Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-06; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: March 6,2006 (Regular Meeting) TIME OF MEETING: 3:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Dorsey called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Steve Dorsey Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Guy Roney Commissioner Bonnie Bradshaw Absent: Vice-Chair Susan Gardner Staff Members Present: Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 6,2006 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 6,2006 as presented. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Dorsey, Cress, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, stated that at the City Council meeting scheduled for March 7, 2005, the City Council will consider adoption of 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List and the 2006Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy as recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Review revised TSC procedure rules prepared by Commissioner Bradshaw and take appropriate action. Mr. Johnson stated that at the January 9,2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting, the Commission adopted TSC Resolution 2006-1 approving the TSC procedures and rules for conducting meetings. At that meeting, Commissioner Bradshaw indicated that she had re-written the procedure rules to try to simplify and condense the procedure rules. At that time, the Commission deferred review of that item until the March 6,2006 meeting. Mr. Johnson explained that the procedure rules are entirely up to the Commission to determine as to what they would like to see in that document The document is for the Commission's use and is not a document that needs approval by the City Council. When it was first developed, the intent was to have written procedures to help the Commission if items came up during the Commission meeting that might bring into question how the Commission should handle a particular situation. At the time the procedure rules were originally written, they were based on the Planning Commission rules and procedures. Over the years there have been several minor changes to the document, and those revisions are included in the current document that is approved by the Commission. Mr. Johnson commented that he had a few suggestions to share with the Commission about the staff review of the procedures and rules suggested by Commissioner Bradshaw. Referring to the overhead projection of page 2 of TSC Resolution 2006-1 under No. 1 INTRODUCTION, it mentions that the Commission's primary function is to serve the general public, work with City staff, and make recommendations to the City Council. The actual duties of the Commission are defined in chapter 2.28.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code under duties where it lays out that the specific duties of the Commission are to review traffic safety matters pertaining to vehicles and pedestrians. If there are to be revisions to document under discussion today, it is suggested to consider what is in the Carlsbad Municipal Code and incorporate that into the procedure rules. Mr. Johnson mentioned the next item of TSC Resolution 2006-1 on page 3 No. 6 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, is where it states that every regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for the general public to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. A written request for permission to speak is filed with the Minutes Clerk. The Chairperson will invite the person to the podium, and request that they state their name and address for the record. When it comes to Oral Communications, each person submitting a request to speak has the right to speak to the Commission. Under New Business, when it comes to the Public Testimony portion, each person March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 submitting a request to speak slip also is allowed to speak to the Commission. Oral Communications would also pertain to special meetings and workshops. Continuing with the next item of TSC Resolution 2006-1, Mr. Johnson referred to page 4 No. 9 and 10 REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS AND REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER, it mentions that there is an opportunity to verbalize concerns to agenda items. Any previous agenda item would have had discussion and action taken by the Commission, so it is not really appropriate to continue discussion of an agenda item under Report from Traffic Engineer or Report from Traffic Commissioner. The reason is that the public that may have brought that item to the Commission, especially if there is a lengthy agenda with several items, may have left the room thinking that the item is complete. Then if the Commission continues to discuss it later, that could be a violation of the Brown Act. The way the suggested change is written, it is not appropriate to verbalize any concerns pertaining to an agenda item after the item is completed. The caveat is, within reason, there could be some minor comment made by the Commission about the previous item, but there should not be any discussion on that item. This would be a potential change or wording consideration for revision if the Commission wants to adopt all or part of the proposed document. Referring to page 5, No. 13 LEGAL GUIDELINES, of TSC Resolution 2006-1, Mr. Johnson indicated that where "federal guidelines are as follows:.. .," the Ralph M. Brown Act is a state document, not federal, so that would need to be corrected. Continuing under the state guidelines, it mentions "state guidelines are as follows;...," under No. 2 Rosenbergs Rules of Order, in Carlsbad for the most part, Roberts Rules of Order are used. The City Council uses Roberts Rules of Order, the Planning Commission uses it, and the Traffic Safety Commission has used Roberts Rules of Order for a number of years. Mr. Johnson admitted that he was not very familiar with what Rosenbergs Rules of Order are. It is something that the Commission would want to discuss. The Assistant City Clerk has heard of Rosenbergs Rules. It's not a commonly used document, although it's more of an up-to-date, modern version of Roberts Rules of Order. For the most part, in Carlsbad the various public meetings have not adopted and gone to Rosenbergs Rules of Order. The Commission may want to take a closer look at and get more information from Commissioner Bradshaw. Mr. Johnson stated that other documents that are used and not mentioned under state guidelines, federal, or so on which staff use in the analysis of items brought to the Commission includes the AASHTO document (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Carlsbad Engineering Standards, and others. If Commission would want more of an all-inclusive list under item 13, then the current list would have to be supplemented with additional documents. Mr. Johnson said his final comment on the proposal on page 6, No. 14 FINAL THOUGHTSfoat it is entirely up to the Commission if they want it included. It may not be something that is necessarily helpful to the Commission to conduct meetings. Some of this information is in the notebook that each new commissioner receives that is put together by the City Council office. Since the document being proposed is for the Commission's use, the Commission can include something like that March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 statement, or it may be excluded depending on the brevity and content of the rules and procedures that the Commission would like to have. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bradshaw thanked Mr. Johnson and his stafffor their thorough review and stated that she appreciated the comments. Commissioner Cress asked Commissioner Bradshaw if she was taking notes on what Mr. Johnson's suggestions were so she could incorporate them into her recommendations. Commissioner Bradshaw commented that she felt Mr. Johnson's suggests should be incorporated into it. Chair Dorsey asked that unless there was a problem with the existing procedural rules, why change them? Commissioner Cress said what Commissioner Bradshaw did was bring things together in a cohesive manner that had been scattered throughout the old procedures. As far as meetings, several of them were in various sections, and she brought all of the meetings into one. Some things had notifications varying from 72 hours - 24 hours, so she corrected all of those discrepancies. Commissioner Bradshaw stated that the original document, as she read it, had a lot of conflicts. She found the document to be lengthy and cumbersome. She reworked it and reduced it from 9 pages to 6 pages by consolidating items. Commissioner Cress added that that had been one of his concerns, too. Had the procedural rules actually been changed, deleted or added something? Commissioner Bradshaw assured him that the only thing she did was consolidate things. Chair Dorsey asked if the Commission didn't have the proper rules to govern what goes on in these meetings, then any action taken by the Chair or Commission is virtually guaranteed to be appealed and probably overturned. That's why he would like to be sure that what the Commission winds up with covers most situations as they come up. For example, the 15 minutes for Oral Communications, that's not the law any place that he can find. So it could just as easily be 20 or 30 or 5 minutes. If the March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Commission winds up with 10 people who want to speak, he'd hate to see them only get 1-1/2 minutes apiece. Commissioner Cress agreed, stating that anyone showing up ought to get adequate time to express themselves. He asked if there was something that stated that all speakers must be heard. Mr. Johnson answered that in all of his years as staff to the Commission, there have never been more than 5 speakers under Oral Communications, which is the non-agenda items. So it really hasn't been a problem. The way the City Council handles this matter is that when there is frequently more than 5 speakers for the allotted fifteen minutes, they have an item at the end of the agenda which is a continuation of Oral Communications. So the person would have to stay for the remainder of the meeting and then they would get their chance to speak to the City Council. That is something this Commission could add to the agenda items after Report from Traffic Engineer, the Continuation of Oral Communications. It has not been a problem of too many speakers. Often, under Oral Communications, the speaker is very succinct in their comments so that if they don't use then- full three minutes, that would allow other individuals to speak. As Chair Dorsey indicated, with permission of the Commission, the time could be extended. Chair Dorsey stated that under New Business where it is entirely possible to have a lot of speakers, depending on the issue, the Public Comment section could go on for a couple of hours. There is nothing in the TSC Resolution No. 2006-1 talking about how long that should be, how long each speaker should speak. Mr. Johnson agreed that hi the new document, this did not appear to be addressed. However, in the old document, it was mentioned that each person would get five minutes. Chair Dorsey replied that he felt there should be something in writing so if the Chairman needs to cut people off, they could refer to the fact that our operating procedures allow him to do so. Commissioner Bradshaw said it must have been an omission on her part that it got left off. She asked if they should add something like that into the TSC Resolution No. 2006-1. Chair Dorsey felt it was a good item hi case it was necessary to limit speakers to 3 or 5 minutes. Commissioner Cress asked Commissioner Bradshaw if she could incorporate it into the new document. March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Bradshaw stated that she could, but the question was should the Commission adopt the new document with whatever revisions that have been discussed. Chair Dorsey replied that the Commission had four options today: adopt the old ones, adopt the new ones, adopt the new ones with changes, or refer this to a subcommittee for further revision. An observation of the existing procedures is that it seems to bring in a lot of Roberts Rules of Order into the procedures where that might not be necessary since they can be incorporated by reference. For example, on page 12 of TSC ResolutionNo. 2006-1, No. 48 PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS, it talks about motions and which ones have precedence over others. The Roberts and Rosenbergs Rules of Order cover those sorts of things, so it isn't necessary to have them actually spelled out as part of precedence of motions. Commissioner Cress suggested he would like to see the procedure rules revised with the comments that Mr. Johnson added and then review it at that time at a future meeting. Commissioner Bradshaw asked who was going to make the revisions. Mr. Johnson answered that staff would incorporate the revisions into the proposed document. The typed version stamped draft that the Commission read is a typed version that the staff secretary produced. Commissioner Bradshaw provided hand-written comments to staff, so she doesn't have the computer file for the draft document after the handwritten comments were typed. Commissioner Roney asked if this was going to include that the Commission was going to go with Rosenbergs Rules or Roberts Rules. Commissioner Bradshaw answered that she thought the Commission was going to use Roberts Rules, because that's what is used most often. Commissioner Cress also wanted to ensure that the Commission covers all speakers having an opportunity to speak, rather than just at 15 minutes. He felt it should be expanded to cover all speakers. Chair Dorsey asked if it would be better to give individual speakers a limit rather than a total limit. If each speaker is entitled to 3 minutes, and all speakers have a right to be heard, then what if it goes beyond the time allotted? March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Mr. Johnson explained that this has never really been a problem for the Traffic Safety Commission. If you had 6 speakers you could certainly divide 15 by 6 and say that each had roughly 2-1/2 minutes, or you could say that we'll see how the 15 minutes go and hear all six. You would want to watch the clock and keep them to their 3 minutes if you were trying to have 6 or 7 speakers. It's up to the Commission. There is nothing that says you can't have 7 people talk under Oral Communications at 3 minutes each. Or you could tell them they only get 2 minutes. It's up to the discretion of the Commission. Usually with items like that, the Chair will ask the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Cress asked if they could then extend the time to 20 minutes if so desired. Mr. Johnson answered yes. Just as sometimes somebody comes in late to the meeting and they miss the Oral Communications part, and one of the agenda items has been completed, and yet someone wants to talk under Oral Communications. The Chair can ask the Commission if they would like to now hear this person under Oral Communications because they came in late and missed the time. A majority vote allows a speaker to address the Commission out of the normal meeting agenda items order. As long as the majority of the Commission agrees, they could hear the individual for the 3 minutes. There is flexibility on how meetings are run to a limited extent. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, to recommend that the TSC Resolution 2006-1 procedure rules be revised incorporating the comments of Mr. Johnson and bring it back to the next meeting for review. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Dorsey, Cress, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Chair Dorsey told Mr. Johnson that the Commissioners recently received letters regarding ethics training offering two sessions in April and June. He asked if Mr. Johnson knew if there would be any others sessions offered beyond those. March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Mr. Johnson responded that he was unaware of letters being sent to the Commissioners regarding ethics training. He asked if it came from the City Attorney's office. Mr. Dorsey replied yes. Mr. Johnson said he would check with the City Attorney's office and send a memo to the Commissioners letting them know if other sessions would be held. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated that an item that is scheduled for the City Council meeting tentatively for March 21, 2006 is a presentation from Caltrans on the status on the 1-5 widening project. There are a number of issues associated with the widening, so Caltrans has been asked to come to the City Council meeting, brief them on the key issues, and then get further direction from the City Council on how to proceed. There is the opportunity for Caltrans to have public meetings in Carlsbad either in one large meeting or to go quadrant by quadrant to explain the project. There are sound wall issues, noise issues, and community enhancements where each city will be given a portion of an allotment of $50,000,000 to have specific enhancements or permits placed in Carlsbad that are unique to Carlsbad. Some other city may choose something different. There a number of those types of issues that Caltrans will give an overview to the City Council. The meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Bradshaw asked Mr. Johnson if he was aware of any project for the interchange of I- 5 and SR-78. Mr. Johnson replied that Caltrans is working on a PSR (Project Study Report) for a new interchange at 1-5 and State Route 78. Caltrans has been asked by staff to incorporate the discussion of what is happening there into their overview of the 1-5 widening. The environmental agencies would like both project to go together so there would not be two hits to the Buena Vista Lagoon by doing an 1-5 widening and causing disruption to the lagoon, and then coming in later and doing an 1-5 and SR-78 interchange modification. The importance of the I-5/SR-78 interchange is that there are ramifications to the Las Flores on and off ramps and potential closures of those ramps. He has asked the Caltrans project engineer to incorporate that overview into how it might impact 1-5. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission is April 3,2006, but at the moment, it appears that the only agenda item is the proposed revisions to the procedure rules that were discussed today. Mr. Johnson asked the Commission .if there were no other formal Commission items, would the Commission want to have a meeting just for this update in changes to the rules and procedures or would they rather it be incorporated in a subsequent meeting when there may be other action items for the Commission to act on. All Commissioners agreed that they would rather the document revisions be put off to another regular meeting when other items are on the agenda. March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Mr. Johnson stated that if there are no agenda items, the Commission will be notified a week or more in advance to advise them that there will not be an April meeting. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion Chair Dorsey adjourned the Regular Meeting of March 6, 2006 at 3:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk