Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-02; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION November 2,2009 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gumming called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Members Present: Chair Jack Cumming Vice-Chair Guy Roney Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Commissioner Steve Gallagher None Robert Johnson, City Engineer Doug Bilse, Traffic Signal Systems Engineer Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, Transportation Division John Kim, Associate Engineer, Transportation Division Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 5,2009 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on October 5,2009, as presented. 4-0-1 Roney, Cress, Valderrama, Gallagher None Cumming ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. November 2,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Robert Johnson, City Engineer, reported there were no items to report. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program - Receive a report on proposed revisions to the program. Mr. Johnson introduced item 6A, indicating that he and Doug Bilse, Traffic Signal Systems Engineer, will present an overview of issues being considered as part of a proposed program revision. This is the second presentation on this matter to the Commission. City Council requested staff to consider adding the use of stop signs as a cost effective traffic calming measure. City Council also raised concerns about the current project ranking system used to prioritize funding for the development of traffic calming projects. Council requested staff to suggest thresholds to be used as funding criteria, i.e., a project will not be recommended for funding if the threshold is not met. Mr. Bilse stated that based on current experiences implementing the program on two streets and the comments made by members of the Traffic Safety Commission at their October 5, 2009 meeting, staff is suggesting the following regarding the update to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP). Four project phases could be considered in the program, including a new phase for cost effective traffic calming measures. The new second phase would allow residential stop signs, speed lumps (as opposed to speed humps or speed bumps), and speed tables to be installed based on a traffic canning layout plan prepared by City staff. The proposed cost effective traffic calming measures must be approved by 67% of the residents and absentee owners responding to a mail-in survey prior to implementation. Using speed lumps and speed tables in the second phase remains to be determined. The ideal spacing of traffic calming measures is approximately 500 feet with 300 feet considered the minimum spacing. There will be clear criteria established for each phase of the program. The current point system will be used to establish a threshold for funding Phase 3 projects, e.g., the development and implementation of traffic calming plans. The Traffic Calming Plan must be approved by 67% of the residents and absentee owners responding to a mail-in survey prior to implementation. The toolbox of approved traffic calming measures will be updated to reflect current cost estimates and established practices and measures acceptable to the Carlsbad Fire Department and Carlsbad Police Department. Mr. Bilse explained that the current traffic calming program phases includes Phase 1: Neighborhood; Phase 2: Study; and Phase 3: Implementation. The proposed update to the program may include the following: November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Phase 1: Enforcement and Education. The street must be 40 foot wide (curb-to-curb) and must be in a residence district or school district, which means the streets have a 25 mile per hour prima facie speed limit. Any street can be considered for an exemption into the program at the discretion of the City Engineer. The proposed Phase 1 Toolbox may include education, police presence/enforcement, speed sentry, speed limit signs, speed limit pavement legends, warning signs, special signs, and a neighborhood speed monitoring program. Phase 2: Engineering. Completion of Phase 1 is necessary. The critical speed must be greater than 32 miles per hour. A petition must be approved by 67% of those in the project area of influence (PAOI) with a response rate greater than 50%. The proposed Phase 2 Toolbox may include high visibility crosswalks, narrowing lanes (striping), residential stop signs, speed lumps, and speed tables. Phase 3: Traffic Calming: Concept Plan. Completion of Phase 2 is necessary. Worksheet scores must be greater than 50 points. The proposed Phase 3 Toolbox are harder to justify due to their higher expense and may include a mid-block choker, lateral shift, chicanes, center island narrowing, textured pavement, raised crosswalk, raised intersection, intersection bulb-out, curb radius reduction, and roundabout, to more elaborate traffic calming measures such as a traffic circle, semi-diverter, partial diverter, forced turn channelization, diagonal diverter, realigned intersection, and/or median barrier. Phase 4: Traffic Calming: Implementation. The plan must be approved by 67% of the PAOI with a response rate greater than 50%. It then goes City Council to request funding and be implemented. Mr. Bilse stated the plan approval requires that before traffic calming measures are constructed, a written survey must be approved by 67% of the residents and absentee owners living in the Project Area of Influence (PAOI). The PAOI is suggested as the residences on streets where measures are being considered to be installed and those residences that are required to use the proposed measures to access their property, e.g., residents that have an alternative route that does not have proposed traffic calming measures will not be included in the approval process. At least 50% of the residences must respond to the survey to be valid. Residents living on the street and property owners (if absentee) directly impacted by a proposed measure will be notified before any measures are installed. The planned schedule of the proposed revisions is for at today's meeting to identify the Commission's suggestions and incorporate them into an updated CRTMP, which would then be brought to the December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Committee meeting for review and approval. In early 2010, if recommended for approval, the proposed revisions will be presented to the City Council for their consideration for approval of the revised CRTMP. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 DISCUSSION; Commissioner Gallagher said the draft of the plan he received at the last Commission meeting did not indicate which phase that speed lumps and speed tables were going to be put in. Now it looks as if staff has made a decision to include speed lumps in Phase 2. Is this correct? Mr. Bilse stated that for the point of discussion at this time, Phase 2 is where the speed lumps are. Since the document has not been approved, this is a starting point. Phase 2 is where staff proposes it to be. If the Commission feels this is better placed at a certain point, now is the time to raise those issues. Mr. Johnson added there have been no definitive decisions made at this point. Staff would like the Commission's input. The entire presentation today is a proposed plan that staff has formulated, but if the Commission has different thoughts they would like to offer, staff will take them into consideration. There has to be a starting point in order for the Commission to be able to react and be able to provide comments. Nothing is definite at this point. These are recommendations so that the Commission can provide some input to staff. Then staff will revise the program and present it to the Commission at their December meeting to include the requests that the Commission formally recommends for approval. Mr. Johnson said to keep in mind that the changes to the existing program are going to be relatively small hi number. The program was developed over a 12 month period with a seven person citizen's committee that was appointed by the City Council hi 2000. City Council ultimately approved the program in 2001. The existing program was based on that seven person committee. Commissioner Gallagher stated there was no mention of a response rate in the proposed Phase 3. Phase 2 and Phase 4 changed, but there is no change in Phase 3. Was that intended? Mr. Bilse indicated that right now the current Phase 3 has a 40% response rate and needs a 67% approval. The proposed Phase 3 has two parts. It has the Engineering plan, which aligns the stop signs and the speed lumps and will require approval. A second approval is necessary if the plan goes to Phase 3, which is the Conceptual plan, for more enhancing projects. The proposed Phase 3 will require consensus twice, when they have a 50% response rate to get stop signs and speed lumps and then again, if they get 50 points, they'll have to come to a consensus before getting traffic circles, bulb-outs, and medians. Commissioner Gallagher said it sounds like Phase 4 is where the they are going to vote again, rather than voting on Phase 3, because that is already being carried over from the proposed Phase 2 as far as the 50% response rate. Using stop signs as an example, Mr. Bilse described residents living on a street stating they want to look at traffic calming measures because there is speeding on then- street. Staff would start with Phase 1 and the police carry out enforcement. Then the residents state there is still a problem and November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 they have a petition that is signed by 67% of the residents that want a stop sign. Staff looks at the area and determines, with the residents, where the stop signs would be installed and to get approval. Once the stop signs are installed, there needs to be a period of time to see how the traffic calming measure is working. If there are still complaints, the residents come back to staff and say the stop signs didn't work. Staff then collects data and determines the issue's point system. If it gets more than 50 points, the issue can be addressed and staff and residents can work on a comprehensive conceptual plan of extensive traffic calming/expensive projects, wherein there will be another vote requiring 67% approval and a 50% response rate. Commissioner Gallagher commended staff and the City for having a traffic management program. However, looking at some of the comments raised today by staff, he has some questions. Regarding the speed tables and where do they belong. It looks like the speed lumps were included in Phase 2, but we're still not sure where they are going to fit. The speed tables seem to have been left out of the conversation compared to what the speed lumps were. Is that a fair observation? Should the Commission make a recommendation as to what phase they should be in? He thinks the way it looks now, the only real tool in the proposed Phase 2 is some striping and stop signs, but staff is not sure about the speed lumps and the speed tables yet Is that a correct observation? Mr. Bilse stated these are the issues staff would like the Commission's input on. Staff has competing and compelling arguments by different entities of staff, so this is the Commission's opportunity to give staff input where they would like to see speed tables, speed lumps, and stop signs. Staff is comfortable with stop signs in Phase 2, but the question is where to put speed lumps which have an impact to emergency response times, and speed tables which are a little more expensive than speed lumps. These could be grouped together. The cost of a speed table is probably double the cost of a speed lump, but it is still in a cost range where staff could see it in Phase 2 as a cost effective alternative. Commissioner Cress asked if speed tables have the same objection from the Fire Department as speed lumps. Mr. Bilse stated the Fire Department seems to favor speed tables, even though emergency vehicles must mount them. The design of the speed lumps is to have gaps hi the lumps to correspond to the width of the wheels. Most large emergency vehicles can go through speed lumps without any impact. However, ambulances and smaller vehicles will be impacted by the speed lumps. The Fire Department might be more inclined to go to a speed table where, with a ramp, it gradually raises up, you drive over it about the length of the vehicle, and then you gradually dismount it. Mr. Bilse added that staff is not proposing to put residential stop signs anywhere but at intersections. When you have a long stretch in between intersections, the stop signs won't do anything to help reduce speeding, so staff has to come up with another alternative that would solve problems. Striping could be one alternative to speed lumps. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Gallagher indicated after reviewing the letters from concerned residents presented at the meeting today, he thought the audience attending today's meeting were frustrated with the timeframe that the whole process has taken them in the sense they are now at the traffic calming plan. It looks like they are now at the point where they want to hear a traffic calming plan implemented. If the Commission was able to recommend at least to staff to give the residents a couple more tools in Phase 2, it might address some of the concerns that these citizens have been waiting a number of years to receive. Mr. Johnson stated that today's item is to discuss changes to the current program. It is not an existing program that is being looked at. There is a process to make the changes to the existing program, and that is what staff is asking the Commission to address today, the current program, and should there be or not be revisions. Chair Gumming commented that motorists driving from one area to another have a right to have some idea of what to expect so that the driving experience is a predictable experience and that enhances safety. Staff is trying to learn from past experience and come up with something that neighborhoods could quickly implement lesser measures, and the more complex measures might take longer. That seems like a reasonable thing to do and he felt the Commission should support that. Chair Gumming indicated there was no talk about mid-block crosswalks. There are pros and cons for a mid-block crosswalk. There is a risk that people get a false sense of security from having a mid- block crosswalk. Lastly, if you require 67% assent to something with a 50% response rate, 67% of 50% is 33%, so 33% of all the residents in the area. If 40% of the residents in the area approved a change, but only 45% responded, with this double standard that would defeat something that 30% of the residents wanted. Staff may want to combine that so it is a smooth transition so that if 33% or more of the total residents are in favor of something and that constitutes a majority of those who responded, then it might go forward. He felt the biggest challenge that concerned him in dealing with the public is always apathy. Mr. Bilse pointed out that speed tables are going to slow down the vehicles, so the vehicles are already putting on their brakes. The difference between a speed table and a mid-block crosswalk is striping. Do we really need to put in the special striping? The next level of a speed table would be perhaps decorative pavers. They cost a little more, but it would act the same way as a visual queue to slow down. He wasn't sure it was really a need if it is not marked now to put in a raised crosswalk. He felt it was preferable to go with a speed table to see if that works. Chair Cumming stated that seemed reasonable to him. Commissioner Gallagher thought the Commission should recommend that staff add speed lumps and speed tables to Phase 2. Right now there is no direction from the Commission as to where they belong. He felt it was more appropriate to have them in Phase 2 to give staff more tools to work with than just striping and stop signs. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Chair Gumming asked Commissioner Gallagher if he was proposing that as a motion. Commissioner Gallagher indicated that is what he would like to do, make a motion that the Commission recommends to staff that when staff comes back to the December 7,2009 meeting that the Commission supports the speed lumps and speed tables in the Phase 2 Toolbox. Chair Cumming recommended this be put on hold until after the public had an opportunity to give their input. Mr. Johnson indicated that what was appropriate for today would be a consensus from the Commission, rather than a formal vote. Obviously, if only one out of five Commissioners supports a particular idea, it probably is not going to get support of the Commission in December. However, if three or more do agree with a particular idea, staff will make note of that and it that will be brought back to the Commission at their December meeting with any concerns that staff has. If the Fire Department is adamant that a particular measure should be placed somewhere else in the program, staff will inform the Commission. Staff will try to have a representative of the Fire Department at the December meeting to answer questions. The Fire Department is very concerned about the ambulance and the speed lump. The fire apparatus can straddle the speed lumps and not impact them too much. The Police Department is concerned about a speed lump, as well as concern for the ambulance. A speed lump must be considered as a last resort and would not be the first traffic calming measure that would be placed on the street. Commissioner Cress understood the Fire Department's concern of an ambulance going over a speed lump. He'd hate to see a patient with a neck or spinal injury going over speed lumps on their way to the hospital. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it would be more appropriate for the Commission to recommend speed lumps over speed tables. Mr. Bilse indicated it was a tool, but it is typically expensive. It is stamped concrete or colors. The striping is a low cost striping plan. Textured pavement is expensive. You could have a raised table and in the middle could have cobblestone. When you have a straight line, narrowing the lane is marginal. What is needed is to deflect vehicles horizontally or vertically by either bringing it up and down on a speed lump or left to right on a traffic circle or median. Lane narrowing or texture gives minimal impact. Commissioner Cress asked about rumble strips. Are they being considered? Mr. Bilse stated rumble strips were similar to textured pavement. Rumble strips have a different technique; it's not traffic calming. It is more for preventing driving off the road on a freeway. Mr. Johnson indicated rumble strips are not in the current program. Rumble strips impact motorcycles and bicyclists. There is a safety issue with someone going over it with a two wheel vehicle and maybe slipping. Rumble strips make noise and they are used primarily in a situation to avoid running off the road. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Valderrama stated regarding mid-block crosswalks, he did not feel this was a good safety idea. Drivers think of crosswalks being in an intersection, so if you have children crossing in the middle of the block, that could create a problem. Public Testimony Chair dimming called for Public Testimony. Mike Bertrand, 2110 Basswood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated he was a member of the Donna Drive Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee and was in attendance today to lend support to the City of Carlsbad's Traffic Engineering Department as they submit a proposal for the improvement to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program. He stated he would much rather hear the sound of vehicles going over speed lumps in his neighborhood in an effort to slow traffic and make it safer than hear the screaming tires of speeding vehicles they now hear racing through the neighborhood. Mr. Bertrand felt the current toolkit of traffic calming devices allowed in the program is inadequate as well as cost prohibitive. His committee is in full support of the proposed plan's efforts to integrate more up-to-date and economically feasible solutions that could be used to satisfy the goals of having safer and calmer streets. Cathy Miller, 3455 Ann Drive, Carlsbad, stated she was a member of the Donna Drive Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee. The goal of the committee is to make their neighborhood streets safer in a timely manner. It has taken the committee almost four years using the current Traffic Management Program trying to make their streets safe from speeding vehicles. The problem is yet to be solved. This is not acceptable. The committee is very pleased with the proposed revisions to the 2001 Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program, especially Phase 2, because this includes some very effective low-cost measures, especially speed lumps and speed tables that do not require meeting stringent criteria in order to be tried. Joan Flanagan, 3331 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, stated she was also a member of the Donna Drive Neighborhood Traffic Calming Committee. The committee started hi early 2006 and they have learned a lot from the City Engineering Department. Since the 2001 CRTMP was created, new more cost-effective safety solutions, such as speed lumps, have become available. Hopefully, these may solve their problem or at least be a stop-gap measure. At least there is something that is not going to drastically change what their street looks like or be cost prohibitive. Nobody wants the traffic to stop coming; they just want them to slow down. She didn't feel the sound of tires going over speed lumps or speed tables would be so bad, because now they hear drag racing, tires squealing, horns honking, and all kinds of things. Anything that would help slow drivers is all they are looking for. She endorses the proposed Phase 2 because now you won't have to go through the length of time that they have had to go through. Some of these measures could be implemented early on and they might November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 be a total solution. The whole committee is in favor of the proposed changes and they are behind what the City came up with because they think it is a very good idea. Patricia Eggleston, 3301 Belle Lane, Carlsbad, stated that for 30 years she has witnessed the traffic and speed increase in her neighborhood. All day and all night, there are always vehicles speeding. It is not just the children, it is UPS, delivery trucks, and parents who take their children to school. She felt the proposed toolkit is going to work because they have worked so hard to control their streets. They cannot control who comes in, but they can control their speed. That is their goal. Mella Webster, 4403 Sierra Morena Avenue, Carlsbad, stated they have already been through Phase, 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the current plan. They were awarded $90,000 from the City of Carlsbad to come up with a traffic calming plan. They had 69% approval, but were just informed that it was going to be too expensive to implement. In the beginning, they asked for speed lumps and that was unacceptable, so it is a positive change to the proposed set of tools. She wanted to add an additional change. On Sierra Morena Avenue there is a stretch of street about 0.07 miles before you get to the entrance to one stop sign. None of the things in the revised plan will address their particular issues. There is a park there where one child has already been hit, and several dogs killed in the neighborhood, because drivers speed through there. Ms. Webster went through the Phase 3 qualification criteria, and there a couple of items missing. The length of the street between the stop signs, which is proposed to be 500-700 feet for traffic calming, according to the new specifications, there would be 5 to 7 speed lumps or speed tables in that area we are talking about right now. That is five speed tables at a cost of $8,000. There is an alternative. She previously lived on a street with an identical problem where they stopped the street. The cost was just a sidewalk and a small fence that could be knocked down by the Fire Department if they needed to get through. She is proposing that the street should be stopped where their development ends at the park and make it a cul-de-sac, so that the only people coming into their neighborhood are people that live there and it is not used as an access route. It is a common sense approach. Ms. Webster added that the angle on the slope of Sierra Morena Avenue is not a criteria and neither are the size of the lots. The lots on lower Sierra Morena Avenue are 50 foot lots. If you have cars or motor homes parked on the street, you have to back out 16 feet into traffic before people see you coming. There is a lack of visibility when you are backing out of your driveway and this causes a safety hazard. In addition, there is a blind spot at the top of the hill. When you are coming over Sierra Morena Avenue there is no qualification criteria for blind spots. You cannot see the bottom of the hill. She would like the Commission to use common sense in saving money, and if Sierra Morena Avenue were stopped midway where the park is, it would be a logical place to put a cul-de- sac. Traffic would cease right there, and they would not have the problem with the speeding. Otherwise, they are going to have to have five to seven speed tables, which she doesn't mind, but she knows some of the neighbors are going to mind. November 2,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 Sonia Gardner, 4311 Sierra Morena Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that Sierra Morena Avenue has become one of the most dangerous streets she has ever lived on. There are cars speeding in excess of 50 miles per hour and it is terrifying when you have kids. It is not "if," but "when" a child is going to be hit. Frankly, they went through the entire process ready for Phase 3 based on the current plan, and now it seems like the toolbox needs to be revised, which they have been hearing for quite some time. Now they feel like they are back-tracking. We cannot delay. We cannot afford waiting much longer. She feels like they are going to have to go through this whole process again. She doesn't feel this is right. She supports what Ms. Webster suggested in cutting off the street. It used to be a dead end. She says if you want a temporary solution to see how it works, put up a barricade to see how it works. That will force traffic on one end to go one direction and the other side going in another direction. That little park area will become a safe place for the children to play. Please speed things up and do something before the tragedy happens. It is just a matter of time. Commissioner Gallagher indicated that what staff was proposing is really a step in the right direction, rather than taking a step backwards. From listening to the presentation today, it sounds like they are trying to add a few more tools to Phase 2, which didn't solve their problem, and it appears to him that they may get more tools and not have to go to the very expensive Phase 3 or Phase 4. Ms. Gardner stated she just didn't want to have to go through the whole process again. Commissioner Gallagher stated he didn't think they would have to again. Thomas Flanagan, 3331 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, stated they were all really frustrated. He likes the new steps. He has not read the detailed plan and he missed the presentation today. Regarding the proposed Phase 2, when installing speed cushions, which supposedly don't make much noise, he didn't know if you should do the 500 or 700 or 1,000 feet or whatever. He felt there should be an allowance for the Traffic Engineering people, even if the Fire and/or Police Department do not want it, give them ninety days to put some of these things into play. Their problem is mid-Donna Drive. He would like a recommendation from the Commission today that mid-Donna Drive gets to experiment now with speed cushions. He doesn't want 12 of them or 3 of them. He wants the number that would do the job. The street is 1,400 or 1,500 feet, so they may get 3 or 4 speed cushions. Mr. Flanagan said other thing is that their street is 50 feet wide. A parked car on one side is 8 feet and another parked car is on the other side is 8 feet, but you still got a 30 foot wide drag strip left. He didn't see anything for center striping, whether it is dotted lines or double lines or whatever, right now if you would say "just let them experiment on Donna Drive" and put these speed lumps in, put in three or five, measure the speeds, see if we cut it enough or not, and then let's get by with a minimum amount of devices, the least amount of cost, but let's get it done now and not go through another year awaiting for committee. The traffic people need to have a lot of flexibility to throw more things in the toolbox any tune they come across it at least for the group to sample with rather than all of these administrative procedures you overhear for five years before you get it done. Neighbors have installed double pane windows in the front of then* homes for soundproofing, but it doesn't matter. Please give us relief. Approve the plan, like in the next 90 days. Let's do it now. November 2,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11 Seeing no others wishing to testify, Chair Gumming closed Public Testimony. DISCUSSION. Mr. Bilse stated he heard the basic views the public expressed. He asked Chair Gumming if there was a recommendation about voting and the 50% response rate with the 67% vote. Did the Commission like what was proposed or did they want it stated in a different way? Mr. Johnson indicated that the best way would be to compare the existing program and the proposed changes as shown on the slides. The Commission could indicate their consensus of what is being proposed or whatever change they would like and get a consensus. Mr. Bilse suggested that he flip through each slide and if there are any comments the Commissioners wanted to make, they could do so. Vice-Chair Roney asked if the process for Donna Drive was stopped until the new CRTMP is voted on and implemented. Regarding Sierra Morena Avenue, Mr. Bilse said their conceptual plan was approved. Now they have to wait for funding to implement it. City Council will have a hard time with that decision, so staff has been directed to wait before asking for funding until the CRTMP revisions are resolved. It is a funding issue. Donna Drive could get the vote right now if the committee wished. They can either go with the current plan without speed lumps or stop signs and the current rules, or they can hold off until the CRTMP is revised. He believes the committee is probably going to put it on pause for now and wait until this resolves itself, and then have it started up again. Staff is not taking a step backwards. They're going to walk the residents through the process, but staff is going to give them more alternatives. The residents should be in better shape than they are in right now. Vice-Chair Roney asked if the revised program would allow the tools to immediately implement some calming measures, or if it is more difficult, staff can do more research and come up with more detailed calming measures. But isn't it dependent upon whether or not there is money to pay for this? Mr. Bilse stated that was correct. It is almost set up so that residents cannot go to the expense of more costly measures until they have tried the cost-effective alternatives. If a street meets the criteria and the plan is approved, there is no need for the Commission to review the installation of stop signs as they would under other conditions. If the residents abide by the rules, they could go straight to City Council for stop sign ordinance adoption. Vice-Chair Roney stated this way you can get some immediate traffic calming measures in place and, if necessary, you can come back and revisit it for more in-depth solutions. Mr. Bilse reminded the Commission that there is some criteria, such as a 32 mile per hour critical speed that needs to be met before beginning Phase 2. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 12 Mr. Bilse indicated he would like to go through each slide as Mr. Johnson suggested and obtain consensus on each one. Regarding Eligibility Criteria, the current program has no eligibility. Anyone who calls in gets looked at. On the proposed Eligibility Criteria, now you have to be hi a residence district or a school district. Chair Gumming stated he felt they were looking at sort of a fast track program that gets things moving. There is a principle involved. The details of the side-by-side, we can go through them and get a consensus, but he asked if there was any disagreement with this fast track idea? He didn't sense there was any great disagreement. He felt everyone wants to allow neighborhoods to be able to respond to safety concerns that are arising in their own neighborhoods. Commissioner Gallagher agreed with that. The only thing he was still a little bit at odds with was that he would like to see as many tools in the Phase 2 toolbox as possible. He was still not sure what those tools may be other than stop signs, a foregone conclusion. Speed lumps and speed tables have been mentioned. He would like to see these added to Phase 2, because then you would accomplish what they are proposing to expedite the ability of staff to try to address the neighborhood concerns. Chair Gumming asked if there was any disagreement. Seeing none, he indicated they're already there. Commissioner Gallagher said his point was that the Commission should make a formal recommendation to staff. Right now, staff is still not sure exactly how that is going to go down. Mr. Bilse said if he hears from the Commission, they will balance that when staff does their discussions. Seeing a lot of heads nodding in agreement, staff will use that as a direction. It is going to come to the Commission for their approval, so if he doesn't give the Commission what they are wanting next month, the Commission is allowed to come up with a comment and approve it as you wish with changes. Commissioner Cress asked Commissioner Gallagher if he wanted something more in the Phase 2 toolbox. Commissioner Gallagher answered that he did not. He just was thinking as a Commission, it would be nice if they made the recommendation that speed lumps and speed tables be included in Phase 2. Then when staff talks to the Fire Department and Police Department, although they may not have the same support, at least as a Commission we're saying we like these traffic calming measures. Chair dimming stated hearing no objections, he believed that was the sense of the Commission. Given the way the procedure is going, that is sufficient formality for the recommendation for the context. Mr. Bilse said staff was always available by e-mail or phone, and to feel free to contact them with questions. November 2,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 13 Chair Gumming asked if there was any Commissioner who wanted to go through a particular slide or has concern with the details. Commissioner Cress said on Phase 3 eligibility response rate, he felt the response rate should be 50% as it was called out in the Phase 2 eligibility. If you can't get at least half the people involved to respond, then he didn't feel you have a real consensus. He felt the Commission should stick with the response rate of 50%. Commissioner Gallagher stated he agreed, stating that at least the Commission gets the sense that there is community support. Mr. Johnson indicated the response rate is 50% of those submitting responses back, but it has to be 67% approval. Commissioner Cress stated that if you couldn't get at least 50% of the people to even respond, then you don't have the consensus. Mr. Johnson said that was true. Sometimes most of the people on the street don't believe there is a problem. You can call it apathy. If people aren't voting because they don't think there is a problem, then they're not going to turn in their votes. That's sending a clear message that they don't agree that there is a problem to be addressed on their street. Commissioner Gallagher asked regarding eligibility on Phase 2, can just one person make the request? Can one person get the speed tables installed? How does that work? Mr. Bilse answered that someone is going to have to drive this process. There is usually more than one energetic resident that has a concern. So they may speak for the neighborhood. They have to get the ball rolling. Staff works with them in the PAOI determination. Staff then defines what that is and posts an announcement for a meeting. If they meet the criteria, they move on to Phase 2 and get a plan where the residents are all in agreement. It is then formally voted upon. Mr. Johnson stated that no one person is going to drive what is placed on a particular street in response to Commissioner Gallagher's question. Somebody can request a particular traffic calming measure, but that does not necessarily mean that they would get what they want unless the process is completed. One person can start the process. If there is no interest in the neighborhood, it isn't going to go anywhere. Receiving permission from the Chair to speak again, Thomas Flanagan said that when you do the survey, you try to get the people to sign up one way or the other. A lot of people aren't even there. They're renting to somebody else. Maybe 10% of the people are hard to find or impossible to find. So the 50% is a valid question. 50% of what? He thinks the 40% or 45% is a lot better to get it through at least at this phase. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 14 Mr. Bilse stated that staffs biggest concern is that after you get the 40% response and 67% vote, staff is concerned that out of the woodwork a majority is going to show up at the City Council meeting saying there are more people against it than there are for it. Mr. Johnson indicated the Commission did not review proposed changes slide by slide, but he is hearing that what was shown on each slide, the Commission is in consensus with today, and that will be enough direction for staff to move forward and make the revisions to the existing program. Staff will then submit the revised program to the Commission at their December 7,2009 meeting. At that meeting, staffs intent would be to point out what the changes are and the Commission can think about it for another month, individually go item by item, or if everything looks good, vote then and there on December 7, 2009 to recommend approval. ITEM 6B: Adopt a Resolution of Commendation for Lt. Don Rawson. Chair Gumming indicated that this item was to recommend a Resolution of Commendation for Lt. Don Rawson for his service to the City and the Traffic Safety Commission before his retirement in September 2009. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to adopt a Resolution of Commendation for Lt. Don Rawson. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Gumming, Roney, Cress, Valderrama, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Chair Gumming stated at the last City Council meeting, Dr. Mehdi Sarram spoke about the traffic light coordination challenge. Do we have an instance where there have been citizen volunteers with particular expertise? Do we ever use them in a volunteer analytical capacity? Mr. Johnson indicated the City has a volunteer coordinator and staff gets many volunteers to help in many different areas, hi this particular case, Dr. Sarram can do many things out in the field to report if there are problems. He has met with Doug Bilse. However, because of the nature and liability of traffic signal timing, we can't have someone just walk in from the street and time signals. The specific answer to timing is no, we have not had a volunteer do that, but the volunteers have helped in many other ways on many different issues throughout the City in many departments. The City benefits literally in the thousands of hours by volunteer help on a yearly basis. That saves the City a tremendous amount of money citywide hi all departments. It is a great service received from the citizens. There are a lot of interested and retired citizens with very specific expertise. In the Engineering Department, there are several volunteers helping with some of the items we need extra help for. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 15 ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated at the end of today's meeting there is some information that was mailed to him to give to the Commission from an organization in San Diego called "Walk San Diego." It is a booklet on traffic calming the Commission may find interesting. There are two construction projects on Palomar Airport Road. One is the widening of Palomar Airport Road westbound from Armada Drive to Paseo Del Norte. That project is going very well. There is k-rail on the northerly side of the road and they expect the project to wrap up early next month. That will add an additional westbound lane to help drivers line up as they go west of Paseo Del Norte to get on to the freeway and it will add a right hand turn lane onto Paseo Del Norte. It will also include a right turn lane into the Flower Fields parking lot. In addition, Palomar Airport Road has been closed between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard because of work being done on the bridge over the Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad. A contractor is replacing the hold handrails and taking care of some concrete that has been falling off. That project is expected to be completed by mid-December. Mr. Johnson explained the City Manager is implementing a realignment effort in which different parts of the Engineering Department will be placed in other areas. Engineering is being divided up and there will be a Director of Transportation position that is being created. Staff is currently looking at how and where the different staff should be placed under this realigned organization. There won't be an Engineering Department per se in the future, but there will be staff placed in a Transportation Department or whatever they are going to name it. There will be a whole new organizational structure over the next few months and he will keep the Commission apprised of how that impacts the Engineering Department. The Commission will still be given the attention from staff under the realigned Transportation Division, so that Commission functions won't change at all. It will just be under the guise of a Transportation Department rather than staff coming from the Engineering Department. Chair Gumming asked if Mr. Johnson knew what the mission of the Transportation Director would be. Mr. Johnson stated there was a long job description, but in essence it is what staff currently does today to handle mobility and safety in the City. Many maintenance and operation duties from the Streets Department will come into the new Transportation Department, so the traffic signal maintenance, street light maintenance, signing and striping maintenance, and pavement management will be in the new Transportation Department. There will be new duties coming in under the Director of Transportation. November 2, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 16 Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that the next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting will be held on December 7,2009 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Chair Gumming adjourned the Regular Meeting of November 2, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ^ Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk