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