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