HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-08; City Council; 8693; Appeal Traffic Safety Commission Decision Elm Av Olympia Dr.
SIT"OF CARLSBAD - AGENr- BILL
AB# 4E4 9�_ TITLE: DEPT. HD.
MTG. 07/` 8/06 APPEAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
CITY ATTY�L
o
D_PT. ENf DECISION (ELM AVENUE AND OLYMPIA DRIVE)
CITY-MGR.�
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
44 144
That the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Traffic
Safety Commission.
o0
ITEM EXPLANATION
ITJTraffic
This item is an appeal by a group of citizens\ of the decision rendered by the
Safety Commission not to close Olympia Dive at Elm Avenue. On June 2,
1986 the Traffic Safety Commission considered the request initiated by Bob
0
Ladwig of Rick Engineering Company to modify the intersection of Olympia Drive
at Elm Avenue to alleviate a sight distance restriction.
a
0
roElm
Avenue is a secondary arterial street and has a posted speed limit of 40
M.P.H. The design of Elm Avenue along this segment was approved in 1981 with a
centerline radius of 600 feet, which exceeds the 550 foot minimum radius
0
required on a secondary arterial. Olympia Drive, being located at the beginning
of the inside portion of a curve, combined with the location of the house and
3
retaining wall on the southwest corner of the intersection, results in available
sight distance for a speed of 36 M.P.H. on Elm Avenue. No accidents have been
o
reported at this intersection during the past two and one-half years.
w
$4
Signing and striping of the subject intersection is shown on Exhibit 3. A side
street warning sign and 30 M.P.H. advisory speed sign is located on Elm Avenue
378 feet west of Olympia Drive. Additional advanced signing is in place
alerting motorists of the signal at Concord Street, 150 feet east of Olympia
x a
Drive.
W 0
Several alternatives to mitigate the sight distance restriction were discussed
0 0
by the Traffic Safety CommissNion. They included closing Olympia Drive except
for a right turn only off Elm Avenue onto Olympia Drive (see Exhibit 4), a total
closure of Olympia Drive by constructing a cul-de-sac or barrier at the end of
U
Olympia Drive where it intersects Elm Avenue, or to only permit right turns off
Elm Avenue onto Olympia Drive and right turns only from Olympia Drive onto Elm
r
Avenue.
0H
Several negative aspects would be associated with closing the end of Olympia
Drive at Elm Avenue by construction of a cul-de-sac. Olympia Drive has an
00
existing right-of-way of 56 feet. A standard cul-de-sac bulb has a curb radius
co
of 36 feet which would require a width of 76 feet curb -to -curb. Therefore, the
cul-de-sac bulb would encroach upon private property, requiring additional
right-of-way that :s unavailable.
Z
O
If Olympia Drive is dead ended with no turn -around, trash trucks would be forced
to turn around in the driveway of local residents. Street sweeping equipment
could not adequately sweep the end of the street. Closing the road at this
J_
V
Z
0
O
C�
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. —&-- 3
location provides only one point of exit to Elm Avenue for the homes on Olympia
Drive, specifically Pontiac Drive. If a fire truck responds to an emergency on
Olympia Drive, the road is essentially blocked from further use by the residents
until the emergency vehicle leaves. Two points of access are desirable for
circulation and for emergency access (see attached letter from Battalion Chief
Watson). Otherwise, from an emergency vehicle response time issue, safety is
not seriously compromised (see Commission minutes, Chief Jimno's statement).
Although the sight distance available of 36 M.P.H. is under the 40 M.P.H.
design speed required on a secondary arterial, the accident history does not
support the contention that this is a dangerous intersection. Staff cannot
support the request for closure of Olympia Drive.
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the findings of the Traffic
Safety Commission and deny the appeal.
i
FISCAL IMPACT
None. If Council finds that modifications are necessary, Standard Pacific of !
San Diego has indicated, at the Traffic Safety Commission, the willingness to
finance the cost of the necessary intersection alterations.
EXHIBITS
1.�/ Vicinity Map
2./"Staff Report to Traffic Safety Commission, with attachments
3.� Existing Signing and Striping of Elm Avenue at Olympia Drive
4.v/ Right Turn Only Alternative
5.d Letter from Battalion Chief Watson
6. ✓Traffic Safety Commission Minutes of June 2, 1986
I
7.✓ Appeal of Traffic Safety Commission Decision
LOCATION MAP
S1rE
TAMARACK AVE.
CONCORD ST.
PROJECT NAME: PROD. EXHIBIT
ELM AVE. 4- OLYMPIA DR. iv%�, \.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
i
COMMISSION REPORT OF: June 2, 1986 ITEM NO. D2
r
LOCATION: Olympia Drive and ELm Avenue
INITIATED BY: Bob Ladwig - Rick Engineering
PROBLEM AS STATED BY REQUESTOR:
Due to the curvature of Elm Avenue, drivers on Olympia Drive,
looking west, have restricted sight distance. To mitigate
this, it is recommended that traffic be prevented from
exiting Olympia Drive.
DATA:
The suggestion to alleviate the sight distance restriction at
Olympia Drive and Elm Avenue was first presented by Rick
Engineering acting as representatives of Standard Pacific,
the developer of the area. Since that time several area
residents have expressed concern about the conditions (see
attached correspondence).
Elm Avenue is a Secondary Arterial street with a posted speed
limit of 40 m.p.h. West of Olympia Drive is a 600' radius
curve. (This exceeds the minimum standard for this type
roadway.) A field check found that there is sufficient sight
distance to provide for a speed of at least 36 m.p.h. There
have been no reported accidents at this intersection in the
last two and one-half years.
The mitigation suggested by Rick Engineering is to prohibit
vehicles from exiting Olympia onto Elm Avenue. This could be
done by cul-de-sacing Olympia Drive or by allowing right
turns in only. The latter option is shown in the attached
sketches (Exhibits 1 and 2). Either arrangement violates the
City's Standard 'which requires a 36-foot radius curve for all
cul-de-says. This Standard is to provide vehicles,
6-r
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: June 2, 1986
Continued
ITEM NO. D2
especially emergency vehicles, with enough room to turn
around. With only 36-feet of pavement (20-feet if parking is
retained), any vehicle will be required to make several
movements to turn around. If right turns in are permitted,
the vehicle manuevering to turn around will be in the path of
traffic entering Olympia Drive from Elm Avenue.
As stated, there is sight distance available for a speed of
36 m.p.h. As for many such intersections, we have placed
advisory side road warning signs in advance of the intersec-
tion to help mitigate the deficiency. From the accident
history, there has been no evidence of a problem. Consider ing this, the sight distance restriction can be considered
more a discomfort to drivers than a hazard. It is staff s
opinion that the negative aspects of cul-de-sacing Olympia
Drive outweigh the potential for accidents on Elm Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the request for modifications to the intersection of Elm
Avenue and Olympia Drive to prohibit traffic from exiting be
denied.
NECESSARY COUNCIL ACTION:
None required if the request is denied. Council resolution
would be required to cul-de-sac Olympia Drive.
El
N
ELM AVENUE
18'
O
r
SCALE; 1 30
cc
OLYMPIA DERIVE m
: PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSURE OF ��<i k,
ELM AVENUE/OLYMPIA DRIVE INTERSECTION
O.
m -
m
.r
"
z
r p
IC 'O
aCo
Q
< m
m
z
m�
MG)
OZ
ra
�M
°O
aM
coo
2a
<M
m .�
s �
za
.,� r
��
m 0
n co
Om
zO
an
0
i
0
a
1N
.M
m
4
lool
r
7
DECEIVED
2696 Olympia Drive
Carlsbad, California 92006 CITY OF CAR'. 1.0
EWCINEERIM M"A T'A=;lf
May 3, 1986
Kent Sears
Director of Traffic Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. -Sears:
I'm addressing this letter to you to express my concern as a resident of
2596 Olympia Drive. The intersection of Olympia Drive and Elm Avenue
Possesses a problem to the residents due to the fast traffic on Elm
Avenue.
The following specifies the traffic dangers caused by the above mentioned
7)tersection:
I it's ext, emely dangerous to turn left on Elm Avenue from
Olympia Drive due to the curvature of Elm, which blocks
311 view of traffic traveling east on Elm Avenue.
also difficult for Pedestrians at or near this
intersection to cross the corner of Olympia Drive because
they are unable to see fast aoproaching 'traf f ic due to the
curvature of Elm Avenue.
As a resident of Olympia Drive and a parent of a five-year old boy, I'm very
concerned with the danger imposed by this intersection, and I propose that
Olympia Drive tat the intersection of Olympia Drive and Elm Avenue) be
closed to avoid any accidents.
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Gracie Blough
r
0
stisls�
-1a Wrxn1-
. Z avn tun-� ny -tk�is Felker;o „ vrr� ccxz�ms �s � Car�c�
+�esel�� l�u�r� a� 2�1 Olympia l�nve m Sp�n�at�r I�r�. l lrri-�I Feceh}-I�, t,�;.�
Vxwe. bin �c�1 �„lh ib� �rcblem o� �pl� dnu,nc� on )m 4vc cx4
YC�S CI�C�u7�k. bki�Yl � GPI 55 n`11k5 per 6f. -t�P
-�c
mc�,� urn, J 6k��n,pia Dn��. �
�1m Rom.. is a very dar�ercus Mneuvey' sAMe CAC Can
r�,� �a2 -�h� oncam�ny C�i�rs IAI-the 44M i nuk dine �c)
t4w read (Elm) curves cmur�. --t+
�s Wi +vrk b�xk Q
acGde� CA, uCl occur a� jN5 un4i09.
any ha5 acl� on A-() rr4o w Qm h�
a 44'c 11 'U5+ %qa� 44eCt�u.1-
�hr,� L Vk, at Qm and Ccoccr�i, �lo�u.0 this
w��l �ar-fihP cuf5 dccLn cxmecLA4 on elm,
t�ces 4 b66-7�0 " 4al* v.-e
OaLl�
..�,� �i- ion, —this neu� -�cc�c S� raze mi�h+
�n4 Ao
-� �tbrc O�rnpo, bu*
E if) Grd2(--6 C�rc.wm� phis
� la4c c� �r�a,�, r,ab�-phis j wc�cn eo nrgr�_ q
�Vwn� o-� � r2sde►�s cfl -hts .c�i o� D 8ynP-ck
&5cV,556 this ��rcn ark, i� aff(zrs
ft4 4AOYCF wocOd be in �a�tr c-�A�w cclosir�
C4 Jks ZOA c� O��yv,�0. �cw�e..-n,�s uxuld��ccb12
u,2:) oA --L Q��
On 4 -�w much
%4ouc, w'nFr2 ur-D " blkr-A
= t,ta,ck apVk�ecia�e..ci gyres 40
o�
� �c� ��, � CL� �At -1�0 -M.
�uP A c�Nfl V�R�x�R
2." ullyvnp0. VrcUe.
Gari�,i,CR . qoag
C� q � H-3 q - 4asl
/o
2603 Olympia Dries
Carishar, Caiifoeimia 02000
May 12, 1986 (i 19) 729-5449
RECEIVED
MAY 191986
Mr. Kent Sears CITY OF CARLSBAD
Traffic Commission Director ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Sears:
With the near completion of the traffic signal at the intersection of
Avenue and Concord, my concern regarding the intersec i Elm
and Olympia Drive has increased. This intersection has become lm Avenue
hazard, as speeds increase along Elm Avenue, for people tore f a
on to Elm Avenue from Olympia. Drivers turning right On toOl a rarely
to turn left
slow down enough to not drift into the oncominq traffic lane when
r. to the jog in the street on Olympia. coming
Since the Concord signal will only be triggered with someone exiting
that
street, the speeds will remain the same along Elm. I had hoped for the
signal to include our intersection, too, for when the resident; the
Olympia Drive onto Elm, we will now have the double hazard exit
see around cars stopped at the signal for Concord. of trying to
The residents of this end of Olympia Drive have expressed interest i
enue. What steps wouh;
Possible blocking off of Olympia Drive and Elm Av As one
be needed to have this idea reviewed?
children on the block, this solution would be a wonderful oraen te
of Seveal families with
Whatever the outcome, for r_ ;e safety of both residents a
will have to be somehow reduced along Elm Avenue, nd drivers, speeds
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Linda J. Thamer
Y
J
Jto
1
IL
9
�
m
1
i
g
Y
�
D
D
Z
y
r
it
ii
0
9
11
112,
ELM AVENUE
N
f
Ew CUR6
f •► A : N :WA K
}
i
r ip
1
980MANIBOMANIft[J
a
p
18" 18'
I�
O
SCALE: 1 30
I
OLYMPIA DRIVE
PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSUREEX=
OF
ELM AVENUE/
OLYMPIA DRIVE INTERSECTION
t3
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSSAD
June 17, 1986 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TO: ROBERT JOHNSON, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Brian Watson, Fire Department
POTENTIAL CLOSING OF OLYMPIA DRIVE AT ELM AVENUE
x I would like to clarify the fire department's position on this issue. Basically,
we feel that any of the alternatives could be used without significantly impacting
emergency response to and emergency operations in the area.
Viewing this situation from are emergency services provider's standpoint, the
order of preference of the altErnatives is as follows:
G
1. Remain as is.
2. Right turn only access from Elm Avenue.
3. Close off completely.
The order of preferences shown above reflects the general principle that the
more routes into or out of the area, the better. This reflects a desire for
greater flexibility.
From a practical standpoint, if the street were to be closed off, the net effect
on our emergency operations would be:
1. Possibly increase response time to the end of the street by up to 30 seconds.
2. Slightly reduce our tactical options.
3. Cause additional movements (backing) to re -position emergency apparatus
at the scene of an emergency.
Please call me if you need additional information.
RIAN WATSON
Battalion Chief
fg
/q
r
MINUTES
Meeting of: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 3:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: June 2, 1986
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
9
\\40r ode y0
wmmwai�ntn� y ,� .v Ott+
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fuller called the Meeting to order at
3:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Fuller, Commissioners
Erwin, Melideo, and Wood
Absent: Commissioner O'Day and the Minutes
Clerk
Staff Members Present:
Bob Johnson, Principal Civil Engineer
Mike Shirey, Engineering Technician II
Vince Jimno, Chief of Police
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Fuller
x
Erwin
x
Minutes of the Meeting held May 5, 1986, were
Melideo
x
approved as presented.
Wood
x
REPORT ON ACTION FROM PREVIOUS MEETING:
Bob Johnson reported on Commissioner Wood's
inquiry about the green curbing painted on the
opposite side of the street from Johnny's House
of Glass. Bob stated that the green curb was
painted illegally and that the City's utilities
department knew nothing about it. A work order
has been initiated to have the painting removed.
The striping on Alicante has not been completed.
Chairman Fuller inquired as to the completion
date. Bob Johnson responded that it should be
completed in approximately one month. After the
striping is completed, a traffic study will be
done.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Posting A Speed Limit On-Cadencia Street.
Chairman Fuller read the staff report on this item
as contained in the packet. Recommendation was
for denial.
Dennis Price, 7515 Cadencia Street, thanked the
Commission for their support in getting the trucks
off of La Costa Avenue.
Mr. Price requested a 25 mph speed limit be posted
on Cadencia. He stated that the street was
designated by the City as a local street and used
as a collector. It is 40 feet wide from curb to
curb and approximately one mile long from Rancho
Santa Fe to La Costa Avenue. He stated forty
homes are located along this one mile long street
as well as a community park and playground, six
bus stops, and eight local streets that intersect.
Mr. Price presented a table of street design
criteria used by the City which shows that this
type of street suggests a speed limit of 25 mph.
He pointed out that two years ago, before Seapoint
was built, the traffic count showed 360 cars
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION June 2, 1986 Page 2
COMMISSIONERS
daily. The most recent traffic count done shows
1700 cars daily. Seapoint is only at one third
buildout and when that buildout is complete the
projection is for 4000 cars daily. Mr. Price
voiced his concern for the safety of the people
who use it daily, mainly the pedestrians. He
pointed out, over the objection of Mr. Sears, tha
a stop sign was placed on Levante due to the
Traffic Commissions view for pedestrian safety fo
the school children at the new school. He also
pointed out that he would like to see the same
concern given here on a two lane road, as was
given Alga Road - a four lane road with a 35 mph
speed limit. He requested speed studies be done
at six and twelve month intervals to see effects
of posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Commissioner Wood raised the question as to where
most of the traffic was coming from on Cadencia.
Mr Price stated that most of the traffic was
coming from leapoint. During the traffic count,
it was found that 900 cars were going down
Cadencia and only 500 cars were going back up
during two 24 hour days. People were using it as
a shortcut coming down Rancho Santa Fe going to
La Costa and points west.
Bob Johnson (in reference to the Alga Road)
mentioned that a speed study will be going to
Council June 3, 1986 recommending a 45 mph speed
limit. Bob stated that the existing residential
density does not qualify Cadencia as a residential
area per the Vehicle Code. Based upon the 8S
percentile, drivers perceived that a 45 mph speed
was safe and reasonable, and that posting it
lower does not necessarily mean that people will
drive that speed. The accident history is not
indicative of a problem at this time.
Chairman Fuller raised the question if a 25 mph
speed limit could be enforced legally by the
Police Department. A reply by Bob Johnson was
that it was not possible with the conditions of
the road now.
Commissioner Erwin raised the question to see if
the road coud be segmented with two different
speed limits. The top of the hill meets all
criteria for a residential area, so perhaps two
speed limits could'be established for the same
road. Commissioner Wood stated that there are
streets in Carlsbad that have two speed limits.
He did not know whether it was legal or not. Bob
Johnson stated that staff could check into it to
see if it is possible to post two different speed
limits. Diary Melideo made the comment that it
might provide false security if a 25 mph speed
limit was imposed and could not be enforced by th
Police Department.
A motion was made to carry over this action until
staff can review and find out if the road can be
legally segmented with two different speed limits
and the speed limit enforced, and with a view of
declaring some parts of the street residential.
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMiMISSION June 2, 1986 Page 3
cvmmibbivnenb
y �;p y `ip
The motion was moved and seconded and passed
Fuller
x
unanimously.
Erwin
x
Melideo
x
Wood
x
2. Olympia Drive and Elm Avenue Intersection
Chairman Puller read the staff report initiated b
Bob Ladwig on this issue. Recommendation was for
denial.
Gina Walker who lives at 2699 Olympia Drive
supports the cul-de-sac because of increased
traffic and concern for safety for the children.
Abe Katell who lives at 2692 Medford Court
pointed out the buildup of houses in that area
which causes more traffic. He is not in favor of
a cul-de-sac but would like to prevent any egress
or ingress onto Olympia from Elm in either
direction. He pointed out that their is a sight
distance problem at that intersection. He also
recommended that a right turn only in would take
care of some of the problem.
Ed Pirae, 2701 Olympia Drive favored the cul-de-
sac. He stated that the City Engineer had been
in favor of it. He also pointed out that the
lack of -accidents in that area was not valid
because the danger of exiting created more driver
awareness and that people were avoiding the
intersection by going up Pontiac to get out. He
wanted a total blockage if only one-half was going
to be considered. He represented other neighbors
in his area who concurred.
Chairman Fuller took a count of the people in the
audience who approved of cul-de-saccing Olympia
but did not care to speak for the record.
George Greenfield of 348S Lawrence maintained that
the exit is dangerous. He was concerned that a
provision be made for pedestrians down Elm. He
was assured that it would be.
Charles Todda of 2709 Olympia Drive stated that
the suggestion of a right turn off of Elm to
Olympia was not a good idea because Elm is a two
lane road.
Howard Gesly of 3479 Lawrence Street asked for
clarification of a right turn lane. He was
opposed to making any changes at that intersection
tie stated that there had been a mistake with the
tentative map on the traffic signal at Concord and
Elm and that perhaps a signal should have been
placed at Pontiac and Elm.
David Phares, Vice -President of Standard Pacific,
7290 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, stated
that his firm would be willing to pick up the cost
of correcting :he intersection of Concord and Elm.
fie commended the alertness of the residents in
that area. He suggested wider striping on Elm for
turning onto Olympia or blocking the intersection
off completely.
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY C:Orn1ISSI0u June 2, 1D36 page w
COMMISSIONERS
Chairman Fuller asked the question of Bob Johnson
if there was enough right-of-way to construct a
standard cul-de-sac. Mr. Johnson stated there wa
not enough right-of-way. One alternative that wa.
suggested was a barrier with a curb, which does
not allow a turn -around for emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Melideo asked how, if the street was
closed, would this affect emergency vehicles.
Police Chief Jimno responded to the question of
what the situation would be if a cul-de-sac was
installed. He felt that no significant impact
would be felt because of the fact that it was a
short block or block and one-half. The Fire
Department was not represented but Chief Jimno
did not think that it would be a problem for them
either from a response time standpoint. Their
present services are from a fire station on
Chestnut and has good response time. Also, a new
fire station is being planned for Calavera Hills
in the near future. The radius of the cul-de-sac
could be an issue for fire trucks to turn around.
Access to fire hydrants is available.
Howard Gesly asked if this cul-de-sac would impede
trash pick-up. As to the question of trash pick-
up, no pro,,1c.— ::ms expected. The reside; t; stated
that the trash trucks currently back-up when
necessary.
Howard Gesly stated that lie thought you should not
make it a cul-de-sac if it is not a legal one.
A verbal commendation was made to Standard Pacific
for offering to correct the situation at Elm and
Concord at their expense.
John Trokey of 2723 Spokane Way stated he uses
Olympia every day. lie thinks that the problem is
excessive speed and not anything else. lie feels
that there is enough room for making a turn safely
from Olympia onto Elm. lie thinks that other
routes should be studied because of the traffic in
that area. tie also pointed out the lack of side-
walks in some areas.
Chairman Fuller also brought up the fact that if
anything other than a standard size cul-de-sac is
made, a street sweeper cannot get in to clean up
the streets.
David Phares recommended using a brick wall with
reflectors instead of a curb in designing the cul-
de-sac. Also the question of landscaping,
drainage and cleaning will have to be addressed if
this is approved.
Commissioner Erwin stated that there is a
limitation of access of the whole tract to one
street and it impacts the people on Pontiac.
Mary Melideo stated that she was concerned about I
the width of the street and made a motion to deny 1
the closure of Olympia.
Sight distance seemed to be a problem. It was
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COINDIISSION June 2, 1986 Page 5
COMMISSIONERS O FJ+9y
suggested by the Commission to move the bicycle
lane by making it wider, which might improve the
sight distance at the intersection. it would mov
traffic toward the center of Elm making a turn
onto Elm from Olympia easier.
The motion was to adopt staff's recommendation.
Fuller
x
The motion passed 3-1 to deny making any changes
Erwin
x
to the intersection of Elm and Olympia.
Melideo
x
Wood
x
Commission recommended staff to look into moving
the bike lane toward the center of Elm to improve
the sight distance at Olympia and Elm.
3. Carlsbad and Pine Street Traffic Signal -
Installation.
Chairman Fuller read the staff report.
At the November 4, 1985 meeting of the Traffic
Safety Commission, the request for a traffic
signal at Pine Street and Carlsbad Boulevard was
made to provide a safe and public access to the
beach. It was recommended that this be postponed
until a traffic study could be completed. That
study is now underway. Bill Kanepa of the
Tamarack Beach Resort stated that he would like a
decision made prior to completion of the study
using current data. A memo from Marty Bouman,
Transportation Planning Consultant to the City,
recommended that a signal would not solve the
problem and would create more potential for
accidents than currently exists. Mr. Bouman
provided an alternative however to consider, that
of building a pedestrian overcrossing. Again,
staff's recommendation was to defer this item
until the traffic study was completed.
Mr. Kanepa of 3200 Carlsbad Boulevard, suggested
that an overpass would be too expensive and that
people would still take the shortest route to
cross to the beach. tie would like to s.•e some-
thing done now even if just a stop sign; but he
would rather see a pedestrian light which can be
activated by a pedestrian to stop traffic so they
could cross the street.
Commissioner Melideo brought up the question of
how many people would occupy Tamarack Beach Resort
at a given time. Dir. Kanepa responded that 350-
400 occupants. Mary Melideo felt that it could b
too much of an interruption of traffic.
Chairman Fuller made the point that since a study
is already underway involving the entire Carlsbad
Boulevard beach area, he recommends going along
with staff until the study is compplete. It is
expected to be completed within tl�e year.
Pedestrian activity will be included in that
study.
Commissioner Wood made the motion to adopt staff's
Fuller
x
recommendation. Commissioner Melideo seconded.
Erwin
x
The motion passed unanimously.
Melideo
x
Wood
x
1
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION June 2, 1986 Page 6 \
COMMISSIONERS
ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Erwin brought up a potentially
hazardous situation at the intersection of La
Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Currently
there is not a protected left turn from La Costa
Avenue to northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Though La Costa Avenue east of Rancho Santa Fe
Road is closed to through traffic, there is a
potential hazard for construction workers heading
westbound on La Costa Avenue through the inter-
section. Commissioner Erwin requested a report
at the next meeting .from staff on whether this
light could be programmed to "stagger" traffic
to have protected left turns from La Costa Avenue
onto north or southbound Rancho Santa Fe Road.
ITEMS FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
None.
ADJOURNMENT.
By proper motion, the Meeting of June 2, 1986 was
adjourned at 4:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Shirey
Engineering Technician It
• 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 438.5535
Office of the City Clerk "'=• ""
of Cart.9bab
APPEAL FORM
t
I W� appeal the following decision of the J rORIC
t C ` l`f11�• ' AI to the City Council:
1 I
Project name and number (or subject of appeal): _T
U
;gate of decision: : • F
x
Reason for appeal: W +h � LL
{ r 1 T nc`` ��•1
m 4 �4-0)
Ch Ird►c6�0 C1C5 IC r1C rPC�c�c'P _ .. --� cx r
t
Date' gnature "
.
�/`A,� A J
Name (Please print)
6 Cr LP_
ress
�Cl r tS N Cl
Telephone Number
(6ct
ca-
N up � (;) m4 vj1 L K�-I�
rnp ck r.
&4� , cA (qAq -L�)
-fie r��n
Vhe O-y c�
re�'ckerrr Gs...t�w:e are tIhe
+me vehicles. Ise hfe
Cayl-O?W cu(11 6cf--4n ��ct000rl- Gf- the
ones mos�'dir��-(u _
J
Z6�3 c�lyhn ia.�rrtr�