Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-02; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION August 2,2010 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roney called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Members Present: Chair Guy Roney Commissioner Steve Gallagher Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Commissioner Jack Gumming Commissioner Gordon Cress John Kim, Associate Engineer, Traffic Division Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, Traffic Division Conrad "Skip" Hammann, Jr., Transportation Director Lt. Marc Reno, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 7, 2010 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Gallagher, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on June 7, 2010, as presented. 4-0-0 Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Gumming None None ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Skip Hammann, Transportation Director, introduced himself and stated he was happy to have his staff serve the Commission. With Bob Johnson's recent retirement, there is new staff that will attend August 2,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 the Traffic Safety Commission Meeting. John Kim, Associate Engineer, has been appointed Acting Traffic Division Manager to serve in the capacity that Mr. Johnson had served in the past. Commissioner Gumming asked what the Transportation Department does. Mr. Hammann stated Public Works was split into three or four different departments. At this time, there are several new divisions underneath the Transportation Department. One is the Maintenance and Operations Division. Another has several engineers performing engineering design for new capital projects. John Kim is managing the Traffic Division. Commissioner Gumming asked if there was a public transportation component of the Transportation Department. Mr. Hammann said there was not. The City does not manage trains or buses, but one of their goals is an emphasis on all forms of transportation. They are actively involved with SANDAG, NCTD, and other agencies. Commissioner Gumming inquired if there were plans for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Mr. Hammann explained there already are bicycle and pedestrian master plans currently in place. Commissioner Gumming asked his opinion about bicycle safety on Carlsbad Boulevard. Mr. Hammann stated that traffic and safety for any form of transportation is of utmost importance. As an example, one of the things the City is looking at is a realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. That project entails moving the existing highway as far east as possible, similar to the area by the campgrounds. The hope is that, with a land exchange with the State, there may be a linear park to provide enhancements for bicyclists, pedestrians, and those who want to come to the beach to recreate. That's a long-term vision, but is one example of what staff is trying to incorporate. Chair Roney advised Mr. Hammann that when he picked John Kim and Jim Murray, he picked two of the best people for the job. Both have done quality work in the past for the Commission. ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: John Kim reported that at last Tuesday's City Council meeting, they approved ordinances for the 50 mile per hour speed zone on Poinsettia Lane, as well as the stop sign on Viejo Castilla Way at Navarra Drive. The 50 mile per hour speed zone on Faraday Avenue from Orion Street to the east city limits is scheduled for introduction to City Council on August 24, 2010. Commissioner Gallagher stated there was an item last time that the Commission did not make a recommendation on. Is that still going forward? August 2,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Mr. Kim stated since the Traffic Safety Commission did not have a recommendation on Greenhaven Drive, staff is not taking action at this time unless they are contacted by the residents on a specific course of action. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane. Mr. Kim stated Item 6A is to consider revising the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane. The subject portion of the roadway features one lane in each direction and is divided by a landscaped median or painted median. Batiquitos Drive serves residential developments and also provides access to the Aviara Golf Club. The current Engineering and Traffic Survey is dated August 19,2002 and this staff report was initiated by Bob Johnson, the former Traffic Engineer. Mr. Kim stated the three most persuasive arguments to consider when setting a realistic, or rational, speed limit are (1) critical speed [85th percentile speed]; (2) collision history; and (3) conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver. A comprehensive review of the collision history on a roadway also is an important element in the process to establish a speed limit. In the collision analysis, factors such as collision frequency, type, severity, road conditions, road geometry, lighting conditions, and spatial distribution of the collisions are all considered. The review of collisions will also reveal if there is a high incidence of speed-related collisions on the road at specific locations. A number of collisions above the expected or normal threshold based upon Caltrans collision rates may be an indicator of a potential for reducing collisions. However, absent a significant collision history attributed to speed, it may be concluded that drivers are operating their vehicles in a reasonable and prudent manner at the speed they choose to drive. Speed limits should not be lowered for conditions that are readily apparent to the driver and the speed limit signs are not used as intersection, curve or hazard warning devices. For unusual conditions or conditions not readily apparent to motor vehicle operators, appropriate warning signs can be installed. Batiquitos Drive is unclassified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and functions as a collector street. This portion of the roadway from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane is 1.34 miles in length and has a curb-to-curb width between 48 and 64 feet. The traffic lane in each direction is separated by a raised, landscaped median starting north of Gabbiano Lane and ending just west of Kestrel Drive. The remaining segment is divided by a painted median. The subject segment of Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane features concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, bicycle lanes, and street lights on both sides of the roadway. The subject segment of Batiquitos Drive is curvilinear and centerline vertical grades range from 1.74 percent to 10 percent. Parking is not allowed on either side of the roadway except the northerly 1,045 feet of the segment. The subject segment of Batiquitos Drive is currently posted at 40 miles per hour based on the Engineering and Traffic Survey dated August 19, 2002. August 2,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 Mr. Kim indicated traffic counts were obtained at three locations on Batiquitos Drive on June 9, 2010 to determine the two-way, 24-hour average daily traffic volume. These range from 4,027 vehicles to 6,709 vehicles per day, which is within the design limits for a collector street. Those limits are 2,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Staff conducted a speed survey on Batiquitos Drive on June 29,1010 to determine the critical speed of vehicles. A sample of 100 vehicles was measured to calculate the critical speed. The location of the speed survey was approximately at Gabbiano Lane and the critical speed was found to be 47 miles per hour. Staff reviewed the Police Department collision reports for a two year period from May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2010. There have been two reported collisions on the subject segment, one of which was speed related. Mr. Kim stated Sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code authorize local authorities to establish a prima facie speed limit on the basis of the results of an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends revising the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane from 40 to 45 miles per hour. An ordinance will be required to be adopted by the City Council to establish the 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit. Public Testimony Chair Roney called for Public Testimony. Diane Brink, 7206 Azalia Place, Carlsbad, represents Friends of the Tot Lot. She built a little park on Batiquitos Drive between Poppy Lane and Gabbiano Lane. Focusing on the traffic in that area, she requests the speed limit be decreased. The proposed speed is 45 miles per hour and she proposes the speed on the curve to be decreased to 25 to 30 miles per hour. On the east side of Batiquitos Drive there is a similar curve where the suggested speed is 30 miles per hour. Ms. Brink would like the curve near the tot lot to feature signs that state 25 or 30 miles per hour and the sign be brought closer north so people can see it before they go around the curve. The pace speed was 38 to 47 miles per hour and the average of that is 42 miles per hour. 85 percent of that is not 45 miles per hour. The most important concern she has is that the curve speed go down. The second thing is that the speed not be increased on Batiquitos Drive. Seeing no others wishing to testify, Chair Roney closed Public Testimony. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gumming asked Ms. Brink who owns the land that the park is on? Ms. Brink stated the City of Carlsbad owns it and they have allowed her to build a park there. August 2,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Gumming asked Ms. Brink if she worked with Parks and Recreation in doing this. Ms. Brink answered she worked there as a person who built that park and she has to interface with the City. She has done this for twelve years. Commissioner Gumming asked what the thinking was on the engineering on segmentation of Batiquitos Drive. Mr. Kim stated if he understood the question correctly, why did staff decide to divide Batiquitos Drive into two segments and what is the difference between one versus the other. As mentioned in the staff report, the section from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane is primarily divided by a raised median. The east leg, which will be covered in 6B, of that section of roadway is characterized by a painted median. The California MUTCD, which is the document that they use to establish speed limits, gives provisions for defining speed zones based on characteristics of the roadway. Staff feels that is a significant enough difference to warrant two sections. Commissioner Gumming asked if the slope of the roadway is also a defining characteristic. Mr. Kim indicated that it could be. Staff cannot divide a given roadway into an infinite number of segments based on unique characteristics, so there is a balance there. Batiquitos Drive is generally curvilinear and generally grades vary along that stretch of roadway. In this case, grades would not be a defining factor in establishing one segment from another on Batiquitos Drive. Commissioner Gumming stated the grade would be a critical factor in the placement of the speed survey. Mr. Kim agreed. Commissioner Gallagher indicated this type of request has come to the Commission before. He believed the real reason this speed zone is being reviewed is because now the 40 mile per hour speed zone that is on that segment of roadway is probably not as enforceable as the City would like. He sensed the similar requests had come to the Commission because of the use of radar on that road, and that they were asking that it be re-zoned to get a better use of radar. Is that correct? August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 Lt. Reno replied that radar was one of the tools the Police Department uses. They must have an Engineering and Traffic Survey that is validated by the Traffic City Engineer in order for them to run "lidar," which is a light-based form of radar. The court has said that curvatures in the roadway and things that you can readily see cannot be considered "conditions not readily apparent" that could justify a five mile per hour reduction in speed. You should be able to see the tot lot as you are driving down the roadway. Therefore, you should still have to abide by what the speed survey is telling you, which is that 47 miles per hour can be rounded down to 45 miles per hour. If it was 48 miles per hour, they would have to round up to 50 miles per hour. Commissioner Gallagher commended the City staff. It takes a lot of courage to bring something like that to this Commission. He understands where the police are coming from, but he felt the reality is that no matter what numbers you put on that speed limit sign, the people are driving it are telling you what they are comfortable with. In this particular case, there doesn't seem to be any real issues on how the road is operating based on the accident rate. He understands it is sometimes hard for the people who live in the neighborhood to hear this, but from a law enforcement and court point of view, it is useless to try and put in another lower speed zone that you cannot enforce. Ms. Brink asked if she could interject and she was allowed to. She noticed that most of the time police are over to the east side of Batiquitos Drive enforcing the law. When the road was built, the police were there and she and her husband got a speeding ticket because they were driving 40 miles per hour. Why does the police enforce the speed limit on the east end of Batiquitos Drive? She has never seen the police on west end of Batiquitos Drive giving tickets or doing enforcement. She has been there for two decades. Chair Roney asked Mr. Kim to address some of the issues Ms. Brink raised. Mr. Kim indicated the speed survey portion of the Engineering and Traffic Study is a measurement of the speeds of the vehicles. It does not consider the surroundings; it is based purely on how fast the vehicles are traveling. Regarding the idea of reducing speeds for curves that Ms. Brink brought up, he mentioned in his staff report when there are conditions that are readily apparent to the driver, such as a curve, staff has the option of posting warning signs. This is something that staff can look at in this case. The curve-warning sign in association with a speed plate is something that is established by a measuring device called a ball bank. It measures the comfortable speed at which you can negotiate a curve. Staff would be more than willing to perform ball bank measurements upon the curve on Batiquitos Drive in the vicinity of Gabbiano Lane to consider installing a curve-warning sign. Regarding clarification on the pace speed for Ms. Brink, the pace speed is defined as the 10 mile per hour range that contains the highest number of observed vehicles. The critical speed is not the August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 middle or average of the pace. The critical speed is its own calculation. Generally, the critical speed is in the upper range of that pace speed. Chair Roney asked if there was anything Ms. Brink needed to do. Mr. Kim indicated staff has already received notification that Ms. Brink is interested in a curve- warning sign, so he has already assigned staff to perform ball bank measurements on that curve. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the curve-warning sign that Ms. Brink was talking about would be based on a higher speed zone if it were established by the City Council. In other words, currently staff has decided with the posted speed zone of 40 miles per hour that a curve-warning sign was probably not appropriate at that area. But if the speed limit was raised, then it is possible that a curve-warning sign would be consistent with the new speed zone. Is that correct? Mr. Kim stated that could be a possibility. Without any knowledge of previous ball bank measurements on that curve, he could not say. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gumming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane from 40 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Cumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 6B: Revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway. Mr. Kim stated the action was to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway. He stated he will not cover the items he spoke about in item 6A again, but he wanted to point out that a recent change in the California MUTCD is spurring some of this action as well. The language in the current California MUTCD is that the speed limit shall be established at the "nearest" 5 mile per hour increment of the 85 percentile speed. Previously, prior to 2006, the language was "within." There was flexibility in the past that we do not have now. At this point, we are constrained to go in one direction or another based on the language found in the MUTCD. August 2,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway is unclassified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and functions as a collector street. This portion of the roadway is 1.06 miles in length and has a curb-to-curb width of 48 feet. The traffic lane in each direction is separated by a painted median. The subject segment of Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway features concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, bicycle lanes, and street lights on both sides of the roadway. The subject segment is curvilinear and centerline vertical grades range from 1% to 7.94%. Parking is not allowed on this segment of Batiquitos Drive. The subject segment of Batiquitos Drive is currently posted at 35 miles per hour based on the Engineering and Traffic Survey dated May 4, 2006. Mr. Kim indicated traffic counts were obtained at two locations on Batiquitos Drive on April 28, 2010 to determine the two-way, 24-hour average daily traffic volume. Traffic volumes ranged from 2,943 to 3,700 vehicles per day. This is within the design limits for a collector street. Staff conducted s speed survey on Batiquitos Drive on June 30, 2010 to determine the critical speed of vehicles. A sample of 100 vehicles was measured to calculate the critical speed. The critical speed was found to be 39 miles per hour on this segment, with a pace speed of 31 to 41 miles per hour. Mr. Kim stated review of the Police Department collision reports for the two year period from May 1,2008 through April 30, 2010 revealed one speed-related collision. Sections 22357 and 22358 of the CVC authorized local authorities to establish a prima facie speed limit on the basis of the results of an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Based on these results, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends revising the prima facie speed limit on Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway from 35 to 40 miles per hour. An ordinance will be required to be adopted by the City Council to establish the 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit, as recommended. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gumming indicated the speed survey measurements were taken at Hummingbird Road, which is the far right-most intersection. At the far left is Black Swan Drive. He drove that segment to make a left turn from Black Swan Drive onto Batiquitos Drive and did not feel that was a safe entrance. He asked where the collisions took place. Mr. Kim stated he did not have a record of where those collisions occurred with him. Commissioner Gumming asked if there was a reason why the measurements are at places where speeds would tend to be lower. Mr. Kim answered no, that staff has the ability to choose a location they feel is representative of the roadway. There may be locations upon Batiquitos Drive where the speeds are lower or higher. August 2,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Gumming inquired if the criteria to choose a spot will result in the safest configuration for the roadway, including speed signage. Mr. Kim indicated regardless of where staff collects the speed survey data, it has no bearing on how safe the street is. Staff is tasked with finding a representative spot on the roadway to measure speeds. Based on that, they establish a critical speed and thereby a speed limit. They don't have the thought of looking at one spot saying this is a safer place to establish a speed survey at. Commissioner Gumming stated he understood. Because of the slope of the hill going toward Black Swan Drive, if people accelerate fairly frequently to 65 miles per hour and the critical speed were measured at 65 miles per hour, then staff would be constrained to set the limit on the road at 65 miles per hour. Mr. Kim stated he was correct. That was something staff tried to avoid based on prior experience with establishing speed surveys. If they know of an area with a pronounced slope, they would not want to collect speed surveys there because of the uncharacteristically high speeds. Commissioner Gallagher stated he personally didn't think Hummingbird Road was the best spot to perform the survey. It is only 1/10' of a mile from a signalized intersection. He felt another speed zone down by Kingfisher Place might be more representative of the entire segment. When you come off of Aviara Parkway, drivers are not really at the prevailing speed on that segment of roadway at Hummingbird Road. Also, going the other direction towards Aviara Parkway, he was not so sure that people aren't slowing down in anticipation of the signal at Aviara Parkway. When he drove that road, the entire segment of Batiquitos Drive operated the same way from both Poinsettia Lane to Aviara Parkway. He did not see a lot of difference in how the road was driven. He wasn't sure that on other segments of this roadway that it really is 39 miles per hour. When you look at the accident rates, they are identical. The roadside conditions are identical as far as sidewalks, bike lanes on both, the road is 48 feet. He wondered why not make one consistent speed zone from Poinsettia Lane to Aviara Parkway. He would be more comfortable making a vote if he had another speed zone in another area outside of Hummingbird Road. Mr. Kim stated staff would take that direction if the Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Cumming indicated they were all learning. His inclination was that the Commission should approve this now so that the enforcement would be in place, and that staff have these things in mind for the future as they look at additional roadways. Is it every five years that they are supposed to be reviewed? August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 Mr. Kim stated there are provisions in the California MUTCD to update them 5, 7, or 10 years. Normally, speed zones are revised every seven to ten years assuming no change in roadway conditions. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gumming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway from 35 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour. VOTE: 3-1-0 AYES: Roney, Valderrama, Gumming NOES: Gallagher ABSTAIN: None ITEM 6C: Investigate the need to install a stop sign on Yosemite Street at its intersection with Valewood Avenue. Mr. Kim stated item 6C is a request to investigate the need to install a stop sign on Yosemite Street at its intersection with Valewood Avenue. Associate Engineer, Jim Murray, will provide the staff report. Mr. Murray indicated Yosemite Street intersects Valewood Avenue in a T-intersection configuration in a residential area with Yosemite Street being considered the "stem" of the T-intersection. Valewood Avenue is considered the "top" of the T. Currently this intersection is uncontrolled on all approaches. Mr. Murray stated Yosemite Street and Valewood Avenue are located in the northeast portion of the City. Both are unclassified on the Circulation Element of the General Plan, but function as local streets based on street width and adjacent land uses. These streets serve a residential neighborhood comprised of single family homes. Both Yosemite Street and Valewood Avenue have a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet with gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Mr. Murray explained each stop sign request received by staff is analyzed based on standards and guidelines found in the California MUTCD and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Stop signs, if improperly used, can cause substantial inconvenience to drivers and should be used only where warranted. One of the conditions that may warrant consideration of installing a stop sign on the minor street is when the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 10 miles per hour, which is a result of restricted visibility for the driver. When a driver on the minor street is traveling towards the major street, a decision point is required to determine whether braking to a stop is necessary because of an approaching vehicle on the major street. This decision point location on the minor street must allow the driver sufficient distance to August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 view to both the right and left the approaches on the major street. The driver on the minor street, generally not having the right-of-way, can then initiate actions to slow, stop, or avoid a conflict with other vehicles, as necessary, when sufficient corner sight distance is provided. For the analyses of local streets, the minor street decision point is assumed to be 50 feet from the intersection given the vehicle on the minor street has an approach speed of 10 miles hour. A distance of 150 feet along the major street must be provided to minor street drivers to view vehicles approaching the intersection. At the study intersection, Mr. Murray indicated sight distance from Yosemite Street looking to the west was measured to be 124 feet, which is less than the required 150 feet. The sight distance limitation is due to the horizontal alignment of Valewood Avenue west of the intersection. Sight distance looking to the east was found to be more than 600 feet, which is more than the 150 foot minimum requirement. Therefore, staff determined that the 10 mile per hour safe approach speed criteria is not being met for northbound Yosemite Street drivers and a stop sign can be considered for installation on Yosemite Street at Valewood Avenue. Based on the findings contained in this report, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends the installation of a stop sign on Yosemite Street at its intersection with Valewood Avenue. 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; Commissioner Gumming indicated he drove the subject area. The federal highway traffic rules, which are the basis for the MUTCD, tend to favor automobiles. When he looked at Valewood Avenue, which curves down toward the power lines, he felt if he was a youngster on a skateboard he would be skateboarding down that hill. There's a house on an embankment, and that youngster would be dead in a flash. He enthusiastically endorsed that the stop sign be installed and hopefully save the life of a youngster in that neighborhood. Chair Roney felt there was a natural stop when you come down Yosemite Street to go to Valewood Avenue. If you have driven the area, it is pretty precarious. Commissioner Gallagher asked if 10 miles per hour or less is what is recommended to consider a stop control. Is it greater than 10 miles per hour for a yield? Mr. Murray said if it was 10 miles per hour or more, then they could consider installing a yield sign or not. Commissioner Gallagher was not recommending a yield sign, but he just wanted clarification for future reference. He agreed that with the embankment and the vegetation, you cannot see as well as he would like, so he also supported the action. August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gumming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Gallagher, to install a stop sign on Yosemite Street at its intersection with Valewood Avenue. This would include a striped limit line and "STOP" pavement legend placed on the roadway. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Gumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 6D: Elect a new Vice-Chairperson person of the Traffic Safety Commission to serve from August 2010 through July 2011. Mr. Kim indicated that at the last Traffic Safety Commission meeting Guy Roney was elected as Chairperson. Today's item is to elect a new Vice-Chairperson to the Traffic Safety Commission to serve from August 2010 through July 2011. Next in line to become Vice-Chair is Commission Valderrama and that decision was put off until today's meeting. It would be up to Commissioner Valderrama to accept or decline this position. Commissioner Valderrama indicated that he has missed a few meetings because of some personal problems and did not feel that this would be the appropriate time for him to take on this responsibility. Mr. Kim stated that the next in line after Commissioner Valderrama to serve as Vice-Chair would be Commissioner Gallagher. Commissioner Gallagher indicated that he planned to be here, so he would accept the position as Vice-Chair. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gumming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to elect Commissioner Gallagher as Vice-Chairperson of the Traffic Safety Commission to serve from August 2010 through July 2011. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Gumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 ITEM 6E: Consider adoption of a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Jack Gumming. Mr. Kim stated that on July 6, 2009, Commissioner Jack Gumming was elected as Chairperson of the Traffic Safety Commission and served in that capacity from August 2009 to July 2010. The standard procedure for the Traffic Safety Commission is to rotate the position on a yearly basis and also to honor the past Chairperson of the Commission with a Resolution of Commendation. ACTION: Motion by Chair Roney, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Gallagher, to adopt a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Jack Gumming. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Gumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Gumming stated it was embarrassing to receive this award with Bob Johnson no longer with them. He asked for a motion to honor Bob Johnson for his long service with the Traffic Safety Commission with a Resolution of Commendation with suitable structure, and that it be forwarded to him. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gumming, and duly seconded by Chair Roney, to adopt a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Bob Johnson. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Gumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Vice-Chair Gallagher asked Mr. Kim if Bob Johnson lived locally and could come back and receive the Commendation in person. Mr. Kim indicated that Mr. Johnson lived in Carlsbad and would contact him. He thought Mr. Johnson would be honored by the gesture. ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS None. August 2, 2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Kim indicated he wanted to tell the Commission a little bit about himself since he would be serving as the interim Manager of the Traffic Division. He grew up in Hawaii. He obtained his Bachelors from UC San Diego in Structural Engineering. He worked a few years as a Civil Engineer with a company called Leedshill-Herkenhoff. Chuck Bras was his manager at the time and he enjoyed civil engineering. At that point, he decided to obtain his Masters hi Transportation Engineering at UC Irvine. He has 20 years of experience as a Civil Engineer and he has been with the City of Carlsbad for about 13 years. Although he didn't feel he had anywhere near the qualifications to replace someone like Bob Johnson, he was excited for the opportunity and will try his hardest to maintain the type of quality work that Bob Johnson strived to produce. He thanked the Commissioners for their support. Mr. Kim stated there will not be a meeting in September in observance of Labor Day, which falls on September 6,2010. Therefore, the next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting is scheduled to be held on October 4,2010 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Chair Roney adjourned the Regular Meeting of August 2,2010 at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk