HomeMy WebLinkAbout082202 PTS AgendaIn 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 at (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Title ll]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
TO BE HELD AT
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California
Thursday, August 22, 2002 at 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Katan, Wedel, Connerton, Lanier
PRESENTATION:
Fire Captain/Deputy Fire Marshall Jim McBride
Fire Mapping Program, Demonstration and History of Development
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 two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "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 your 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
specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of July 25~ 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of July 25, 2002.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Request for Temporary On-Street Parking - Temeku Drive
RI]COMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a request to allow on-slrcct parking along a
portion of Temeku Drive and make a recommendation.
o
5.
6.
7.
Request for Pedestrian Crossing - Meadows Parkway
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission consider the installation of pedestrian warning
signs and flashing beacons on Meadows Parkway in the vicinity of Via Reina and Corte
Florecita.
Traffic Engineer's Report
Police Chief's Report
Fire Chief's Report
Commission Reports
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
September 26, 2002, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
2
ITEM NO. 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
JULY 25, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting
at 6:00 P.M., on Thursday, July 25, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
FLAG SALUTE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Lanier.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Connedon, Katan, and Chairman
Lanier.
Absent:
Commissioners Coe and Wedel.
Also Present:
Director of Public Works Hughes,
Senior Engineer Moghadam,
Associate Engineer Gonzalez,
Fire Captain McBride,
Police Lieutenant Pingel,
Police Sergeant Lohman,
Officer Larson,
Officer Wade,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Presentation of the Special Enforcement Team (SET) - Officers Larson and Wade
Police Lieutenant Pingel introduced Officers Larson and Wade, who make up the
Special Enforcement Team (SET), noting that Officer Larson just became part of the
team today.
Officer Wade provided an overview of his work history; with respect to the SET program,
noted the primary goal to focus on street level narcotics enforcement in Temecula,
relaying the avenues the team utilized to pursue enforcement including the development
and utilization of informants; for Commissioner Connerton, advised that approximately
ninety-nine percent (99%) of the individuals who are arrested by the team are ultimately
convicted, noting that in one hundred percent (100%) of the cases, when a search
warrant was issued, contraband was seized; relayed that when working on particular
cases the team worked with the Special Investigation Bureau (SIB) Unit which is a West
County Task Force and was comprised of eight officers, one sergeant, and one civilian.
R:~traffi cr~ n ut es\072502 I
Commissioner Connerton thanked Officers Larson and Wade for their efforts in the City.
In response, Officer Wade thanked the City for its support.
For Chairman Lanier, Officer Wade noted that marijuana was the most widely used
illegal drug in this area, that methamphetamines were also used, and that cocaine was
coming back into use; and confirmed that drug use ran more rampant in affluent areas.
For informational purposes, Chairman Lanier recommended that if Officer Wade had any
safety messages e.g., tips to make parents aware of the signs of drug use, that this
information could be included in the Public Works news release, advising that Officer
Wade could provide the data to Police Lieutenant Pingel who could e-mail the
information to Chairman Lanier.
In response to Commissioner Connerton, Officer Wade specified how the border
checkpoint aided in the process of narcotics enforcement, Commissioner Connerton
noting his experience while attending border control checkpoint classes, and in particular
when he witnessed the canines (which were trained to find drugs in vehicles) in action.
Commissioner Connerton noted the current legislation being proposed to shut down the
border checkpoints. Officer Wade relaying that the Board Patrol Officers keep records of
the contraband seized at the checkpoints.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of April 25, 2002.
1.2 Approve the Minutes of May 23, 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Connerton moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1.1
and 1.2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katan and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioners Coe and Wedel who were absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Electronic LED Speed Limit Advisory Si.qn Installation Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission:
Approve the Electronic LED Speed Limit Advisory Sign Installation
Policy; and
Include the use of Electronic LED Speed Limit Advisory Signs in
Stage 1 of the Neighborhood Calming Program.
R:\trafficn~nutes~072502 2
Senior Engineer Moghadam provided an overview of the LED Speed Limit Advisory Sign
Installation Policy (of record), advising that one of the initial requirements for
implementation was that there be a neighborhood request (i.e., a letter or a petition) for
traffic calming for a specific street filed with the City; specified the additional
requirements for installation of the signs, as follows: the roadway should be a minimum
of one-half mile in length, the average daily trips (ADTs) should significantly exceed the
expected volumes (the minimum being 1,000 vehicle trips per day), the average 85t~
percentile of speed traveled must exceed the speed limit by 5 MPH, the street should not
be designated on the City's General Plan Circulation Element, streetlights must be
located on the street due to the devices requiring 120 volt power which is provided from
a streetlight, the sign should remain at a specific location for a minimum of 30 days,
neighbors within 150 feet should be notified of the installation, as well as provided a
copy of the policy; noted that the elements which would be investigated by staff for
determination of an exact location of the sign would be the alignment of the roadway,
visibility, aesthetics, neighborhood input, and professional engineering judgment;
advised that the installations would be approved by the Director of Public Works; and
relayed that if for any reason the Director of Public Works or the Commission deemed
that a street should receive a sign installation which had not met the requirements, the
installation could be implemented.
For Commissioner Katan, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that with respect to the
first installation which was removed due to a residential complaint, that no before- or
after-installation studies were conducted, noting hopes of conducting these studies when
the guidelines were adopted and approved; and specified that the first sign was removed
after a resident's complaint due to the policy not yet being developed.
In response to Commissioner Katan, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the
150 feet noticing of residents was for advisory purposes rather than consent.
Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that when residents have the opportunity to view
the actual speeds traveled via the sign display it would provide a more accurate
perspective of neighborhood speeds; for Commissioner Connerton, noted that the street
was not required to be straight; that the speeds on a roadway were determined via the
analysis conducted; and that the sign devices were plugged into the streetlights.
For Commissioner Connerton, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that staff would
delete the word sound in the phrase sound professional judgment for clarification
purposes.
In response to Commissioner Connerton's recommendation that the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission approve all the installations (in lieu of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer or a designated representative) in order to provide staff with a helpful tool,
Director of Public Works Hughes advised that although the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission could revise the approval process, it would create a much more timely
process if every installation was brought before the Public/Traffic Safety Commission
prior to installation; and noted that it was staff's expectation that with the new policy
(inclusive of the notification process and the provision of information) there would be a
more positive public response.
R;Itraffi cmin ut es\072502 3
Additional discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Connerton's recommendation to
have the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approve all of the installations. For
clarification, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the majority of the streets where
this device would be installed would be streets that have been brought before the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission for traffic calming solutions, ergo traffic issues which
have already been reviewed by the Commission.
Commissioner Katan noted his support of Public Works' staff approving these
installations in order that the implementation could be used as a tool to demonstrate
responsiveness to the community.
For Commissioner Connerton, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that with the
adoption of the policy, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission would be demonstrating its
support of the device.
Chairman Lanier supported staff approval of the sign installations, and in response to
Commissioner Connerton's comments, advised that if an individual or group was
vehemently opposed to the device and the matter came before the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission, or to staff, the device would most likely be removed.
MOTION: Commissioner Katan moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioners Coe and Wedel who were absent.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Senior Engineer Moghadam noted that the Right-Turn Overlap Project at Rancho
Vista/Margarita Roads would be completed within the next few weeks.
At the request of Commissioner Coe, who was unable to attend tonight's
meeting, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed commendations to the Fire
Department for their diligent efforts regarding the fire on the 1-15 Freeway, south
of Highway 79.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Providing an update, Police Sergeant Lohman noted that Officer Pringle (who
had been involved in an accident on July 24th while on duty and traveling on a
motorcycle) was doing well, advising that while he was very sore there had been
no broken bones. Commissioner Connerton requested that Police Sergeant
Lohman give Officer Pringle the well wishes of the Commission.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
A. Fire Captain McBride provided an update regarding Fire Department staffing.
Fire Captain McBride noted that the Laptop Installations Project was completed
and had been installed in all the Fire Department's equipment with the exception
of one bracket, providing additional information regarding the need to redesign
the brackets; noted that if it was the desire of the Commission, the Laptop
Installation Project coul(~ be agendized for the next Public/Traffic Safety
Commission meeting, and that he could provide a demonstration; and for
Commissioner Connerton, relayed that the new mounting equipment isolated the
majority of the vibrations. In response, the Commission noted its desire to
agendize this matter.
Apprising the Commission, Fire Captain McBride noted that the Fire Depadment
had received a fifty percent (50%) matching funds grant for a Reverse 9-1-1
Notification System Project which would allow public notification regarding
hazardous material spills, lost children, etc.
Fire Captain McBride advised that as of July 1, 2002, the new Medical Squad No.
73 was in service.
COMMISSION REPORTS
For Commissioner Connerton, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that after
extensive investigation (noting meetings held with City Manager Nelson and
Mayor Pro Tem Stone), it would be staff's recommendation to re-agendize the
Jefferson Avenue matter at a future date, noting that there does not appear to be
an avenue for modifying the area of the July 24th Police Motor Officer's accident
without impacting the private property owner's access, as well as redirecting
unwanted traffic to other properties, advising that it was staff's opinion that traffic
solutions on the entire block should be further investigated for a comprehensive
analysis, rather than investigating just one driveway; clarified that based on
staff's review of the matter, any revision which might be proposed would not be
appropriate at this time due to the potential negative impacts; and advised that
staff would further analyze the area and bring back a recommendation for the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration.
Commissioner Connerton noted that if any traffic solutions were determined
appropriate for this particular area, it would be his desire that they be
implemented expeditiously; and requested that the unique issues associated with
this particular area be taken into consideration.
For informational purposes, and for Commissioner Connerton, Director of Public
Works Hughes noted that the installation of a barrier preventing left-turns into the
site would not improve the overall traffic situation; advised that based on all the
engineering criteria, sight distance was not an issue at this location; relayed that
there were conflicting turning movements between the various driveways which
was similar to alternate locations on Jefferson Avenue due to the plethora of
driveways located on Jefferson Avenue; and clarified, for Commissioner
Connerton, that the City does not have the jurisdiction to direct traffic that is
utilizing one commercial site to another without the property owners' permission;
and noted that this particular accident was caused by driver error, specifically
the left-turn movement did not yield to the oncoming traffic, which could have
occurred at numerous alternate similar locations.
Commissioner Connerton announced that there would be a Town Hall meeting at
City Hall with Congressman Issa on August 2, 2002, from 3:00 to 5:00 P.M.; and
advised that Congressman Issa would provide an update regarding the Security
Agency which is in place; and additionally noted that Mayor Roberts, Councilman
Comerchero, and he have been appointed to serve on Congressman Issa's
Transportation Advisory Committee.
Commending the Police Department, Commissioner Connerton advised that at
this year's 4th of July Event traffic control was better than ever, specifically
applauding Officer Nelson for his efforts regarding the traffic plan.
Chairman Lanier echoed Commissioner Connerton's comments, relaying kudos
to the Police Department for a job well done with respect to the 4th of July Event.
With pleasure, Chairman Lanier noted that he has seen increased enforcement
throughout the City.
For Chairman Lanier, Police Sergeant Lohman confirmed that two additional
Motor Officers will be added to the Traffic Division, which would then be
comprised of eight Motor Officers, four accident cars, and two Community
Service Officers.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:00 P.M. Chairman Lanier formally adjourned this meeting to Thursday, AuRust 22,
2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman Scott Lanier
Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle
ITEM NO. 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~-") Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
August 22, 2002
Item 2
Request for Temporary On-Street Parking - Temeku Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a request to allow on-street parking along a portion of
Temekru Drive and make a recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a letter from the Temeku Hills Golf Club representatives requesting a temporary exception to
the existing parking restriction along a portion of Temeku Drive in the vicinity of the clubhouse. The request
to allow on-street parking in the vicinity of the clubhouse is due to the parking lot renovation and construction
of 25 additional parking spaces.
Currently, parking is restricted along the entire length of Temeku Drive and Honors Drive on both sides to
accommodate an 8 foot wide combination golf cart lane/bike lane. Both Temeku Drive and Honors Drive are
44 feet wide with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH.
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission reviewed a similar request at the meetings of September 9, 1999 and
October 28, 1999. The agenda report and minutes of the meetings are attached as Exhibit "B". Following a
lengthy discussion and consideration of several options, the Commission did not support the request for
removal of bike lanes to allow on-street parking.
This item has been placed on the agenda, per a request from the Temeku Hills Golf Club Representatives, to
provide an opportunity to review and re-evaluate this issue and to make a recommendation. It should be noted
that any permanent change to the existing parking restriction, must be approved by the City Council since the
parking restriction and establishment of the existing golf cart lane/bike lane was adopted by a City Council
Ordinance.
~SCALIMPACT:
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Agenda Report and Minutes of September 9, 1999 and October 28, 1999
3. Exhibit "C" - Letter from the Temeku Hills Golf Club Representatives
!
r:\traffic\commissnXagenda~2002\0822~parking Temeku Dr/ajp
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT "B"
AGENDA REPORT AND MINUTES OF THE
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 AND OCTOBER 28, 1999
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
September 9, 1999
Item 2
Request for Occasional Excep6on to the Parking Restriction - Temeku Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request to allow overflow onrstreet parking on Temeku
Drive during certain events.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a letter from the Temeku Hills Management Company requesting that the City consider
establishing a procedure to allow overflow on-street parking on Temeku Drive, which is currently posted as
"No Parking - Bike Lane".
As indicated in the attached letter (Exhibit ~B"), during large events the on-site parking is not adequate to
accommodate the visitors' parking demand. Therefore, overflow on-street parking occurs on the adjacent
residential streets causing an inconvenience to the homeowners as well as the visitors. It should be noted that
the City has not received any complaints from the nearby homeowners.
Since the City will not have control over the procedures outlined in the letter, and by allowing parking on bike
lanes will unnecessarily be exposed to liability, staff recommends that this request be denied and if on-street
parking is needed, the bike lane signing and striping will have to be removed in the vicinity of the clubhouse.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit '~B" - Letter from Temeku Hills Management Company
Temeku Hills Master Association
Procedures for Large Events with Parking Overflow
Purpose:
The following procedures have been developed in order to accommodate overflow
parking when either a golf course or auditorium event (or both) will result in the
number of vehicles of attendees exceeding the capacity of the parking lot. Since
Temeku Drive is posted as a "No Parking" area, this has forced attendees in the past
to park on the private streets around the clubhouse which has sometimes delayed
mail delivery to the homeowners and has an inconvenience to both the homeowners
and the attendees. The procedures outlined below will allow parking on Temeku
Drive which should reduce, if not eliminate, this problem.
Procedures: 1.
The Banquet Director shall require from all groups renting the auditorium an
estimate of the number of vehicles that will be attending the event.
The Golf Course Operator shall advise the Banquet Directors of all special
events that will increase the number of vehicles needing parking related to the
golf course.
3. · The Banquet Director will keep a running tally of the anticipated number of
vehicles on a daily basis that will be using the golf and clubhouse facilities.
When the total number of vehicles exceeds the parking lot capacity by 10%
then the Clubhouse Director will take the remaining action listed below.
A letter will be sent to the City of Temecula, City Manager's office the City
of Temecula Police Department and the City of Temecula Fire Department
notifying them of the day/dates when overflow parking is anticipated.
The bags which have been purchased by the Association shall be placed over
the "No Parking" signs on both sides of Temeku Drive the morning of the
event no earlier than 6:00 a.m.
The bags will be removed from the signs no later than 4 hours after the event
ends or 8:00 a.m. the following morning if the event end after 8:00 p.m.
~ ~ F_.T I '~ ~ R:~TraffComm~rninutes~090999
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of August 26, 1999.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Request for Occasional Exception to the Parking Restriction - Temek~,
Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request to allow
overflow on-street parking on Temeku Drive during certain events.
Advising that this particular proposal was generated by a request from the Temeku Hills
Management Company, Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (via
agenda material); provided additional information regarding the City's lack of control via
the proposed guidelines denoted in Exhibit B (of record); relayed the potential for the
City to be exposed to liability issues; noted that the City has not received any complaints
from the neighboring residents with respect to the current overflow on-street parking; for
Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the proposal does not involve a permitting process;
for Commissioner Edwards, confirmed that in the past, the City has not granted
permission for this type of parking under these specific-type guidelines, for private
events; and for Chairman Coe, noted the potential for additional concerns due to the
City's lack of Control (i.e., covers not taken off the No Parking signs in a timely manner.)
In response to the Commission's comments, Director of Public Works Hughes cladfied
that the request does not involve approval by the City on a case-by-case basis, noting
that this particular request was proposing that full authority with respect to when, how,
and where the parking would be resthcted be granted to the Management Company;
and advised that on-street parking was currently prohibited due to the bike lane.
Initially, Commissioner Markham recommended that the bike lane be removed via a
minor modification to the Specific Plan; and noted that due to the sloping of the streets,
the bike lane provisions were most likely not utilized.
Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that there was some opposition from the residents
with respect to the removal of the bike lanes.
Mr. Bill Miner, representing the Temeku Hills Homeowners Association, clarified the
issue of the shortage of parking with respect to major events held at the Club; relayed
that although there has been expressed residential support regarding the removal of the
bike lanes, that there were some residents who strongly opposed the matter; noted that
as the housing tracts further develop there may be a greater need for the bike lanes at a
2
H.I UTF. S oF
bEFiT
R:~TraffComm~minutes;090999
future point in time; and for Commissioner Telesio, clarified the configuration of the
streets in the area of discussion.
In response to Commissioner Edwards' querying whether it would be more favorable to
deny the request, while recommending the removal of the bike lanes, or to solely deny
the request, Mr. Miner, while noting his reluctance to speak for the Board, relayed that
the recommendation to remove the bike lanes would be preferred, noting the associated
disadvantages.
For Commissioner Teiesio, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed the vadous costs
associated with obtaining City permits for each event.
Commissioner Markham recommended installing separate bike lanes in the area of
discussion, eliminating the bike lane from the stdped section, and converting the bike
lane to a class one bike lane.
Mr. Ned Heiskell, representing the Temeku Hills Management's Master Association,
noted the public events that utilize the Clubhouse; relayed that there are currently three
events a month that utilize overflow on-street residential parking; noted that hazards
associated with the lack of provision for adequate parking; relayed the rationale for the
request for special on-street parking in the prohibited parking area for special events,
noting the control of the management over the reliability of the staff employees; and
advised that the Board would most likely be agreeable to investigate the
recommendation to create a separated, class one bike lane.
For Commissioner Connerton, Commissioner Markham reiterated information regarding
the costs associated with hidng a Public Works Maintenance employee for the tasks
associated with the weekend events, at a four-hour minimum charge.
Due to the facility being developed with the lack of provision for adequate parking,
Commissioner Markham advised that the solution would require proactive participation
on the part of the management or the ownership.
Relaying the legal restrictions associated with the request, Commissioner Edwards
recommended either the removal of the bike lane, or for the Management Company to
provide alternate provisions for additional parking.
Initially, Chairman Coe recommended that the Management Association receive
permitting by the City for the special events, with the provision of signage specifying the
permitted hours of parking.
Echoing the previous Commission comments, Commissioner Telesio concurred with the
recommendation to consider the removal of the bike lanes.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to deny the request for Occasional Exception to
the Parking Restriction on Temeku Drive; and recommended that the Temeku Hills
Master Association consider the matter of removal of the bike lanes. Commissioner
Edwards seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
October 28, 1999
Item 3
Request for Removal of Bike-Lanes and Parking Restriction - Temeku Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and recommend removal of the existing bike-lanes and
parking restriction on Temeku Drive between Tee Drive and Flag Way.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 9, 1999 meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, the Commission reviewed a
request to allow temporary exception to the parking restriction on Temeku Drive during the large events held
at the Temeku Hills Clubhouse to allow for overflow parking.
Although'the Commissioners agreed that the on-site parking was not adequate during the large events, a
temporary exception to the parking restriction and allowing parking to occur within the bike-lanes was not
recommended. The Commission recommended fi'at the association consider construction of an alternate bike
path to replace the bike lanes in order to maintain a continuous bike route on Temeku Drive.
After discussing this issue at their Board meeting with the members present, the Board of Directors voted to
request that the bike-lanes be removed. However, the feasibility of construction of a bike path has not been
addressed in the attached letter (Exhibit 'A').
If the Association can demonstrate that construction of a separate bike path is not feasible, removal of the
existing bike-lanes without replacement could be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
Exhibit "A' - Correspondence from the Temeku HilLs, Master Association
THE
WALTERS
MANAGEMENT°COMPANY
October 1, 1999
RECEtt,,--"-'.
OC) 04 1999
Cl~' OF TEiv}ECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Ali Moghadam
City of Temecula
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE: TEMEKU HILLS MASTER ASSOCIATION
Dear Ali:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Temeku Hills Master Association, I am writing to
formally request the removal of the bike lane on the north and west (golf course) side of Temeku
Drive from Flag Way to Tee Drive. I have shown this location in red on the enclosed map.
As yo~ will recall, we have previously appeared before the Public/Traffic Safety Commission asking
for assistance with the parking problem caused by large events at the clubhouse. At that time, no
reasonable proposal could be agreed to that would allow parking on an intermittent basis. The
Commission recommended that the community consider the removal of the bike lane. At the next
Board meeting, the Board of Directors discussed this with the members present and agreed and
approved requesting the removal of the bike lane as described.
After you have received this request letter, please contact me to advise how tiffs request will proceed
through the approval process.
Sincerely yours,
Ned Heiskell, PCAM, CCAM
Community Association Manager
TEMEKU HILLS MASTER ASSOCIATION
41877ENTERPRISECIRCLENORTH,SU TE22 ,TE,~ ECULA. CA925J -5628;fgOg)694-5833-PAX 9 V ~t4-58~1
TraffCom mlminutesl102899
MOTION: Commissioner Connerton moved to recommend that the City Council strongly
encourage the School District to submit all future school site plans to the City of
Temecula for review of traffic impacts, and to ensure adequate loading and unloading
zones for children pickup. Commissioner Markham seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
For informational purposes, Commissioner Markham relayed that the School District did
process the bus barn as a Land Use Application through the City of Temecula.
3. Request for Removal of Bike-Lanes and Parkinq Restrictions-Temeku Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and deny the request to
remove the existing bike-lane and parking restrictions on Temeku Drive
between Tee Drive and Flag Way.
Commissioner Connerton advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue.
Noting the modified staff recommendation, Senior Engineer Moghadam provided an
overview of the staff report (per agenda material); relayed the receipt of the recently
submitted letter form the Homeowners Association (HOA) which was received on
October 22, 1999, expressing concern with respect to safety issues related to the
vehicular parking on Temeku Drive.
Chairman Coe suggested that the matter be continued until after the HOA had voted on
the issue in order for that input to be considered by the Commission.
In response to Commissioner Markham's querying, Senior Engineer Moghadam advised
that the placement of the existing bike lanes was not a requirement of the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Markham relayed that it was his opinion that the property owner of the
Temeku Hills Clubhouse should address the negative impact of the street parking due
the inadequate onsite parking previsions.
Mr. Anthony Maggio, 31106 Iron Ci~:cle, concurred with Commissioner Markham's
recommendation to place the burden of mitigation on the property owner of the Temeku
Hills Clubhouse; for Chairman Coe, relayedthat there was no open space available at
the site for provision of additional parking areas; and specified the negative impact on
the adjacent neighbors due to the on street parking.
Commissioner Telesio reiterated the Commission's previous recommendation for the
property owner to consider constructing a dedicated bike lane above the street, noting
that the response of the property owner was that the proposal was too costly.
Mr. George Clark, 41799 Cascades Court, relayed his opposition to the removal of the
bike lanes, noting that the width of the street was not adequate for the safe parking of
vehicles; and recommended that the existing onsite driving range be replaced with a
parking area, or that additional lots on Rancho California Road be utilized for public
parking with the provision of shuttling the patrons to the Clubhouse.
T I TraffComm/minutesl102899
Commissioner Edwards recommended continuing the matter until data had been
received relaying the results of the HO^ vote on this issue; concurred with
Commissioner Markham's' recommendation that the property owner should provided
mitigation for the on-street parking issue; advised that she was not in favor of removing
the bike lane; and recommended that the Police Department cite the violators parking in
the restricted parking area.
Sergeant DiMaggio advised that the residents to contact the Police Department in order
to specify the times when the illegal parking was occurring, in order to effectively enforce
the restrictions.
Ms. JoAnn Clark, 41799 Cascades, relayed the potential safety hazard if the parking
restriction was removed, which would restrict the access of emergency vehicles to the
area.
In response to Commissioner Markham's comments, Commissioner Edwards clarified
that her recommendation to postpone the issue until the HO^ vote was conduct was not
an inference that the Commission would take action solely based on the results of that
vote.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's querying, Commissioner Markham provided
additional information regarding the previous approval of the Temeku Hills Clubhouse
development, noting that the project had been approved by the County.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided clarification with respect to the original
County approval of the project, and the subsequent foreclosure of that development
project; specified the negotiating polices agreed upon by the City with the new property
owner, in order to allow the previously recorded maps to go forward; provided additional
information regarding the placement of the bike lanes on Temeku Drive; and relayed the
potential for the Clubhouse to not be utilized for public functions at a future point in time.
Mr. Maggio provided additional information regarding the potential for the Clubhouse to
be controlled by the HCA at a future point in time.
MOTION: Commissioner Markham moved to deny the request to remove the bike lane
and the associated parking restrictions along Temeku Drive. Commissioner Edwards
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Edwards relayed that the HCA could request the Commission to
agendize the issue after the HOA's consideration of the matter of removing the bike
lanes.
Due to the safety hazard associated with the on street parking in this area, it was the
general consensus of the Commission to recommend that the City Council encourage
the property owners of the Temeku Hills Clubhouse to mitigate the negative impacts
generated from the inadequate onsite parking provisions,
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner
Connerton who abstained.
EXHIBIT "C"
LETTER FROM TEMEKU HILLS GOLF CLUB
DATED AUGUST 13, 2002
Temeku Hills Golf Club
CITY .O..F TEMEcuLA ~
E.--NGIN. EERI~NG~DEPARTMENT_I
August 13, 2002
Ali S. Moghadam, P.E.
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Moghadam,
This letter is in reference to the discussion that we had earlier today involving the
upcoming parking issues at Temeku Hills Golf and Country Club. We are requesting
temporary street parking during the renovation to our parking lot. We will be increasing
the size of our parking lot by approximately 25 additional spaces. We would like to
make it onto agenda for the August meeting which would allow us to plead our case to
the powers to be.
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Donald Br~ina~
Food and Beverage Director
Craig Ballard,
Head Golf Professional
41687 Temeku Drive, Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 694-9998 · Fax (909) 693-1445
ITEM NO. 3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
(~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
August 22, 2002
Item 3
Request for Pedestrian Crossing Traffic Control - Meadows Parkway
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission consider the installation of pedestrian waming signs and flashing
beacons on Meadows Parkway in the vicinity of Via Reina and Corte Florecita.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2002, a request was received from Mr. Paul Jacobs, representing the Vintage Hills Homeowners
Association, to review the feasibility of providing traffic controls and/or a crosswalk on Meadows Parkway to
assist pedestrians crossing the roadway. A subsequent request was received in July 2002, which included
several potential alternatives to address the pedestrian crossing issue. The public has been notified of the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process and by
mail.
Meadows Parkway is classified as a 76 foot wide four (4) lane Major Highway on the City's General Plan
Circulation Element with two travel lanes in each direction, a bike lane and a raised median island. Currently,
between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road, Meadows Parkway is striped for two travel lanes in each
direction and a center two-way left-turn lane. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway. The
striping was modified on this section in June 2002, from a two-lane section to a four-lane section to maintain
continuity with other segments of Meadows Parkway to the north and south. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
on Meadows Parkway is approximately 7,000 between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. The speed limit is
posted at 45 MPH.
Corte Florecita is a 40-foot wide residential street that functions as a residential collector providing access to
numerous single-family residences. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway. The ADT on
Corte Florecita is approximately 1,600 east of Meadows Parkway. The prim facie speed limit is 25 MPH on
Corte Florecita.
Via Reina is a 40-foot wide residential collector street that provides access to several single-family residences.
On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway. The ADT on Via Reina is approximately 800 east
of Meadows Parkway.
As mentioned, the HOA representatives identified several potential alternatives, which they believe will
address the pedestrian crossing issue. The alternatives include establishing a 25 MPH school zone speed limit
on Meadows Parkway between Corte Florecita and Via Reina, installing an uncontrolled mid-block crosswalk,
installing a mid-block pedestrian signal, and installing multi-way stop signs or a traffic signal at the intersection
r :\t r affic\commissn~agendaX2002\0822kmead owspar kwaypedcr ossing/aj p
of Corte Florecita and Meadows Parkway. Staff performed a review of each of the HOA's proposed
alternatives to determine their feasibility.
Establishment of a School Area Prima Facie Speed Limit of 25 MPH on Meadows Parkway
State Law under the California Vehicle Code is very specific about the application of school area prima facie
speed limits and does not allow for any exceptions. California Vehicle Code Section 22352(2)(A) defines the
conditions for application of the 25 MPH prima facie speed limit in school areas. This section states that the
25 MPH speed lim/t applies when passing a school building or school grounds, which are contiguous to the
highway, when children are present. The 25 MPH prima facie speed limit shall also apply when passing any
school grounds, which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the
grounds are in use by children.
A field review of conditions indicates that the Vintage Hills Elementary School grounds are located
approximately 400 feet west of Meadows Parkway and are separated physically from Meadows Parkway by
both a fence and the Vintage Hills HOA recreation center. This means that the school grounds are not
contiguous to Meadows Parkway; therefore, the speed limit on Meadows Parkway cannot be reduced due to
this section of the CVC. For the reasons stated, Staff cannot recommend the establishment of a school
zone speed limit on Meadows Parkway.
Installation of Marked Crosswalk
In the past, staff and the Public/Traffic Safety Commission have considered numerous requests to install
crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. It has been and continues to be standard practice to install marked
crosswalks only at locations that are controlled by stop signs, traffic signals or an adult crossing guard on a
"suggested route to school". While staffagrees that the installation of a mid-block school crosswalk along with
an adult crossing guard may be appropriate at this location to assist school-age pedestrians, the use of the
crosswalk by pedestrians during non-school hours could create a potential unsafe condition and liability to the
City.
The fundamental drawback to pedestrians using the school crosswalk during non-school hours is that a
motorist will expect the pedestrian activity to occur only during certain times of the day when pedestrians are
traveling to and from school and not after typical school hours. This expectation is further reinforced by the
use of school area signing and markings (yellow crosswalk) that are required with the installation of any school
crosswalk. Additionally, a crosswalk located mid-block is not a location that a driver is expecting pedestrians
to cross the street. These factors along with the false sense of security created by the uncontrolled crosswalk
could compromise pedestrian safety at this location. For these reasons, staff cannot recommend the
installation of a marked mid-block crosswalk at this location.
Mid-Block Pedestrian Signal
The justification for the installation of a pedestrian traffic signal is determined by "Warrant 3 - Minimum
Pedestrian Volume" of the Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants. A mid-block traffic signal may be justified when
ALL the following conditions are fulfill{d:
1. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or
more during any one hour; and
2. There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traffic stream of adequate length for
pedestrians to cross; and
3. The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet; and
4. The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street.
2
r :\traffic~commissnXagendaX2002\0822kaeadowsparkwaypedcr ossing/aj p
An observation of pedestrian activity at this location indicates that the pedestrian volumes are significantly less
than the minimum values needed to satisfy the applicable warrant criteria for the installation of signals.
Therefore, a traffic signal control is not justified at this location.
Although a pedestrian signal may provide some level of protection for the few pedestrians that are currently
crossing at this mid-block location, the installation of a pedestrian signal would set precedence for use at
locations with similar conditions. As staff has indicated in the past, there are approximately twenty-two (22)
similar locations throughout the City that are adjacent to parks and/or school sites. For these reasons, staff is
not recommending the installation of a mid-block pedestrian signal.
Multi-Way Stop Signs
An analysis of vehicular volumes was performed at the intersection of Meadows Parkway with Via Reina and
Corte Florecita to determine if multi-way stop controls are necessary. There are three (3) criteria that Caltrans
has established for the evaluation of multi-way stop signs. The criteria are as follows:
Where signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi-way stop may be an interim
measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements am being made for
the signal installations.
An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents within a twelve ( l 2)
month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such
accidents include right and left-mm collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
Minimum Traffic Volumes
a. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must
average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day, and
b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway
must average 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
c. When the 85-percential approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles
per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above
requirements.
The warrant analysis performed indicates that in each case, the vehicular and pedestrian volumes are
significantly less than the minimum requirements and the applicable warrant criteria is not satisfied.
Therefore, multi-way stop signs are not justified at either intersection. The results of the analysis are shown in
Exhibit "B".
As staff has maintained in the past, multi-way stop signs should be recommended where there is strong
evidence that overall traffic safety can be improved and should not be used solely for controlling vehicular
speeds. When stop signs are installed at locations that do not satisfy the minimum warrant criteria, they
become ineffective devices. By installing signs at unwarranted locations, some drivers become conditioned to
disregard traffic control devices. Conversely, those motorists that actually stop for the controls are forced to
stop for no apparent reason, which results in driver frustration and lack of respect for traffic control devices. In
this case, the multi-way stop control would needlessly stop 7,000 vehicles per day on Meadows Parkway for
the low volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic using either Corte Florecita or Via Reina. In addition, not
all of the pedestrian crossing occurs at the intersections. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the
present level of traffic control be maintained at both intersections.
3
r :\trafficXcommissn~agendaX2002\O822~neadowspar k~vayp~dcr ossing/aj p
Traffic Signal
A traffic signal, as with any traffic control device, is recommended where there is strong evidence that overall
traffic safety can be improved, or at locations where entering traffic is significantly delayed. Moreover, traffic
signals are recommended at locations where traffic conditions satisfy certain criteria, or warrants. The warrants
recognize that signals do not guarantee safety. They only assign right-of-way on a rotating basis, depending on
traffic flow.
An analysis of vehicular volumes was performed at the intersections of Meadows Parkway with Via Reina and
Corte Florecita to determine if the installation of a traffic signal was justified at either intersection. The results
of the traffic signal warrant analysis are shown in Exhibit "C".
The analysis indicates that traffic volumes are significantly below the minimum values needed to satisfy the
warrants for the installation of traffic signals. Therefore, traffic signals are not justified at either intersection.
The installation of a traffic signal at this location would not be appropriate. Moreover, there are currently
many other locations throughout the city where traffic conditions justify the need for a traffic signal. Those
locations are awaiting the allocation of future funding through the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Therefore, staff cannot recommend the installation of a traffic signal at a location that does not satisfy the
minimum warrant criteria when there are other locations with an immediate need for signalization. For these
reasons, staff is recommending that the present level of traffic control be maintained at both
intersections.
The results of our evaluation indicate that the HOA requested traffic controls would not be an appropriate
application for the various reasons stated. In lieu of the requested traffic controls, staff recommends the
installation of pedestrian symbol signs with flashing beacons on Meadows Parkway. The recommended
location of the advance warning sign and beacon is approximately 300 feet north and south of the Vintage Hills
HOA facility. Staff believes that while the installation of these warning devices increases driver awareness, it
does not diminish the level of responsibility and caution that should be exercised by the pedestrians when
crossing the roadway.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Public Works Routine Maintenance Account.
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Multi-Way Stop Warrant Analysis
3. Exhibit "C" - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
4. Exhibit "D" - Proposed Sign and Beacon Location
4
r: \t r affic\coramissn~age nda~2002\0822Lmead owsparkwaypeclc r ossing/aj p
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT "B"
MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS
Multi-Way Stop Warranting Software
08/12/02
Major Street:
Minor Street:
Date of Analysis:
Name of Analyst:
Case Number:
Comments:
85th% Speed of Major Street:
Meadows Parkway
Via Reina
08/05/02
Tony
47
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
WARRANT 1 - Accident Experience
NOT SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable accidents
of a correctable type is not met with 0 accidents over a 12 month period.
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
SATISFIED - The 100% vehicular warrant of 500 entering vehicles for
any 8 hours of the day is met with 8 hours meeting the warrant.
SATISFIED - The 70% vehicular warrant of 350 entering vehicles for
any 8 hours of the day is met with 11 hours meeting the warrant.
WARP~ANT 3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Road
NOT SATISFIED - The combined total of 200 vehicles and pedestrians
from the minor approach is not met with 0 hours meeting the warrant.
Multi-Way Stop Warranting Software
08/12/02
START
TIME
NB SB EB
100% 70%
WB HOUR WARRANT WARRANT
TOT MET MET
COMBINATION
WARtlA-NT
MET
0:00 21 18 0
1:00 10 13 0
2:00 5 5 0
3:00 9 6 0
4:00 10 10 0
5:00 23 26 0
6:00 60 101 0
7:00 132 175 0
8:00 150 160 0
9:00 136 169 0
10:00 171 148 0
11:00 207 230 0
12:00 206 178 0
13:00 167 176 0
14:00 245 187 0
15:00 314 231 0
16:00 301 228 0
17:00 359 323 0
18:00 311 231 0
19:00 228 238 0
20:00 176 158 0
21:00 70 98 0
22:00 46 60 0
23:00 31 30 0
3 42
3 26
1 11
2 17
5 25
5 54
26 187
31 338
51 361
24 329
23 342
24 461 *
31 415 *
23 366
38 470 *
29 574 *
33 562 *
34 716 *
31 573 *
27 493 *
16 350
12 180
9 115
6 67
Multi-Way Stop Warranting Software
08/12/02
Major Street:
Minor Street:
Date of Analysis:
Name of Analyst:
Case Number:
Comments:
85th% Speed of Major Street:
Meadows Parkway
Corte Florecita
08/05/02
Tony
47
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
WARRANT 1 - Accident Experience
NOT SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable accidents
of a correctable type is not met with 0 accidents over a 12 month period.
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
SATISFIED The 100% vehicular warrant of 500 entering vehicles for
any 8 hours of the day is met with 8 hours meeting the warrant.
SATISFIED The 70% vehicular warrant of 350 entering vehicles for
any 8 hours of the day is met with 14 hours meeting the warrant.
WARPJkNT 3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Road
NOT SATISFIED - The combined total of 200 vehicles and pedestrians
from the minor approach is not met with 0 hours meeting the warrant.
Multi-Way Stop Warranting Software
08/12/02
START
TIME
NB SB EB
100% 7O%
WB HOUR WARRANT WARR3kNT
TOT MET MET
COMBINATION
WARPJuNT
MET
0:00 23 17 0
1:00 11 17 0
2:00 6 8 0
3:00 10 6 0
4:00 12 10 0
5:00 26 20 0
6:00 69 102 0
7:00 139 172 0
8:00 161 160 0
9:00 153 177 0
10:00 166 161 0
11:00 216 247 0
12:00 216 209 0
13:00 178 200 0
14:00 254 203 0
15:00 324 251 0
16:00 312 263 0
17:00 361 351 0
18:00 312 271 0
19:00 238 263 0
20:00 172 177 0
21:00 72 111 0
22:00 50 73 0
23:00 30 29 0
4 44
5 33
2 16
7 23
10 32
29 75
32 203
57 368
65 386
47 377
50 377
48 511 *
62 487 *
50 428
36 493 *
44 619 *
47 622 *
40 752 *
47 630 *
39 540 *
25 374
15 198
13 136
16 75
EXHIBIT "C"
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Major Street: MEADOWSPARKWAY Cr~ical Approach Speed
Minor Street: CORTEFLORECITA C~ical Approach Speed
Critical speed of major street traffic is > 40 MPH .................................... ~
}
RURAL
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop ......................... ~
~ URBAN
48 MPH
25 MPH
120~ ~OINTS
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
APPROACH U I R [ U I R
LANES 1 2 or more
500 I 380 590 I 420
(400) (280) (480)
150 108 200 140
Both Approaches
Maior Street
Highest Approach
Minor Street
100% SATISFIED YES
80% SATISFIED YES
NOTE: Heavier ler~-tum movement from Major Street included when LT phasing is proposed .....................
NO
11-12AM 12-1PM 2-3PM 3-4PM 4-5PM 5-6PM 6-7PM 7-SPM Hour
463 425 457 575 575 712 583 501 536375 1277083
57 65 47 50 48 62 50 47 53.25 0.507143
589625 0:898113
WARRANT 2 - interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
APPROACH U I R u I R
LAN ES I 2 or more
Maior Street (600) (420) (720) ~ ¢~
Bighest ^pproac, 1591 /50t I 1551
100% SATISFIED YES
80% SATISFIED YES
NO
NO
11-12 AM 12-1 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 54 PM 6~7 PM 7-8 PM Hour
463 425 457 575 575 712 583 501 535,375 0.851389
57 65 47 50 48 62 50 47 53.25 1.004717
Heavier leg-turn movement from Major Street included when LT phasing is propesed ..................... ~ 589.6250928053
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~
REQUIREMENT
Pedesthan volume crossing the major street is tOO or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or
moreTheredU fingare lessanYthan°ne60hoUr,gapsandper hour in the Major Street traffic stream of adequate lei3gth for
pedestrians to cross; and
The nearest traffic signal along the Major Street is 9reater than 300 feet; and
The new traffic si,gnal Will not sedousl¥ disrupt pro,~ressive traffic flow on the Ma )r Street
FULFILLED
YES ~ NO
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
Not Applicable ...................................... __
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ........ __
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
SATISFIED
YES NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS I DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
I > 100OFEET I N 3000gl S 10COOft. ENA ffi W NA f.
On one-way isolated streets or streets with one-way traffic signifance and adjacent signals
are so far apad that necessary platooning ands speed control would be lost
On g-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed
Icontrol; proposed signals could constitute a progressive signal system
FULFILLED
YES I X I NO I
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for
right-of-way assignment must be shown.
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
SATISFIED
YBS ~ NO ~
REQUIREMENTS I WARRANT
ON E WARRANT IWanan[ 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume or
SATISFIED 50% IWarrant 2 - tetermpfion of Continuous Traffic
Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow
Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies has failed to reduce accident freguencl/
Accidents within a 12 month period~ susceptible of correction & involving injury or
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE 0
FULFILLED
WARRANT7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~
MINIMUM VOLUME I
REQUIREMENTS ENTERING VOLUME - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 774 veh/hr I X
> 800 VEH/HR )r During Each of Any 5 Hours el a Saturday and/or
Sunday veWhr YES F--1 NOIx
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES Major St. Minor St,
Highway System servin~ as a Principle Network for through ~raffic X
Rural or Suburban Highway outside of, entering, or traversing a Cgy X
Appears as a Maior Route on an Official Plan X
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET BOTH STREETS YES ~ NO I X
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED
YES ~ NO ~
REQUIREMENT I WARRANT I FULFILLED
Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume or
WARRANT g - Four Hour Volume
SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~
f .030050
WARRANT 10 * Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1, The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or
exceeds four vehicle hours of a one lane approach and five vehicle hours for a Iwo lane approach; AND
2 The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one reeving idne and
150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3 The total entedng volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or
more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches.
YES ~ NO ~
YES ~ NO ~
YES ~ NO ~
YES ~ NO ~
WARRANT t I - Peak Hour Volume
SATISFIED YES ~
2 or
Approach Lanes One More 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Hour
[Both Approaches - Major Street. ' I I X 545 529 I~i~682 i!~: 542 ,, 574.51.641429
Highest Approaches M no St eat X 38 29 33~ 34 33,5 0.335
0,988214
· Reffir to Figure 0-5 (Urban Areas) or Figu re 9-7 (Rural Areas) to determine if this warrant is satisfied,
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal, Delay, congestion, confusion or ottmr evidence of the need for
right-of-way assignment must be shown.
NO ~
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Major Street: MEADOWSPARKWAY CriPcal Approach Speed
Minor Street: VIA REINA Critical Approach Speed
Criticol speed of major street traffic is · 40 MPH ....................................
RURAL
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .........................
48 MPH
25 MPH
APPROACH
LANES
Both Approaches
Maior Street
Highest Approach
Minor Street
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN iN BRACKETS)
500 350 600 i~ {~20;i~ i~
100% SATiSFiED YES
80% SATISFIED YES
NOTE: Heavier left-turn movement from Major Street included when LT phasing is proposed ....................
NO
NO
11-12AM 12-1PM 2-3PM 3-4PM 4-5PM 5-6PM 6-7PM 7-SPM Hour
437 384 432 545 529 682 542 465 502.125 1.195536
1 51 31 38 29 33 34 31 34.75 0.330952
536.875 0;763244
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED
80% SATISFIED
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETSt
u I R I U I R
APPROACH
LANES 1 2 or more
Major Street (600t (420) {720)I
Highest Approach 75 53 100 70
NOIB: Heavier leB-tum movement 1rom Major Stm~t includad when LT phasing
YES
YES
NOI
11-12AM 12-1PM 2-3PM 3~IPM 4-5PM 5-6PM 6-7PM 7-8PM Hour
437 384 432 545 529 682 542 466 502.125 0.797024
536.875 0?:26342
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
I REQUIREMENT I FULFILLED
100% SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~
~ES [-------] NO ~
YES ~ NO
YES NO
YES NO 30
IThe new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the Major Street
pedestrians to cross; and
The nearest traffic signal along the Major Street is greater than 300 feet; and
~edestrian volu me crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or
~ore during an), one hour; and
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the Major Street traffic stream of adequate length for
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
Not Applicable .................................
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS I DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL I FULFILLED
I · tooo FEET I N 4000 ft. S 9000 ft. E NA ft. W NA It. YES I x I NO I
On one-way isolated streets or streets with one-way traffic signifence and adjacent signals
are so far apo~ that necessar,/platooning ands speed control would be lost
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooolng and speed
contre; proposed si~nols could cons i u e a progressive signal sys em YES ~ NO r~
SAT~SF~SD YES ~ NO r---I
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for
right-of*way assignment must be shown.
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
SATISFIED
YES ~ NO ~
REQUIREMENTS I WARRANT
ONE WARRANT ]Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume or
SATISFIED 80% ]Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
lSignal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic tiow
Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies has failed to reduce accident frequency
Accidents within a 12 month e ection& invclvin i~u o~'
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE 0
FULFILLED
WARRANT ? - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~
MINIMUM VOLUME I
REQUIREMENTS ENTERING VOLUME -ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 715 veh/~r I X
· 800 VEH/HR )r During Each of Any 5 Hours of a Saturday and/er
~unday veh/hr YES r--] NO
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES Major St. Minor St.
Hi]hwa¥ System serving as a Principle Network for through traffic X
Rural or Suburban Highway outside of, entering, or traversing a City X
Appears as a Major Route on an Official Plan X
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET BOTH STREETS YES ~ NO
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED
YES ~ NO ~
REQUIREMENT I WARRANT
TWO WARP. ANTS IWarrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume or
SATISFIED 80% IWarrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
FULFILLED
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Vat ume
SATISFIED YES ~
2or
Approach Lanes One More 3*4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Hour
IB°th Appr°aches - Maj°r Street IX IX 545 9 34 574.51.641429335
Hi~hest Approaches - Minor Street 38 2 . 0.41875
1.030089
· Refer to Figure 9-6 (Urban Areas) or Figure 9-7 (Rural Areas) to dntem~ine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 18 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1. The total delay expetienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or
exceeds four vehicle hours of a one lane approach aho tive vehicle hours for a two tane approach; AN D
2 The volu me on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lar~ and
150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced dudng the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or
more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches.
YES ~
YES ~
YES ~
YES ~
NO ~
NO r~
NO ~
NO r~
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume
Approach Lanes
Both Approaches - Major Street
lHighest Approaches - Minor Street
SATISFIED YES
2 or
One Mom 3-4 PM 4~ PM 5~ PM 6-7 PM Hour
I I X 545 529 542 574.5 %641429
X J 38 29 34 33.5 0.335
0.988214
· Refer to Figure 9-6 (Urban Areas) or Figure 9-7 (Rural Areas) to detemnine if this wa~Tant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for
tight-of-way assignment must be shown.
NO ~
EXHIBIT "D"
PROPOSED SIGN AND BEACON LOCATION
CO~Tk-
VIA,
MUTCD NUMBER W11-2 ~V54A
,8
OIMENSIONS (INCHES)
SiGN
A B C O E
MIN. 24 3/8 5/8 11 I-1/2
ST0, 30 1/2 3/4 13-1/2 1-7/8
SPECIAL 36 5/8 7/8 16 2-1/4
COLORS
LEGEND - BLACK(NON-REFL)
6ACKOROUNO-YELLOW(REFL)
THE POL~-, ~OR INTENDED USAGE OF THIS SIGN IS SHOWN ON REVERSE SIDE.
CODE
REVISION
ITEM NO. 4
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I I
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
August 5, 2002
Monthly Activity Report - July, 2002
The following activities ware performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house
personnel for the month of July, 2002:
I. SIGNS
A. Total signs replaced 56
B. Total signs installed 20
C. Total signs repaired 5~
II.
TREES
A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns
4
IlL
ASPHALT REPAIRS
A. Total square feet of A, C. repairs
B. Total Tons
2,180
39
IV.
CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned
12
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
VI.
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations
B. Total S.F.
38
VII.
STENCILING
^. 4?5 New and mpainted legends
B. 4~997 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and stdping
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 47 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree
trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to
46 service order requests for the month of June, 200~.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 213
events and response to street emergencies.
hours of overtime which includes standby time, special
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of July, 2002 was $16,200.00
compared to ~ 14,1,5~.00 for the month of ,~une, 2002~
Account No. 5402 $ 6,885.00
Account No. 5401 $ 9,315.00
Account No. 999-5402 $ - 0 -
Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public WonV, s
Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer- (ClP/Traffic)
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements)
Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer - (Land Development)
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DMSION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
MONTH OF JULY, 2002
DATE LOCATION WORK COMP!.ETED
07/03/02 CAMIlqO MARCA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFi~I'i'i
07/09/02 LII~I~K & IqICHOLAS ROADS REMOVED 4 S.F. OF ORAFFI'i'I
07/12/02 SASSARI AT ADELAIq'rE REMOVED 31 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/15/02 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT AVENIDA DE MISSIONES REMOVED 70 S.F. OFORAFFITI
07/15/02 RANCHO VISTA AT CRC REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/18/02 PUJOL BOYS & OIRLS CLUB REMOVED 30 S.F. OF ORAFFfll
07/18/02 'l'l~ DRIVE AT TEMEKU DRIVE REMOVED 4 S.F. OF ORAFFITI
07/23/02 26415 YNEZ (3 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/23/02 26455 YNEZ (3 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/23/02 26455 YNEZ (4 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/23/02 26447 YlqEZ REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/23/02 26435 Y/qEZ (5 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 18 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/25/02 ~EDEDIAH SMITHAT HWY 79 SO. (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 400 S.F. OF
07/25/02 27520 YNEZ (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVI~ 62 S.F. OF
07/25/02 26810 YNEZ (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 80 S.F. OF.GRA~e'ITI
07/25/02 MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFI~iT!
' 07/25/02 42101MORAGA (4 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 31 S.F. OF GRAFFIT!
07/31/02 28101PUJOL REMOVI~ 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
07/31/02 42200 PUJOL REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFI1]
07/31/02 28816 PUJOL REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRA~Ffl]
07/31/02 44260 REDHAWK REMOVED 70 S.F. OF GRAF~111
TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 9~
TOTAL LOCATIONS 38