.
Police Chief Vincent Jimno stated they eduld not
enforce any decision by the City of Carlsbad to
eliminate Rancho Santa Fe Road as a truck route
without petitioning the Department of Transportation,
State of California, to have the matter decided. The
City could be Involved in a law suit if they cited a
trucking company for a Municipal Ordinance In conflict
with the State Law. All that could be done at that
point would be to have the State make the decision.
MINUTE,o
S4arch o, 1986
Page 8
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner O'Day stated anyone finding debris that
has fallen off of trucks should notify the City
Engineering Department. There are Ordinances that the
trucks must have an approved haul route and that is in
writing. There is a cash bond placed, and this could
be used for cleaning up the material that falls onto
tiie road. If there are places on La Costa Avenue that
need to be repaired, that recommendation should be
Included In a letter to the City. Mr. O'Day agreed
that sound walls work in conjunction with berms to
mitigate noise. Each wall weuld have to be analyzed
In relation to the adjacent homes by a sound expert.
Commissioner Erwin stated everyone was Interested in
safety and it was the desire to make the area into a
finer neighborhood. He stated he did not believe that
Rancho Santa Fe Road, as It stands now, is safe for
truck traffic. La Costa Avenue is not safe for
trucks, and most of the residential ztreets are not
made for trucks.
Commissioner Erwin made t6e'folloidng motion:
Traffic Safety Commission recommend to the City
Council that all commercial vehicles In excess of
5,000 lbs, except commercial vehicles servicing those
specific areas, be prohibited from using the following
roads:
1. Olivenhain Road - western City limit to Rancho
Santa Fe Road.
2. Rancho Santa Fe Road - Olivenhain Road to eastern
City limits.
3. La Costa Avenue - E1 Camino Real to Rancho Santa
Fe Road.
4. Alga Road - El Camino Real to Melrose.
5. Melrose - Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Secondly, La Costa Avenue from E1 Camino Real westerly
to the westerly City limits should be designated as a
truck route. Finally, all the roads listed in this
motion should be posted with the appropriate signs
Immediately after Council approval.
Commission discussion first centered on the MOD lbs.
limitation, with Police Chief Vince 9imno stating the
State Law Is 14,000 lbs. and the Commission would have
no authority to regulate the weight other than what is
In the State Vehicle Code.
In answer to Commission query regarding the
designation of OliveRancho
nhain, KentSearsSstatedanta etheydcould only from ochange
this by a General Plan Amendment.
Chairman Fuller stated when a road is a prime
arterial, it should be designed and anticipated to
carry trucks. He stated he was not in favor of
designating a truck route unless the road was
constructed to prime arterial standards. At this time
It is premature to designate Rancho Santa Fe Road as a
IturetainsetheNprime arterial and
atus,thesbellievedand
at would be proper.
33
6
I
MINUT %I
March 6, 1986 Page 9
COO. M, ISSIONERS
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
Commissioner Erwin agreed to restate his motion to
state: in excess of 14,000 lbs.
Commissioner Erwin asked whether -the designated routes
would be properly signed, and was told by staff they
would be. Trucks using routes not signed are subject
to ticketing unless they can prove they have business
In the area.
Commissioner Erwin made the following motion, with
changes to read:
Traffic Safety Commission recommend to the City
Council that all commercial vehicles in excess of
14,000 lbs, except commercial vehicles servicing those
specific areas, be prohibited from using the following
roads:
1. Olivenhain Road - western City limit to Rancho
Santa Fe Road.
Rancho Santa Fe,Rodd-•,OXivenhain-Road•to'easterh-
City limits.
3. La Costa Avenue - El Camino Real to Rancho Santa
Fe Road.
4. Alga Road - El Camino Real to Melrose.
5. Melrose - Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road.,
Secondly, La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real,
westerly to the westerly City limits, should be
designated as a truck route. Finally all the roads
listed in this motion should be posted with the
appropriate signs immediately after Council approval.
Gross allowable weight maximum gross weight of 14,000
lbs. Also the streets being used now to be signed,
and "trucks prohibited" signs be placed on those
streets.
Commissioner O'Day agreed that Rancho Santa Fe Road
should not be used as a truck route at this time. He
agreed when it is a six -lane highway, and sound
attenuation walls have been installed, then it would
be proper to be used as a truck route. He recommended
the City of Carlsbad petition Cal -Trans to enforce
that in the light of Rancho Santa Fe Road being a two-
lane road. He would like to attach to that
recommendation to the City staff, that sound
attenuation walls be considered.
Commissioner Wood stated he would like to vote on the
motion ;)efore the Commission. If there are subsequent
motions and discussions, those could be voted upon
separately.
3`{
MINUTEa
� 9m
March by 1986 Pagc 10 COMMISSIONERS
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
Traffic Safety Commission adopted the following
motion:
The Commission recommended to the City Council that
Fuller
X
all commercial vehicles using the allowable weight for
Erwin
X
X
the California Vehicle Code, with a maximum gross
Melideo
X
weight of 14,000 lbs, except commercial vehicles
O'Day
X
servicing those specific areas, be prohibited from using
Wood
X
the following roads:
1. Olivenhain Road - western City limit to Rancho
Santa Fe Road.
2. Rancho Santa Fe Road - Olivenhain Road to eastern
City limits.
3. La Costa Avenue - El Camino Real to Rancho Santa
Fe Road.
4. Alga Road - El Camino Real to Melrose.
5. Melrose - Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Secondly, La Costa Avenue from E1 Camino Real westerly
to the westerly, City .limits should be. -designated as a
truck route.
Finally, all the roads listed in this motion should be
posted with the appropriate signs and any streets that.,
have been used as truck routes, which are now
prohibited, should be signed with the proper signs
Immediately after Council approval.
Kent Sears, Traffic Engineer, stated Palomar Airport
Road is near its capacity at the present time. The
addition of all the trucks using Rancho Santa Fe Road,
Alga Road and La Costa Avenue, would have a
significant impact upon Palomar Airport Road.
The statement was made that with this action the trash
company would be landlocked with no access to the
landfill. The City cannot do that. The trash trucks
do have a right to go in and out of the areas they are
servicing.
Commissioner Wood stated the City Council, on the
advice of the City Attorney, will make its
recommendation as to whether or not the recommendation
of the Traffic Safety Commission is valid.
Chairman Fuller stated there must be an alternative
route for the trucks.
Traffic Safety Commission recommended the City of
Fuller
X
Carlsbad, City Council and staff, petition the
Erwin
X
Department of Transportation, State of California, to
Melideo
X
resolve the problem created, which involves
O'Day
X
San Diego County roads and roads of the City of San
Wood
X
X
Marcos. The City of Carlsbad has indicated posting
Rancho Santa Fe Road as not suitable for trucks. San
Marcos wants the use of Rancho Santa Fe Road for
trucks and San Diego County has objected to
designating Olivenhain as a non -truck route. It is up
to those entities to petition Cal -Trans.
3.)
MINUTLO'
*o ps
March b. 1986 Paue 19 yt?_
GOMMI551(7PIEHS 'y `� 'Z `�(f
ACTION ITEMS: (continued)
Traffic Safety Commission recommended the City
Fuller
X
Engineer consider sound attenuation walls in the
Erwin
X
design of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Melideo
X
O'Day
X
X
Wood
X
In answer to a question from a member of the audience,
Chairman Fuller stated they cannot enforce any action
taken against trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road unless
all persons involved concur.
Mrs. Humphreys stated the health and safety of the
citizens should take precedence with the Department of
Transportation.
Without giving their names, two other men in the
audience stated they had monitored the trips made by
various delivery, garbage, etc. trucks, and they felt
the Police should call these people In for private
sessions and explain to them they will have to abide
by. •the' regulations.. .
ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION:
Commissioner Wood stated he would suggest the Traffic
Engineer look into the possibility of putting a left-
hand turn pocket in the northbound lane on El Camino
Real turning west into Arnel. He stated there is a
southbound pocket, and with the development of
Seaport, it would be wise to put in the left turn
northbound pocket.
Commissioner Melideo asked staff what was happening to
the traffic circulation study in the beach area.
Staff stated the contract had been awarded.
Jim Popovich stated since the Traffic Engineer had
said Palomar Airport Road was nearly up to its
capacity, he wanted to comment that Rancho Santa Fe
Road is 4,000 trips over its capacity.
Mr. Laveck, 7722 Anillo, stated the City needed
someone with the proper background, appearance and
training to be a Traffic Commissioner to inform the
truck companies that they must abide by the
regulations and not use La Costa Avenue for through
truck traffic. He stated someone with knowledge on
how to deal with these companies should handle the
spillage of dirt, rock, etc. on the pavement.
At this point Chairman Fuller informed the audience
the Meeting must close, inasmuch as the theater has a
prior commitment.
3�
+ " ' MINUTE*j
«
March 6, 1986
Page 12 COMMISSION
ERS
ITEM FROM THE ENGINEER:
Kent Sears stated there were no items at this time.
AD30URNWNT: °
By proper motion, the Meeting of March 6, 1986, was
adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/Harriett
Babbitt
Minutes Clerk
HB/tc
37
I
. AM
0Sall,
N cit
co san
�lc°ter � I O
0)arcos
3
o ° °rated � 9 e� 105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE • SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
°
April 21, 1986
Kent Sears
Traffic Engineer
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
TRUCK ROUTES DESIGNATION
Dear Mr. Sears:
619/744.4020
RECEIVE j
CITY OF C
ENGINEERING
The City Council considered it's Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation
that the City of Carlsbad retain Rancho Santa Fe Road as a truck route.
The Council adopted enclosed Resolution No. 86-2347.
It notes that no Environmental Impact Report or assessment has been prepared
concerning prohibiting trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road, and requests that the
City of Carlsbad and the County retain Rancho Santa Fe Road as a truck route.
We note that the County of San Diego may have improved Rancho Santa Fe Road
using Federal and/or State funds which may preclude prohibiting truck travel
at this time.
It is requested that San Marcos' concerns and request be placed on the City of
Carlsbad's City Council agenda of April 22, 1986.
San Marcos will be represented at the April 22nd Carlsbad's Council meeting by
Kent A. Whitson, Consulting Transportation Engineer and Kevin K. Lindell,
Assistant Civil Engineer.
Cordially,
F. �- Dawson
City Engineer
vm
Enclosure: Resolution No. 86-2347
CC: Granville M. Bowman/H. Sorlie, Director of Public Works, County of San
Diego
Kent A. Whitson, Consulting Transportation Engineer
Kevin K. Lindell, Assistant Civil Engineer
R.W. Gittings, City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
Lionel G. Burton, Mayor
515
James D. Simmons, Vice Mayor Lee B. Thibadeau Pia Harris F. H. Smith
.�1
Y
RESOLUTION 110. 86- 2347
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN MARCOS REQUESTING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
TO RETAIN RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AS A TRUCK ROUTE
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad is actively considering not including
Rancho Santa Fe Road in it's truck route system; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego truck route system includes Rancho
Santa Fe Road; and
WHEREAS, the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road/Questhaven Road must
be reached en route to the County of San Diego Landfill and City of San Marcos
future trash to energy plant site; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad's deletion of Rancho Santa Fe Road from
the truck route system would cause trucks to travel on alternate streets in
Carlsbad, the County of San Diego and City of San Marcos of more than 2 to 4
times the distance to reach Rancho Santa Fe Road/ Questhaven Road from
Carlsbad.
WHEREAS, no,Environmentai Impact Report or assessrent has been
prepared concerning prohibiting trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Carlsbad and the
County of San Diego are requested to retain Rancho Santa Fe Road as a truck
route.
PASSED., APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City
Council held this 8th day of April, 1986 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 1was, Sutimys, SML:'_'d, BURTON
NOES: COUNCILME►x1BERS: No�M
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: TIisBAD AU
ATTEST: / IONEL G. BURTON, MAYOR
CITY Or SAH AZ
F1AP,COS
SHEILA A. KENNEDY, CITi Y CLERK
-
CITY OF SAN fF'ARCOS
335R
-.
3
r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF SAN MARCOS )
I, SHEILA A. KENNEDY, CITY CLERK, OF THE City of San Marcos DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING IS a full and true and correct
copy of RESOLUTION NO. 86-2347 and that the same has not been
amended or repealed.
DATED: April 21, 1986
OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS
r
Lev