Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-02; City Council; 12089; APPEAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO NOT REMOVE GUARDRAIL ON ALICANTE ROAD AND CORTE DE LA VISTAt 4 % a 2 a, 5- ~1 5 .rl cd- *' &I cd g -4 c, cd W 5 g 0 # al $4 g $ -rl [I) m -rl 0 V h u a cd w rn u cd H a a l-l c a a 3 W 5 rl a, a a % $4 .rl w w &I 5 ua, ? wo afi .rl a aa, P l-l .rl u uo 0 u P SG z 0 6 4 6 z 0 0 3 g J' l;' CQ)Y OF CARLSBAD - AGqP A BILL TITLE: APPEAL OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AB ' 'a!og"i DEPT. I MTG. 03/02/93 RECOMMENDATION TO NOT REMOVE GUARDRAIL CITY A CITY M ON ALICANTE ROAD AND CORTE DE LA VISTA DEPT. h RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Traffic Safety commission rewmmends that guardrail on AIicante Road and G( de la Vista not be removed and that the appeal of the Alicante Hills Homeowner's denied. ITEM EXPLANATION: MaryAnn Kingsley, representative for the Alicante Hills Homeowners, sent a letter to. City Engineer on November 20, 1992 requesting removal of guardrail installed during ' Fairways subdivision construction. Both Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista h: guardrail installed along the subdivision as indicated on Exhibit 1. However, to imprc sight distance at the Alicante/Corte de la Vista intersection, 150 feet of guardrail that Y installed on Alicante Road has been removed. Carlsbad Tract 90-23 (Fairways) was approved in September 1991 by the City Coui and is currently under construction. The subdivision is located on the southwest corr of Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista and is comprised of 149 lots. Condominiums i located opposite the Fairways subdivision on both streets. The request to remove guardrail was discussed at the Traffic Safety Commission meeti of February 1, 1993. Safety factors and other issues cited in the letter from Ms. Kings1 were considered by the Commission. The Fairways subdivision is being constructed at elevations lower than the two adjoini streets. Slopes from the adjoining streets down to the building pad elevations range height from 6.8 feet to 34.8 feet, with an average slope height of approximately 22 fe Because of the slope height and for safety reasons, staff in the Plancheck Section of 1 Engineering Department asked the developer to install guardrail along both Alicante Ro and Corte de la Vista. Caltrans criteria for evaluating the potential installation of guardr was utilized by staff in determining the need for the guardrail. It was the opinion of st' that with the pad elevations lower than both streets, and the potential for an errant vehic to run off the road, a masonry wall or wrought iron fence would not stop a vehicle frc rolling down the slope into backyard areas of the homes. When evaluating the slop using the Caltrans criteria it was determined that the risk of injury and damage to ai from a vehicle going down the embankment was more severe than if the vehicle hit tl guardrail, therefore, guardrail was shown on the construction plans and installed. A roadside barrier (guardrail) is a longitudinal barrier used to shield the motorist from natural or man-made hazard along the roadway, such as a slope or embankment. TI primary purpose of the roadside barrier is to prevent the vehicle from leaving the roadw or from striking a fixed object considered to be more hazardous than the barrier itseli The Plancheck Division staff considered the consequences of a vehicle running off tt road and down the embankment to be more serious than hitting the guardrail itse Consequently, the guardrail was required during the subdivision construction. Removir the slope or reducing its height was not an option in the subdivision design. Tt embankment is constructed with a 2:l slope in most locations. However, in sever constrained locations, retaining walls were constructed in the slope to minimize excessk encroachment of the slope into developable land. These retaining walls have a maximu height of 4.5 feet. I 0 e * PAGE TWO OF AB: ) 2 I Ogq In their appeal, the Alicante Hills Homeowners state that the safety hazard cannot substantiated and that the Traffic Safety Commission had pre-determined their decis before the public had an opportunity to comment. The engineering facts and saf issues about the guardrail were thoroughly discussed at the Commission meeting. C Commissioner, however, at the February 1, 1993 meeting, this being his first Commissi meeting, did state after the staff presentation and before public comment that he thoug the guardrail should remain. His comment at that time was due to his unfamiliarity w how the meeting is conducted. No other Commissioner stated his opinion until it VI, time for Commission discussion just prior to voting. By a 5-0 vote, the Traffic Safc Commission recommended that the guardrail not be removed. No costs are associat with leaving the guardrail in place. FISCAL IMPACT: Several options were suggested by citizens at the Commission meeting for removing relocating the guardrail. 1. Remove and salvage guardrail on Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista. Estimatl cost $1 5,000. Remove guardrail and relocate it behind the sidewalk in front of the wi Estimated cost $40,000. Remove guardrail and relocate it to behind the wall. The top portion of the slol would require reconstruction and the existing wall would need to be removed ai reconstructed to facilitate guardrail installation. Estimated cost $31 5,000. Salvage value of the guardrail and posts far exceed the costs of removing the guardri and using it in another location. The roadway improvements, including guardrail, ha\ not been accepted by the City of Carlsbad at this time. The developer would have consent to the removal and salvage of guardrail by the City of Carlsbad and tt developer would not be expected to incur any additional costs for removal by the City Carlsbad. If one of the above construction options is implemented, the City of Carlsbc would need to fund the selected option. No funds are availab’le for any of the removal and/or relocation options in the 1992-1 9: budget. Funding would have to be allocated from the General Fund balance. 2. 3. EXHIBITS: 1. Guardrail Location Map. 2. 3. Appeal form from the Alicante Hills Homeowners. Traffic Safety Commission minutes of February 1, 1993. a Y EN7RAMC€ SUBDIVISION ==- EXISTING GUARDRAIL LOCATION OF GUARDRAILS B e 0 z,>y""j 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 $BELE (619) 434-2 P H c E Office of the Cify Clerk Mitg of anrlstrnb - APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the following decision of the 6d6 I corn- IST/~~ to the City Counci Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): aUar$dI - d &4e d, la Vu-+ * d Date of Decision: ah-u>> PC( I! /94 3 Reason for Appeal: bt s ;\q t--ep- 44 J4ca IOk - U-Vlrnl P c ( 0 h -r -< -. - . I c - rOk-C.d&*- *LhP 4 n OS~A6A h* J0V-c c,- Aze~ cowme-4 + ~1r\nb~ ; & SLL s A.2-FC;c- a z.Ar I L a/ Y I43 .L&++t /$;e, / Date Si gn@re h&QYk?Md kt rJ CS LE 4 Name (Please Print) 29i) L&-& e+ Address Car-15 baJ Y3f- 7333 Telephone Number e e MINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: February 1,1993 TIME OF MEETING: 3:OO p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Blake called the Meeting to order at 3:OO p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: None. Commissioners Blake, Courtney, Fuller, Green and Stachoviak. Chairman Blake welcomed the two new Commissioners, Jim Courtney and Bud Green. Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer Sgt. Don Metcalf, Police Department Uoyd Hubbs, City Engineer Evan Becker, Housing & Redevelopment Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Fuller, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held January 4, 1993, were approved as presented. AYES: Blake, Fuller and Stachoviak ABSTAIN: Courtney and Green ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Bob Johnson stated that staff had been waiting for the Council to appoint the two new Commissioners, and he welcomed Commissioners Courtney and Green. He said that he had met with both Commissioners, provided them with copies of the Rules and Procedures and briefed them on current matters before the Commission. Y 0 0 February 1,1993 TRAFFIC SAFEP( COMMISSION Page 2 NEW BUSINESS: A. Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista - Ciiizen request to have guardrail removed or relocated. Bob Johnson gave the staff report, stating the item was initiated by MaryAnn Kingsley, 2911 Sondra Court, from a letter dated November 20, 1992, a copy of which was included in thc packet. She requested removal of the guardrail due to concern about the unsightliness anc safety for pedestrians. Mr, Johnson pointed out that as far as aesthetics, that is not an issue before the Traffic Commission. From time to time the City does receive complaints about signs, stripings or traffic devices. In most cases, there is nothing beautiful about engineering or safety features. The beauty of the guardrail is not what the Commission will discuss. The Commission will address the traffic safew. The guardrail was not an original part of Corte de la Vista. Severa condominium complexes have been built in the area, and with the approval of the Fieldstonc project, staff applied Equal Severii Curve graph because of a number of very high slopes a varying heights. In looking at the criteria, it was the opinion of the Plan Check staff that t guardrail should be installed by the developer. A transparency was shown of the area at thc intersection of Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista, where a 150 foot portion of the guardrail on Alicante Road has been removed, to improve sight distance at the intersection. The embankment is constructed with a 2:l slope in most locations, with retaining walls constructed to minimize excessive slopes. Mr. Johnson explained that there have been incidents in the Cii where vehicles have gone off of the roadway, through fences or walls, and down steep slopes. There is a standard five-foot sidewalk behind the guardrail and guardrail posts. Pedestrian safety or accessibility along the sidewalk is not compromised due to the posts or the guardrail. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommended that the guardrail remain in place because of safety reasons. Aesthetic reasons were discussed by the Committee, but were not a traffic issue. In response to Commission query, Mr. Johnson stated that nothing is required for the intersection at this time. He stated that it would not take very high speed--perhaps 15 to 20 miles per hour--to impact the wall enough to go through it or over it. Chairman Blake opened the meeting for public testimony. Vercie Carmonjohnson, 2885 Torry Court, spoke in favor of removing the guardrail and stated the rail gives the illusion that it is all right to speed in that area. Two letters were read, one from William Dix and one from B. E. Hensley, who were not able to attend the meeting today. Both residents were in favor of removing the guardrail. A copy of a petition was presented requesting removal of the guardrail and recommending reinforcing the existing wall or by relocating the guardrail to the other side of the wall on Fieldstone’s property. 0 0 .. February 1, 1993 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 NEW BUSINESS: (Continued) MaryAnn Kingsley, 291 1 Sondra Court, presented pictures of the area and stated the residents were not given an opportunity to speak on this matter, as it was not on the original drawings presented. At the time of the original hearing, it was stated that the wall would be softened by landscaping, but there was no guardrail in the plans at that time. It was installed later and within a two-day period. Ms. Kingsley stated that Corte de la Vista is a deadend street, with a maintenance road with 16 homes back of the area, with very little traffic on the street. She had photograhs of other areas in the City where she felt guardrails should be placed, rather than on Corte de la Vista. Ms. Kingsley stated her objection to the intrusion of the guardrail into the sidewalk, and stated that people have to step over the guardrail into the street in order to pass each other. Also, cars can’t park on that side of the street for anyone to exit the passenger side. Susan Palay, 2941 Sondra Court, representing Alicante Hills, spoke in opposition to the guardrail, stating this is a fairly straight road with no severe cuwe, there is no ice or snow to contend with and the volume of traffic is light. The street goes down to a deadend and a fire road, with 16 homes on that road and is not a thoroughfare. She felt the guardrail was not warranted. Mark Conger, 2835 Torry Court, representing Alicante Homeowners, stated he opposed the guardrail for the reasons previously stated. John Williams, 2895 Torry Court, representing Alicante Hills, stated he agreed with the previous speakers, and added the increased traffic is due to the new development. He said he did not believe there had been any accidents in that area during the last three years. Mr. Williams said the speed limit there should allow the wall to withstand a glancing blow by a vehicle. He said that with people walking on the fiie-foot sidewalk, the joggers go into the street. Amos Johnson, 2885 Torry Court, spoke in opposition to the guardrail, stating there are places in La Costa that are more dangerous, have more traffic and higher speed limits, that do not have guardrails. He stated the intersection area where the guardrail was removed is an area that he feels does need protection.. He said he thought the guardrail was only temporary during construction. Edna Faucett, 2964 Sondra Court, asked to have the guardrail removed, or put in front of the wall. Judith Berry, 2841 Torry Court, representing the Alicante Hills Homeowners Association and herself, stated the negatives outweigh the positiies for this guardrail. She said this encourages people to speed in the area and the guardrail is unsightly and should be placed up against the wall with the landscaping in front of it. Chairman Blake closed the public testimony at 3:38 p.m. d e 0 February 1,1993 TRAFFIC SAFW COMMISSION Page 4 NEW BUSINESS: (Continued) Commissioner comments included that a barrier such as this tends to slow traffic, not increase the speeds, as people will move away from such a bamer. Also, there is a sidewalk on both sides of the street, and if people object to walking by the guardrail, they are able to walk on the other side of the street. That also holds true of anyone parking there to allow a passenger to exit the car. It was noted that the speeding that some of the speakers mentioned, is being done by the people who live there, and that should be called to the attention of the homeowners association. The Commissioners commented that usually the Traffic Safety Commission is being asked for safety measures, and it is very unusual to be asked to remove safety measures. It was noted by the Commission that guardrails are not considered beautiful, and the suggestion was made that perhaps the engineers could at some time in the future design something more pleasing to the eye. If the guardrail were removed, it was stated that the City might be exposed to legal action. .. Chairman Blake stated that the Traffic Safety Commission is advisory to the City Council, and the decision on this matter could be appealed. Ms. Faucett commented that if the guardrail stays there, there should be no parking along that side of the street. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Fuller, the Traffic Safety Commission approved the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee that the guardrail on Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista not be removed. Blake, Courtney, Fuller, Green and Stachoviak - AYES: Bob Johnson stated that appeals are filed at the City Clerk’s office, with a $120 fee, within ten days from the date of this action. Carlsbad Villaae Drive - StreetscaDe Phase V - Information Report Uoyd Hubbs, City Engineer, and Evan Becker, Housing & Redevelopment Director, presented a report on Streetscape Phase V, using slides to show the completed Phases and explaining what Phase V will involve. A presentation will be given on February 11, 1993, 6:OO p.m., in the Council Chambers. John Jones, 3044 State Street, addressed the Commission, stating his opposition to the spending of funds for the Streetscape, with the exception of the traffic signals and storm drains. Chairman Blake explained that this was an information item for the Commission, with no action to be taken. B. REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS: There were no reports. February 24, 1993 MaryAnn Kingsley 2911 Sondra Court Carlsbad, CA 92009 APPEAL OF TSC RECOMMENDATION OF FEBRUARY 1,1993 Your appeal of the Traffic Safety Commission recommendation regarding guardrail on Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista has been scheduled for the City Council meeting of March 2, 1993. The meeting begins at 6:OO p.m. and is held in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. You and other interested citizens can address the City Council on this appeal by filling out a Request to Speak form at the meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 438-1 161, extension 4394. Thank you. v q.9 L4+T/j/&lj Pp k . ROBERT T. JOHNSON, JR., P.E. Traffic Engineer RTJ : j b c: City Manager Community Development Director City Engineer City Clerk 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 February 9, 1993 MaryAnn Kingsley 291 1 Sondra Court Carlsbad, CA 92009 APPEAL OF TSC RECOMMENDATION OF FEBRUARY 1,1993 Alicante Hills Homeowners’ appeal of the Traffic Safety Commission recommendation regarding guardrail on Alicante Road and Corte de la Vista has been tentatively scheduled for the City Council meeting of March 2, 1993. The meeting begins at 6:OO p.m. and is held in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. You and other interested citizens can address the City Council on this appeal by filling out a Request to Speak form at the meeting. Staff will know if this item will be on the March 2, 1993 City Council meeting on February 24, 1993. You can call the City Clerk on February 24, 1993 at 434-2808, extension 2809, to verify scheduling of the item. Additionally, you will be notified in writing of the City Council date by February 27, 1993. If you have any questions, please call me at 438-1 161, extension 4394. Thank you. bL+Tbfrnl.W& ROBERT T. JO NSON, JR., P.E. Traffic Engineer RTJ : j b c: City Manager Community Development Director City Engineer City Clerk 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 Q 0 TELEPt 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 43' Office of fhe City Clerk MitQ ITf @nrlstrah DATE : Feb.%, 1993 TO : Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer FROM : Karen Kundtz, Asst. City Clerk RE : I Traffic Safety Commission Decision - Guardrail - Alicante Rd. and Corte de la Vista THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by all parties.) - Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. ............................................................................ The appeal of the above matter should b d for the City Council e 0 TELEPH 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434. Office of the City Clerk aifu df @ElrfBbab DATE : Feb.& 1993 TO : Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer I FROM : Karen Kundtz, Asst. City Clerk RE : Traffic Safety Commission Decision - Guardrail - Alicante Rd. and Corte de la Vista THE ABOVE ITEM ELAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by - all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. ............................................................................ The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of Signature Date I CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, LALIFORNIA 92008 8 438-5621 REC’D FROM r RECEIPT NO. -- 4,. e 0 y&hyw; - 1200 ELM AVENUE g?B ELEPHC CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434-2 Office of the City Clerk ait~ of Uarls;ba$ APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the following decision of the 6d.4 L Gm h7 ,SS/& to the City Counci Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): 4u&rJc2:1 - . d fiL-4.e OL la VLJ-. d IC&- e )“o Date of Decision: K? FU>/ L-Lj I! i9q 3 -. - . Reason for Appeal: D? s ;?a, be+.. /t~ JeclLroh - srnmrx c ( D h vn.ci-4 I . - ~k~-dG&~ *LhF 4 I3 US~A~A h &t-c ctL~ cowme-4 .C t~ h?oble i k L6, c 2-FG4-W a ZAP D $;e, ]d c &/Y/43 /&.+&.&/ Date Signere ha Y AIw 0291) .S&WJF& c+ All 13 es LC 4 Name (Please Print) Address Cal-15 bad Y3f- 7333 Telephone Number APPEAL OF 1 r'FIC SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING A GUARD RAIL. AB #12,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellant CORTE DE LA VISTA i------- I i I -.-. I AB #12,089 daLed March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellant CORTE DE LA VISTA -- -- -__ ____ I I I I I - _____ r-- -------I I I I i I AI3 //12,089 dared March 2, 1993 Picrures subinicted by Appellant CORTE DE LA VISTA -_ i- -- -- I AB #12,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellant OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AB #12,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellant OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AB 1112,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellant NO PROTECTION AB 1112,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellant NO PROTECTION AB #12,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellent ALGA ~ -=.- . AB 812,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellent ALGA - ___- - .- _- - _--- - .-- - *_-- ~ _- -- __ -- _- - // ___-- -- - AB 812,089 dated March 2, 1993 Pictures submitted by Appellent ALGA - - --_ ___I__