HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-13; City Council; 18603; Trucks over 7 tons gross vehicle weight ratingCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
18,603AB#
MTG. 6/13/06
DEPT. ENG
TRUCKS OVER 7 TONS
GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING
ON MELROSE DRIVE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Under Public Comment at the City Council meeting on June 6, 2006, a citizen expressed concerns
about large trucks using Melrose Drive. The City Engineer provided a brief response to explain
construction haul routes as they relate to Melrose Drive.
Under the Brown Act requirements, discussion on the issue is not allowed by the City Council since
this was a non-agenda item. The City Council requested that the Melrose Drive haul route issue be
placed on the July 13, 2006 City Council meeting agenda. As an agenda item, staff will be able to
present a more in-depth overview of the truck issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
None is required as this is an informational item only.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impacts are associated with this information item.
EXHIBITS:
1.Circulation Plan.
2. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 10.32 Truck Routes-Generally.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Robert T. Johnson, Jr., (760) 602-2752, bjohn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION:APPROVED O
DENIED D
CONTINUED D
WITHDRAWN D
AMENDED D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER - SEE MINUTES D
Continued to 6/27/06
6-27-06: Council received the report and provided
direction to staff. See Minutes for details.
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CIRCULATION PLAN
RAILROAD
•• FREEWAY
— PRIME ARTERIAL
MAJOR ARTERIAL
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR STREET
PROJECT NAME
CIRCULATION PLAN
EXHIBIT
1
DRAWN BY: SCOJT EVANS. CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPT. 6/7/06 C \TRAFFIC\JOHNSON\CIRCULAT10N-AGENDA BILLDWG 2.
10.32.010
Chapter 1032
MISCELLANEOUS DRIVING RULES
Sections:
10.32.010 Driving through funeral
processions.
1032.030 Driving vehicles on sidewalks or
parkways prohibited.
1032.040 New pavement.
1032.050 Restricted access.
1032.060 Restriction on use of freeways.
1032.070 Certain vehicles prohibited in
business district.
1032.080 Riding horse on sidewalk.
1032.090 Truck routes—Generally.
1032.091 Truck routes—Streets
designated.
1032.092 Truck routes—Vehicles
allowed.
1032.093 Truck routes—Posting.
1032.010 Driving through funeral
processions.
No driver of a vehicle shall drive between vehicles
comprising a funeral procession while they are in
motion and when the vehicles in such processions are
conspicuously so designated. (Ord. 3005 § 45)
1032.030 Driving vehicles on sidewalks or
parkways prohibited.
The driver of a vehicle, including bicycles, shall
not drive within any sidewalk area or any parkway
except at a permanent or temporary driveway. (Ord.
3005 §47)
1032.040 New pavement.
No person shall ride or drive any animal or any .
vehicle over or across any newly-made pavement or JK-
freshly-painted marking in any street when a barrier
or sign is in place warning persons not to drive over
or across such pavement or marking, or when a sign
is in place stating that the street or any portion
thereof is closed. (Ord. 3005 § 48)
10.32.050 Restricted access.
No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any
limited-access roadway except at such entrances and
exits as are established by public authority. (Ord.
3005 § 49)
10.32.060 Restriction on use of freeways.
No person shall drive or operate any bicycle, mo-
tor-driven cycle, or any vehicle which is not drawn
by a motor vehicle upon any street established as a
freeway, as defined by Section 332 of the state Vehi-
cle Code, nor shall any pedestrian walk across or
along any such street so designated and described
except in a space set aside for the use of pedestrians;
provided, that official signs are in pi ace giving notice
of such restrictions. (Ord. 1296 § 16, 1980; Ord.
3005 § 50)
1032.070 * Certain vehicles prohibited in
business district.
(a) No person shall operate any of the following
vehicles in the business district between the hours of
seven a.m. and six p.m. of any day:
Any freight vehicle more than eight and one-half
feet in width, with load, or any freight vehicle so
loaded that any part of its load extends more than
twenty feet to the front or rear of the vehicle.
(b) Provided, that the chief of police may by
written permit authorize the operation of any such
vehicle for the purpose of making necessary emer-
gency deliveries to or from points within the business
district. (Ord. 3005 § 78)
1032.080 Riding horse on sidewalk.
It is unlawful for any person to ride, drive, propel
or cause to be propelled any horse across or upon any
paved sidewalk. (Ord. 3049 § 1)
10.32.090 Truck routes—Generally.
The use of all streets within the city, excepting
those streets described in Section 10.32.091, is pro-
hibited as to all commercial vehicles exceeding a
maximum gross vehicle weight of fourteen thousand
pounds. (Ord. 3210 § 1, 1987: Ord. 3005 § 50)
277 (Carlsbad Supp. No. 15, 2-06)
10.32.091
10.32.091 Truck routes—Streets designated.
The prohibition set forth in Section 10.32.090
shall not apply to the following streets and portions
of streets which are designated and established truck
routes, as follows:
(a) Carlsbad Boulevard from the northerly city
limits to the southerly city limits;
(b) Carlsbad Village Drive from Carlsbad
Boulevard east to Interstate 5 Freeway;
(c) Tamarack Avenue from Interstate 5 Freeway
to Carlsbad Boulevard;
(d) Cannon Road from Carlsbad Boulevard to El
Camino Real;
(e) Interstate 5 Freeway from the northerly city
limits to the southerly city limits;
(f) Palomar Airport Road from Carlsbad Boule-
vard to the easterly city limits;
(g) El Camino Real from the northerly city limits
to the southerly city limits;
(h) Repealed by Ord. 3216 § 1;
(i) La Costa Avenue from the westerly city lim-
its to El Camino Real;
(j) Rancho Santa Fe Road from the southerly
city limits to the northerly city limits;
(k) Olivenhain Road from the westerly city lim-
its to Rancho Santa Fe Road;
(1) Deleted;
(m) Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to
the northerly city limits;
(n) Faraday Avenue from Cannon Road to the
easterly city limits;
(o) College Boulevard from Palomar Airport
Road to El Camino Real. (Ord. NS-781 § 1, 2005:
Ord. NS-534 § 9, 2000: Ord. 3216 § 1, 1987; Ord.
3209 § 1, 1987; Ord. 3198 § 1, 1986; Ord. 3146 § 1,
1982; Ord. 3090 (part), 1972)
10.32.092 Truck routes—Vehicles allowed.
Section 10.32.090 shall not apply to the following
vehicles:
(a) Vehicles subject to the provisions of Sections
1031 to 1036 inclusive of the California Public Utili-
ties Code;
(b) Vehicles described in Section 35703 of the
Vehicle Code; and
(c) Vehicles traveling to or from permanent
commercial parking facilities provided for them
within the city. (Ord. 3090 (part), 1972)
10.32.093 Truck routes—Posting.
All streets and portions thereof established by this
chapter as truck routes, shall be posted with appro-
priate signs displaying in letters not less than four
inches in height, the words "truck route." (Ord. 3090
(part), 1972)
(Carlsbad Supp. No. 15, 2-06)278
AGENDA ITEM #
Mayorc:
June 19, 2006 City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Mayor and City Council .
City of Carlsbad
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Our Rancho Carrillo HOA has prepared th'e following statement and attachments in
opposition to heavy trucking on Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
Rancho Santa Fe Road for the Mayor and City Council to consider in their review of this
issue. Our concern has always been for the safety of residents of our community
children attending Carrillo Elementary ScHool, and the City of Carlsbad as a whole The
following statement addresses the important reasons that we do not believe heavy
trucking should be allowed on MeJrose Drive. Those are:
- •t*'
• Trucks over 7 Ton GVWRcannofstop quickly enough to be safe
• The grades are too steep, there are sight restricted curves and the allowable
speeds are too high
• At the bottom of the grade from both directions is a stop light and elementary
school crossing
• Existing truck routes provide adequate service for through trucks going to San
Marcos
• Trucks do not get to use the shortest, most direct route at the expense of safetv
for Carlsbad residents , *
• Alternate routes are available for local construction projects minimizing the use of
Melrose Drive
• Enforcement is needed to deter heavy trucks from using Melrose as a short cut
• The City's trucking policy needs to be clear so that it will not be administratively
changed without Council approval
We are not experts on traffic control but we do know what we have been observing and
expenenang. We are concerned for our safety and have provided documentation of
incidents to back up our concern. We have worked through the City's processes for
several years to make our community, and the City of Carlsbad, safer We expect
support from the Mayor and City Council for our concerns over the requests of the
trucking industry.
Robert Woelffer
Rancho Carrillo Masterv ration Delegate
\JUN 2 0 2006
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
To*
OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONED TRUCKING
ON MELROSE DRIVE
June 19,2006
Rancho Carrillo Master Association
Opposition to Sanctioned Heavy Trucking on Melrose Drive
This statement represents the views of the Rancho Carrillo HOA, its residents, and those
of Carrillo Elementary School administration and PTO. As background, the Rancho
Carrillo HOA is a community of fifteen hundred forty-one homes and one hundred
sixteen apartments surrounding the historic Leo Carrillo Ranch. Both Melrose Drive and
Poinsettia Lane bisect our residential community and border Carrillo Elementary School.
Based on incidents we documented to the Council last year, it is our concern for the
safety of the children attending Carrillo Elementary School as well as the overall safety
of our residents that is at the core of our opposition to sanctioned heavy trucking, even
under specially approved Haul Route permits, on Melrose Drive. Besides the
elementary school there is a pre-school and our HOA community clubhouse and pool at
the comer of Carrillo Way and Melrose which get a lot of pedestrian and vehicle traffic
on a daily basis.
To start, we would like to review the background of our concerns for safety and how we
have addressed them with the City of Carlsbad. The Rancho Carrillo HOA initiated
contact with the City of Carlsbad Engineering Traffic Division in the fall of 2003 regarding
several of our concerns about safety on Melrose Drive. We requested School Zone
signs be installed with flashing lights, because there was no signage that told motorists
that there was a school at Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane. Those signs and flashing
lights have been installed. We requested that trucking over 7 Ton GVWR be excluded
from using Melrose Drive for safety reasons, and found out that Melrose was not an
approved truck route. We asked that signs then be posted to alert truckers that Melrose
was not available for large trucks. Those signs were installed. We also requested
reduction of the speed limit from 55 MPH to 45 MPH but learned, through many
discussions, that reduction was not possible because of the Goulet ruling in the state
courts.
Last year August we came to the City Council to express our concern over the great
increase in heavy duty dirt hauling trucks using Melrose Drive as a shortcut between
Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road. We eventually learned that many of
those trucks had been given special Haul Route Permits by the City to use Melrose. We
asked that those Haul Route Permits be revoked and that Melrose not be used anymore
as a shortcut for trucks over the 7 Ton GVWR, again because of safety concerns. We
suggested that through trucks going to San Marcos stay on approved truck routes. We
also suggested alternative routes for trucks servicing construction projects along
Poinsettia Lane to keep them away from Carrillo Elementary School and limiting the time
when construction trucks could pass by the school. We believe the City Council agreed
with our concerns over heavy trucking being allowed to use Melrose. Our community
continued to express our concern that Melrose would be designated an approved truck
route when the City re-evaluated truck routes last fall. We were pleased when Melrose
Drive was not designated as an approved truck route in Carlsbad. We have consistently
endeavored to make Carlsbad a safer place for residents to enjoy.
Now, let us state our concerns about trucks on Melrose. Melrose Drive, from Palomar
Airport Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road is an arterial roadway through a residential
zone, not a commercial zone. There is no commercial development along this stretch of
road that heavy trucking needs to service. There is no law indicating that trucks have an
inherent right to the shortest, most efficient, or most convenient routes through
communities. For example, consider the trucking coming off of 1-5 heading east. Large
trucks can use Encinitias Boulevard, La Costa Avenue or Palomar Airport Road. They
cannot use Leucadia Boulevard even though Olivehain Road, the extension of Leucadia
east of El Camino Real, is an approved truck route. Likewise, a truck exiting 1-5 on La
Costa Avenue cannot proceed past El Camino Real on La Costa to get to Rancho Santa
Fe Road. La Cost Avenue east of El Camino Real is not an approved truck route. East
bound trucks from La Costa Avenue must either turn right and go south to Olivehain
Road or north to Palomar Airport Road if they want to go east to commercial properties
on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Truck routes are generally established with the objective of keeping trucks on clearly
designated routes that do not conflict with, or impact, residential areas of the community
or school zones. The Municipal Code currently restricts trucking on Melrose for vehicles
Class 4 and above, affecting vehicles that are 7 Tons Gross Vehicle Weight and above,
and the street is so posted. The restriction on trucks over 7 Tons GVWR was again
affirmed in December when the City recommended new truck routes and Melrose Drive,
between Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road, was not included. We were
pleased with that recommendation but feel that this objective has recently taken a back
seat to other, less well defined, priorities. During this past month, as happened last
summer, there was a sudden influx of hundreds of truck trips per day by heavy duty
tractor trailer dirt hauling trucks on Melrose Drive. While the Municipal Code restricts
heavy trucks on Melrose, the City of Carlsbad's Construction Management & Inspections
Division approved special Haul Route Permits allowing heavy duty dirt hauling
construction trucks to use Melrose as a shortcut to get to San Marcos. We object to the
fact that while the City of Carlsbad may have designated Melrose Drive as a No Trucking
route in the Municipal Code, they administratively make it a trucking route by issuing
Haul Route Permits.
The heavy dirt hauling trucks that were allowed to go up and down Melrose Drive during
the summer of 2005 were often going to San Elijo in San Marcos to pick up or drop off
loads of dirt and then coming back to Carlsbad using Melrose Drive as a short cut to the
approved truck route, Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard to Rancho Santa Fe
Road. Again this last month, heavy duty dirt hauling trucks were again permitted to go
up and down Melrose Drive to service projects in San Marcos. It is important to note
that the trucks that were going to San Elijo, using Melrose Drive between Palomar
Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road, once they reached Rancho Santa Fe Road
were required to turn right on Rancho Santa Fe Road, going through the narrow
construction zone, until they reached San Elijo Road before they could turn east Even
though they came down Melrose Drive in Carlsbad, they were not allowed to continue on
Melrose Drive east of Rancho Santa Fe Road in San Marcos to get to San Elijo Road
because Melrose Drive is designated as a No Trucking road bv the City of San Marcos.
They were not allowed to use the Melrose Drive shortcut in San Marcos, a sparsely used
road through a commercial area, to get to San Elijo, even though they would be
benefiting a San Marcos development.
We believe that the existing trucking routes are adequate for what needs to be serviced
and the City of Carlsbad seemed to agree when Melrose was not included as an
approved truck route. The council brought up the issue of trucks needing a route to get
to local projects such as the construction projects along Poinsettia Lane. We would
propose that from Palomar Airport Road, trucks needing to get to Poinsettia use El Furte
in lieu of Melrose. That portion of El Furte is a little used road, has no housing units on it
and does not pass an elementary school. Construction trucks needing to get to Rancho
Santa Fe Road could use Poinsettia to Melrose or take El Furte to Alga and then to
Melrose, if they are on the road during the hours children are going to or from Carrillo
Elementary School. There is another elementary school south of Alga on El Furte that is
also within the San Marcos Unified School District but the start and dose hours of the
two schools is never the same. Knowing when the two schools start and end their days
can be coordinated when issuing the Haul Route permits. It is also important to note
that the San Marcos Unified School District calendar for when schools open and close
tor the year is different than the Carlsbad Unified School District.
As we stated last year, we believe heavy trucking on Melrose Drive is not safe. Those
large trucks just cannot stop quickly enough for red lights to say nothing about should
they need to stop quickly for an emergency. We provided testimonials of trucks blowing
through red lights without stopping and sliding though when they can not stop. We have
been experiencing more and more trucks exceeding the 7 Ton limit on a daily basis even
before the Haul Route Permits were issued this May. It appeared to us that more and
more trucks were using Melrose because there did not seem to be much enforcement of
the no trucking ordinance. However, we have seen a big reduction in trucks since the
police department started giving truckers tickets on May 31st. Hopefully the word has
gotten out that trucks cannot continue to use Melrose as a shortcut. There are approved
truck routes to get from Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive to Rancho Santa Fe
Road and Melrose Drive. Trucks should be using those approved truck routes. As we
said before, trucks do not always get to use streets that provide the shortest distance
between two points. Truckers should not be given priority over the safety of Carlsbad
citizens, especially children on their way to school.
That said, we also believe that using Melrose Drive for heavy trucking is fundamentally
unsafe because of its speed limit, steep slopes, sight restricted curves and especially
considering the elementary school crossing near the bottom of the grade from Palomar
Airport Road. Melrose is not truck friendly because of the deep valley it must go through
with the 7% grades on both sides and the curves that obstruct visibility. Of course, the
55 MPH speed limit only exacerbates the situation. Large trucks, up to Class 8 tractor
trailer or heavy dump trucks, can have a gross vehicle weight up to 75 tons. The
stopping distance of a vehicle with that much weight on a 7% down slope will far exceed
the stopping distance of a passenger car. A passenger car going 55 MPH will need 430'
in order to stop in an emergency situation on level grade and 566', a 32% increase, to
stop on a 7% slope. A 75 ton truck may need twice as much distance or more to stop
safely on a 7% slope. Trucks are particularly unsafe when they lock up their wheels and
skid to a stop.
Given recent reported incidents, we feel justified in saying that allowing heavy trucking
with their longer stopping distances, which are further extended because of the steep
grades and high speed, is not just unsafe, it is dangerous and a tragic accident waiting
to happen, and nobody wants that. Included as an attachment to this statement are
pictures of tire skid marks from trucks trying to stop on Melrose at the light at Poinsettia
taken last summer just prior to our presentation to the City Council. Those pictures were
provided to the council after our presentation last August
Added to the basic safety concern is the existence of a School Zone on Melrose with a
25 MPH speed limit. Most cars have a very difficult time slowing to 25 MPH from 55
MPH on a 7% down slope. There have been several reported instances of trucks going
through the intersection when children were trying to cross Melrose Drive. One was a
concrete truck trying to stop but sliding through the intersection at Poinsettia when
school children were crossing, while another was a wide load truck not stopping for the
red light because it simply could not do so in time. Fortunately, the crossing guards
were able to keep ail of the children out of the way. Despite the suggestion in last year's
council meeting that crossing guards should use their judgement to determine whether
or not traffic can stop in time, we don't believe that this is a workable strategy.
Documentation of these instances is also attached to this statement. These instances
occurred last year when Melrose Drive was being used under a Haul Route Permit and
we can only speculate on how many other close calls have occurred that have not been
reported. And, what might the City of Carlsbad's liability be if a heavy truck with a Haul
Route Permit should get in an accident now that this issue has been raised many times?
While Haul Route Permits may limit the times of day when trucks can pass a school, our
experience in observing these trucks is that they do not abide by these limitations. Yes,
they can be ticketed but only if a police officer is present, observes this, and has the
ability to go after and stop the truck. We have seen with only 6 traffic officers for all of
Carlsbad, it is unlikely that one would be present to see a truck that does not abide by
the law.
While the small children crossing to Carrillo Elementary School is our biggest concern,
there is the additional issue of middle school children crossing Melrose Drive to reach
school bus stops for San Elijo Middle School. This happens along Melrose at Carrillo
Way and on Rancho Bravado east of Melrose Drive. Many of those students cross
Melrose either in the morning or in the afternoon and some cross it twice a day. There
are no crossing guards for those children and so they are reliant on traffic being able to
stop. Unfortunately, children are not always the most observant of traffic. They see the
walk light flash and they cross believing they are safe.
Our residents also often cross Melrose Drive to utilize the City's trail system which spans
Melrose Drive. Many mothers with children in strollers, adults out walking their dogs and
senior citizens use these crossings daily. And, one of the testimonial letters was from a
grandmother in a car who just picked up her granddaughter at Carrillo Elementary that
almost pulled out in front of a truck running a red light Those in cars, or even big SUV's,
fare poorly when in an accident with a 75 ton truck. Should we also put these people at
risk for the convenience of the trucking industry?
We believe the City of Carlsbad engineering departments should not be authorizing
trucks over 7 Ton GVWR to use Melrose Drive as a short cut. They should not be
issuing Haul Route Permits for through trucking to San Marcos. They should not
authorize Melrose as the primary approved route to get to construction projects along
and Poinsettia Lane from Palomar Airport Road. El Furte, from Palomar Airport Road to
Poinsettia Lane should be the approved construction Haul Route as it is a little used
road, has no housing units on it, and does not pass an elementary school.
We thought this issue was fully explored and resolved last year. We hope that now, this
issue can finally be fully and finally resolved. We do not want to go through this again
next year. We understand that the trucking industry would like to use Melrose Drive but
why should they receive preferential treatment over the safety of Carlsbad residents?
City Council members, please put a permanent stop to trucking on Melrose by making it
perfectly clear to al| City departments that allowing heavy trucking on Melrose is not
acceptable and that the No Trucking Municipal Code should be enforced. Please keep
our City of Carlsbad safe.
10
CARRILLO SCHOOL
October 24, 2005
Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission
Carlsbad City Council
2560 Orion Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Members,
Trucking on Melrose is a danger to our students who cross the street at
the intersection of Melrose and Poinsettia. Trucks have already shown
that they cannot stop at the bottom of the hill when the light turns
red, and the safety of students is compromised by this danger. On
behalf of the Carrillo School community, our 775 students, and their
families, I am asking you to make a decision that will limit the trucks
from Melrose.
If this is not possible, I implore you to take steps to insulate
students from this danger in a permanent and creative way. I do not
have a solution besides limiting the trucks, but I hope you, in your
positions, can think of something.
I am not the kind of person who panics, or exaggerates for effect. This
is clear danger for students, and I cannot be any more clear than that.
Very Truly Yours,
CARRILLO SCHOOL
Fred Wise, Principal
il
Carrillo School
August 15, 2005
To Whom It May Concern:
As the principal of Carrillo Elementary I am strongly opposed to the trucking plan I have been advised
of, on both Melrose and Poinsettia. It is just plain scary to consider that large trucks will be a regular
part of the landscape around here from now on. I have spoken to many members of the Carrillo
Elementary parent group, and it goes without saying that every one of them is on the same page on
this issue.
Briefly, I will fill you in on one example upon which I partially base my opinion. Two years ago, in the
morning before school, I was acting as crossing guard at the comer of Melrose and Poinsettia.
The light had just tunned, and a group of children and I were about to begin to cross Melrose, going
from east to west on the south side of the intersection, when I looked up the hill to see a cement truck
still coming rapidly down the hill. As I watched, the truck driver saw the light was now red, and he
slammed on the breaks and began blowing his horn. Smoke began pouring from the tires, now locked
up in full slide down the hill, and as we all watched in fear, the truck slid fully through the intersection,
never able to stop. Luckily, no cars were coming out of Poinsettia onto Melrose, as this was when
Poinsettia was still not open to traffic. The children and I were very shaken, needless to say.
I have had numerous, and I mean more than twenty reports from my crossing guards (we now have
two at this extremely dangerous intersection) of cars absolutely blowing through the red light, of
people not coming close to a stop before they turn right on red, and of extreme speeds down the hills
from both directions. In addition, trucks remain our biggest problem: they have such a hard time
stopping at the bottom of the hill when they have the momentum and speed going from the 55MPH
speed limit.
In summary, although you have no doubt heard it before, this is absolutely an accident waiting to
happen, and we must address both the speed as well as the trucking issues now.
Very Truly Yours,
CARRILLO SCHOOL
Fred Wise, Principal
October 25,2005
To Whom It May Concern:
This is my second year as a Crossing Guard for Carrillo Elementary. I have witnessed several
trucks run red lights at the comer of Melrose and Poinsettia whether or not children were in the
area or not. Trucks nor automobiles adhere to the 25 MPH speed limit before or after school. On
one occasion, a truck was traveling on Poinsettia and failed to stop at the red light before
turning left onto Melrose. There were children waiting on the comer to cross and the other
crossing guard noticed the truck and held the children back on the comer.
My partner, Beth, has also witnessed trucks exceeding the speed limits and run red lights over
the past year. Twice she has witnessed trucks skid into the intersection because they were
unable to stop because of the steep grade while traveling south on Melrose Drive.
Sincerely,
Teresa Moran Donate
6172PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, CA 92009
August 15, 2005
To Whom It May Concern:
One day in March or April 2005, my daughter and I picked my 9-year granddaughter up
from Carrillo School at about 2:45 p.m. It had started raining. We were eastbound on
Poinsettia, stopped at the red light at Melrose. We were the first car in the middle lane
(to go straight ahead across Melrose). There was an SUV to our left in the left-hand turn
lane, also stopped at the red light. There were a number of children waiting to cross
Melrose and the crossing guard was working. The lights for Melrose traffic turned
yellow, then red. The light for eastbound Poinsettia traffic to cross Melrose turned
green. The crossing guard, who had been standing on the southeast comer of (the
name of the short street that is directly across from Melrose-the one where the median
always looks so crummy) and Melrose waiting for the "WALK" sign, was walking across
Melrose, headed west, to assist children standing on the southwest comer of Melrose
and Poinsettia to cross the street. The SUV to our left was pulling out to turn left across
Melrose. It stopped suddenly. I was looking to the left because I am extra cautious
about crossing Melrose since I am personally aware that the traffic significantly
exceeds the speed limit, especially toward and at the bottom of the steep grade where
the intersection and school crossing are located, and I know from personal
observation that cars and trucks routinely run the red light at the Poinsettia/Melrose
intersection. I saw a large white truck approaching the intersection, heading southbound
on Melrose, in the right lane. The truck never even appeared to try to stop and ran
through the red light, within a couple of feet of the children waiting on the comer.
Fortunately, the crossing guard stopped in the median and all the children obediently
remained on the sidewalk waiting for her. But for this, there is no doubt there would
have been dead children and/or a dead crossing guard that afternoon. It was also
fortunate that the SUV to my left stopped in time-had the SUV been hit broadside by the
truck, there is no doubt that the driver and children on the driver's side would have died
or been catastrophically injured.
As a grandparent, I have grave concerns about the Melrose traffic and its negative
impact on our children, on the residents of the Rancho Carrillo community, and on the
users of the trail system that crosses Melrose and that is used by Carlsbad residents
outside the Rancho Carrillo community.
As an attorney, I feel compelled to point out that in addition to the obvious life safety
issue, there are serious legal issues the City needs to consider. The City will
face enormous legal liability when-and it js when, not if-a death or catastrophic injury
happens at this intersection, particularly since the City is and has been on notice of the
problem for some time.
Very truly yours,
Linda Sinclair
3122 Paseo Monona, Rancho Carrillo
Carlsbad
October 17, 2005
Dear Bob:
One day last year I was in my car waiting at the lights at Carrillo Way
and Melrose Drive . I was on Carrillo Way east of Melrose in the left
turn lane intending to turn south, up the hill on Melrose. The arrow
turned green and I was about to proceed when for some reason I looked
left up the hill on Melrose. I saw a "double" dirt moving truck coming
down the hill and it was obvious that the truck was not going to stop
at the red light. I slammed on my brakes and the truck went straight
through the junction and continued down the hill. I got the impression
that the driver was trying to stop, but was unable to do so. Since
there were cars behind me I had to drive on and was unable to see if
the truck did come to a stop before it reached the next set of lights
at the bottom of the hill.
Andy Gane
3152 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, CA 92009
' 1
"•''^-""r-' ";'*
,v -, 'v ^'*t'!|v-V%f „*.*«*-- '
* 52U- -^ Jtt<S eo S£ P t
Ss-^ y^CA>W
l§ 5
S| I£ ro s;
f™ ^r
"s I*- -^ p•s» fe
«1•t-' -L-V) co
QJ O
JZ (/)
H< M
San Marcos Unified School District
1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300, San Marcos, CA 92069 (760) 7444776 FAX (760)4714928
20, 2006
Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: City Council Special Meeting Agenda, June 20,2006
AB#18,603 - Vehicle Weight Rating On Melrose Drive
Dear Honorable Mayor Lewis:
The San Marcos Unified School District ("District") has two (2) elementary schools
within the City of Carlsbad. One of our schools, Carrillo Elementary School is located
on Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive. The District is very concerned about the potential
safety conflict between kindergarten through fifth grade children, their parents and staff
members and any vehicles over seven (7) tons traveling on Melrose Drive. The District
feels that this creates an unsafe situation and, therefore, does not support allowing trucks
of this magnitude to travel on Melrose Drive.
District staff witnessed a cement truck traveling on Melrose Drive attempting to stop at
the downhill traffic light intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive. The truck
was not able to stop and skidded through the intersection, with the brakes smoking.
Luckily, in this instance, crossing guards and school staff were able to stop children from
entering the crosswalk avoiding being hit by the truck. The District is concerned that
allowing these large trucks on Melrose Drive or Poinsettia Lane could potentially result
in a very serious if not fatal accident.
The intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive does not support the mixture of
vehicles over seven (7) tons and young children going to and from school. We
respectfully request that the City Council delete Melrose Drive from any type of an
approved truck route in the City of Carlsbad.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Katmerine Tanner
Executive Director, Facilities, Planning and Development
Cc: Dr. Edward Brand, Superintendent
Gary Hamels, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Governing Board:
PamBanceUs MaryBorevite Alan Brown Sharon Jenkins David Horacek
Edward M. Brand, Ed.D., Superintendent
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name Address Phone E-mail
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name Address Phone E-mail
10
if
12
13"
14"
15
16"
17
18
19"
20"
2l"
22
23
24
25
/3
June 17, 2006
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully request
that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and the other non-
residential streets.
/*-"
June 16, 2006
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully request
that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and the other non-
residential streets,
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name
10
11
12"
13"
14
15"
16"
1?"
18~
19"
20~
2l"
22
23~
24"
25~
Address Phone E-mail
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name Address Phone E-ma'
io <gtovMv^ <*W a-fcofr fe&it*rcftis+. ia**r»i
n«frfty ifr «jfr v* **'• ** ^Vftr^
l2^u^^A&L:f A#*f<<W%.«<;'*. *-nC.T?5
«^ r^jWWr^V: <gg>f7jgI
^f.4, ^>
i^ 5f .n^J *ni,
16 TlAA
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ST-
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name E-mail
10
if
12"
13
14
15
16"
11
18"
19
20"
21
22
23"
24
25
June 16, 2006
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully request
that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and the other non-
residential streets.
<?>>*-
June 16, 2006
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully request
that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and the other non-
residential streets.
June 17, 2006
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully request
that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and the other non-
residential streets.
Name (Print)Signature
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name Address Phone E-mail"~
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUN 16 2006 1:40PM HP LHSERJET 3200 p.l
Sent By: Value Customer; 760-579-0165; Jun-16-Oe 9:17AM; Page 1'2
4^*$/L''
&delf* Liz,
'nt^<r^^~A^i>
1Uu.
JUN 16 2006 1:40PM HP LRSERJET 3200 p.2
Sent By: Value Customer; 760-579-0165; Jun-16-06 9:18AM; Page 2'2
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name Address Phone E-mail
5
6
7
10
H
12
13"
14
20
2L
22_
23_
24
25'
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name Address Phone _ E-mail
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETITION
We, the undersigned, strongly protest the City of Carlsbad's re-routing of
heavy-duty construction truck traffic from the four to six-lane, divided,
Melrose Drive to the two-lane, residential El Fuerte Street. We respectfully
request that the City route construction-truck traffic onto Melrose Drive and
the other non-residential streets.
Name
17.
18.
19.
20_
21.
22_
23_
24_
25
Address Phone E-mail
CDS
AGENDA ITEM »/ Q
Mayorc:
PRINTING
CARLSBAD DIGITAL SERVICES
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members "
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive " '
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Ref: Large Truck Traffic on Melrose Dr. and Poinsettia Lane
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members,
Last Tuesday during your regular Council Meeting an issue regarding the large construction
trucks on Melrose Drive and its adjoining streets was brought to your attention and made an
agenda item through the efforts of the residents of Alga, El Fuerte and the Rancho Carrillo HO A.
Subsequently the representatives of the Carrillo Ranch residents have submitted another letter to
your office to clarify any misunderstanding or confusion.
Attached please find a copy of the recent letter as well as the other communications from the
group. I am forwarding these letters to your office to ensure that you have received them. The
residents of Carrillo Ranch and the neighboring streets desperately request your attention to this
matter. With the upcoming opening of Poinsettia Elementary School the problem will become
even larger and more critical, and we believe this should be dealt with in advance.
Some of the options that we hope you may consider include:
1) Extending the school speed-zone to cover a larger portion of Melrose and Poinsettia as
the blind curves and the steep grades make it difficult for the trucks to slow down.
2) Reducing the speed limit on all of Melrose and Poinsettia, and paying close attention to
the locations of Carrillo Elementary and the future Poinsettia Elementary school.
3) Declaring Melrose and Poinsettia "non-truck routes" without allowing for exceptions on
hauling trucks.
4) Dispatching more law-enforcement officers to Poinsettia and Melrose, particularly during
school hours, to enforce the speed limit and to fine heavy trucks.
5) Increasing the number of traffic lights to discourage trucks and other vehicles from using
Melrose and Poinsettia as a shortcut.
On behalf of all the residents of the affected areas I want to thank you for your attention to this
matter.
Respectfully,
Farrah Douglas
^2914 Carrillo Way
.•Carlsbad, CA 92009
JUN 2 7 2006
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
>-<&
c.*-
- c.<-
cc: Mr. Ray Patchett, MR. Robert Johnson
DIGITALLY CERTIFIED
"Your One-Stop Printing Solution"
A division of Douqlas Digital Enterprises, Inc
(760) 438-1442
Fax(760) 438-2512
www.cdsprinting.com
"-mail: info@cdsprinting.com
6971 El Camino Real, Suite 203, Carlsbad, CA 92009
June 21,2006
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Thank you for hearing the concerns of citizens regarding heavy trucking in the SE
section of our city. We would like to clarify a few items that seemed to get confused last
night.
We are asking to stop the through trucking that is using Melrose Drive as a short cut
because we believe it has proved to be dangerous. That would include construction
trucking that is receiving Haul Route Permits to use Melrose as a short cut, as well as
the other large trucks that also use Melrose as a short cut, but do so illegally at the risk
of getting ticketed.
We are not asking that through trucking be taken off of Melrose to be rerouted on to El
Furte or Alga. Through trucking should stay on approved truck routes which would be
Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard to Rancho Santa Fe Road. Trucks coming
into the SE section of the city for local construction projects should use approved truck
routes until they get "as close to their destination as possible before going off onto city
streets that are not approved for trucking" as stated by Robert Johnson last night. The
closest approved truck route to the new housing developments between Rancho Santa
Fe Road and El Furte would be Rancho Santa Fe Road. The closest approved truck
route to Poinsettia Lane for construction trucks servicing the new elementary school,
houses in Bressi Ranch or La Costa Greens would be El Camino Real or Palomar
Airport Road via El Furte or Melrose Drive.
As we said last night, we understand that construction trucks will need to use local
streets to get to or between local construction projects. We do not argue with that, and
that may mean some of them will need to use Melrose or El Furte to get to Poinsettia
Lane. We would hope that the heavy trucking could be diverted when children are going
or coming from the elementary schools on Poinsettia and El Furte. I am sure Kathy
Tanner with the SMUSD can provide start/close times on a yearly basis to Robert
Johnson, Skip Hammann and the police department.
After the meeting last night we talked with the residents who were concerned about
heavy trucking on El Furte between Alga and Poinsettia. They are not asking that the
heavy trucks be relocated to Melrose, they agree that the trucks should be going to the
closest approved truck route, which in their case would be Rancho Santa Fe Road.
They were concerned that the trucks were routed to El Furte as the short cut between
Palomar Airport Road and Alga. They talked to the truck driver whose truck broke down
and found he was coming from UC San Marcos using Hwy. 78 to Sycamore, Business
Park and Palomar Airport Road to El Furte. He could have used Rancho Santa Fe Road
from Hwy. 78.
Mayor Lewis related that he was involved in the layout of the circulation plan for roads in
Carlsbad and that Melrose was expected to be a major arterial truck route. While
looking at plans on drawings it seems to make good sense, but in reality, with 7% slopes
in both directions and 55 MPH speed limit, large heavy trucks are just going too fast to
be able to stop safely. And, as they go down one hill they do not want to slow down or
stop because they have a big hill to climb on the other side of the valley and they know
their speed will reduce down to about 30 MPH before they get to the top. For the truck
drivers, time is money. That is why they use short cuts, speed a little and run a
yellow/red light if they think they can get away with it. Unfortunately, on steep slopes
with full loads, they just cannot stop quickly if needed, and that is dangerous.
For these reasons, we again ask that the City Council prohibit trucks over 7 Ton GVWR
using Melrose Drive as a short cut between Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe
Road. There are existing approved truck routes for those trucks to use. We also ask
that the police department enforce the Municipal Code by stopping large trucks on a
more regular basis, so those using Melrose illegally will not believe they can do so with
impunity.
Thank you for considering these issues. As always, our main concern is for the safety of
our citizens.
Sincerely,
Robert Woelffer
Rancho Carrillo HOA Delegate
June 19,2006
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Our Rancho Carrillo HOA has prepared the following statement and attachments in
opposition to heavy trucking on Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
Rancho Santa Fe Road for the Mayor and City Council to consider in their review of this
issue. Our concern has always been for the safety of residents of our community,
children attending Carrillo Elementary School, and the City of Carlsbad as a whole. The
following statement addresses the important reasons that we do not believe heavy
trucking should be allowed on Melrose Drive. Those are:
• Trucks over 7 Ton GVWR cannot stop quickly enough to be safe
• The grades are too steep, there are sight restricted curves and the allowable
speeds are too high
• At the bottom of the grade from both directions is a stop light and elementary
school crossing
• Existing truck routes provide adequate service for through trucks going to San
Marcos
• Trucks do not get to use the shortest, most direct route at the expense of safety
for Carlsbad residents
• Alternate routes are available for local construction projects minimizing the use of
Melrose Drive
• Enforcement is needed to deter heavy trucks from using Melrose as a short cut
• The City's trucking policy needs to be clear so that it will not be administratively
changed without Council approval
We are not experts on traffic control but we do know what we have been observing and
experiencing. We are concerned for our safety and have provided documentation of
incidents to back up our concern. We have worked through the City's processes for
several years to make our community, and the City of Carlsbad, safer. We expect
support from the Mayor and City Council for our concerns over the requests of the
trucking industry.
Sincerely,
Robert Woelffer
Rancho Carrillo Master Association Delegate
Opposition to Sanctioned Heavy Trucking on Melrose Drive
This statement represents the views of the Rancho Carrillo HOA, its residents, and those
of Carrillo Elementary School administration and PTO. As background, the Rancho
Carrillo HOA is a community of fifteen hundred forty-one homes and one hundred
sixteen apartments surrounding the historic Leo Carrillo Ranch. Both Melrose Drive and
Poinsettia Lane bisect our residential community and border Carrillo Elementary School.
Based on incidents we documented to the Council last year, it is our concern for the
safety of the children attending Carrillo Elementary School as well as the overall safety
of our residents that is at the core of our opposition to sanctioned heavy trucking, even
under specially approved Haul Route permits, on Melrose Drive. Besides the
elementary school there is a pre-school and our HOA community clubhouse and pool at
the corner of Carrillo Way and Melrose which get a lot of pedestrian and vehicle traffic
on a daily basis.
To start, we would like to review the background of our concerns for safety and how we
have addressed them with the City of Carlsbad. The Rancho Carrillo HOA initiated
contact with the City of Carlsbad Engineering Traffic Division in the fall of 2003 regarding
several of our concerns about safety on Melrose Drive. We requested School Zone
signs be installed with flashing lights, because there was no signage that told motorists
that there was a school at Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane. Those signs and flashing
lights have been installed. We requested that trucking over 7 Ton GVWR be excluded
from using Melrose Drive for safety reasons, and found out that Melrose was not an
approved truck route. We asked that signs then be posted to alert truckers that Melrose
was not available for large trucks. Those signs were installed. We also requested
reduction of the speed limit from 55 MPH to 45 MPH but learned, through many
discussions, that reduction was not possible because of the Goulet ruling in the state
courts.
Last year August we came to the City Council to express our concern over the great
increase in heavy duty dirt hauling trucks using Melrose Drive as a shortcut between
Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road. We eventually learned that many of
those trucks had been given special Haul Route Permits by the City to use Melrose. We
asked that those Haul Route Permits be revoked and that Melrose not be used anymore
as a shortcut for trucks over the 7 Ton GVWR, again because of safety concerns. We
suggested that through trucks going to San Marcos stay on approved truck routes. We
also suggested alternative routes for trucks servicing construction projects along
Poinsettia Lane to keep them away from Carrillo Elementary School and limiting the time
when construction trucks could pass by the school. We believe the City Council agreed
with our concerns over heavy trucking being allowed to use Melrose. Our community
continued to express our concern that Melrose would be designated an approved truck
route when the City re-evaluated truck routes last fall. We were pleased when Melrose
Drive was not designated as an approved truck route in Carlsbad. We have consistently
endeavored to make Carlsbad a safer place for residents to enjoy.
Now, let us state our concerns about trucks on Melrose. Melrose Drive, from Palomar
Airport Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road is an arterial roadway through a residential
zone, not a commercial zone. There is no commercial development along this stretch of
road that heavy trucking needs to service. There is no law indicating that trucks have an
inherent right to the shortest, most efficient, or most convenient routes through
communities. For example, consider the trucking coming off of 1-5 heading east. Large
trucks can use Encinitias Boulevard, La Costa Avenue or Palomar Airport Road. They
cannot use Leucadia Boulevard even though Olivehain Road, the extension of Leucadia
east of El Camino Real, is an approved truck route. Likewise, a truck exiting 1-5 on La
Costa Avenue cannot proceed past El Camino Real on La Costa to get to Rancho Santa
Fe Road. La Cost Avenue east of El Camino Real is not an approved truck route. East
bound trucks from La Costa Avenue must either turn right and go south to Olivehain
Road or north to Palomar Airport Road if they want to go east to commercial properties
on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Truck routes are generally established with the objective of keeping trucks on clearly
designated routes that do not conflict with, or impact, residential areas of the community
or school zones. The Municipal Code currently restricts trucking on Melrose for vehicles
Class 4 and above, affecting vehicles that are 7 Tons Gross Vehicle Weight and above,
and the street is so posted. The restriction on trucks over 7 Tons GVWR was again
affirmed in December when the City recommended new truck routes and Melrose Drive,
between Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road, was not included. We were
pleased with that recommendation but feel that this objective has recently taken a back
seat to other, less well defined, priorities. During this past month, as happened last
summer, there was a sudden influx of hundreds of truck trips per day by heavy duty
tractor trailer dirt hauling trucks on Melrose Drive. While the Municipal Code restricts
heavy trucks on Melrose, the City of Carlsbad's Construction Management & Inspections
Division approved special Haul Route Permits allowing heavy duty dirt hauling
construction trucks to use Melrose as a shortcut to get to San Marcos. We object to the
fact that while the City of Carlsbad may have designated Melrose Drive as a No Trucking
route in the Municipal Code, they administratively make it a trucking route by issuing
Haul Route Permits.
The heavy dirt hauling trucks that were allowed to go up and down Melrose Drive during
the summer of 2005 were often going to San Elijo in San Marcos to pick up or drop off
loads of dirt and then coming back to Carlsbad using Melrose Drive as a short cut to the
approved truck route, Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard to Rancho Santa Fe
Road. Again this last month, heavy duty dirt hauling trucks were again permitted to go
up and down Melrose Drive to service projects in San Marcos. It is important to note
that the trucks that were going to San Elijo, using Melrose Drive between Palomar
Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road, once they reached Rancho Santa Fe Road
were required to turn right on Rancho Santa Fe Road, going through the narrow
construction zone, until they reached San Elijo Road before they could turn east. Even
though they came down Melrose Drive in Carlsbad, they were not allowed to continue on
Melrose Drive east of Rancho Santa Fe Road in San Marcos to get to San Elijo Road
because Melrose Drive is designated as a No Trucking road by the City of San Marcos.
They were not allowed to use the Melrose Drive shortcut in San Marcos, a sparsely used
road through a commercial area, to get to San Elijo, even though they would be
benefiting a San Marcos development.
We believe that the existing trucking routes are adequate for what needs to be serviced
and the City of Carlsbad seemed to agree when Melrose was not included as an
approved truck route. The council brought up the issue of trucks needing a route to get
to local projects such as the construction projects along Poinsettia Lane. We would
propose that from Palomar Airport Road, trucks needing to get to Poinsettia use El Furte
in lieu of Melrose. That portion of El Furte is a little used road, has no housing units on it,
and does not pass an elementary school. Construction trucks needing to get to Rancho
Santa Fe Road could use Poinsettia to Melrose or take El Furte to Alga and then to
Melrose, if they are on the road during the hours children are going to or from Carrillo
Elementary School. There is another elementary school south of Alga on El Furte that is
also within the San Marcos Unified School District but the start and close hours of the
two schools is never the same. Knowing when the two schools start and end their days
can be coordinated when issuing the Haul Route permits. It is also important to note
that the San Marcos Unified School District calendar for when schools open and close
for the year is different than the Carlsbad Unified School District.
As we stated last year, we believe heavy trucking on Melrose Drive is not safe. Those
large trucks just cannot stop quickly enough for red lights to say nothing about should
they need to stop quickly for an emergency. We provided testimonials of trucks blowing
through red lights without stopping and sliding though when they can not stop. We have
been experiencing more and more trucks exceeding the 7 Ton limit on a daily basis even
before the Haul Route Permits were issued this May. It appeared to us that more and
more trucks were using Melrose because there did not seem to be much enforcement of
the no trucking ordinance. However, we have seen a big reduction in trucks since the
police department started giving truckers tickets on May 31st. Hopefully the word has
gotten out that trucks cannot continue to use Melrose as a shortcut. There are approved
truck routes to get from Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive to Rancho Santa Fe
Road and Melrose Drive. Trucks should be using those approved truck routes. As we
said before, trucks do not always get to use streets that provide the shortest distance
between two points. Truckers should not be given priority over the safety of Carlsbad
citizens, especially children on their way to school.
That said, we also believe that using Melrose Drive for heavy trucking is fundamentally
unsafe because of its speed limit, steep slopes, sight restricted curves and especially
considering the elementary school crossing near the bottom of the grade from Palomar
Airport Road. Melrose is not truck friendly because of the deep valley it must go through
with the 7% grades on both sides and the curves that obstruct visibility. Of course, the
55 MPH speed limit only exacerbates the situation. Large trucks, up to Class 8 tractor
trailer or heavy dump trucks, can have a gross vehicle weight up to 75 tons. The
stopping distance of a vehicle with that much weight on a 7% down slope will far exceed
the stopping distance of a passenger car. A passenger car going 55 MPH will need 430'
in order to stop in an emergency situation on level grade and 566', a 32% increase, to
stop on a 7% slope. A 75 ton truck may need twice as much distance or more to stop
safely on a 7% slope. Trucks are particularly unsafe when they lock up their wheels and
skid to a stop.
Given recent reported incidents, we feel justified in saying that allowing heavy trucking
with their longer stopping distances, which are further extended because of the steep
grades and high speed, is not just unsafe, it is dangerous and a tragic accident waiting
to happen, and nobody wants that. Included as an attachment to this statement are
pictures of tire skid marks from trucks trying to stop on Melrose at the light at Poinsettia
taken last summer just prior to our presentation to the City Council. Those pictures were
provided to the council after our presentation last August.
Added to the basic safety concern is the existence of a School Zone on Melrose with a
25 MPH speed limit. Most cars have a very difficult time slowing to 25 MPH from 55
MPH on a 7% down slope. There have been several reported instances of trucks going
through the intersection when children were trying to cross Melrose Drive. One was a
concrete truck trying to stop but sliding through the intersection at Poinsettia when
school children were crossing, while another was a wide load truck not stopping for the
red light because it simply could not do so in time . Fortunately, the crossing guards
were able to keep all of the children out of the way. Despite the suggestion in last year's
council meeting that crossing guards should use their judgement to determine whether
or not traffic can stop in time, we don't believe that this is a workable strategy.
Documentation of these instances is also attached to this statement. These instances
occurred last year when Melrose Drive was being used under a Haul Route Permit and
we can only speculate on how many other close calls have occurred that have not been
reported. And, what might the City of Carlsbad's liability be if a heavy truck with a Haul
Route Permit should get in an accident now that this issue has been raised many times?
While Haul Route Permits may limit the times of day when trucks can pass a school, our
experience in observing these trucks is that they do not abide by these limitations. Yes,
they can be ticketed but only if a police officer is present, observes this, and has the
ability to go after and stop the truck. We have seen with only 6 traffic officers for all of
Carlsbad, it is unlikely that one would be present to see a truck that does not abide by
the law.
While the small children crossing to Carrillo Elementary School is our biggest concern,
there is the additional issue of middle school children crossing Melrose Drive to reach
school bus stops for San Elijo Middle School. This happens along Melrose at Carrillo
Way and on Rancho Bravado east of Melrose Drive. Many of those students cross
Melrose either in the morning or in the afternoon and some cross it twice a day. There
are no crossing guards for those children and so they are reliant on traffic being able to
stop. Unfortunately, children are not always the most observant of traffic. They see the
walk light flash and they cross believing they are safe.
Our residents also often cross Melrose Drive to utilize the City's trail system which spans
Melrose Drive. Many mothers with children in strollers, adults out walking their dogs and
senior citizens use these crossings daily. And, one of the testimonial letters was from a
grandmother in a car who just picked up her granddaughter at Carrillo Elementary that
almost pulled out in front of a truck running a red light. Those in cars, or even big SUV's,
fare poorly when in an accident with a 75 ton truck. Should we also put these people at
risk for the convenience of the trucking industry?
We believe the City of Carlsbad engineering departments should not be authorizing
trucks over 7 Ton GVWR to use Melrose Drive as a short cut. They should not be
issuing Haul Route Permits for through trucking to San Marcos. They should not
authorize Melrose as the primary approved route to get to construction projects along
and Poinsettia Lane from Palomar Airport Road. El Furte, from Palomar Airport Road to
Poinsettia Lane should be the approved construction Haul Route as it is a little used
road, has no housing units on it, and does not pass an elementary school.
We thought this issue was fully explored and resolved last year. We hope that now, this
issue can finally be fully and finally resolved. We do not want to go through this again
next year. We understand that the trucking industry would like to use Melrose Drive but
why should they receive preferential treatment over the safety of Carlsbad residents?
City Council members, please put a permanent stop to trucking on Melrose by making it
perfectly clear to ajl City departments that allowing heavy trucking on Melrose is not
acceptable and that the No Trucking Municipal Code should be enforced. Please keep
our City of Carlsbad safe.
Page 1 of 1
Marilyn Strong - Trucks on Melrose re: safety issues
From: <LDOWLAN@aol.com>
To: <Mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 06/22/2006 11:28 AM
Subject: Trucks on Melrose re: safety issues
I am a resident of Carlsbad at 6I94 Paseo Palero Carlsbad.ca 92009. I am very concerned
about the heavy truck traffic on Melrose and Poinsettia Lane. I walk every morning past the
School crosswalk and I am fearful that coming down the hill and large truck cannot go from
55mph and go to 25 mph in such a short distance. It is critical that this is finally addressed
and not be left to continue.
With the new school opening next year time is not on our side to continue the policy in this
city. If their are any accidents the city and particularly your transportation department will bear the full
responsibility for this failure to address this issue in a timely manner.
AGENDA ITEM #
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
1ECSEDWE
JUN 2 7 2006
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
•R\
\y
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mstro\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00002.HTM 06/22/2006
AGENDA ITEM #
ci Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Joanne Grueskin
6182 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, CA 92009
June 27,2006
Mayor Bud Lewis
Mayor Pro Tern Matt Hall
Council Members Ann Kulchin, Mark Packard, Norine Sigafoose
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern and Council Members,
I am a resident of Rancho Carrillo Community. Thank you for the support you have
given us in the past when you listened to our concerns and supported a non-truck route
for Melrose Drive.
We are again before you to express our deep concern for the temporary haul routes that
have been approved by staff for trucks to use Melrose. We feel this really undermines
the designation of non-truck route for Melrose Drive.
As residents, we have seen many violations by the trucks from speeding, to making right
hand turns on a red light without stopping, and to sliding through the stop lights.
It might help if we could have large letters painted on the pavement that would say "
School Zone" along with a reduced speed zone.
Additionally we are concerned about what will happen when Melrose to the north of
Palomar Airport Road is opened to connect with our section of Melrose, which is in a
Residential designated Land Use area. There will be additional traffic who are used to
driving much slower speeds in Vista, mostly 45 mph. We don't want Melrose Drive to
become a raceway for cars and motorcycles or a speedway for trucks.
We are asking for your help today in disallowing temporary truck haul routes through
residential areas.
Sincerely
Joanne Grueskin REdSEQWE
JUN
CITYO
CITYCL
2 7 2006
=I?ICSOSFBFICE
—N
I'M
z)
June 26 2006
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
TRUCK ISSUES ON MELROSE DRIVE AND EL FUERTE STREET
At the June 20, 2006 City Council meeting, nine citizens addressed the City Council on the
referenced subject. My comments on the concerns expressed are as follows:
1. No crosswalks on El Fuerte Street.
This was in reference to where Cacatua Street intersects El Fuerte Street. There are no
painted crosswalks across El Fuerte Street at this uncontrolled intersection. Striping
crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections is discouraged by staff. Pedestrians are given a
false sense of security by the two painted crosswalk lines when they believe the lines
afford some type of protection which, in reality, is not provided by the painted lines.
Legal crosswalks exist at the intersection as defined by the California Vehicle Code,
although there are no painted lines.
2. No speed limit on El Fuerte Street.
Staff will be conducting an Engineering and Traffic Survey over the next several months
to establish a prima facie speed limit. The survey will be processed to the Traffic Safety
Commission and City Council. However, staff is first completing a striping design for
El Fuerte Street from Rancho Pancho south to Alga Road.
This design will add new striping to El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to Rancho Pancho
to "narrow" the traffic lanes to clearly indicate that there is one lane in each direction.
The road narrowing will be achieved by using the entire pavement width to create a
parking lane and a bicycle lane via striping. The theory behind the narrower traffic lanes
is that vehicle speeds are reduced when a driver negotiates a narrow, confined traffic
lane in lieu of a rather wide portion of the pavement. A thirteen foot lane will be striped
as opposed to the 27 feet of pavement currently available. After the striping is completed
by the Carlsbad Streets Department, staff will conduct speed surveys and complete the
Engineering and Traffic Survey.
3. There are no stop signs on El Fuerte Street where Cacatua Street intersects
El Fuerte Street.
An all-way stop warrant analysis was completed in October 2005. No warrants were
met to consider establishing an all-way stop at the El Fuerte Street/Cacatua
Street intersection. Staff does not recommend that an all-way stop be established at this
intersection.
4. There are no speed bumps on El Fuerte Street.
The Carlsbad City Council has prohibited the use of speed bumps on public streets as
referenced in the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program adopted by the
City Council in May 2001.
June 26, 2006
TRUCK ISSUES ON MELROSE DRIVE AND EL FUERTE STREET
Page 2
5. No sidewalks are provided on portions of El Fuerte Street.
The majority of El Fuerte Street from Rancho Pancho to Alga Road has sidewalks on
both sides of the road. However, on the east side of El Fuerte Street there is a segment
1,265 feet long without sidewalks, and on the west side there is 1,028 feet of missing
sidewalk.
The 1991 City of Carlsbad Sidewalk Inventory Report ranked the missing sidewalk
segments on El Fuerte Street as Priority Number 30 for the segment from
Unicornio Street to Cacatua Street and Priority Number 44 from Cacatua Street to
Chorlito Street. There is no current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to install
sidewalk on El Fuerte Street.
6. A 35 mile per hour speed limit is requested for El Fuerte Street.
A prima facie speed limit will be recommended to be established based upon the results
of the Engineering and Traffic Survey.
7. Do not use El Fuerte Street as a haul route.
Consideration of using public streets as a designated haul route is evaluated upon
many factors, as discussed at the City Council meeting June 20, 2006. On occasion,
El Fuerte Street is used as an approved haul route.
8. "Through" trucks are using Melrose Drive as a short-cut.
Melrose Drive is not designated as a truck route and "through" trucks are expressly
prohibited by City ordinance from using Melrose Drive. Enforcement of this violation is
dependent upon staff resources and is addressed by the Police Department.
9. A visual type of sign should be placed upon trucks to indicate that they have a valid haul
route permit.
The logistics of this suggestion, while not impossible to achieve, would be cumbersome
and difficult to monitor and enforce.
10. Melrose Drive should be deleted as a truck route.
Melrose Drive is not a designated truck route, however, it is used as a haul route and
also to convey the occasional oversize load vehicle, both requiring an approved permit.
June 26, 2006
TRUCK ISSUES ON MELROSE DRIVE AND EL FUERTE STREET
PageS
Staff has the following recommendations that can be considered to address the haul route
issues and use of El Fuerte Street and Melrose Drive by vehicles over seven tons gross vehicle
weight rating.
El Fuerte Street
1. Install signs south of Poinsettia Lane and north of Alga Road to indicate "No Trucks Over
7 Tons Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (G.V.W.R.)" as currently exist on Melrose Drive.
These signs would be applicable to through truck violations and not vehicles with an
approved haul route permit.
2. Install "pedestrian" crossing warning signs on El Fuerte Street near Cacatua Street to
alert drivers to the possible presence of pedestrians in the roadway.
3. Install "truck route" signs on Palomar Airport Road on the east and west approaches to
El Fuerte Street to reinforce to drivers that El Fuerte Street is not a truck route.
Melrose Drive
1. Install a second set of "Signal Ahead" warning signs on southbound Melrose Drive to
reinforce to drivers the signalized intersection they are approaching.
2. Install a high mount traffic signal head at 17-feet in height on the northeast corner of
Melrose Drive/Poinsettia Lane to provide additional indication of the traffic signal
operation to southbound drivers approaching the Poinsettia Lane intersection.
3. Coordinate with City of San Marcos staff to install "truck route" signs on Rancho Santa
Fe Road in the San Marcos roadway right-of-way to indicate Rancho Santa Fe Road is
the designated truck route in both San Marcos and Carlsbad.
4. Install an oversize "No Trucks Over 7 Tons G.V.W.R." sign on southbound Melrose Drive
south of Palomar Airport Road and also on northbound Melrose Drive westerly of
Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Monitoring of haul route violations or through truck violations is recommended to be continued
by the Carlsbad Construction Management and Inspection Division staff and the Traffic Division
of the Carlsbad Police Department.
/r^-v-UA
ROBERT T. JOHNSON, JR., P.E.
Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
RTJ:jb
Public Works Director
Police Chief
City Engineer
Lt. Rawson
Sgt. Boyd
1
Trucks on Melrose DriveTrucks on Melrose Drive
June 20, 2006
Presentation Outline
Ø General Overview
Truck Routes
Haul Routes
Oversize Loads
Ø Haul Routes on Melrose Drive
Issues
ØTruck routes and haul routes
ØTrucks over 7 tons G.V.W.R. on Melrose
Drive
ØRoadway proximity to residences and
Carrillo Elementary School
ØImpacts to other streets/ residences/ schools
Examples of
Commercial Vehicles
Over 7 Tons G.V.W.R
Examples of
Commercial Vehicles
Over 7 Tons G.V.W.R
2
Circulation Plan
Truck Routes in Carlsbad
ØCMC 10.32.090
ØUse of all streets is prohibited to all
commercial vehicles exceeding a maximum
gross vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds
ØRoutes specified in CMC 10.32.091
ØRevised December 2005
Carlsbad Truck Routes
“Truck Route” Sign “No Trucks” Sign
3
Haul Routes in Carlsbad
ØPermit regulates large construction trucks
ØNo person shall haul construction materials
in the City of Carlsbad without a permit
from the City Engineer
ØNon-truck routes may be approved as a haul
route
Haul Routes
A Haul Route Permit is required for:
Ø Any haul of construction materials using more than three trucks or moving more than ninety (90) cubic yards of materials through the City;
Ø Any haul of materials, regardless of the number of trucks, causing disruption of the normal flow of traffic or requiring traffic control;
Ø Any haul of materials, regardless of the number of trucks, when required by a Condition of Approval for a discretionary action
Ø Any haul of materials when, in the opinion of the City Engineer, permits are required for the public safety
Haul Routes
Ø Haul of materials prohibited during the
hours of darkness (one-half hour after
sunset to one-half hour before sunrise) and
between the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00
AM and 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM or as
stipulated on the permit
Haul Routes
General Evaluation Criteria
Ø Follow truck route
Ø Does not endanger the public
Ø Required turn movements possible
Ø Does not follow any prohibited street
Ø School locations
Ø Avoid busy intersections in peak hours
Oversize Loads
Ø Permit required to move any vehicle, load,
trailer, or combination which exceeds height,
width, length, size or weight of vehicle or load
limitations provided in Division 15 of the
California Vehicle Code
Ø Use standard Caltrans permit form
Ø Permittee shall designate routes, dates, hours
for review and modification or approval by
City staff
Haul Routes
Ø Current haul routes, issues and
considerations
Ø Future haul routes
4
Page 2 of Haul Route PermitPage 2 of Haul Route Permit
Haul Route Procedures &
Requirements
Ø Requirements
Any haul of construction materials or
equipment using more than three trucks or moving more than ninety (90) cubic yards
Any haul of materials or equipment, regardless
of the number of trucks, causing disruption of the normal flow of traffic or requiring traffic
control or pilot vehicle(s)
Developer/Permittee Initiates Request
Haul Route Procedures &
Requirements (con’t)
ØRequirements (con’t)
Any haul of materials or equipment, regardless
of the number of trucks, when required by a
Condition of Approval for a discretionary
action
Any haul of materials or equipment when, in
the opinion of the City Engineer, permits are
required for the public safety
Developer/Permittee Initiates Request
Haul Route Procedures &
Requirements (con’t)
Ø Requirements (con’t)
A copy of the permit shall be kept in the cabin of each haul truck and shown to the police or
project inspector upon request
It is the responsibility of the developer/permittee to post one copy of approved haul route at the
job site and take one copy to the Police
Department, 2560 Orion, Carlsbad, California prior to beginning a haul of materials
Developer/Permittee Initiates Request
ØTo Initiate a Request
Haul contractor shall come to 5950 El Camino
Real, Carlsbad, California between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m.
The City will provide you with the permit forms
for your submittal. HAUL ROUTE TO BE
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT LEAST TWO (2) WORKING BUSINESS DAYS
PRIOR TO HAUL. This is a no cost permit.
Haul Route Procedures & Requirements (con’t)
Developer/Permittee Initiates Request
Ø To Initiate a Request (con’t)
The project plan checker will approve/sign the
permit
Permit must be applied for two (2) working days
before the proposed haul date
No fee is charged for a Haul Route Permit
Haul Route Procedures & Requirements (con’t)
Developer/Permittee Initiates Request
5
Ø Keep a copy of the approved permit in each
vehicle at all times
Ø The City of Carlsbad reserves the right to revoke
or change haul route at any time
Ø There will be restricted hours of hauling when
entering a school zone
Ø Hauling of material on Saturday, Sunday or City Holiday prohibited.
Haul Route Procedures &
Requirements
Developer/Permittee Initiates Request