Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-07; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION February 7, 2011 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Chair Roney called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m . ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Chair Guy Roney Vice-Chair Steve Gallagher Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Jack Cumming None Staff Members Present: John Kim, Traffic Division Manager Lt. Marc Reno, Carlsbad Pol ice Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 6, 2010 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Mo tion by Chai r Cress, and duly seconded by Comm issioner Cumming, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on December 6, 2010, as presented. 4-0-1 Gall agher, Cress, Cumming None Valderrama There was no Traffic Safety Commission meeting held in January 2011. ITEM 4 -ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: N one . February 7, 20 11 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 -PREVIOUS BUSINESS: None. ITEM 6 -NEW BUSll\TESS: ITEM 6B: Revise the prima facie speed limit upon Aviara Parkway from Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real. John Kim, Traffic Di visio n Manager, stated since there was a group from the public who wished to speak on Item 6B, staff would c hange the order of presentation to accommodate the audience. Item 6B is to rev ise the prima facie s peed limit upon A viara Parkway from Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real. Staff d oes not no rmally look to raise speed limits arbitrarily. Normally staff looks at speed limits as they expire. Based on the California Vehicle Code (CVC) they can last from 5 to IO years in length . Most commonly in Carlsbad, speed zones are updated approximately every 7 years. Staff also re-evaluates speed zones upon the request o f the Poli ce Department if they feel that a speed zone needs to be re-evaluated, which is why this item is befo re the Commi ssion today. Mr. Kim indicated the subject road way is currently posted at 40 miles per hour. The Engineering and Traf fic Survey was approved on December 27, 2007 with speed surveys dated Oct ober 9, 2007. Based on the requirements contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCQ) and the C VC, this Engineering and Traffic S urvey is not considered expired. However, the Police Department has requested that thi s speed zone be re-eval uated based on recent experiences in court in which speeding cases have been di smissed due to inadequacy of the current Engineering a nd Traffic Survey. A paragraph from the MUTCD which govern the setting of speed limits in California s tat es: "The setting of speed limits can be controversial and requires a rational and d efensible determination to maintain publ ic confidence. Speed limits are normally set near the 85111 percentile speed that statist ically represents one standard deviation above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of what is considered reasonable and prudent. As with most laws, speed limits need to depend on the voluntary compliance of the greater majority of motorists. Speed limits cannot be set arbitrarily low as this would create viol ators of the majority of drivers and would not command the respect of the public." Th e establ ishment of speed limi ts is governed by the e ve as well as the CA MUTCD. The policy stat es that the speed limit shall be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment of the 85 th percentil e s peed. It also s tat es th at ifthere is a 5 mi le per hour reduction from the 85 th percentile speed that is applied , the Engineering and Traffic Survey shall document in writin g the conditions and justification for that reduced speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. Mr. Kim stated the 85 th percentile speed , often referred to as the criti cal speed, is the speed which 85 percent of the driv ers are travel ing at or below. The premise implied in speed zoning is that the February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 majority of drivers are operating their vehicles at or near the 85th percentile sp eed. Drivers that operate their vehicle at speeds higher than the 85 th percentile speed should be the focus of the police as excessive speed is often a factor in a vehicle collision. A comprehensive review of the collision history on a roadway also is an important element in the process to establish a speed limit. The review of collisions will also reveal if there is a high incidence of speed-related collisions on the road at specific locations. However, absent a significant collision history attribut ed to speed, it may be concluded that d rivers are operating their vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner at the speed they choose to drive. The subject portion of A viara Parkway is approximately 2.1 1 miles in length and is classified as a Secondary Arterial in the Circulation Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. The road follows a curvil inear alignment with grades ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent and has a curb-to-curb width of 82 feet. There are two traffic lanes and a bicycle lane in each direction separated by a raised median. The subject segment has been improved with curb and gutt er, sidewalk and street lights on both s ides of the roadway. On-street parallel parking is not allowed on the subject road segment. Traffic signals control traffic on A viara Parkway at Poinsettia Lane, Kestrel D rive, B lack Rail Road, Four Seasons Point, Kingfisher Lane, Batiquitos D rive, Ambrosia Lane, Mimosa Drive, Manzanita Street, and El Camino Real. The intersections at Nightshade Road and Towhee Lane are minor-street Stop controlled . A viara Parkway to the north of the subject roadway from Poinsettia Lane north to Palomar Airport Road is cunently posted at 45 miles per hour. Mr. Kim indicated surrounding land use is primarily residential in nature with a golf course, an elementary school, a middle school , a post office, and a shopping center located nearby. There is a school crosswalk at the intersection of Ambrosia Lane and A viara Parkway. School speed limit signs are augmented with flashing beacons and are installed to alert motorists approaching the intersection from both directions . Traffic counts were obtained on A viara Parkway on September 21, 20 l O and December 1, 2010 to determine the two-way, 24-ho ur average daily traffic volume .The recent count data ranges from 12,345 to 16,262 vehicles per day. Staff reviewed the Police Department traffic collision reports for the two-year period from January I, 2009 through December 3 I, 2010. In that period, there have been six reported collisions on the subject segment of A viara Parkway, of which four were speed-related. The accident rate for Aviara Parkway was found t o be 0.27 accidents per million vehicle miles. This compares favorably with the statewide average of 1.61 accidents per million vehicle miles for t he same type of roadway. Mr. Kim said staff conducted speed s urve ys on A viara Parkway on October 6, 20 IO to determine the 85 th percentile speed. As stated previously, the 85 111 percentile speed, commonly called the critical speed, is the speed at wh ich 85 percent o f the vehicles are traveling at or below. The critical speeds were found to be 47 miles per hour and 44 miles per hour. The California MUTCD requires that the speed limit be es tabli s hed at the nearest 5 mjle per ho ur increment of the 85 th percentile s peed and that a 5 mile per hour reduct ion may only be applied if the conditions and jus tification for th e lo wer speed li mit are documented in the Engineering and Traffic Survey and approved by a regi s tered C ivil o r Traffic Engineer. Staff concluded that the nearest 5 Febru ary 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Mee ti ng Page 4 mile per increment of the 85 th percentile speed is 45 miles per hour and that no j ustification for a 5 mile per h our reduction was presented. Mr. Kim s tated based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends revi sing the prima facie speed limit upon Aviara P arkway, fr om Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real, from 40 mi les per hour to 45 miles per hour. An ordinance will be required to be adopted by the City Council to rev ise the prima facie speed li mit upon A viara Park way as recommended. DISCUSSION: Lt. Marc Reno, Carlsbad Police Department, addressed the Commission and stat ed that part of the reasonin g the police would like the speed limit increased to 45 miles per hour is because the Police Departmen t's hands are tied when it comes to speed traps. In order for the Po lice Department to do enforcement with radar, lidar, or a speedometer with an electronic interchange with the transmission, they need an Engineering and Traffic Survey in place to enforce speeds. The Engineering and T raffic Survey has to be within 5 miles per hour of that 85 th percentile speed. Chair Roney stated that hi s understanding of what Lt. Reno e xplained is if the Commission d oes not fo llow the above outlined procedure, the courts will not s upport the c itat ions that the Police Department write. Lt. Reno stated he was correct. CVC 40804 s tates that testimony based on a speed trap in any prosecution under this code charging a vehicle with speed, if the guidelines are not followed by the Police Department, the officer will be found incompetent as a witness in the testi mony based upon or obtained from the speed trap, and it will be thrown out of court. Commissioner Cumming replied that the p rinciple is that most drivers are considered to drive safely. California has what is known as the basic speed law that says speed li mits can only be set at the level that 85 percent o f the people consider to be a safe level for their driving. On the roadway segment of A viara Parkway from Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane the speed limi t is posted at 45 miles per hour. He wanted to know if there been traffic difficu lt ies or acc idents that are speed-related on that segment of the roadway where the speed limit has been 4 5 miles per hour. Mr. Ki m answered that based on the current Engineering and Traffic Survey that is on fi le for that portion of A v iara Parkway, staff does not have a signi ficant collision history. T he survey indicates t hat there have been a total of three collis ions in a two year period with one being s peed-related. February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Cumming stated that 4 of 6 accidents on the roadway segment under consideration today were speed-related accidents. He asked for an explanation or details of these accidents. Mr. Kim informed him that he did not have the details of those collisions. The only consideration in an Engineering and Traffic Survey that applies to them is whether or not they are speed related. Commissioner Cumming asked how staff determines whether it has statistical significance. Did he use a Poisson distribution or by what other method? Mr. Kim replied the normal methodology in terms of collision is to look at the collision rate. The state publishes collision rates for ro adways based on classification. Staff compares our collision rate with the state rate for the same type ofroadway. That is the 1.61 rate he mentioned in hi s staff report that he is comparing to. If our rate exceeds the state rate, then they would consider that to be an issue. Commissioner Cumming asked if the rate was credibility adjusted or is it the raw ratio? In statistics, statistical ratios require greater credibi lity if there are more instances of something occurring than when there are very few, such as 4 accidents. Mr. Kim believed that it was a straight rate and that no factors have been applied. It was just the total number of accidents divided by length of roadway and ho w many vehicles are on that roadway. Chair Roney stated he drove the subject roadway often and he felt if yo u tried to drive it at 40 miles per hour, you would be holding traffic up because you'd be passed all the time. So 40 miles per hour is not what the normal traffic proceeds at along that segment of roadway. Vice-Chair Gallagher commented that he suspected that as w ith the reported collisions, if one gets a rear-ender at a signali zed intersection and the car that rear-ended the car that is starting to go forward , they were probably only travelling at 15 miles per hour and that would still be considered a speed-related collision. He noticed when he reviewed the subject roadway that staff should be commended where they took their speed checks, because he believed that both were fairly close to signali zed intersections. Because there are so many, he fe lt that probably the speed checks that were taken were. a little bit lower than if they would have been taken at other segments of that portion of roadway . Mr. Kim indicated with the numerous surveys conducted on A viara Parkway he would consider that an accw-ate statement. February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 Vice-Chair Gallagher said he suspected the previous speed checks that were taken prior to 2007 were very similar to what the Commission was looking at tod ay. Would that be a fair assessment? Mr. Ki m stated they were fairly si milar. In fact, they were a little bit higher. The existing survey has 3 critical speeds and they are 49, 48, and 46 mi les per hour. In general, they are in the same realm of speeds. Public T estimony Chair Roney called for Public T estimony. De' Ann Weimer, 6606 Fiona Place, Carlsbad, representing Friends of Aviara. She understood that th e Police Department was in a catch 22 situation. She was r equesti ng on behalf of Friends of A viara th at they relook at the information they are presenting and consider lowering the speed li m it on Aviara Parkway instead of raising the speed limit. This would help the police get the distribution spread that they need to enforce traffic citations. Perhaps not all of the conditions that affect a g iven community are reflected in an overall general algorithmic approach to traffic disbursement. For that reason, there are organizations and committees such as the Commission to apply real-world application to balance it with the statistics that are presented. Ms. Weimer didn't know if the Commission was aware that the re have been concerns raised by residents for the last two years about the speed on Aviara Parkway. They have made a request that the speed be a ddressed by ei th er lo wering the traffic requirement or by putting in speed bumps. They have requested that there be changes to Ambrosia Lane, so there would be a lower speed coming off of Ambrosia Lane and A viara Parkway to protect the chi ldren. There is also an Alzheimer's Inst itute on this roadway. The residents come out and walk on this pathway and their safety needs to be considered. Issues have been raised where Dove Lane comes into A mbrosia Lane and they have requested speed bumps applied there to slow down the traffic. This community has been very concerned with the speed that has been allowed on Aviara Parkway. The response they have re ceived from the City is basically to do their own traffic studi es, because they do not supp ort the ir concerns about the speed. She di dn't think that was the message that t h e Commission or City Counci l wants to take with residents who are concerned a bout the safety of their children, the elderly, and pedestrians who are on a road that was never designed to be a major t horo u ghfare or conduit between El Camino Real and I-5. This was designed as part of a planned communi ty, it is winding, it curves, it has beautiful sidewalks, and it is designed for the pedestrians and the community, and it was not intended to be a major thoroughfare for the City. These consid erations need to be taken into account as the Commission tries to decide w hat is best for the population that exists and uses this road ev ery day. She hoped the Commission would consider lowering t he speed limit ins tead of raising it. February 7, 201 1 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Larry Posner, 6024 Paseo Airosa, Carlsbad, stated he was astounded that the Commission wanted to raise the speed limit on the subject roadway. It was like rai sing the speed limit to 95 miles per hour on 1-5. He could understand the Police Department's concern about the cases being thrown out of court. He felt maybe the City's attorney needs to sharpen his skills. He drives that road himself and goes to I-5 and the street is a beautiful twisting and turning road. The speed limit should be lowered, not raised. If need be, police should write out more tickets and raise the prices on them. Jacques Romatier, 7283 Spoonbill Lane, Carlsbad. He felt that the speed limit that the staff was presenting was the right way to go. A speed limit below the current 40 miles per hour does not resolve one problem. If you were driving at 30 miles per hour people will p ass you on the left. He too would prefer to have an ideal situation, but the residents have to accept one thing, which is they need for the people driving on this thoroughfare to be able to do it in a reasonable time. One aspect that should be slowed down is at the school. The school definitely is one aspect that he is co ncerned about as a grandfather and the speed should slow down there. He would like to see more police surveillance of the school area, but one cannot adjust the speed down for all of the time just because of a few hours when school is in session. Other people have to go to work. He fe lt that 45 miles per hour was a reasonable speed for this roadway. He thanked the police for a ll that they do and were there when children are present and the speed is reduced 25 miles per hour, and he was fine with that. Steve Lincoln, 6638 Towhee Lane, Carlsbad, Friends of Aviara and member of the Architectural Committee fo r the Master's Association. He w anted to read a couple of emails into record of some homeowners who could not be present today. He personally felt that increasing the speed limit was wrong on A viara Parkway with its many nuances to the road from an 800 employee hotel with the only functional bar, two schools, a convalescence home, numerous pedestri ans and bicyclists that utilize the facility as a Master Plan Community. The re sidents there have enj oyed the usage of that community i n the resort-type lifestyle. There have been a number of accidents in hi s community that have been a result of speeding traffic and line of sight issues that many of those neighbors are very concerned with the speed limit that goes on past this critical speed that is currently running at 49, 48, and 46 miles per hour accord ing to the Traffic Survey conducted by Robert Johnson, City Engineer, in 2007 on the subject roadway. At that point in time , with those speeds shown at thi s critical speed, Mr. Johnson fe lt the safety level of speed fo r that area was 40 miles per hour. Now, staff is proposing an increase of 5 miles per hour to 45 miles per huur. It's interesting that s peed limits can be set based upon what individuals are actually capable of driving at. Mr. Lincol n stated Aviara Parkway is very diverse not only in the buildings that are associated with it, but also the la ndscapin g. There are huge pine trees. A study was conducted by the City that the accident rate of A viara Parkway was found to be 0.27 accidents per million vehicle miles which compares favorably w ith the statewide average of 1.61 accidents per million vehicle mi les to the same type of roadway. However, he was unaware of any ro adways that had the sa me topography as February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Aviara Parkway in Carlsbad . There is a lot of vegetation that the Aviara's Master Association maintains within that area to beautify it and make it look as resort feeling as one could imagine within the Southern Cali fornia area. The current traffic survey is not considered expired. He wondered if this particular traffic survey if the 85 th percentile was the reas on they were having difficulty with the speed trap conditions. He understood that this particular law seems to be arbitrary, but it puts them in a position where it gives a lot of power to tho se who are driving on that road. He mentioned earli er that there is an 800 employee h otel on the property and the employees dri ving to and from that property enter and exit from Batiquitos and A v iara Parkway are driving at a rapid rate of speed often to meet their shift deadlines. An interesting study would be to determine if the speeders were residents or employees working in their area. Mr. Lincoln asked ifthere was public notice given a bout today's meeting because the homeowners just found out about it a few days ago. He read a couple of emai ls he received from homeowners over the weekend so he could express some of their thoughts o n the matter. He then gave the Minutes C lerk 21 pages of emails from several residents near the subject roadway to be included in the public record. Seeing no others wishing to testify, Chair Roney closed Public Testimony. DISCUSSION: Mr. Kim indicated he'd address some of the questions that came up during Publ ic Testimony. Regarding the public notification issue of this item, staff is n ot required to con tact residents or businesses for a speed zone change. Staff posts their agendas in a public form as requi red, both at Council Chambers and on the website . Since Aviara Parkway is contro ll ed by a Master Association, staff felt it would be a good idea to contact Aviara Master Association about the upcoming agenda item. They were notified one mo nth prior to the January meeting that this was a potential item. Since the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee elected to put off the item until the following month, Mr. Kim sent out another notice stating that the item would most likely come up in February. Therefore, more than the minimum standard of notification was sent with regard to the public about this agenda item. The current Engineering and Traffic Survey was menti oned during Pu blic Testimony that there are higher critical speeds of 49, 48 and 45 miles per hour, and yet there is a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. That, by definition, is unenforceable, and that is the reason why this item is on the agenda today. The me thods of setting speed limits have changed over the years in increments. In 1996, the state said you hav e to go below the increment of the 85th percentile speed. That changed in 2003 where they were required to go to the nearest 5 mile per hour increment. At that time, there was no strict requirement for the 5 mile per hour reduction. The re was just a general engineering judgment that could be applied. In 2010, it was clearl y s pe cified that if you were to j ust ify a 5 mi le per hour February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 red uction from the base critical speed, that it had to be on the Engineering and Traffic Survey and justified by a registered Engineer. So over the years, the methods of establishing the speed limits have changed. Interestingly enough, the critical speeds on A v iara Park~ay have not changed much. The speed surveys, dating back to 1993 to the existing speed survey done in 2007, show critical speeds of 49, 48 and 46 miles per hour, in 2004 critical speeds of 48, 49 and 45 miles per hour, and in 1993 critical speeds of 50, 48 and 44 miles per hour. The basis that prevailing speeds determine the speed limit and not the other way around leaves us to believe that regardless of what the speed limit is set, it will not really determine the speed at which people drive. People will drive according to the conditions. That is the basis of how speed limits are establ ished. Mr. Kim indicated the comment from Mr. Posner that it was like raising the speed limit to 95 miles per hour on the 1-5, since this Engineering and Traffic Survey is non-enforceable, in essence we have a roadway that the maximum speed applies. The maximum speed is 65 miles per hour for a divided roadway. That is currently the speed limit on Aviara Parkway, and only with an enforceable Engineering and Traffic Survey would staff be able to reduce t he s peed to an enforceable level which in this case would be 45 miles per hour. Lt. Reno stated he felt for the community. When enforcing traffic laws, there are a lot of varying factors. Section 22350 states you are trave lli ng at an unsafe speed which is set by an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Section 22349 states you are travelling above 65 miles per hour. Section 22348 states you are travelling over 100 miles per hour. Those are his only choices. So when it is said that a current Traffic and Engineering Survey has speed limits on it of 49, 48 and 46 mi les per hour, we are above that 5 mile per hour critical speed and the court has found if they are incompetent under 40805 it says every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a verdict. The court can't even render a verdict; they have to say that they cannot even hear the evidence. The officer comes in and testifies and the Traffic Commission says, "Stop . I can't even render a verdict. Case di smissed." Without the Traffic and Engineering Survey being b rought into the context of how they can actually enforce those laws, police will not be able to e n force the laws with lidar or radar or even a speedom eter. He hoped that explained some of the questions. The Police Department does not want to increase the speed limit; they wan t to be able to enforce the speed limit. His hands are tied. He needs to raise the speed limit in order to enforce it. If the speed limit remained at 40 miles per hour or it was lowered to 35 miles per hour as someone suggested, there will be no enforcement and, therefore, no show of police coverage in your neighborhoods. The police cannot commit a 4 th Amendment violation of unreasonable seizures of their person. Mr. Lincoln had asked if there could be a study of the residents versus non-residents who drive on subject roadway. Mr. Kim said unfortunately, that is not a basis for determining the speed limit. The speed limit is put in place regardless of who is driving on the roadway and staff can make no determinations whether or not that person is living or visiting in Carlsbad. The rules of the road apply to everyone equally. February 7,20 1 1 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page IO As far as some other issues brought up as a basis to reduce the speeds, such as roadway curves and the safety of the school, Mr. Kim indicated these issues are considered readi ly apparent to the drivers per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) or CA MUTCD. These types of issues can be signed for, s uch as appropriate signage for the school wit h flashing beacons to let dri v ers know there is a school ahead. That can also be done with curves and other items that are readily apparent. If a resident asks for increased enforcement during school hours, Lt. Reno should be able to comply with those requests as they come in. Vice-Chair Gallagher stated the subject roadway is a Secondary Arterial on the Circulation Element, which means it is not a residential type of street. Is there anything a b ove a Secondary Arterial within the City of Carlsbad? Mr. Kim replied there were in terms of roadway classification design standards in Carlsbad. There are two roadways that are classified h igher than the Secondary Arterial. The first one is the Major Arterial and the second is the largest capacity roadway in Carlsbad, which is the Primary Arterial. Vice-Chair Gall agher indicated that they were talking about a roadway jus t based on the counts that carries a lot of traffic, o bviously more than just local residential traffic. Looking at the speed surveys and when they were conducted, there was a comment that alluded to the fact that possibly the drivers that were going to their workplace at the hotel were the speeders. However, the speed checks were taken during the non-peak hours of the day, so that would suggest that it is not during the rush hour for employees to get to work at the Aviara Hotel. In addition, h e asked if there was a crossing guard at the Ambrosia school. There was, so in addition to the signal to get the children across t he street, there is also an adult w ho aids those children. T he thing that bothered him is if we the Commission does not raise the speed limit, they wi ll have legalized a speed trap, and regardless of whether the residents or staff or Commi ssioners disagree wi th that or not, the state has already made a statement as to what they think is appropriate and what is a speed trap . He understands where the police officers are goi ng to be put in a teITible situation. When you look at the speed s urvey and the speed check that was taken, none of the vehicles were go ing close to 35 miles per hour. If, in fact, the Commission were to lower the speed limit to 35 miles per hour, in effect they will have made I 00 percent of the motorists in v iol ation of that particular speed. Commissioner Cumming stated he appreciate the people coming today and talking of the issues. He has listened carefully to everything that everyone has said. He understands their concerns for children and s afety in their neighborhood. For th e most part, Carlsbad's traffic rules are set in a federal manual which fo r the most part the states adopt, including California, becau se people need to know what to expect wherever they drive. You can't suddenly find that the traffic rules and signage is complete ly different in Oceanside from what is in Carlsbad. We do have to conform with the state requirements. He shared the residents' concerns . He drove the road several times and the school signage states 2 5 miles per ho ur when children are p resent. Some other states don't have the 'when February 7, 20 11 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 children are present' requirement and the speed limit is always 25 miles per hour in a school zone. Their hands are tied. The City should be commended. The police want to enforce the laws to protect the people of their neighborhood and their children, but he needs the tools to be able to do this and is asking the Commission to help him do this. M r. Kim has responded in great detai l to the concerns the public testimony addressed today and he explained the protocols he has to follow. He felt this issue was well considered and thought out. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: M otion by C ommissioner Cumming, and duly seconded b y Chafr Roney, to revise the prima facie speed li mit upon Aviara Parkway, from Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Rea l, from 40 mi les per hour to 45 miles per hour. 5-0-0 Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Cress, Cumming None None Chairman Cress informed the Commission th at he had an appointment and had to leave the meeting early. ITEM6A: Review, comment upon, and approve the TSC rules and procedures and adopt TSC Resolution No. 2011-1. Returning to the first agenda item, Mr. Kim indicated that item 6A was ini tiated by him. On a yearly basis, the Traffic Safety Commission re v iews the procedural rules for the conduct of the Traffic Safety Commission meeting. If changes are required based upon needs identified at Commission meetings in the previous I 2 months , changes can be incorporated into the 2011 resolution. Traffic Safety Commission Resolution 2011-1 governing rules and procedures was originally adopted in 1990 and there have been several changes in subsequent years thereafter. If there are no revisions recommended by the Commission, TSC Re solution No. 20 11-1 is provided for adoption by the Traffic Safety Commission. Sho uld revi s ions be necessary, this item will be continued until the next available meeting with the revi s ions incorporated into the revised resolution for consideration by the Commission at that time. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Gallagher asked if the City still had a City Traffic Engineer si nce Robert Johnson left that position. The Resolution refers in many places to the "City Traffic Engineer." Should that title be changed to something more appropriate? February 7,20 1 I Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 Mr. Kjm stated that was technically correct. In l ight of the T ransportation Department's on-going realignment and reorganization, he wou ld be hesitant to change that to an interim title. For all intents and purposes, he co uld be labeled as Acting City Traffic Engineer. He h as j us t passed the Traffic Engineerin g exam. He felt it would be best to keep that title as it is now and see if there are any pro po sed changes to that title in the realignment, and then address it at that tune. Vice-Chair Gallagher stated his intent was not to make this more d ifficult. He had just noticed the resolution kept referring to "City T raffic Engineer" and he wasn't s ure if there was actually one now. If Mr. Kim was comfortable leavin g the wording in tact for now, he was fine with it. He stated that on Page 4 of the Reso lution where it sta tes "without further questions, the Chairperson will invite the person to the podium, request they state their name and address, e ach person is granted 5 minutes to speak only on that agenda item." He was wondering whether or not it would be appropriate to add another sentence such as "Additional time may be granted at the discretion of th e Chairperson." Because each pers on has 5 minutes to speak, there are times when we have allo wed the public to continue s peaking. He wondered if add ing that sentence would help clarify that particular point. It might he lp to explain more definitively what opti ons the Commission has. The last comment he had was on the next paragraph o n Page 4 of the Reso lution s tating, "Upo n closure of Public Testimony, the Chairperson will in vi te questions of staff." He thought it might be a good idea to add "will invite follow-up questi o ns of staff by Commission members." Commissioner Cumming indicated he was comfortable with the current wording of the R esolution. He thought the 5 minute rule was clear. The latter ambiguity that was alluded to a ll ows for things like we had today where Mr. Kim responded to issues that were raised during Public Testimony. So he was inclined to move the Reso lu t ion as proposed . ACTION: VOTE: AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: M otion by Commiss ioner C umming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to adopt TSC Resolution No. 201 1-1 as presented. 3 -1 -0 Roney, Valderrama, Cumming Gallagher None ITEM 6C: Investigate the need to install a s top sign on Beech Avenue at Ocean Street. John Kim stated Item 6C was to inves tigate the need to install a stop sign on Beech A venue a t Ocean Street. The Ocean Street/Beech A venue intersec ti on is a low-vo lume T-intersection in the northwesterl y portion of Carlsbad used by tourists attracted to the adjacent coastline and by vehicles from ne arby residences. Ocean S treet, wh ich is consid ered the "top" of the T , is controlled by stop signs. Beech Avenue, which is considered the "stem" of the T, is currently u nco ntroll ed . February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 Beech Avenue and Ocean Street are low-volume two-lane roads that intersect to create a T- intersection. Both roadways are unclassified on the Circulatio n Element of the General Plan, but functi on as local streets . The wid th of Ocean Street vari es from 19 fee t to 25 fe et north of Beech A venue and from 31 to 34 feet south of Beech A venue. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist only on the east side of O cean Street south of Beech A venue . On-street parallel parking occurs along both sides of Ocean Street. Mr. Kim indicated Beech A venue is 4 0 feet wide and has curb, gutter, s idewalk and street lights along the south side of the roadway. A portion of the north s id e contains curb, gutter and sidewalk. Parking is allowed on both sides. The roadway is about 525 feet in length between its terminus at Ocean Street on the west and Carlsbad Boul evard on the east. Drivers us ing westbound Beech A venue do not have a stop sign as they approach Ocean Street. Ocean Street is traveled by pedestrians who use the public beach access located just south of Beech A venue . Pedestrians often walk in the travel lanes of Ocean Street due to the lack of sidewalks and the roadway being narrow . The intersection immediatel y to the north (Ocean Street/Cypress A venue) is a I-intersection with all three approaches stop-contro ll ed. The intersection to the sough (Ocean Street/Chri stiansen Way) is also a T -intersection with all three approaches stop controlled. Mr. Kim stated though there have been no reported traffic collisions at the intersection for the s ix year p eriod from January I, 2005 through December 31, 20 I 0, the requestor, Mr. Bruce Pettibone, states that he has seen a number of near co lli si ons over th e 14 years he has li ved near the intersection. A fac tor in the near collisions may be the lack of stop control on Beech A venue at Ocean Street. Drivers on Ocean Street may erroneously assume that Beech A venue is st op- controlled, increasing the chances of a potential collision. Mr. Kim said staff recommends that an all -way stop intersection be established by installing a stop sign on Beech Avenue. T he assignment o f right-of-way will be clearly established for all three legs of the intersecti on for both vehicles and pedestri ans by creating an all -way stop intersection. CVC Section 21355(a) authorizes loca l authorities to erect stop signs at any location for the p urpose of controlling traffic within an in tersection. The T raffic Safety Coordi nating Commit tee recommends establishing an all-way stop at the intersection of Ocean Street/Beech A venue by installing a stop sign on Beech A venue. The City Council must adopt an ord inance to establ ish the stop control as recommended. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chai r Gallagher asked what the interi m volume was. When he looked at the su bject road segment, the road was under construction and closed to traffic . What kinds of volumes is staff talking about? February 7, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 Mr. Kim stated he did not have the volumes in front of him, but they are less than 1,000 per day. The volumes are very low on Ocean Street. Vice-Chair Gallagher understood the idea of stopping the stem of the T, but by putting the stop sign in, you have created an all-way stop. Typically, the interim volumes at an all-way stop control by state suggested guidelines are not even c lose to being me t at thi s location. There have been no d emonstrated issues here and it doesn't appear to be broken even though it is unusual the way it is working. How did the other all-way stops get installed? Mr. Kim replied that the other all -way stops have been there for awhile. He didn't know their history. They may have been established when the roadways were built. He didn't know if stop analyses were performed at those two locations. Si nce there is an existing stop on Ocean Street an d Beech Avenue on both approaches, h e didn 't know if an all-way stop analysis would be the appropriate analys is in this case since the poss ibility of driver confusion is significant on Ocean Street approaching Beech A venue. There has been no problem on the subj ect segm ent regarding collisions. Commissioner Cumming agreed that it was confusing driving there. Most stops in the C ity are all- way stops, so dri vers tend to expect that and are s urprised when it isn 't. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Cumming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to establish an all-way stop at the intersection of Ocean Street/Beech A venue by installi ng a stop sign on Beech A venue. 4 -0-0 Roney, Gallagher, Valderrama, Cumming None None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS None. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER M r. Kim reported that at the las t City Counc il meeting the it em to approve the ordinance for a speed zone change on Loker A venue was remanded to th e Traffic Safety Commission. Therefore, that item will be coming back to the Commission. most likely next month, to revisit that idea. There was a February 7, 201 1 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 15 gentleman who addressed the City Council who works for a company that is located on West Loker A venue w ith buildings on either s ide of the street with heavy pedestrian volumes going from building to building. He expressed concerns regarding the speed limit increase. Mr. Kim informed City Council that it would probably not affect the speed limit, but staff would work with the gentleman and the company to address his concerns in other ways, including but not limited to additional red curb on Loker A venue, possibly a painted crosswalk, and some increased signage. The speed limit will most likely not be changed when it is brought back to the Commission, but they have items to accommodate the pedestrian volume after staff h as done it s investigation. Vice-Chair Gallagher asked if Mr. Kim envisioned the same speed s urveys that were done before that the Commission based its recommendation on coming before them again, and possibly getting some sort of pedestrian survey. Mr. Kim responded they are almost separate items, but since City Council specifically directed the item to be remanded to the Traffic Safety Commission, he 'll bring both items together, a speed limit increase on Loker A venue West as originally proposed and some items to address the concerns by company. Commissioner Cumming asked what the date was of the City Council meeting that the subject issue was discussed. Mr. Kim stated the date of the C ity Council meeting was January 25, 2011. The next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting is scheduled to be held on March 7, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Chair Roney adjourned the Regular Meeting of February 7, 2011 at 4:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk