Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-07; Traffic Safety Commission; Minutes-. MINUTES MEETING OF : DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION December 7,1998 (Regular Meeting) 3:OO p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Gillfillan called the Meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Gillfillan, Blake, Courtney, Whitton Absent: Allen Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer John Kun, Associate Engineer Michele Masterson, Engineering Technician I1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Blake, the Commission approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 2,1998, as presented. AYES: Blake and Whitton NOES: None ABSTAIN: Courtney and Gillfillan ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson stated that the City Council introduced the ordinance for a prima facie 30 miles per hour speed limit on Batiquitos Drive and the ordinance will be in effect in approximately 37 days. NEW BUSINESS: 6A. Vicinitv of Monroe Street, Sunnvhill Drive, Alder Avenue Intersection - Request to investigate traffic safety concerns and provide recommendations. Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson introduced this item and stated that Associate Engineer John Kim would present the staff report. He further stated that this item was initiated by the City Council by requesting that it be brought before this Commission for recommendations. Associate hginea, John Kim presented the staff report and described this item as follows: This is a traffic study initiated by the City Council on September 8,1998, in response to citizen cotlcern for safety at the intersection. These concerns were voiced during the appeal of the May Subdivision project, which was approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently appealed to the City Council. Citizen concerns included the absence of sidewalks for school children from nearby schools. The results of the study are provided in the report titled “Monroe Street, Alder Avenue, Sunnyhill Drive Traffic Study”. In summary, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends the following: December 7, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2 1. Installation of 25 des per hour speed limit signs on southbound Monroe Street, between Park Drive and Alder Avenue and on northbound Sunnyhill Drive, between Alder Avenue and Tamarack Avenue. 2. Installation of a STOP sign on Alder Avenue at Monroe Street/Sunnyhill Drive. 3. Installation of raised pavement markers along the existing double yellow centerline on Monroe Street and Sunnyhill Drive at Alder Avenue. 4. Installation of approxinately 1,450 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk and street lights along the west side of Monroe Street, fiom the southern limits of the May Subdivision improvements to Alder Avenue and on the west side of Sunnyhill Drive from Alder Avenue to Tamarack Avenue. 5. Installation of approximately 600 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk and street lights along the east side of Monroe Street fiom Park Drive to Alder Avenue. Monroe Street, Alder Avenue, and Smyhill Drive are unclassified and function as local streets primarily serving single fhdy residences. The three streets form a threelegged intersection in the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad. There are three nearby schools; Carlsbad High School, Valley Junior High School, and Magnolia Elementary School. There have been very few traflic-related concerns brought to staffs attention by citizens. Records indicate only two complaints in the last five years. Both requests, by residents, were to trim trees and vegetation at the intersection. The study methodology utilized for this report consisted of documenting existing traffic conditions, including traffic and pedestrian volumes during dady, peak, and off-peak hours. Research of collision records for the time period of January 1, 1993 to September 30,1998 was conducted. Other factors and studies considered in the traffic analysis included, data collection of pedestrian volumes, speed surveys, turning movement counts, sight distance, roadway geometrics, and street lighting. Future improvement agreements recorded against residential lots in the project study area was researched. Looking at existing condition; Monroe Street, from the signalized intersection of Chestnut Avenue to Alder Avenue, serves as a local street. However, the road qualifies as a “residence district”, according to the California Vehicle Code, and has a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour, This roadway segment is approximately 0.38 miles in length. Sunnyhill Drive, fiom Alder Avenue to Tamarack Avenue, also qualifies as a “residence district” per the California Vehicle Code. This roadway segment is approximately 0.23 miles in length. Monroe Street and Sunnyhdl Drive form a contiguous roadway with a moderate grade and relatively straight horizontal alignment with the exception of a horizontal curve of an approximate centerline radius of 150 feet at Alder Avenue. Roadway pavement markings are limited to a double yellow centerline on Monroe Street and Sunnyhill Drive at the intersedion of Alder Avenue. Due to the curvature of the horizontal alignment at the intersection, staff recommends that the double yellow centerline be reinforced with raised pavement markers. Stop sign controls exist on Sunnyhill Drive at Tamaradc Avenue and there is an ALL-WAY STOP control at Monroe Street and Park Drive. The subject intersection is uucontrolled. Monroe Street, Alder Avenue and Sunnyhill Drive currently lack curb, gutter, and sidewalk and there are no bicycle lanes. There is inadequate drainage along the east side of Monroe Street from Alder Avenue to Park Drive due to the absence of curb and gutter. This results in standing water along the east edge of the roadway. Exhibit 2 also shows existing conditions including existing traffic control devices. There are numerous driveways in the vicinity of the intersection. Tra€tic studies were COndLLded and data collected, on Monroe Street, Alder Avenue, and Sunnyhill Drive, in the month of October, 1998. The traffic volumes summarized in Table 1 represent two-way total volumes for a consecutive 24-hour December 7, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 period. For a "local stred" the design standard for volume criteria is 1,200 ADT and these volumes fall within that criteria. Speed surveys were also conducted on Monroe Street and Sunnyhill Drive to determine the critical speed and pace speed and are summarize in Table 2. The critical speed on Monroe Street, north of Alder Avenue, was found to be 32 mph and the pace speed hm 24 to 34 mph. The critical speed on Sunnyhill Drive, south of Alder Avenue, was found to be 35 mph with the pace speed from 25 to 35 mph. In the period between January 1, 1993 to September 30, 1998, there was only one recorded collision at the subject intersedon. Exhibit 3 shows the Collision Diagram for the subject intersection. As indicated, there have been no collisions recorded between 1994 and 1998. The subject intersection functions as a "T" intmection. Monroe Street and Sunnyhill Drive operate as a single, contiguous road, while Alder Avenue serves as the terminating leg of the "T". Sight distance at the intersection was evaluated fiom Al&r Avenue. At unsignalized intersections, Caltrans requires a clear line of sight be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Caltrans' Minimum Corner Sight Distance (or 7- 1/2 Second Criteria) governs this requirement and for a design speed of 25 miles per hour, the minimum comer sight distance required is 275 feet. In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 seconds of comer sight diskme may be excessive, due to right-of-way costs and other costs. The secondary, less stringent Sight Distance requirement for 25 miles per hour, is 150 feet. The measured sight distance at Alder Avenue, was found to exceed both the minimum stopping sight distance as well as the minimum comer sight distance. The purpose of a STOP sign is to control the assignment of right-of-way at an intersection. STOP signs should be installed only when trafiic conditions warrant their use. Unwarranted STOP signs are often perceived as a "nuisance" to the driving public and observance of an unwarranted STOP sign can deteriorate after installation, due to drivers not complying with the STOP mdition. This can cause an unsafe condition, not only at the subject intersection, but at other locations where STOP signs are vitally needed. The warrant guidelines for STOP sign installation per the Caltrans Traffk Manual comprise the basic policy that the City uses to establish the need for STOP sip. STOP signs are often installed on the terminating leg of a "T" intersection in accordance with the Caltrans STOP Sign Warrant which states that a STOP sign may be warranted "on a street entering a legally established through highway or street". Therefore, staff recommends the installation of a STOP sign on Alder Avenue at Monroe Street/Sunnyhill Drive. An intersection can be considered for an ALL-WAY STOP when traffic volumes on all legs of the intersection are appmximately equal. A review of the included data for the subject intersection shows that the traffic volumes on Monroe Street and Se Mve are sipficantly higher than the volumes on Alder Avenue. The warrant guidelines for an ALL- WAY STOP are based on such factors as trafEc volumes and accident history at the intersection. None of the warrants outlined by Caltrans were satisfied and the study indicates that an ALL-WAY STOP is not warranted at the subject intersection. In order to quanti@ pedestrian activity at the intemection, turning movement counts were conducted by staff at different times of the day. Pedestrian usage data collected at the subject intersection by staff is summarized in Table 4. Although pedestrian traffic along the west side of the intersection does not cross the path of vehicular tra~c, the lack of sidewalks forces pedestrians to walk along the edge of the roadway and this pedestrian movement was also recorded and tabulated. Exhibit 4 graphically shows the pedestrian movements that were observed and recorded by staff. Momoe Street, Alder Avenue and Sumyhdl Drive lack curb, gutter and sidewalk in the study area. Pedestrians in the study area must walk on an unimproved dirt shoulder or at the edge of the roadway in areas where a shoulder is unavailable. The absence of a shoulder at the intersection results in pedestrians walking in the roadway. The poor drainage condition along the east side of Monroe Street sometimes results in slippery conditions for pedestrians and vehicles alike. In order to prevent this potentially unsafe situation, staff recommends the installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting on December 7,1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4 both sides of Monroe Street, fbn Park Drive to Alder Avenue and on the west side of Sunnyhill Drive from Alder Avenue to Tamarack Avenue. The May Subdivision Project (CT 97-24) received City Council approval on September 8,1998 and the improvement plans are currently in plan check review. This project includes the addition of 14 single family homes and will widen the west side of Monroe Street fiom Park Drive to approximately 380 feet to the south. This project will reduce the amount of staff recommended curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements on the west side of Monroe Street by approximately 380 feet. Records indicate that there are five properties in the project study area which have Future Improvement Agreements mded. All five properties have frontages within the area of recommended sidewalk. These five properties have a total frontage length of approximately 550 feet. Exhibit 5 shows existing sidewalk, limits of the May Subdivision improvements, staff recommended curb, gutter and sidewalk and properties in the study area with Future Improvement Agreements recorded. Analysis of traflic data that includes reported collisions, roadway geometrics, sight distance, and vehicular and pedestrian volumes has been completed. Staff recommends the following be implemented. Mr. Kim presented a series of slides of the subject area and concluded with the following conclusions and recommendations of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee: 1. Installation of Speed Limit (25 mph) signs on southbound Monroe Street, between Park Drive and Alder Avenue and on northbound Sunnyhill Drive, between Alder Avenue and Tamarack Avenue. 2. Installation of a STOP (Rl) sign, 12-inch white limit line and “STOP” pavement legend on Alder Avenue at Monroe Street/Sunnyhill Drive. 3. Installation of raised pavement markers along the existing double yellow mterline on Monroe Street and Sunnyhill Drive at Alder Avenue. 4. Installation of approximately 1450 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the west side of Monroe Street, fiom the southern limits of the May Subdivision improvements to Alder Avenue on the west side and from Park Drive to Alder Avenue on the east side and on the west side of Sunnyhill Drive from Alder Avenue to Tamarack Avenue. 5. Installation of approximately 600 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the east side of Monroe Street from Park Drive to Ald& Avenue. Vice-Chairperson Gillfillan opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Regardrns Future Improvement Agreements, cammissioner Courtney asked ifthere are more FIA’s on file than those shown on Exhibit 5. Mr. Johnson replied that Engineering Technician, Michele Masterson, has more information on the subject of FIA’s. Engineering Technician 11, Michele Masterson, responded by stating that the research she has conducted for FIA’s in the subject area, show that the ones that the City has on file arelwere for some minor subdivisions that had occurred in the 1960’s or 1970’s. Thase FIA’s were already in place when the property owners built their homes. Some of the other FIA’s that were on file were for some of the newer homes that were built in the last few years. Another are that would trigger a FIA is if an applicant comes in with a residential addition and if the evaluation (calculated by the Building Department) exceeds $50,000. However, if a residential addition is evaluated at $49,999 or less, there is no requirement for the signing of an FIA. c December 7, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5 Commissioner Courtney, referring to the Packard property, stated that he understood that there was an FIA attributed to some improvements to that property as well as to the house around the comer adjacent to the May Subdivision. Commissioner Courtney also asked if this area is one of the sidewalks for schools priority areas. Mr. Johnson replied that it is true that this area is in the sidewalks priority area and that is one of the reasons why the Traffic Safety coordinating Gmnnittee recommended the sidewalks as part of the recommendation for this project. The FIA’s for anyhng within the May Subdivision is not indicated in this report. As for the property adjacent to the May Subdivision, Mr. Johnson stated that staff was unable to locate any information on that property but that they would certainly double- check Mr. Johnson added that before this project goes forward to design, staff will make sure that every FIA, on record, is appropriately reviewed. Commissioner Blake asked if those with FIA’s on record will have to pay for their share of the improvements while the others will simply get a “free ride”. Ms. Masterson replied that those property owners with FIA’s on record will be responsible for their fair share of the improvements. Regardmg the praperty owners who do not have FIA’s on record, Mr. Johnson stated that, with a recommendation from the conrmissicm, the City Council could place those improvements on next year’s CIP requiring the acquisition of rights-of-way from those property owners. Generally, once the rights-of-way are acquired by the City, the City will put in the improvements. Commissioner Blake asked if the City must acquire the property owners’ permission to construct the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on their private property. Mr. Johnson replied that for purposes of this report, staff did not try to identify the rights-of-way. They did identify that there is a need for sidewalks and as the project moves iuto the design phase, then research would be conducted to determine if the City has suffkient right-of-way to build the project. Many times the property owners understand that a portion of their property, nearest the street, is City property and they don’t encroach upon it, while others also know about the City property and do encroach upon it. Commissioner Blake asked what will happen if a property owner chooses not to sign an easement agreement. Mr. Johnson replied that many times when such a project has been under construction, a property owner who has previously refbed to sign an easement agreement sees how nice it is going to look and rather than have his property left out, signs the easement agreement. There are cases, however, where the property owner was steadfast in hisher refusal to grant the easement and the sidewalk was not constructed in eont of their property. Commissioner Blake stated that he does not feel that it is right that a few must pay and other get a “free ride”. Refemkg to the critical speed, commissioner Blake pointed out that the speed recommendation is for 25 mph which is over 5 mph over the critical speed, and asked if there will be an enforcement problem because of the difference. Mr. Johnson replied that because the streets qualify as a “residence district”, per the California Vehicle Code, there is a prima facie 25 miles per hour speed limit. The speed survey will assist the police officer with speed enforcement. Whether the street is posted or un-posted, the prima facie speed limit still applies. commissioner Blake refmed to a portion of Tamarack Avenue where the residents kept asking for a 25 mph speed limit, but because of the critical speed, a speed limit of 30 mph was set, and asked why the same was not done for them. Mr. Johnson replied that in his recollection, that while it is certainly a residential area, it did not qualify as a “residence district” because the width of the street exceeded the 40 foot limit. December 7, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 6 ViceChauperson GillfUan asked if the only criteria for the recommendation for a stop sign at the “T” intersection is simply that it is the terminus of that “T”. Mr. Kim replied that there were two warrant studies conducted; one for a STOP sign and one for an ALL WAY STOP. The ALL WAY STOP warrant study had no warrants satisfied while the STOP sign warrant for the terminating leg of the street was satisfied. Floyd L. Packard, 4005 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, owner of the property mentioned earlier by Commissioner Courtney, stated that there is a group of trees (comer of Sunnyhill and Monroe) that if removed in order to put in the sidewalks, the comer will become a safe comer. To date there have been no accidents but there have been many, many close calls. Susan Orbnan, 3965 Monroe Street, Carlsbad, stated that she would prefer not to have sidewalks but is sure that the City will ask her for an easement across her property. She expressed her desire that the City allow the majority of the old trees to remain and asked how she can get more information regarding the taking of land from a property owner. Joe Collins, 400 1 Sunnyhdl Drive, Carlsbad, representing his brother, Herbert Cree Collins, concurred with Mr. Packard’s assessment of the dangerous conditiofls on SunnyhdI Drive, because of the trees and the lack of speed controls. He indicated that he would like to see some caution signs erected, calling for a 15 mph speed on Sunnyhill on each side Monroe. He pointed out that there are such signs on Magnolia and Roosevelt, which are wider streets that Sunnyhill. Seeing no one else wishing to test@, Vice Chairperson Gillfillan closed Public Testimony. Mr. Johnson, stated that without an FIA, the City must negotiate with the owner if right-of-way is required. Many times no righhf-way is needed but a right-ofaw or a slope construction easement is needed. During the design phase the City contacts the property owner to determine rights-of-way. The City tries to preserve trees but if a tree(s) has to be removed, then often times a tree is planted in another place to make up for it. The City also tries to work with the property owner regarding the relocation of any fences, vegetation, etc. The City is not in a position to totally remove eveqthng without consideraton of the desires of the property owners. In many cases the City cannot do everythmg the property owner may want, but, they do make every effort to work with them. In the case of requiring a right-of-way, the City tries to work with the property owner, to provide the amenities that may be removed during the construction of the improvements. The FIA property owner is obligated to put in the improvements when the City sends a letter notifylng them of the necessity for the improvements. They then have 60 days to comply. However, since they would have to get their own design and do the work themselves, the property owner usually defers to the City and let the City do the construction. When the improvements are complete, the City then sends the property owner(s) a bill for their share of the improvements. conmissioner Courtney stated that the subject area has needed these improvements for many years and concurred with the recommended controls. Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Johnson to respond to Mr. Collins’ request for “caution” signs. Mr. Jd.mson replied that he mkstood Mr. Collins to mean he wanted a ‘‘Curve Warning” sign and in determining the need for such a sign, the accident history of the site must be considered. In this case, however, there is no history of any accidents. They also take into consideration the basic speed law, issues, and circumstances. Under all of those conditions, the Trac Safety Coordinating Committee did not believe that a “Curve Warning” sign is not necessary at that particular location. Commissioner Blake stated that once the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are in, the sight distance is likely to improve as well as Mr. Collins’ ability to more easily get out of his driveway. AMENDMENT: December 7, 1998 ACTION MAIN MOTION: ACTION: VOTE: NOES: - AYES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TRAFFIC; SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 Motion by Commissioner Whitton to install “Curve Warning” signs on Sunnyhill Drive. No Second - Motion Failed On motion by Commissioner Chutney, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission upheld the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee as follows; Installation of Speed Limit (25 mph) signs on southbound Monroe Street, between Park Drive and Alder Avenue and on northbound Sunnyhill Drive, between Alder Avenue and Tamarack Avenue. Installation of a STOP (Rl) sign, 12-inch white limit line and “STOP” pavement legend on Alder Avenue at Monroe Street/Sunnyhill Drive. Installation of raised pavement markers along the existing double yellow centerline on Monroe Street and Sunnyhill Drive at Alder Avenue. Installation of approximately 1450 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the west side of Monroe Street, from the southern limits of the May Subdivision improvements to Alder Avenue on the west side and from Park Drive to Alder Avenue on the east side and on the west side of Sunnyhill Drive from Alder Avenue to Tamarack Avenue. Installation of appmximately 600 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the east side of Monroe Street from Park Drive to Alder Avenue. Vice-Chairperson 3-1-0 Gillfillan, Blake, Courtney whitton 6B. Oversize Load Ordinance - Request to establish an ordinance. Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson, introduced this item and stated that Engineering Technician 11, Michele Masterson will present the staff report. Ms. Masterson presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This is an amendment of Title 10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, by the additian of Chapter 10.33 to establish an oversize load ordinance. This item was initiated by the Carlsbad Police Department in May, 1998, at which time the Department stated that the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code does not have an ordinance requiring trucking companies to obtain oversize load permits before moving through the City. While this was imposing some diffkulties for the Police Department, it is rather difficult to enforce such permits if the City does not have such an ordinance in place requiring the permits. For the last several years, without an ordinance in place, the En-g Department has required, and issued, permits to trucking companies moving through the City of Carlsbad. The drafted ordinance was modeled after cities in San Diego County to include, Chula Vista, National City, and the City of San Diego. Staffhas worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Risk Manager’s Oflice, regarding an appeal process in case the company is denied a permit or has a permit suspended or revoked. Another issue is the insurance requirements. Staffwanted to make sure that the oversize ordinance addressed all of the insurance requirements set forth by the City of Carlsbad; in particular, a $1,000,000 liability insurance with an insurance company who holds a rating of “A-V”, or better. The adoption of such an ordinance will give the Police Department a mechanism to cite trucking companies who fail to have a permit. It is the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee’s recommendation that the Commission approve the proposed addition of this ordinance to the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 10.33. Gnnmissim Whittan asked if the current highways under Title 10, Chapter 10.33 .O 10 will cause any problems because it is so generic. December 7, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 8 Mr. Johnson replied that the term “highways” is defined in the Vehicle Code and does apply to City streets and would not cause any problems. Commissioner (hutmy stated he is against such an ordinance because he feels it creates an undue burden on the trucking companies that are traveling on state and federally assigned routes on state and federal highways. He further stated that he failed to find any mention of exemptions for oversize vehicles merely moving through the City and feels that the exceptions appear to be somewhat vague and that people are going to get caught in a trap. Ms. Masterson replied that the reason for such permits is because the City must scrutinize the routes some of the trucks are taking to various construction sites, in order to assure a direct route to their destination as well as to keep them out of residential and other areas where they could compromise public safety. Mr. Johnson stated that only oversize, over-weight, or over-length vehicles will be required to obtain permits. Commissioner Blake asked if this ordinance would apply to the fieeways. Mr. Johnson replied that Caltrans has jurisdiction on the freeways. He added that Ms. Masterson researched a number of cities to obtain information in order to properly write this ordinance. Staffs action in bringing this proposal to the Commission is formalizing what has been happening in the City for a number of years. The ordinance has been reviewed, quite extensively (and approved), by the City Attorney’s Office. ACTION: On don by Commissioner Blake, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission upheld the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee’s recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend Title 10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 10.33 to establish an oversize vehicle or load permit program. VOTE: 3-1-0 - AYES: Gillfillan, Blake, Whitton NOES: Courtney REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS: None REPORTS FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson announced that there may not be a meeting on January 4,1999 and the next meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission will be held at 3:OO p.m., in the City Council Chambers on February 1,1999. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of December 7,1998, was adjourned at 4: 18 p.m. Minutes Clerk