Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-09; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION January 9,2006 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Dorsey called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Members Present: Chair Steve Dorsey Vice-Chair Susan Gardner Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Guy Roney Commissioner Bonnie Bradshaw None Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, Transportation Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 5,2005 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cress, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 5,2005 as presented. 5-0-0 Cress, Dorsey, Gardner, Roney, Bradshaw None None January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Karen Winfield, 3570 Granite Court, Carlsbad stated that she had concerns about significant safety hazards at the intersection at Tamarack Avenue and College Boulevard. She said that her husband had sent a letter to John Kim and Bob Johnson addressing this matter. When proceeding on Tamarack Avenue in either direction the left turns are unprotected and the intersection is a "free for all." It is dangerous for vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. They are afraid a child will be lost one day. Ms. Winfield suggested a possible solution could be to reprogram the traffic signals to allow eastbound Tamarack Avenue traffic to go first and then westbound Tamarack traffic. Perhaps a protected arrow could be installed. She further suggested that staff and/or Commission members visit the intersection at peak traffic times (7:45 a.m. - 8:15 a.m.) to help shed some light on the gravity of the situation. Ms. Winfield asked who has the legal right-of-way at the intersection as it is now? Are motorists allowed to pass around vehicles waiting for clearance to turn? What can the neighborhood do to get some changes made? Chair Dorsey told Ms. Winfield that the letter they had sent was the first step in the process to get the ball rolling. Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, said he had received the letter and was in the process of following up on it. He also stated that the pedestrian crossing the street at the intersection always had the right-of-way. ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Mr. Johnson stated that the request to establish a prima facie speed limit on Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive will be heard by the City Council on January 10, 2006 for consideration of introducing an ordinance. The Commission denial of the request to establish an all- way stop on Hosp Way at the intersection of Wintergreen Drive/Grove Avenue was appealed to the City Council. The appeal is scheduled for January 17,2006. Lastly, the request to establish a prima facie speed limit on Alicante Road from Alga Road to Poinsettia Lane will be considered by the City Council for introduction of an ordinance January 24,2006. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Investigate the need for a STOP sign on Llama Street at its intersection with Corintia Street. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Mr. Johnson stated that Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, would present the next item. Mr. Murray stated that this item was a request to establish a stop sign on the stem of a "T" at the intersection of Llama Street and Corintia Street. Referring to Exhibit 1, he informed the Commission that the T- intersection was adjacent to the La Costa Meadows Elementary School. Both Llama Street and Corintia Street are local streets and are not classified on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Mr. Murray explained when the request is for the stem of the "T" to be controlled with a stop sign, staff typically evaluates the safe approach speed to the intersection. The minor street at a T- intersection is generally considered to be the stem of the "T" with the major street being the top of the "T". A field study was conducted to determine when drivers are on the minor street approaching the intersection and they get to a decision point at the intersection, do they have sufficient sight visibility hi both directions to view approaching motorists on the top of the T" and make appropriate decisions. Referring to Exhibit 2, Mr. Murray mentioned that it showed the results of field measurements conducted for the safe approach speed. At the subject intersection, the driver on Llama Street has adequate sight distance to view approaching westbound major street (Corintia Street) vehicles when those vehicles are approximately 250 feet east of the intersection. However, eastbound vehicles approaching from the west on the Corintia Street cannot be seen at a point 155 feet west of the intersection due to the vertical alignment of Corintia Street and the elevation of the private property on the southwest corner of the Corintia Street/Llama Street intersection. A driver on Llama Street has sight distance of approximately 134 feet to the west when viewed from the decision point. Consequently, the 10-mile per hour safe approach speed criteria is not being met and a stop sign can be considered for installation on Llama Street. Field observation of eleven vehicles found that all four of the right-turning vehicles "stopped" and all seven of the left-turning vehicles "stopped" (or slowed to a speed of less than 10 mph) before turning to Corintia Street from Llama Street. Mr. Murray concluded by saying the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends the installation of a stop sign on Llama Street at its intersection with Corintia Street. DISCUSSION; None. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to recommend that a stop sign be installed on Llama Street at its intersection with Corintia Street. VOTE: 4-1-0 AYES: Dorsey, Gardner, Cress, Roney NOES: Bradshaw ABSTAIN: None January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 ITEM6B: Review and provide recommendations regarding the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List. Mr. Johnson mentioned that Jim Murray will present the staff report. Mr. Murray began his report by saying that a Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy was first established in the City of Carlsbad when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-252 in 1988. Since that time, it has been standard operating procedure for staff to update the Traffic Signal Qualification List contained hi the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy on a biannual basis. This policy is intended to provide a mechanism for evaluating intersections and to establish a ranking system of potential future signalized intersection locations for comparative purposes. Procedures contained hi the Evaluation Policy were based on similar traffic signal policies established by the City of Escondido and the City of San Diego. Referring to the overhead projection of the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List, Mr. Murray said that during calendar year 2005 staff conducted new and updated traffic studies at each intersection indicated in the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy. Intersections meeting the 2003 MUTCD traffic signal warrants have been placed on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. A total of 15 intersections are included on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Mr. Murray stated that six intersections have been added to the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List that were not included on the 2004 list. By their designated qualification number, new intersections on the qualification list are No. 6,7,8,11,14, and 15. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee (TSCC) reviewed the wording of Qualification Factor 7 (Special Conditions), Number 4 and recommended revised language. Currently, Qualification Factor 7, Number 4 on page A-6 of the Appendix to the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy references "high" speed on a through street. It also describes high speed as ".. .very high approach speed." Because of the subjective nature of "high" and "very high" as it describes speed, the TSCC recommend Qualification Factor 7, Number 4 read as follows: "4. Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points.) In addition to worsening the problems caused by visibility restrictions, speeds above critical can worsen the severity of the accidents which occur." A redline/strikeout version of this qualification factor was provided in the Policy on page A-6. Mr. Murray said that City Council adoption of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and subsequent establishment of the Traffic Signal Qualification List does not commit or require the designated traffic signals to be installed in the order of ranking. For various reasons, it may be determined to defer installation of a signal at an intersection ranked higher on the list and initiated signalization of a lower ranked intersection. Basically, the Traffic Signal Qualification List provides a systematic listing of intersection priorities based on preliminary engineering studies. An engineering cost estimate and further evaluation will be conducted prior to beginning final design after authorization is received from the City Council to pursue signalization of an intersection. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Mr. Murray concluded and said that the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends approval of the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List and incorporating the recommended revisions to Qualification Factor 7, Number 4. DISCUSSION; Referring to the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List, Commissioner Bradshaw asked why there were three number "8's" under Qualification Number, saying that it should be numbered "8,9, and 10." Mr. Murray explained that each Qualification Number had a Qualification Point total of 11. Since the total qualification points were all the same or equal, they received the same qualification number. Commissioner Bradshaw asked how developer-funded and installed traffic signals happen. Mr. Murray stated if the City determines that a future traffic signal will be needed, the project will be "conditioned" for signal installation. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if a separate paragraph could be included in the report. Mr. Johnson asked if she could offer the new wordage she would like to see. The capital improvement program (C.I.P.) goes to City Council in June of each year for approval. There could be changes made in the year that a traffic signal was to be installed. Commissioner Dorsey asked if the funding source was different for different signals. Mr. Johnson replied yes. The developer signal needs to meet warrants. Then C.I.P. is a city process. There are two different ways to get traffic signals installed: A developer may be conditioned to install a signal at the time of project construction or at a later date when warrants are met. Commissioner Bradshaw said she would feel better if was based on volume projections not warrants. January 9, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 Mr. Murray said at the time of conditioning the developer project, the condition is based on volume projections. Warrant studies are conducted after a project is built. Mr. Johnson said a developer is "conditioned" for a traffic signal that may be necessary some time in the future. The builder has a five year period during which the City can order the traffic signal to be installed. Mr. Murray stated that at the time of conditioning of a project to install a future traffic signal with development, the condition is based on future volume projections. Staff monitors the developer-funded projects and conducts warrant analysis on those locations also. That is what will ultimately require the developer to install a traffic signal. Staff reviews warrants with current data for developer projects. In response to questions, Mr. Murray stated that staff retains bonds from the developer in order to insure the developer fulfills their obligations. When the City tells a developer that its time now for them to install their traffic signal, by having bonds, staff is able to get the traffic signal installed by the developer or the bonding company. Mr. Johnson stated that in the development process there are some intersections where engineering judgment indicates that more than likely some type of intersection control will be needed. It may be an all-way stop or it might be a traffic signal. The terminology is that the developer is legally conditioned to post the bond to construct the future traffic signal at that location. After some appropriate time period, it might be a five-year bond, if the warrants are not met at that intersection for a traffic signal and it appears that there will never be a need to assign right-of-way at that intersection via a traffic signal, then the developer is exonerated from that condition. If it appears as we're getting closer to that five year period and that traffic conditions, pedestrian conditions, and bicycle conditions are such that a traffic signal is needed, then the developer is instructed to proceed with the installation of the traffic signal at that time. That may be four or five years after the development has started. But legally, the developer is still obligated to fulfill that condition. Commissioner Bradshaw stated that as she looked at the Traffic Signal Qualification List, for example, on Qualification Number 1, the warrants met are 1,2, and 3. But when she looks to the right of the list, she would expect to see under Qualification Factor numbers in columns 1, 2, and 3, but in column 3 she sees a zero. In columns 5 and 7 there is a number, so her question is where are these numbers coming from? January 9, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Mr. Murray explained that the MUTCD warrant numbers are different from the seven qualification point numbers in the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy. They are both related, but they are two different numbering systems. In other words, Qualification Factor #7 doesn't necessarily mean that Warrant #7 was met. They are two separate numbering systems. Mr. Johnson stated that the Qualification Factors are contained in the Appendix and that is where those seven factors are discussed. Commissioner Bradshaw said she saw the seven factors in the Appendix, but what she was asking is was someone imposing opinions on these locations or is it based on data, or where are these numbers coming from? Mr. Murray stated that there is a point ranking system that is used. Chair Dorsey asked if the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List was the entire list. Mr. Murray stated that it was the entire list, that all fifteen intersections met one or more of the MUTCD warrants. Chair Dorsey said that his memory recalled that it was more like four pages long last year. Mr. Johnson explained that the list wasn't four pages long, but two years ago when the Commission reviewed the Qualification List there were intersections listed that now have had a traffic signal constructed. So they were pulled off the 2006 list. As we go further into time as Carlsbad moves to its build out, this list will be reduced because traffic signals will have been installed at those locations where there was need to assign right-of-way. There may come a time where the number of traffic signals may be less than ten on this list, because each year there are traffic signals that are installed. As Mr. Murray mentioned, the traffic signals may not be installed in the order on what is on the list; but if they are on the list, they would be installed at the appropriate C.I.P. year as proposed or as the developer gets notified to install the traffic signal. Mr. Murray explained that on the 2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List there were also, coincidentally, fifteen intersections listed. There were six intersections on the 2004 List that are not on the 2006 List. There were two intersections that were removed from the 2004 List. They January 9, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 were the intersection at Camino Vida Roble and Yarrow and the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Street. Mr. Johnson stated that through the C.I.P. process there is a mechanism to remove an intersection from future consideration for signalization. Commissioner Bradshaw asked how many traffic signals per year the City irfstalls. Mr. Johnson replied that between the City and developer, approximately five or six traffic signals are installed each year. Commissioner Bradshaw noticed that most of the signals on the Qualification List are projected for about year 2009, a three-year gap. What is that about? Mr. Johnson commented that the engineering judgment is used as to when there may be a need for those signals. Traffic signals are very expensive, close to $200,000 to install. The O&M costs are roughly $5,000 per year. Staff must look very carefully at where they install traffic signals based upon a need for assignment of right-of-way. As the City moves closer and closer to build out, what the C.I.P. is showing is that staff has already identified and constructed the traffic signals at those larger intersections where there is a need for traffic signals. A signal that is pushed out in time can certainly be pulled up to an earlier year during each C.I.P. review. That review is done on a yearly basis and this is the best projection at this time. For this year's C.I.P., this is what would be proposed. Projects proposed in the C.I.P. are reviewed by a number of committees and ultimately by City Council for final approval. There may be some changes before the C.I.P. is presented to the City Council. Some proposed signals may be pulled up earlier, and some may be pushed out even further. As we go through a review again one year from now, based on conditions on the road, staff will make that evaluation should a traffic signal be moved earlier in the C.I.P. process or should it be pushed out further again. We are expecting a slowdown in the number of traffic signals that will be constructed each year in the future. Referring to the Traffic Signal Qualification List again, Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the total volumes were all for primary, secondary, or total volumes? Mr. Murray replied that these were total volumes through the intersection from all intersection approach legs. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Mr. Johnson stated that staff wanted to clarify the point system and Mr. Murray would give an example. Looking at A-2, it will explain how those qualification factors are determined and as a result, in 1 - 7, how they are listed as to the corresponding number of points given. A qualification factor is different than meeting one of the MUTCD warrants. The theory behind this document, from its inception in the late 80's, is that if the intersection does not meet one or more traffic signal warrants at the time of the study, it would not be listed on the Traffic Signal Qualification List. If an intersection meets one or more of the MUTCD traffic signal warrants, the intersection would be listed and then its priority or its hierarchy in comparison with other intersections would be determined on a point system. There is very objective criteria in the document to calculate those points. Mr. Murray continued discussing the example. He reminded the Commissioners that the seven qualification factors were listed in the Appendix. Looking at Factor 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic (A-2) this addresses the 4-hour volume on all approaches to the intersection. By referring to Qualification Number 1 on the Qualification List, Faraday Avenue/Rutherford Road, the major street total was 3,263. Referring back to the Factor 2 chart, that volume would fall in the six point range of 3,150 - 3,449 vehicles. Mr. Johnson stated that the same process would be used to determine points for all seven qualification factors. Commissioner Bradshaw asked on Number 1 of the Traffic Signal Qualification List, for example, it stated that it meets warrants for #3, but when you go to column 3 there is a zero. How can that be? Mr. Johnson explained that the Qualification Factor number is not tied directly to the MUTCD warrant number. A MUTCD warrant number may not be met, yet the qualification number that corresponds could get the points. There is not a direct relationship. If you meet warrant #6, for example, in Qualification #2, you do not necessarily have to receive points under Qualification Factor 6 the way the point system is established. Vice-Chair Gardner suggested that in the future, staff have qualification factors listed as "A, B, C, and D" and so on to hopefully eliminate any confusion between warrant numbers and qualification factor numbers. Mr. Johnson stated that could be done at the recommendation of the Commission. If the majority of the Commission would like to recommend that change, it will be incorporated into the document and then taken to City Council with that recommendation. Changes proposed require a January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 vote by the Commission. Each change that the Commission would like to suggest, the Commission would vote on it and it takes a majority, 3 out of 5 members, to propose such a change. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Gardner, to recommend that the Qualification Factors on the Qualification List be listed alphabetically rather than numerically so as to differentiate them from the MUTCD warrant number. VOTE: 4-1-0 AYES: Gardner, Cress, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: Dorsey ABSTAIN: None MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Bradshaw, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to recommend that the developer verbiage be added. Motion was not voted upon as discussion continued. Commissioner Cress asked what the added verbiage would accomplish. Mr. Johnson stated that staff can project, as Commissioner Bradshaw stated, based on traffic modeling, the traffic volumes that will use a particular Intersection. From that, engineering judgment can determine when we think there is going to be a future need for a signal. Therefore, the developer will be conditioned for that signal. Because the developer is conditioned, just like the developer is conditioned for any capital improvement, a bond must be posted. That is the City's guarantee that the required improvement will get built at some point. If the developer defaults, then staff will go after the bonding company. There are some developer-funded locations now that do meet the signal warrants. It will be engineering judgment to determine when that signal is put in. The City will tell the developer that time has come for them to install a traffic signal. What has been explained many times at a Commission meeting on various items is that just because an intersection meets one or more traffic signal warrants, that does not necessarily mean that a traffic signal needs to be immediately installed at that particular intersection. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 Vice-Chair Gardner said that it sounds like the conditions should be part of a planning document, not a traffic safety document. Are those conditions written up in a document some place else other than here? Mr. Johnson indicated that Vice-Chair Gardner is correct. The conditioning of a development project is through the Planning Department and the document goes to the Planning Commission. The developer condition does not come to the Traffic Safety Commission. The Qualification List shown on the overhead is identifying intersections that meet one or more warrants and because of meeting one or more traffic signal warrants, the funding source is shown. Staff has shown if it is a developer funding source or a C.I.P. funding source. A C.LP. project generally is the City's project to administer. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the planners were allowed to install traffic signals without staff consent from the Engineering Department. Mr. Johnson answered no. The traffic signal that a developer is conditioned for does not get installed until the City Traffic Engineer, which is the City Engineer, directs in writing to the developer to install that signal. The planners' job is to make sure the condition as requested by the Engineering Department is placed in the legal documents that are presented to the Planning Commission. From that point, it is up to the Engineering Department to monitor the intersection and at the appropriate time, inform the developer, in writing, that he or she must install the traffic signal. Engineering Department staff courtesy-copy the Planning Department staff, but the Planning Department staff are not the ones that make the determination to install a traffic signal. Chair Dorsey asked for clarification if it was entirely possible that a developer could have a condition of his development that he has to install a traffic signal at a certain location, and yet that signal might never be installed if it never meets traffic signal warrants. Mr. Johnson stated that was correct. A good example is the intersection that this Commission discussed'last month, Wintergreen Drive at Hosp Way. The traffic signal for that intersection was designed in the 1980's because at that tune it was thought that there may be a need for a future traffic signal. The developer was conditioned to design the signal, and then at some point, install the signal when directed. But the developer has never been directed to install the signal. Staff doesn't believe that intersection will ever need a traffic signal. Chan* Dorsey stated there was still a Motion on the floor that was seconded, and asked if there was any further discussion? January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting [Corrected! Page 12 Commissioner Bradshaw stated that she would still like language regarding developer required signals in the document. Chair Dorsey said the Motion was for staff to include verbiage in the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy indicating the developer's procedure for installing traffic signals based on conditions of approval. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Bradshaw, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to recommend that staff include verbiage in the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy indicating the developer's procedure for installing traffic signals based on conditions of approval. VOTE: 2-3-0 3-3-S AYES: Roney, Bradshaw Creas, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: Dorsey, Gardner, Cress Dorsey, Gardner ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Cress stated that he would like to make a recommendation on the Traffic Signal Qualification List. Under Total Volume, either put the Total Volume/Primary Street Volume or something like that so that a person can check volume against points. It's kind of disconcerting to go through the document and you can't arrive at the 6 points that are under item 2 because you don't have the data, and you think, did you make a mistake here? But if you have total volume/primary street or put them both in there, something like that, the reviewer can see where the numbers came from. Mr. Johnson stated that could be done. A motion would need to be approved by the Commission majority. Mr. Murray stated that the total volume on the Traffic Signal Qualification List are actually the primary road and minor road approaches. So you really can't use that total volume number. Commissioner Cress said that's why if you put the slash there and the 3,200 number that you use to come up with the 6 points under Item 2, there would be two volumes shown. Vice-Chair Gardner stated that she felt there would be too much data on there. She would rather just take the Total Volume out, so it doesn't have the confusion since you're not providing the January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Corrected) Page 13 data for columns 1,2,3,4,5, and 6, why do we want to even consider that extra column? The Commission doesn't get the data for everything; we don't get the number of accidents, etc. So to try to rethink the numbering system for the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee seems to be not our place and also because as she reads the Qualification Factors, they are for any four-hour period, and that one particular number is a volume between 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm. So volumes are no where near the same numbers. Commissioner Gardner doesn't believe the Commission should make a change. Commissioner Roney asked if this was the standard form that most cities use. Mr. Murray answered that this document was developed by staff based on input from the City of San Diego and City of Escondido. Mr. Johnson said in addition to examples from the two cities that Mr. Murray cited, there was subsequent input from the Traffic Safety Commission before it was finalized. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, to recommend that the column titled Total Volume be amended to also reflect the primary street volume so it can see where the values under Qualification Factor are derived from. VOTE: 2-3-0 5-3-4 AYES: Bradshaw, Cress Roney, Dorsey, Bradshaw NOES: Gardner, Roney, Dorsey Cress, Gardner ABSTAIN: None Mr. Johnson stated that the Commission could refer this item back to staff, bring it to next month's meeting, or have staff incorporate the changes and then present to the City Council. How does the Commission want it handled? MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, to recommend that the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy be approved and include the Traffic Signal Qualification List, be revised to include the alphabetical list and the revised language to Qualification Factor 7, Number 4. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Dorsey, Gardner, Cress, Roaey, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 6C: Review, comment upon, and approve the TSC rules and procedures, and adopt TSC Resolution No. 2006-1. Mr. Johnson stated that this item was an annual review by the Commission of the TSC rules and procedures of TSC Resolution No. 2006-1. In 1990, the Traffic Safety Commission adopted TSC Resolution No. 90-1 that established the original procedural rules. The rules and procedures are a document to help run the meetings if there are any points that need clarification during the meeting. The procedural rules have been changed several times since originally being adopted. If changes are required based upon the needs identified at Commission meetings in the previous twelve months, changes can be incorporated into the 2006 resolution. Mr. Johnson stated that if there are no revisions recommended by the Commission, the resolution could be adopted by the Traffic Safety Commission. If revisions are necessary, this item will be continued until the next meeting with the revisions incorporated into the resolution and considered at that time. The Commission can also decide that they do not need the rules and procedures, and to remove it altogether. The Commission may decide they can operate without these particular formal rules and procedures. It is the recommendation of staff to adopt the TSC Resolution No. 2006-1 subject to changes or revisions recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission. DISCUSSION; Commissioner Cress asked if there were any changes from last year that need to be incorporated or recommended. Mr. Johnston stated that he did not hear of any changes during the previous twelve months from Commission members, so staff did not make any changes. Resolution No. 2006-1 is exactly the same as was approved one year ago. That doesn't mean that it cannot be changed, but it is the same document from a year ago when Resolution 2005-1 was adopted by the Commission. Commissioner Bradshaw stated that she found the document to be very hard to deal with because it didn't read very well. If you were to hand it to somebody, a newcomer on the Commission, she didn't know if they would be able to come in here and sit down and conduct a meeting based on this writing. She is inclined to rewrite the document to make it simpler. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 15 Chair Dorsey asked if there was a legal reason that the Commission needed to approve the resolution each year. Mr. Johnson said there was no legal reason. If the Commission is comfortable operating under a document that is one, two or three years old, that is perfectly fine to do so. The intent of the document is if something conies up at a meeting that is covered under these items that is fairly unique and not something that is normally encountered, there is a reference source. For the most part, the Commission meetings follows that procedure based on the agenda and then motions are made, seconded, there is discussion, and so on. There is no reason why the Commission cannot indicate that this document will suffice until some time in the future that there is a need to change it. At that time there would be a request initiated by one of the Commissioners and discussed with the majority recommending the change. The Commission can approve the Resolution as is and then leave it alone until sometime hi the future someone decides there may be a need to change it, or the document can continue to be brought back each year, or the document can be eliminated altogether. The document is based on the original rules and procedures from the Planning Commission with some minor changes to reflect the Traffic Safety Commission nomenclature. Otherwise, it is very similar to the Planning Commission document. Chair Dorsey stated that he did not feel the Commission should do away with this document Maybe a modification would be hi order, but it is very important to have something that the Chairman or the Commission as a whole can rely upon as a rule, not just some arbitrary decision they chose to make at a time, particularly as it deals with public hearings or comments from the audience, or any other item that is touched upon. He would like to see this version approved, and if there was a rewrite, would it be staff that would do that or the Commission to rewrite it? Commissioner Bradshaw said that the Commission could rewrite it. Mr. Johnson stated that if the majority of the Commission wanted to rewrite the document, there are several ways to handle that. Commissioner Bradshaw could submit her suggested changes and they could be incorporated into a redline/strikeout version and resubmitted at a future date to the Commission for review to go through each of the changes one by one. Another way is to form a subcommittee of Commission members who would work with staff so that notes can be taken and then present the entire document back to the entire Commission. The subcommittee would be a two person subcommittee to review this document, propose changes, staff make note of those changes, put them hi a redlhie/strikeout version document, present that to all Commissioners for review and concurrence or disagreement. Commissioner Cress agreed that a document like this is needed for guidance and structure of the meetings. January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 16 Commissioner Roney asked if the Resolution could be modified at any time in the future. Mr. Johnson stated that it could. There have been some mid-year changes in the past. This is a living document and at any time the Commission can request that it be on a future agenda or the next agenda addressing the particular issue that seems to be a sticking point at a particular meeting. Being that it is the first of the year, that is why this resolution is traditionally brought forward to the Commission for review and comment. Changes can occur at any time in that twelve-month period. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cress, to recommend the adoption of TSC Resolution No. 2006-1 as presented. VOTE: 4-1-0 AYES: Dorsey, Gardner, Cress, Roney NOES: Bradshaw ABSTAIN: None Chair Dorsey asked Commissioner Bradshaw if she wished to form a subcommittee for the purpose of rewriting the resolution. Commissioner Bradshaw stated that she would. She mentioned that she already took it upon herself to rewrite the document and it follows the meeting agenda format because she found that it was basically what the Commission does. She rewrote it for herself and if any of the Commissioners wanted it, she would make it available to them. Mr. Johnson stated that if Commissioner Bradshaw had a hard copy of the rewrite, he could make copies and mail it to each of the Commissioners. It would then be up to the Commission to decide what to do with the rewrite. A subcommittee could be formed today or it could be decided upon at the next meeting. Chair Dorsey said forming a subcommittee should be held off for now. Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission wanted this item on the agenda for next month or did the Commission want to review what Commissioner Bradshaw has proposed first? January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 17 Commissioner Cress stated that he needed more time because he had a two-week vacation planned for later in the month, so possibly discuss this issue the March meeting. Mr. Johnson stated it could be on the March agenda. ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS None. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson that this coming Sunday, January 15,2006, the Carlsbad Marathon will be run. There are twenty-six miles of streets that are closed to accommodate the runners. If any of the Commission members are trying to get out and about during the morning and early afternoon period, especially trying to migrate towards the beach, there will be very difficult traffic conditions. There are some key locations where you can get across Carlsbad Boulevard in the Village area; otherwise, for the most part, west of 1-5 there are street closures that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to conduct your normal travel patterns on Sunday. Mr. Johnson stated that the next regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission would be held on February 6,2006 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion Chair Dorsey adjourned the Regular Meeting of January 9,2006 at 4:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Wotfdbeck Minutes Clerk