Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-09; City Council; 18860; Establish a speed limit on El Fuerte StCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce Ordinance No. NS-829 to establish a prima facie 45 mile per hour speed limit upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to its intersection with Palomar Airport Road. ITEM EXPLANATION: El Fuerte Street is designated as a secondary arterial in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. There are no homes fronting El Fuerte Street between Alga Road and Palomar Airport Road. For a number of years, El Fuerte Street terminated northerly of Chorlito Street. In 2000, El Fuerte Street was extended to the intersection of Rancho Pancho and in 2005 the road was extended to Palomar Airport Road. The subject segment of El Fuerte Street has daily traffic volumes ranging from 2,400 vehicles between Chorlito Street and Rancho Pancho to about 4,100 vehicles south of Palomar Airport Road. A speed survey conducted at four locations on El Fuerte Street was included in the engineering and traffic survey. The 85th percentile speed (critical speed) at each location was found to be 47 miles per hour at Cacatua Street, 53 miles per hour west of Chorlito Street, 49 miles per hour at Greenhaven Drive, and 45 miles per hour at Gateway Road. At their meeting October 2, 2006, the Traffic Safety Commission considered the results ot the engineering and traffic survey to establish a prima facie speed limit upon the subject portion of El Fuerte Street. The Commission recommended by a 4-0 vote that a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit be established upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to its intersection with Palomar Airport Road. The current version of the engineering and traffic survey is on file in the office of the City Traffic Engineer. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The installation of an official traffic control device is a project that is a Class 1 categorical exemption (minor alteration of existing structure or facility) and is, therefore, exempt from the environmental review process under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(c). FISCAL IMPACT: Installing ten speed limit signs upon El Fuerte Street will cost about $1,250. EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. Location Map. Ordinance No.NS-829 to establish a prima facie 45 mile per hour speed limit upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to its intersection with Palomar Airport Road. Redline/strikeout version of Ordinance No.NS-829 to establish a prima facie 45 mile per hour speed limit upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to its intersection with Palomar Airport Road. 4. Minutes from the October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Robert T. Johnson, Jr., (760) 602-2752, bjohn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONL Y.COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED D DENIED D CONTINUED D WITHDRAWN D AMENDED D 8 AB# ! 8,860 MTG. 1/9/07 DEPT. ENG F<?TARI I<?H A PRIMA FAPIF 9PFFD I IMIT UPON A PORTION OF EL FUERTE STREET DEPT. HEAD •pfjTT' CITY ATTY. ,&&• CITY MGR. — ~>>\ J>*M& fr CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN Sf RETURNED TO STAFF D OTHER - SEE MINUTES D ronfiniipd fhp i tern to a date to be determined. A new agenda bill is forthcoming on this matter. LOCATION MAP PROPOSED SPEED ZONE WOT TO SCALE A*0' PROJECT NAME PROPOSED SPEED ZONE EL FUERTE STREET EXHIBIT 1 DRAWN BY: SCOTT EVANS, CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPT. 1/19/06 C:\TRAFFIC\SPEED ZONES\SPEED ZONE-EL FVERTE STREET.DWG ORDINANCE NO. NS-829 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.44, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE 4 REVISION OF SECTION 10.44.220 TO ESTABLISH UPON ELFUERTE STREET A PRIMA FACIE 45 MILE PER HOUR 5 SPEED LIMIT FROM ALGA ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. 6 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, hereby ordains as follows: 7 SECTION 1: That Title 10, Chapter 10.44, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended 8 by the revision of Section 10.44.220 to read as follows: 9 "10.44.220 El Fuerte Street. (a) Upon El Fuerte Street from Corte De La Vista to its intersection with Alga Road, the prima facie speed limit shall be thirty-five miles per hour. 12 (b) Upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to its intersection ,,, with Palomar Airport Road, the prima facie speed limit shall be forty-five miles per hour." 14 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.17 ///18 /// 19 ///20 /// 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the day of , 2007, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the day of , 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) i 2 ORDINANCE NO. NS-829 10 11 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4 10.44, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE REVISION OF SECTION 10.44.220 TO ESTABLISH UPON 5 ELFUERTE STREET A PRIMA FACIE 45 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT FROM ALGA ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH 6 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. 7 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, hereby ordains as follows: 8 SECTION 1: That Title 10, Chapter 10.44, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended 9 by the revision of Section 10.44.220 to read as follows: "10.44.220 El Fuerte Street. (a) Upon El Fuerte Street from Corte De La Vista to its intersection with Alga Road, the prima facie speed limit shall be 2 thirty-five miles per hour. (b) Upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to its intersection with Palomar Airport Road, the prima facie speed limit shall be 14 forty-five miles per hour." I ^ EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption; and I,- the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. 18 />/ 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the day of , 2007, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the day of , 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Establish a prima facie speed limit upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Johnson stated this item was to consider the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee to establish a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road. El Fuerte Street is a secondary arterial on the Circulation Element. It is approximately 1 .86 miles in length with two lanes from Alga Road to Rancho Pancho and then continuing as a four lane roadway northerly to Palomar Airport Road. Bicycle lanes are provided on El Fuerte Street and the segment south of Rancho Pancho has parking allowed on both sides of the street. A center striped median divides the traffic lanes, and there are left turn lanes at the intersections. At Poinsettia Lane and continuing northerly, there are traffic signals at several of the intersections - Greenhaven Drive, Bressi Ranch Way, and Gateway Road. There is also a traffic signal at the intersection of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street. Mr. Johnson commented that traffic volumes are quite low for a secondary arterial. The design range for a secondary arterial is 10,000 to 20,000 ADT. Just south of Palomar Airport Road a recent count indicated about 4,100 vehicles ADT. A recent count just north of Alga Road was measured at approximately 3,200 vehicles ADT, with roughly 2,700 vehicles just south of Poinsettia Lane. Roadway grades vary from about 1 .02 percent up to 12 percent. Mr. Johnson stated that speed limits are often controversial. The subject neighborhood would like to see the speed limit as low as possible. Everywhere else, the general public would like to drive at a speed they feel is reasonable and prudent, and that is the basis and premise of speed zoning. Speed limits are set to regulate the behavior of the few drivers that choose to drive in an irresponsible manner. Basic Speed Law, which is a requirement of the California Vehicle Code, requires drivers to drive at all times, regardless of the speed limit, in a reasonable and prudent manner. The unreasonable drivers are generally considered to be that top 15 percent of all drivers. Basic Speed Law, with drivers taking into account all conditions, results in a roadway that is safe for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and other drivers. Mr. Johnson explained that the speed limit must be set in accordance with the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. That is a requirement of state law and is something that is mandated to staff, Commission, and City Council, arid staff has to conduct an Engineering and Traffic Survey in order to establish a prima facie speed limit if different than what would be the maximum speed limit on a roadway. A two lane roadway, unless it qualifies as a residence district which El Fuerte Street does not qualify as a residence district since there are no homes that front directly onto the roadway, would have a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. That is the current speed limit on the two lane portion of El Fuerte Street. Today the Commission is talking about lowering that speed limit that is on El Fuerte Street. The four lane divided roadway would have a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour. Again, we're talking about lowering that maximum speed limit based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. 7 October 2,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Mr. Johnson said that when judges in the San Marcos Court, called Traffic Commissioners, review a citation or ticket that is written by the officers of the Carlsbad Police Department they look very closely at the speed survey and how that speed survey relates to the posted speed limit. They expect that the 85th percentile speed, called the Critical Speed, to be very close to what the posted speed limit is, or visa versa. Otherwise the Commissioners believe that there may be a speed trap on the roadway. Roadways that are considered speed traps cannot have any type of enforcement using radar. The officers are admonished by the judge to not go out on that roadway and conduct enforcement with radar. Over the years, there have been judges that have told the City of Carlsbad to raise the speed limits on some streets to be in compliance with state law so that there are no speed traps on that roadway. If a road is posted too low based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, which includes a speed survey, then there would be difficulties with the judges when they review a contested citation. Mr. Johnson stated that the three most persuasive factors used in the Engineering and Traffic Survey to help establish a prima facie speed limit, in addition to other factors, includes the critical speed (the 85th percentile speed which is the speed at which drivers are traveling at or below). Second is the collision history. Unfortunately, in Carlsbad, there are collisions virtually every day. When there is a collision, the police and engineering staff looks at what are the circumstances of the collision. There are certain types of improvements that can be made to address certain types of collisions. However, in an intersection with a rear-end collision problem, a solution would not necessarily be stop signs. People do get rear-ended at stop signs, so staff would have to look very carefully at the type of collision that is resulting if there is a collision history on a roadway. The third reason includes the conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver. In an urban area like Carlsbad, drivers expect that there are intersections, that there will be bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the roads. So there are certain expectations drivers should have, and the reasonable and prudent drivers will have those expectations. That top 15 percent that are irresponsible probably don't care about safety of anyone on the roadway. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that the speed limit should be posted at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment to the critical speed and all factors related to that posting or potential consideration of the speed limit must be considered if the speed limit is to be lowered an additional 5 miles per hour. The collision history on El Fuerte Street for the two year period of August 1,2004 through July 31, 2006 indicates that there were five collisions. There is one additional collision in August involving a bicyclist that fell due to some gravel on the roadway. In that two year plus period, there were six reported traffic collisions. For the two lane portion of El Fuerte Street and the four lane portion of El Fuerte Street, the collision rate, which takes into account the volume of the vehicles, is below the statewide rate. Five of the six collisions on El Fuerte Street were north of Rancho Pancho. Because of sight distance limitations at the intersections on El Fuerte Street, especially south of Poinsettia Lane at Rancho Pancho, Chorlito Street, Cacatua Street, and Unicornio Street, work orders were issued to install side road signs or the cross road sign indicating that it is a four leg intersection. A side road indicates a T-intersection. Chorlito Street is a T-intersection. Because of the roadway October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 limitations due to sight distance, those signs will be installed within several weeks by the Streets Department of the City of Carlsbad. Referring to Table B of the staff report, Mr. Johnson stated that the critical speeds were measured on El Fuerte Street to help determine a prima facie speed limit. The critical speed was taken at four locations. They vary from 45 miles per hour at Gateway Road up to 53 miles per hour north of Chorlito Street. At Greenhaven Drive, the critical speed was 49 miles per hour, and at Cacatua Street the critical speed was 47 miles per hour. The speed survey results support a posting of 45 miles per hour. At the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee meeting, a staff committee, there was a lot of discussion about whether that was the appropriate speed limit. Lt. Rawson can speak to the concerns the Police Department have about a 45 mile per hour speed limit based on those critical speeds. The judges may not agree with a 45 mile per hour speed limit. They may believe that 50 miles per hour is more appropriate. Staff unanimously agreed that 45 miles per hour is appropriate at this time based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. Mr. Johnson indicated that for the record, Dwight Johnson had sent an e-mail regarding El Fuerte Street to staff that was received today, and the Commission was given a copy of it today, October 2, 2006. In conclusion, Mr. Johnson stated that based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee is to post El Fuerte Street with a prima facie speed limit of 45 miles per hour from Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road, thereby lowering the maximum speed limit that exists on the roadway at this time. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Roney asked if during the staff report was there any consideration for signalization or stop signs at these intersections. Mr. Johnson answered that the issue of considering all way stops at one or more intersections is currently under study. It was not part of determining a prima facie speed limit on the roadway. They received a request for all way stops, so appropriate studies have been initiated and are in progress. It was not considered as part of establishing a prima facie speed limit. Commissioner Cress asked when staff anticipated the study to be completed. Mr. Johnson replied that it would probably take another month or so to complete. The interested individuals will be notified once staff has a recommendation to make. °( October 2,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Chair Gardner stated that she did not want to be passing a speed limit that is not enforceable. How long of a leg can be considered to be a part of one route when you consider the speed limit? There are areas where it goes to 50 miles per hour and areas where it is lower. Will the courts allow the City to consider this whole leg as one or typically what happens? Do they change the speed limit through certain areas and how long of a leg can that be? Mr. Johnson explained that typically a speed zone should be at least one-half mile. Usually the speed zones are longer, unless for some reason there is a very short road segment. To have a continuous change hi the speed limit does a disservice to the public and it makes it difficult from an enforcement prospective. Lt. Rawson stated that there had been a lot of discussion about that at the staff level prior to the report to the Commission. There was a feeling that if they leave it with a 45 mile per hour recommendation, it would be difficult to enforce the speed limit at Chorlito Street and just ignore it and start writing people from the Cacatua Street critical speed. That would not work at the court level, because the judge will ask if there is a closer critical speed. It's a public document that can be produced by the person that received the citation which makes the police officer's testimony inaccurate or untruthful at worst. The next critical speed would be Greenhaven Drive which is too far of a reasonable distance for the court to take that in consideration. The significant portion to determine is the big hill as you go north towards Poinsettia Lane and what to do about that. That's the million dollar question that we're all meeting here today to discuss in more detail. There was not a good recommendation. A 50 mile per hour posting allows enforcement for everything from Alga Road, including the 53 critical speed at Chorlito Street. Staff considered what could be presented legally for the lowest possible speed limit for the concerns of the residents, and staff agreed on the 45 mile per hour speed limit as the recommendation. Commissioner Bradshaw asked for clarification about lowering the speed limit from 65 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. Mr. Johnson clarified that on a roadway that does not have a prima facie speed limit established, state law establishes maximum speed limits on roadways depending on if it is a two lane roadway or a multilane divided roadway. A two lane divided roadway that does not qualify as a residence district would have a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. That is the speed that would exist unless a prima facie speed limit is established that lowers that maximum speed limit. The courts allow cities to establish prima facie speed limits based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey if it is determined that the maximum speed limit is too high for a roadway. That is the case here, recommending a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit for both the two lane segment and the four lane segment. As Lt. Rawson stated, there was significant discussion at a staff level. The critical speeds vary at different locations, but the real test will come when someone challenges a ticket and if the judges agree that 45 miles per hour is a reasonable speed limit. If not, the ticket will be dismissed October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 and staff will be back reevaluating the roadway to unfortunately, raise the speed limit. That has happened in the past in Carlsbad. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if staff was reviewing the request for all way stops at Chorlito Street, Rancho Pancho, Cacatua Street, and Unicornio Street. Mr. Johnson answered that traffic studies would be conducted at all of those intersections. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if those could be upgraded to traffic signals instead of all way stops. Mr. Johnson stated that if it were a recommendation of the City Council to direct traffic signals to be installed, it would happen. The first thing would be to evaluate if warrants are met for an all way stop. Generally, if warrants are not met for an all way stop, then traffic signals warrants are not met. It is difficult to recommend a traffic signal when warrants are not even met for an all way stop. However, staff will be looking at all of the factors on the roadway and making a recommendation and that recommendation will be shared with the interested citizens that have expressed concern about having an all way stop. Commissioner Bradshaw said she saw a No Truck zone north of Alga Road, but she didn't see one south of Palomar Airport Road. Is El Fuerte Street a No Truck zone? Mr. Johnson answered that El Fuerte Street is not designated as a truck route in the Carlsbad Municipal Code. It is being used as a haul route for some of the construction activities in the area, but it is not an official truck route. The Traffic Safety Commission reviewed truck routes approximately a year ago, and El Fuerte Street was not one of the streets recommended by the Commission to be considered as a truck route. PUBLIC TESTIMONY; George Sarnecky, 2856 Cacatua Street, Carlsbad, stated that he believed the speed limit needed to be put into its proper historical and social context. Long before Bressi Ranch, Rancho Carrillo, or Poinsettia Lane was a vision of developers, there was El Fuerte Street standing off all by itself, running north and south, and the only road that crossed it was the east-west section of Alga Road. The odd thing about El Fuerte is that on the south side of Alga Road there is a 35 mile per hour speed limit. On the north side of Alga Road there has been a problem of City inattention to that oversight which has gone on for decades and has never really been addressed. He felt it probably would not come to the attention and concern of the City had not a local group of five families and October 2,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 other families sending e-mails to the City expressing concerns about what is going on at that particular stretch of roadway. Mr. Sarnecky stated that in a nutshell why was this problem of inattention to the north side of El Fuerte Street from Alga Road down ended up in a City policy of benign neglect in which the families up there ended up being the victim of having no speed limit established now. The question is why are their needs for personal and public safety in that residential area less important than their neighbors to the south above Alga Road who have always had a 35 mile per hour speed limit? It makes no sense. Patricia Wallace, 2857 Cacatua Street, Carlsbad, stated she has read the report initiated by the Traffic Division and believes is incomplete and inaccurate. She was specifically referring to Table D Stopping Sight Distances on El Fuerte Street. She was very concerned with the section of El Fuerte Street between Alga Road and Poinsettia Lane. When the City came out to complete the survey, she was able to watch how a segment of it was completed. One employee was standing on the stop line on the east side of El Fuerte Street on Cacatua Street. The other employee was walking down heading north on El Fuerte Street. The two would communicate via radio to state when there was limited or no visibility. Then a measurement was recorded. The residents conducted their own test and there results were different. Their measurements were true to life. In the safety report for El Fuerte Street it states corner sight distance limitations exist for the four intersections between Alga Road and Poinsettia Lane. The minimum stopping distance for 45 miles per hour is equivalent to 344 feet. Southerly segment between Alga Road and Chorlito Street does not meet all of the current Carlsbad design standards for secondary arterial. As of today, the City Engineering Department was installing Cross Road warning signs on El Fuerte. They appreciate the signs, but feel that they will not change the driving practices of those traveling on El Fuerte Street. Ms. Wallace presented a Power Point presentation that showed the results of then: own tests that were very rudimentary. They had their 100 foot tape measures and tried to do their own study to give the Commission their perspective of what they see. She stated that there was limited visibility for drivers on El Fuerte and adjacent side streets. The presentation showed various pictures of the four different intersections of Unicornio Street, Cacatua Street, Chorlito Street, and Rancho Pancho with El Fuerte Street depicting the lack of visibility steep grades, and curvature of the roads. Ms. Wallace stated that they have gone through the neighborhoods and have asked the residents to sign a petition requesting that haul trucks be limited or stopped and to have speed limits placed on El Fuerte Street. She stated that on a daily basis, residents cross El Fuerte Street to take a walk with their family or dogs. There are not marked crosswalks and that makes it a challenge to cross the street because vehicles do not stop or slow down. The police have been called and if and when they come out, it is too late. In conclusion, Ms. Wallace asked that the Commission not accept the Traffic and Safety Survey and that another survey be completed. October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 Jim Hensley, 2841 Esturion Street, Carlsbad, stated that the validity of the Traffic and Safety Survey and recommendations are based on an average residential secondary arterial using traffic volume and speed as parameters. El Fuerte Street is not average in any sense of the word. It is infamous, at least locally. X-games have been held there for years. Everybody knows there is not traffic enforcement, heavy truck and construction route, and it is just beginning to acquire real traffic. He stated that just this morning there was a double trailer full of sheet rock that had to stop at Chorlito Street because it lost a gear and again at Cacatua Street. It is a very steep grade and is very dangerous, and that is going uphill. At least they are courteous and get over into the parking lane and let people pass them sometimes. Mr. Hensley asked if the residents were going to be stuck with the results of this Traffic and Safety Survey for years to come. The report takes into consideration sight lines to intersections to determine stopping ability or avoidance of accidents by reducing speed accordingly. Were any of these findings based on a cement truck going down a steep grade? He thought not. Yet trucks of all dimensions are not being stopped in the near future according to your own staff. He implored the Commission to temper the report with reason and caution. There is going to be ten tunes the traffic in the future than there is now. That street has just barely been open. A lot of people don't even know it exists yet. A lot of people work in Carlsbad and shop at the shops, go to the freeway there if they're going north. El Fuerte is the obvious choice. There is going to be a lot of traffic and he'd prefer there would be no trucks in it, so let's slow them down and give them a break. And regarding Mr. Johnson, if you're having somebody rear end somebody, take out the stop sign, that's a bunch of hooey! Anne Estes, 2825 Esturion Street, Carlsbad, stated that the numbers provided in the Traffic and Safety Survey do not add up. Principally, the stopping sight distances are inaccurate and should be re-measured officially. There are other reasons the Commission should defer a decision today and reflect further on the 45 mile per hour speed limit recommended in the report. One reason is precedent and the other if fairness. City staff has frequently counseled us that it considers the effects of its decisions and recommendations on the entire City, not just El Fuerte Street. Once a precedent is set by an action, then it must be applied elsewhere. Referring to Exhibit 1's location map, El Fuerte Street has stop signals from the top of Palomar Airport Road down to Gateway Road, Bressi Ranch Way, Greenhaven Drive, and Poinsettia Lane. From that point south there are no stop signals or stop signs at any of the four remaining intersections. They remain unprotected. Further, El Fuerte Street on the other side of Alga Road has a 35 mile per hour speed limit. So there are two precedents that have been established on El Fuerte Street that run counter to staffs recommendations in the report. Further, Alacante which is west of El Fuerte Street and basically mirrors El Fuerte Street in distance and road conditions, has a 40 mile per hour speed limit. At Batiquitos Drive has a 35 mile per hour zone. Even Avaira, a four lane divided arterial has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. So the citizens ask if this is fair. Staff has singled out El Fuerte Street for a special upper limit speed with no protections for its intersections. They respectfully request that a 35 mile per hour speed limit be applied to the south section of El Fuerte Street and that stop signs be placed at the four intersections. 13 October 2,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 Ms. Estes mentioned that she wanted to read a summary from one of their members, Bob Latin who is a resident on Cacatua Street, who could not attend this meeting. He has listed six errors in the staff reports. 1. Stopping sight distances are incorrect. Unicornio Street and Cacatua Street are four lane streets and are not at a 90 degree angle. Therefore, the sight distance is different, depending on which side of El Fuerte Street from which you are entering. A measurement was not done on the side of Unicornio Street and Cacatua Street where the sight distance is the shortest. 2. The stopping distances do not take into account the 12 percent slope of El Fuerte Street. 3.1 question how accurate the speed test was. While the person doing the test 650 feet west of Chorlito Street, I personally traveled a number of times both east and west on El Fuerte Street while the test was going on at a speed of between 30 and 35 miles per hour. The test shows not one person going 30 to 35 miles per hour west and only three people going east at that speed. 4. The traffic accidents are incomplete and inaccurate. On August 12th there was a bike accident. 5. I'm sure we would find a number of other errors in the Traffic and Safety Study if we had the time and equipment to test the data. We just got the report on Thursday. 6. Request that a new traffic study be done or request that a 35 mile per hour be continued on El Fuerte Street to at least Chorlito Street. Mary Sarnecky, 2856 Cacatua Street, Carlsbad, stated that they have discussed the prevailing issues of safety, fairness, and quality of life that affect their neighborhood in various forms over the past few months. In a nutshell, the residents continue to push baby strollers, walk, run, and bicycle on El Fuerte Street in tandem with trucks and cars traveling at a breakneck speed. Now they are confronted with a flawed traffic study that proposes setting the traffic speed at 45 miles per hour. They find this unacceptable as the study is riddled with error and has serious issues of validity and reliability. Its conclusions are definitely suspect and in the final analysis should be discounted. Her husband, George Sarnecky, briefed them on the long standing neglect of El Fuerte Street that has endured across many years. Patricia Wallace revealed some of the study's glaring measurement inaccuracies. Jim Hensley pointed out the myriad of variables that were ignored in the conduct of the study. Anne Estes addressed the inequities of their situation, vis-a-vis the lower speed limits in adjacent neighborhoods. She would like to focus on how the Traffic Study Report has lumped together their unimproved 40 year old section of El Fuerte Street with the section to their north that runs through Bressi Ranch. The Bressi Ranch section has two characteristics somewhat analogous to their section. It has an incline and curves. But the comparison ends right there. The remaining features become a study in contrasts. The Bressi Ranch section has a state of the art roadway engineered to 21st century standards, four traffic lanes, sidewalks with protected barricades, traffic signals, protected crosswalks, and homes set back from the road that are surrounded by noise absorbing walls. Their section of El Fuerte Street has absolutely none of those amenities. In consideration of these striking discrepancies, Ms. Sarnecky felt compelled to ask, why would any right thinking person set the same speed limit for these two road sections? Clearly their section of El Fuerte Street with only two lanes, a steep hill, blind curves, no traffic lights or stop signs, no sidewalks, no crosswalks, and a substandard pavement demand a speed limit of 35 miles per hour at the most. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour for Bressi Ranch may be appropriate, but for their section of El Fuerte Street it is not the right answer. In order to ensure safety, promote quality of life, H October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 and maintain a sense of fairness, the speed limit for their section of El Fuerte Street must be set at 35 miles per hour. That is their conclusion, and they hope that the Commission will come to see where they are coming from. Dwight Johnson, 6327 Chorlito Street, Carlsbad, stated when Bob Johnson did the study two years back, there hadn't been a traffic problem there; it's been in the last 6 to 8 months that it has gotten worse. He wanted to amplify the part where the speed limit on El Fuerte Street on the other side is and has been 35 miles per hour ever since he has been there. On their side, there is no speed limit, no crosswalks, no sidewalks, there's nothing. They're talking about proposing a 45 mile per hour speed limit, which he thinks would be pretty high. What's really going to cause a problem is when they cross Chorlito Street and get into that 14% down slope - that's going to be a problem. He measured the down slope using Google Earth to measure, and it is 14 percent - it is an 850 foot run and a 120 foot rise. If you take it out further from Chorlito Street to Rancho Pancho, you'll get 12 percent. The 850 foot section from his house to where this culvert is for the drainage is 850 feet and a 120 foot drop, 14 percent. The City of Carlsbad will not approve a roadway past 12 percent without special clearance from the Engineering Department. It's an old county road. Chair Gardner closed Public Testimony. Chair Gardner told the audience that they had prepared themselves well and did a great job informing the Commission of their concerns. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Roney asked Mr. Johnson if there was anything different between this study than the standard practices that the City follows. Mr. Johnson replied that these were standard practices for determining prima facie speed limits. There was some discussion about Table D Stopping Sight Distances. That is different than corner sight distance. There may be some confusion there. There was no table provided for corner sight distance. Staff measured the corner sight distance. The numbers are different than stopping sight distance, because they are two different types of measurements. That was the reason for the recommendation for the side road signs and the cross road signs. As far as establishing or determining a prima facie speed limit to be recommended to the Commission, standard procedures were followed. They took into account roadway conditions, critical speed, accident history, conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver, grades in the road and so on. It is a standard traffic study as far as establishing a prima facie speed limit. October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 Chair Gardner mentioned that she heard some complaints about law enforcement. Has staff received some complaints in the last two years in that area? Lt. Rawson replied that recently they had a reminder of the truck traffic by a City staff person working in the area unrelated to this. He didn't know if they got out there with that or not. Regarding the speed, he agreed with the speaker that over the 27 years that he worked in Carlsbad, it has just surfaced as a major concern in the last nine months potentially. Commissioner Cress said he heard several residents mention that there is no speed limit along El Fuerte Street now, and that is not correct. There is a speed limit on the two lane road - it is 55 miles per hour. The four lane road is 65 miles per hour. Is that right? Mr. Johnson answered that was the maximum speed limit. The speed limits are not posted at this time, and in accordance with state law, that is maximum speed. Commissioner Cress stated that they are proposing to bring that speed limit down by 20 miles per hour on the four lane road and by 10 miles per hour on the two lane road. He felt that was the prudent thing to do at this time now. Then pending the results of the staff study on the stop signs at the intersections, the speed limits would then be revisited if they decided to put in stop signs along El Fuerte Street at those intersections. Mr. Johnson stated that if stop signs or traffic signals were installed at one or more intersections, then there would have to be an update of that Engineering and Traffic Survey to determine if whatever prima facie speed limit is in existence is still appropriate. If not, they would have to go through the process of revising that, bring the recommendation to the Commission, and go to City Council to adopt an ordinance. Commissioner Cress asked if the study shows that stop signs are warranted at those intersections, it may very well be that it isn't even possible to get to 45 miles per hour between the intersections, and at that time, they would have to revisit the speed limits if they set it at 45 miles per hour, and go from that point on. Mr. Johnson agreed. Commissioner Bradshaw commented that she felt that staff had done a wonderful job at preparing all of the information. She reviewed it and she feels that it appears to be accurate. She understood that Ifc October 2, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 some of the general public felt that it wasn't accurate or it doesn't give the results that they want. However, the 45 miles per hour is what law enforcement can enforce based on state law. So she is satisfied with the information that has been presented. Commissioner Cress stated that he agreed. He felt that possibly the studies for the stop signs might make things even better in the future. MOTION: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to recommend establishing a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to Palomar Airport Road. 4-0-0 Gardner, Roney, Cress, Bradshaw None None CM 6B: Establish a prima facie speed limit upon Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to the north City limit. Mr. Johnson indicated that the staff report would be presented by Associate Engineejxfohn Kim. John Kim stated that construction on Rancho Santa Fe Road from La^osta Avenue to Melrose Drive that has taken place over tnesgast three years has recently/been completed. He is here to present the staff report to establish a pnHa£ facie speed limit upon Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to the north City limit. Mr. Kim stated that Rancho Santa Fe Road is a Djam^arterial as defined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. It is now a six laneraaaway, havisig three traffic lanes in each direction separated by a raised island. There areptlrb and gutters, side^vaHcs, street lights, and bicycle lanes that were built to the City standardsfmhough a portion of the roa84ias a future sidewalk and street light locations to be construcjpdiater. Referring to Exhibjtxf, Mr. Kim noted that the Melrose Drive and RamSho Santa Fe Road intersection is nawunder the jurisdiction and control of the City of San Marcostkie to its shift, approximajety 400 feet north as a result of the construction. There have been new traSie signals installe«ron Rancho Santa Fe Road at Paseo Lupino, Camino Junipero, and Avenida SoledaoTAxurb to^eurb width along Rancho Santa Fe Road varies between 102 and 112 feet, and the centerm HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL ?400-7 January 4, 2007 404.3 Turning Templates (1) General The truck-turn template is a design aid for locating the wheel paths of large vehicles as they turn through at-grade intersections. Consideration should be given to the overhang of the truck, where the body of the truck slightly extends (approximately 2 feet) beyond the wheel path. The template is useful for determining corner radii, for positioning island noses, and for establishing clearance to bridge piers, signal poles, and other hardware at intersections. Templates can help determine the width of a channeled separate turning lane. Topic 407 illustrates scaled turning templates for the various design vehicles and turning radii. (2) STAA Truck. The STAA truck-turn templates should be used in the design of all new interchanges and intersections on the National Network and on routes leading from the National Network to designated service and terminal routes. On rehabilitation protects they should be used at interchanges and intersections proposed as service or terminal access routes. In some cases, factors such as cost, right of way, environmental issues, local agency desires, and the type of community being served may limit the use of the STAA templates. In those cases, other appropriate templates should be used. The minimum practical turning radius is 50 feet. However, the 60-foot radius develops less swept width and may have an advantage. The 60-foot radius should be used in most situations, but the 50-foot radius is acceptable in restricted situations. (3) California Truck. The California track-turn template should be used in the design of highways not on the National Network. The minimum practical turning radius is 50 feet. (4) Bus. At intersections where truck volumes are light or where the predominate truck traffic consists of mostly 3-axle and 4-axle units, the bus turning template may be used. Its wheel paths sweep a greater width than 3-axle delivery trucks and the smaller buses siueh as school buses, but a slightly lesser width than a 4-axle truck. Topic 405 - Intersection Design Standards 405.1 Sight Distance (1) Stopping Sight Distance. See Index 201.1 for minimum stopping sight distance requirements. (2) Comer Sight Distance. (a) General—At unsignalized intersections a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between die driver of a vehicle waiting al the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. The values given in Table 405.1 A provide 7-1/2 seconds for the driver on the crossroad to complete the necessary maneuver while the approaching vehicle travels at the assumed design speed of the main highway. The 7-1/2 second criterion is normally applied to all lanes of through traffic in order to cover all possible maneuvers by the vehicle at the crossroad. However, by providing the standard corner sight distance to the lane nearest to and farthest from the waiting vehicle, adequate time should be obtained to make the necessary movement. On multilane highways a 7-1/2 second criterion for the outside lane, in both directions of travel, normally will provide increased sight distance to the inside lanes. Consideration should be given to increasing these values on downgrades steeper than 3 percent and longer than 1 mile (see Index 201.3), where there are high truck volumes on the crossroad, or where the skew of the intersection substantially increases the distance traveled by the crossing vehicle. 400-8 January 4,2007 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL In determining corner sight distance, a set back distance for the vehicle waiting at the crossroad must be assumed. Set back for the driver OB the crossroad shall be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 13 feet. Comer sight distance is to be measured from a 3.5-foot height at the location of the driver on the minor road to a 4.25-foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. If the major road has a median barrier, a 2-foot object height should be used to determine the median barrier set back. In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 seconds of corner sight distances may be excessive. High costs may be attributable to right of way acquisition, building removal, extensive excavation, or immitigable environmental impacts. In such cases a lesser value of corner sight distance, as described under the following headings, may be used. (b) Public Road Intersections (Refer to Topic 205)—At unsienah'zed public road intersections (see Index 405.7} corner sight distance values given in Table 405.1 A should be provided. At signalized intersections the values for corner sight distances given in Table 405.1 A should also be applied whenever possible. Even though traffic flows are designed to move at separate times, unanticipated vehicle conflicts can occur due to violation of signal, right turns on red, malfunction of the signal, or use of flashing red/yellow mode. Where restrictive conditions exist, similar to those listed in Index 405.1 (2)(a), the minimum value for corner sight distance at both signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (c) Private Road Intersections (Refer to Index 205.2) and Rural Driveways (Refer to Index 205.4)—The minimum corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (d) Urban Driveways (Refer to Index 205.3)- Corner sight distance requirements as described above are not applied to urban driveways. (3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersections where the State route turns or crosses another State route, the decision sight distance values given in Table 201.7 should be used. In computing and measuring decision sight distance, the 3.5-foot eve height and the 0.5-foot object height should be used, the object being located on the side of the intersection nearest the approaching driver. The application of the various sight distance requirements for the different types of intersections is summarized in Table 405. IB. (4) Acceleration Lanes for Turning Moves onto State Highways. At rural intersections, with stop control on the local cross road, acceleration lanes for left and right turns onto the State facility should be considered. At a minimum, the following features should be evaluated for both the major highway and the cross road: • divided versus undivided • number of lanes • design speed • gradient • lane, shoulder and median width • traffic volume and composition • turning volumes • horizontal curve radii • sight distance • proximity of adjacent intersections • types of adjacent intersections For additional information and guidance, refer to AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Headquarters Traffic Liaison and the Design Coordinator. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 400-9 January 4,2007 Table 405.1 A Corner Sight Distance (7-1/2 Second Criteria) Design Speed (mph) 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Corner Sight Distance (ft)_ 275 330 385 440 495 550 605 660 715 770 Table 405.1 B Application of Sight Distance Requirements Intersection Types Sight Distance Stopping Corner Decision Private Roads X X™ Public Streets and X X Roads Signalized X & Intersections State Route Inter- XXX sections & Route Direction Changes, with or without Signals (1) Using stopping sight distance between an eye height of 3.5 ft and an object height of 4.25 ft. See Index 405.1 (2X») for setback requirements. (2) Apply comer sight distance requirements at signalized intersections whenever possible due to unanticipated violations of the signals or malfunctions of the signals- See Index 405.l(2Xb> 405.2 Left-turn Channelization (1) General. The purpose of a left-turn lane is to expedite the movement of through traffic, control the movement of turning traffic, increase die capacity of the intersection, and improve safety characteristics. The District Traffic Branch normally establishes the need for left-turn lanes. See "Guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections," August 1985, published by the California Division of Transportation Operations. (2) Design Elements. (a) Lane Width - The lane width for both single and double left-turn lanes on State highways shall be 12 feet. Under certain circumstances (listed below), left- turn lane widths of 11 feet or as narrow as 10 feet may be used on RRR or other projects on existing State highways and on roads or streets under other jurisdictions when supported by an approved design exception pursuant to Index 82.2. When considering lane width reductions adjacent to curbed medians, refer to Index 303.5 for guidance on effective roadway width; which may vary depending on drivers' lateral positioning and shy distance from raised curbs. • On high speed rural highways or moderate speed suburban highways where width is restricted, the minimum width of single or dual left-turn lanes may be reduced to 11 feet. • In severely constrained situations on low to moderate speed urban highways where large trucks are not expected, the minimum width of single left-turn lanes may be reduced to 10 feet. When double left-turn lanes are warranted under these same circumstances the width of each lane shall be no less than 11 feet. This added width is needed to assure adequate clearance between turning vehicles.