Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-03; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF : DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION November 3,1997 (Regular Meeting) 3:OO p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Blake called the Meeting to order at 3:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Blake, Allen, Courtney, and Gillfllan Absent: Commissioner Green Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer Jim Byler, Sergeant, Carlsbad Police Department Walter Brown, Principal Civil Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner GiUlan, the Commission approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6,1997, as presented. AYES: Chairperson Blake, Commissioners Allen and Gillfllan ABSTAIN: Courtney ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson, reported on two items as follows: 1. The TraEc Safety Commission recommendation for a 35 mph speed limit on Armada Drive will go before the City Council on Tuesday, November 4,1997, for the introduction of the ordinance. 2. The Tr&c Safety Commission recommendation for a 40 mph speed limit on a portion of Cannon Road will also go before the City Council on Tuesday, November 4, for the introduction of the ordinance. NEW BUSINESS: 6A. Aviara Parkwav. Poinsettia Lane to Mimosa Drive - A request to mdiy existing roadway chip seal. Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson presented background information as follows: This item was initiated during the “Oral Communications” portion of the meeting of October 6,1997, by Mr. Alan Bartlett. At that time Mr. Bartlett presented a letter and a petition to the Traffic Safety Commission. Since this was not an item on that agenda, the Commission was unable to take any action on it. Consequently, the item was placed on this meeting’s agenda. This item is primarily a noise complaint regarding the recent (September 1996) chip seal on Aviara Parkway. When receiving complaints such as this one, the City’s position is that it does not build sound walls nor do they initiate any other noise mitigation. If residents wish to join in establishing an assessment district for the purposed of noise mitigation, that would certainly be their prerogative. Mr. Johnson further explained that since this is primarily an issue to be addressed by the Engineering Department, Principal Civil November 3,1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2 Engineer, Walter Brown, will present the staffreport. Principal Enpeer, Walter Brown, began by stating that Mr. Bartlett was quoted as saying that “the commonly used ‘A inch material for chip seals was not used by the City”. Mr. Brown pointed out that the ‘A inch material is not commonly used and the 36 inch material that was used is a medium chip seal and the “default” material in the specifications books for both Caltrans and for the Standard Spec16catim for Public Works. He also pointed out that Mr. Bartlett had not been correct when he stated that staff had not dnven on the surface that is the subject of this noise complaint and that he was also incorrect in his statement that no other, high volume, 40 mile per hour street in the City of Carlsbad has a similar surface. Mr. Brown stated that Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Avenue, and portions of El Camino Real all have the same surface as Aviara Parkway. In addition, Mr. Brown stated that when the Aviara Subdivision was built, an assessment district was retained for the purpose of resurfacing the Parkway if it became necessary. He also pointed out that where there are “s” curves and grades, it is somewhat more difficult for a driver to pass up and down that street without incident. Mr. Brown continued by stating that in the early fall of 1995, Mr. Johnson brought to his attention that there had been a clustering of accidents and expressed his concern for the safety of those driving on Aviara Parkway. In turn, Mr. Brown’s office prepared to go to bid with a chip seal job for that area. Mr. Brown further stated that that particular chip seal had been contemplated at the time of the approval of the subdivision. Mr. Brown displayed some photos of some roadways to demonstrate the relative sizes of the aggregates and assure the Commission that chp sealing this street is, was not, nor was it ever experimental. In any case, the City of Carlsbad respands to the need for chp sealing when it’s need is clearly demonstrated by the physical constraints of the roadway or should there be an accident history (as in the case of Aviara Parkway) that indicates the need for the chip seal. Speakmg specifically to the portion of Aviara Parkway that was chp sealed, Mr. Brown stated that from November 18,1993 through August 17,1996, there have been twenty-seven accidents, ten of which were in wet conditions. Two addtional accidents did not have the surface conditions reported and it is assumed that the conditions were dry. Since the chip seal has been put down, there have been zero (0) accidents on that same portion under wet conditions. The nature of the accidents (all twenty-seven) consisted of two improper turns, one rear-ender, and twenty-four ran off the road or into the median. The accidents involving running off the road or onto the median, essentially losing directional control, are accidents associated with loss of traction, among other circumstances. Certainly for the wet weather accidents, the loss of traction is very high on the list of probabilities, to be a portion of what happened to a dnver. Mr. Brown continued by pointing out that prior to the chip seal, the accident rate on this portion of Aviara Parkway was 1.58 accidents per l,OOO,OOO vehcle miles. Since the chip sealing, the accident rate has been reduced to 0.36 accidents per 1,000,000 vehicle miles and essentially speaks for itself. Regarding the issue of noise, Mr. Brown stated that Aviara Parkway is an arterial street and the City has had no indication that the expected noise levels have been exceeded. Chairperson Blake asked Mr. Brown if the aggregate on Aviara Drive is standard throughout the rest of the city. Mr. Brown responded that the chip seal on Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack, El Camino Real, and Aviara Parkway is all the 3. x N0.6 aggregates. That is the default size aggregate in the “Green Book”. Those specifications cover Ventura County to the Mexican Border and east to El centra. That size is the normal size and is the size used, if a city does not spec@ otherwise. Mr. Brown went on to say that in the case of Aviara Parkway, smaller sized aggregates were considered. However, in view of the fact that the accidents appeared to be connected with loss of traction and hydroplaning, the City felt that going to the normal size aggregate was the most appropriate path. Chairperson Blake asked Mr. Brown if the newly resurfaced portion west of El Camino Real on Carlsbad Village Drive is a chp seal. Mr. Brown, referring to the black section of CVD, just west of El Camino Real, is a rubberized slurry seal. He pointed out that they have been using this slurry seal for a few years and studying it’s durability. There have been good reports from Caltrans. Under dry conditioI1s, it’s coefficient of fiction is actually equal to that of the chip seal. Under wet conditions, however, it does not have the skid resistance of the chip seal material. On the other hand, there has not been the accident clustering at this site as there has been on Aviara Parkway. (hmmksioner Allen asked Mr. Brown asked what type of surface is currently on El Camino Real, fi-om Chestnut to CVD and what is the accident rate. Mr. Brown replied that that surface is a rubberized material and the testing was more for durability than anythmg else. He further pointed out that ECR does not have the sharp curves and steep grades that are present on Aviara Parkway. Commissioner Allen stated that the grades on ECR are pretty steep but the accident rate appears to be negligible and asked Mr. Brown to compare that surface with the one on Aviara Parkway. November 3, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 In response to the first part of Commissioner Allen’s question, Mr. Johnson stated that he does not recall any simcant accident problem on that segment of ECR and, in addition, the rubberized material was used only on the up-hill portion rather than on both directions. Responding to the second part of the Commissioner’s question, Mr Brown stated that initially a standard asphalt concrete was put down. When it became apparent that they would have to resurface Aviara Parkway, it was determined that the rubberized surfaces were adequate under dry conditions but would do nothing to make the surface safer under wet conditions. For those reasons, it was determined that chip seal was the most appropriate surface for that project. As far as cost, Mr. Brown stated that the cost of rubberized materials varies a great deal, often as high as twice as much as conventional asphalt materials, but often lasts twice as long. Regarding the size of the dup seal on Alga Road, fi-om ECR to Melrose, Commissioner Allen asked if that is the default size of 3h inch. Mr. Brown replied that he does not recall the size as it has been a very long time since that project was done. Commissioner Courtney asked if there is a standard design mix for the asphalt on all of these projects or is the design mix for this particular segment any di€€erent that any of the others that have been done in the city. Mr. Brown replied by stating that there was one change to the mix that was done for this particular street. Because the City does have concerns about noise levels, an addtional coating of liquid asphalt was sprayed over the chip seal, which served to suppress some of the noise, decreased the amount of chip throw, and made the road a little darker in color. Regarding accidents, Commissioner Gillfillan asked if the accidents had been occurring in one particular location. Mr. Brown replied that the accidents have occurred in three Merent locations, which are somewhat spread throughout the length of that section of Aviara, with a heavier cluster between Four Seasons Point and Batiquitos Drive. Commissioner Gillfillan asked if there is several years difference between the installation of the surfaces in the photographs and the installation of the Aviara Parkway surface. Mr. Brown responded that there were several years difference, in some cases, and about three or four years difference on the most recent one. He added that the City does not put down any more chip seal than is absolutely necessary because of rock throw and the increase in noise. Commissioner Gillfillan asked for the actual date of the installation of the chip seal. Mr. Brown replied that it was installed in August, 1996. Regarding chip sealing, Commissioner Courtney asked if there is a time period &er which rock throwing is all but eliminated and the noise level reduces. Mr. Brown replied that under nd circumstances the rock throw subsides, dramatically, in approximately two to three weeks. There will be an occasional complaint or two. In the case of Aviara Parkway, a very quick cessation of loose rock was noted. Also, over a period of time, the noise levels tend to lessen as time goes on. However, after a period of time, the surface begins to deteriorate and noise tends to increase again because the deterioration causes the rock to be loosened. Commissioner Gillfillan asked Mr. Brown to restate the facts regarding the measurement of noise levels. Mr. Brown responded by stating the General Plan for the City of Carlsbad has a noise element within it. It is one of the elements required under state law. That General Plan shows noise contours which are generated on a plane basis, not taking into consideration physical accoutrements such as sound walls or terrain or vegetation. Some sound testing has been done on Alga Road to the east of this particular chip sealed section, and it was found that the noise levels were well within the low realm of what was expected. Since chip sealing there has not been any sound testing done on this section of the roadway. Commissioner G~llfillan asked if Mr. Brown has any literature that perhaps states that the roadway surface itself may only make a difference of one or two decibels, one way or the other. Mr. Brown replied that the greatest impact on noise is the speed of the vehicle. At very low speeds, engine noises prevail and at higher A November 3,1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4 speeds road noises prevail. Commissioner Allen asked if the City seems to lean toward safety rather than noise when considering which type of surface will be installed. Mr. Brown replied that as in every design decision, the decision is always a series of tradeoffs. In this particular case, it was recognized that there was accident clustering in the area and it was determined that there was a need for the chip seal, based upon accident rates. It was recognmd, however, that some noise mitigation was also necessary and therefore the additional asphalt spray was installed over the chip seal. He also pointed out that the Asphalt Institute entertains chps as large as % inch as a normal chip seal. In this particular case, a medium sized chip was used which is the designation for the 3! inch size, as opposed to the very fine sized chips. The frst thing they considered was what it would take to make the roadway safe. Commissioner Allen stated that at the same time the accident rate went down, he recalled that there was a very intensive police effort to slow the traffic down, and asked Sgt. Byler to comment on that police effort and if that contributed to the lower accident rate. Sgt. Jim Byler, Carlsbad Police Department, stated that there has only been normal police presence on that section. Periodically, as they do in all areas of Carlsbad, they try to work Aviara Parkway in the areas of the elementary school, on a regular basis. Mr. Johnson pointed out that number of accidents were dramatically reduced from an average of eight per year before the chip seal, to an average of three per year after the chip seal. Chairperson Blake asked how the reduction in accidents ties in with the signalization along the Parkway and ifthe eight months after the second signal was activated was reflected in the reduced accident rate. Mr. Johnson stated there are two traffic signals in this segment and because the side street volumes are so low, the lights remain green for most of the time. This results in through movement of vehicles. Also, he pointed out, the accidents in this case are mid-block accidents, not intersection accidents which are calculated differently. In response to the question regarding the eight month period after the activation of the second signal, Mr. Johnson stated that that period was reflected in the reduced accident rate. Chaqerson Blake opened the Public Hearing and extended the invitation to speak. Russ Kin- 6935 Wildrose Terrace, Carlsbad, stated that as a former law enforcement officer, he was interested in ascertaining what kind of accidents were occurring. He requested, and received, accident information covering the period from 1995 forward and found that the majority of the accidents were a result of hgher speeds and very few were a result of wet conditions. Mr. Kindermann went on to state that the source of the aggravation, with regard to the chip-seal, is the noise. He further pointed out that many of the residents, immediately adjacent to Aviara Parkway, have stated to him that the noise level is intolerable. Those residents also indicated to Mr. Kindm that they would not be in favor of a sound wall. Referring to a conversation with Mr. Brown, Mr. Kindermann stated that Mr. Brown informed him that noise was a deciding factor for putting that chip-seal down because it increases drivers’ awareness and therefore the resulting noise became an objective. Mr. Kindermann concluded by stating that, in his opinion, safety was not the deciding factor for applying the chp seal. Allan Bartlett, 693 1 Wildrose Terrace, Carlsbad, refeg to a June 3,1997 meeting with Mr. Brown and a series of conversations with staff, stated that he does not feel that he was given forthright information, particularly with regard to the surfaces of Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue. He went on to point out that some staff members have told him that if he waited 6 weeks or so, the noise on Aviara Parkway would diminish. However, he further pointed out that the noise has not diminished, as had been suggested. Mr. Barlett suggested that instead of using safety as an excuse for applying the chip seal, why not lower the speed limit. He also pointed out that alternative road surfaces have not been suggested and questioned why the chip seal was used on all of the roadway instead of only in the areas of hazardous driving. Mr. Bartlett also questioned why the city did not install.the chip seal at the very beghung, if they thought that safety was a consideration. In essence, Mr. Bartlett stated that the city wasted taxpayer money by surfacing Aviara Parkway properly and then tearing the original surface out and applying the chip seal. In a question directed to any city st& member that could give him an answer, Mr. Bartlett asked, “If, in fact, Aviara Parkway had to find its way onto a list of priorities for chip sealing, would it have risen to the top of the list if there had not been protected fhds available in the assessment district to do this job? Are there other streets and highways in the city that need repairs?” He went on to point out that he has not heard, in any testimony, that thls chip seal was needed to protect the integrity or the structure of the highway. Mr. Bartlett concluded by suggested that thls item should be continued to another time, to give all interested parties more time to gather information and prepare their responses. Commissioner Gillfillan asked Mr. Bartlett to point out exactly where his residence is located and where the majority of his group November 3, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5 resides. Mr. Bartlett responded by explaining where his home is located, several hundred feet south of Aviara Parkway, and that most of the members of his group actually live along Aviara Parkway where the noise is the loudest. Commissioner Gillfillan then asked Mr. Bartlett if the noise they are experiencing is when they are walking along the corridor, or is it actually noise they are experiencing while inside their homes. Mr. Bartlett replied that it is a combination of both inside and outside noise. He then pointed out that the residents along the east side of the comdor are “downwind” and get the majority of the noise. Commissioner Gilfillan also asked Mr. Bartlett which of the three categories of noise (walking, driving, or in the home) is the most annoying. Mr. Bartlett responded that the in-home and yard noises are the worst. Commissioner Gillillan then asked ifthere has been a sigmiicant increase in traffic since the chip seal, as opposed to traffic before the chip seal. Mr. Bartlett replied that he has lived here since June of 1996 and has limited information regarding trafKc. However, he pointed out, in addition to the fact that there has been a great deal of real estate sold in Aviara recently, Aviara Parkway has attracted many motorist who have found the parkway an easy and convenient way to get across town. Commissioner Chlfillan asked Mr. Bartlett what the community he represents wants ftom the Commission. Mr. Bartlett responded by saying that his group is looking for some kind of a recommendation that is going to reduce the noise level on that street. He suggested the addition of a slurry type of material that will fill the voids between the rocks or some other material or materials. He did point out that since he nor his neighbors are engineers, they cannot outline how to do it but they would like to see the neighborhood sound llke it did before the chip seal. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Bartlett if the residents are willing to pay for the re-work of Aviara Parkway, to which Mr. Bartlett replied that they are not. Mr. Bartlett pointed out that they had already paid for the original road and the recent chip seal and they think that is enough. In response to a number of questions raised by the testimony, Mr. Brown presented answers as follows: 1. TratFc Survey - The design speed for that roadway was, and is, 40 mph. The assessment district money, which was set aside for this eventuality, was the money used for the chip seal. In addition, had the money not been available in the assessment district, TransNet gas tax money or funding fiom a variety of other sources would have been used. 2. The actuaI count of trips per day, as of September 30,1997, was 14,116. The traffic on this road is increasing and the projections for buildout is in excess of 2 1,000 vehicles per day, even with Poinsettia Lane in place. 3. The noise exposure is a function of the number of vehicles as well as any road surface that could be put out there. 4. Staff is very concerned about the attitude of the residents, in that they seem think to that staff thinks it doesn’t matter how the problem is solved. On the contrary, staff looks for ways to solve accident problems that will cause the least impact on the neighborhood. The chip seal is exactly that and has shown its worth by lowering the accident rate to less than % of the previous accident rate in spite of the fact that there has been a si&lcant increase in the amount of traffic. 5. “Is this road higher on a “hit-list” of chip seal, compared to other roads?” Staffs consideration for this project was for accident rates and traffic safety. 6. “Are there other streets needing chip seal or repair?” At this time there is no clustering of accidents of a similar nature because some of the areas with similar characteristics have already been chip-sealed. November 3,1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 6 Commissioner Allen asked if this traffic study included the traffic related to the school at Ambrosia and Aviara Parkway and was answered affirmatively. Chauperson Blake pointed out that since the chip seal was put down, there has been a simcant traffic increase from 10,000 to 14,000 trips per day, and asked if it would be practical to put something else over the top of the chp seal and still not lose all the coefficient of fiction. Mr. Brown replied that in good conscience he could not approve a project that would put lives in danger, for the sake of a few dollars andor the reduction of noise. The implementation of such a project would render the roadway less effective in preventing hydroplaning or wet pavement skidding accidents. Commissioner Men, while in sympathy with the residents of the group represented by Mr. Bartlett, stated that to re-do that street would open the City to having to re-do a large number of streets and he would be very reluctant to do that. Regarding a comment made about the speed limit on Aviara Parkway, Commissioner Courtney pointed out that those speed limits are not arbitranly set or changed by the Traffic Safkty Commission. The roads are designed and speed limits are set, by the city, according to rules of State Traffic Engineering Surveys. The Commission is not allowed to raise or lower, or change in any way, the speed limits. Commissioner Courtney stated that he is very aware of both past and present sound problems in the city and he doesn’t like them any better than the next person. However, he stated that he is also sure that Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson didn’t approach the chip seal project for any other reason than that of safety, i.e., the traffic accident rate. Also, while it is true that the City is cognizant of the noise complaints and their basis, it is also keenly aware of the 35% to 38% increase in traffic since the chip seal project was completed little more than a year ago. Commissioner Courtney further pointed out that it also has to be understood that along with the increase in traffic, on any street or highway within the City Limits, the City’s liability also increases and for that reason, when there is a traffic accident rate problem, the City Engineer must address the problem and correct it immediately. Commissioner Courtney concluded by stating that he is in agreement that the speeds should be watched on Aviara Parkway as well as many other streets and that he will support the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee as they have been presented. Commissioner Gilltillan agreed with the statements made by Commissioners Allen and Courtney and stated his support of the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Coordmating Committee. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Courtney, and duly seconded, the Tr&k Safety Commission confirmed the recommendation of the Traffk Safety Coordinating Committee, to: 1) maintain the chip sealed surface on this portion of Aviara Parkway; 2) monitor the accident rate to determine the long term effectiveness and need for fbture chip seals on Aviara Parkway or some other type of surface treatment; and 3) continue speed enforcement on Aviara Parkway. - AYES: Blake, Allen, Courtney, and Gillfillan 6B. Faradav Avenue. Coke Boulevard to Westerlv Terminus - Request to establish a prima facie speed limit. Traffic Engineer Bob Johnson began the stareport and described the project as follows: Faraday Avenue terminates approximately 4500’ west of College Boulevard, is classified as a collector road and currently there is no posted speed limit on the roadway. However, there is a 40 mph prima facie speed limit on Faraday hm College, easterly to El Camino Real which is classified as a secondary arterial. In order to establish a prima facie speed limit, an Engineering and Traffic Survey is requred. Staff conducted that survey and found that the critical speed on this roadway is 44 mph. Although it is designated a “collector”, the center line radii for the road exceeds the minimum of 300 feet. Each of the curves are in excess of 300 feet, with the tightest curve being a 400 foot radius on the westerly end. This particular curve has a curve warning sign posted with an advisory speed of 30 mph. The horizontal and vertical alignment was considered in the Engineering and Traffic Survey and based on the factors in the Engineering and Traffic Survey, there is a relatively good accident rate, in that there has only been one accident on this road in the past two years. Consequently, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee has recommended that a 40 mph prima facie speed limit be established on this portion of Faraday Avenue to be consistent with the prima facie speed limit previously established on the easterly portion of Faraday. Commissioner Allen asked where the fbture Cannon Road will link with Faraday Avenue. Mr. Johnson responded by stating that Faraday Avenue will be extended to the south, through Macario Canyon, and curve and connect with Cannon Road, sometime toward the end of the year 2000 or early in 2001. h November 3,1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 7 Commissioner Courtney asked ifthe speed limit on Faraday is currently 40 mph all the way to the Safety Center and Mr. Johnson replied &iatively. Commissioner Gillfillan asked Mr. Johnson to indicate exactly where the tight curve, he mentioned in hls report, is located. Mr. Johnson responded to the Commissioner’s request and indicated the curve’s exact location on the “overhead”. Mr. Johnson also explained that all of the curves, with the exception of the one posted with the curve warning sign and 30 mph advisory speed, can handle a 40 mph speed. ACTION On motion by Commissioner Gillfillan, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission confiied the recommendation of the Tratfic Safety Coordinating Committee to establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Faraday Avenue between College Boulevard and the westerly terminus of Faraday Avenue, based upon the results of the Engineering and Trafh Survey. AYES: Blake, Allen, Courtney, and Gillfillan 6C. Camino de las Ondas. Paseo Del Norte to Aviara Parkway - Request to establish a prima facie speed limit. Traffic Enweer Bob Johnson began the staff report and described the project as follows: This item is to establish a prima facie speed limit on the new p0rt.m of Camino de las Ondas and the update of the existing prima facie speed limit. In 1987 there was a prima facie speed limit established on this street, starting at Paseo del Norte on the west and continuing easterly to slightly east of Briarwood. In the last year, with all of the construction that is occurring in this area, Camino de las Ondas was extended up to Aviara Parkway. With the homes being constructed and occupied, staff believes that a prima facie speed limit should be established on the new portion. The Engineering and Traffic Survey has been conducted and has concluded that the critical speed on Camino de las Ondas is 4 1 mph (at Seaside) and 40 mph, 200 feet east of Batiquitos Drive. The new portion is relatively new and along with the older portion, the entire segment has a gd accident history, in that there has been one accident in the last two years. Traffic volumes are much lower, east of Batiquitos, which are approximately 1700 ADT as compared with 4500 ADT, just east of Paseo del Norte. Until recently, Hidden Valley Road did not connect to Palomar mort Road which accounted for the heavier volume on Paseo del Norte. There may now be a slight shift in trac with Hidden Valley Road opening to Palomar mort Road, where residents in hs vicinity can use Camino de las Ondas to Hidden Valley and north. Atter loolung at the results of the Enpeering and Traffic Survey, it was the recommendation of the Tdc Safety Coordinating Committee that the entire segment of Camino de las Ondas, fkom Paseo del Norte easterly to Aviara Parkway be posted as a 40 mph street. Commissioner Courtney asked if Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane are currently posted at 40 mph and can it be assumed that the extension of Aviara will also be posted at 40 mph. Mr. Jlnson replied that the speed, of course, will be based on the Engineering and Traffic Survey, and it is possible that the segment in question will also be posted at 40 mph. Commissioner Allen asked if there are any plans to lay a chip seal over the new rubberized asphalt surface, fiom Aviara Parkway to Pam del Norte, at any time in the future. Mr. Johnson replied that the rubber asphalt surface is the permanent surface and there are no plans to lay chip seal over it, unless there is a demonstrated safety problem where there is hydroplaning. In this case, where there is a straight alignment, Mr. Johnson stated that the Engineering Department would not expect to have a hydroplaning problem develop. ACTION On motion by Commissioner Allen, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission mnfiied the recommendation of the TratEic Safety Coordinating Committee to establish a 40 miles per hour prima facie speed limit upon Camino de las Ondas fkom Paseo Del Norte to its intersection with Aviara Parkway. - AYES: Blake, Allen, Courtney and Gillfillan November 3, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 8 REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS: None REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER. Mr. Johnson announced that the next regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Monday, December 1,1997 at 3:OO p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of November 3,1997, was adjourned at 4:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes Clerk