Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-05; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: November 5,2007 (Regular Meeting) TIME OF MEETING: 3:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roney called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Guy Roney Vice-Chair Gordon Cress Commissioner Steve Dorsey Commissioner Susan Gardner Commissioner Jack Cumming Absent: None Staff Members Present: Robert Johnson, City Engineer Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, Transportation r Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no Traffic Safety Commission meetings held in September or October 2007. August 6,2007 ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Dorsey, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on August 6, 2007 as presented. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Roney, Cress, Dorsey, Gardner, Cumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Bob Johnson, City Engineer, reported that based on a previous action and recommendation by the Traffic Safety Commission, on November 6, 2007, the City Council will consider introducing ordinances to (1) establish a prima facie speed limit on the portion of Alicante Road from Poinsettia Lane north to Gateway Road, and (2) establish a prima facie speed limit on Gateway Road from El Camino Real to El Fuerte Street. Based upon the Commission action at their August 6, 2007 meeting, Chair Roney presented Commissioner Gardner with a Resolution of Commendation for her time as Chair on the Traffic Safety Commission, and thanked Commissioner Gardner for her service. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Establish priority ranking of two candidate streets - Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue - in accordance with Phase II of the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program. Commissioner Gardner recused herself from this item. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that the staff report will be presented by Associate Engineer, Jim Murray. Mr. Murray began his presentation by informing the Commission that this item is to establish a priority ranking of two candidate streets - Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue - in accordance with Phase II of the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP). The City Council approved the CRTMP in 2001. It is a process for residents to follow when concerned about speeding vehicles or cut-through traffic on residential streets. The CRTMP is a three-phase process that has a systematic methodology to follow in each phase. Staff has worked with residents of Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue during Phase I of the CRTMP. When Phase I did not appear to adequately address the concerns of the citizens, Phase II was initiated. Residents of each street circulated Neighborhood Support Petitions. Both streets met minimum petition threshold criteria and thus became candidate streets in the priority ranking and scoring process, which is Step C in the program. November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Continuing, Mr. Murray said that to determine the point total for each street, staff completed a Priority Scoring Worksheet for both Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue. The Priority Scoring Worksheet, contained in the CRTMP, was used to evaluate both streets and is based upon set criteria, factors and associated points established in the CRTMP to calculate a project score for comparison with other streets. Upon staffs completion of the Priority Scoring Worksheets, Donna Drive had a total of 41 points and Sierra Morena Avenue had a total of 9 points. Significant differences in the characteristics of each street resulted in the points spread between both streets. Mr. Murray commented that the issue of adjacent streets was considered, in particular with the Donna Drive neighborhood. The project area of influence must be considered. In the case of Donna Drive, it is not only Donna Drive from Carlsbad Village Drive to Chestnut Avenue, but it also includes adjacent streets that if traffic calming were to be implemented on Donna Drive there could be the potential for other streets to be impacted. Streets within the project area of influence are Basswood Avenue between Donna Drive and Monroe Street, Gayle Way between Donna Drive and Monroe Street, Janis Way between Donna Drive and Ann Drive, and Ann Drive between Gayle Way and Janis Way. This will be done so as to not push problems from one street to another street. Those streets would be under consideration, too. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that the 2007 priority ranking be established with Donna Drive first and Sierra Morena Avenue second. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dorsey asked where Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue would fit in with other streets that are already ranked. Mr. Murray stated that Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue are the first two streets that have been ranked in the process outlined by the CRTMP. There are no other streets that are ranked. Commissioner Dorsey asked how long the Priority Scoring Worksheet has been in use. Mr. Murray replied that the Priority Scoring Worksheet has been in effect since the document was adopted by the City Council in 2001. Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue are the first two streets in Carlsbad's traffic calming program where the worksheets have been used. November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Dorsey asked if the Priority Scoring Worksheet has been in existence since CRTMP was initiated in 2001. Mr. Murray affirmed that it was. Chair Roney asked how soon the neighborhoods would be receiving results of the study. Mr. Murray explained that the only action today the Traffic Safety Commission would be taking is to provide a recommendation on the points assignment, which is a specific aspect of the program. That recommendation will go to the City Council for their review and ultimate approval and recommendation. The ball will then be in staffs court to prepare capital improvement program applications for both neighborhoods, which will begin in January. Then various staff committees review the applications. Ultimately, all capital improvement program requests are submitted to the City Council for their review and approval of the capital improvement program in June. Commissioner Gumming stated that in reviewing the form and points, it seems very mechanistic. He asked himself if this was giving a reasonable result. It looked like the greater traffic volumes along Donna Drive was the driving factor in giving it a higher priority. He mentioned that to him, that seems like the logical result even apart from what appears to be a very mechanistic exercise. He asked Mr. Murray if he had any judgmental thoughts. Was this approached as strictly a mathematical exercise or do other factors come into play? Mr. Murray responded that at this stage of the process the program has a very specific set of processes to go through which staff is following. Calculating the points total is mathematical at this point. Assuming City Council appropriates money in the capital improvement program, staff then would be working with the neighborhood committee for each street, then design concepts, which is more than just filling in numbers. Mr. Johnson added that the ranking sheet, as shown in Exhibit 4, was developed during the overall development of the CRTMP. There was a seven person citizen committee appointed by the City Council that worked on developing the CRTMP. That committee spent a lot of time on the various elements contained in that document, including this ranking sheet. Typically, when it comes to the desire of a neighborhood to have traffic calming it centers on either speeding vehicles or cut-through traffic, meaning an additional volume that probably should not be in the neighborhood. The citizen committee, during their deliberations to write the Carlsbad traffic calming program, tried to develop a ranking sheet that would take into account both of those elements. It could be characterized as a mechanistic or mathematical exercise, but the committee had to figure out a way to rank streets against each other so it wasn't a subjective exercise on the part of staff or the Commission or City November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Council. There has to be a very deliberate process to assess points, and that was the intention of this ranking sheet. That deliberate process takes all factors into consideration that might be present on or around a particular street. Mr. Johnson stated that school zones, the speed of vehicles, and sidewalks are all critical issues if pedestrians are walking in the street. It was in 2000 that the committee began their work. During that one year process, the committee was given numerous studies of similar programs from cities throughout the United States to study and pick the best parts of all of those programs to incorporate into the Carlsbad document. For right now, we need to follow what is in the document, because that is what was approved by the City Council. The committee developing the CRTMP had the foresight to think about what if we wanted to make changes to the process. In order to make changes to the program, it has to come before the Traffic Safety Commission for recommendations before it would go to the City Council. It is a dynamic document and until changes are made to the document, it will be used in its current form. Commissioner Gumming thanked Mr. Johnson for his clarification. It makes a lot of sense under the circumstances. Commissioner Dorsey stated that he wanted to clarify what was being discussed today. He reiterated that there are two streets that are in Phase 2 of the CRTMP and the Traffic Safety Commission is determining priority between those two streets. It is not to say something will or will not happen in the future in the way of traffic calming. That will depend upon funding available if the City Council decides they only have enough funds to do one of these projects somewhere down the road, then it will be based upon this prioritization. He asked staff if that is correct. Mr. Murray confirmed that Commissioner Dorsey was correct. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cumming, to establish that priority ranking be established in accordance with Phase II of the CRTMP in the following order: (1) Donna Drive - Chestnut Avenue to Carlsbad Village Drive; and (2) Sierra Morena Avenue - Milano Drive to Trieste Drive. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Roney, Cress, Dorsey, Cumming NOES: None ABSENT: Gardner November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 ITEM 6B: Request to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Armada Drive from Palomar Airport Road to LEGOLAND Drive. Mr. Johnson said that this item is to consider a revision to the prima facie speed limit upon Armada Drive from Palomar Airport Road to LEGOLAND Drive. The staff report contains the background information. The Engineering and Traffic Survey is attached to the staff report, which is what is required in order to either establish a prima facie speed limit or to revise the existing prima facie speed limit. In the case of Armada Drive, one of the major factors in considering establishing aprima facie-speed limit or the evaluation of changes needed, is the critical speed. The Engineering and Traffic Survey on Armada Drive was prepared and approved in October 2002. With respect to the critical speed on Armada Drive, staff found at the location 0.20 miles south of Fleet Street in 2002, the critical speed was 41 miles per hour. The critical speed, or the 85th percentile speed, is the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are traveling at or below. Currently, based on the speed survey, the critical speed is 45 miles per hour at that location. The other location is just north of Palomar Airport Road. In 2002, the critical speed was 39 miles per hour and that has crept up to a speed of 41 miles per hour with the latest survey. At both locations, the critical speed has gone up, which puts into doubt if the existing speed limit is appropriate. Mr. Johnson stated that based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends establishing a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Armada Drive from Palomar Airport Road to LEGOLAND Drive. By doing this, it gives the Police Department the tools to issue citations using radar, and we would expect those citations to be upheld in court because they would be issued in accordance with the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. The 45 mile per hour critical speed can be justified with a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit because of the factors on the roadway. There is some pedestrian activity, adjacent businesses, and an access point to LEGOLAND. Taking all of that into account, the 40 mile per hour prima facie sped limit is appropriate. Public Testimony: Chair Roney called for Public Testimony. Gary Hill, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, stated he works for the Gemological Institute of America at 5345 Armada Drive. He wanted to comment that GIA has facilities on both sides of Armada Drive and they have had several employees almost hit by vehicles when in the crosswalk going between their main entrance and Fleet Street as they cross between the two facilities. They had previously requested that the City post an extra Crosswalk Slow Pedestrian sign on Armada Drive at the curve. In reality, what is happening is that the vehicles are coming down the street under the current speed limit, going around that curve which is almost a blind curve, and approaching that crosswalk at fairly high speeds. The sign worked for a little while. He feels the trees are growing around it so it is more difficult to see now. If the speed limit is raised to 40 miles per hour, he believes it would endanger their staff and visitors of their facility that cross back and forth. November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Seeing no others to testify, Chair Roney closed Public Testimony. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gardner remarked that she was looking at the sampling the City did and it seems to her to be a short sampling in the middle of the morning. She wonders, since there are major businesses on that stretch of roadway, if possibly we aren't getting an accurate sampling of the speed. Mr. Johnson stated that the speed survey is always obtained in an off-peak condition. This is when speeds are normal. If they obtained speed surveys in the peak hour, for instance, with congestion, you would logically expect speeds to be lower because the vehicles have less room to maneuver. Therefore, critical speeds would be very low. Consequently, posting a very low speed limit when the police are out there in the off peak conditions issuing tickets just would not make sense and would not be upheld in the courts. The sample of 100 is what is normally done. It is a valid number. The courts have upheld that sampling of 50 in each direction. During the off peak and sometimes based on the number of vehicles, it can take 20 minutes to gather 100 vehicles - sometimes a couple of hours. That off peak condition and the sample of 100 vehicles is pretty consistent in the industry as providing a valid determination of both critical speed and the pace speed as shown on the speed survey. Staff feels very comfortable that they have a valid speed survey. Continuing, Mr. Johnson said that the consequences of having a posted speed limit that the police cannot enforce means that speeds will continue to increase. Having a speed limit that is posted in accordance with the Engineering and Traffic Survey gives Lt. Rawson and his staff the tools to do the enforcement. As Mr. Hill mentioned, the concerns for the pedestrians by drivers may not be quite as great because those drivers have become conditioned to know that there is some enforcement on the roadway. When we're not able to have enforcement on the roadway that is when the more reckless type of driving happens. We want to make sure that we have a speed limit that is enforceable. Chair Roney asked Lt. Rawson if now that the study has been conducted, is the posted 35 mile per hour speed limit non-enforceable. Lt. Rawson stated that currently, because the Engineering Survey comes up more than 5 miles higher than the posted speed limit, by definition of state law, that is a speed trap and not enforceable by radar because it is out of sync. The police can enforce it with a pace, but because of the length of that part of the roadway and the police car behind you, not everybody sees you, but most people see you and do slow down. So the police can still enforce speed within the 35 mile per hour posting, but it could not be used with any kind of speed measuring device like radar. November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Vice-Chair Cress stated that he drives that section of road often. He has always been amazed that the speed limit was so low. He thinks most people drive at 40 miles per hour along Armada Drive. Commissioner Gumming disagreed. He has also driven that section of road before, and he felt that 40 miles per hour seems more natural. It is hard to hold your speed down to 35 miles per hour along that section. Mr. Hill deserves some consideration that the Commission needs to give some thought to the fact that there is a crosswalk following the curve. Is there a Pedestrian Crossing Ahead sign before the curve to alert drivers of the condition? It sounds to him like it is more of a driver attentiveness problem than it is a speed challenge. Should the Commission address it by trying to elevate attentiveness? Mr. Johnson replied that the purpose of the warning signs or in the case of a speed limit sign is to get the attention of the driver. The signs need to be appropriately placed so that the driver can see them. Mr. Hill mentioned some tree issues that staff can look into and see if there is some growth over the signs that are currently in place, but the appropriate signs are in place. The attentiveness applies to both pedestrians and drivers. If one or the other is not paying attention, that is a recipe for some problems on the roadway. Both the driver and pedestrian that is crossing the street must pay attention, because the pedestrian is so much more vulnerable in that environment than the driver in a car. It is incumbent on both to be paying attention. That is why the advance warning signs are at the crosswalk and there is a striped crosswalk on the road, which does not always occur at an uncontrolled intersection. In this case, Fleet Street north where GIA is located is an uncontrolled intersection. Commissioner Gumming asked if there was an alert sign down the road that says Pedestrian Crossing Ahead. Mr. Johnson said there was an alert sign. He stated they would double-check the placement of the signs and any visual detraction. That particular corridor is very well landscaped and sometimes it is a challenge to place the signs for maximum visibility. His recollection is that years ago Mr. Murray worked on placing those signs, so they will take another look and see if they can be made a little more visible. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gardner, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Cress, to establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Armada Drive from Palomar Airport Road to LEGOLAND Drive. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Roney, Cress, Dorsey, Gardner, Gumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 ITEM 6C: Request to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Marron Road from El Camino Real to the city limits at Highway 78 (State Route 78). Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that this item was a request to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Marron Road from El Camino Real to the north city limits at Highway 78. All of the issues and factors discussed in the previous report, Item 6B, are applicable to this particular item, except for the critical speeds on the roadway. Critical speeds are a good indication why we are considering raising the prima facie speed limit. Two years ago an Engineering and Traffic Survey was prepared, including a speed survey. The 2005 speed survey can be compared to the 2007 speed survey. In the case of the location about 800 feet west of Monroe Street, in 2005 the critical speed went from 41 miles per hour to 43 miles per hour in 2007. In the case of the location about 900 feet west of Cinema Way, in 2005 the critical speed went from 43 miles per hour to 44 miles per hour in 2007. There have been a number of different types of collisions on the roadway. However, the collision rate is lower than the Caltrans statewide collision rate for a comparable road. The conditions adjacent to the roadway and/or conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver really haven't changed. There are bike lanes with bicyclists, and buses and pedestrians using the roadway. Mr. Johnson commented that one of the important things to consider is that the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC) is taking another look at how speed limits are established. In the last few years, Caltrans has gone from using the Traffic Manual to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and rounding up to the nearest five mile per hour increment. The CTCDC is looking at perhaps recommending to Caltrans to go back to more of what was done in the Traffic Manual by rounding down or allowing agencies to round down. However, one of the stipulations will be that in no circumstance shall the posted prima facie speed limit be below the 50th percentile. Carlsbad staff shows the different percentile speeds on the speed survey. In the case of Marron Road, the 35 mile per hour current posted speed limit is in the seven percent percentile. On the previous item on Armada Drive, the existing 35 mile per hour posted speed limit was below the 50th percentile. That kicks out any validity of allowing either this current speed limit on Marron Road or Armada Drive from remaining. Mr. Johnson stated that based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends raising the existing speed limit and establishing a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Marron Road from the city limits near Highway 78 to El Camino Real. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dorsey said that this is something that has confused him repeatedly, but it seems as if we always round down from the critical speed to the prima facie speed limit. He believed Mr. Johnson just stated that the staff report mentioned that the speed is supposed to be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment. In this case, that would make it appear that the speed limit should be 45 miles per hour. November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 Mr. Johnson stated that the MUTCD requires that it be established at the nearest five mile per hour increment. However, taking into consideration the roadway factors and community interests that may be on the roadway, an additional five mile per hour lowering can take place. That is what the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee considered. Probably the speed limit should be 45 miles per hour; however, there have been collisions on the road under consideration and the road is within or lower than the Caltrans rate, but the rate is on the upper limits of approaching the Caltrans statewide collision rate. There is bicycle activity, there are pedestrians crossing the street at signalized intersections, such as at Cinema Way which is where the movie theatre is. There is heavy bus traffic at Monroe Street. Jefferson Street is on the north and that is another entrance into the westerly portion of the mall. Taking all of this into consideration, that additional lowering of five miles per hour would be appropriate, and that is why the speed limit of 40 miles per hour was arrived at, and that is the recommendation of the TSCC. Commissioner Dorsey asked if those were the factors of this particular case that were used to lower the additional five miles per hour, the collision factor, crosswalks, and pedestrians? Mr. Johnson concurred that those were the factors considered. There is also a portion of the walking trails that are adjacent to the roadway. There were a number of factors that were looked into that did not suggest that it would be appropriate to have a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit. By posting the road at 40 miles per hour and then having the enforcement, staff believes we will have a good speed limit that is going to remain at that level without a continuous creeping up of the critical speed. Commissioner Gumming stated that he had a little trouble with this issue. He understood that Mr. Johnson reviewed a number of the factors that are concerned, because this is a very congested area. Marron Road is not really as much of a through street as it is an access road. There are people coming in and out of the mall. For example, on Carlsbad Boulevard, where there was a 30 mile per hour speed limit, somehow that is justified because of the congestion and the pedestrian activity in the area. There are similar factors with the mall that were encountered in the congested Village area. Although the speed survey seems to indicate that motorists are driving faster, maybe that is a little troubling and he doesn't think they should be eager in Carlsbad to have collision rates that are at the state average. We'd like to try and do a little better than that. As he understands it, there has never been a problem with enforceability of the speed limit on Carlsbad Boulevard. Is that correct? Can we bring similar factors to bear here to try to keep this traffic calm as it is going through this congested area with people entering and leaving the roadway? Lt. Rawson replied that it was a good question because the 85l percentile based on the Engineering and Traffic Survey along Carlsbad Boulevard, particularly north of Cannon Road, is out of sync with the posted limit. The question as he hears it is how can the Police Department enforce that legally with their citations and where would that same concept apply to the mall. His answer is that by the November 5, 2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 grace of the historical perspective of the Traffic Commissioners at the courthouse, most of them have either lived in Carlsbad or are very closely associated with the issues, particularly between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. In the summer, there are people walking and bikes and parking, all of the issues the Traffic Commissioners at court have known about for years. They have allowed the City and officers to enforce citations which on the surface appear to be clearly in violation of the vehicle code, because the condition is not readily apparent to the driver on the Engineering Survey. It is just by their grace that allows them to continue that. Lt. Rawson stated that as Traffic Commissioners at court have retired and new Commissioners come on board over the years, there would be nothing for the newer Commissioners to say they want a stricter interpretation of the law, which could be difficult to the City if they start to change their mind and not allow those conditions readily apparent. It is not a fact you would really know, except by the history of the Police Department and the Commissioners themselves. Commissioner Gumming stated that he would be in favor of establishing such a tradition, so he was inclined to be negative on this particular recommendation. Commissioner Gardner stated that she was looking at the collision history and she found that most of the collisions are not due to excessive speeds. Most of them are from people taking other people's right of way or turning incorrectly. In other words, coming and going from the mall - she was not sure that speed was the issue here as much as bad driving. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Dorsey, to raise the existing speed limit and establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Marron Road from the city limits near Highway 78 to El Camino Real. VOTE: 4-1-0 AYES: Roney, Cress, Dorsey, Gardner NOES: Cumming ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gardner reported an observation she had. It is difficult for her to read minutes from three months ago, and remember what she said. When a meeting or two is skipped, is there a way they can get the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes in a more timely manner? November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 Mr. Johnson answered that that was a valid request. Staff will make a note that if in the future there is a meeting cancelled, staff will send the minutes just as if there were a regular agenda packet being sent. Then 30 days later when you do meet, the minutes would be fresh on your mind. Commissioner Gumming stated that although he voted against raising the prima facie speed limit on Matron Road, he appreciated the staff work and challenges that staff is dealing with such a complex situation. He wondered if it was possible at some point for staff to give the Commissioners some information about how traffic signal timing is determined, how traffic volumes are counted for the determination of traffic signals, and how traffic is regulated in those cases where that applies. Mr. Johnson stated staff could give a briefing at a Commission meeting, almost in a workshop setting. The two items he understood Commissioner Gumming would like to hear more about are how the traffic counts are obtained and how traffic signal timing is conducted. Commissioner Gumming stated that he was assuming that the signal time given to traffic in each direction is proportional to the volume of traffic in each direction. By breaking it into two areas, it would make it more comprehensible. Chair Roney asked if that was something Mr. Johnson could do with a short e-mail to be sent to them. Mr. Johnson replied that staff could do that. Commissioner Gumming mentioned that if you're looking for specific incidents, someone mentioned to him their concern for traffic signal timing along Cannon Road. There are many examples in the downtown area. Cannon Road is a kind of thoroughfare and the signal timing issues along there are particularly complex. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated that currently there are two recruitments in the Transportation Division that are taking place. Hopefully, a selection will be made within a couple of months to have someone on board. The first position is the new Traffic Engineer to fill the vacancy since he was promoted to City Engineer. They need to hire a new Deputy City Engineer that will take over the Transportation Division, referred to as the Traffic Engineer. That person will start to come to the Traffic Safety Commission meeting. The other position is a brand new position that the City Council approved in June through the budget process and is called the Traffic Signal Systems Engineer. That person will November 5,2007 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 spend almost 100 percent of their time addressing signal timing issues, both at isolated intersections, putting more signals into coordination, dealing with the signal complaints, the signals that are hanging up, and so on. That person will hopefully be on board within a couple of months also. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that having somebody dedicated 100 percent to traffic signal timing, it is his intention that the person is going to be able to fine tune and get Carlsbad signals operating much more efficiently than today. It takes quite a bit of time, somebody has to be devoted to that effort, and this new position will do that. He believes that in the instance of Cannon Road, they can put that corridor hi coordination. Currently that road is not in coordination, so traffic signals operation is isolated. All of the signals are actuated, but the progression is not as good as it could be. The new person will be tasked with implementing additional coordination timing. Rancho Santa Fe Road, Aviara Parkway, Cannon Road - there are a number of corridors that have a number of intersections with signals that should be put in coordination, at least for part of the day. In the meantime, he will send some written information on both of the subjects that Commissioner Cumming mentioned. Commissioner Cumming stated that perhaps his request was premature, and maybe they should wait until the new Traffic Signal Systems Engineer came on board and got his feet wet and take a look at things and then let them do the briefing. He realizes that Mr. Johnson is quite busy with the two jobs he is fulfilling at this time. So he would be happy to withdraw his request. There was really no urgency about it. Mr. Johnson stated there was some material that would be fairly easy to put together and sent out to the Commissioners on both subjects. In the future, a workshop setting could be arranged and the Traffic Signal Systems Engineer could give a presentation on how signal timing is done. Staff can present not only on these two subjects, but any subject that the Commission would like. Mr. Johnson stated that the next regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission is scheduled to be held on December 3,2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion Chair Roney adjourned the Regular Meeting of November 5,2007 at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk