HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-24; City Council; 8900; Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive Traffic StudiesIC
-.
c a0 a0 am O om hcd a G 00 u *rl u wv (ua cdm Uh ma u UG a -4 u LJa alS hu
d 0 2 a 0 0
STATUS REPORT - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD/
MELROSE DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDIES
MTG. 02/24/87
DEPT.ENG
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report and authorize staff to negotiate a contract
amendment with Willdan Associates to prepare a Preliminary
Design Alternatives Study.
ITEU EXPLANATION
Over the past several weeks a great deal of concern has been
focused on the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Melrose Drive. This concern (to a large extent) was
precipitated by the tragic accident in which a young mother
was killed at this location in late December. Based on these
concerns a traffic investigation has been conducted and a
report submitted to the Traffic Commission.
The Traffic Commission, after careful review of the facts and
substantial input from citizens, concluded that:
1. The intersection is in need of reconstruction and
signalization ;
2. A consultant should be hired as soon as possible to
develop alternative design configurations acceptable to
Carlsbad, San Marcos and San Diego County;
3. Reconsider the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road as
conditioned by Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19; and
4. Immediately hire a consultant to survey the jurisdic-
tional boundaries to locate City Limits on Rancho Santa
Fe Road between Melrose Drive and Questhaven Road.
The Commission recognizes that a potential problem exists and
that signalization is the appropriate traffic control
measure. The issue becomes the appropriate location and
design to mitigate numerous problems at the intersection.
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
Subsequent to the Traffic Commission meeting, staff has met
with representatives from the County and San Marcos. Based
on the best information now available, it would appear that
Carlsbad has jurisdiction of Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa
Fe Road south of Melrose Drive. The County maintains legal
jurisdiction of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of the intersec-
t ion and San Marcos retains control of access on the east
I
.' -.. ..
-- PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
side of the road including intersections with La Costa
Meadows and Questhaven.
Carlsbad has taken the initiative to verify these boundaries
through a field survey. The final results should be avail-
able within the month. This information will provide the
determination of jurisdictional control and potential funding
responsibilities. Based on our current information, a 1/3
-1/3 - 1/3 split would seem appropriate.
It should be noted that no solution affecting the intersec-
tion can be implemented without concurrence of each jurisdiction.
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive are both designated as
prime arterials in the City's Circulation Element. Each will
have an ultimate width of 126-feet with an 18-foot median and
will accommodate six (6) lanes of traffic. Traffic projec-
tions for each roadway exceed 40,000 Average Daily Traffic
(ADT). South of the intersection with Melrose Drive the
roadways merge and extend as one roadway to a point yet to be
determined. In this reach volumes are projected to exceed 80,000 ADT, which if realized would exceed the six lane
capacity.
At the current time, Melrose Drive exists only north of
Rancho Santa Fe Road to Alga Road. Traffic volumes on
Melrose are 2,450 ADT while volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road
are 18,350 ADT.
The ultimate intersection of Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe will
be a complex highly impacted intersection of unusual
character and traffic demands. Past thinking about this
intersection has given priority to Melrose Drive as the
primary movement and proposed the IcT1ingrl of Rancho Santa Fe
Road with Melrose at Corintia. This alternative is shown on
the attached approved Tentative Tract CT 85-19. If
implemented, this alternative would signalize the new
intersection and would involve significant reconstruction of
the existing intersection of Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The developer has been conditioned to implement this
solution including signalization of the intersection. This
option would, however, severely hamper the dominant Rancho
Santa Fe Road traffic for many years and has been questioned
by the County, San Marcos and the Traffic Safety Coordinating
Committee. It was the finding of the Traffic Commission that
this alternative be further evaluated as a part of a more
detailed design alternatives analysis.
.... .. 4
. -1
s- PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
In meetings between the County, San Marcos and ourselves it
was determined that five alternatives should be analyzed in
terms of the short-term and long-term traffic operations and
costs.
These alternatives were:
1. Signalization with minor modification to the existing
intersection.
2. Implementation of CT 85-19 with realignment of Rancho
Santa Fe clT1ingll into Melrose. Significant reconstruc-
tion of existing intersection.
3. Assign priority to Rancho Santa Fe by "T1ingl' Melrose in
Rancho Santa Fe upgrading design standards and re-
evaluating the intersection of Melrose and Corintia.
4. Interim solution that closes Melrose at Corintia and
reconnects to Rancho Santa Fe as a local street. Final
design would implement Alternative 1.
5. Explore high design interchange alternative involving
grade separated connectors.
These alternatives represent a full spectrum of interim and
ultimate signalization. It is staffs' hope that one of the
ultimate solutions can be implemented to avoid costly interim
improvements that require major modifications in the near
future.
The proposed study if authorized would take 30 to 60 days to
complete. Upon selection of the preferred alternative by
each agency a project could be considered for the 1987-88
Fiscal Year budget and constructed within a year.
IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS
There are no immediate short term solutions which would
significantly improve safety at this difficult intersection.
Among alternatives reviewed and discussed by the Traffic
Commission were:
1. Installation of three-way stop.
2. Reduction of speed limits.
3. Installation of rumble strips at intersection
approaches.
3
4
-- PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO,
4. Installation of flashing yellow beacons in the
intersection.
The Commission specifically rejected stop signs and
recognized that a severely reduced speed limit would be
unenforceable. The Commission expressed interest in items 3
and 4 and requested staff to further explore these
alternatives for presentation to the Council. The purpose of
both the rumble strip and flashing beacons would be to alert
Rancho Santa Fe Road motorists to a potential area of concern
and perhaps encourage a reduction in speed. These options
were submitted to the County for review and comment.
Preliminary indications were negative relative to the rumble
strip but somewhat neutral related to flashing beacons.
Hopefully a formal response will be received before the
Council meeting. From the staff perspective Council may want
to give serious consideration to installation of flashing
yellow beacons as an interim measure to alert drivers to the
intersection.
If beacons are installed we would further propose before and
after speed studies to measure the effectiveness of the
control measure for future reference.
CONSULTANT SELECTION
It is proposed that Willdan Associates prepare the design
alternatives as an extension of its current Rancho Santa Fe
Road Alternatives Analysis. Willdan as the City's Plan Check
Consultant is familiar with City Standards, the specific area
and in the past has worked closely with the City of San
Marcos. It would be the staff recommendation to expedite the
project, that a lengthy proposal procedure be avoided and
Willdan's current contract be expanded to explore design
alternatives.
FISCAL IUPACT
Consultant studies will impact the City budget in an amount
to be determined subsequent to contract negotiation. This
project was not included in the current year's budget. The
budgetary impacts of the proposed intersection improvements
will be a major topic of the alternatives analysis.
_- PAGE 5 OF AGENDA BILL NO-
EXHIBITS
I./ Exist. Intersection.
2. d‘ Tract CT 85-19
3 .V .I, Traffic Commission Report
4. f’ Minutes of Traffic Commission meeting.
5.+-,’ Letter to San Diego County.
c- 5
8 -1 -1 w *
E
3
z
v)
E
E
I n
2: w -1
3 2 a 4
t-w ax
- a
ua
E w. WZ Y.
-w r-a In* Ic
W
z
m :
n 3 I 4
z
v)
E
a 0 c v)
Y
L. ) &j
9 c
W
0 Z
z
m
a 0 c v)
2
* K
r-
z u
v)
U
3 2
c w w
P tn
w -1
a
m a s
I c
5
z
v)
a 0
c.l
i?
E - a
N
z
v) E : z
c w W
c m
W -1
a
m a
E
B
E; 3
z u U
m
a
v) 8
d a
LD
K w Y P 2
a z a
Irl 0. * b
I
13 w *
E
3
z
m
s
f;
E
E K
a W W Y
15 a
PI
w c 3 z
Y U
c
a 0
a
a a
n
a
w c z
0 L
z
v)
E
E L
.-1
w w a tn
n, r In
t
c(
n
- -
z -0 NU Pv)
m
z
(0
u z
z
4 3
w
E
c(
a
z a U
E a
In L
4
t 3
w
a W c s -+ 3
cl
w a H
4 Y
0
r'
0
W I&
a
s f a
Q
8
li Y
4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COUMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987 ITEM N0.6-A -
LOCAT ION : Intersection of Melrose Avenue with Rancho Santa
Fe Road
INITIATED BY: Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tern
BACKGROUND:
Staff has been requested to review the intersection and
investigate the installation of a traffic signal.
DATA:
Existing Conditions:
Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue are both designated
as prime arterials on the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. As such, each will ultimately have six (6) traffic
lanes and an 18-foot wide median located in a right-of-way of
126-feet.
At this time, however, these two roads are not constructed to
prime arterial standards at the intersection. Existing conditions of this intersection are shown on the Condition
Diagram, Exhibit 1.
Rancho Santa Fe Road is a rural two-way roadway having one
northbound lane and one southbound lane, divided by a left
turn lane located south of the intersection and a two-way
left turn lane located north of the intersection. For southbound traffic there is a downgrade that levels off at
the intersection. A speed limit sign of 45 MPH is posted
south of the intersection. Additional intersections and
driveway locations are indicated on the Condition Diagram.
6-A-I
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
Melrose Avenue is a two-way roadway with one westbound lane
and one eastbound lane divided by a median at the intersec-
t ion. The road is being widened at this time to prime
arterial standards between Alga Road and Rancho Santa Fe
Road, but not at the intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road.
For eastbound traffic, Melrose Avenue is controlled by two
posted stop signs and painted stop bars at the Rancho Santa
Fe Road intersection.
The existing intersection was constructed as a skewed nT't
intersection, with a curvilinear alignment on two approach
legs. This intersection is not at the ultimate location
and is only considered temporary at this time. Construction
plans have been designed for the ultimate (future) Melrose
Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection and will be
discussed later in this report.
The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road
represents only one portion of a complex roadway segment
extending from approximately 500-feet north of Melrose Avenue
to Questhaven Road. A recommended solution to correcting the
deficiencies associated with this temporary intersection
cannot be successfully undertaken without considering other
inter-related aspects of this roadway segment that also
require mitigation or correction.
Traffic Data:
A traffic count at this intersection was conducted for the
forty-eight hour period of January 5, 1987 to January 7,
1987. The two-way volume on Rancho Santa Fe Road was 18,346
vehicles and the intersection approach volume on Melrose
Avenue was 2,452 vehicles. Traffic count data sheets are
attached.
During 1986, there were five (5) reported accidents at the
intersection, one of which resulted in a fatality. In 1984
and 1985, there were two (2) and one (1) reported accidents,
respectively, at the intersection. A review of reported accidents for the past three (3) years indicates that the
4-A-2
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
apparent cause of four (4) accidents was due to inattention,
one (1) due to excessive speed, one (1) due to driving on
the wrong side, one (1) due to violation of the right-of-way
while driving under the influence, and one (1) due to a
violation of the right-of-way. The accident pattern suggests
driver error and that drivers are not recognizing the speed
of vehicles on Rancho Santa Fe Road and the available gaps to
enter the roadway. Sight distance is good for vehicles on
Melrose Avenue waiting to turn onto Rancho Santa Fe Road and
is not a contributing factor in the accidents.
The accident rate for 1986, expressed in the number of
accidents per 1,000,000 vehicles entering the intersection of
Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue was 0.659. By com-
parison, the accident rate at the signalized intersection of
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real during 1986 was 0.660.
The latest available speed survey conducted near Melrose
Avenue was at the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection with
Rancho Santa Fe Road. Southbound traffic had a critical
speed of 56 MPH and northbound traffic critical speed was 52
MPH.
Intersection Control Alternatives:
From the above, it is apparent that the operating character-
istics of the existing street system is composed of a complex
set of physical inter-relationships. Where the elements of the system come together at an intersection, and primarily
due to continuing volume increases, it may be anticipated
that there will be an increase in congestion and delay and a worsening accident experience. Since the intersection is a
concentrated conflict point generally functioning at a lower
level of service and lower capacity than other segments of the roadway, it is desirable to improve each intersection and
approaches to the intersection. To accomplish this, the
roadway segment from Questhaven Road to a point approximately 500-feet north of Melrose Avenue should be improved in a
systematic manner. Isolated conflict points (spot
improvements) cannot be independently improved to achieve the
overall goal of moving traffic safely and efficiently through
6-A-3
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Intersection controls are utilized to increase intersection
capacity, reduce and prevent accidents and create and protect
the major street. Based upon the volumes at the Melrose
Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, the major street at
this time is Rancho Santa Fe Road. There are no intersection
controls along Rancho Santa Fe Road in the vicinity of
Melrose Avenue. As a result, delays on Rancho Santa Fe Road
are reduced, large volumes of traffic moves continuously and
capacity is increased. However, Rancho Santa Fe Road operates basically as a through street and there is a high
vehicular speed associated with Rancho Santa Fe Road and
traffic attempting to cross or enter Rancho Santa Fe Road may
be delayed for relatively long periods during peak traffic
flow periods.
Stop Siqns:
One method used to control conflicting movements at an inter-
section is to install a multi-way stop. Once a vehicle is
stopped, the driver must decide to proceed based upon the
right-of-way rule. In the specific case of Melrose Avenue/
Rancho Santa Fe Road, the intersection would have a three-way
stop sign installation, if stop signs were placed on Rancho
Santa Fe Road.
An obvious disadvantage of this type of control is that all
vehicles approaching the intersection are required to come to
a complete stop before they can proceed through the inter-
sect ion, Traffic volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road are
significantly greater than volumes on Melrose Avenue at this
time. Queues would build up quickly on both approaches of
Rancho Santa Fe Road. Various problems would result and the
potential for an increase in rear-end type accidents would be
very high.
Stop signs are generally not installed on the major road
since those drivers do not experience unusual or unexpected
conflicts, such as congestion at the intersection, due to
significantly lower minor street traffic volumes. Drivers on
6-A-4
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
the minor street enter the traffic stream when available gaps
on the major street allow this maneuver to be performed
safely. If the drivers on the major street perceive a stop
sign as a nuisance regulation, instead of its primary
intended function of assigning right-of-way, then driver
observance and compliance with the stop sign begins to
deteriorate and safety at that intersection can be
compromised.
Air pollution and fuel consumption greatly increase when
vehicles are required to decelerate to a stop and then
accelerate again. As queues build up in an approach to an
intersection, emissions and fuel consumption increase even
further compared to arriving at the stop sign directly, due
to the vehicle joining the end of the queue and then moving
towards the stop sign one vehicle length at a time.
Because of existing intersection geometrics and the
associated traffic volume distribution at Melrose Avenue/
Rancho Santa Fe Road, a three-way stop should not be
installed. A reduction in the number of intersection
accidents would not be expected at this location with a
multi-way stop.
Traffic Signals:
A traffic signal is another form of intersection control and
is used to alternately assign the use of the intersection to
one stream of traffic and then to the other. Since the
traffic signal assigns the right-of-way in a systematic
manner to each competing traffic movement, there will be
considerable delay to vehicles on all approaches to the
intersection.
To aid in the determination of whether a traffic signal
should be installed, signal warrants are provided in the
CALTRANS Traffic Manual (attached). Traffic Signal Warrant
No. 1 (Minimun Vehicular Volume) and Warrant No. 2
(Interruption of Continuous Traffic) are both met at the
Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection.
6-A-5
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
As previously stated, the existing geometric configuration at
Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road makes it difficult to
achieve proper intersection control and a traffic signal
would be difflcult to design to operate effectively.
Approaches on Rancho Santa Fe Road to the intersection are
one lane in each direction that opens up to a wider pavement
area between Melrose Avenue and La Costa Meadows Drive. The
intersection needs to be narrowed and Melrose Avenue
constructed in a more perpendicular alignment to Rancho Santa
Fe Road to create a 90" "T" intersection. The existing width
of the intersection could result in an increase in right
angle accidents due to drivers attempting to "beat" the red
light,
Impacts of a traffic control device to the La Costa Meadows
Drive intersection would have to be investigated prior to
installation at Melrose Avenue. The intersection operation
at La Costa Meadows could be adversely affected due to
developing queues at Melrose Avenue if a stop sign or signal
were installed,
Proposed CT 85-19 Improvements:
Previous studies and approvals from the City of Carlsbad has
determined that the ultimate alignment of Rancho Santa Fe
Road with Melrose Avenue to be as shown on Exhibit 2. The
intersect ion will be signalized and constructed during
Phase I of the Meadowlands residential project, CT 85-19.
This project is a 116 lot single family residential
subdivision located between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose
Avenue. Intersection geometrics resulting by this
realignment is discussed in a report prepared by Weston
Pringle & Associates, Inc. (attached).
This residential project is located in Zone 6 of the Local
Facilities Plan and is currently proceeding through the
planchecking process in the Engineering Department. Once
City staff finalizes the Facilities Plan for Zone 6,
tentatively scheduled to go to the City Council for approval
in April or May, the final map approval process could be
6-A-6
I3
. I. _.
.-
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
completed. Dependent upon how quickly final map approval is
obtained by the developer, the construction of ultimate
improvements at this location could be scheduled, if
determined appropriate at this time.
Desiqn Issues:
At this time there are several major issues associated with
the intersection and the previously discussed roadway segment
from Melrose Avenue to Questhaven Road that need to be
resolved. A temporary (interim) or permanent solution to the
ultimate design of the intersection and roadway segment
depends upon an adequate resolution of issues identified as follows:
1. Jurisdictional boundaries. Information in the City of
Carlsbad files does not accurately locate the easterly
City boundary in the vicinity of this intersection. It
appears that three (3) agencies, the Cities of San
Marcos and Carlsbad and the County of San Diego, have
common interests at this location by virtue of boundary
lines within a portion of the intersection. The ability
of any one agency to make improvements to the intersec-
tion has a direct relationship to the location of the
appropriate jurisdictional boundary line. Included are
local access issues to each abutting property and
driveway location on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
2. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. As stated
previously, CT 85-19 has been conditioned to redesign
Rancho Santa Fe Road to intersect Melrose Avenue at
Corintia Street to create a four-legged intersection.
However, the extension of Melrose Avenue south of this
new four-legged intersection has not been designed. In
essence, the existing Melrose/RSF intersection would
remain, thus creating several jogs within a short
distance on a heavily travelled roadway. The ultimate
alignment of Melrose Avenue from the proposed four-
legged intersection south to the southerly City Limits
is currently in the planning stages, with the final
alignment expected within six (6) months. The final
6-A-7
..- - A
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION c-
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
design of Melrose Avenue requires a design effort with
cost and input shared among all three agencies as
appropriate.
3. The existing Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road inter-
section. Current widening of Melrose Avenue north of
the existing intersection does not align with the
existing, temporary intersection. A redesign and
reconstruction of the existing intersection should be
accomplished prior to opening up the newly constructed
portion of Melrose Avenue. This redesign should attempt
to align Melrose Avenue radially to the curvature of
Rancho Santa Fe Road to create a 90" "T" intersection.
The existing free right turn from RSF to Melrose Avenue
likely could be eliminated by such reconstruction,
however providing an exclusive right turn could be
investigated at the proposed realigned intersection.
Reconstruction of the existing intersection would reduce the
large area of conflict available within the intersection,
thus reducing hazardous vehicle movements. It would also
provide more favorable conditions for drivers to judge
relative positions and relative speeds of other vehicles and
reduce the time of crossing the conflicting traffic stream.
Until such time that the ultimate intersection of Rancho
Santa Fe Road with Melrose Avenue is constructed or
modifications constructed from Melrose Avenue to Questhaven
Road, several interim improvements have been completed and
additional safety measures continued and/or investigated.
1. Continued and constant Police enforcement of the 45 MPH
speed limit on Rancho Santa Fe Road. During 1986, 8.4%
of all citations issued in the City of Carlsbad were on
Rancho Santa Fe Road.
2. Existing pavement markings have been repainted in the
vicinity of the Melrose Avenue intersection.
3. A W7A, "Side Road" warning sign for southbound traffic
6-A-8
.. -
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued ITEM N0.6-A -
on Rancho Santa Fe Road approaching Melrose Avenue has
been installed,
4. Several missing roadside delineators have been
replaced.
5. Discussions with the City of San Marcos are currently
taking place regarding issues identified in this
report.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that
Rancho Santa Fe Road be given priority to improve safety and
operational efficiency. A logical, systematic approach must
be undertaken however, to accomplish this goal. Specific
recommendations include:
1. A joint agency agreement to hire a consultant to prepare
a design study report with definite recommendations and
budgets to improve the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe
Road intersection and a segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road
approximately 500 feet north of Melrose Avenue southerly
to Questhaven Road. Coordination with the City of San
Marcos and the County of San Diego should take place
throughout this process.
Once a design concept is approved by the three agencies,
the project would be given to the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Projects Division to hire a consultant to
prepare design drawings and eventually to select a
contractor to perform the work. Construction could then
be budgeted in the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program.
2. The Committee further recommends that the realignment of
Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose Avenue to create a
four-way intersection at Corintia Street as part of
Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19 not be constructed until such
6-A-9
c-
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987
Continued
ITEM N0.6-A -
time that traffic volumes indicate the need. Modifica-
t ion of the condition requiring this construction should
be pursued.
3. A consultant should be hired to research the City
boundary and accurately survey the boundary in the
field. Each jurisdictional boundary should be identi-
fled in the vicinity of Rancho Santa Fe Road within the
roadway segment discussed in this report.
4. Signalization of the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road
and intersection modifications should be given priority
by the City Council in upcoming budget deliberations.
The existing intersection should be immediately rebuilt
to properly and safely function with the recently
widened portion of Melrose Avenue.
NECESSARY COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council must approve any changes to the Conditions
of Approval regarding RSF/Melrose Avenue that were placed on
Carlsbad Tract No.85-19, after receiving a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. If the City of Carlsbad is
going to pay for intersection modifications, roadway
improvements or traffic signals, Council approval must be
obtained.
6-A-10
17
.. .
.- .*
z
v)
4
u,
a w z
u,
f
1:
v)
a 0
z
v)
P 0
2
E
I L
r-
z
v)
0
z
:
2
G w L E v)
Y -1
3 m
B
E c
I
z V
v)
P 0
-
c(
s
L a
(Y
z
v)
u, : z
E 0
c v)
W ;I
3
a
m
B
z E
3
z V
v)
a 0 t- v)
I
d a
m
L W Y a I
8
8 z
Y a r w z
-1 W r
s
- F
c( 3
z
0 2
u
a L
0 W W Y
c a
0
0 Z
W 5 P
2 Y
L c
Ir 0
a 0 c
z 0
0 c z 3 0 L
2
m
n
u,
t I
,a
a W W a v)
LI
- H I In w z -u N- am
v) z W Y a s
w z
a Y V O W
I
I
8 f
w 0. r H
m
-J c $ if
r- 15
P- 1 &,>/ 'LL<.c -/(
P,J, /'I ,2 J TAIYO YUDEN (UoSoAa), INCa (*L&dk
1770 La Costa Meadows Dnve, San Marcos, CA 92069
Telephone: (619) 744-8953 FAX: 619-744-1673
January 6, 1987
City Council of San Marcos
City Council of Carlsbad
board of County Supervisors
As an employer in the Rancho Santa Fe Industrial Park I
strongly urge you to take immediate action on the issue of
installing a signal at th'e intersection of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and La Costa Meadows Drive.
As mentioned in Tom Anthony's letter of 12/29/86, we have
witnessed numerous accidents at this intersection, not
to mention the "near misses" we all experience daily
while trying to enter or exit La Costa Meadows Drive.
While this situation has gone from bad to worse over the
past few years, with the increase in traffic on Rancho
Santa Fe Road, it has now reached the stage of being
unbearab 1 e.
On. behalf of myself and my 54 employees, I urge you to
take prompt action on this matter before another
unfortunate tragedy occurs.
Si nfirel y ,
Plant Madger
_* -
.-
December 29, 1986
Honorable City Council of San Marcos
Honorable City Council of Carlsbad
Board of County Supervisors
How many deaths must we have before something is done to
improve Rancho Santa Fe Road with "signalization" or at least
a STOP sign??
I have witnessed 3 deaths, and 2 lamp posts, 2 fire hydrants,
3 mail boxes (Post Office had to change location) demolished
and 3 large landscape boulders split all at or near the
intersection of La Costa.Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe
Road. Also, there have been numerous incidents and a couple
of deaths 1ess.than two blocks away.
To say that a STOP sign on Rancho Santa Fe Road would "slow"
traffic "too much" or that one will be cominq at Questhaven
Road is, in my opinion, flirting with the imminent probablility of more deaths. If the drivers of the trucks and autos knew they had to stop (the roadway would be posted) they would not fly through here at 60 and 70 mph. With the hills on bth sides it is easy to reach 50 to 60 mph if you just let your foot off the brake.
Please ... let's do something TODAY. My Partners and I have
already contributed $140,000. in road improvements in this area;
(the County tore some of this up when the bridge was built)
and if need be, we are willing to help a little more to get the job done NOW. -
A couple of STOP signs just might save a few lives.
Thank you.
Sincerely, A
Thomas L. Antlfkdny LA COSTA MEADOWS INDUSTRIAL CENTER
cc: Local Media Owners & Tenants Rancho Santa Fe Industrial Park
4
*.
..
I
8
23
..
..
1108 Pheasant Ct.
San Marcos, CA 92069
9 January 1987
Traffic and Safety Commission, City of Carlsbad
City Engineering Department
Robert T. Johnson, Principal Civil Engineer, P.E.
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4859
Dear Mr. Johnson:
As a concerned citizen of San Marcos and a mother, I am very upset about
the traffic accident which occurred on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, at the
intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue and which resulted
in the unfortunate fatality of a young mother, as well as one of her child-
ren being seriously injured.
I have lived in San Marcos for almost eight years and I travel Rancho Santa
Fe Road frequently.
few years and it's about time we slow down the traffic on this dangerous
road. Too many large trucks travel RSF Rd., every day and very few drive
at a safe speed. Traffic has increased at this crucial intersection espe-
cially since the opening of La Costa Meadows Elementary School, located
west of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The traffic problem has greatly increased in the past
My daughter is a kindergartener at La Costa Meadows and rides a bus to and
from school, traveling much of the way on RSF Rd. Every day her bus, and
other buses as well, must face that horrible intersection. Making a left
turn onto RSF Rd. from Melrose is often very difficult due to the increas-
ed volume of through traffic on RSF Rd. I am concerned for her welfare
as well as the welfare of all the other school-age children who must travel
Rancho Santa Fe Road to get to school, whether on a bus or in a car.
We need a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Melrose Avenue. We NEED it now. Since all the trash trucks and other
large trucks must travelalong RSF Rd., something must be done to slow them
down and at the same time slow down all the traffic on this road. This
signal is long overdue! It is tragic and sad that it takes a death to
bring this subject to the attention of so many who might otherwise be
uninformed.
Since this intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad I urge you to resolve this situation as soon as possible by approving a
signal for it. The need for this signal not only affects the residents
of San Marcos, but also the residents of Carlsbad, as well as residents of
nearby communities since Rancho Santa Fe Road is used as a thorough-fare.
Petitions are being circulated now and will probably be given to you at
the next Traffic Commission Meeting to show we want something done about
this treacherous intersection. As Thomas L. Anthony put it in his letter
of January 8, 1987, in the San Marcos Courier, "How many deaths must we have
before something is done to improve Rancho Santa Fe Road with 'signaliza-
tion'?
A Concerned Mother of Two
Karen A. Pavone
._XiZ*..Jd, c,u_
DAVI3 .'VIILLER 2814 LUCIERYAGA STREET CARLSBAD, C.~LIFO~NI.~,920OS-5153
YAYOR LEVIS 1200 ED1 AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA., 92005
DEAR YAYOR LEWIS:
TYE BEST OF LUCK IN YOUR TERN OF OFFICE.
PERHAPS YOU XGHT BE ABLE TO HELP IN THE TCIO
THINGS THAT BOTHER NE AND OTHERS IN THE YORTH LA
COSTA AREA.
SANTA FE ROAD IS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE IN TH FORNING. RANCHO SAYTA FE TRAFFIC IS TRAVELLIN
SOMETIMES HAVE TO L'AIT 5 MINUTES UNTIL TRAFF
ON SANTE FE WOULD HELP, THIS IS ONE OF
1:JTERSECTIONS THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED.
SOME PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CLOSER THAN EL CXM?IO
REAL.
I KNOW THAT YOU ARE VERY BUSY SUT I JUST HAD TO UNBURDEN.
THANK YOU VERY :*IUCH, I RDlAIN
ai
January 6, 1987
CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Sir or Madam:
There have been numerous traffic deaths, along with the destruction of several fire hydrants, lamp posts and mail boxes at the intersection of La Costa Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
I believe these many accidents are due to the fact that traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road is very heavy and it tra- vels at high speeds, particularly during the evening and morning commute. The majority of drivers do not slow down because there is no stop sign or traffic light for a long stretch of road.
I feel that, while traffic accidents canot be eliminated, they can be greatly reduced and this requires the instal- lation of a traffic signal or stop sign on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
I would appreciate your immediate action in this matter.
LL/hkr
1960 DIAMOND Si. SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 744-2324
K-PRAISE
San Diego's Christian Radio Station
January 6, 1987
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
-4
Honorable City Council:
In March of 1986 we began broadcasting from studio's located at 1635
South Rancho Santa Fe Road. Our second story studio overlooks the
intersection of South Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose.
Just before the end of the year all of us witnessed a tragic accident
at this intersection. An accident that took the life of a young mother,
left her oldest daughter in a coma and hospitalized her youngest
daughter.
This was not the first accident. We have witnessed many and are greatly
concerned that many more will die if appropriate action is not taken to
install stop lights or stop signs at the intersections along Rancho
Santa Fe Road. The primary need is at Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The volume of traffic using Rancho Santa Fe Road and poor road design in
the area adjacent to La Costa Meadows combine to make access very
dangerous from cross streets and drives.
is seldom granted and cross traffic must traverse an extraordinarily
wide stretch of road to merge either north or south of Santa Fe.
Right of way from Melrose
Causal observation from our offices will convince the most skeptical person
of the need for stop signals or signs at this intersection. I want to
personally invite you to KPRZ studios and witness these conditions.
We're convinced that folowing your visit you will do everything in
your power to save lives by working with the necessary government agencies
to facilitate immediate installation of stops signs at this intersection
followed by signals as soon as possible.
Can we count on you?
David Ruleman
General Manager KPPZ
DR/pd
(619) 471-1177 (800) 843-1210
h KPRZ. SAN MARCOS. CA 92069 /
2?
Rlopex! INDUSTRIES, INC.
Automatic Pool Cleaners
Polaris Vac-Sweep. Saturn-w AFC
Pool, Spa 6 Tub AcCeSSOrleS
AnZen Blowers b Fittings I SpaWand
. -y.,,.,- 7 , . E:: .:!.. I,. ,. - ' . . ::.
January 5, 1987
City Council of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Honorable City Council of Carlsbad:
Only YOU can stop the slaughter on Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa
Meadows Drive.
Please install a 4-way traffic signal or atop signs before any
more accidents or near accidents occur.
We understand traffic signals are extremely costly, but Stop
signs surely can't put the budget in the red.
unnecessary -- just count the accidents and deaths. A study is also
HELP SAVE LIVES TODAY
Thank you,
@&L I'. +&
Candace E. Lyman
Manager - Administration
cc: Traffic Commission
CEL:sal
2Y 1709 La Costa Meadows Drive Post Office Box 1149 San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 4719129 Telex: 510-600-6159
-3 .-, -.... J .. .;
,. - .. ._. . . . i . ,
.... .- -.. , ,.
.,I?'
-ai'-.. J--. .... - - -. . . .. .. . . FRANK ODD0
ASSOCIATES
U January 5, 1987
Dear Sir:
We have 1;i:n~:ssed 3 6=a:'rs, r!us tile demolition of 3 laxp Fasts,
2 fire h>sdrants, 3 mil bc:-:es (the Fcst Office had to change location),
and the splitting of 3 Izrgz landscape boulders ... all ar: or near the
intersection of La CJsta ~-lradows hive and 4ancho Santa ?e Road.
In addition, there have Seen nu-er3us near-niss incidents and a couple
of deaths two blocks ar..ay.
'p io say that a STOP sizn or. %ncho Sacta ?e ?.cad ~-.ould l'slow'' traffic
"tfio much," or that one will b~ cr~.ing at Questhaven Road is, in ciir
opinion, flirting with the i7cinent pro-rahility of nore deaths. If
the drivers of the trucl:s and autos knew they had to stop (the rF3d-
!:ith the hills on both sides, it is easy to reach 50 to 60 nph if you
just take vour foot off the hrake!
- i%~y .^ would be posted), they LKJU~~ not fly ti;rough irere at 60 and 70 xph.
.\ courle of STOP signs just nisht save a few lives ... but a STQ? LjG?T
is the definitive answer to safer driving csr?ditions for zv?r\-cne. - .. - ._
?LE-\SE ... let's do something TODAY!
Sincerely,
1905 Diamond Street, Suite B Son Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 471-2330
CITY Of CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COHHISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987 ITEM N0.6-B -
LOCATION: N/A
INITIATE0 BY: John C. Fuller, Chairman
BACKGROUND:
At the Traffic Safety Commission meeting of February 3, 1986,
John Fuller was elected Chairman of the Commission. One year
has expired since that time and Mr. Fuller desires that a new
chairman be elected. At the February 3, 1986 meeting, Pat
O'Day was elected Vice-chairman.
RECOMMENDATION:
Desire of the Traffic Safety Commission.
6-8-1
,.zeting o TRAFFIC
Time of Meetinq: 3:OO p.m.
MINUTES
ETY COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
February 2, 1987
City Council Chambers
COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fuller called the Meeting to order at 3:O’l p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairman Fuller, Commissioners Erwin,
Herring, Melideo and O’Day.
Absent - None.
Staff Members Present:
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Bob gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer
Mike Shirey, Engineering Technician I1
Officer Shipley, Police Department
Vincent gimno, Police Chief
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the meeting held December 1, 1986, were
approved as presented.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
3ohn Becker, 5205 Kearny Villa Way #211, representing
Foote Development Company, addressed the Commission
stating last Tuesday the homeowners from The Summit
project brought a petition before City Council with
several items dealing with traffic safety. Mr. Becker
made a statement for the record, indicating Foote
Development Company has an interest in the homeowners at
The Summit and wishes to maintain a positive relationship
with them throughout the completion of their project. He
stated most items listed on the petition did not deal with
the project itself. Basically, he indicated he wanted to
assure the citizens of the cooperation of Foote
Development Company to expedite the completion of these
improvements.
Gwyne Zenger, 3027 Via Sabinas, presented a petition to
the Commission and read from that petition requesting the
improvement of Elm Avenue east of El Camino Real.
Ms. Zenger stated there is $850,000 budgeted to complete
Elm Avenue, and this would eliminate a dangerous traffic
condition. She requested immediate attention to the
completion of east and west Elm Avenue.
Chairman Fuller announced the two items discussed during
the Oral Communication period will be given to staff and
placed on the agenda at a future meeting.
Fuller
Erwin
Herring
Melideo
0 ’ Day
3
x -
X
X
X
X
X
MINUTES yY $ -
COMMISSIONERS February 2, 1987 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2
OLD BUSINESS:
Bob 3ohnson reported on the discussion at the December
meeting regarding mailboxes at the post office.
months ago the boxes relocated at a more convenient spot
for dropping mail off from vehicles.
the present by the post office to make any changes in
their parking lot. Hopefully, in two or three years there
will be a new post office constructed in the southern
section of Carlsbad to relieve the congestion at this post
office.
Ten
There is no plan at
Commissioner Melideo commented the alley goes from east to
west, but if that were reversed, you would enter from the
alley by the boxes.
Street, and traffic would not be going into the parking
lot itself. She reiterated her concern about the
hazardous condition in the post office parking lot.
You could then exit onto Madison
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe
Road. -
Chairman Fuller announced for the record, the Members of
the Traffic Safety Commission have studied the official
accident report on the December 17, 1986 accident, which
resulted in the tragic death of a young mother and injury
to her two children.
Bob gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer, gave the staff
report on this item, as contained in the packet. This
consisted of existing conditions on Rancho Santa Fe Road,
the traffic data, the intersection control alternatives,
stop signs, traffic signals, proposed CT 85-19
improvements, design issues and the recommendation of the
Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee.
Mr. 3ohnson stated the City of San Marcos, the County of
San Diego and Carlsbad will need to coordinate the
redesigning of this intersection and the signalization.
Slides were shown of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and Melrose Avenue, indicating sight distances and
passing problems, as well as turning problems. He stated
the critical speed southbound on Rancho Santa Fe Road is
56 mph and northbound is 52 mph.
indicate where the accidents occurred in the last four
months of 1986. All of those accidents were in the
afternoon with the exception of the fatality, which
occurred in the morning.
Graphs were used to
Mr. 3ohnson explained the conflicting points and stated
the traffic signals are warranted, but the intersection
should be redesigned and rebuilt to function properly.
33
MINUTES
February 2, 1987 rRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3COMM,SS,0NERS
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
[here are many problems at that location and a schematic
of the intersection was used, as well as a photograph
displayed on the wall. There is no acceleration lane from
Melrose Avenue to Rancho Santa Fe Road; left turns from
the several driveways are extremely dangerous; left turns
from the driveways to Rancho Santa Fe Road conflict with
the left turn through lane; left turns from Rancho Santa
Fe Road to Melrose Avenue cross a wide portion of road and
conflict area at the intersection; left turns to the
driveways conflict with the left turns on Melrose Avenue
to Rancho Santa Fe Road; left turns on the northerly
driveways have an inadequate pocket to wait for safe
entrance into traffic; north of the intersection the
pavement narrows to two lanes; the free right turn at 15
mph and this acceleration must begin in the number one
lane; cars making turns off of Rancho Santa Fe Road to
Melrose Avenue and free right turns have a short distance
to go west bound to turn onto Corintia Lane, and there is
inadequate spacing between the driveways coming onto the
street.
Mr. Johnson stated these were just some of the reasons for
the need to redesign and reconstruct the intersection
before signalization of that intersection.
A slide was shown with the Traffic Safety Coordinating
Committee recommendations:
1. Existing intersection to be redesigned and
signalized.
2. Prepare design study report - Melrose Avenue to
Questhaven Road (consultant).
San Marcos has been requested to do something, but must
have cooperation with the County and Carlsbad.
Carlsbad, San Marcos and the County to participate and
have consultant prepare roadway design alternatives,
intersection controls and cost estimate.
3. Reconsider Rancho Santa Fe Road realignment - per
Carlsbad Tract 85-19.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about leaving the intersection
as a and Bob Johnson answered the acute angles would
create driver problems as far as sight. The intersection
should be a 'IT" intersection. Mr. 3ohnson further stated
Carlsbad has maintained the road in that area.
In answer to Commission query, Mr. 3ohnson stated it would
be a 9-to-11 month process to have the consultant hired,
intersection redesigned, contracts awarded and actual
proceeding with building of the redesigned intersection
and signalization. Staff indicated this project would be
given priority and put through as quickly as possible.
.. .. MINUTES
\
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
Commissioner Melideo inquired about the possibility of
staff doing the designing rather than a consultant. Bob
3ohnson indicated there is not sufficient manpower to do
this work and also do any other work in the department.
He added the selection process could be expedited.
Commissioner Herring stated his concern about the
dangerous intersection and asked whether there was
anything that could be done to alleviate the problems at
this intersection temporarily. Mr. 3ohnson answered as
the traffic volume increases, the accidents increase, but
it is primarily driver error--impatience.
Commissioner O'Day asked what had been done up to date to
help alleviate the problem. Mr. Johnson stated the City's
crews have gone out and repainted and restriped the island
areas, left turn lanes, limit lines and installed some
additional signs. This probably would not have eliminated
the accidents that did occur.
3oan Ludwiczak, 2712 Mateo Place, handed a petition to
Commission Members. This petition contained 1,700
signatures of people in the area. Mrs. Ludwiczak sent a
letter last week stating they would like a traffic signal
at Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose as soon as possible.
The residents were requesting a three-way stop sign be
placed at the intersection immediately, and left until it
can be signalized. Because of the downhill approaches and
the volume of traffic on the roads, the speed of vehicles
in that area is extremely dangerous to anyone seeking
access onto Rancho Santa Fe Road from Melrose Avenue. Mrs. Ludwiczak gave the figures on the number of school
buses in the area and the number of children on those
buses. She reiterated the request for three-way stops
signs to be placed immediately and left there until this
intersection is signalized.
Commissioner Melideo stated there had been no mention of
driver responsibility on the part of both parties. Mrs.
Ludwiczak stated there was much stress created for anyone
trying to turn left into Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Bill Jacob, KPRZ, Rancho Santa Fe Committee for Safe
Intersection, distributed material to the Commissioners,
and referred to his summary. Mr. 3acob had been taking
traffic count figures and he called attention to the total
two-way traffic from 6:OO a.m. to 6:OO p.m., all day every
day. Mr. 3acob stated something should be done
immediately. He asked for the improvement of the accesses
onto Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Meado-
Meadowlark and Brookfield. He stated the five accidents
reported did not indicate the countless number of near misses. He asked the signalization of the intersection be
approved by the Traffic Safety Commission, and, in
addition, steps be taken for the immediate installation of
stop signs and appropriate warning signs in all
directions.
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS February 2, 1987 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
Angela Shadrick, 2052 Meadowlark Ranch Lane, San Marcos,
north of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Rancho
Santa Fe Road, addressed the Commission, handinq document,s
to the Commission. She stated the road has been
documented for eleven years, and San Marcos, Carlsbad and
the County need to work together to redesign the area of
Rancho Santa Fe Road northbound to Melrose Averiue. She
felt Carlsbad was willing to do its share, but San Marcos
and the County were not accepting their responsibility.
She stated Meadowlark Road is on a blind curve and has
been designated "dead man's curbe".
Thomas Anthony, 1378 San Pablo, San Marcos, was recognized
by the Commission, arid he stated he was the owner of the
corner area. He told of the accidents that have occurred
in that area, causing damage to his property, as well as
loss of life and property. He also told of the many near
misses that occur daily in that area. Mr. Anthony stated
the foliage on Rancho Santa Fe Road is so high it
obstructs the road, and cars coming out of La Costa
Meadows Drive have to pull way out into the traffic lane
in order to see whether it is safe to proceed. He stated
the driveways in that area are unsafe and need
realignment. However, something should be done now to
slow down the traffic. He stated he employs over 1,000
persons and he would like to see the police in the area
every day giving out tickets to the people who are
speeding in that area.
Mr. Anthony suggested the traffic be stopped back before
La Costa Meadow Drive and stopped again at the next
driveway; also stopped where Melrose Avenue comes into
Rancho Santa Fe Road.
save some lives.
He felt the double stop sign would
Mr. Anthony reauested everyone stop getting on the merry-
go-round and saying, "It is not my problem." He stated
Carlsbad, San Marcos and the County should get together to
work out this problem.
Lynne Werner, 3526 Simsbury Court, stated she worked at the
industrial park and had witnessed four accidents. She also
stated it is possible to see all the near misses from their
office. She felt something should be done now to slow the
vehicles down, whether it is flasher lights or stop signs.
Seena Trigas, 6340 Flamenco Street, President of the San
Marcos Unified School District Governing Board, referred
to the Resolution presented to the Traffic Safety
Commission. Mrs. Trigas read from the Resolution as
f 01 1 ows :
"Whereas, the intersection as Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe
Road has been the site of a number of serious and fatal
traffic accidents and;
Whereas, this dangerous interesection is frequently traversed by students, parents and employees of La Costa
Meadows Elementary School:
Now therefore, the Goberning Board requests the immediate
placement of a traffic light at said intersection so that
La Costa Meadows School students, parents and employees
may be properly protected from harm as they travel to and
from school. It
I
.* .-
A
MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
Mrs. Trigas stated the Governing Board is very concerned
about the dangerous situation at this intersection.
In answer to Comnission query, Mrs. Trigas stated San
Marcos was aware of the Governing Board's feelings, but
they had not presented San Marcos a copy of the
Resolution. She felt that would be a good idea.
Mrs. Trigas stated the residents of North County should be
concerned about this problem. Traffic stop signs should
be temporarily installed, or whatever has to be done to
help make this a safer intersection. She stated she would
be happy to help in any way she could to bring this
about.
3eff Okun, San Marcos School District, 270 San Marcos
Boulevard, San Marcos, affirmed the School District's
willingness to do anything necessary to help mitigate the
dangerous intersection at Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe
Road. He offered his help in working with the other
agencies to solve the problem.
Representatives from San Marcos, including Brad Therien,
stated San Marcos' willingness to work toward a solution
of this problem.
Commissioner Herring stated the stop signs would result in
long queues and a complete backup of traffic. He inquired
whether a temporary light could be used or would be
practical. Staff answered the signal heads must be in the
proper lanes, and there are temporary signals that can be
installed on wooden poles, but this would not work in this
area. Staff felt this would just create more problems.
Staff also indicated stop signs would create more problems
than if there were no stop signs.
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, stated they have a work
program in the Engineering Department to update the
traffic situation. They are identifying future locations
for traffic signals in the City and hope to get this up-
to-date as soon as possible.
Commissioner Erwin supported the recommendation of
signalization at Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road, but had
misgivings about stop signs. He said if the other
Commissioners agreed, he could support them.
Commissioner O'Day stated he agreed with staff
recommendations. He would like staff to consider cutting
down the foliage, striping the area out to the main road,
and considering doing something about the driveways.
felt a flashing type of sign--yellow flashing light--could
be used to alert the people arid would be a slowing factor
for the traffic.
He
Rob 3ohnson stated constant police enforcement would be
one sure way to slow the drivers down.
There was discussion about the placing of rumble strips to
help slow traffic. However, staff indicated those are a
hazard to bicycle riders and motorbikes.
\
,-
A
MINUTES
February 2, 1987 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
Chairman Fuller felt this was a critical situation and he
would ask staff to expedite the work on the intersection.
He was opposed to stop signs, as, in his opinion, they
would cause a higher incident of accidents on Rancho Santa
Fe Road. He felt the solution was to proceed with the
signalization of the intersection as rapidly as possible.
Traffic Safety Commission approved the Traffic Safety
Coordinating Committee recommendations for Rancho Santa Fe
and Melrose Avenue, as follows:
1. A joint agency agreement to hire a consultant to
prepare a desiun study report with definite
recommendations and budgets to improve the Melrose
Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection and a segment
of Rancho Santa Fe Road approximately 500 feet north
of Melrose Avenue southerly to Questhaven Road. Coordination with the City of San Marcos and the
County of San Diego should take place throughout this
process.
Once a design concept is approved by the three
agencies, the project would be given to the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Projects Division to hire a
consultant to prepare design drawings and eventually
to select a contractor to perform the work.
Construction could then be budgeted in the 1987-88
Capital Improvement Program.
2. The Committee further recommends that the realignment
of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose Avenue to create
a four-way intersection at Corintia Street as part of
Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19 not be constructed until such
time that traffic volumes indicate the need.
Modification of the condition requiring this
construction should be pursued.
3. A consultant should be hired to research the City
boundary and accurately survey the boundary in the
field. Each jurisdicational boundary should be
identified in the vicinity of Rancho Santa Fe Road
within the roadway segment discussed in this report.
4. Siqnalization of the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe
Road and intersection modifications should be given
priority by the City Council in upcoming budget
deliberations. The existing intersection should be
immediately rebuilt to properly and safely function
with the recently widened portion of Melrose Avenue.
The Traffic Safety Commission, by consensus agreed to have
staff include the flashing yellow warning lights, rumble
strips, signs or any other means of mitigating the traffic
problem at the intersection of Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe
Road.
Commissioner Melideo stated for the record that she wanted
the people to understand that the Commissioners are aware
of the problem. The people that buy homes in that area
should also be aware of the problems there. She stated
Rancho Santa Fe Road will eventually be a six-lane road
and there is no immediate solution to a problem of that
magnitude.
Fuller Erwin
Herring
Melideo
0 ' Day
37
b\ $ -
X X
X
X
X
=.
e.
.%
I.
MINUTES
February 2, 1987 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 8
COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
Police Chief Vincent 3imno, in answer to query on how to
set speed limits, stated the Police Department is required
by law to deal with exact procedures the State has set
forth. The normal flow of traffic is between 50 and 55
mph in this area, and a speed check was run to determine
the 85% percentile. The State makes an assumption and
the Police do the same, that drivers will drive at a safe
and reasonable speed.
He stated if the speed limit were to be reduced be
present speed limit in that area, the Police would
able to enforce it.
ow the
not be
R. Election of a new chairman for the Traffic Safety
Commission.
Commissioner Erwin nominated Commissioner O'Day to be the
chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission for 1987.
Commissioner Herring seconded the motion.
Chairman Fuller nominated Commissioner Erwin to be the
vice-chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission for 1987.
Commissioner O'Day seconded the motion.
REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Melideo stated she had received phone calls
from people on Summerhill.
in the area and the residents are complaining. She
informed those people there was a new tract being built in
that area and they have to endure the truck traffic during
the time of construction.
There are a great many trucks
Bob 3ohnson suggested they be told to call the Police
Department. However, he said he would talk with the
construction drivers asking them to obey the signing and
speed limits.
Commissioner Erwin asked staff to investigate the
possibilities of stop signs at Alga Road and Corintia.
REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
Bob 3ohnson announced the next meeting of the Traffic
Safety Commission, March 2, 1987, would be at the Safety
Center at 3:OO p.m.
AD30URNMENT:
By proper motion, the Meeting of February 2, 1987, was
adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriett Babbitt
Minutes Clerk
HB/tb
Fuller
Erwin
Herring
Melideo
O'Day
Fuller
Erwin
Herring
Melideo
O'Day
\ \
**
. 2J75.LAS PALMAS DRIVE ‘CARLSBAD, CALI FOR N I A 92009-4859
TELEPHONE (619) 438-1 161
Office of the City Engineer
February 17, 1987
Granville Bowman, Director
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA
ATTN: Larry Hurt, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND HELROSE DRIVE
Dear Mr. Bowman:
On February 11, 1987 representatives of the Cities of
Carlsbad and San Marcos met with Larry Hurt and Don Wiltse
from your Traffic Division to discuss jurisdictional bound-
aries related to the intersections of Melrose Drive and La
Costa Meadows Drive with Rancho Santa Fe Road. At this
meeting we also explored options related to traffic safety
at these intersections.
It was generally agreed by the participants that each
agency has legal jurisdictional responsiblities in the area
and that any traffic solutions will require a cooperative
effort and mutual consent of each agency. The exact juris-
dictional boundaries and responsibilities of each agency
will be determined after the results of detailed boundary
surveys are known and the appropriate traffic studies have
been completed.
The City of Carlsbad has taken the lead in both the
boundary survey and traffic studies. It is expected that
costs incurred in this effort will be considered in any cost
sharing which may be involved in the final project
development.
Granville Bowman, Director
Rancho Santa Fe Road
February 17, 1987 Page: 2
In order to establish the appropriate intersection con-
trols, a detailed traffic study will be prepared to analyze
five alternative design concepts. These alternatives
include:
1. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road to ltTIt into
Melrose Drive at Corintia Street (alternative
currently approved by Tentative Tract CT 85-19).
2. Realignment of Melrose Drive to 'ITtt into Rancho
Santa Fe Road northerly of the existing intersec-
tion. This option anticipates a permanent priority
to Rancho Santa Fe Road and would require improved
standards for the design of Melrose Drive and the
intersect ion.
3. Minor improvement to the existing intersection and
signalization.
4. Extension of Corintia Street to Rancho Santa Fe Road
and closure of Melrose Drive south of Corintia
Street.
5. Explore feasibility of ultimate construction of an
interchange at Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe
Road.
Carlsbad proposes to retain Willdan Associates to
complete the study analyzing the short-term and long-term
costs and impacts of each alternative.
Beyond the signalization analysis the City Traffic
Commission and citizens have requested that staff review the
following more immediate actions to enhance safety at this
intersection:
1. Installation of stop signs.
2. Reduction of the speed limit to 25 MPH.
3. Installatin of a flashing yellow beacon in the
intersection.
4. Installation of botts dots rumble strip on intersec-
t ion approaches.
Granville Bowman, Director
Rancho Santa Fe Road
February 17, 1987
..
I. Page: 3
The first two items have been specifically rejected by
our Traffic Commission.
In that any of these measures would affect County road-
way, I would appreciate your staff's opinion concerning
these options for inclusion in our Council report by
February 24.
When the consultant has been retained, continued input
from your staff will be invaluable in resolving a difficult
issue.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to call me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4391.
L@Dbf. HUBBS
City Engineer
LBH:lch
c: City Council
City Manager
Tony Nisich, City of San Marcos
Traffi Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9.
12-ln
CHAPTER 9
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Signals-Basic Information and Warrants 9-01
9-01.1 Introduction
Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic con- trol devices which alternately direct traffic to stop and proceed at highway and street intersections. Their purpose is the orderly assignment of right of way to the various traffic movements. When justified and properly designed, a traffic sig- nal installation may achieve one or more of the fol- lowing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Reduce the frequency of certain types of acci- dents; especially the right-angle type;
Effect orderly traffic movement;
By proper coordination, the continuous flow of a platoon of traffic at a definite speed along a given route;
Allow other vehicles and pedestrians to cross a. heavy traffic stream; and
Control traffic more economically than by man- ual methods.
Unjustified, illdesigned, improperly-operated, or
1. Increased accident frequency,
2. Excessive delay,
3. Disregard of signal indications, and
4. Circuitous travel by alternate routes.
Contrary to common belief, traffk signals do not always increase safety and reduce delay. Experience shows that the number of right-angle collisions may decrease after the installation of signals, but the num- ber of rear-end collisions will increase in many in- stances. The installation of signals may increase over-
aU delay and reduce intersection capacity. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the consideration of a signal installation and the selection of equipment be preceded by a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions made by an engineer experienced and trained in ths field. Equally impor- tant is the need for checking the efficiency of a traffic signal in operation. This determines the degree to which the type of installation and the timing pro-
gram meets the requirements of traffic.
941.2 Warrants
The warrants for the installation of traffic signals are based on those stated in the Manual on Uniform TrafEc Control Devices. These warrants apply to both pre-timed and trafficactuated traffic signals.
poorly maintained traffic signals may cause:
When the &percentile speed of major street trd
fic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the intersec
tion lies within the built-up area of an isolated corn munity having a population less than lO,OOO, thl location is considered rural. All other'areas are con sidered urban. Since the installation of traffic signal
may increase certain types of collisions, the decisioi to install signals should not be based solely upon wai rants. Consideration should also be given to such fac tors as delay, congestion, approach conditions, drive confusion and additional evidence of need for righ of way assignment above that which could be prc
vided by stop signs.
The installation of traffic signals should be consid ered if one or more of the warrants listed below arl met:
Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume.
Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic.
Warrant 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume.
Warrant 4 - School Crossings.
Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement.
Warrant 6 - Accident Experience.
Warrant 7 - Systems.
Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants.
941.3
The minimum vehicular volume warrant is intend
ed for application where the volume of intersectinl traffic is the principal reason for consideration of sig nal installation. The warrant is satisfied when fo each of any 8 hours of an average day the traffic volumes pven in the table below exist on the majo street and on the higher-volume minor street ap proach to the intersection.
Worrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
Number of lanes for Vehicles per Vehicles per moving traffic on hour on major hour on higher-
each approach street (total volume minor- street approach of both approaches) (one direction only)
(M i n irnum Re qui terne n ts)
hlalor Street Minor Street Urhan Rural Urban &j
1 __--___ 1 -_ _-_- - 500 350 150 IO! 2 01 more -- 1 - - -- - -- 600 420 150 lo!
1 ------- 2 or more -- 500 350 200 1J(. 2 or more -- 2 or more -- 600 420 200 14(
-
-4 I
- 9-2 . TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
12-1m
The major street and the minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direc- tion of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. . Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left turn move- ment. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach and the major street volume should be reduced by this amount.
9-01.4 Warrant 2 - Intowuption of Continuous traffic
The interruption of continuous traffic warrant ap plies to operating conditions where the traffic vol- ume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or
hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the tr&c volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher- volume minor street approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
Number of lanes for Vehicles per Vehicles per moving traffic on hour on major hour on higher- each approach street (total volume minor- of both street approach approaches) (one direction only)
(Minimum Requirements)
Malor Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural
I------- I------- 750 525 75 53 2 or more -- 1 ------- 900 630 75 53 2 or more -- 2 or more -- 900 630 100 70 1 ------- 2ormore-- 750 525 100 70
The major street and minor street volumes are for the same 8 horns. During those 8 hours the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. Leh tum movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for left turn move- ment The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach and the major street volume should be reduced by this amount.
-1.5 Warrant 3 - Minimum P.d..Mon Volumo
The minimum pedestrian volume warrant is satis- fied when for each of any 8 hours of M average day the following traffic volumes exist:
1. On the major street 6oo-Urban, 4XbRural or
2.
more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches) : or 1,000-Urban, 700 -Rural or more vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the ma- jor street w+ere there is a raised median island four feet or more in width; and
During the same 8 hours as in paragraph l., there are lSO-Urban, 105-Rural or more pede- strians per hour on the highest volume cross- walk crossing the major street.
A signal installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection should be of the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed at an intersection within a signal system, it should be equipped and operated to provide proper coordination. Signals installed according to this warrant shall be equipped with pedestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Man- ual. Signals may be installed at nonintersection loca-
tions (Mid-block) provided the requirements of this warrant are met, and provided that the related cross- walk is not closer than 150 feet to another established crosswalk. Curbside parking should be prohibited for a minimum of 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. Phasing, coordination and in- stallation must conform to standards set forth in this Manual. Special attention should be given to the sig nal head placement and the signs and markings used
at nonintersection locations to be sure drivers are aware of this special application.
Wl.6 Warrant 4 - School Crorrings
See Chapter 10.
The progressive movement warrant is satisfied
WlJ Worrant 5 - Progrorrive Movomont
when one of the following is true:
On a one-way street or on a street which pre- ponderantly has unidirectional traffic si&- cance, adjacent signals are so far apart that the necessary degree of platooning and speed con- trol of vehicles would otherwise be lost or,
On a twc+way street, where adjacent signals do
not provide the necessary degree of platooning and speed control and the proposed and adja- cent signah could constitute a progressive signal system.
The installation of a signal according to this war- rant should be based on the &percentile speed un- less an engineering study indicates that another speed is more desirable. The installation of a sirylal according to this war-
Y3
. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9
12-1
rant should not be considered where the resultant
signal spacing would be less than 1,OOO feet. day, or each of any five hours of a Saturday and/ Sunday. -
-1.8 Warrant 6 - Acddent Experience A major route as used in the above warrant has o or more of the following characteristics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
- The accident-experience warrant is satisfied 1. It is part of the street or highway system ti serves as the principal network for through tr when:
Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; and
Five or more reported accidents of types sus- ceptible of correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a lZmonth period, each accident involving personal .injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $Zoo or more; and
There exists a volume of vehicular and pedes- trian traffic not less than 80 percent of the re-
quirements specified in the minimum vehicular -volume warrant, the interruption of continu-
ous traffic warrant, or the minimum pedes- -volume warrant; and
The signal installation will not seriously disrupt Dromessive traffic flow. 1-
9-01.9 Warrant 7 - SYS~~S W-n)
A traffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The systems warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 800 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical week-
fic flow;
2. It connects areas of principal traffic generatic
3. It includes rural or suburban highways outsii of, entering or traversing a city;
4. It has surface street freeway or expressw ramp terminals;
5. It appears as a major route on an official pi such as a major street plan in an urban ar traffic and transportation study.
941.10 Warrant 8 -Combination of Warrants
In exceptional CM, sign& occasionally may justified where no single warrant is satisfied b where any two of Warrants 1.2 and 3 are satisfied the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated nunc ical values for each of any 8 hours of an average dz
941.11 Periodk ftaffk -no1 Studks
To maintain the desirable operation of existi traffic signals, it is neessary to periodically condu
enginecring studies to ensure that the desired ope1 tion is realized. In particular, engineering stud should determine whether the installation continu to be justified and that the signal timing in use me the current traffic requirements.
- .) TS,. TRAFFIC COUN'Y SHEET -
Oay/Dl rectlon
' b4G m LI \
524
&5\
733
11600-1700 [-746 7 a5 1 1700-1800
I 1800-1900 I 1900-2000
2 300-2400 I 0\ I74
PEAK HOUR(S)
PEAK FLOW(S) I
Special conditions or remarks:
de-. / zw-9 --A= 19,Z 89
*I #;u7 - - 4,G45 e
/
j TS#
S?-G-2 i -.4
TRAFFIC COCN’ 4 SHEET
DaylDirectlon
-I TRAFFIC COUNT ~n SHEET -
DaylDi rectlon
Special conditions or remarks:
VeH. / Zh-9 -RturoJ= 4,9433
4 +r
JuL 25 1985
I
/I I
TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATIO% ENGINEERING
'El we~b QHcl Aba~~i~feb '
July 25, 1985
Mr. Bill Hofman
DAON Corporation
5150 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hofman:
This letter summarizes our review of future geometric needs at the Rancho
Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection in the City of Carlsbad.
was based upon information provided by you and previous studies.
The review
Built-out traffic projection developed by SANDAG for the City were utilized as
were projected for the north, east, south and west legs of the intersection.
Since these are two-way volumes, it was assumed that an equal directional
split would occur.
percent of the daily volume. These assumptions were utilized to estimate peak
hour turning movement volumes for the intersection.
with Alga Road extended from Melrose to Rancho Santa Fe provided data relative
to traffic flow patterns in the area which was utilized to determine turning
movement estimates.
. the basis of the study. Daily volumes of 44,700; 43,600; 65,400 and 4,300
It was further assumed, that the peak hour would be ten
A study of conditions
The estimated peak hour volumes are as follows (Melrose is North-South):
Northbound Left 105 Eastbound Left 55
Northbound Through 1700 Eastbound Through 50
Northbound Right 1475 Eastbound Right 85
Southbound Left 625 Westbound Left 1635
Southbound Through 1540 Westbound Through 70
Southbound Right 75 Westbound Right 48 5
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931
47
'.
I 1 -2- L-,
These volumes were then utilized to calculate an Intersection Capacity
Utilization( ICU) value for the intersection with standard geometrics. The
resultant ICU value of 2.20 was unacceptable and indicated that a modified
intersection would be required.
The modified intersection is illustrated on Figure 1.
westbound left turn lanes with a third optional left or through lane. All
northbound right turns were assumed to remain on the existing Rancho Santa Fe
Road alignment and not enter the intersection. An ICU analysis was completed
for the intersection as illustrated on Figure 1 with the estimated volumes.
The ICU calculation is sumnarited in Table 1 and indicates an ICU value of
1.04.
It includes dual
While this ICU value is higher than normal, there are additional factors to
consider. This value does conform to the recent criteria proposed by the City
Engineer which would allow higher ICU values at critical intersections during
peak hours. The projected volumes in the SANDAG model tend to be on the high
side and actual volumes would be lower. Finally, the general alignments of
both Melrose and Santa Fe have been established and the proposed geometrics
maximize the use of these alignments.
In summary, geometrics have been developed for the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa
Fe Road intersection which would accommodate future traffic volumes. The
analysis included assumptions which were based upon previous studies and
knowledge of traffic characteristics in the area.
recommended intersection configuration.
Figure 1 illustrates the
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston S. Pringle, P.E
cc Mr. Clyde Wickum
.
..
Table 1
- 3-
'NTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MELROSE / RANCHO SANTA FE - CORINTIA
MOVEMENT
NL NT NR SL ST
SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
ULTIMATE LANES
1 3 FREE 2 3
0 1 1 0 3 0 1
ULTIMATE CAPACITY
1600 4800
3200 48003
1607 48001
1600
1600
ULTIMATE ULTIMATE VOLUME
105 1700 1475
625 15403 75 55
85
70
48 5
NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS =
EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS =
CLEARANCE = ICU = LOS =
v/c
0.07
0.35 *
0.20 *
0.34
0.03
0.08
0.36 *
0.30
0.55
0.44 0.05 1.04 F
N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND,E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT * DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS
MLRSF-C1
W u, 0
J w I
a
CORINTIA \
EAST-WEST SPLIT
PHASING
1 1
F
t
e
NO SCALE
\ RANCHO SANTA FE
PROPOSED GEOMETRICS
WESTON PRINCLE RNO ASSOCIRTES
'9 a
!
vEn MOVING AMEAO
VEM BACKING UP
PEDESTRIAN
TRAIN
PAnKED VEHICLE
FIXED OIJECT
PROPfRTl DAMAGE ONLV
INJURY ACCIDENT
TATAL ACCIDENT
LEGEND
MEAD-ON
HEAD-ON SlDESWlPf .
REAR EN0
OVERTAKING SIDESWIPE
RiGnT ANGLE
APPROACM TURN
OVERTAKIN0 TURN
OUT OF CONTROL
VEMlCLL TURNED OVER
CONST CONSTRUCTION ZolcE
DPD ORIVER RiYSlCAL OEFECT
DV DEFECTIVE VEHICLE
ES EXCESS SPEED
FTC FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE
PO0 HAD BEEN DRINKIMO
H-R HIT AN0 RUN
ILC IMPROPER LANE CHINCE
IP IMPROPER PASSINO
IT IYPROQER TURN
INATT lN4TTENTlOW
u/C MOTORCYCL~
RSS RAN STOP SIGN OR SIGNAL
SFP STOPPED OR SLOWING FOR PfOESTRtAn
VRW VIOLATE3 RlGltT W WIIV -5 3 vo v1swLtn OO~TRU~TED
..^____ - __ .- .--~~- --
3
- VEH. YOVIWO AHEAO
(- vEn. BACMIMG UP ---+ PEOESTRIAN :-* TRAIN D PARCO vtnicic
0 FlxCD O~JCCT
0 PROPERTY OAMAGE ONY
@ INJURY ACCIDENT
FATAL ACCIOLNT
LEGEND
nLAO-OW
HEAO-ON llOESWlPE
REAR END
OVERTARIWO SIOESWIPZ
lllGHT ANGLE
APPROACH TURN
OVCRTAKlNO TURN
OUT oc CONTAOL
vtnict.c TURNED OVER
CONST
oeg
DV
Ef
FTC
MeD
n-n
ILC
IP
IT
IN411
wc
SFC
vo
nss
vnw .
WJ
CONSTRUCTIOM ZONE
DRIVER RtYSlCAL DEFECT
DffFECTIVE VEHICLE
LXCLSS SPfEO
FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE
MA0 BEEM ORlNKlNO
nil ANO RJM -
iwaoPER Passina
iuPaoPCm TURN
YOTO(~CYCLL
IMPROPER LANE CHANGE
IM4lTENTION
RAW STCP SIGN OR SIGNAL
STOPPCO OR XOWIMG FM mCDESTnlrM
VlSlelLlTT ORSTRUi7CO
VIOLAICO 41GbtT 01 WAY
WRONG SlGE OF ¶T*EET
& --4 9 ,*-?I 3 yt4r,d-.N
of San Coarcos
105 W RICHMAR AVENUE 0 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
61 9/744-4Q2Q
January 14, 1987
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD - LA COSTA MEADOWS DRIVE INTERSECTION
Gent 1 emen : I
We understand your staff is working on traffic improvements at Rancho Santa Fe Road - Melrose Drive intersection and have been requested by interested citizens to consider improvements at Rancho Santa Fe Road - La Costa Meadows Drive intersection.
We have been requested to consider stop signs or a traffic signal system at the Rancho Santa Fe Road - La Costa Meadows Drive intersection.
Our review of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFC) and City of San Marcos actions leads us to the conclusion that the city limit of San Marcos is along the easterly line of the old County Rancho Santa Fe Road (Road Survey 454).
We have enclosed LAFCO description of April 5, 1976 and San Marcos Ordinance No. 82-585 of September 28, 1982 which is our basis of reaching said conclusion.
The best information we have concerning the City of Carlsbad's city limit line is Rick Engineering Co., Proposed Annexation 2.19 to the City of Carlsbad, dated 1-22-74. This data indicates it was approved by the LAFC on January 7, 1974. We read this to establish Carlsbad city limits to be along westerly right-of-way of Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue, 126 foot wide.
Based on the above, our opinion is the San Marcos city limit is along easterly line of old County Rancho Santa Fe Road right-of-way and Carlsbad city liait is along westerly right-of-way of Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue at La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. Such city limit locations would leave a strip along Rancho Santa Fe Road in the County. enclosed layout sheet dated January 13, 1986.
Please confirm or correct our information concerning Carlsbad's city limit location.
Our opinion is illustrated on
*- Lloyd B. Hubbs
Page 2 January 14, 1987
If our current data is accurate, the County may retain some jurisdiction on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Therefore, we are sending C.M. Hurt, County Traffic Engineer, a copy of this correspondence.
We are collecting traffic data at the Rancho Santa Fe Road - La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. This data will be shared with your office and the County to assist in reaching a mutually acceptable traffic regulatory system at the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection as well as the nearby Flelrose Avenue and
Questhaven intersections with Rancho Santa Fe Road.
It is our understanding your staff report will go to Carlsbad's Traffic Safety Commission on February 2nd. report. Please include this correspondence with said
Cordially,
F.K. 'Qawson Assistant City Engineer
vm
CC: C.M. Hurt, County of San Diego w/enclosures Anthony J. Nisich, City Engineer Kent A. Whitson, Consulting Transportation Engineer Kevin K. Lindell, Assistant Civil Engineer.
01 70A
CITY OF SAN MARCOS BOUNDARY
RANCHO SANTA F€ ROAD AT QU€SrtfAVEN ROAD
Neadows Drive
Drawn By: 1 , Period: Jan. 1980 thm ENGINEERING DEPARTNENT
, CITY OF SAN PlARCOS
v u- 19R7 er 1986
LEGEXD
_I_) Veh. Moving Ahead Head-on
Vch. Backing Up ?rL Head-on Sideswipe
-c(>-c Rear End - - -C Pedestrian
Train E Overtaking ~ideswi~c 7 Risht 0 Parked Vehicle
0 Fixed Object + Approach Turn - Out of Control
0 Prop. Damage Only- Overtaking Turn
@ Injury Accident
C-6-1 ArriAsnt - Veh Ttrrnod Over
ACCIDENT HISTORY
1986 0
1985 0
1984 0
1983 1 1982 1 1981 2
1980 2
CONST Construction Zone
DPD Driver Physical Defect DV Defective Vehicle ESS Excess Speed
FTC Following Too Close
IIBD Had Been Drinking
H-R Hit And Run
IP Improper Pass ins
IT Improper Turn INAT" Inattention
RSS
SFP Stopped or Slowing For
VD Visibilitv Obstructcd
ILc Improper Lane mange
WC C!otorcycle ' 5!3
Ran stop Sign Or Signal
Total 6
NOTE: Melrose Drive is outside San Marcos' city
1 imit s .
c
'I .
SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Resolution of the Governing Board
TITLE: TRAFFIC SAFETY LIGHT NUMBER 86-32
On motion of Member Katz, seconded by Member Brown, the following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, the intersection at Melrose and Santa Fe Road has been
the site of a number of serious and fatal traffic accidents, and;
WHEREAS, this dangerous intersection is frequently traversed by
students, parents, and employees of La Costa Meadows Elementary
School;
NOW THEREFORE, the Governing Board requests the immediate
placement of a traffic light at said intersection so that La Costa
Meadows School students, parents, and employees may be properly
protected from harm as they travel to and from school.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 1987 by the Governing Board of the San Marcos Unified School District by the
following vote:
AYES : Brown, Gross, Katz, Preston, Trigas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) 1 ss
I, Secretary of the Governing Board, San Marcos Unified School
District, San Diego County, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by said Board at
the regular meeting thereof held at its regular place of meeting
at the time and by the vote stated, which resolution is on file in
the office of said Board. i,--
7
h\ Secretary of the Governing Board
.- . .- ;I . .
1910 Dlrmond St. Sin Mrrc08, CA 92069 (819) 744-0910 1-800-321-57~,$c
12 Januaryb87;
Safety ?omittee, Sity of Jarlsbad
1200 Zlm Avenue Sarlsbad, :A 92008 u
3ear People:
I am writin3 to you with reference to a dangerous road con-
dition tnat exists between the intersection of the questhaven and iancho :anta Fe 3oad and the intersection of Iuelrose and Aancho 5anta Fe Road. 6arlier I had met with 3ichard ilyzant, ?ublic 'Jorks >irector for the city of San rilarcos. He told me tnat most of this area was within the confines of the city of iarlsbad.
:,'hen turning left from La Sosta b-eadows to Aancho santa Fe
32 (qoinP; south) you turn into a sinTle lane. dany cars southbound are traveling at a high rate of speed. You must floorboard your auto to keep from being rear-ended. a niqhtly thrill for myself and employees.
the Jump road (southbound) you go up an incline on a curve
which is a blind corner for the outside lane. I've seen your police place flares for stalled autos.
Thould you decide to 70 to the coast utilizinq Alga (via Ilelrose) you are in store for another thriller. from La 2osta Yeadows onto RSF Xoad, you have a short distance to cut across to ?et into the roadinq lane to turn onto Irlelrose. biany of the oncoming autos are doing 50 to 50 or better. You sit in this lane amid frequent buffeting from oncornins traffic. A real test of courage. Many times there is a problem Tetting into the Melrose loadin? lane. cars (who may have been held up by trucks going to the dump)
hit their throttles when they hit the two lane just north of the dump road--and they simy scream across this stretch of road.
I am an oldtimer who cut my driving teeth on the old three lane hiaway 101--"300d Alley", "ivlurder AOW". Phis stretch of road, for its limited length is more dangerous than old 101. ,$le know that this road will be the scene of more carnage.
rhis is
rifter passing
'\:hen you turn rizht
ilorthboud
You have big trucks, crazy hi@ speed driving younzsters, people in a hurry to set home. You have four intersecting roads alons
this stretch with absolutely nothing--nothiw to slow this traffic down--a man-made environment for death.
Can you please do something to alleviate this situation? S inc er el y , 17 ,P' 1
Lo ~
WEB OFFSET 0 TYPESETTING 0 PRINTING PUBLICATIONS
January 11, 1987
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad,CA 92008
Honorable City Council of Carlsbad
Dear Sirs:
I am writing concerning the hazardous traffic situation
which exists where Rancho Santa Fe Road intersects Melrose Ave-
nue and La Costa Meadows Drive. My place of employment is located
near those junctions, and in the brief six and one half months
that I have worked there, four accidents have occurred. The most
recent resulted in the death of a young mother and injuries of
her two daughters, one who is in critical condition.
WHY does it so often take the 1oss.of a life which so angers
local citizens that they feel compelled to badger city officials
to DO SOMETHING to lessen the danger of our roadways??
This is an URGENT APPEAL to install traffic signals that
would slow traffic and consequently reduce the chance of serious
injury and further loss of life. Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
$-LO*
Lynne Werner
cc: San Diego County Board of Supervisors Mrs. Lynne Werner
3526 Simsbury Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
COUNTY OF SAN DrEGO C"
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS *-
Building 2, 5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego. California 92123-1295
Telephone: (619) 565-5177
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAI(I, Director
February 24, 1987
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
Subject: Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive
This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1987. You requested
Department of Public Works (DPW) staff input on four (4) proposals in
addition to signalization. Our input follows:
1. Installation of Stop Signs - DPW staff could not support the
installation of stop signs on Rancho Santa Fe Road. It is our
understanding that the nationally recognized warrants for an all-way
stop are far from being met at the subject location. As you know,
installation of unwarranted all-way stops can be expected to lead to
an increases in rear end type collisions and "ran stop sign"
violations.
2. Reduction of the speed limit to 25 MPH - DPW staff could not support
the proposed reduction in the speed limit since we are confident a
radar speed study would not support such a reduction.
3. Installation of a flashing yellow beacon in the intersection - DPW
could recommend 50% participation in the cost two (2) intersection
warning signs with flashing yellow beacons. As you know, these
would be located appropriately for northbound and southbound traffic
on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
4. Installation of botts dots rumble strip on intersection approaches -
DPW staff could not support a rumble strip installation.
know CALTRANS uses this type installation only where the speed
reduction desired is constant (24 hours per day) and severe (slowing
from freeway speed to a stop condition). Examples of such cases are
the international border crossing, border patrol check points and
toll booths. DPW staff feels the subject intersection and the above
situations are quite dissimilar.
As you
COUNTY SURVEYOR LIQUID WASTE
FLOOD CONTROL SOLID WASTE
COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
COUNTY AIRPORTS TWSPORTATION OPERATIONS OFFICES OF: