Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-05; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION June 5,2006 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Dorsey called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Members Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 1,2006 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Chair Steve Dorsey Vice-Chair Susan Gardner Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Guy Roney Commissioner Bonnie Bradshaw None Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department Motion by Commissioner Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cress, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 1, 2006 as presented. 5-0-0 Dorsey, Gardner, Cress, Roney, Bradshaw None None ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, informed the Commission that at the May 1,2006 TSC meeting the Commission recommended the establishment of a stop control on Hillyer Street/Lynch Court intersection. That item is scheduled for City Council consideration June 7, 2006 to approve that recommendation and introduce an ordinance to install a stop sign on Hillyer Street at Lynch Court. In addition, the Commission's recommendation to establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit on Aston Avenue from College Boulevard to Rutherford Road is scheduled for City Council consideration June 13,2006 to introduce the ordinance to establish that speed limit on Aston Avenue from College Boulevard to Rutherford Road. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Request to establish a prima facie speed limit upon Camino Junipero from Rancho Santa Fe Road to its terminus at Avenida Ampola. Mr. Johnson stated that this item is a request to establish a prima facie speed limit upon Camino Junipero from Rancho Santa Fe Road to its terminus at Avenida Ampola as indicated on the overhead, Exhibit 1. This segment of Camino Junipero from Rancho Santa Fe Road to its terminus is approximately .56 miles in length. It is a modified major arterial on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. It has a curb-to-curb width of 64 feet as opposed to the standard 82 feet, but it is still classified as a major arterial on the Circulation Element. Immediately east of Rancho Santa Fe Road there is a raised landscaped median of approximately 150 feet. The remainder of the road has a stripped median that separates the four travel lanes, two travel lanes in each direction. On Exhibit 1, Mr. Johnson pointed out that there are three street intersections. Each of the side streets are controlled by stop signs. There are two driveways to the east of Avenida Maravilla serving as trail access and access to the SDG&E easement. At the terminus of Avenida Amapola there currently exists an M-9 barricade, a wooden barricade the width of the road with part of the barricade being a chain link fence. The road will be extended into the future as development on the northerly side and a small portion on the south side is developed. There is no date at this time as to when that will happen. It is a private developer project and it will move forward at a time when they are ready to do so. Rancho Santa Fe Road at Camino Junipero is a signaled intersection. There are no other controls on Camino Junipero except for stop signs on the side streets. Mr. Johnson indicated that a traffic count conducted on May 9, 2006 measured the average daily traffic on Camino Junipero at approximately 2,022 vehicles. As development continues in this area, that volume will increase. Staff conducted a speed survey on Camino Junipero on May 9,2006 to obtain data to calculate the critical speed of vehicles, the critical speed being the 85th percentile speed. The critical speed on Camino Junipero was found to be 43 miles per hour. In accordance with state law, an Engineering and Traffic Survey is required to be conducted to establish a prima facie speed limit. June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Mr. Johnson stated that Camino Junipero opened to traffic in early 2005 and there have been no reported traffic collisions on this roadway. Based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends establishing a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Camino Junipero from Rancho Santa Fe Road to its terminus at Avenida Ampola. The road is currently unposted and because it is a four-lane divided roadway it has a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour. Setting a prima facie speed limit of 45 miles per hour is lowering that maximum speed limit. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bradshaw stated that her former employer used to round down. If the 85th percentile came in at 44 miles per hour, they would round down to 40 miles per hour. She asked if the Commission would consider this to be posted at 40 miles per hour. Mr. Johnson explained that the new Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Caltrans 2003 Supplement to the MUTCD recommends that that the speed limit be posted to the nearest 5 mile increment to the critical speed. In this case, that would be 45 miles per hour. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Mr. Tom Dawson, 3555 Camino Cereza, Carlsbad, stated that he was attending the meeting to put a resident personal face on this issue. He stated that Camino Junipero is an interesting street as it was established as an arterial, when it really isn't. It goes to the end, and there are no plans to have it connect as an arterial roadway anywhere. To the residents, it is a residential street. There are residents and trailways on both sides of the street. There are driveways and active trails that families walk across the street to get to. Mr. Dawson understood that a traffic study was conducted that found the average speed to be approximately 43 miles per hour. He felt that a large percentage of that is associated with people coming for construction, trucks that come through there, rather than the residents that live there and the people that perhaps six months from now when most of the construction is finished, people who live there are going to drive well below that speed limit. While it may be necessary to establish a speed limit today, he was hopeful that it could be reviewed again six months from now, so drivers don't get the impression that this is an arterial when he doesn't feel that it really is. It's their backyard. Seeing no others to address the Commission, Chair Dorsey closed public testimony. June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Gardner mentioned that this did not appear to be a true Galician curve, and when the traffic study was conducted, there were some groups traveling faster and some slower, so it may be that there are two groups of travelers on that road. She asked the Commission if it can be reviewed again after construction is completed. Mr. Johnson replied that the speed limit can be reviewed if there are changed conditions or approximately every five years when the speed survey needs to be updated; a review is conducted at that time. If the Commission believes that a review is necessary hi six months that would also take place. Again, the critical speed includes residents on the streets also, and that is why the 43 mile per hour determination was found on that particular street. As the Commission has discussed many times, drivers operate their vehicles at what they consider to be a reasonable and prudent speed on the roadway, taking into account the conditions on the roadway. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if it is posted at 45 miles per hour now and evaluated in a year from now, odds are that that 85th percentile is going to go up, not down. So if it gets posted at 40 miles per hour, then in time, it may go up to 45 miles per hour. But if it is posted at 45 miles per hour, then it's going to go up to 50 or 55 miles per hour. Mr. Johnson answered that was not proven by any previous studies. Drivers drive at what they feel is a reasonable and prudent speed. Just as the speed limit now on Camino Junipero is 65 miles per hour, it's unposted, but the critical is 43 miles per hour, and drivers operate their vehicles at what they feel to be a reasonable and prudent speed based on the conditions on the roadway. Staff finds this to be the case consistently. If a re-evaluation takes place after the road is posted at 45 miles per hour, the critical speed may go up one mile per hour, but it doesn't jump from 43 miles per hour to 50 or 55 miles per hour. Chair Dorsey asked Lt. Rawson if we were to adopt 40 miles per hour as the speed limit, despite the fact that studies says it should be 45 miles per hour, what impact would that have to the enforceability of the speed limit? Lt. Rawson replied that they were going to write tickets whether the speed limit is 40 miles per hour or 45 miles per hour. Typically police will not writing tickets until 11 — 12 miles per hour over the posted limit. Even at 40 miles per hour limit, they wouldn't get ticketed below 51 miles per hour. And none of the vehicles came hi above that. The police could do enforcement at 40 or 45 miles per hour, but as Mr. Dawson explained, as the area continues to develop and the need for police tune increases because of the volume of traffic, it can be revisited. He has had two complaints of speed on Camino Junipero. hi fact, it was Mr. Dawson who made one of the complaints. One of the calls was June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 about a race. It was probably due to the newness of the road and it was the middle of the night and dark out, but the other person reported a Porsche that came every morning out of the east end of the development who was racing their Porsche to the signal light to try to beat it. The police have not found them yet. The police, with due diligence, will get to their area. Based on this survey, it is inconsequential to the police department whether the speed limit is 40 or 45 miles per hour. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to recommend establishing a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Camino Junipero from Rancho Santa Fe Road to its terminus at Avenida Ampola.. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Dorsey, Gardner, Cress, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Dorsey recommended that when conditions change on Camino Junipero, the speed limit be revisited in terms of a new study. ITEM 6B: Review the revised TSC procedure rules and take appropriate action. Mr. Johnson said that this was a continued item from the March 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting. Its purpose was to review the draft of the Traffic Safety Commission Rules and Procedures that had been prepared by Commissioner Bradshaw. At the January 9, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution 2006-1, the rules and procedures that had been in place for a number of years. A rewrite occurred by Commissioner Bradshaw and the Commission reviewed that rewrite at the March 6, 2006 TSC meeting with some comments and revisions to that document. The document has been revised and provided for the Commission's further review hi a redline/strikeout version. There were few changes from the March 6, 2006 meeting, but they are interspersed throughout the new Resolution 2006-2. Mr. Johnson stated that the document is intended to help the Commission conduct meetings. For instance, if there are certain points during the meeting where clarification is needed or some type of rule or procedure needs to be followed. That is the main purpose of the document. The document does not go to City Council for approval. The document is also given to each new Traffic Safety Commissioner when they are appointed by City Council to the Traffic Safety Commission. The document would help the new commissioner to understand what rules and procedures the Traffic Safety Commission follows at each meeting. A number of sections in the currently approved Resolution 2006-1 were eliminated by the rewrite. The Commission should therefore be sure they are comfortable with what has been deleted so that the document, the draft Resolution 2006-2, June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 contains all of the information that the Commission desires. The document is formally reviewed once per year, but it can also be reviewed several times throughout the year if it is appropriate. One way to proceed with this current draft document is to approve it. If the Commission wants additional changes, new revisions, or additions, it can be addressed at some time in the future. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Gardner stated that she had been absent from the March 6, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting and had a question that may or may not have been covered then. Her question was in Section 6 on Oral Communications where a total of fifteen minutes is allowed for all communications. Is this something that has always been done? Was this based upon some other document? Mr. Johnson explained that the fifteen minutes was something that City Council allocates for all oral communications as part of the agenda in which someone can speak to the Council under items that pertain to the City but that are not on the agenda. The same applies to the Commission where someone could address the Commission on a non-agenda item. The fifteen minutes has been traditional with the Planning Commission and City Council. That's why it was incorporated into the Traffic Safety Commission's Rules and Procedures many years ago when this document was created in the early 90's. It is part of the agenda and if the Commission feels the time is too long or too short, it could be modified. Over the past 20 years that Mr. Johnson has been the Traffic Engineer, they have not had five individuals or used up fifteen minutes other than when it has been hard to get somebody to stop their three minutes and it is stretched into many more minutes. It has worked very well at fifteen minutes. It is a length of time, however, that the Commission could modify if desired. Vice-Chair Gardner responded that it wasn't really the fifteen minutes that has been the problem, but the 5 minutes on agenda items. Under Item 8, New Business, and inviting people to the podium for 5 minutes - where does that come from? Mr. Johnson clarified that this would be standard operating procedures for the City Council, Planning Commission, and Public Parks and Recreation Commission. Most other commissions allow individuals 5 minutes to speak and state what they would like them to hear. It has worked very well and is at the discretion of the Chair if he or she would want to give an additional time, another minute or two for the individual to conclude - that happens often at City Council meetings and even Planning Commission meetings. The thinking is that in five minutes somebody has had time to get their point across. Depending on the issue, when there are multiple speakers, they are usually talking on different parts of their concern so that it is not repeated over and over. There is a mechanism if there is a formal presentation by a group to go up to 15 to 20 minutes by requesting that amount of time since they are representing a group. That has happened for several Traffic Safety Commission June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 items over the last two or three years where the Commission has heard a presentation that has lasted about 15 or 20 minutes. Again, it is something that can be modified for what the Commission wants. On agenda items, Mr. Johnson stated, there is no limit on the number of speakers. The five minutes is set, but if the room was packed and there were 25 or 30 or 50 people that wanted to speak, they are all allowed to speak. Some items over the years have had a number of speakers and the meeting has been rather lengthy. The intent is that everyone that wants to speak on an agenda item has the opportunity. It is the Public Comment period under Oral Communications where it is limited to fifteen minutes. There was some discussion at the March 6, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission meeting that if there were a number of speakers that wanted to speak under Oral Comment, there could be an additional Oral Comment period at the end of the agenda, which is what City Council does. City Council has Oral Communications early in the meeting and they take five speakers three minutes each. When that fifteen minutes is up, if there are additional speakers then they have the opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting after all of the agenda items have taken place. Mr. Johnson commented that the Agenda could be structured the same way for the Traffic Safety Commission by providing additional time for Oral Communications at the end of the Agenda. There has not been this type of problem hi the past. If there were seven individuals that wanted to speak under Oral Communications in the fifteen minute period, the Chair has the prerogative to give each one two minutes instead of three minutes, or to stretch it to twenty minutes, giving the seven speakers 3 minutes. There is a lot of flexibility that the Chair has, subject to the approval of the Commission. It is typical when the fifteen minutes has expired and there are an additional one or two people, to ask the Commission if it is the pleasure of the Commission to hear this additional speaker under Oral Communications. The Commission has always agreed in the past to do that. Again, these are guidelines; they're considered rules and procedures, but there is some flexibility depending on the item. It provides a measure of control to the meeting so that the meeting operates in a structured, professional manner, and it helps the Chan- and the Commission to have a document like this. Commissioner Bradshaw said that under Item 13 Legal Guidelines that the Ralph M. Brown Act has been relocated from the federal guidelines to the state guidelines. But the Brown Act had four subsets. Can they be relocated or deleted? Mr. Johnson replied that they could be moved under the state guidelines. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the draft copy of Resolution 2006-2, where it has the strikeout/delete marked, would the final copy be cleaned up or would the Commission still see the additions and deletions. Mr. Johnson replied that the final document that the Commission receives would be a clean copy. It would not be a redline/strikeout version. The reason it was provided to the Commission in this June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 format was to make it easier for the Commission to see what has been deleted or added. Subject to moving the four subsets underneath, if that were the only change, the Commission would approve it and the Commission would receive a clean copy with that switch in that Section 13. Then the Chair would sign the Resolution. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if those subsets should be lettered "A-B-C-D" rather than "1-2-3-4". Chair Dorsey stated probably not since there was a sentence preceding the subsets stating the legal precedence. Commissioner Bradshaw agreed. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Gardner, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cress, to recommend the proposed revisions to the procedure rules contained in the second draft with the one change of moving the four Brown Act subsets to be under state guidelines. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Dorsey, Gardner, Cress, Roney, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Johnson said that staff would make the change and have the Chair sign the Resolution 2006-2, and then signed copies will be sent to the Commissioners. ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Chair Dorsey asked why a new Chairman was elected hi July rather than in June. Mr. Johnson replied that the election of the Chair can be at any time that the Commission desires. Chair Dorsey asked if it was ever done hi June, or has it always just worked out that way. June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Mr. Johnson replied that there have been times that it has been in June, and there are other times that it has occurred, depending on when meetings have been cancelled. The goal is to try to elect in June. It was not on the agenda for today, so it will go on the agenda for July. Vice-Chair Gardner asked when new Commissioners take office. Would they be involved in the election if it took place in June when they first take office in July? Mr. Johnson stated that any Commissioner can vote for themselves when it conies time to elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair, or in some cases, the person has abstained. But it doesn't matter when it occurs, you can vote for whomever you would like, including yourself. For instance, if Vice-Chair Gardner was nominated to be the Chair, then she could vote for herself or she could abstain. Vice-Chair Gardner clarified that when there is a replacement or someone's term is up at the end of June, so that their replacement starts the beginning of July. So if they were to be involved hi this election, the Commission would have to wait for them to come in July. Mr. Johnson replied that the Chair serves until replaced. So it isn't strictly cut-off in June. If there is a July meeting or August meeting and for some reason we don't have a quorum, and that has happened in the past, then that person serves until there is an election and someone else takes over. The Commission in the past typically wanted all five Commissioners at the meeting to make that determination. He recalled a case that stretched out for six months because each meeting there was a different person missing, so there were six meetings in a row where there were only four Commissioners, but each time it was someone different missing. Chair Dorsey asked if all Commissioners' terms expired in June. Mr. Johnson stated that they did not. He also said that usually when a Commissioner's appointment is to be renewed, he gets notification from the City Clerk's office to remind the Commissioner so that if they had an additional four years on their term, to send in a letter to Mayor Lewis indicating a preference to be reappointed or not. The Commission is set up where three terms expire at one time and two at another time. He didn't recall it being staggered over a 5 year period of each of the Commissioners. Commissioner Cress asked if there will be an election in July for a new Chair and Vice-Chair. June 6,2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 Mr. Johnson stated that there would be an election in July. That item is typically at the end of the agenda, but if the Commission prefers to move it up to the first item, elect a new Chair and then have that person take over at that meeting, it is the Commission's prerogative, or the current Chair could preside over the entire meeting, and then after the election, after the meeting is over, the new Chair would take over the next month. So there's flexibility on how to handle this matter. ITEMS: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated that the next regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission was scheduled to be held on July 3, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This year July 4th falls on a Tuesday and with the meeting being held on Monday, July 3rd, he wanted to know if the majority of the Commissioners would be available for the July 3rd meeting. Right now, staff is working on some items that may or may not be ready for that meeting, so the July 3rd meeting may be cancelled. All Commissioners stated that they would be available if a meeting were to be held on July 3, 2006. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion Chair Dorsey adjourned the Regular Meeting of June 5, 2006 at 3:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk