Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-01; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: November 1,2004 (Regular Meeting) TIME OF MEETING: 3:OO p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chair Dorsey called the Meeting to order at 3:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present : Vice-Chair Steve Dorsey Commissioner Bonnie Bradshaw Commissioner Susan Gardner Commissioner Guy Roney Absent: Chair Gordon Cress Staff Members Present: Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Division Officer George Hart, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 4,2004 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 4,2004 as presented. VOTE: 3-0- 1 AYES: Gardner, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: Dorsey ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no requests to address the Commission on a non-agenda item. November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, reported that the speed zones on College Boulevard and Cannon Road that were discussed by the Traffic Safety Commission on October 4, 2004 are scheduled for the November 9” City Council meeting for consideration of introducing the ordinance to establish speed limits. The City Council adopted the ordinance for a stop sign that was considered and recommended by this Commission at a previous meeting for the unnamed street in Car Country Carlsbad that intersects Paseo Del Norte. The Commission also recommended time limits on a portion of Paseo Del Norte from 12:OO midnight to 5:OO a.m. and the City Council adopted an ordinance for those time limits. ITEM 6 -NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A. Reduce the prima facie speed limit upon Melrose Drive from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Palomar Airport Road and prohibit through trucks from using Melrose Drive. Mr. Johnson explained that Item 6A was initiated by a letter dated October 5,2004 from the Rancho Carrillo Master Association. The letter addressed four items, two of which will be addressed at this meeting. The first was to lower the prima facie speed limit upon Melrose Drive. The second request was to designate Melrose Drive as a non-truck route. The two other items are currently in progress. There was a request that a traffic signal be installed at Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Escuela, the school driveway to Carrillo Elementary School. The other request was for flashing beacons to be installed on Poinsettia Lane in the school zone. The City Council awarded a contract for the installation of the traffic signal at their meeting of August 3, 2004. The traffic signal installation is in progress. The inspector reports that the traffic signal will be installed by the end of this year or early next year. In conjunction with the installation of the traffic signal, there will be flashing beacons installed on the School Assembly C signage, which is the “School 25 miles per hour when children are present” sign. Mr. Johnson stated that at this time Poinsettia Lane west of Carrillo Elementary School terminates. It is being constructed through the Bressi Ranch project and is projected that some time in the early part of next year the Bressi Ranch portion of Poinsettia Lane will be completed. The portion of Poinsettia Lane being constructed by the Villages of La Costa is ahead in the schedule. The portion through Bressi Ranch west of the school will be opened after the traffic signal is installed. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that the prima facie speed limit of 55 miles per hour on Melrose Drive was established by Ordinance adopted by the City Council in December 1998. It was based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey as recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission to the City Council. On occasion, the public asks that a posted speed limit on a roadway be reviewed. Mr. Johnson further explained that speed limits are established through the customary process in Carlsbad and in most local agencies throughout California by first conducting an November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Engineering and Traffic Survey. Results of the survey are then presented to the Traffic Safety Commission for a recommendation, and that recommendation is then presented to City Council. The Council subsequently adopts an ordinance to establish the prima facie speed limit on a particular roadway in Carlsbad. All of the prima facie speed limits established in Carlsbad have gone through that process. The statutes provide a means of establishing the speed limits by one of two ways: Basic Speed Law or prima space speed limits, which are specified by statue or they are established by local authorities, which is our City Council. The prima facie speed limits are established upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. Basic Speed Law, Section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code, provides that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway or street greater than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons and property. This is what is called Basic Speed Law and it is in effect at all times on every road throughout the city. It doesn’t matter what the posted speed limit is, Basic Speed Law prevails. There may be conditions on the roadway due to weather or other factors where a driver has to adjust their speed accordingly lower than the posted speed limit. The law expects that the driver would do so. Mr. Johnson reported that the prima facie speed limits are specified in the California Vehicle Code or there are specified speed limits established on the basis of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, which is authorized by the California Vehicle Code. There are some prima facie speed limits, as an example the 25 miles per hour in a residential area that is a location that qualifies as a residence district per the requirements of the California Vehicle Code, or that is established on the basis of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, which comes to this Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Johnson commented that Basic Speed Law preempts the prima facie speed limits when the conditions in Section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code are met. Again, regardless of what the posted speed limit is, Basic Speed Law is in effect at all times, preempting the prima facie speed limit. Drivers have to adjust their speed accordingly to the conditions on the roadway. Local authorities are authorized by Sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code to establish prima facie speed limits on streets on the basis of the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. This is what occurred on Melrose Drive. There was an Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted, and the results were presented to the Commission and Council. Mr. Jshnson cited Section 627 of the California Vehicle Code defining what the term Engineering and Traffic Survey means. It states that: “An Engineering and Trafic Survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the Department of Transpovtation, consideration of all of the following: prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; accident records; and highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.” The speed surveys are conducted to determine the critical speed - the 85” percentile. The 85” percentile speed is the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are traveling at or below. Not all of the drivers are traveling at the 85* percentile, but rather at or below. The Engineering and Traffic Survey shall document if there are conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Mr. Johnson mentioned that November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 collision statistics are also documented in the Engineering and Traffic Survey, which is included in the staff report to the Commission. The Commission was informed that speed limits should normally be set at the first five mile per hour increment below the critical speed. In fact, the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.5 states that it is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. This means that the expectation is that the speed limit would be set at that first five mile per hour increment below the critical speed. The Engineering and Traffic survey is posted in the courts in San Marcos. There the Traffic Commissioners review the citations issued by the Carlsbad Police Department. The Traffic Commissioners in the San Marcos Court have indicated it is their expectation that unless there are other conditions that can be documented to justify a further lowering of the speed limit, the speed limit should be set at the first five mile per hour increment below the critical speed. Mr. Johnson explained that when determining the most appropriate speed limit to establish in order to facilitate an orderly movement of traffic that is reasonable and prudent, there are several important factors that must be considered. First is the prevailing speed, the 85th percentile or critical speed. Second, any unexpected conditions must be documented, such as conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Third is the collision history. Continuing, Mr. Johnson explained that speed limits should be set at or near the 85th percentile. When the speed limits are set on the basis of the 85th percentile, they then conform to the consensus of those who drive the street as to what is reasonable and prudent. It also provides to all enforcement officers a means of controlling drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers to be reasonable and prudent. That top 15 percent are generally those individuals that the officers are going to be targeting when they do their speed enforcement. They are the ones that are driving at excessive speeds and therefore, subject to citation. If roadside conditions or development results in conflicts or some type of unusual condition, which is not readily apparent to the driver, such as the collision history, then it can be a factor in setting the speed limit. One of the conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver could be the collision history if it is a location where there is documented that a high collision history exists. Melrose Drive in Carlsbad is designated as a prime arterial on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This is the highest classification, it is a six lane divided roadway, and the road is designed to city standards. It is posted with a 55 mile per hour prima facie speed limit. Mr. Johnson indicated on the overhead slide that there is a school zone on Melrose Drive just to the south of Poinsettia Lane. In that school zone, there are school zone signs to indicate 25 miles per hour when children are present. The school zone signs are supplemented with flashing beacons. There is a very low collision rate on Melrose Drive that was documented on the Engineering and Traffic Survey. For the two-year period that the Survey covers, the collision rate on Melrose Drive was found to be 0.68 accidents per million vehicle miles. This compares with the statewide rate of 2.15 for a similar roadway. There were thirteen collisions in that two-year period, five of which had excessive speed as the primary or secondary factor in the collision. Those five collisions were distributed throughout November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Melrose Drive corridor. There was no grouping of any one particular collision factor along Melrose Drive. Mr. Johnson stated that when the speed survey was conducted with a radar gun measuring the prevailin speed on the roadway, speed surveys were obtained at three locations. The critical speed, or the 85‘ percentile speed, was 56 miles per hour at a location 0.25 mile north of Poinsettia Lane, 58 miles per hour at a location approximately 150 feet north of Via Patron, and 55 miles per hour at a location south of Alga Road. At last month’s Traffic Safety Commission meeting, speed zones were discussed. Mr. Johnson referred to a court case, the People v. Goulet, which was decided in 1992 and is a case that the San Marcos Commissioners rely on heavily when it comes to speed zoning and whether tickets should be upheld in court. The basis of the Goulet Case was that the Engineering and Traffic Survey did not support the speed limit that was posted on the roadway. Consequently, the roadway was considered a speed trap and all of the tickets were thrown out and determined not be valid tickets. When there is a speed trap in existence, the police cannot enforce the speed limit using radar, and in effect, there is no speed enforcement on the street as a result. % Explaining speed traps, Mr. Johnson mentioned that they are defined in the California Vehicle Code. It is a roadway posted with the prima facie speed limit that is not supported by the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey when radar is used. In Carlsbad, radar is used on arterial streets. It is too difficult and inefficient for the police to try to pace a vehicle in the type of terrain and on the type of streets located in Carlsbad. The City Council wants to make sure the streets are not speed traps so that the radar can be used. For those that choose to ignore or violate the prima facie speed limit, the police can give them the appropriate citations. If there was a speed trap on Melrose Drive, Mr. Johnson mentioned that radar would not be able to be used, and there would be virtually no enforcement. It would be too difficult to try and get behind a vehicle and pace the vehicle on that type of street in order to conduct speed enforcement. With the alignment of the street, drivers would be able to see the officer. There are locations that would make it very difficult for the officers to park and then get out into the street to begin pacing the vehicle. It would be a challenge, which is why it is important that the road not be a speed trap. Mr. Johnson read one of the key statements in the Goulet Case as follows: “The Legislature has spoken clearly on the subject of speed traps. Speed traps - reduced speed zones not justijied by the conditions - bring disrespect to law enforcement and the courts. We have discussed the requirements and consequences at length because it must be clear to trafJic engineers, local authorities, and law enforcement ofJicers that if a prima facie speed limit is set without being justified in fact by the Engineering and TrafJic Survey, the speed limit cannot be enforced by any means involving the use of radar. Local authorities must set prima facie speed limits carejklly, as justified by appropriate factors, to avoid making use of radar unavailable for speed enforcement.” . In summary, Mr. Johnson indicated that by taking all of the above into account, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee (TSCC) recommended that there be no change to the existing 55-mile per hour prima facie speed limit that is posted upon Melrose Drive from Rancho Santa Fe Road to November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 Palomar Airport Road. It was the conclusion of the TSCC that the Engineering and Traffic Survey does support the posting of 55 mile per hour speed limit on Melrose Drive. Mr. Johnson reported that the second item requested to be considered was the issue of truck routes. Truck routes are designated in Section 16.32.091 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Exhibit 2 of the staff report indicates the truck routes that have been established in Carlsbad. Currently, Melrose Drive is not designated as a truck route. All other streets in Carlsbad according to Carlsbad Municipal Code 10.32.090 are prohibited to be a truck route when the trucks exceed 14,000 pounds maximum gross vehicle weight and are on that street. That is why Carlsbad needs to designate which streets are truck routes. Melrose Drive is a prime arterial on the Circulation Element. In the Circulation Element, it indicates that prime arterial roadways are intended to prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no alternative exists. It also prohibits access via the driveways that are normally found on many of the different types of streets. Prime arterials provide for regional and intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and other regional roads. Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road are regional roads that Melrose Drive connects from one end to the other. The prime arterials are intended to carry heavy volumes and heavy loads. That is the design and intention of the roadway by being the highest classification of roadway in Carlsbad on the Circulation Element. The Commission was informed that within two to three years, Melrose Drive would be completed northerly from Palomar Airport Road to connect to Vista. Then it would be a through connection from the northerly portions of Vista, continuing south through Carlsbad and terminating at Rancho Santa Fe Road. When reviewing this matter, Mr. Johnson explained that staff found that there are streets currently being constructed that should be considered for a truck route classification or a non-truck route classification. Therefore, the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee was to consider the matter in its totality and not just address one particular street, in this case - Melrose Drive. There is a need to look at all of the other streets and to basically reconsider and re-review Carlsbad truck routes. For instance, Rancho Santa Fe Road is under construction. Currently, Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Melrose is a non-truck route that will change in the future when the construction is over. The current ordinance indicates that trucks can use northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road by using the truck bypass. However, the truck bypass has now been eliminated with the current construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road. A comprehensive review of the truck ordinance in Carlsbad appears to be appropriate. Melrose Drive would be considered in that review and the entire truck route ordinance is recommended by the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee to be reviewed in its totality. Summarizing, Mr. Johnson said the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends a non-truck route not be established today, but rather a study of all of the truck routes in Carlsbad be conducted. The matter would come back to the Commission at a future date to be determined. November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gardner asked what coordination that Carlsbad had with the cities both south and north of it. Mr. Johnson stated that regarding Melrose Drive, Carlsbad communicates frequently on numerous issues with the adjoining cities, whether it is Encinitas, San Marcos, Vista or Oceanside. Issues will be discussed with them with respect to truck routes and construction. Haul routes have been coordinated with San Marcos during the construction of the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road in San Marcos and also in Carlsbad. They have been asked to keep trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road for the construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the city of San Marcos, unless there are reasonable exceptions. They have been good about coordinating with Carlsbad on that. There is reasonable coordination at the appropriate times on the various issues with local agencies. Commissioner Roney asked when this would take place as far as the review on the trucking routes. How long would it take to accomplish? MI-. Johnson replied that he expected to get direction from the City Council if the Commission recommends that it go that way. It would probably be something that the City Council would direct them to study and bring back in a six to twelve month time period based on other workloads. It is not something that would be decided in one or two months. Melrose Drive won’t connect from Palomar Airport Road to Vista for several years at a minimum. Certainly the Melrose Drive portion would be addressed within that time period to get a final decision before the road is completed. Vice-Chair Dorsey asked if Melrose Drive is currently not designated as a truck route. MI-. Johnson answered that Melrose Drive was not designated by ordinance as a truck route. There are signs posted on both ends of Melrose Drive, one at Palomar Airport Road and one at Melrose Drive to prohibit trucks from using it. The ordinance allows trucks that have business in Carlsbad and need to use the road to do so. For instance, moving vans can use Melrose Drive. If someone is moving in, the truck has all of the rights to use that road to get to a particular location. If there is an approved haul route due to some kind of construction activity, trucks can use Melrose Drive, but the intent is to keep vehicles that are 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or heavier off the street. Commissioner Gardner asked what kind of enforcement of that ordinance is made. She felt that it would be difficult to enforce. November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Officer Hart stated that based upon the speed limit that is posted on Melrose oad, it is one of the more difficult ones to enforce because Section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code does not pertain to that. They try to write another section, which would be Section 22349(a) of the California Vehicle Code, which is exceeding the maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour. In that location, typically if speeding tickets are going to be written for exceeding the maximum speed limit, speeds are somewhere between 67-70 miles per hour. Commissioner Gardner clarified that what she had meant was how would the truck ordinance be enforced. Officer Hart answered that the truck ordinance, if it is posted that it is a truck route, and drivers have business within that route, they can be cited if they are not using that route. However, if the truck has business there, the police cannot enforce it and it is hard and difficult for the police to know who does or does not have business there. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Vice-Chair Dorsey opened public testimony. Robert Woelffer, 6138 Paseo Monona, Carlsbad, stated that he is a member of the Rancho Carrillo Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Referring to a poster that he brought to the meeting and displayed for the Commission to see, Mr. Woelffer disclosed that from Palomar Airport Road down to Alga Road with Poinsettia Lane crossing Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive goes right through their residential community of Rancho Carrillo. It was the HOA’s original understanding that the street was designed to be a road to connect to a new easdwest freeway back in the 1970s. This set up the parameters for a six-lane road because it was to connect to a freeway. The freeway got eliminated, but the road design stayed. Now Melrose Drive goes down and does not go anywhere except to Rancho Santa Fe Road which goes right back to El Camino Real. It is a through route, but it really doesn’t go anywhere. You could go up Palomar Airport Road or the 78 Freeway. Referring to the poster, Mr. Woelffer pointed out that in the community there were trail systems and the drawing depicted a canyon running through the center south of the school. There are trails throughout the canyon. Being a residential community, a lot of people walk with their dogs, are on the trail system, and they walk along Melrose Drive. There are probably more people on a main street wallung in Rancho Carrillo than do anywhere else in the city. This is a downhill slope of one- half mile and a downhill slope on the other side of one-half mile, which approaches 8%; so it is fairly steep. It goes to a low area and then starts coming back up. When cars are going 55 miles per hour or more, they are moving along at a very fast pace. There is an elementary school there. The children from their community have to cross Melrose Drive. There is a sign posted stating 25 miles per hour, but if you’re driving at 55 miles per hour down hill, you cannot get to 25 miles per hour without having all of the cars behind you come up and almost hit you. Mr. Woelffer stated that he November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 had tried it, and he had a hard time getting down to 25 miles per hour, and he wasn’t going 55 miles per hour when he started. Mr. Woelffer said that he has not seen any enforcement of speed limits on this street, which is maybe because police don’t enforce it until vehicles are traveling at 67-70 miles per hour. He observed some enforcement after the school signs went up. However, that was only after the HOA requested that the school zone signs be installed at the end of the school year last year. The beacons were installed this past summer. Mr. Woelffer remarked that there are areas of diminished visibility, such as at Rancho Bravado where the road is coming uphill at a curve. This is an intersection where possibly not all of the accidents have been reported to the police department, but there have been numerous accidents at that location. None have been bad accidents, but if a vehicle is traversing at 55-60 miles per hour up there, if you make a free right hand turn, it is a problem. The HOA is requesting a 45-mile per hour speed limit because they believe that is appropriate. The sidewalks come right to the street. There is no buffer zone. The children are on bicycles and scooters and these elementary school children are zooming along the road. In addition, Mr. Woelffer stated that Melrose Drive is a no-trucking zone now, but they are concerned that in the future, it could be switched back to a trucking zone. There are no businesses in their neighborhood for those trucks to go to. The new shopping center down in La Costa would be a lot shorter for trucks to go from El Camino Real via Rancho Santa Fe Road. Since this is a residential community, they would like to keep the trucks out. This morning, Mr. Woelffer said that he saw a %-foot tractor-trailer going through there and there were no police there to enforce it. In conclusion, Mr. Woelffer referred to the intersection of Paseo Escuela and Poinsettia Lane The HOA is aware that there is a traffic signal going in, and is thankful for that. The question is how is that signal going to be operated and controlled? There is a high volume of traffic corning in and making a left-turn in the morning, and coming out in the evening, and this is a very constricted area. If you can’t get the cars in and out, you’re going to have back-ups on Poinsettia Lane. Are there going to be loops in the road to allow high volumes of traffic to left-turn in, and allowing traffic to come out, stopping the cross-traffic on Poinsettia Lane. This is what they are interested in once Poinsettia Lane gets extended. Mr. Woelffer was advised by Vice-Chair Dorsey that Mr. Johnson would address the above traffic signal issue when the public testimony was concluded. Fran Pistone, 2875 Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, is a teacher at Carrillo Elementary School. Ms. Pistone stated that she is representing the School Improvement Council, a group of parents and teachers at Carrillo Elementary School. They are very concerned about speed limits around the school. They agree with what the HOA is saying that it is next to impossible to stop and get down to 25 miles per hour when you’re traversing at 55 miles per hour. As Officer Hart mentioned earlier, most drivers go November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 above that. She perceives this as really dangerous. There are children walking to school as young as six years old because there is no bus service if you are within a certain distance from the school. These children are walking unattended, and it just is not safe. There have been issues with some of the patrol adults who cross children who have had run-ins with vehicles where the vehicles have just zoomed by while they are standing with their stop sign held up, and the vehicles just ignore it. Ms. Pistone understands about people using their discretion and being careful, but the bottom line is that people simply do not. They are not careful and often speed. Their concern is for the safety of the children. What the School Improvement Council is asking for is the City of Carlsbad to seriously look at the speed limit on Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane. Because of the traffic patterns in and out of school when the children are coming and leaving, it is crucial what kind of a light is being installed. Although thrilled that a light is being installed, it is going to need arrows and a lot of planning to ensure that people can move correctly and safely in and out of the school parking lot. Commissioner Gardner asked Ms. Pistone where the crossing guards were located. Ms. Pistone answered that two were located at (1) the comer of Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane, and (2) at the comer of Paseo Escuela and Poinsettia Lane. She explained that the crossing guards at Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane have had the most problems with drivers speeding right by, and near-misses with the adults as well as with the children. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the school provided the crossing guards. Ms. Pistone affirmed that the school provided the crossing guards since it was their responsibility to provide them. Ms. Pistone quipped that if the City of Carlsbad wished to send somebody over there to do it, it would be great! Fred Wise, 2875 Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, is the Principal at Carrillo Elementary School. He is also a member of the School Improvement Council where there was a long meeting about a number of issues that have been discussed here tonight, the speed limit, the truck route, and the traffic signal. MI-. Wise commended Bob Johnson as being very helpful to him, explaining some of the issues and much of the information that he shared with the Committee tonight he has also shared with him. Mr. Wise stated that the concern continues to be very loud among the group of parents and staff that he represents that the speed limit on Melrose Drive, considering the fact that people need to slow down to 25 miles per hour during school hours, is really bordering on being unenforceable or ridiculous. Vehicles travel so fast, and then are directed to go slow so that they feel they are just crawling down this hill, which is going both ways down to the intersection at the corner of Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive. Mr. Wise remarked that he had personally served as a crossing guard, as November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 principals do when the people cannot come to work, and he has personally witnessed a cement truck incapable of stopping, blowing his horn and smoking on all tires right through that intersection. Mr. Wise had children, an orange vest, and a stop sign - and the truck had no hope of stopping. This truck had business in the neighborhood, so he was there legally, but with that downgrade there, asking these people to slow down to 25 miles per hour and then to be able to stop is pretty much an impossibility. Mr. Wise stated that he was totally aware of what Mr. Johnson was referring to about the predominate speed because he drives that street and he feels as if he is being passed on the freeway - like as if he has entered a freeway on-ramp, and he has a slow car to boot. So it gets a little scary. This is why he feels it is an issue to consider - that it is an issue of the speed limit and an issue of the trucks. As far as the signal is concerned, that is part of what is going on with the school. Mr. Wise explained that the signal at Paseo Escuela and the entrance to their parking lot is of major concern for them because all of the streets surrounding the school have bike lanes and therefore, there is no parking there. That makes the school parking lot the only place that one can park. That also makes the parking lot the only place where parents can drive through to pick up their children. Since the whole Carrillo development is provided with no bussing and it is quite hilly, there are a lot of parents coming in and out of that parking. There are a lot of volunteers that work with the school in that parking lot, and they are working very hard to get the vehicles in and out. The only reason that it is working now is because the street dead-ends. They have ample ingress and access out however they choose to do it. Mr. Wise asserted that when the signal is installed, there are some aspects of it that Mr. Johnson has indicated are not included in the signal that has been ordered. One is a right-turn arrow to get vehicles out of the parking lot (there is only one in and out of the whole parking lot), and that will compliment the left arrow that will be allowing vehicles to be coming in. If the parking lot becomes impassable, they get people hanging out onto Poinsettia Lane, which as you can see, is a safety issue, assuming that it is going to be a 45 mile per hour speed there. The children crossing the street also access the entrance and exit of the parking lot. That can get confusing with vehicles hanging out, children trying to get between vehicles, and people trying to go across now that the traffic signal has turned green. You can get a mental picture of chaos ensuring at the entrance of the school’s parking lot. Again, Mr. Johnson has been very cooperative with Mr. Wise, being objective, explaining how things work, and how the signals are configured and the like. In summary, Mr. Wise concluded that it is very important to the School Improvement Council that they be involved in the dialogue of how that signal be set up with time set aside for children to cross. Mr. Johnson indicated to him that he’d come out on November gth to watch how their parking lot operates and see the ins and outs. He also indicated to him his interest in having them work with the Leo Carrillo Park which is adjacent to their school, perhaps share their parking area to give them a second way in and out. Nevertheless, when there is any kind of school function, it is the parking lot that is the primary carrier of traffic. Those three points -- the speed limit, the trucks, and the signal - he is glad that the Traffic Safety Commission is listening so they can consider the issues that are involved. November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the school was not located where it is, would the speakers today be here talking to the Commission? Mr. Wise replied that he was employed at the school, and if he was not employed there, he doubted he would be here since he would be somewhere else and might not even be aware of this issue. Commissioner Bradshaw clarified that what she meant was if the school was not there at all, would the speed on Melrose Drive be an issue to them. Mr. Wise responded explaining that because he has the opportunity to be there, he believes he would be worried because of the way the hills aim vehicles quickly down to the bottom of that intersection, and you know how it is when you know you have the green light, but you look anyway, because here is a big hill and you’re kind of hoping that those vehicles will stop. Mr. Wise stated that he perceived that the intersection at Melrose Drive and Poinsettia Lane will prove to be quite a dangerous intersection once that road goes somewhere. Right now, it is just a short segment between two roads and the only people that are going out of there are the people who live there for the most part. Commissioner Bradshaw asked Mr. Wise to clarify once again if he perceived that intersection as being hazardous, even if the school were not located there. Mr. Wise again stated that it was his perception that it was especially when the road went somew here. Closing Public Testimony, Vice-Chair Dorsey asked staff to respond. Mr. Johnson stated that the traffic signal at the school entrance and exit location at Paseo Escuela, being the school driveway that serves the elementary school, had a contract awarded to install a traffic signal, which was approved by the City Council in August of this year. Materials have been ordered and some preliminary work has begun, but there is a long lead-time in getting signal materials due to the number of signals being constructed throughout California. It takes a few months for those materials to come, which is why it is being projected to the end of the year before the signal would be operational. The signal would be a “fully actuated” traffic signal. It means there will be loops, using the technology called video detection, which is a camera that senses the vehicle on the road, puts a call into the controller, and acts and functions as the loop detectors that are cut into the pavement. However, there is no need to cut loops into the pavement. It will be fully actuated so it wili be responsive to vehicles. There will be left-turn arrows off of Poinsettia Lane into the school driveway, and in the other direction onto Paseo Escuela. Because it is a school driveway, the November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 signal timing will have to be adjusted to account to the best that can make it work. Poinsettia Lane in the future, when it is extended and connected with El Camino Real, will have a significantly higher volume of traffic than it does currently. Poinsettia Lane vehicles are the primary users of that signal, except during that short time right before school and after school. So the signal timing will have to be balanced to address all of the needs at that particular location. Mr. Johnson explained that there has been a similar situation on Camino de las Coaches where La Costa Canyon High School is located, and it is necessary to provide significant green time to get the students into and out of that location. So it is not unusual that this is something that needs to be done, and it will be something that is watched closely when the signal is installed to make sure it functions as well as it can. Principal Wise mentioned that there were other things that the school and parents can do such as some remote parking lot pick-up and drop-off points and he and the city are working together on the Leo Carrillo Park parking lot to see if that can work to help distribute the traffic. All of the strategies at this school staff suggests to other schools throughout Carlsbad. It is not unique for this school to be dealing with congestion at peak hour travel. Suggestions include carpooling wherever possible, to have as many parents as possible walhng their children or allowing their children to walk or bicycle to help minimize the number of vehicles going into and out of the school parking lot. The signal will be fully actuated and staff will be working on that timing as mentioned to get it to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible to serve the school and also the surrounding traffic. Commissioner Gardner asked if there was any other engineering solution that may help, such as putting a pedestrian throughway under Melrose Drive, because from what she has been hearing from others is that part of the problem is parents are driving their children to school because they don’t want their children crossing that one intersection. Commissioner Gardner asked if there was some other way to put a pedestrian undercrossing or something that may alleviate some of the problem. Mr. Johnson replied that that a school pedestrian crossing on a prime arterial is a concern, and is a situation that occurs at other locations as well as in school zones where the roads are wide and the speed limit is 25 when children are present, but the road has a different prima facie speed limit when the children are not present. As far as a tunnel, an engineering study would have to be conducted to see how this might work. There is no funding to do a study or to construct a tunnel. Anytime there is a tunnel, there has to be some means to channelize pedestrians down to take advantage of the tunnel. There are always security issues when you have a tunnel under a road and there is the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act that has issues to try to get pedestrians down into the tunnel. Tunnels are very expensive and must be carefully looked at. Mr. Johnson said he was not sure what environmental constraints they might have below the road area. A lot of times, the discussion centers on some type of overcrossing, which have similar challenges. In this particular location an overcrossing has not been budgeted. There is no money allocated for a study or to construct an overcrossing. The same type of situation with having to comply with ADA restrictions to get someone up the ramps to get on the overcrossing exists. There are land issues, where to site the structure, the ramp locations, a lot of challenges to that location. The particular intersection is November 1,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 signalized for the school crossing. There is an adult crossing guard there, school zone signing is installed, and when drivers are not complying, the police are there trying to do the best they can to address that issue. There are a number of schools throughout Carlsbad that generate the same request to have the officers there at the morning and afternoon when school is either starting or ending. Officer Hart made a clarification on one of the public speakers about his comment. Officer Hart was concerned that it may have been misunderstood about his comment as to the speeds at which police enforce being between 67 and 70 miles per hour. He did not mean it to sound as if most people are traveling at those speeds because that was not his intention. He stated that he has often worked that area and the majority of drivers are traveling at the speed limit and within the 85* percentile speed. Vice-Chair Dorsey asked for a motion. Mr. Johnson explained to Vice-Chair Dorsey that he might want to bifurcate the motion since the Commission was addressing two issues today, both the speed limit and the truck route issue. As a suggestion, they may want to make two separate motions. Although it is acceptable to do it as one motion, but generally when there are two separate items, it may be better to separate them. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Roney and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, that based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, that there be no change to the existing 55 mile per hour prima facie speed limit that is posted upon Melrose Drive from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Palomar Airport Road. In addition, that a comprehensive review of truck routes in Carlsbad take place before addrng an additional street as a non-truck route. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Dorsey, Gardner, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS None. November 1 , 2004 TrafEc Safety Commission Meeting Page 15 ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated that next month's regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission would be held on December 6,2004 at 3:OO p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Vice-Chair Steve Dorsey adjourned the Regular Meeting of November 1,2004 at 358 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Steckdaub Minutes Clerk