1996-06-10
.
CfIY OF EN CJNIT AS
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES
Meeting Date: June 10, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
1.
RD
LL
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairperson Sebastian.
Present:
Commissioners Harold Crosby, Dale Klamer, Arnold Lewin and Donna
Sebastian, Commissioner Cynthia Bronte was absent.
Also
Present:
Rob Blough, Associate Traffic Engineer, Sgt. Doug DeJardine, Encinitas
Sheriff Department, and Judy McMahon, Office Speci~liAt,
2.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Crosby.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
. None.
~ TIN
None.
5.
A Approval of Minutes - May 13, 1996.
COMMISSIONER CROSBY MOVED AND COMMISSIONER KLAMER
SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF' MAY 13, 1996 AS SUBMI'ITED.
APPROVED 4-0.
6.
~
A
Adoption of Resolution TC 96-06 Recommending Establislunent of Speed Limits
Associate Traffic Engineer Blough presented the staff report.
8
Mike Andreen, 2031 Shadow Grove - I appear before you this evening on behalf of my
neighbors who live along Willowspring and Glen Arbor. I have three positions or contentions
to communicate to you concerning item 6A this evening the Resolution number TC 96-06
recommending the establishment of speed limits. Our first position is that we feel we have
sucœssfilUy proven both in 1988 and in June of 1994 that Willowspring and Glen Arbor are
SA - 1
8
indeed residential streets and that the 25 mile per hour (mph) speed limits are applicable and
enforceable therefor. That items 16, 40 and 41 on Table 1 are outside the parameters of the
Goulet decision and should not be included within the Resolution number TC 96-06. Secondly
we contend that we were not given adequate notice of sta1f s recommendation to you. Traffic
Engineering published tonight's agenda midmorning on Friday, June 7 and only because I had
asked local reporters to watch for the speed limit surveys publishing were we infonned late
Friday night of the publishing of the speed limit surveys. As City HaD is closed on weekends
we were not able to confirm sta1f s recommendation until this morning and this was not
adequate time for us to prepare a presentation of our dissenting opinion. Third we would like
to introduce a legal brief that was prepared and authored by Deputy District Attorney Ann
BaIb« who lives along Willowspring. This legal brief was presented to the City Council on
June 15, 1994 and successfully convinced the City Council as wen as the City Attorney that
items 16, 40 and 41 did indeed qualify as residential streets and therefore were J19t subject to
the Goulet decision and that the 25 mph speed limit was applicable and enforceable. Having
spoken so quickly to summarize we contend that items 16, 40 and 41 are indeed residential
streets not subject to Goulet, we contend that we were not properly notffied of sta1f s
recommendation to you and therefore could not be allowed enough time to adequately prepare
a preseatation of our diaenting opinion and three we would like the Commissioners to read
Deputy District Attorney Ann BaIb«' s legal brief prior to rendering a recommendation on
items .16, 40 and 41. Also in cloSing we have a coITespOndence for Daniel M 0meIas Stating
clearly that he is an acting Commissioner of the Municipal Traffic Court, that he has never
thrown out a speeding ticket written on Willowspring or Glen Arbor because of the Goulet
decision and I'll be glad to make that letter available to all of you. Thank you very much.
Ann BaIb«, I live on Willowspring - I am a Deputy District Attorney, I didn't have an
opportunity to meet with you I was brought in about two days before the City Council in 1994
was covering the issues on, and I'm only directing 16,40 and 41 if you wanted to circle those
items on your Table 1 because I have no knowledge and have done no research on that. I am
the author of this brief. The thing is if you get a Xerox copy and you don't get a yellow copy,
it is not color coded and what I did is I have 17 ex1uòits in that legal brief and I think it is
important for you to know. If you look at the green lines here this is a map ftom the County.
This is an official map they are all color coded and if you Xerox them of course if you don't do
it at Kinko's you don't get the color copy. The green is Willowspring and Glen Arbor. The
whole problem wjth this street is it has an interesting configuration. I had an overhead aerial
picture when I made the presentation to the City Council but I had to do a hand drawing for
the legal brief. As you see Willowspring splits out and there is a greenbelt in the middle but if
you have driven the area it is a very wide at Encinitas Boulevard. waUowspring is at least a
100 yards of width and then it goes into these Da1TOW little 32 foot wide streets where they are
doing the speed surveys. The citizens have no objection to the manor in which they are doing
the speed survey. We have the speed surveys as an ex1uòit back here, the ones that were done
in 1992 and they descnèe Willowspring as the 32 foot street. As you get down towards
Village Park Way, which you probably know is the street to the junior high, it widens out again
into four lanes, there is a stop sign and about a hundred yards up the next street it is wide and
then it goes into the greenbelt area again which is 32 feet wide. By Jaw, and I have the code
section, a residential street has a mandatory 25 mph zone in a residential district street, and I
have all the code sections in the ex1uòits for you, it is mandatory as long as the street is less
than 40 feet wide. When I was first called in as a Deputy District Attorney, and I am an expert
SA - 2
.
.
8
in the Vehicle Code, this is what I do for a living, the Engineer that is now retired thought that
this street here Glen Arbor and Willowspring, he said that those were 500 feet wide because he
was ailling the greenbelt a median and I said no this is all privately owned property. They
could build houses on it if they wanted to. We have swimming pools, we have rec centers,
those are not medi,n.4I. Now the Goulet decision that they keep referring to is a decision that is
easy to understand and I'll spend one minute explaining it to you. The Goulet decision came
out becaJJse what was happening along highways is you get into these little bitty towns and all
of a sudden they take the highways of 55 mph and say this is 15 mph and then you'd get back
out to the highway and what they were doing is they were trapping vacationen that were
thinking they were on the highway and then all of a sudden there is a sign saying 15 mph and
they were getting tickets at these little towns and they said no, no that is illegal. What you have
to do is you have to take the surveys and find out what a normal driver, 85% of them, would
drive through this highway width street and that' s the speed limit that can be adjusted. So this
is really odd because a lot of people don't know this, it is not a violation if you violate the
posted speed limit. It's a violation if it's an unsafe speed and that's where the survey's come
into band. Not all streets have to have speed surveys. Some of them are emnpted and in
40802 subsection B is the criteria for what are those emnpted streets and one of them is the
less than 40 foot wide street. Now here and the residential district, it has to be a residential it
can't just be a D81TOW cow strip road, it has to be a residential district. When you get it into the
code section what is a residential district they're saying well the driveways have to come out
onto the street, and you have to have 16 driveways in a certain length of time. Well I've done
all the research for you, all of Willowspring, all the way down qualifies as a residential district
on these 32 foot, areas. The problem is if you go up Glen Arbor between Garden View and
VJIlage Park Way that's a residential street but up here between VJIlage Park Way, the junior
high street, and you go up to Mountain Vista, which is a collector street, if you notice if you
look at the street you'll notice the residential driveways do not come out on Glen Arbor. What
they do is they come out on little cul-de-sacs. Technically, although this isa local street, it does
not qualitY as a residential district street, so technically under the code the engineers would be
totally within their rights to do a survey and say well with the stop signs that are up we're
finding that 85% of the drivers drive about 30 mph and that's what we recommend to post.
That would be appropriate. Up here you have Park Dale Lane and of course that's a
mAndatory 25 mph when children are present. If you look at that little strip right near the
tennis court all those apartments and condos they fàce the cul-de-sacs again so again that little
strip of about 100 yards right before the school district technically does not qualitY as a
residential district. So if you want to look at your recommendation you are totally within your
legal right maJðl18 the recommendation that the speed limit be raised on Glen Arbor to 30 mph
according to the surveys. You 1egalIy can do that. But on the other side on WJlIowspring
legally you cannot. Now there has been some confusion because in the past IJOme of the
Sheri.1r s Department, some of the Council members wrongfully called these streets collector
streets, they are not. VJIlage Park Way is a collector street, Mountain Vasta and of course I
have the official map. When the presentation was made Roger Krauel agreed with me, "thank
you for coming down, why didn't you just caIl me?" I said I just want to make a presentation
just like an ordinary citizen. I don't want to come down here in my official capacity. But just
for your own infonnation out of all the 260 attorneys in our office I was selected to investigate
and make determination on the San Marcos bus accident where Mr. Locher, the councilman's
c1üld died. And I did the entire investigation for the entire DA's office on a vehicular
~!danghter that Sgt. De1ardine, a very technical one. They said he called up, they assigned
SA - 3
.
.
8
me to investigate right up in our neighborhood. And I'm sure he remembers the case. So
these vehicular code interpretations are tricky because of the configuration of these streets.
When I talked to Commi~oner Jones about this he agreed with my legal analysis. When I
taJked to CommillSiouer Brandenberg, and I did not get a very long opportunity and of course
it was as he said, until you get the engineers to say that this street is less than soo feet wide I
can't say anything except you have to have a speed survey done on your street. And he said
my hands are tied. So that' s when we went back to the engineers and they agreed. If you look
at not just the SWDID8IY that you are looking at but at the actual speed survey document I think
Mr. Rob Blough will agree with me that they describe the streets as 32 foot wide streets. Now
you may say why aren't we required to do a speed survey on the &t part of the street. I was
told by the engineering department, and I have. no reason to disbelieve them, this would be a
good question for Mr. Blough, they said when the stop signs or the street 1ights are so close
that they never do speed surveys within a 100 feet or so ofa traffic intersection and that's why
the speed surveys are not done in the &t part of the road and so that's why you're getting these
speed surveys where they are descn'bing Wdlowspring as 32 feet wide. I would be happy, at
my own expense to go down to Kinko's, I only found out a halfhour ago, I'vejust put in a 12
hour day, that you were having this meeting and I thought I could be helpful. I would be glad
to go down to Kinko's at my own expense, have the color Xeroxed o~ because the
bigJt1igJrtAd portions are in pink that are very helpful to somebody. You don't want to read 50
pages, you want to zip right down to the pink highlighted stuff to assist you in your decision.
But I'm asking you as to Wlllowspring in the areas of the residential district which would be
Encinitas Blvd clear up to Glen Arbor and between that place is a residential district and I
would ask you to withdraw that trom exhibit A And as to Glen Arbor that is a situation where
it doesn't ~ qualify as a residential district so it is a judgment call. But this was a when we
did this presentation in June of 1994 there were over 200 citizens here. Twenty-five people
gave me their speaking time because I had done this and I was i\miliar with Goulet. There is
also a SUtDI118IY of the Goulet case plus two or three pages of the actual decision that are very
pertinent to your decision. I'd be glad to open it up to questions because I am a Deputy DA I
mean most people have to pay for attorneys to come down, r d be glad to answer any of your
questions I'd be glad fi:ee of cost on my own personal time to assist the Sheri1r s Department.
The problem came up is after we made the presentation I invited the Sheri1r s Department I
would be glad to provide you a legal brief on why you can enforce the 25 mph speed limit, just
on Wülowspring. not on Glen Arbor for the Traffic Commissioners so you never get your
traffic tickets thrown out. This is a tricky street, you've got three aspects the wide part, the
DaITOW residential district part and then the Glen Arbor part that doesn't qualifÿ as a residential
district, so you have to be careful. When I asked questions of the Sheri1r s Department where
were you giving the speeding tickets, they said all over so of course the Commissioners were
well within their right of throwing out those tickets. Unless you can tell me exactly where, you
were giving speeding tickets you wouldn't know whether the Commissioners were right or
wrong in their assessment but you needed a legal brief the first couple of times you went down
to the Commissioners or you were going to fàJI fiat on your fåœ. I was never given that
opportunity to provide that and of course traffic tickets don't come through the DA's Office.
Of course if you want to call a drunk driving a traffic ticket you do. The misdemearors come
through the DA's office in Vista so we're the legal assistance for the Sheriff's Department in
North County, but Roger Krauel in 1994 was in complete agreement with the assessment that
the speed limit should be reduced on these streets but we still had issues of how we were going
to enforce the speed limit and so the citizens are asking you just because the appropriate legal
. SA - 4
.
.
8
approach hasn't been used by the police department please just don't raise the speed 6mit on
these streets. It can be done in court, it just bas to be done properly. If I were to give you an
example, real easy ODe, you're a landlord I'm a tenant, you know the three day ifl don't pay
my rent you give .me three days notice. to quit, you delivered the notice on the next door
neighbor and not on me, you'd get thrown out of court. It'sjust a tedmicaIity, you didn't give
the right person notice. Because you don't do the mechanics right your tickets might be
thrown out of court. Commissioner Jones said he hasn't bad any of these tickets.
Comtnissioner 0meIas says he hasn't thrown out any of the tickets and I haVel1't bad an
oppOrtunity to talk to the other two. So we may be premature on just these two areas and can
I answ« any questions at all? Each City Council member received a copy, I gave everybody
that was in the support staft: and Roger Krauel bad it ahead of time in 1994. Fortunately also
besides reducing the speed limit because they bad upped it and then the citizens bad appealed it
and reduœd it based on this presentation. Additionally they also gave stop signs in certain
areas to assist the grade schoolers in crossing the street at Countyhaven, we got a stop sign and
a couple of other places down the street. The stop signs are in the legal brief and we have
already gotten those...Ifyou add the two streets together 32 and 32 this was the discussion in
1994 these are two separate streets Glen Arbor originally did not connect at all with
Willowspring. There was an addition made as Village Park was developed and so those were
two separate streets. The previous engineer chose to call Glen Arbor and Willowspring one
street with a 330 foot grassy median and of course this was ludicrous. We bad engineers ftom
Orange County writing letters saying this is ludicrous these are two separate streets. In the
. official map in the speed surveys in my exhibit he will agree with me Wdlowspring is 32 feet
wide and Glen Arbor is 32 feet wide and they abut the greenbelt. When they get down to the
four lane part which is very dose to the stop sign those areas are never speed surveyed because
they are too close to a traffic signal and too close to a stop sign. So the only areas where they
have done speed surveys are in the those 32 foot wide areas...One of the things that the
Sheriff's Department was most confused on and brought up in 1994 which I think is real
important for you to know is there are three criteria for being exempted ftom a speed survey;
one is your residential, being a local street being less than 40 feet wide and you must have not
more than, and this is exactly 1Ì'om the code, not more than one lane in each direction. So a
one Jane one-way street meets that criteria:. The Sheriff's Department could nev« quite read
that code section. They said will if you only have one Jane in one direction then you don't meet
the exception. Now read it again, it says not more than one lane in each direction so your
streets that have two lanes going this way and two lanes going that way they don't work, you
have to have a speed survey. If you have one lane going one direction and you have one going
the other direction, you're less than 40 feet wide you're in as long as you are a local street.
And of course our County maps. But you know that's why we got the attorney in on it Roger
Krauel, he understood the tegal1anguage and said yes you on Willowspring are not suppose to
have speed surveys done. But you know when the citizens called in they, their idea was why
don't you do a speed survey anyway and end up that your speed swvey should be 2S mph this
whole thing is going to be nnrte. So the citizen says will if that's what you think is the best
thing to do rathec than argue about it if you think the whole thing will be nnrte. They did the
speed surveys and I live on that street so I can tell you that people aren't always going below
25 mph. It doesn't surprise me and I think their speed surveys are accurate they just now that
they've done it, it was a nice experiment but legally it shouldn't have been done because it's a
32 foot residential district street...That's where the confusion bas lied and of course the City
Attorney backed up my legal opinion. It's the not more than one traffic lane in each direction
SA - S
.
.
.
so that is a maximum, you camot go more than two, one in each direction and our case we
have it's a one-way street, it's one lane that's it. But probably this is, I don't know if you have
a copy of the code section, this is the actual law highlighted, that excepts the type of street, it's
a local street which W1Ilowspring is...I've talked to Commissioner Jones these are all verbal
comnmnications. We can get the 'Commissioners to put this in writing for you if it is necessary,
but because there is a misnooerstanding, and I've had misunderstandin with the Sheriir s
Department in readingjust this code section, they thought that ifit didn't have two lanes then it
didn't work, it didn't apply and they just didn't understand the legal language. But if that's
what you would like to have there is the legal opinion by either the Municipal Court Judges
they are the bosses, but I'm just telling you that I've only talked to two of the Commissioners
and both of them agree with this legal brief and one has said I haven't thrown out any tickets.
That' s just an incorrect statement and that's all I can tell you.
.
Randal1 Peterson, 2110 Meadowgreen Ct. - I'm President of the Village Creek Homeowners
Association. I spoke before the Traffic Commission and also before the City Council back in
1994. The letter that you are reading there ftom Daniel 0meIas was written back to me. I
read an article in the paper the North County Tunes that suggested that the speed limit was
going to be raised because there were Traffic Commissioners out there that were throwing out
tickets that were written on WlIIowspring and as a result of that they couldn't enforce it and so
therefore the speed limit was going to have to be raised so that they could do a speed survey
and properly process a ticket. I wrote a rather harsh letter to Comnûssioner Ornelas but part of
the reason why I did that was I wanted to get a response because I talked to a number of
people and it seemed like I wasn't getting a straight answer so I said I wanted to go directly to
the source and in my letter I said I don't know how you can throw out these tickets because
this is clearly a residential area come and have a look at it yourself. He came back very
strongly to me and says I don't want to get involved in a political discussion here but I haven't
seen any of these tickets. I haven't thrown any out and I sincerely believe this is a residential
street and that is what he said in his letter to me. So at that point in time we contacted Gail
llano, Chuck DuVlVier and I also spoke with Lauren Wasserman here over the last several
weeks and we have yet to get answer back that any tickets have actually been thrown out so I
don't know where this is coming ftom that the Commissioners are throwing out these tickets.
Nobody's been able to tell us of any tickets that have been thrown out and we got a clear
statement ftom a Commissioner and he says he thinks it's a residential street so to get back to
the point that if it is a residential street it doesn't need the speed survey. And the rest of my
comments would simply be that I support what the previous speakers have said... The other
comment I got back ftom Lauren Wasserman the City Manager was that he didn't know of any
specific tickets and he would get back to me shortly if he could find any and he never did get
back to me. But he thought that it was a verbal comnmnication that possibly somebody
thought the tickets might get thrown out. I mean he clearly couldn't give me any definite
answers and he wasn't trying to, he just didn't want me to irritate the Traffic Commissioners
with anymore letters. And that was the end of that.
8
Denise Q. Udrasols, 343 N. WlIIowspring Dr. - I'm very unprepared for this because we just
found out about this this afternoon. My good fiiend Mike Andreen told me about it at school
this afternoon. I don't know if this was put in a public notice, I certainly didn't see one. But I
have lived at 343 N. WlIIowspring Dr. for ten years since 1986. Like I said I didn't have
enough time to contact the hundreds of neighbors who I know would have been here tonight
SA - 6
.
to defend their street and that' s unfortunate. I know first hand a little bit of the history of the
speed limits on Willowspring Drive and Glen Arbor since rve been there for ten years. rve
personally been involved in two separate petitions. The first one was in 1987 and over a
hundred sigJtlJtures were collected at that time to reduce the 35 mph speed limit to 2S mph and
again in 1994 when over 300 signatures were collected again to reduce the speed limit ftom 35
mph to 2S mph. It seems pretty clear where the neighbors that live on these two streets would
like to see the speed limit stay and that is at 25 mph. The second thing is I have a letter ftom
1988 ftom George Villegas the City Traffic engineer that in here it says that every five years a
. speed limit survey is conducted. Now if the last speed limit survey was taken in 1993 or 1994
why are we already under another speed survey? It hasn't been five years...1 have brought with
me the two petitions ftom 1987 and 1994 if you would like to see them. I wish to see the
speed limit stay at 2S mph.
Sandra Tunmons, 305 Trailview Rd. - I find it really interesting that we keep coming back to
this issue and I can't add to most of the technical details earlier but the staff said something
very interesting. They said they wanted to work hard to find the highest legal speed for our
street. Why don't they work equally hard to find the lowest legal speed for those streets. We
have fiunilies there, it's clearly residential, and if they would put the effort over the past nine
years into substantiating a legal reason to have a 25 mph speed limit we would support them
totally. Because we need that 25 mph with so many kids, with the school and what not. So I
just hope that you will leave it where it is. Thank you.
.
Sgt. De1ardine - In reading the letter ftom Commissioner Ornelas he points out very
strenuously that he will not get involved in a political discussion about something that may
wind up in his comt. Quite some time ago all three Traffic Commissioners started this long
tenn discussion by laying the ground rules very clearly that they were going to do that and
continue to do that forever...Discuss a political issue that mayor may not wind up in their court
in requiring them to make a decision. That's what it has been. Two of the three
Commissioners have in &ct in ftont of me dismissed citations written on either Willowspring or
Glen Arbor. That I will give to you as plain and simple &ct. Because the streets were a speed
trap and they could not and would not here evidence in their court room on a speed trap.
That's covered in 40803. That's the definition of a speed trap. They cannot, an officer that
comes in to testi1ÿ regarding a speed trap is tenDed immediately incompetent to testify. He
cannot do so. Without there being any testimony the citation cannot be prosecuted therefore it
is thrown out..The question is very clear in the courts mind with regard to these two particular
streets and the issues that we have raised with them about those issues. We have done now for
quite some time and have attempted to take speeding cases to the court based upon two
separate attempts by the City Council to circumvent the rules laid out by the Goulet decision.
Both of those have been voided by. the court. We cannot call the area bounded by major
streets a Residential District and call all those streets residential streets nor can we arbitrarily
set a speed limit by not paying attention to and adhering to section 40802 which requires the
three sections number one being a roadway width of not more than 40 tèet, not more than one-
half mile of unintenupted length and not more than one traffic lane in each direction. The
courts have come back on three separate occasions, or at least two separate occasions and said
this is the requirement, this is what you have to adhere to... The court has said that it is required
that there be one lane in each direction in the 40 foot width that is measured. One lane in each
direction not more than. It cannot be one lane in one direction only...The Courts have found
SA - 7
.
.
that 40802 among the first two requires that the 40 foot width requirement be one lane in each
direction. In order for Glen Arbor and WlIlowspring to meet the requirement they have to be
added together so that you will have one lane in each direction to qualify as a residential
street... This has not been a local battle, it has not been an easy one. The court is not going to
set the roles, they won't do that. The Attorney Generals office won't do it, the Court will not
do it, the District Attorney's Office will not do it. The District Attorney's Office refuses to
have anything to do with prosecuting traffic inftactions at the San Marcos Court and they do
the same in other sections of the County as well, south bay court for example. The District
Attorney had an opportunity to take up this battle sometime ago and declined to do so.
Nobody wants to lay down the particular role that this is the way it has to be. The Court takes
the roles that they have which are in the California Vebicle Code and interprets those and those
interpretations have been handed down to us. The interpretaûon that I am teUing you about is
that of those three sections the third one and the one that we are talking about here says that
this particular section, section number three states that there shall not be more than one lane,
and the interpretation by the court of that is that there has to be one lane in each direction.
.
Associate Traffic Ef18Ïneer Blough - Our goal is to have a street that can be legally enforceable
by radar so that when we get speeding requests we can have the Sherifr s Department out there
enforcing the speed limit and hopefully reducing the speed. Our position is if the street is not
enforceable we want to make it enforceable and it is our und~ng ftom the Courts
interpretation based on discussions with the Sheriff's Department that it is currently not
enforceable by radar...We want to make the street legally enforceable and to our knowledge it
is not legally enforceable with a 25 mph speed limit because there is no speed survey on that
street so we have conducted a speed survey and based on that speed survey a 30 mph speed
limit would be justified and legally enforceable at the 85th percentile which would be 32
mph...It is our opinion that it needs to be 30 mph.
COMMISSIONER CROSBY MOVED TO APPROVE ALL THE SPEED LIMITS
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 16, 40, AND 41. COMMISSIONER LEWIN
SECONDED. APPROVED 4-0.
.
COMMISSIONER KLAMER MOVED THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION REQUEST
CITY STAFF TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. HOW LONG CAN THE CURRENT 2S MPH SPEED LIMlT BE ENFORCED;
2. HOW MANY TICKETS HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND FOR WHAT
REASON HAVE THOSE TICKETS BEEN REJECTED ALONG THOSE STREETS
IN QUESTION;
3. AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER WILLOWSPRING IS A LOCAL STREET
ACCORDING TO 40802;
4. HOW TO HANDLE THE TRANsmON IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT
SPEEDS FROM 2S TO 30 BE1WEEN GLEN ARBOR AND WJLLOWSPRlNG;
50 RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONTACT THE CITY ATfORNEY AND GET
ADVICE FROM HIM ON THE PARTICULAR ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT
WJLLOWSPRING IS A LOCAL STREET ACCORDING TO 40802;
6. THE CITIZENS BE GRANTED A 15 MINUTE PRESENTATION PERIOD
WITH 10 MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS.
SA - 8
.
.
.
.
8
COMMISSIONERLEWIN SECONDED.. APPROVED 4-0.
1~
COMMISSIONER CORNER
Commissioner Sebastian - When we were looking at Orpheus a year ago ftom Leucadi~ Blvd.
past the park down to Vulcan we were, going to put the monitoring speed trailer up, did we do
that.
Sgt DeJardine - Yes-we did put that trailer up in a couple of places on Orpheus north of the.
park, at the area of the park and just south of it I believe; ..The results were that there was not a
speeding problem, per se, it was within normalcy, what we would expect for that given ~
Commissioner Crosby - At the Planning Commission the other night someone asked ifwhen
we order new street signs if they could be ordered with a different background color so that
they would be more readily available in car lights at night. He says that they were too high and
hard to read at night.
Sgt. DeJardine - All the street sígns that are erected have to be adhered to very strict code by
CalTrans and all of the colors are very meaningful and dictated.
,
Associate Traffic Engineer Blough - If there were a reflectivity problem with specific signs
Public Works should be contacted. I believe that Public Works has a five to seven year cycle
where the signs are replaced. Signs that face to the west and south will fade out faster due to
more exposure to the sun.
8..
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER LEWIN MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 8:42 P.M..
COMMISSIONER KLAMER SECONDED. APPROVED 4-0.
:2s~~~^)
nna S . an, Chairperson
~ ~ Wi' (&
. cMahon, Office Specialist
..
SA - 9
-