Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-07; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION June 7,2010 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gumming called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Members Present: Chair Jack Gumming Vice-Chair Guy Roney Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Steve Gallagher Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Robert Johnson, City Engineer Doug Bilse, Traffic Signal Systems Engineer John Kim, Associate Engineer, Traffic Division Lt. Marc Reno, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 1,2010 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on February 1, 2010, as presented. 4-0-0 Gumming, Roney, Cress, Gallagher None None ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Robert Johnson, City Engineer, reported that at the February 1, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission meeting the Commission recommended the 2010 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List to the City Council for approval. The City Council adopted a resolution approving the recommendation of the Commission, the approval of the 2010 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List. The City Council also took action on the pilot program for traffic calming on both Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue. They approved ordinances for the the residential stop signs and directed staff to implement the pilot program traffic calming projects which is now complete. Staff can now move into the evaluation phase of that project to see how the striping, stop signs, and speed table are working. Staff will then present a report to City Council in several months. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Establish a prima facie speed limit upon Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive. Mr. Johnson stated Item 6A is to consider establishing a prima facie speed limit upon Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive. The recommendation is to lower the existing maximum speed limit, which is 65 miles per hour, to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Johnson added he received a voicemail today from Steve Ahle, who is the principal at Poinsettia Elementary School, and he is supportive of lowering the speed limit to 50 miles per hour. Traffic Signal Systems Engineer, Doug Bilse, presented the staff report. Referring to Exhibit 1, Mr. Bilse highlighted the location of Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive. Poinsettia Lane is a four lane divided roadway with a raised median. It is classified as a major arterial roadway in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. There is currently no posted speed limit, which means the maximum speed limit is 65 miles per hour. Mr. Bilse indicated the proposed speed limit for the road segment discussed is regulated by section 22357(a) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC). This does not affect the school zone speed limit of 25 miles per hour when children are present. CVC 627 defines how the Engineering and Traffic Survey is conducted. The survey determines the 85th percentile and is the speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling at or below, and which is also referred to as the critical speed. Mr. Bilse explained the criteria for setting the speed limit is the critical speed, the collision history, roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver, roadside development and activity, design speed of the roadway, horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway, and pedestrian and bicycle activity. Agencies may reduce the speed by 5 miles per hour based on any of the above conditions. Court's interpretation of this provision has been strict and has essentially been reduced to June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 considering conditions not readily apparent. If the 5 mile per hour reduction is not acceptable to the judge, he could potentially throw out the ticket. The Caltrans directive was established last year. Previously, they could not go higher than the 85th percentile, but it is now interpreted as the closest 5 mile per hour increment. If the 5 mile per hour reduction is applied, the Engineering and Traffic Survey shall document in writing the conditions and justifications for this reduced speed. Mr. Bilse indicated based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends establishing a 50 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive. Public Testimony Chair Gumming called for Public Testimony. Kelly Breihan, 6385 Paseo Aspacia, Carlsbad, representing Rancho Carrillo HOA and Carrillo PTO, stated that a speed limit of 50 miles per hour is definitely better than 65 miles per hour, but if one has the leeway of an extra 5 miles per hour, she urged the Commission to reduce the speed limit to 45 miles per hour. The City is proposing and building a future swim complex and baseball park. At other parks there are no speed limits anywhere close to 50 miles per hour. She would like to see the speed limit even lower than 45 miles per hour. The roadway is clear and it is easy to see most of the signs except the school sign as you are approaching Carrillo School eastbound. The sign is blocked by trees, so the trees should be trimmed. Also the lights do not always blink to warn drivers of the 25 mile per hour speed zone. She is concerned for her children and other children at Carrillo School crossing the street and not being notified of the 25 mile per hour zone. She felt additional enforcement at the schools would also help, because it is dangerous. There was a man who nearly died on Melrose Drive and was air evacuated from the school. She didn't want to see the next incident involve one of their children going to school or going to the park. She asked the Commission to consider using the leeway of the 5 miles per hour. Fran Pistone, 2825 Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, stated she was the principal of Carrillo Elementary. She agreed with everything that Kelly Breihan said. She thanked the Commission for lowering the speed limit there, particularly if people are driving 65 miles per hour. They don't slow down to 25 miles per hour. Now she has a better understanding of the 85th percentile. But if the speed limit could be lowered to 45 miles per hour, she felt it would be better. There are at least 100 students who walk or bike home, come up their stairs and cross over there. The kids are all on foot. She is out there everyday, waiting at that stop sign, helping with the traffic and people are not slowing down to 25 miles per hour. It might be due to the drop from 50 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. So if the speed was 45 miles per hour, every little bit helps. The residents do appreciate all that is being done June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 and thanked all on behalf of Carrillo Elementary for reducing the speed limit. The more we reduce it, the happier they will be. Chair Gumming asked if the children were crossing at Melrose Drive. Ms. Pistone stated many of the children crossed at Melrose Drive and many cross at Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Escuela because they live directly across the street. If the light could flash, at least to alert people that there is a school there it would help. Poinsettia Elementary School is a block away and we have this at Pacific Ridge, which is down El Fuerte, so you get traffic there, too. There are a lot of children and kids don't look. Even if you have adults out there, we've been lucky and we want it to stay that way. Commissioner Gallagher asked Ms. Pistone if there was a crossing guard at that signal. Ms. Pistone stated that there was. Commissioner Gallagher asked if crossing guards were like the ones seen at other locations, in an orange vest, and a paid person of some sort. Ms. Pistone said yes. The reason she sometimes goes to the crossing locations herself on Wednesdays is in addition to the crossing guard, there is also a parent volunteer and on Wednesdays the parent volunteer is unavailable, so she fills in to make sure someone is on either side of the street. Commissioner Gallagher stated that when he drove the area, the sign to reduce speed said "when flashing." He asked if the sign was not flashing. Mr. Johnson clarified the sign states 25 miles per hour "when children are present" at school times, before and after school. The flashing beacon is just to further alert a driver to the reduced speed sign. The flashing beacon has no enforcement ability. It is the sign itself that is a regulatory device. Commissioner Gallagher understood, but thought he heard one of the speakers mention that the light did not flash. June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Ms. Pistone indicated that she has driven many times when the children egress or ingress to school and the lights are not flashing to alert drivers. It could have been a malfunction the day she was up there. Ms. Pistone believes that the general public has no clue what time school starts and ends. Seeing no others wishing to testify, Chair Gumming closed Public Testimony. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gallagher said when looking at where the speed zones were taken, he believed that staff tried to find locations that would result in the lowest speeds on that road, because for one thing, every intersection is signalized. It makes it difficult to get an appropriate speed zone when you have signals that are so close together. Technically, as he understood the law, staff is not supposed to let the signals influence the speed of traffic when they are conducting the speed surveys. He commended the staff for trying to get locations where they can get appropriate speed zones. When you look at the results, to him it is difficult to post the speed limit below 50 miles per hour. He felt staff tried to do as much as they could to get the 85th percentile lower. Commissioner Cress agreed with Commissioner Gallagher and felt the Commission should go along with the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee's recommendation and institute a 50 mile per hour speed limit. Later when the water park or swim facility is completed, they can always revisit the area and see if the 50 mile per hour speed limit is still applicable. Chair Gumming indicated that the logic of the speed law is that most motorists are safe drivers, so they set the limit at the 85th percentile. It was the rule that it be rounded down to the next lower 5 mile per hour benchmark, and apparently that has been changed. Poinsettia Lane is an arterial roadway and the schools are centrally located. There is substantial development going on just to the north of Poinsettia Elementary School. As Commissioner Cress pointed out, once the new development is completed, the situation may change and staff can revisit the issue. But it is an arterial and the 50 mile per hour limit is not unusual. He understood the residents' concerns. There is a fundamental tension between the wish for mobility and the desire for safety. There is no perfect way to resolve all of that. We do the best we can, and 50 miles per hour is certainly better than 65 miles per hour. Commissioner Gallagher stated the school signs on Melrose Drive are oversized, whereas the school signs on Poinsettia Lane did not appear to him to be oversized. Because the speed limit is going to be fairly high regardless of their decision today, staff could look into the possibility of oversizing the school signs that are out there now to a larger size like the ones on Melrose Drive. Also, could staff look into the possibility of putting some advance school warning signs out in advance of the school signs that are in place now? Whether or not that is appropriate, he'll leave that up to staff. June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to establish a 50 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gumming, Roney, Cress, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 6B: Establish a prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive from Muirfields Drive to El Fuerte Street. Mr. Johnson indicated that item 6B would be presented by John Kim, Associate Engineer. Mr. Kim stated the action was to establish a prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive from Muirfields Drive to El Fuerte Street. This request was initiated by Gordon Cromwell, who sent an email to staff asking that a study be conducted to determine if a prima facie speed limit should be conducted on Greenhaven Drive due to concerns with the speed of vehicles. Mr. Kim indicated effective July 1, 2009, Caltrans approved the policy directive to establish the procedure for setting speed limits in California. The changes for setting speed limits are included in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This is pursuant to the authority granted to Caltrans in section 21400 and 21401 of the California Vehicle Code. The requirements of the new standards as established by Caltrans are that the speed limit shall be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment of the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed, often referred to as the critical speed, is the speed which 85% of the drivers are traveling at or below. Prior to the September 26,2006 update of the California MUTCD, the word "within" was used instead of established at the "nearest," and that gave agencies more flexibility in establishing speed limits. Mr. Kim stated Greenhaven Drive is unclassified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and functions as a collector road. It is a two-lane road in the Bressi Ranch neighborhood located in central Carlsbad. The portion of Greenhaven Drive between Garden House Road and Muirfields Drive is notably different in physical characteristics (residential, parking allowed on both sides of the street, traffic calming features at irregular intervals on either side of the street, no centerline striping) than the easterly portion of Greenhaven Drive between Muirfields Drive and El Fuerte Street, and it will not be analyzed for this speed zone. Mr. Kim explained the subject segment of Greenhaven Drive from Muirfields Drive to El Fuerte Street features concrete curb and gutter, non-contiguous sidewalk, bicycle lanes, and street lights on both sides of the roadway. The subject road has a length of 0.43 miles and a curb-to-curb width June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 between 30 and 52 feet. Currently there is no speed limit posted on Greenhaven Drive, which means the maximum allowable speed is 55 miles per hour. Mr. Kim said parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway and a painted centerline stripe separates traffic in each direction. A yield-controlled traffic circle is provided on Greenhaven Drive where it intersects Muirfields Drive. The intersection of Greenhaven Drive and El Fuerte Street is controlled by a traffic signal. Greenhaven Drive is uncontrolled at the other four intersections between Muirfields Drive and El Fuerte Street with the side streets being Stop controlled. Greenhaven Drive has a curvilinear alignment and the vertical grades on the road vary from 3.0% to 9.3%. Greenhaven Drive cannot be classified as a residence district as defined by the California Vehicle Code. Volume studies were conducted on Greenhaven Drive and the two-way traffic volume is low and was measured at between 789 and 1,420 vehicles per day. There have been no reported collisions on Grenhaven Drive for the two year period which ended February 28, 2010. Staff completed the required Engineering and Traffic Survey for Greenhaven Drive that is the basis for the recommended prima facie speed limit. The speed survey was conducted on March 25,2010 at a location 175 feet east of Plumeria Drive. The critical speed was 40 miles per hour. The pace speed, which is the 10 mile per hour range, that contained the highest number of observed vehicles was between 32 to 42 miles per hour with 83 percent of the vehicles in that pace speed. Mr. Kim indicated based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, including the speed survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends establishing a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive from the intersection at Muirfields Drive to the intersection at El Fuerte Street. An ordinance will be required by the City Council to establish the 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive, as recommended. Just as a note, staff notified the original requestor, Gordon Cromwell, as well as the Bressi Ranch HOA of this upcoming proposal. He spoke to eleven residents this morning and this afternoon, all of which either expressed concern over the 40 mile per hour proposed speed limit or were against it. Public Testimony Chair Gumming called for Public Testimony. Gordon Cromwell, 2735 Plumeria Drive, Carlsbad, representing residents of Bressi Ranch, thanked Mr. Kim for his hard work on the traffic study. The original request started in June 2009. His house backs up to Greenhaven Drive. He has been a resident there for almost 6 years. His original request was for a study to look at the feasibility of all-way stops being established at Greenhaven Drive at Live Oaks Drive and Plumeria Drive. There is no established speed limit. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic in their neighborhood, specifically families and children crossing Greenhaven Drive at two intersections that have uncontrolled crosswalks. There are no signs that delineate that there are pedestrian crossings or that you are coming up to or entering what would be a crosswalk. A study June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 was done and it was subsequently found that the minimum traffic volume requirements for the warrants analyses were not satisfied. He was advised the next step would be to request establishment of a prima facie speed limit and then look at potential traffic calming measures, such as roundabouts and signage. Mr. Cromwell stated minimum traffic volume requirements not being satisfied for 4-way stops is the reasoning behind not establishing all-way stops, but one of the reasons for establishing a speed limit of 40 miles per hour has been stated in the traffic report to enhance mobility and overall traffic flow. Mobility and traffic flow is not an issue on Greenhaven Drive. His original intent was to make it safer for the residents. As an example, El Fuerte Street, when he first moved in had no established speed limit south of Poinsettia Lane going up to Alga Road. That has subsequently had a speed limit established at 45 miles per hour. There are three different intersections that now have all-way stops established that were previously uncontrolled. Greenhaven Drive is a collector street and it splits a residential neighborhood. He would like the speed limit to be established at 30 miles per hour, which he has been told is the engineered design speed of a collector street or worst 35 miles per hour. Ultimately, he would like to see a controlled intersection for the pedestrians that live in that neighborhood. Brian Strick, 6421 Live Oaks Drive, Carlsbad, mentioned that Greenhaven Drive splits their neighborhood directly in half. Every household has at least two children that attend Poinsettia Elementary School. Driving 30 to 35 miles per hour is an appropriate speed limit for the middle of the neighborhood. On his way to today's Commission, he drove up Carlsbad Village Drive which has 4 lanes with turn lanes and signals and it's 40miles per hour. So it doesn't make sense that Carlsbad Village Drive is 40 miles per hour and you want to make the middle of their neighborhood 40 miles per hour. He asked the Commission to take what he is saying under consideration. Dana Matas, 2554 Discovery Road, Carlsbad, resident and Vice-President of the Bressi Ranch HO A, thanked everyone for their time and effort on this issue. Families are very concerned about this street being assigned a 40 mile per hour speed limit. A speed of 30 miles per hour seems much more reasonable. She would like to see that before a decision is made on this issue, someone from the Commission drive up the street at a time when there will be a lot of bicycle and pedestrian activity, such as when school gets out. If that happened and the decision was not just based on data collected from a machine, and they went out there and saw the reality of what is going on day to day, she would feel much more comfortable with the Commission's decision. Ms. Matas understood that everyone is just trying to do their job based on the facts that have been collected so far, and based on the standards that the state has provided them to follow as a city. It is her understanding that Carlsbad is a charter city and that allows for some additional flexibility in what they have to adhere to. There is some flexibility in things such as determining speed limit signs, and she just hoped that would be taken into consideration. June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Seeing no others wishing to testify, Chair Gumming closed Public Testimony. DISCUSSION. Vice-Chair Roney stated that he drove around the neighborhood and observed the conditions. There were not a lot of kids out when he drove through, but on the slope he thought that most drivers would be cautious to drive in that neighborhood because the streets there seems to have been necked down a little bit in the Bressi Ranch because there were some traffic calming issues. Do the residents have an option to get a stop sign, or is this a step the Commission can give a speed limit and then look at the stop signs again? Mr. Kim replied that staff did the analysis as Mr. Cromwell mentioned to see if the all-way stops on Greenhaven Drive at the three intersections (Huntington Drive, Plumeria Drive, and Live Oaks Drive) were warranted, and they were not per their previous analysis. If a speed limit changes the characteristics of the street, staff could do another analysis for an all-way stop. He didn't feel the speed limit would change conditions necessarily, but it could be analyzed. Commissioner Gallagher stated that when he drove the area, staff conducted the speed survey in an area that would give the neighborhood as much of an opportunity to get as low of a speed limit as they can within the guidelines set by the state. Unfortunately, the city has to follow those guidelines. Otherwise, to go in with an arbitrarily low speed zone would be meaningless, because it wouldn't be enforced. That is really the bottom line as we go through this issue. Commissioner Gallagher indicated several things that bothered him about the request. First of all is the low volume. It took staff almost 4 hours to collect a 100-car sample, which is a long time and is not uncommon for a low-volume street. If a formal speed limit were established, it would be very difficult to get enforcement out there just because of the low volume. In some areas the road necks down to 21 feet near those chokers. He can't see a 40 mile per hour speed zone that is on a road that is only 21 feet wide. It's not always 21 feet, but that that is very narrow for posting a speed limit like that. Commissioner Cress stated it would be great if one could arbitrarily assign lower speed limits, but one must realize that if you assign a speed limit that is lower than the 85th percentile, the courts look upon that as a speed trap and the courts will not enforce it. Chair Gumming stated he drove Greenhaven Drive and that it is a street that belongs to the neighborhood. It winds down the hill and it has been narrowed to try to calm the traffic a little bit, but the temptation might be to take off. He had trouble even getting his speed up to 35 miles per hour going down the street. He was trying to figure out how it could possibly be that 85 percent of the June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 people were driving 40 miles per hour. He is going to vote against this proposal and ask that it be deferred and reexamined with the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee. He could see children crossing that street thinking that because there is low volume they scoot across, and that's when the one car comes down that take a youngster out. He didn't want that on his conscience. ACTION: Motion by Chair Gumming that the motion be carried over to another meeting. There were no seconds. ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Roney to not accept the recommendation of establishing a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive from the intersection at Muirfields Drive to the intersection at El Fuerte Street. Then the Commission can look at further traffic calming measures that could be implemented. There were no seconds. Commissioner Cress asked Mr. Johnson what happens if the Commission votes not to accept the recommendation of the TSCC. Mr. Johnson informed him that if the majority of the Commission vote not to accept the 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit, the road remains at 55 miles per hour. If the police are called to the scene because of speeding at 55 miles per hour the police will say they are doing the speed limit. If a speed limit is established at 40 miles per hour and a resident calls and says every day at 2:30 in the afternoon this high school kid in a white Toyota is doing 55 miles per hour on my street, then the police can go out there at that time and give a ticket to that driver. But under the current conditions, the speed limit would remain at 55 miles per hour. Chair Gumming stated their hands are somewhat tied. There hasn't been a second to the motion, but at least there is the 5 miles per hour leeway, so he suggested that the speed limit be set at 35 miles per hour since that seems to be all that they are permitted to do if that's the case. The report doesn't seem to recognize the unique character of this special street. He did understand that we need federal guidelines and the state adopts them so the people know how to drive wherever they go. But this is a unique street that belongs to a neighborhood. ACTION: Motion by Chair Gumming to establish a 35 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive from the intersection at Muirfields Drive to the intersection at El Fuerte Street. There were no seconds. Commissioner Cress asked if the Commission had the option of lowering the speed limit to 35 miles per hour. He thought it had to be approved by a Traffic Engineer. June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 Mr. Johnson stated that was correct. To take the 5 mile per hour option, the Commission would have to provide the reasons for that 5 mile per hour option. Currently, the San Marcos Court commissioners or judge is basically saying that there have to be conditions not readily apparent to a driver. That is the only reason they are accepting right now, which in an urban area like Carlsbad is making it very difficult to use the 5 mile per hour reduction. The street with the sidewalk implies there is going to be pedestrians on the sidewalk or crossing the road. The fact that there are intersections means that vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians will be crossing. The TSCC met and they were not able to determine any condition that would justify that additional 5 mile per hour increment. The Commission would have to make that finding, and that is what staff would have to present to the City Council. ACTION: Motion by Chair Gumming that this item be carried over and deferred to allow staff more time to work with the neighborhood. There were no seconds. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress to establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Greenhaven Drive from the intersection at Muirfields Drive to the intersection at El Fuerte Street. That lowers the speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour. Then we can look at other alternative means of traffic calming measures. There were no seconds. Chair Gumming stated all motions have failed due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Gallagher indicated that he was opposed to 40 miles per hour, and he was also opposed to a posted speed zone in that particular road for various reasons, such as the low volume, no accident rate, and all these types of issues. He would not feel comfortable with a 40 mile per hour speed limit. He felt 35 miles per hour was reasonable. The issue not apparent to him as a motorist is the chokers, which reduces the road width to only 21 feet across. If you look at the curbs you see black marks where drivers have hit the chokers. To him, that is a condition not readily apparent to a motorist. If the Commission wants to go with a 35 mile per hour prima facie speed limit on Greenhaven Drive, he would support that with the condition that readily apparent to the motorist were those chokers. Chair Gumming concluded that the sense of the Commission is that they are not comfortable with the recommendation as presented. Therefore, he believed the motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Johnson explained that if the Commission cannot get a second to the motion for establishment of a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit, it does fail. The item would go nowhere, and the speed June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 limit would remain at the maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. That is what the police would be addressing if a resident calls and complains about a speeding vehicle. Neighbors often believe a roadway in a residential area has a 25 mile per hour prima facie speed limit simply because it is in a residential area, and they say the drivers are going twice the speed limit of 50 miles per hour. The police would say that it is fine since the maximum speed is 55 miles per hour. Their hands are tied. If a vehicle is driven recklessly, that is an entirely different issue. A driver going 55 miles per hour would be allowed under current conditions, unfortunately, and that is why the TSCC felt that the speed limit should be lowered to 40 miles per hour to give the police the tools that they need to go out and enforce a complaint that may come to them. Commissioner Gallagher was correct in that this is a street that the police are not going to be working every day. The police work the streets where there are collisions and fatalities, such as El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. They will, however, do their best to go out when they get a complaint on a street like Greenhaven Drive to see what is happening, show a presence, issue some citations, but only if they can legally do so. Chair Gumming commented that he hoped if this item does fail that staff would continue to work with the residents. He asked Lt. Reno to comment. Lt. Reno stated he was in charge of the Traffic Division for the City of Carlsbad Police Department. The police department has a different view than those presented today. If he is able to go out and enforce any street, he needs a Engineering and Traffic Survey if it is over 40 feet wide or longer than a half mile in length per the residence district requirements found in the CVC. So the Engineering and Traffic Survey is the only tool he has whether or not he can enforce speed. This particular street is over 40 feet wide, so it cannot be considered a residence district. Without the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the street is a 55 mile per hour roadway. Even if they post it at 35 miles per hour, the survey is still in effect. They are all in a tough situation. He would hate to see a street get posted 40 miles per hour and then everybody thinks its okay to drive 40 miles per hour. That is what he is sensing from the residents. Lt. Reno indicated he does not currently have a tool unless somebody is going over 55 miles per hour to help the residents. What happens when he goes out on a street and he starts stopping people for warnings or citations is that he gets into illegal detention issues and because he knows this speed survey exists, he cannot stop anyone who is going under 42 miles per hour. The court will find that it is an Engineering and Traffic Survey that has been conducted by a Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the Commission had the ability to find a condition not readily apparent to the motorist and make a recommendation for 35 miles per hour even though the TSCC did not recommend it. Lt. Reno answered the only thing the court finds not readily apparent in the Engineering and Traffic Survey is a collision rate, because as he is driving down the roadway they are saying that I can see June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 the chokers and see the driveways and all of these things. The judges say we can see the rise and fall of the roadway as it moves left to right; those are things they are saying that drivers can see now. It is the things that we don't know, like collision rates that are not readily apparent. Greenhaven Drive doesn't even have an established collision rate. Chair Gumming indicated that since there was not a second to any of the motions, it would be left as it is until there is a better solution. Mr. Johnson stated that the record will note that because there was not a second to establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit, the motion failed. In the future, this item could be revisited. The results of the speed survey may be the same. The same recommendation would then come back to the Commission and the Commission could address it at that time. Until that happens, the maximum speed of 55 miles per hour will remain on Greenhaven Drive. As Lt. Reno mentioned, his enforcement will be based on that. ITEM6C: Investigate the need to install a stop sign on Viejo Castilla Way at its intersection with Navarra Drive. Mr. Johnson stated item 6C is a request to establish control at the stem a T-intersection at Viejo Castilla Way at its intersection with Navarra Drive. Associate Engineer, John Kim, will provide the staff report. Mr. Kim indicated this request was initiated by a citizen, Nancy Stanley, who asked for a stop sign on Viejo Castilla Way at Navarra Drive because she felt that people Viejo Castilla Way were not yielding. The ground mounted street name signs on Viejo Castilla Way and the internally- illuminated street name signs on the traffic signal at La Costa Avenue and Viejo Castilla Way feature an incorrect spelling of "Vieja Castilla." Staff will be pursuing the correction of the erroneous signage in the near future. Staff conducted an investigation at this intersection to determine if an all-way stop is warranted. A multi-way stop analysis considers such factors as traffic volumes, collision history and delay and to a lesser extent, intersection geometry and visibility. There have been no reported collisions at the subject intersection from January 1, 2008 through March 23, 2010. None of the criteria for an all- way stop was satisfied; therefore, staff does not recommend installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Viejo Castilla Way and Navarra Drive. Mr. Kim indicated the initial request was to install a stop sign only on Viejo Castilla Way, which is the stem of the T-intersection. A factor to consider when installing a stop sign is the concept of safe approach speed. A stop sign should be considered when the safe approach speed of the minor street, June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 which in this case is Viejo Castilla Way, is less than 10 miles per hour. Staff conducted a safe approach speed analysis. Assuming safe approach speeds of 25 miles per hour on the major street (Navarra Drive) and 10 miles per hour on the minor street (Viejo Castilla Way), a required sight distance triangle is established with dimensions of 150 feet by 50 feet. On the actual sight distance that was measured on Viejo Castilla Way looking to the west was measured to be 80 feet, which is short of the required 150 feet. The sight distance that was measured from Viejo Castilla Way looking to the east was measured to be 145 feet, which is also short of the required 150 feet. Based on the study results, Mr. Kim stated staff finds that the 10-mile per hour safe approach speed criteria is not being met for northbound Viejo Castilla Way drivers and a stop sign can be considered for installation on Viejo Castilla Way at Navarra Drive. Based on the findings contained in this report, the TSCC recommends the installation of a stop sign on Viejo Castilla Way at its intersection with Navarra Drive. This would include a striped limit line and "Stop" pavement legend placed on the roadway. The City Council must adopt an ordinance to establish the stop control as recommended. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Roney indicated he drove on the subject streets on Friday afternoon and it was a very congested street. When you try to proceed you have got to stop. Mr. Kim indicated when the sight distance analysis was performed there were not as many parked cars, but depending on what time you go out there, it is a pretty congested street and that is by nature because of the multi-family uses on both of those streets. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Chair Cumming, to install a stop sign on Viejo Castilla Way at its intersection with Navarra Drive. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Cumming, Roney, Cress, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 15 ITEM 6D: Revise the existing prima facie speed limit upon Faraday Avenue between Orion Street and the east city limit. Mr. Johnson indicated that item 6D was also a speed zone issue on Faraday Avenue between Orion Street to the east city limit. However, the difference in this item is that the TSCC is recommending raising the speed limit in order to be in compliance with the policy directive issued by Caltrans effective July 1,2009. In this manner the road can be worked with radar by our police department. Citations can be issued and it would not be considered a speed trap. The item will be presented by Doug Bilse. Mr. Bilse stated that the Caltrans directive was here to clarify. It wasn't a change; it was a clarification. Where it used to be an averaging or truncation of the data and each city was doing it in different ways that the Caltrans directive said okay, here it is. In this case, even though the data did not change that much, it still goes to a point where it justifies a new speed limit. We are talking about a 4-lane divided roadway section with a painted median. It is classified on the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a secondary arterial and is 1.35 miles in length. It is not in a residence district so it does not meet that 25 mile per hour speed zone. It was open to traffic in 2007 and it is currently posted at 45 miles per hour. The proposed speed limit is 50 miles per hour because the 85th percentile speed is between 49 miles per hour and 52 miles per hour. The surveys were taken recently, and again there is no accident history, pedestrian or bicycle activity or roadway geometry that is not apparent to the driver. Mr. Bilse indicated based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the TSCC recommends establishing a 50 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Faraday Avenue from Orion Street to the east city limit. DISCUSSION; Commissioner Cress stated he drove the subject area often and he felt a 50 mile per hour speed limit was reasonable. Chair Gumming stated 50 miles per hour is more the norm for roads of this character within the city. When he drove it today, it would be hard to go much faster than 50 miles per hour around some of the curves. Some people seem to try. He recalled one driver who worked the night shift and fell asleep and went over the side of the road, but that's about the only accident history on the street. Mr. Johnson said that there have actually been several other accidents. One was a street sweeper who made a u-turn in front of police officer and got into a collision. And there have been two others. As June 7, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 16 Mr. Bilse stated, the accident rate is not high, so it cannot be used to factor in lowering an additional 5 miles per hour. Chair dimming indicated that as the area develops, it will be seen less as a through speedway. Mr. Johnson indicated the new industrial park is adjacent to the roadway, which is at this time not built. Over time, that industrial park will be built and there will be additional volume. The character of the road, volume, and how vehicles are travelling on the road would be a little bit different. However, the road is very well designed and engineered so the critical speed will probably remain about where they are now. Therefore, 50 miles per hour is appropriate. Mr. Bilse added even if a speed limit sign was installed tomorrow, it wouldn't have a tendency to change the speed that people drive it. So, even if we agreed to have a lower speed limit, that critical . speed is still there, so it allows police to enforce it. Even enforcement is short-lived in that once the police officers are no longer there, people will still drive the way the roadway was designed. If it's designed at a higher speed, then it is driven at a higher speed. Commissioner Gallagher asked how long the 45 miles per hour been in effect. Mr. Johnson answered it has been several years. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the real issue then would be to do radar enforcement. Mr. Johnson stated the main reason is so that we do not have a speed trap. Commissioner Gallagher commented 45 miles per hour is not held up properly if police issue a citation. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to establish a 50 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Faraday Avenue from Orion Street to the east city limit. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gumming, Roney, Cress, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 17 ITEM 6E: Elect a new Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Traffic Safety Commission to serve from August 2010 through July 2011. Commissioner Cress asked Mr. Johnson if he had communicated with Commissioner Valderrama if he would be interested in being Vice-Chair. Mr. Johnson indicated he had not spoken with him recently, so he did not know if he would be interested in accepting a nomination for Vice-Chair. The Commission has the option of postponing the selection or election of a Vice-Chair until he does return, which would probably be the August meeting since there will not be a meeting in July. The Commission can operate with just a Chair, and if the Chair is not at a meeting and there is not an official Vice-Chair, then you self-select among whoever is here to chair that meeting. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, to elect Vice-Chair Roney as Chairperson of the Traffic Safety Commission to serve from August 2010 through July 2011 and to carry over the election of a Vice-Chairperson until the August 2, 2010 meeting. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Cumming, Roney, Cress, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gallagher stated that not long ago he noticed that stop signs were put up on Basswood, which is next to Donna Drive where the traffic calming was that they addressed. How did that turn out since it didn't seem to be part of the traffic calming that the Commission addressed here. Was that something separate, because he noticed they put in all-way stops on several small intersections? Mr. Johnson replied that the Donna Drive traffic calming pilot program included Basswood and several other streets. There was an area called the project area of influence, and that was the reason for that. City Council adopted an ordinance to establish an all-way stop at those locations. An after- study of this is being conducted and staff will take the results to City Council in the next several months. The results of the pilot program will influence most likely how City Council addresses revisions to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program which came to the Traffic Commission last year. June?, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 18 ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated there will not be a meeting in July because the 4th of July is on a Sunday and Monday, July 5th, is the recognized day to celebrate the holiday. Therefore, the next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting is scheduled to be held on August 2, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. hi the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Chair Gumming adjourned the Regular Meeting of June 7, 2010 at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk