Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-04; City Council; 9117; Rancho Santa Fe Rd/Melrose Dr. Improvementsm .rl U rd a i 0 u a k w w rd u m k aJ a c 3 a aJ u m -rl rl u a c rd !a d i $ m U .rl a a $4 a a rd rl *rl U c 3 0 u h co \ 4 \ a3 hB# 917 IITG. 08/04/87 CI*- OF CARLSBAD - AGENK RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD/ MELROSE DRIVE INTERSECTION TITLE BILL IEPT. ENG IMPROVEMENTS I RECOMMENDED ACTION: A. Council approve Ultimate Alternative No. 1 (attached), maintaining the current alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. B. Council instruct staff to attempt to complete agreements with San Marcos, San Diego County and La Costa Land Company to implement Interim Alternative No. 2 (attached) within 30 days. C. Failing implementation of Interim Alternative No. 2 proceed to the implementation of Interim Alternative No. 1, signalization of the existing intersection. ITEM EXPLANATION On February 24, 1987 Council directed staff to retain Willdan Associates to investigate alternatives for the improvement of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive. This investigation was completed in May and has subsequently been reviewed with the City of San Marcos, San Diego County and various neighborhood groups. The report addresses two Ultimate Alternatives and three interim measures. ULTIMATE ALTERNATIVES The first basic decision required is to determine which leg of this ggTgg intersection should receive priority for Ultimate development. Current development approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-19 contemplates the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road to IgT" into Melrose at Corintia Drive (Ultimate Alternative No. 2). It is recommended by all agencies, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Brookfield Homeowners Association that this alignment be abandoned in favor of gtTgging Melrose into Rancho Santa Fe Road (Ultimate Alternative No. 1). This action is opposed by the Meadowlark Homeowners Association (see attached correspondence). ADVANTAGES OF ULTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 Better accommodates 18,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Rancho Santa Fe Road. r PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 9U7 t More compatible with the Brookf ield residential Provided better access to 62 acre industrial property development at the intersection with Corintia. at the southeast corner of the intersection. DISADVANTAGES Restricts the Melrose Drive Corintia intersection to right-in/right-out until reconstruction of Xanna and Corintia (see Exhibit 6). Estimated to cost $56,000 more than Ultimate Alternative 2. Ultimate Alternative 1 = $906,000 Ultimate Alternative 2 = $850,000 Opposed by Meadowlark Community who wishes to reduce traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road and emphasize Melrose Drive. Recommendation: Approve Ultimate Alternative No. 1. INTERIM ALTERNATIVE Three interim alternatives were explored but only two are recommended for further consideration. INTERIM ALTERNATIVE 1 Proposes improvement and signalization of the existing intersection at an estimated cost of $141,000. This alternative is supported by the County and is the least expensive and quickest alternative to implement. Disadvantages include: -Temporary solution that may on serve for only 1 to 2 years before relocation to the Ultimate location. -Does not mitigate intersection skew. -Intersection too close to La Costa Meadows Drive. San Marcos officials indicate that they oppose this alternative. INTERIM ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Proposes a partial implementation of the Ultimate intersection at an estimated cost of $350,000 excluding T I .! 1 ', PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 9117 right of way costs. Staff and the Traffic Safety Commission recommend this alternative. The City of San Marcos staff supports this alternative but has not yet agreed to financial participation. The County has indicated that its participation in this alternative will be limited to 1/3 of Interim Alternative 1 (47,000). Implementation of Interim alternative No. 2 will likely require right of way dedication and reimbursement agreements with the developer, the La Costa Land Company, who has indicated reluctance to cooperate in the absence of a recorded final map. Recommendation: Staff and the Traffic Safety Commission prefer Interim Alternative 2 if adequate agreements can be reached with San Marcos and the developer. Thirty days should be allowed to complete these negotiations. Failing agreement, signalization of the existing intersection should be pursued for construction as soon as possible. LA COSTA MEADOWS DRIVE The Traffic Safety Commission in addition to Interim Alternative 2 recommends that the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Meadows Drive be signalized. The Willdan report maintains that this intersection only meets the peak hour warrant and should not be signalized at this time. The Staffs of all three agencies oppose signalization. This opposition would be particularly strong should the existing intersection be signalized. Signalization without support from the City of San Marcos is not possible. FISCAL IMPACL' No fiscal impact has been determined at this time. A one- third each split in the cost of a traffic signal at the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road is being negotiated between the County of San Diego, City of San Marcos and City of Carlsbad. As a condition of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19, the developer is required to construct the road. f -, L 9117 PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO. EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Location Map. Ultimate Alternative No. 1. Ultimate Alternative No. 2. Interim Alternative 1. Interim Alternative 2. Future Corintia Street Extension. County Letter. Brookfield Letter. Meadowlark Letter. La Costa Land Letter May. La Costa Land Letter July. Meadowlark Community Church Letter Letter to San Marcos Traffic Safety Commission Minutes. r ., LOCATION MAP STUDY LIMIT N a NO SCALE MELROSE DR. LA COSTA MEADOWS DR. QUESTHAVEN RD. -1 '. < w '1 L N 0 NO SCALE 0 a w v < I- z < 0 0 I 0 z SITE ARENAL RD. COSTA DEL MA CADENCIA ST A COSTA AV VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME: I tE X H I B IT R.S.F. RDJMELROSE TRAFFIC STUDY DR. I N no scale ULTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 EXHIBIT r / NO SCALE ULTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 EXHIBIT L 0 NO SCALE \\ \\ \\ PROJECT INTERIM ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 EXHIBIT 4 N NO SCALE PROJECT INTERIM ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 EXHIBIT i 1-OCATION MA? FUTURE CORINTIA ST. PROJECT NAME FUTURE CORINTIA STREET EXTENSION EXHIBIT I 4 I COUNTY OF SAN DhEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Building 2, 5555 Overland Avenue San Diego. California 92123-1295 Telephone: (619) 565-5177 GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN, Director June 16, 1987 City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palrnas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Attention: Robert Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson: Subject: Alignment and Signalization Report for Rancho Santa Fe Road This is in response to your City's letter of June 4, 1987. As indicated in our earlier correspondence and verbally by Department representatives, we are willing to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the County participate in the subject project as follows: 1. The County contribute one-third (1/3) the cost of signalization of the existing intersection ($141,000 + 3 = $47,000). Alternate #1 in the study. This is Interim 2. The County contribute the same dollar amount ($47,000) toward Interim Alternate #2 should the City of Carlsbad elect to construct Interim Alternate #2. This recommendation would be contingent on agencies other than the County accepting the relocated intersection with traffic signal for maintenance. As you are aware the Department of Public Works can only recommend actions such as those above. of funds and interagency agreements. The Board of Supervisors must approve all expenditures EXHIBIT 7 COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER COUNTY SURVEYOR LIQUID wAs7e OFFlCES OF: COUNTY AIRPORTS TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS FLOOD CONTROL SalD WASTE I , -2- It is our understanding that City of San Marcos staff is willing to recommend to their City council acceptance of appropriate portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road for maintenance. If you have further questions, please contact Larry Hurt at (619) 694-2241. Very truly yours, H. E. SORLIE Assistant Director HES : LH : vrj xc: City of San Marcos 105 W. Richmar Avenue San Marcos, California 92069 Attn: Tony Nisich , RECEIVED JOHNSTOWN AMENCAN Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad, CA Nay 29, 1987 JUN 01 1987 CITY OF CAHLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Re: Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive Dear Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our Association's opinion regarding the proposed realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road, Melrose Drive and questhaven Road. At an open meeting of the Board of Directors of the Brookfield Owners' Association held on May 21, 1987, representatives of the Engineering Department, Mr. Robert Johnson and Lloyd Hubbs, addressed the Board and Association Members present. The Alignment and Signalization Report for Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose Drive and Questhaven Road as prepared by Willdan Associates, dated May 15, 1987, was reviewed and discussed openly. As a result of this meeting, the Board resolved to support the proposal known as l'Ultimate Alternative No. 1" as presented in the aforementiioned report. It is believed by the Board that the Engineering Departrnentls recommendation best serves the public need for safety and would directly benefit the local homeowners. The Brookfield Owner's Association wishes to go on record as supporting the recommendation of the Engineering Department regarding "Ultimate Alternative No. 1 . 'I The Board of Directors would also like to formally thank Mr. Robert T. Johnson and Mr. Lloyd Hubbs of the Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad for their presentation to the community regarding this important issue. Very truly yours, .J Mary Blue, President, Brookfield Owners' Association 6828 Via Marinero, Carlsbad, CA 92009 (61 9) 942-8882 365 Rancho Santa Fe Road Suite 304 San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 471-9444 EXHIBIT 8 , .. 6 I:[ b MEADOWLARK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 67. #- 1817 Rediwng Street San Marcos, California 92069 RECEIVED June 14, 1987 Dear Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hubbs: CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Thank you again for the time you spent with the Meadowlark Ranch Homeowners Assoc. on Friday evening, June 12th. Although there was only a small group represented from over 60 homes, I believe concerns were expressed that are repre- sentative of the area. Of the proposed plans, the majority of the homeowners present felt that the light should be on Melrose and Corintia. How- ever, many other concerns were expressed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The general condition of Rancho Santa Fe Road in our area. The,lack of turn lanes, especially at Meadowlark Ranch Road. The lack of shoulders to accommodate disabled vehicles. This is especially severe from Redwing St. to La Costa Avenue. The speed of traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road, and The lack of passing lanes in several areas, especially with the heavy trash truck traffic. Regardless of which plan is ultimately adopted, all of the deficiencies of Rancho Santa Fe Road can't continue to go unheeded. Perhaps now is the time to address these problems with a long term plan. Thank you. M DOWLARK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. +- Kitty President schbrenner EXHIBIT 9 May 29, 1987 Mr. Lloyd B. Hubbs, P.E. City Engineer 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Re: Letter of understanding between the City of Carlsbad and La Costa Ranch Co. Dear Lloyd: The following is a summary of the major points of agreement between us in order to solve the major safety problem which exists at the Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose intersection. The end result will be to have La Costa Ranch Co. rebuild the existing intersection as outlined in Interim Alternative #2 of the Wildan Traffic Study. *The City of Carlsbad will continue fast tracking of plan checks, bond package, and final map in order to achieve the earliest date possible for map recordation. *The intersection work shall receive first order of priority and is projected to be completed approximately 5 months from map recordation. *La Costa Ranch Co. shall upon map recordation be able to ob- tain grading and improvement permits for the entire site should they choose to do so. *The City of Carlsbad shall reimburse La Costa Ranch Co. for the signalization portion of the intersection improvements. Estimated cost = $75,000.00. of $300,000.00 as the total cost of the intersection improve- ments. *This understanding is based upon a preliminary cost estimate La Costa Ranch Co. is looking forward to working with the City of Carlsbad and will do everything it can in order to ensure that the above items occur in a timely manor. Sincerely, h Ross'McDonald Managing Director La Costa Ranch Co. 6670 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 9000-266 Carlsbad California 92008 (619) 931-8747 EXHIBIT 10 July 16, 1987 Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RECEIVED JUL 2 0 1987 ClfY OF CARLSBAD ENG I MEEM NG DEPARTMENT Re: Rancho Sante Fe Road/Melrose Drive Intersection. Dear Lloyd: You have asked if our company would be willing to dedicate certain rights-of-way for the realignment of Melrose. In this regard we would like to evaluate the final proposed re-alignment plan and make any dedications concurrent with our agreement to proceed and recorda- tion of our map. We look forward to working with you on this important matter. Cordially, Ross McDonald Managing Director FWsb cc: Pat O'Day 6670 El Camino Real, PO. Box 9000-266 Carlsbad California 92009 (619) 931-8747 EXHIBIT 11 - 21 11 INDUSTRIAL CT. SUITE ‘A: VISTA CA 92083 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA. 92009-4859 Attention: Clyde Wickham, Assoc. Engineer Subject: Alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road Reference: Letter to Meadowlark Community Church 5/22/87 Dear Sir: The two options, stated in your letter, both include a signalized intersection at Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe and cause some relief to traffic exiting from Redwing Street to Rancho Santa Fe. The Church would feel comfortable with either option and would encourage the new signalized intersection as soon as possible. Sin er ly, !-Lb J.aruce Golden RCE LS Vi President, Chief Engineer cc: Ed Hughes Pastor D. Plank EXHIBtT 12 - i4 - ---- --/- ' '2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 920094659 Office of the City Engineer TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 July 7, 1987 Tony Nisich Director of Developmental Services 105 W. Richmar Avenue San Marcos, CA 92069 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD/MEIIROSE DRIVIS INTERSECTION Pursuant to our meeting today, I would appreciate receiving a written understanding of the City of San Marcos position regarding the above referenced intersection. Specifically, the issues are: . 1. Assuming that a joint reimbursement agreement is satisfactorily negotiated between the developer of CT 85-19, City of Carlsbad and City of San Marcos, is the City of San Marcos willing to expend up to $150,000 at this time to construct Interim Alternate No.2 as defined by the Willdan report? 2. If an agreement to construct Interim Alternate No. 2 is not obtained between all parties, what is the commitment of the City of San Marcos to signalizing the existing Melrose/RSF intersection and reasons for or against such an alternate. 3. What is the commitment of the City of San Marcos to installing a traffic signal at the intersection of La Costa Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road at this time, as recommended by the City of Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission? Your earliest response would be appreciated, as we are taking this item to our City Council on July 28, 1987. Please call u have an LBH : RTJ : rp c: Community Development Director ,EXHIBIT 13 I- - _____ MINUTES Meeting of: Time of Meeting: 3:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: June 15, 1987 Place of Meeting: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION (Special Meeting) City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER: Chairman O'Day called the meeting to order at 3:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman O'Day, Commissioners Erwin, Fuller and Melideo. Absent - Conmissioner Herring. Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Principal Civil Engineer Technician I1 Mike Shirey, Engineering Officer Shipley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No one was present to speak before the Commission. Chairman O'Day left the dais and did not participate in the discussion of this item due to a possible conflict of interest. NEW BUSINESS: A. Rancho Santa Fe/Helrose Drive Intersection - Discuss Alignment and Signalization Report Prepared by Willdan Associates. Bob Johnson stated this item was discussed at the June 1, 1987, meeting. The Willdan Report was received by all the Commissioners. The report recomnended both Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive be constructed to prime arterial standards. Transparencies were used to show the alternatives recommended by Willdan and Mr. Johnson explained those alternatives. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recomnended Ultimate Alternative #I be implemented as quickly as possible by the developer of Carlsbad Tract 85-19. This alternative would curve Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road northerly of the existing Melrose/RSF intersection and align with the most northerly driveway of the industrial park located on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. In the interim, Corintia Drive would connect to Melrose Drive but only have right turns in and right turns out of Corintia to Melrose Drive. A future extension of Corintia Drive from El Fuerte Street easterly to connect at La Costa Meadows Drive would allow Xana Way to be extended southerly to Corintia. concept has been discussed with the Board of Directors for the Brookfield Subdivision Homewowners Association and met with their approval. This EXHIBIT 14 rt J MINUTES Page %COMMISSIONERS 3une 15, 1967 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Bob Johnson explained that Interim Alternate #2 would provide for construction of Melrose Drive in its ultimate location, but with a slightly reduced width and AC berms. There would be two travel lanes in each direction on Rancho Santa Fe Road, plus a center turn lane and bicycle lanes, thus improving the capacity at the intersection. It would also provide a right turn in and out connection for Corintia Drive to Helrose Drive. Tom Anthony, 1376 San Pablo Drive, San Marcos, representing La Costa Meadows Industrial Center, indicate his property on the wall map, and stated he had developed his property according to the original plans as far as the roads, and would not want to be penalized at this point by having those roads blocked. Hr. Anthony stated over 500 people work in that area and most of them arrive from the north. Eventually there will be over 2,000 employees when the center is completed. A traffic signal at Questhaven and Melrose would slow the traffic down, as the stretch of road between there and Lake San Marcos is very dangerous. Mr. Anthony reauested the main driveway to his center be left open, looking forward to the time when there is a signal at La Costa Meadows and Corintia. In answer to query from the Commission as to his feeling with making a collector street at the entranceway, Mr. Anthony stated he would cooperate in any way he could. Candace Lyman, 1709 La Costa Meadows, representing Alopex Industries, spoke to the Commission stating she represented 150 employees in the industrial park off of La Costa Meadows. She felt there would still be a pfoblem at La Costa Meadows with a signal at Questhaven. In answer to her question as to the time frame for a signal at La Costa Meadows, staff stated this would be when Corintia was put through, and this could be years. These employees could not come through Mr. Anthony's property, as that is a private street, serving only his buildings. Mr. Anthony remarked there is not mch space to widen that road, but he would be willing to have the engineers discuss this possibility, as long as this was an enhancement to everyone concerned. 8ob Johnson stated the internal circulation of the park was belno looked at bv San Marcos. The Commission felt that was-San Marcos' kesponsibility. Cirard Anear, 1726 Calavo Court, stated Alga Roa be put through to Helrose as recomnended by the Circulation Committee. He added some lots might be condemned fn order to make that extension. should raffic have to 1\ \ t MINUTES June 15, 1987 TRAFFIC SAFE Y COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS Bob Johnson replied the Tract Map for 85-19 had been approved, and that extension would cause condemnation on that Tract. If Alga were extended, Melrose would continue and connect with Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Anear stated there would be a right turn off of Melrose and traffic would go down Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road, eliminating the other portion completely. Ms. Lyman suggested running Melrose parallel to Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the Commission stated these are both prime arterials and must be constructed to certain specifications. Mr. Anear asked whether any thought had been given to an overpass arrangement and the Commissioners answered the cost and environmental impact would be too great. Commissioner Melideo felt the cities should get together and put in an overpass at this time. The suggested alternatives would only be a temporary solution and down the road a few years there will still be a problem. She added she would like to have more information on the costs of building an overpass. Commissioner Fuller stated the costs and extra land necessary for an overpass would preclude this being the solution for this intersection. Commissioner Fuller stated he supported Ultimate Alternative #I, to be implemented by Interim Alternate I2. Commissioner Erwin agreed, and added recommendations to have San Marcos take care of the internal circulation of the industrial center and have La Costa Meadows Drive signalized at the same time. Traffic Safety Commission adopted the Traffic Safety Coordlnatfng Committee's recommendation to adopt Ultimate Alternative #I, to be implemented as ouickly as possible, via Interim Alternate A2. Commissioner Melideo opposed the motion, stating this was not the solution to the problem. Traffic Safety Commission requested staff continue formal negotiations with the City of San Marcos with Respect to that City studying the internal circulation of the industrial park. This City is to be advised of any changes they foresee as a result of further development of the proposed project. Commissioner Fuller inquired about the warrants for a traffic signal, and staff indicated the warrants are met at peak traffic times. This would be a joint agreement between the City of San Marcos and Carlsbad, as the County would not participate. Erwin Fuller Meli deo Erwin Fuller Melideo MINUTES 3une 15, 1987 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION y COMMISSIONERS Traffic Safety Commission reconmended a three-way signal be installed in conjunction with Alternative #I and Interim Alternate b2, at La Costa Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road. AD30URNHENT: By proper motion, the Meeting of June 15, 1987, was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Respectfully submftted, Ha&iett Babbitt Minutes Clerk Erwin Fuller Melideo \ \ of San Cnarcos 105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE 0 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 61 9/744-4020 August 3, 1987 Mr. Lloyd B. Hubbs, P.E. City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RE: RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD/MELROSE DRIVE IMPROVENENTS In response to your July 7 letter requesting a statement from the City of San Marcos regarding certain proposed improvements along Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose, I would like to provide the following information: 1. If a joint reimbursement agreement is satisfactorily negotiated with all parties, staff is willing to reconinend to the Council that it commit up to $150,000 to construct Interim Alternative No. 2 as defined in the Willdan report. We feel that this is the superior alternative for the reasons delineated within the report and is the most efficient use of our limited funds. 2) Interim Alternate #1 - The City of San Marcos believes it is not appropri- ate to install a signal at the existing Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose inter- section at this time. The basis for our position is as follows: a) b) The accident rate is relatively low (0.68 accidents/million entering vehicles), and sight distance is adequate. The estimated cost provided by Willdan for this improvement is $141,000, of which only about $20-30,000 would be salvagable (basically only the signal standards and controller). foundations, conduits, loop detectors and some new street geometrics would have to be abandoned. All signal c) Some driveways along the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road both north and South of Melrose Drive would be so close to the intersection that they should be closed. erty owner. This presents a serious problem to the prop- d) The installation of a signal at this location would - not provide for any protected traffic movements to and from properties anywhere along the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. .- CITY COUNCIL Lee B. Thibadeau, Mayor Mark Loscher, Vice Mayor Lionel G. Burton Pia Harris F.H. Smith J-3 Lloyd B. Hubbs August 3, 1987 .< ' Page 2 _<.- A e) The signal would be located on a curve, and not along a tangent section of roadway - which could seriously aEct southbound vehicles, especially trucks, on the downhill grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road. f) Two signal installations will cause considerably more distruption to traffic flow than just one installation at the ultimate location. g) Any City financial commitment to this location would essentially be lost once Interim Alternate #2 is built, unless Carlsbad agrees to reimburse San Marcos once Interim Alternate #1 is phased out. As the Willdan report states "The only substantial drawback to [Interim Alter- nate #2] is the potential timing for its construction.'' implemented within a reasonable period of time (6 to 18 months), then the City of San Marcos may consider participation up to $47,000 (1/3 cost of Interim Alternate #1, same as the County of San Diego's share), with possibly a reimbursement agreement or a credit from the City of Carlsbad for Interim Alternate #2. If this cannot be 3. La Costa Meadows Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection - the City does not recommend installing a signal at the intersection of La Costa Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road at this time, which is consistent with Willdan's opinion (pg. 10): a) The presence of a traffic signal at either Interim alternative #1 or' #2 would provide additional gaps to allow improved left turn accessi- bility from La Costa Meadows Drive. The signal spacing would be too close to meet desirable City Design Criteria of 1/4 mile. b) c) The A.D.T. on La Costa Meadows Drive is only 1600 vehicles/day (Jan. 1987). d) e) Except for the Peak Hour Warrant, the La Costa Meadows intersection meets - no other Cal trans Traffic Signal warrants. There is adequate sight distance and a relatively low number of accidents. f) The intersection' would have to compete with other City intersections where signals are considered. Therefore, the City is not willing to commit any funds to signalize La Costa Meadows Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road at this time, pending review by the Traffic Safety Commission and City Council. I .’: Lloyd R. Hubbs Page 3 August 3, 1987 I have discussed this matter with the City Manager and he is in agreement with the above. sure you are aware, any agreement is subject to Council approval. I hope this is responsive to your needs. please contact me. This matter has not been reviewed by the City Council and as I am If I can be of further assistance, Sincere 1 y , OJ.* honv J. Nisich, P.E. Direct& of Developnental Services/ City Engineer vm CC: R.W. Gittings, City Manager F.K. Dawson, Assistant City Engineer Kent A. Whitson, Consulting Transportation Engineer 0167A .- a 3