Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-03; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF : DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION August 3,1998 (Regular Meeting) 3:OO p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Allen called the Meeting to order at 3:Ol p.m. INTRODUCI'ION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER: Chauperson Allen introdud Mr. Frank Whitton as the most recently appointed Traffic Safety Commission and welcomed him to the Commission. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allen, Blake, Whitton, and Courtney Absent: Gillfillan Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer Sgt. Jim Byler, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Blake, the Commission approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 1,1998. AYES: Chairperson Allen and Commissioner Blake NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Courtney and Whitton ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Fred W. Maerkle, 5032 Tierra del Oro, Carlsbad, stated that his street is a cul-de-sac street with only one way in and one way out Consequently, the trafXc from Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard makes it almost impossible to get in (when northbound on Carlsbad Boulevard) and out of the street (to turn left) northbound. Mr. Maerkle added that many times, when traffic will not stop and wait for one to make that left turn, they are forced to turn right (southbound) to the next signal, and then maneuver back into a northbound direction. Mr. Made suggested that another traflic signal be installed at the comer of Tierra del Om and Carlsbad Boulevard. He also suggested that the existing signals be better timed in order to allow more time for pedestrians to cross the street. Chairperson Allen asked Mr. Maerkle if he would like this item to be included on a future Traffic Safety Commission Agenda. Mr. Maerkle replied that he would, indeed, like to have this item placed on an agenda and added that something has to be done about a terrible situation at that corner. August 3,1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2 TraBc Engineer, Bob Johnson, stated that staffis working with Mr. Maerkle to determine the best way to address this issue. He explained that the normal process is to see if staff can take care of the problem by successfully resolving the problem without having to take the matter before the Commission. He further explained that if every issue was required to be brought before the Commission, satisfaction of citizen requests would be delayed for such a long time, it would be impossible to predict how long. Mr. Johnson stated that Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, has met with Mr. Maerkle and is working on his request. He pointed out that the Engineering Department has a very heavy workload and they are doing the best they can to address everyone’s concerns. Regardmg Mr. Maerkle’s request to have the subject of a new traffic signal placed on a future agenda, Mr. Johnson stated that if the Commission wishes it to be placed on an agenda he will comply with their wishes. However, since staff is currently worlang on it, Mr. Johnson stated that it really is not necessary to bring it before the Commission via an agenda. However, if the citizen does not wish to accept the normal procedure, then staff will place the item on a future agenda. Regarding a letter received earlier, by the Commission, Commissioner Courtney asked Mr. Johnson if Mr. Maerkle is the person who wrote that letter. Mr. Johnson replied that it was Mr. Maedde who wrofe that letter but he did not recall the letter mentioning anythmg about a traf3ic signal at Tierra del Oro. However, he continued, Mr. Maerkle’s current request for a traffic signal will take quite a bit of additional study. Mr. Johnson went on to explain that Carlsbad has a Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy that any potential locations for traf3ic signals would be evaluated against and that certainly can be done, if the Commission asks staff to investigate whether that particular location meets traffic signal warrants. Commissioner Courtmy stated that since work has already begun, in an attempt to recm the problem, he would be reluctant to suggest that anythmg more be done at this time. He added that he thinks it would be best for the normal process to take its course before the Commission does anythng that would disrupt the order of things. Commissioner Blake tmncmed with commission Courtney assessment of the situation. He added, however, that he would like to have a report from Mr. Johnson, when the matter is investigated andor resolved. Chairperson Allen concurred with both Commissioners Blake and Courtney and asked Mr. Johnson if it is necessary for the Commission to direct staff any further in the matter. Mr. Johnson replied that any further direction would not be necessary and that Mr. Maerkle’s verbal request for a traff~c signal will be included in the evaluation which will delay the report to some extent. Regadmg the issue of not having enough time to cross the street, Mr. Johnson stated that that is a signal timing issue. He indid that, in the past, they have extended the pedestrian crossing time and he will double check the timing on the signals mentioned by Mr. Maerkle, to make sure there is enough time allowed for pedestrians to cross the street. Bailey Noble, 5470 Los Robles Drive, Carlsbad, stated that although his street is not directly impacted by the lack of a traf3ic control device at Tierra del Oro, the traffic situation on Carlsbad Boulevard is positively terrible. Mr. Bailey added that he is aware that the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Tierra del Or0 and Carlsbad Boulevard is not a simple solution, but, he feels that it is absolutely necessary that those residents of Tierra del Or0 be given the improvmts necessary to ensure safe entry and exit to and from their homes. Mr. Noble also pointed out that traf3c has increased from 12,000 ADT to approximately 40,000 ADT, and when that road is widened, it will be even worse than it is now. PREVIOUS BUSINESS: TraEc Engineer, Bob Johnson, reported that the 40 mph prima facie speed limit on Hidden Valley Road, previously recommended by this commission, went to the City Council for the adoption of the ordinance. He added that the work order August 3, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 has been issued and the Streets Department will install the speed limit signs. NEW BUSINESS: 6A. Laguna Drive, State Street to Jefferson Street - Request to establish a prima facie speed limit. Tr&c Engineer, Bob Johnson presented the stareport as follows: This is a request by the Carlsbad Police Department to establish a prima facie speed limit upon Laguna Drive, from State Street to the Jefferson Street. Currently, this portion does not have a speed limit posted and does not qm as a residence district per the criteria in the California Vehicle Code. As a result, to establish a speed limit in that area, an Engineering and Traffic Survey is required to be conducted. Laguna Drive is unclassified on the circulation element of the General Plan. However, it does function as a collector road immediately to the west of Jefferson Street. It carries approximately 6,700 vehicles per day and as Laguna Drive proceeds west of Roosevelt, the volumes drop off to approximately 3,600 vehicles per day. The accident history is quite good as there have been vq few accidents over the past several years. Between 6-1-96 and 5-3 1-98, there has been one accident on that street (which was speed related) resulting in the accident per million vehicle mile rate of 0.99. The required speed survey was conducted and the critical speed on this portion of Laguna Drive was found to be 34 mph. The California Vehicle Code does allow local authorities to establish the speed limit based on the results of an Engineering and Traffic Survey. Easterly of the intersection at Laguna Drive and Jefferson Street, Laguna Drive does meet the criteria for a residence district and would have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. The segment highlighted on the exhibit, between State Street and Jefferson Street, is slightly in excess of .25 miles in length. The fact that a speed limit has not been posted on Laguna Drive came to the attention of the Police Department, recently, while they were investigating a traffic accident. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee has recommended that a 30 mph prima facie speed limit be established on Laguna Drive from State Street to Jefferson Street. commissioner Courtnqr asked what the speed limit is on State Street at the western terminus of Laguna Drive and also on Jefferson Street. Mr. Johnson replied that the posted speed limit is 25 mph on State Street and 35 mph on Jefferson Street. Commissioner Courtney asked if he would be correct in assuming that the speed limits on Roosevelt and Madison Street would also be 25 mph. Mr. Johnson replied that those streets would meet the criteria of a residence district and would have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Commissioner Courtney stated that because a 30 mph speed limit would aid in the transition from 35 mph, on Jefferson Street, to 25 mph on State Street, he can support the request. Commissioners Whitton and Blake concurreed with Commissioner Courtney and voiced their support. Chairperson Allen stated that he had noticed that there is parking allowed on both sides of Laguna Drive and voiced his support for a 30 mph prima facie speed limit. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Blake, and duly seconded, to uphold the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee’s recommendation to establish a 30 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Laguna Drive, between State Street and Jefferson Street. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Allen, Blake, Courtney, and Whitton August 3,1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4 6B. CMC 10.32.091 - Request revisions to a portion of the Truck Routes-Streets Designated. Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson, presented the staff report as follows: This item was brought to the attention of the Engheering Department by Senior Oflicer Jim Aladits of the Carlsbad Police Department-Traffic Division. Officer Aladits noticed that there is some wording that needs to be clarified regarding Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue as designated truck routes, between Interstate Highway 5 and Carlsbad Boulevard. Code Section 10.32.091 suggests that truck travel is allowed only when eastbound on Carlsbad Village Drive and only westbound on Tamarack Avenue, rather than travel being allowed in both directions on both streets. The confusion comes because signage indicates a different direction, implymg that both directions would be the truck route. In fact, truck travel is allowed, in both directions, on both streets. In order to clarifL the language and remove any confusion, it is suggested that the ordinance be re-written as follows: Section 10.32.091(b) - Carlsbad Village Drive, from Interstate Highway 5 to Carlsbad Boulevard; and, Section 10.32.091(c) Tamarack Avenue, h Interstate Highway 5 to Carlsbad Boulevard. That would imply that both directions are a truck route. There have been no complaints received regarding truck traffk on either of the streets in question. Commissioner Blake suggested that the word “between” be substituted for the word “fiom”, and the word “and” be substituted for the word “to”, in both Code Sections. Example: . . .Carlsbad Village Drive, between Interstate Highway 5 and Carlsbad Boulevard. He also suggested that the phrase, “in both directions” could also be added. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the new wording is consistent with Section 10.32.091(d) - Cannon Road fiom Interstate Highway 5 to Carlsbad Boulevard. He added that the Police Department stated that there is no codision on Cannon Road and if all three sections (b, c, & d) are consistent, they would have no trouble discussing a citation in the courtroom. Commissioner Courtney agreed that those sections should probably be re-worded as per Commissioner Blake’s suggestion, because it seems apparent that the directions need to be made clear. Chairperson Allen called attention to the Code Section 10.32.091, in its entirety, and stated that all of the sub-sections appear to be ambiguous and all of them should probably be changed as Commissioner Blake suggested. Mr. Johnson stated that it appears that everyone has a different interpretation. However, he continued, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee seemed to be pretty clear about the meaning of the Municipal Code Section. Charperson Allen stated that it appears that this Commission is in agreement that the Code Sections 10.32.091 (b) and (c) should be revised with the wording earlier suggested by Commissioner Blake, and added that the Commission also believes that it would be worthwhile for staff to consider revising all of the sub-sections in Code Section 10.32.091 to achieve continuity. Mr. Johnson stated that the other sub-sections referred to are not on this agenda and therefore this item will have to be brought back before this Commission at a later date. AnION: On motion by Curnmissioner Blake, and duly seconded, the TraBc Safety Commission referred this item back to staff for a more complete review regarding the possible language revision of Code sectian 10.32.09 1 (sub-sections a through l), as suggested by this Commission. VOTE: 4-0 - AYES: Allen, Blake, Courtney, and Whitton REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS: None August 3, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5 REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson announced that the next meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission will be on Monday, September 14,1998, due to the Labor Day Holiday. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of August 3,1998, was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes Clerk