Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072811 PTS Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk's Department at 951-694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] MEETING AGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION ' TO BE HELD AT TEMECULA CIVIC CENTER, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 Main Street ' Temecula, California , Thursday, July 28, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER � - FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Arbogast, Duke, Ramos, Youmans, Chairperson Hagel PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC COMMENTS � A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not listed on the Agenda, a yellow "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are, called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items, a"Request,to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Any public writings distributed by the City Staff to at least a majority of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission regarding any item on this regular meeting agenda will be made available at the City Clerk's Office at Temecula Civic Center, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92589, during normal business hours. COMMISSION REPORTS Reports by the Commissioners on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. 1 . COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR � 1. Action Minutes of June 23, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of June 23, 2011. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Multi-Way Stop Signs — Various Locations on Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission: 1. Recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing Multi-Way Stop signs at the intersection of Old Town Front Street at Third Street, and Mercedes � Street at Sixth Street; and 2. Direct Staff to maintain the present level of control on Old Town Front Street at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. 3. Emergency Management Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the report. TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORTS POLICE CHIEF'S REPORTS FIRE CHIEF'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, August 25, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. at Temecula Civic Center, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staffreports) will be available for viewing at the Main Reception, Temecula Civic Center, (41000 Main Street, Temecula) or the Temecula Library (30600 Pauba Road, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Temecula Public/Traftic Safery Commission meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.ciryoftemecula.org Supplemeotal material received after the postiog of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the � posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review at the Main Reception, Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula — 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website— www.ciryoftemecula.org— and will be available ffir public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact Ciry Clerk's Department — 951-694-6444. 2 ` ITEM NO. 1 Action Minutes of June 23, 2011 , ACTION MINUTES OF TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TEMECULA CIVIC CENTER - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011 , 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Arbogast ROLL CALL: Arbogast, Duke, Ramos, Youmans, Hagel Absent: Ramos and Youmans PRESENTATIONS Certificate of Meritorious Service — Pete Miranda Certificate of Distinguished Service — Deputy Bill Stokes ' PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMISSION REPORTS COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Action Minutes of Mav 26, 2011 - Approved staff recommendation —(3-0-2) — Commissioner Arbogast made the motion; it was seconded by Commissioner Duke; and voice vote reflected approval of those present with Commissioners Ramos and Youmans absent. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of May 26, 2011. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. School Traffic Issues and Solutions - received the presentation and directed staff RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive the presentation and direct Staff to coordinate the implementation of the Suggested Action Plans with the Police Department and the Temecula Valley Unified School District. ; TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORTS POLICE CHIEF'S REPORTS FIRE CHIEF'S REPORTS 1 ADJOURNMENT At 7:14 P.M., Commissioner Arbogast moved, seconded by Commissioner Duke, to adjourn the Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting to Thursday, July 28, 2011, at 6:00 PM. Bob Hagel Greg Butler Chairperson Director of Public Works / City Engineer 2 ITEM NO. 2 Multi-Way Stop Signs — Various Location on Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street AGENDA REPORT . ���_ � �% t: �_w ;�. � TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission s�i��5 ���a2- 1�S 9 :;,.: FROM: �reg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2011 SUBJECT: Item 2 Multi-Way Stop Signs — Various Locations on Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street Prepared By: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer — Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission: , 1. Recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing Multi-Way Stop signs at the intersection of Old Town Front Street at Third Street, and Meccedes Street at Sixth Street; and 2. Direct Staff to maintain the present level of control on Old Town Front Street at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. BACKGROUND: A request was received to consider the feasibility of installing multi-way stop signs at three (3) 1 intersections on Old Town Front Street and the Mercedes Street at Sixth Street intersection. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process and by mail. Old Town Front Street is designated as a forty (40) foot wide Collector roadway on the City's Circulation Plan. Old Town Front Street is striped for one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the roadway. Old Town Front Street carries 14,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) south of Rancho California Road, 9,700 ADT south of Main Street, and 9,100 ADT nor#h of Temecula Parkway. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on Old Town Front Street between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road/First Street and 40 MPH befinreen Santiago Road/First Street and Temecula Parkway. Mercedes Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which functions as a collector roadway by providing access to the arterial roadway network for commercial and residential units. Mercedes Street is striped for one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the roadway. Mercedes Street carries 2,100 ADT. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on Mercedes Street. Third Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for numerous commercial units and the Old Town Garage parking structure. 1 Third Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Third Street carries 600 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Third Street. Fourth Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for commercial and residential units. Fourth Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Fourth Street carries 470 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Fourth Street. Fifth Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for commercial and residential units. Fifth Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Fifth Street carries 530 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Fifth Street. Sixth Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which provides access to Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street for numerous commercial and residential units. Sixth Street provides one travel lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street. Sixth Street carries 590 ADT. The Business District prima facie speed limit is 25 MPH on Fourth Street. In April 2011, a review of conditions was performed on Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street � at the four (4) intersections which included an evaluation of sight distance, accident history and multi-way stop warrant analysis. The sight distance evaluation revealed the following: • Old Town Front Street at Third Street, Fourth Street and Fifth Street The evaluation determined the visibility at the three (3) intersections on Old Town Front Street is obstructed by on-street parking and does not satisfy the minimum sight distance requirements for prevailing speeds. The sight distance improves to acceptable standards when motorists "edge-out" beyond the limit line before entering Old Town Front Street. An unobstructed sight distance of approximately 155 feet is required for the posted speed limit of 25 MPH on Old Town Front Street. • Mercedes Street at Sixth Street The evaluation determined the visibility looking north and south from the west leg of Sixth Street is obstructed by on-street parking, vegetation, and the horizontal alignment of the north leg of Mercedes Street. The evaluation determined the sight distance at this intersection is approximately 80 feet looking north and 75 feet looking south from Sixth Street. The evaluation further revealed that the visibility looking north from the east leg is unobstructed and exceeds the minimum sight distance required for prevailing speeds. However, looking south, from the east leg, the visibility is obstructed by on-street parking, vegetation and a block wall. The sight distance at the obstructed locations does not improve when motorists "edge-out" beyond the limit line. An unobstructed sight distance of approximately 155 feet is required for the posted speed limit of 25 MPH on Mercedes Street. A review of the accident history for the twelve (12) month period from May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011, indicates there was only one reported collision. The collision occurred at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Third Street. This favorable record can be attributed to the low vehicular travel speeds and motorists exercising due care when entering each intersection. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) indicates that a Multi- Way Stop installation may be useful at locations where the volume of traffic on intersecting roads is approximately equal and/or where a combination of high speed, restricted sight distance and an accident history indicates that assignment of right-of=way is necessary. There are four (4) criteria that the MUTCD has established for the evaluation of Multi-Way Stop signs. These criteria are as follows: � 2 A. Where traffic signal controls are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control trafFic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents in a twelve (12) month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such accidents include right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum Volumes 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight (8) hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but 3. If the 85-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values, Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Other criteria that may be considered when evaluating the need for multi-way stops include: E. The need to control left-turn conflicts; F. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; G. Locations where a motorist, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and H. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop controls would improve the traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. The Multi-Way Stop warrant criteria shown above, was used to evaluate the three (3) intersections along Old Town Front Street. The analysis performed found that existing volumes are lower than the applicable criteria and multi-way stop signs would not be justified. However, cciteria D of the MUTCD provides the flexibility to consider multi-way stop signs at locations where a combination of 80% of the minimum values are satisfied and where there is a need to control left-turn conflicts and conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Based on these special circumstances Staff found that the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Third Street satisfies the minimum criteria and there is a need to provide multi-way stop controls at this intersection. More importantly, the Old Town Specific Plan identifies a stop control along the Old Town Front Street corridor between Santiago Road and Main Street to enhance pedestrian crossing and . improve vehicular circulation between Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street. The specific plan identifies Second Street as a potential location for stop controls. However, the close proximity of Second Street to the signalized intersection of Santiago Road/First Street could affect the signal's operation. It is Staff's opinion that installing stop controls at Third Street maintains the integrity of the specific plan while minimizing impacts to the signalized intersection.' 3 Since Mercedes Street functions as a commercial/residential collector street and it does not appear on the City's Circulation Plan, the Multi-Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets warrant criteria was used to evaluate the need for multi-way stop signs at the intersection of Mercedes Street and Sixth Street. The warrants allow for the installation of multi-way stop signs when the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Minimum Traffic Volumes ' a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches is equal to or greater than three-hundred (300) vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day and � b) The combined vehicular volume and pedestrian volume from the minor street is equal to or greater than one-hundred (100) per hour for the same eight (8) hours. - 2. Collision History a) Three (3) or more reported collisions within a twelve (12) month period of a type susceptible to� correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such accidents include right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Roadway Characteristics a) The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles per day, b) The intersection has four (4) legs; with the streets extending 600 feet or more away from the intersection on at least three (3) of the legs; , c) The vehicular volumes on both streets are nearly equal to a forty/sixty percent (40/60%) split, and d) Both streets are 44 feet wide or narrower. WARRANTS 1, 2, and 3 MUST BE SATISFIED � Other criteria that may be considered when evaluating the need for multi-way stop signs include: 4. Visibility a) The intersections sight distance is less than: • 155 feet for 25 MPH • 200 feet for 30 MPH • 250 feet for 35 MPH 5. The need to control left-turn conflicts. 6. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian voJumes such as schools, parks and activity centers. � , 7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route to School plan. 8. There are no traffic signal or all-way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection. 9. The installation of multi-way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs for the residential area. The Multi-Way Stop warrant analysis performed indicates that Warrants 1 and 2 are not satisfied but all aspects of the Roadway Characteristics warrant are satisfied. Since all three combined warrants are not satisfied, multi-way stop signs would not be justified. However, the Optional warrant criteria does provide the flexibility to consider multi-way stop signs at locations where the intersection sight distance falls below acceptable standards for the posted speed limit and where there is a need to , control conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at locations that generate high pedestrian volumes. Based on these special circumstances, it is Staff's opinion that there is a compelling need to provide stop controls at this intersection. 4 � Based on the results of both multi-way stop warrant analyses, staff recommends the Commission approve a recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing Multi-Way Stop signs at the intersection of Old Town Front Street at Third Street and Mercedes Street at Sixth Street, and direct staff to maintain the present fevel of control on Old Town Front Street at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. - Staff presented the results of the evaluation to the Old Town Local Review Board and RDA/Old Town Steering Committee for their consideration. Both committees concurred with the recommendation to establish Multi-Way Stop signs at the two locations. FISCAL IMPACT: Minor cost associated with relocating and installing signs and associated pavement markings. Adequate funds are available in the Traffic Division operating budget: Attachment 1. Exhibit "A" — Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" — Multi-Way Stop Warrants 5 1 . EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP ; . 6 _ � �:. , � �' �tr�"� '-�:� . i -- t . tw,. �� � ;� �_ f , '� r ' � t %R ♦tl Y i / J � 1 f � , /��f��.. `���1��1 � r \'T , � I �! � ` � i �c.?; ` � � , `^� y �� . �� , � / t � � ; ``�,� � ,�.. .. `r�< \ • •�`. � � .�,`'��. �'' � � �C - �` � �, . l � ,-� � ai,��, ••t � � •�� � • `�,� + ,l � f,�'' . ,' _ i � :�, i' Y `��� ' . . �_ � •� . \ � �' ,� 1 �� ,� ��#. .` � i a� ��� 1i; c� � � \ i , l , � - �, � � � � ♦1 .��. •-'`� � I �• �•��►' • � �h� � R" ``� ���'.W ' " ��\ 1 r i. '���.:7 �� .,d./� a '• �I i � •�����. 1� ' t' ' � 1 � `..' ��.������� ",��` 'w,,.,� ��,, � i � '� �=: ""'� �..�;�� � �'t t �'.. � i : � i y � ''"'�� �!������'. \� , ::, ^ :� ,,�, � ,, �`. � `t� 1� ' � _ �i � � ►' ,� 'l�a�i ' , �.R. _.�f°� '` .",p � .+� � � • ��` 1' �� �� r � y �� � 1 � � �� .. � .��� �f � _ _ _ F * � � " • � �, .. �`��'� � �' '�i� - � 1 1�� � , � <ti"j'' f �a �� ,' `. *. � , ' 1i� '' � �� �.� � : f �. '� � • �1 � `�J�J('�i�i-. ' M � � �j� )� / 4 • I � \ . u� M� �' • � ' � �'� i j�� � ���R' � � ti� ' r; � � � �! ;�"• �' �b. _ Ai Y � ,� ,� -R�. �.. � � �'• '� 6% �. � e . � � y I �� �� r`b � �� � ���� C � \� � � � .� � � r �� -�j�. ♦ � , �� � '�.� � +� �; : � y N . r `�' �� ; <<` +t �. , r. , �^� �� t . A�.' � � . � a � �. � V �,��� � � � .� ,/+f / i�; �" �iy,� •` ' �- � • '��r , ,, ;; .,�,��„ , ' ��" �; �� � �°v�r °� .�r �� �j 4''� �� -,:�!i� ;:,�.. �`� �. , : , -°, � .. ,�,. . , _, � �` '� ' , ; �, .��� � ` �,�► a •� `��j''S � ��, : ` - �l. . , � • ���'i. ♦ t � k t . , , � 1 � �, � �' Y ".'. � �, .' "'�'` , \.�:$� �r� �� l - • � y c �}' ' �� ^ � �'? .a � � ' • � . .l l . \ / `� _ .1 �� . \ " ' �t �' " �' _ 6 i° � . \ 'l / { . ' J{ y `. :.,� � y � a i'� ,� � � s 1... `--}-�– - , � �� ,� ' � 7 ;. . /�• `# � !, '.� 1 �! , I � ,� � , ..� �,,��. � 4 , � '�� . �'� ; ��;�. ; 1 ; , 5' � . � 'i _ h.° �;, � �� , r' � 1 � ��� � I �� , � � \ � �� � � '.�. _-�� ':�� �� ! �� �r 1 �� , 1, � � ��i I► : �• � \I - . �. . • ��: � •- • EXHIBIT "B" MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANTS � MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT Major Street: Old Town Front Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minor Street: Third Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minimum Vehicular Volume < 40 MPH 100% SATISFIED YES NO X 80% SATISFIED YES �X NO � MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SO% SHOWN IN BRACKETS 10-11 AM 12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Hour Both Approaches 300 Ma'or Street 240 � 779 772 805 808 846 856 790 774 Both Approaches ' 200 Minor Street 160 121 140 157 151 156 160 138 130 (70% VOLUME USE WHEN) Minimum Vehicular Volume > 41 MPH 100% SATISFIED YES � NO � MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Hour Both Approaches Ma'or Street 210 Both Approaches Minor Street 140 Crash Warrant SATISFIED YES 0 NO �X FULFILLED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 1 YES NO X OPTION: FULFILLED A. THE NEED TO CONTROL LEFT-TURN CONFLICTS; YES �X NO � B. THE NEED TO CONTROL VEHICLEIPEDESTRIAN CONFLICTS NEAR LOCATIONS THAT GENERATE HIGH PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES; YES � NO � C. LOCATIONS WHERE A ROAD USER, AFTER STOPPING, CANNOT SEE CONFLICTING TRAFFIC AND IS NOT ABLE TO REASONABLY NEGOTIATE THE INTERSECTION � UNLESS CONFLICTING CROSS TRAFFIC IS ALSO REQUIRED TO STOP; AND YES � NO O D. AN INTERSECTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR (THROUGH) STREETS OF SIMILAR DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS WHERE MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL WOULD IMPROVE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTERSECTION. " YES � NO � "` NOT APPLICABLE MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT Major Street: Old Town Front Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minor Street: Fourth Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH . i Minimum Vehicular Volume < 40 MPH 100% SATISFIED YES NO X 80% SATISFIED YES NO X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80°/a SHOWN IN BRACKETS 10-11 AM 11-12 PM 12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM S6 PM Hour Both Approaches 300 Ma'or Street 240 743 803 875 831 832 898 953 969 Both Approaches 200 Minor Street 160 75 74 87 88 108 100 75 95 (70% VOLUME USE WHEN) Minimum Vehicular Volume > 41 MPH 100% SATISFIED YES � NO � MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Hour Both Approaches Ma'or Street 210 Both Approaches Minor Street 140 Crash Warrant SATISFIED YES � NO OX FULFILLED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 0 YES NO X OPTION: FULFILLED A. THE NEED TO CONTROL LEFT-TURN CONFLICTS; YES �X NO � B. THE NEED TO CONTROL VEHICLE/PEDESTRIAN CONFLICTS NEAR LOCATIONS THAT GENERATE HIGH PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES; YES � NO � C. LOCATIONS WHERE A ROAD USER, AFTER STOPPING, CANNOT SEE CONFLICTING TRAFFIC AND IS NOT ABLE TO REASONABLY NEGOTIATE THE INTERSECTION UNLESS CONFLICTING CROSS TRAFFIC IS ALSO REQUIRED TO STOP; AND YES � NO � D. AN INTERSECTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR (THROUGH) STREETS OF SIMILAR DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS WHERE MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL WOULD IMPROVE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTERSECTION. •• YES � NO � " NOT APPLICABLE MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT Major Street: Old Town Front Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minor Street: Fifth Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minimum Vehicular Volume < 40 MPH 100% SATISFIED YES NO X 80% SATISFIED YES � NO �X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80°/a SHOWN IN BRACKETS 10-11 AM 11-12 PM 12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 34 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM Hour Both Approaches 300 Ma'or Street 240 726 792 860 831 826 896 923 927 Both Approaches 200 Minor Street 160 88 91 96 97 95 88 84 80 (70% VOLUME USE WHEN) Minimum Vehicular Volume > 41 MPH 100% SATISFIED YES � NO � MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Hour Both Approaches Ma'or Street 210 Both Approaches Minor Street 140 Crash Warrant SATISFIED YES � NO �X FULFILLED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 0 YES NO X OPTION: FULFILLED A. THE NEED TO CONTROL LEFT-TURN CONFLICTS; YES �X NO � B. THE NEED TO CONTROL VEHICLEIPEDESTRIAN CONFLICTS NEAR LOCATIONS THAT GENERATE HIGH PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES; YES � NO � C. LOCATIONS WHERE A ROAD USER, AFTER STOPPING, CANNOT SEE CONFLICTING TRAFFIC AND IS NOT ABLE TO REASONABLY NEGOTIATE THE INTERSECTION UNLESS CONFLICTING CROSS TRAFFIC IS ALSO REQUIRED TO STOP; AND YES � NO � D. AN INTERSECTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR (THROUGH) STREETS OF SIMILAR DESIGN AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS WHERE • MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL WOULD IMPROVE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL � CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTERSECTION. •' YES � NO � "NOT APPLICABLE , MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT (Residential Streets) Major Street: Mercedes Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minor Street: Sixth Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Wararnts 1, 2, and 3 Must Be Satisfied 1. Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisfied Yes � No � MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 10-11 AM 11-12 PM 12-1 PM 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM Hour Total All A roaches 300 240 243 242 241 245 244 244 285 [80%] Combined Vehicular • Ped Volume Minor Street 100 78 77 87 96 93 76 97 96 [88%] 2. Collision History Satisfied Yes � No � MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 3 OR MORE 0 3. Roadway Characteristics Satisfied Yes � No � (All Parts Below Must Be Satisfied) A. The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles Yes �X No � per day, B. The intersection has four (4) legs, with the streets extending 600 feet or more away from the intersection on at least three (3) of the legs, Yes �X No � C. The vehicular volumes on both streets are nearly equal to a forty/sixty percent (40/60%) split, and . Yes � No �X D. Both streets are 44 feet wide or narrower. Yes �X No � Options (Other Criteria That May Be Considered) Satisfied 4. Visibility The intersection sight distance is less than: Yes �X No � 155 feet for 25 MPH 200 feet for 30 MPH 250 feet for 35 MPH 5. The need to control left-turn conflicts. Yes �X No � 6. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers. Yes �X No � 7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route School plan. Yes � No �X 8. There are no traffic signal or all-way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection. Yes �X No � 9. The installation of multi-way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs of the residential area. Yes �X No � 1 ITEM NO. 3 � Emergency Management Update AGENDA REPORT ���,�. �% �— �= 4,: � TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission .,:��::3. � ���- �°'r'->1��9 `-`, FROM: Grant Yates, Deputy City Manager DATE: July 28, 2011 - SUBJECT: Item 3 Emergency Management Update Prepared By: Tamra Irwin, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the report. BACKGROUND: Staff will provide an update of Temecula's emergency management procedures and resources. FISCAL IMPACT: None ) . \ 1 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works ,;�`�,,'��, �§, ; FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance SuPervis �8r � 3� �� DATE July 8, 201 t 1989 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - June, 2011 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of June, 2011: L SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 24 B. Total signs installed 2 C. Total signs repaired � 35 D. Banners Replaced 91 II. TREES - A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 79 IIL ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 2,863 B. Total Tons 84 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 167 B. Down Spouts 0 C. Under sidewalks 0 D. Bowls 0 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 2,750 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Totallocations 141 B. Total S.F. 6,027 VIL STENC[L[NG A. 914 New and repainted legends B. 285 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose D. 0 Thermal Plastic E. 0 RPMs Installed a:aviniN•rnttv�MOacrxrT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 53 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A. C. Failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 62 service order requests for the month of �, 2011. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 57.5 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of June, 2011 was 3$ 1�152 comPared to $86,66455 for the month of Ma�, 2011. Account No. 5402 $ 28,352.00 Account No. 5401 $ 2,800.00 Account No. 999-5402 $ - 0 - Electronic Copies: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer - Capital Improvements Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer - Land Development Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer - Traffic Division g R:\MAIN'I'AIMMOACTRPT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Date Submitted: July s 2011 MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT Submitted By: Greg Butler STREET MAINTENANCE Prepared By: Rodney Tidwell FISCAL YEAR 2010 - 2011 `:;� 4th QI�ARTEf� :: � � r��a,.. `.;, � � + A � �� ;,` _, � :: :t OSTFOR�. +�TOTAL•'COST�F;OR' fi , x . ,. .. s��'.b%.ar t r�'.�`?;.,w:� �r!ry� ���xarWO x;:. ,a^,�t's�. 4 �. .� ,' ;; WORK TOTALr.e: . , , . , `' ""� � � ""� _ ; N ��` ` � `:` •'%'' � COMPLETED �"� "COST FOR'"APR�� ��COMPLETED� �' s COST'FOR.,MAY '. COMPLETED COST FOR JUNE -',' THIS,FISCAL LA$T.F.ISCAL ' 4 ",. ?, i ` L..�. , .. �- . ., ; ! ..;. � -. ,�. . � , ,t " � _ � .� , � � . - � . ` .. ,�.-,, :�.�„SCOPE.OF;WORK<�'. . �f .a.w•APR � ,. .� �'`'"�_ z7;1� .,MAY�11 x�' r �' � JUNE'71 '11 �YE%KR ' YEAR-. . ASPHALT AC , Square Footage: 3,170 $9,414.90 3,648 $10,834.56 � 2,863 $8,503.11 $95,917.63 $220,978.22 Tons: 72 86 84 $0.00 $0.00 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Square Footage: 0 $0.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 $0.00 0 0 $0.00 50.00 $23,765.00 STRIPING LINEAR FEET: 28,026 $1,961.82 37,530 $2,627.10 285 $19.95 $6,242.18 $131,385.09 IN-HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 218 $1,744.00 53 $424.00 914 $7,312.00 $27,488.00 $28,408.00 SIGNS REPLACED Material: 22 $1,100.00 62 $3,100.00 24 $1,200.00 $41,500.00 $32,500.00 Labor: $580.58 $1,636.18 $633.36 $21,903.37 $77,153.50 SIGNS INSTALLED Material: 10 $500.00 10 $500.00 2 $100.00 $5,700.00 $4,750.00 Labor: $263.90 $263.90 $52.78 $2,691.78 $2,506.66 SIGNS REPAIRED Material: 97 $4,850.00 122 36,100.00 35 $1,750:00 $39,486.50 Labor: - $2,559.83 $3,219.58 $923.65 $15,965.95 GRAFFITI Square Footage: 5,937 9,502 6,027 DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED Basins: 173 $4,565.47 160 $4,222.40 167 $4,407.13 $69,854.33 $109,070.57 Channels: 0 $177,505.50 $103,237.78 IN-HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: 47 $1,240.33 190 $5,014.10 79 $2,084.81 $26,812.24 $11,453.26 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: 76 62 53 AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 75 $2,949.45 43 $1,702.37 58 $2,276.43 $48,200.99 $48,438.36 R.O.W. WEED�ABATEMENT: 18,966 $645.86 45,387 $1,543.16 2,750 $93.50 $2,332.84 $2,939.96 TOTALS $32,376.14 $41,187.35 $29,356.72 $ 581,001.31 $736,586.40 � R:\MAINTAIN\MOACTRPl1STREETMA1Ni1P,PRIL, MAY, JUNE. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED Date Submitted: 06Ju1-11 FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 Submitted By: Gre9 euuer EfAND :NAt'F' �p , Prepared By: Rodney Tidwell kt ,CONTRACTORS ,� JANUARY� �FEBRUARY,, � ,���,. . ;: MARCH,'� : ,: AFRIL . .,._ , MAY`•.,. JUNE 2Nq: HALF TOTALS YEAR-TO-qATE Asphalt Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 Concrete Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage Channels 4 0 0 0 1 0 5 23 TOTAL COSTS $58,815.00 $25,789.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,629.55 $0.00 $135,233.55 $]65,086.55 CONTRACT STRIPING Striping Linear Feet 0 0 0 2,251,318 0 0 2,251,318 2,251,318 Sandblasting Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150,473.88 $0.00 $0.00 $150,473.88 $150,473.88 TREE CONTRACTORB Trees Trimmed 40 297 428 651 397 535 2,348 2,086 Trees Removed 1 37 7 5 3 4 57 85 TOTAL COSTS $3,156.00 $16,356.00 $24,429.00 $34,778.00 $20,498.00 $28,352.00 $127,569.00 $117,025.00 R.O.W. SPRAYING Square Feet 355 135 0 18,966 2,750 22,206 19,456 TOTAL COSTS $19,975.00 $7,750.00 $0.00 $15,537.00 $15,537.00 $2,800.00 $61,599.00 69 254.00 CITY MAINTENANCE CREW Banners 0 92 , 92 � 0 149 92 425 960 Signs Replaced 180 74 167 22 62 24 529 828 Signs Installed 7 12 3 10 10 2 44 102 Signs Repaired 51 108 40 97 122 35 453 955 0 115 269 105 173 160 167 989 2,647 Trees Trimmed 20 120 34 47 190 79 490 1,016 R.O.W. Weed Abatement 0 0 0 18,966 45,387 2,750 67,103 68,583 New & Repainted Legends 0 0 9 218 53 914 1,194 3,354 After Hours Call Outs 64 43 145 75 43 58 428 1,220 Service Order Requests 76 55 46 76 62 53 368 811 Graffiti Removal - S Ft 7,298 6,257 3,279 5,937 9,502 6,027 383,000 59,363 $81,946.00 $49,895.00 $24,429.00 $200,788.88 $86,664.55 $60,508.77 $504,232.20 $760,401.29 R WNiMA�N1MORCRP�MNIM. WORK COMPLETEO \ JNJ TO JUNE STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have Performed the Following projects for the month of June, 2011 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOLiNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. Date: 05.15.1 1 CITYWIDE ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING PROGRAM # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 17,000.00 Date: 5.31.11 CITYWIDE ANNLIAL TREE TRIMMING PROGRAM # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 1,750.00 Date: 06.15.1 1 CITYWIDE ANNLIAL TREE TRIMMING PROGRAM # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 9,602.00 Date: � # TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT Date: 06.20.1 l OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT MOWING OF 33 CITY OWNED ACRES TEMECULA PARKWAY # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 2,800.00 Date: # TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: Date: # TOTAL COST Date: # TOTAL COST TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 2,800.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 28,352.00 TOTAL COST ACCOLINT #99-5402 $ , 0 - r � . R:U�tAINTAINIMOACTRPT � � �1'� �o�� � �� � ��1�� 51000 .—�.�___�..�_..��,_.�..._._�.__�_.._�.�_�.. .._._.....,_. _�,.�.�_.m.._.�.�.�,..�..._ 49000 e . . 47000 = 45000 - — -- p p 43000 — . _, i 390�0 + SOiTARE FOOTAGE TOTAL CALLS 37000 Y � ' 35000 - 'Ja�nuary � 7,298` January � 113 � 33000 � �- � � - � � � ! 31000 � — 29000 , ,, . „ _ February � 6,267 February 103 27000 - � _ - 25000 ' — 1Vlarch �: 3,279 1Vlarch 111 23000 , - 21000 — , 19000 _ April 5,937 April 198 17000 - � 15000 — -�py, ; �,sAZ _ M�y x5Q 13000 — 11000 ' 9000 _ June ; 6,027 June � 141 7000 "� - E 5000 , - ' 3000 - - — July' ' .ruly 1000 _ � " JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEi� August : August ; September ' Septemb.er � $Q FT October ; October Totals for the Year No�ember To Date:.July. 1, 2011 � November Dece,mber" December Sq. Foot 38,310 � Calls 816 ' R:�MAINTENANCE�GRAFFITI\GnttitiClnut.11.da: POLICE CHIEF' S REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT . • Central Crime & Intelligence Analysis Unit SOUTHWEST STATION • To: Capt. O'Harra Lt. Heim Cc: Sgt. Mc Donald Sgt. Leggett Sgt. Hatfield Fm: Marianna Davis, Crime Analyst Date: July 5, 2011 Re: Part 1 Crime for the City of Temecula June 1 - 302011 In response to your request to provide information in regards to Part 1 Crimes for the above time frame, I found the following: Part 1 Calls for Service: 304 CRIME Total Homicide 0 A• •ravated Assault 31 Arson 0 ECTIVIIMM 42 216 Rape 2 Robbe 3 Veh Theft 10 Grand Total 304 'UCR combines vehicle burglaries into Larceny Theft category. This information includes vehicle burglaries in that category. Data was obtained using Data warehouse. If you need any additional assistance in regards to this request, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks. June, 2011 Citations Totals Total Hazardous Citations 1212 Total Non-Hazardous Citations 664 Parking Citations 168 Total Citations 2044 Citation Breakdown S. L.A. P. 108 N.E.T. Citations 29 SChool ZoneS 0 Recess Seatbelt Citations 175 Community Presentations 0 Traffic Collisions Non-Injury 25 Hit and Run 7 Injury 21 Fatal 0 Total 53 Note: Collision stats are only those calls for service resulting in a written Police report. D. U.l. Arrests D.U.I. Arrests 31 Cell Phone Cites Total cell phone cites 365 (23123 & 23124 CVC) ' Commission Members July 21, 2011 City of Temecula PubliclTraffic Safety Commission � 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Ref: PubliclTraffic Safety Commission Traffic Division Activities/Events Dear Commission Members; Below please find the Traffic Division activities for the month of June, 2011. These activities include the following: � • Citation statistics (attachment) • Community Action Patrol supported call-outs: None for June, 2011. • Community Action Patrol activity / patrol hours: 1050 hours for June, 2011. Year-to-date total, 6,070 hours. "*Included for June were 25 patrols with 38 CAP members participating*" • Special Events for June, 2011: 06/03 through 06/05/2011 — Balloon � Wine Festival. 06/04 through 06/26/2011 — For the Promenade Mall, conducted security camera monitoring with 2 CAP members participating. • Radar Trailer Deployments: 06/20 — 2212011 — Ynez south of Ynez Ct. —19,329 vehicles. 06/20 — 2212011 — Calle Medusa @ Everest — 7,812 vehicles. 06/27 — 29/2011 — Pauba @ La Primavera — 12,956 vehicles. 06/27 — 29I2011 — Pensador @ Festivo — 405 vehicles. If you have any questions regarding this package, please do not hesitate to call me at the Temecula Police Department -(951) 696- 3042 Sincerely, Sergeant Mark Leggett Temecula Police Department Traffic Division . FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT Riverside County Fire Department/ CAL FIRE Emergency Incident Statistics reArmat . CAL NF/RE SINCE 1885 sm. se- John R. Hawkins Fire Chief 7/7/2011 Report Provided By: Riverside County Fire Department Communications and Technology Division GIS Section Incidents Reported for the month of 7une,2011 and TEMECULA City incidents by ]urisdiction False Haz Mat Medical Mulfi--Fam Other Fire Pubiic Res Fire Shandby Traffic Vehicle Wfidland ._ A�artn DweN'u►g Service Cdflsion Flre Fire � ofTemecula 57 1 385 1 6 24 1 9 61 4 6 . Page 4 of 5 Incidents by Supervisorlal District - Summary DISTRICT 1 BOB DISTRICT 3 JEFF •� BUSTER STONE tr False Alartn 0 57 Haz Mat 0 1 Medical 1 384 MuRi-Fam Dwelling Fire 0 1 Other Fire 0 6 Public Service Assist 0 24 Res Fire 0 1 Standby 0 9 Traffic Coflision 0 61 Vehide Fire 0 4 Wldland Fire 0 6 x . Page 5 of 5 2011 CITY OF TEMECULA EMERGENCYRESPONSEAND TRAININGREPORT , PUBLIC SAFETY CLASS TOTALS 2011 Class Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total - CPR/AED, - , . . . 47 _ � 7 18 18 20 61 .., . - 4 . _ 181 FIRST AID 13 43 5 61 SCHOOLCPR • 0 SCHOOL FIRST AID 77 77 STAEF MCP 10 •. 25 35 � HCP 5 12 24 14 7 6 68 CERT. _ . � _ . . � . o _� Total_ � . _ _ � ' . _ _ . . _ :139 29 __ 80 7.5- " _ : 32 67 _ 0 _ 0 0 `_ 0 0 0 . ' 422_ INCIDENT/RESPONSE TOTALS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA 2011 /ncident Response Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Comme�cialFire �.� _ ' _ -1 0 ` . 0 �- - , ' � 3 a'0 , + , _ : ",:_ � 5 .. False Alarm 51 65 62 42 50 57 327 Haiardous Matenal . _ 0 0 .. . � ` 0 2 _. Q 1 . � . . : ' � ,` . . 3 Medical 364 . 392 397 372 315 385 2225 Multi-Famil Dwell'iri ` 0 - 1 0 0� 2 1� 4 Other Fire 5 1 5 2 6 6 25 . , , . . .. . . Otfie� Misc: _ ` ,. ; , = _ 0 _ , _ '3 _` _4_. . _ 2_. , 2 `, �. . ;- :_. " , , '` _ . - � 11 . PSA 26 25 29 20 18 24 142 Residential Fire , 1 . 2 ". ; - . 1 2 � 1 1 . . . ' ; � - 8 Rescue 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Standb , - : . ,� -] � . 9 . � 6 _ 6 ' 5 ., 9 . � _ . � 42 Traffic Collision 74 53 69 62 55 61 374 . , ... , . . � . ., .- Vehicle.Fire.; . , _ 1 1 -".'•2_ . 1 "•�; •_ 1 4 , . ,;�. ..� 10 Wildland Fire 2 0 0 2 2 6 12 .Total: , : : 532 ` 552 : - 575 514= " . . . 460 . 555 0 . ` _ Q 0 . 0 . . 0 � - 0 , 3188