Loading...
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 -