Citracado Speed Limit Ordinance 2026-01

Decision

• Body: Escondido City Council
• Ordinance: Ordinance No. 2026-01
• Adoption date stated in ordinance: February 18, 2026
• Vote stated in ordinance: Fitzgerald, Garcia, Garcia, Martinez, and White listed as AYE; no NOES or ABSENT councilmembers listed

The ordinance says the City Council considered the staff report, the Transportation Community and Safety Commission recommendation, and California Vehicle Code provisions as amended by Assembly Bill 43, and found that retaining the speed limits for the street segments in Exhibit A was in the City's best interest.

The January 8, 2026 Transportation and Community Safety Commission packet provides supporting speed-survey context. It frames Item 3 as approval of Engineering and Traffic Surveys for posted speeds on various citywide street segments and forwarding recommendations to City Council.

The February 18, 2026 City Council minutes list Ordinance No. 2026-01 as a second-reading-and-adoption consent item for an ordinance retaining the existing speed limit on one street segment. The minutes state that the ordinance was approved on January 28, 2026 with a 5/0 vote. Use the ordinance PDF for the ordinance text and ordinance-stated adoption vote; the minutes add meeting-record context only.

Exhibit A Segment

Exhibit A lists one row:

• Street name or zone: Citracado 2, marked as a new segment
• Segment: Avenida del Diablo to Harmony Grove Rd./S. Andreasen
• Date of previous speed survey: None
• Existing posted speed limit: None
• Classification: M
• 85th percentile speed: 51 mph
• Rounded speed: 50 mph
• Recommended posted speed limit: 40 mph

The exhibit footnote says the value was rounded down to be consistent with the corridor by ordinance. This page does not state whether signs have been posted, whether the speed limit is currently enforceable, or whether later traffic schedules or ordinances changed the segment.

The TCSC packet includes the same Citracado 2 table row in Table 1 and records the packet recommendation to approve staff's speed limits per Table 1 and forward the recommendations to City Council for concurrence. That packet is recommendation context, not final Council action.

Code Table Disposition Context

The hosted eCode360 comparative table lists Ordinance 2026-01 with date February 18, 2026, action text "Retaining the Existing Speed Limit on Street Segment," disposition Special, and section 7.

The same table says Special ordinances are usually not codified but may still be in effect. Use that statement only as the table's own caution about the Special designation. This page does not use the comparative table to establish current posted signs, current enforceability, traffic-schedule completeness, later amendment status, field conditions, or current law.

Traffic Schedule Source Context

The hosted eCode360 Chapter 28 Article 1 page says City Council shall establish and may amend certain traffic schedules by resolution. Section 28-5 lists speed zones as one traffic-schedule category and says City traffic schedules are on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The chapter also gives the city traffic engineer authority to designate locations and direct placement of signs or markings for listed traffic-control categories and other regulatory and advisory signs recommended by the MUTCD.

This supports the next source path for current traffic-schedule and posted-sign review. It does not publish current traffic-schedule contents, current posted-sign status, current speed-limit guidance, current enforceability, field conditions, or legal interpretation.

A May 25, 2026 current-source status check of the City Municipal Code page and hosted Chapter 28 Article 1 page did not expose current traffic-schedule contents, a Citracado-specific adopted traffic schedule, or posted-sign records. Those records still require City Clerk, Transportation, adopted-resolution, posted-sign, field-review, or later official sources.

Environmental Review Statement

The ordinance says the proposed ordinance is not a project under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) because the proposed updates are administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

That statement is recorded here only as ordinance text. This page does not provide CEQA analysis, traffic-safety advice, legal interpretation, current speed-limit guidance, signage guidance, or enforcement guidance.