The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About072612 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 A REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT TEMECULA CIVIC CENTER, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012, 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner ROLL CALL: Carter, Cosentino, Coram, Youmans, Hagel PRESENTATIONS: Certificate of Meritorious Service - John Devries Certificate of Appreciation — Deputy Martin Cardenas, Temecula Police Department PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of fifteen 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 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 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 minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY MANAGER REPORT 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 minutes will be devoted to these reports. 1 COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Action Minutes of June 28, 2012 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of June 28, 2012. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Request for Multi -Way Stop Signs — Nighthawk Pass at Channel Street RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Concur with the results of the Multi -Way Stop warrant analysis that Multi -Way Stop Signs are not justified at the intersection of Nighthawk Pass and Channel Street; 2.2 Direct Staff to schedule a workshop with the residents of Nighthawk Pass to discuss and develop potential neighborhood traffic calming alternatives; and 2.3 Direct Staff to schedule this item for further consideration at a future Commission meeting. 3. Jefferson Avenue Study Area — Summary of Public Visioninq Workshop Series and the Draft Visioning Recommendations and Goals RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file the report. 4. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Update RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 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 23, 2012, 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/Traffic Safety Commission meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org Supplemental material received after the posting 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.ciiyoftemecula.org —and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact City Clerk's Department — 951- 694 -6444. 2 ITEM NO. 1 Action Minutes of June 28, 2012 ACTION MINUTES OF TEMECULA PUBLIC /TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TEMECULA CIVIC CENTER, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2012 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Coram ROLL CALL: Carter, Cosentino, Coram, Youmans, Hagel PRESENTATIONS: Emergency Management Update — Grant Yates, Suzzette Bricker PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMISSION REPORTS COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Action Minutes of May 24, 2012 — Approved staff recommendation — (4 -0 -1) — Commissioner Cosentino made the motion; it was seconded by Commissioner Youmans; and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Carter who abstained. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of May 24, 2012. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Request for Parking Restriction —Peach Tree Street and Primrose Avenue — Approved staff recommendation — (5 -0 -0) — Commissioner Youmans made the motion and was seconded by Commissioner Carter; and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the understanding that this Item may come before the commission again in the future. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Consider the request for a parking restriction program on Peach Tree Street south of Primrose Avenue, Primrose Avenue west of Peach Tree Street, and Ritchart Court as shown in Exhibit "B ". 2.2 Provide direction to Staff. 3. Consideration of Multi -Way Stop Signs - Old Kent Road and Fox Road/Vermont Road - Approved staff recommendation - (5 -0 -0) - Commissioner Carter made the motion; it was seconded by Commissioner Cosentino; and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 1 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution establishing Multi -Way Stop signs at the intersection of Old Kent Road and Fox RoadNermont Road. Igor Cadez addressed the Commission regarding this item. 4. Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey Update - Approved staff recommendation - (5 -0 -0) - Motion was made by Commissioner Youmans; it was seconded by Commissioner Coram; and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing the speed limits identified in Exhibit "A ". TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORTS POLICE CHIEF'S REPORTS FIRE CHIEF'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT — At 8:15 P.M. Chairperson Hagel adjourned the Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting to Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. Bob Hagel Greg Butler Chairperson Director of Public Works / City Engineer 2 - ITEM NO. 2 Request for Multi -Way Stop Signs - Nighthawk Pass at Channel Street AGENDA REPORT TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission FROM: reg Butler, Director of Public Works /City Engineer DATE: July 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Item 2 Consideration of Multi -Way Stop Signs — Nighthawk Pass and Channel Street Prepared By: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer — Traffic RECOMMENDATION: 1. Concur with the results of the Multi -Way Stop warrant analysis that Multi -Way Stop Signs are not justified at the intersection of Nighthawk Pass and Channel Street; 2. Direct Staff to schedule a workshop with the residents of Nighthawk Pass to discuss and develop potential neighborhood traffic calming alternatives; and 3. Direct Staff to schedule this item for further consideration at a future Commission meeting. BACKGROUND: In April 2012, staff received a letter petition from the residents of Nighthawk Pass to consider the feasibility of installing multi -way stop signs at the intersection of Nighthawk Pass and Channel Street to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes on Nighthawk Pass. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process and by mail. Nighthawk Pass, east of Butterfield Stage Road, is a forty -four (44) wide residential collector roadway, which provides access for numerous single family residential enclaves to Butterfield Stage Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Nighthawk Pass is 1,000 ADT east of Butterfield Stage Road, 860 ADT at Choate Street, and 450 ADT at Channel Street. The speed limit is posted at 25 MPH on Nighthawk Pass. On- street parking is restricted on the north and south sides of Nighthawk Pass between Butterfield Stage Road and Choate Street and parking is restricted on the south side from Choate Street to the City Limits. Channel Street is a forty (40) foot wide local roadway, which functions as a residential collector roadway providing access for numerous single family residential units to Butterfield Stage Road. Channel Street carries approximately 300 ADT at Nighthawk Pass. The 25 MPH prima facie speed limit is posted on Channel Street. In June 2012, a review of conditions was performed at the intersection of Nighthawk Pass and Channel Street, which included an evaluation of sight distance, collision history, and completion of a multi -way stop warrant analysis. In addition to Channel Street, a review of conditions at Nighthawk Pass and Choate Street was performed to determine if right -of -way control was necessary at this intersection. Although speed data is not a factor considered in a multi -way stop warrant analysis, a speed survey was performed at three locations along Nighthawk Pass to determine prevailing speeds and confirm resident's concerns about excessive vehicular speeds. The survey locations and prevailing speeds are identified in the table below. Lo cation 85 Percentile Speed Butterfield Stage Road to Choate Street 38 MPH Choate Street to Channel Street 35 MPH Channel Street to City Limits 35 MPH The results of the speed survey indicate that 85 percentile speeds exceed the posted speed limit of 25 MPH by 10 to 13 miles per hour. The 38 MPH speed observed between Butterfield Stage Road and Choate Street can be attributed to the change in vertical alignment on this segment of Nighthawk Pass. As past evaluations have shown, these speeds are consistent with those observed on other residential and residential collector streets in the City with similar characteristics such as Roripaugh Road and Seraphina Road. The sight distance evaluation at Channel Street revealed the visibility at this intersection exceeds the minimum sight distance required for conditions and speeds. The results of the evaluation indicate the sight distance is 360 feet looking east and 350 feet looking west from the south leg of Channel Street. On the north leg of Channel Street, the sight distance is 327 feet looking west and 400 feet looking east. A minimum unobstructed sight distance of 155 feet is required for the 25 MPH posted speed limit on Nighthawk Pass. The results of the evaluation at Choate Street indicate the sight distance looking east and west from the north leg exceeds 400 feet. On the south leg of Choate Street, the sight distance is 430 feet looking east and 315 feet looking west. A minimum unobstructed sight distance of approximately 155 feet is required for the 25 MPH posted speed limit on Nighthawk Pass. A review of the collision history for the twelve (12) month period from July1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, indicates there were no reported collisions at the intersections. This favorable record can be attributed to driver familiarity with roadway conditions and exercising due care when traveling through the intersections. The Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets' warrant criteria was used to evaluate the need for multi -way stop signs at both intersections. 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, 2 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 volumes 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 at both intersections indicates that Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are not satisfied and multi -way stop signs are not justified. Additionally, an evaluation of the optional criteria, such as intersection sight distance, indicates there are no special circumstances that justify the need for right -of -way control provided by multi -way stop signs. For these reasons, Staff does not support the installation of multi -way stop signs on Nighthawk Pass. In the past, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission has considered similar requests to install multi -way stop signs to control vehicular speeds on roadways that function as a residential collector. The Commission has consistently upheld Staff's opinion that multi -way stop signs should not be used to reduce vehicular speeds or volumes and should be installed only to regulate traffic flow and improve safety. The results of the speed data collection clearly indicates that vehicles are travelling in excess of the 25 MPH posted speed limit on Nighthawk Pass. However, multi -way stop signs are not an effective tool for addressing neighborhood speeding issues. The City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) has other potential tools that can be considered as possible alternatives for addressing vehicular speeding concerns. Staff recommends the Commission direct Staff to schedule a workshop with the residents of Nighthawk Pass to discuss and develop potential neighborhood traffic calming alternatives and schedule this item for further consideration at a future Commission meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts associated with staff recommendation. Attachment 1. Exhibit "A" — Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" — Multi -Way Stop Warrant Analysis 3. Exhibit "C" — Petition to Install Multi -Way Stop Signs 3 EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP 4 ° p • • • • • • • • �� .y' M4 . 71 r e .—- ` r..i� J r tit r- D �.� ✓�� AO Ll AA f44 . Aw, Lin _ I o �� , - fir, fir, • �� _ �'.� � .: Arop Ak a no EXHIBIT "B" MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS 6 MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANT (Residential Streets) Major Street: Nighthawk Pass Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minor Street: Channel Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Wararnts 1, 2, and 3 Must Be Satisfied 1. Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisfied Yes No �X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 8 -9 AM 9-10 AM 10 -11 AMI 11 -12 PM 1 -2 PM 2 -3 PM 3 -4 PM 5 -6 PM I Hour Total All Approaches 300 55 51 51 47 58 51 50 45 Combined Vehicular Ped Volume Minor Street 100 19 18 18 19 28 20 22 17 2. Collision History Satisfied Yes No �X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 3 OR MORE 0 3. Roadway Characteristics Satisfied Yes No �X (All Parts Below Must Be Satisfied) A. The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles Yes No OX 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 OX 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 No i Options (Other Criteria That May Be Considered) Satisfied 4. Visibility The intersection sight distance is less than: Yes 0 No �X 155 feet for 25 MPH 200 feet for 30 MPH 250 feet for 35 MPH 5. The need to control left -turn conflicts. Yes . No �X 6. The need to control vehicle /pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers. Yes No �X 7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route School plan. Yes O No �X 8. There are no traffic signal or all -way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection. Yes No 9. The installation of multi -way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs of the residential area. Yes No �X MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANT (Residential Streets) Major Street: Nighthawk Pass Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Minor Street: Choate Street Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Wararnts 1, 2, and 3 Must Be Satisfied 1. Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisfied Yes No �X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 10 -11 AMI 12 -1 PM 1 -2 PM 3-4 PM 4 -5 PM 5-6 PM 6 -7 PM 7 -8 PM Hour Total All Approaches 300 88 84 89 85 93 89 112 85 Combined Vehicular Ped Volume Minor Street 100 26 27 28 23 25 23 32 26 2. Collision History Satisfied Yes No �X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 3 OR MORE 0 3. Roadway Characteristics Satisfied Yes 0 No OX (All Parts Below Must Be Satisfied) A. The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles Yes No �X 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 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 No Options (Other Criteria That May Be Considered) Satisfied 4. Visibility The intersection sight distance is less than: Yes No �X 155 feet for 25 MPH 200 feet for 30 MPH 250 feet for 35 MPH 5. The need to control left -turn conflicts. Yes No �X 6. The need to control vehicle /pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate . high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers. Yes No �X 7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route School plan. Yes O No �X 8. There are no traffic signal or all -way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection. Yes No 9. The installation of multi -way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs of the residential area. Yes No �X EXHIBIT "C" PETITION TO INSTALL MULTI -WAY STOP SIGNS AT CHANNEL STREET AND NIGHTHAWK PASS a Public /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way P 9 stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street aW "hthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date f `r Public /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date — � ��rtil�l a h ( A C 1 1 Nom /r ��, 3- �0-�d�� e 2;� 5 kq n r L4 at Public /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date Lr*,-j 9 -- `1 y3 y y /V , Uri /l. 17,jr -- 3 o. ,� JasUf�j 3s'r2 W ' 14 44 ,u (� r�� ' I s dire s'� -72 �1�'I� /,P5 L Public /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date M g , 33 23 SY 3 �a ao _ zr 7 f(Q� S'f �i�t {`� o., "`� `° =�✓�"� `( ati; t��", V,?cS �G -fit `ail ©�� Z�2u�� I �� Z Public /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date 4 ` d O _ lnuuk 0- PeoPt SAe--a 4c( Tlw T7u.,e- P4S S wrr tv. L1�/1 /G h r c yc the �' s 4 iq Pubiic /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signat re Address Comment Date �iititc�ct me _ �� uv r�� clss m 1 /Lt 1 `� 5 3��s 3 �jS/ 1- Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 wav stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right-of-way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Night Pass. Printed Name Signature Address Commen Date SIM � L � 4 4 J 000 vie 5 - 7 C�La weu. -� S�- 3li sA z L 1 Public /Traffic Safety Commission 4.000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a s afety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Pr inted Name Signature Address Comment Date ' �Hw� J. a) 0 Coo ex) 44 d- F t C4- QL4 J3� i Public /Traffic Safety Commission 41000 Main Street /Temecula CA Petition to Install 4 way stop sign and cross walk AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHANNEL ST AND NIGHTHAWK PASS Petition summary and Since the opening of Nighthawk pass the increased speed of vehicles has posed a danger to the residents, children and background pets that reside on Nighthawk Pass. A traffic study via portable radar indicated that 85% of the traffic passing the unit during the test period was in access of the posted speed limit. A second study of which we have not received the results indicated some reduction in speed from the first study. A summary of the first report is provided below. The traffic check was completed over a 4 day period via a mobile portable radar unit. The unit was 50 feet east of the intersection of Cannel street and Nighthawk Pass. Slightly under 2000 vehicles passed 85% of those were speeding and in excess of 35mph Top speed recorded was just under 50mph Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to take the necessary steps to insure the safety of our community. At this time we have no point to assign right -of -way, cross walks or any other means to establish a safety point when crossing Nighthawk Pass. Printed Name Signature -- Address Comment Date - ' F S V ITEM NO. 3 Jefferson Avenue Study Area — Summary of Public Visioning Workshop Series and the Draft Visioning Recommendations and Goals AGENDA REPORT TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Development Services DATE: July 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Item 3 Jefferson Avenue Study Area — Summary of Public Visioning Workshop Series and the Draft Visioning Recommendations and Goals Prepared By: Katie Innes, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the report. BACKGROUND: The Jefferson Avenue Study Area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz Road /Murrieta Creek and south of Cherry Street. The Study Area is approximately 560 acres and consists primarily of a mix of developed commercial property, and property designated as conservation /open space (Murrieta Creek). At one time, the Jefferson Avenue Study Area was vibrant and bustling with activity — the area was once an important, locally - serving community destination along historic route Highway 395 which was the primary vehicular thoroughfare through the area prior to the construction of Interstate 15. Following the incorporation of the City in 1989, the area continued to develop under typical Post -World War II development patterns: an eclectic mix of auto - oriented light industrial, office, strip - commercial and retail uses serving the local community. Although the businesses within the Study Area continue to remain economically - vital, Jefferson Avenue has been overshadowed by new development activity taking place at the Promenade Mail and Old Town. As a result, it was determined that enhancing the study area's economic assets would be critical to the area's and the City's long term future. On January 1, 2011, in anticipation of the Jefferson Avenue planning effort, the City of Temecula City Council established the Jefferson Avenue City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee. The City Council appointed Mayor Ron Roberts and Council Member Comerchero to this subcommittee. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee will assess future opportunities for the area and provide policy direction to facilitate the aesthetic and economic revitalization of the Jefferson Avenue area through a comprehensive Specific Plan. The Jefferson Avenue City Council Ad Hoc Committee met on July 25, 2011 and directed Planning staff to move forward with the visioning workshops and public engagement process. To assist the City with the public outreach portion of the planning effort, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) selected the Jefferson Avenue Study Area Visioning Process as a "demonstration project," and awarded the City grant funding through their Compass Blueprint program. The city and SCAG collaboratively selected MIG, Inc. as the planning consulting firm to assist city staff with the public outreach and visioning workshops for the Jefferson Avenue Study Area. The city also hired Inland Planning + Design to assist with the presentation of technical planning topics at the public workshops. The goal of the public workshops was to develop a publicly- driven, community based vision for the Jefferson Avenue Study Area, which will drive the revitalization and redevelopment of the area in the future. VISIONING PROCESS SUMMARY The public participation process included a series of six community workshops held over a nine - month period, as well as multiple stakeholder interviews, and technical analyses from City staff and consultants. The six pubic visioning workshops were held with business owners, property owners, and other interested community members, to develop a community - based vision for the study area's long term future. The task at hand was to envision the study area's development potential 30 years from now. To date, Planning Staff has completed the public visioning workshop series for the Jefferson Avenue Study Area. The visioning workshop dates and topics are outlined below: Visioning Workshop 1 October 18, 2011 Existing Conditions, Future Vision, Opportunities and Challenges Visioning Workshop 2 December 6, 2011 Urban Design and Placemaking Visioning Workshop 3 February 2, 2012 Identifying Conceptual Districts within the Study Area Visioning Workshop 4 April 5, 2012 Transportation and Complete Streets Visioning Workshop 5 June 14, 2012 Market Analysis and Development Scenarios Visioning Workshop 6 July 19, 2012 Visioning Policy Recommendations and Case Studies To supplement the information in this staff report, a brief presentation will be provided to summarize the feedback received from the public at these visioning workshops. VISIONING RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOALS Staff and the consultant team have reviewed the feedback received from the workshop attendees over the course of the public visioning workshops and identified eight recommendations and goals that will guide the future vision. The eight recommendations and goals will provide the structure and policy direction for the development of a future Specific Plan for the study area. Tonight, staff will present the eight recommendations and goals to the Public Traffic Safety Commission for review and comment. Staff will then address any comments received by the Public Traffic Safety Commission and then proceed with presenting the recommendations and goals to the Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and City Council, at their subsequent meetings. At the City Council meeting staff will request that the City Council authorize the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Jefferson Avenue Study Area, focusing on the eight recommendations and goals that resulted from the culmination of the nine month visioning process. 2 The eight recommendations for the study area are as follows: Recommendation Goal Recommendation 1: Goal 1: Strengthen Economic Development Spark the revitalization of the area through comprehensive economic development strategies that support a sustainable fiscal foundation for the future. Recommendation 2: Goal 2: Expand the Mix of Uses Allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use options within the study area. Recommendation 3: Goal 3: Define Districts and Neighborhoods Encourage the definition and development of districts within the area based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate unique character. Recommendation 4: Goal 4: Improve Transportation, Mobility, Encourage the development of a multi - modal, Connectivity and Circulation interconnected circulation network that improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Recommendation 5: Goal 5: Integrate Recreation, Open Spaces and Encourage public and private investment in the Trails development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and active and passive recreation spaces. Recommendation 6: Goal 6: Create Updated and Flexible Create urban development standards that will Development Standards guide future development while being flexible and adaptable to changing market demands and economic conditions. Recommendation 7: Goal 7: Build and Maintain a Comprehensive Ensure adequate infrastructure capacity to support Infrastructure System future urban development. Recommendation 8: Goal 8: Establish Distinct Identity Establish a recognizable identity, experience, and brand for Uptown Jefferson. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachments 1. Exhibit "A" — Jefferson Avenue Study Area Base Map 2. Exhibit "B" — Public Visioning Process Timeline 3 EXHIBIT "A" JEFFERSON AVENUE STUDY AREA BASE MAP 4 L A is °P5 m m MC CAGE CT A Z 0 2 BUECKING DR - c — DENDY'PKY - SAN FIN AV CO ON Og REMINGTON AV - ENTERPRISE CIR NORTH --- ZEVO DR V L HESTER RD - - - - - - - - O� - - ENTERPRISE CIR - - _ PALM -- PLAZA N D O PEAZA y0 S —' A fmll `(�r O� - - -- -- OVER DR "P -- AVENIDA ALVARADO -_ _ - F - - - - -- O y H BU6KDEER LOOP �+ w W �U — - SARAH:WY -. _ . __ C W < O h W O 4 � LL W _VIA MONTEZLI VIA OW FL S O WN -LA HACIEyDAS Si - V1 9.L9;V1 - _DA -- VIADOSPICOS - O CA Y o - CALCE CO NEZ o n � RAMSEI' ;7 o c -- - - RANCHO WY- - _ - _ - - C y �RTNEY PL DEAL CT Z m N m 9 F f P SJO!NE`N�D�D i Z Jefferson Avenue Study Area September 29, 2011 MJefferson Avenue Study Area q�DR __ N — Highways Centerline o c��DR Q �yFR L_ city N ERD s O Parcels ° 0 1W 0 Boo Wo 1.2W EXHIBIT "B" PUBLIC VISIONING PROCESS TIMELINE 5 Jefferson Avenue Study Area Visioning Workshops Timeline October 18, December 6, February 2, April 5, June 14, July 19, 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 Ank m 7 - Workshop # 3 Workshop # 5 Workshop # 1 Workshop # 2 Identifying Workshop # 4 Market Analysis & Workshop # 6 Existing Conditions, Urban Design & Conceptual Transportation & Development Visioning Policy Vision, Opportunities "Placemaking" Districts Complete Streets Scenarios Recommendations & Challenges ITEM NO. 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program - Update AGENDA REPORT TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission E t a 1� 9 FROM: Oly reg Butler, Director of Public Works /City Engineer DATE: July 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Item 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Update Prepared By: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer — Traffic RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the report. BACKGROUND: In 2000, Staff developed a comprehensive program for providing traffic calming on neighborhood streets. The Neighborhood, Traffic Calming Program was presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and approved by the City Council at their respective meetings in March 2000. The goal of the program, as developed, is to establish procedures and techniques to mitigate impacts created by vehicular traffic on residential streets. The objective of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is to: • Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets; • Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets; • Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations; • Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities; • Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and • Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests. The application of the program is intended to be progressive by addressing traffic calming in a two (2) stage approach. Stage 1 of the program is comprised of actions that are primarily education and enforcement based. Stage 2 involves the use of roadway features, which would be typically considered when education and enforcement falls short of addressing the problem. Included in the program are policies and procedures used to address requests for traffic calming measures and the tools that are likely to be used. Since its inception in March 2000, the program's traffic calming toolbox has been modified. For example, speed undulations (bumps) and traffic circles, which were proven ineffective at reducing overall vehicular speeds and volumes, were eliminated as viable traffic calming measures. The implementation of road closures or permanent barricades, which leads to the diversion of vehicular traffic onto adjacent residential streets and causes impacts to the roadway network intersections were also eliminated from the program. Conversely in 2009, the Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets was added to the program's traffic calming toolbox. 1 Staff will provide a comprehensive presentation of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program document. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact associated with Staff recommendation. Attachment 1. Exhibit "A" — Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 2 EXHIBIT "A" NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM `� OF T EME 00 0© 00 00 1989 O41ho1VS # NEW OVVQ* PURPOSE Since incorporation in 1989, the City of Temecula has focused on quality of life for Temecula residents. One area that is under constant scrutiny is traffic, both on major arterials and in residential neighborhoods. Recognizing the need to address speed control issues on neighborhood thoroughfares, the City has developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The goal of the program is to establish procedures and techniques that will promote neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impacts of automobile traffic on residential streets. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES To promote safe and pleasant conditions on neighborhood streets for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program objective is to: • Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets without severely impacting the residents and general public; • Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets without severely impacting the residents and general public; • Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations; • Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities; • Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns and facilitate local traffic management requests. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION The two basic elements of neighborhood traffic calming are the roadway functional classification and neighborhood identification. Classifying roadways according to their mobility function and interaction with adjacent land uses assists in defining the roadway types that are suited for traffic calming strategies. Roadway Classification The City of Temecula has eight (8) functional roadway classifications as follows: ➢ Urban Arterial A Principal Arterial ➢ Major Arterial ➢ Secondary Arterial ➢ Modified Secondary Arterial ➢ Limited Secondary Arterial ➢ Collector ➢ Rural Highway ➢ Local Street Since the goal of traffic calming is to reduce the opportunity for shortcutting and/or speeding on residential streets, the focus of the traffic calming measures will be on local streets, or streets that are primarily residential in nature. 2 Neighborhood Identification Traffic calming measures will be focused on neighborhoods, particularly those where traffic patterns have changed. Each neighborhood is unique and it is recognized that individual features or characteristics will be important considerations in any application of traffic calming techniques. Input from residents of a particular neighborhood will be solicited early in the process to define traffic problems and assist in identifying the boundaries of the area of impact. Local characteristics and neighborhood identities will be important factors to consider when analyzing each problem and developing mitigation measures. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Financial Impacts The costs for analyzing requests and implementing traffic calming measures are variable and there is a wide range of costs from inexpensive to capital intensive. The lower cost measures include enforcement, educational programs, signage, and roadway markings. A change to the physical layout of the roadway often demands more financial resources. During the evaluation of traffic calming measures, staff may determine that mitigation measures be tested incrementally to minimize unnecessary major expenditures. The City's budget generally covers the cost of installing and maintaining traffic control devices. The availability of funds for the installation of roadway features will be dependent on overall priorities identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In circumstances where cost-intensive traffic calming measures are needed, it may be necessary to weigh the timing of their installation against other demands on the CIP. Additionally, costs associated with the maintenance of the landscaping at roadway features will need to be programmed into the City's Annual Operating Budget. Traffic Control Devices or Roadway Features Traffic calming measures may fall into one of two categories, traffic control devices, or roadway features. Traffic control devices regulate, warn, or guide motorists on roadways. There is defined methodolgy for assessing their applicability to certain roadway conditions and characteristics. These conditions and characteristics are defined in the California Vehicle Code and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD). Traffic control devices are nationally and internationally standardized and are easily recognized by a majority of drivers. Roadway features constitute physical changes to a roadway designed to make it inconvenient or perceptibly more time consuming to use a local street. Typically, roadway features are permanent modifications to the width, surface, or alignment of the roadway. The use of roadway features may cause inconvenience for the local residents and result in increased emergency vehicle response times. Local governments are empowered to install roadway features. All features must take into consideration roadway safety. The City of Temecula no longer recognizes road closures, speed undulations (bumps), or traffic circles as viable traffic calming measures. Therefore, road closures, permanent barricades, speed undulations (bumps), and traffic circles are not included in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Physical Impacts Traffic calming measures that involve traffic control devices and roadway features may have impacts that include increased noise, air pollution, visual intrusion, restricted access, removal of on-street parking, increased emergency response times, and obstacles to bicycles and pedestrians. 3 1. Impacts to Emergency Vehicles Traffic calming measures that alter the normal path of travel of a vehicle can increase the response times for emergency personnel. The delay in response time will vary depending on the characteristics of the roadway and the traffic calming device, the availability of alternate routes, and the type of emergency vehicle. 2. Impacts to Utility Vehicles and Buses Traffic calming measures that alter the normal path of travel may have an impact on utility trucks, trash collection trucks, transit buses, dial-a-ride vehicles, and school buses. 3. Impacts to Surrounding Streets Traffic control devices and roadway features may impact the quality of life at adjacent neighborhoods by diverting traffic to the surrounding street network. While this may serve the intended purpose to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes on a certain roadway, it may mean that all traffic, local and non-local will use parallel or adjacent roadways more frequently. Due care will be exercised to minimize the negative or unintended impacts to adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. Potentially impacted residents and property owners will be notified of any proposed action, and will be given an opportunity to provide input before any decision is made. 4. Impacts to Residents All roadway features will result in an inconvenience to the residents that use the roadway on a daily basis. Certain types of roadway features may reduce accessibility to residential driveways. 5. Loss of On-Street Parking The installation of traffic control devices, pavement markings, and/or roadway features may require the removal of on-street parking to accommodate the implementation of the feature and maximize the visibility to approaching vehicles. 6. Aesthetics Roadway features can be made aesthetically pleasing by installing landscaping, pavers, textured pavement, or other hardscape. All traffic control devices and roadway features will require standardized signing, striping, and markings in colors and at locations that may not be aesthetically pleasing. The City will strive to make all traffic calming devices as aesthetically pleasing as possible and as cost effective as possible. 7. Drainage Roadway features may impact the capacity of drainage facilities. Staff will ensure that any roadway modification does not negatively impact drainage or cause the ponding of water on the roadway. 8. Landscape Irrigation When landscaping is proposed as part of the roadway feature, consideration must be given to the location of the irrigation source. Providing irrigation to a landscaped roadway feature may be cost prohibitive. This may result in the selection of alternative traffic calming measures. 4 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES Neighborhood traffic calming is most efficient when directed at reducing vehicular volumes and speeds in residential areas. The criteria listed below define the roadways and portions thereof that qualify for traffic calming consideration. This criteria constitutes a guideline for application of traffic calming techniques. Residential streets must satisfy the following basic parameters: 1. A roadway or portion thereof must not be designated on the City's General Plan Circulation Plan. General Plan roadways are expected to provide major connections to a variety of land uses throughout the City. Vehicular volumes and speeds are expected to be higher on arterial roadways than on local roadways. 2. Candidate roadway segments must be at least 1/2 mile in length. Traffic calming measures are more effective on bad driving habits on longer stretches of roadway. 3. The average daily traffic volume must significantly exceed the expected volumes based on the number of dwelling units accessing the subject roadway. Residential areas typically generate 10 vehicles per day per household. Traffic calming measures will address vehicular volumes that exceed the expected volumes, providing disincentives to using neighborhood roadways as a cut-through or bypass route. 4. The 85`h percentile speed must exceed the posted or prima facie speed limit by 10 miles per hour. The prima facie speed limit on residential roadways is 25 miles per hour as mandated by the California Vehicle Code. Engineering and Traffic Surveys have shown that typical 85th percentile speeds on residential streets range from 30 to 34 miles per hour despite the posted or prima facie speed limit. By addressing vehicular speeds that are above the 85th percentile, traffic calming will focus on driver behavior that is considered unreasonable for conditions. While intrusive traffic calming devices are intended to target the minority (15Th percentile) of drivers that do not adhere to the established laws, these devices will affect the majority of the drivers (85th percentile), who comply with the existing laws. 5 APPLICATION PROCESS Neighborhood traffic calming is intended to be progressive in nature, with City staff working in conjunction with the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, Police Department, and neighborhood representatives to determine the problem and identify the appropriate solution. The City of Temecula's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program will address traffic calming measures in a two-stage approach. Stage 1 is comprised of actions that are primarily education and enforcement based. Stage 2 involves the use of roadway features intended to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes. Listed below are the traffic calming tools that may be used during each stage of the program. Stage 1 - Education and Enforcement • Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program — The first step in traffic calming is to educate neighborhood drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, nonresidents, children, and adults of existing traffic laws and roadway responsibilities. The City of Temecula has developed pamphlets that are geared to providing a greater awareness of the rules of the road. • Radar Speed Trailer Deployment —When appropriate, the radar speed-monitoring trailer will be used to educate motorists by advising them of their travel speed. The radar speed trailer can also be used to show the residents that actual travel speeds may not be as high as they are perceived. • LED Speed Limit Advisory Sign — Like the radar speed trailer. the speed limit advisory sign can be used to educate motorists by advising them of their travel speed. The signs will be placed at the requested roadway for extended periods of time, as required. • Traditional Enforcement — This action is intended to modify driver behavior that will result in safer conditions for neighbors and drivers alike. • Speed Limit Signs — Post 25-MPH speed limit signs and pavement markings on residential streets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit. Where education and enforcement fall short of addressing the perceived speeding and volume problem, the City will analyze the feasibility of installing roadway features. These Stage 2 engineering strategies will be evaluated on their effectiveness in achieving the desired reduction in vehicular speeds and volumes. The benefit of the roadway feature will be weighed against any adverse impact to adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. Stage 2 features requiring a physical change to the roadway may be implemented as a temporary measure prior to installation of a permanent feature. Subsequent to the successful results of the temporary measure, the permanent feature may be added to the City's CIP project list for consideration during the budget review process. Stage 2 - Roadway Features • Pavement Markings — This roadway feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline or median and edge lines or bike lanes along a segment of roadway. This feature has proven to be effective in certain situations but may not be appropriate at every location. Bike lane striping may eliminate on-street parking. • Residential Multi-Way Stop Controls —Where appropriate, multi-way stop signs are installed to establish the right-of-way at residential and residential collector roadway intersections. The warrant criteria for the use of multi-way stop controls is based on the criteria identified in the City's Multi-Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets, which has a lower threshold than the arterial roadway criteria. When used inappropriately, stop signs have 6 been ineffective at controlling or reducing vehicular speeds and volumes on residential streets. Studies have shown that driver compliance with traffic control devices decreases and vehicular speeds increase between the "stop" locations. Unwarranted stop signs increase unnecessary noise and air pollution and often cause inconvenience to drivers who comply with existing laws. • Mid-block/Entry Median Treatment — This roadway feature can be a raised or painted median located along the centerline of the roadway at mid-block locations or entry locations to a neighborhood. Effectively the median provides a narrowing of the travel lanes at strategic locations along a roadway. This roadway feature may not be appropriate at every location and there are several disadvantages associated with this feature including the potential loss of parking and access to residential driveways at the median location. The following table provides a list of traffic calming measures, the issues associated with the measure, and a range of expected implementation cost for each measure. IIIm :a w. :° o ., m ani ro . b iv m a .. � ° ° w- c, oc � a -oC time rbc 0 m m ac c � � 4 J � ) ° rn h al Et 1:X V ToolboxOF Item — Cr a w U STAGE 1 Neighborhood Traffic ' Safety Awareness X 0 X No Appropriate Appropriate Varies Program Radar Speed Trailer X I 0 No Appropriate Appropriate No Deployment Additional Cost LED Speed Limit X 0 X No Appropriate Appropriate $1,000- Advisory Sign $5,000 Traditional X t X No Appropriate Appropriate No Enforcement Additional 1 Cost ,iii Speed Limit Signs 0 1 X No Appropriate Appropriate $500-11 $1,00 STAGE 2 Pavement Markings X 0 X No Appropriate Appropriate $2,500-' $15,001 Residential Multi-Way 1 1 O Yes Appropriate Appropriate $500 Stop Controls $2,50 Mid-block/Entry X 1 O U Appropriate Appropriate $7,500- Median Treatment $25,000 X = Effective 0 = Moderately Effective 1 = Ineffective U = Unknown 7 POLICIES The policies of the neighborhood traffic calming program will be communicated in the application process. The policies listed below will be followed throughout the analysis and final determination phases. 1. Safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and residents is the prime concern of this program. 2. Significant vehicular volumes must not be diverted from one local roadway to another. 3. Emergency vehicle access must be preserved. 4. Auto, pedestrian, and bicycle access must be maintained for residents living within the traffic calming area of impact. 5. All traffic control devices installed must comply with the California Vehicle Code. 6. Roadway features will be planned and designed according to accepted engineering practice. 7. The least intrusive traffic calming measure will be implemented first. If the measure is found to be ineffective after a reasonable evaluation period, the City may consider alternative measures. PROCESS Step 1 Communicating a Request for Traffic Calming Measures To initiate a request for neighborhood traffic calming, an Application for Consideration of Traffic Calming Measures or letter petition must be completed. The form or petition shall identify the nature of the perceived problem, the location, the type of relief requested, and the contact person making the request. It is highly advisable that the residents gather as much support as possible for the requested action, including support from the Homeowners Board or governing board, where applicable. Following the receipt of application or petition, staff will review the problem and initiate a site visit. Staff will determine if enhanced enforcement by the Temecula Police Department will mitigate the situation. If it is determined that this is the most effective mitigation, staff will work with the Temecula Police Department to implement enforcement. If enforcement addresses the problem, no further action will be deemed necessary. If the problem is not mitigated, then staff will continue the traffic calming process. At the discretion of the City Engineer or Public/Traffic Safety Commission, a petition representing at least 66% of the property owners within the affected area may be necessary to initiate an analysis of the perceived problem. Each property owner is entitled to only one signature. Nonresident property owners and their tenants must decide who should sign the petition. Step 2 Analysis Following the verification of the petition form, Staff will begin the review and analysis process. The analysis will include collection of the following information: A Vehicular volume data Vehicular speed data • Three (3) year recorded accident history • Pedestrian and bicycle activity • Roadway characteristics 8 During the review process staff may meet with the residents of the affected area to receive input and define the issues. The request will be evaluated utilizing the point system as described in the table below. When data such as vehicular speed and volume is gathered at multiple locations, points will be assigned for each location and then averaged to ensure an equitable comparison. ELEMENT POINTS BASIS FOR POINTS _ Volume(ADT) 0 to 30 1 point for every 25 vehicles over 500 ADT for residential street or 1 point for every 100 vehicles over 1,500 ADT for residential collector streets Speed 0 to 25 Extent that 85m percentile speed exceeds speed limit;2 points assigned for every 1 MPH over speed limit Accident 0 to 15 1 point for every non-injury collision and 5 points for every History injury or fatal collision recorded in a 3 year period Pedestrian 0 to 20 5 points for school, park, bus stop, community center, library or and Bicycle public facility likely to generate pedestrian and bicycle activity in the study area Roadway 0 to 10 5 points for no sidewalk on one side of residential street and Characteristics other conditions not readily apparent; 10 points for no _sidewalks TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will determine the existence and magnitude of the traffic related problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming measure. A conservative traffic calming approach will be taken with the least intrusive measure being implemented first. Step 3 Consideration by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission After the evaluation has been completed, staff will present the recommended proposal to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission for review and consideration at their regular meeting. The residents of the affected area will be notified by mail or through their designated representative, of the date that the issue will be considered. Because the Public/Traffic Safety Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, some recommended Stage 2 traffic calming measures must be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Step 4 Consideration by the City Council The City Council will make its decision based on the staff report and any feedback that may be received during the City Council meeting. If the City Council does not approve the proposed traffic calming measures, a decision will be made to stop the process or send the issue back to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission for consideration of alternative traffic calming measures. If the City Council approves the traffic calming measures requiring physical improvements, funding alternatives will be considered. The City Council may direct staff to proceed with implementing the proposed traffic calming measures utilizing existing funding or choose to approve the calming measures, but delay implementation until funds are available. This may require the programming of the proposed traffic calming measure in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The City Council may also choose to implement the proposed traffic calming measures with the understanding that the affected neighborhood will provide their "fair-share" of funds to implement and/or aesthetically enhance the proposed traffic calming measures. 9 Step 5 Implementation Once approved, Stage 2 traffic calming measures will be implemented as funding permits. If all funding is not available, the City will strive to incrementally implement the recommended traffic calming measures. Step 6 Evaluation Following the implementation of the traffic calming measures, a data collection effort will be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the devices. This "follow-up" data will provide valuable information that may be used when considering similar devices at other locations. If approved traffic calming measures have not produced the desired results, the following options will be considered: • Take no further action ➢ Collect additional data ➢ Modify devices > Remove devices 10 APPENDIX "A" TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX 11 STAGE 1 - EDUCATION NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARENESS PROGRAM This consists of activities that inform and seek to modify driver behavior. Techniques include printed information, meetings, and workshops between staff and residents, signing campaign, enforcement activities, school programs, parent outreach, etc... Rpm N Advantages Disadvantages • Can be relatively effective and • Not as effective on non - localized inexpensive traffic • Involves and empowers citizens • Can be time consuming • Works well with other mitigation • May take time to be effective tools • Effectiveness may decrease over time STAGE 1 - EDUCATION RADAR SPEED TRAILER DEPLOYMENT Portable radar speed monitoring device capable of measuring vehicular speeds and displaying the speed to advise motorists of their speed. Advantages Disadvantages • Educational tool • Requires periodic enforcement • Very good public relations tool • Effective for limited duration • Useful especially in areas where • Unit moves frequently which spot speed reduction is necessary requires personnel STAGE 1 - EDUCATION LED SPEED LIMIT ADVISORY SIGN Speed Limit Advisory signs perform the same functions as the radar trailer but are mounted on poles and can be deployed on a roadway for extended periods of time, as required. The LED Speed Limit Advisory sign is capable of measuring "real time" vehicular speeds which is relayed back to the drivers. The display will flash when vehicular speeds exceed the posted speed limit. SPEED LIMIT 2-5 YOUR SPEED Advantages Disadvantages • Educational tool • Requires periodic enforcement • Real time speed feedback • Only effective for one direction of • Useful especially in areas where travel spot speed reduction is necessary • Long term effectiveness uncertain • Can be a semi permanent installation STAGE 1 - ENFORCEMENT TRADITONAL ENFORCEMENT This action is intended to modify driver behavior that will result in safer conditions by periodic monitoring of speeding and other violations by the police department. Advantages Disadvantages • Good temporary public relations • Effect is not permanent tool . Enforcement is an expensive tool • Serves to inform public that . Can be time consuming speeding is unacceptable behavior for which there are consequences STAGE 1 - ENFORCEMENT SPEED LIMT SIGNS Post speed limit signs on residential streets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit. PEED LIMIT Advantages Disadvantages • Educational tool • May have negligible impacts on • Reinforces prima facie speed limit speeds • Overuse is counterproductive STAGE 2 - ROADWAY FEATURES PAVEMENT MARKINGS i This feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline and an edge line or bike lane along a segment of roadway. r Advantages Disadvantages • Inexpensive • May not be as effective as other • May reduce speed physical improvements • Edge treatment increases • May eliminate on- street parking pedestrian and bicyclists safety • Low maintenance STAGE 2 - ROADWAY FEATURES RESIDENTIAL MULTI -WAY STOP CONTROLS Install multi -way stop controls to establish right -of -way and reduce vehicle conflicts at residential street intersections. Stop controls will not be implemented to control vehicular speeds and volumes. Advantages Disadvantages • Reduces vehicle conflicts by • Increased noise near stops assigning right -of -way • Increased emissions • May induce non - compliance of traffic control devices • Does not reduce vehicular speeds • Does not reduce vehicular volumes STAGE 2 — ROADWAY FEATURES MID -BLOCK MEDIAN This roadway feature can be a raised or painted median located along the centerline of the roadway at mid -block locations. Effectively the median provides a narrowing of the travel lanes at strategic locations. _ l arr_ Advantages Disadvantages • May be landscaped to provide • May require elimination of on- street visual amenity and neighborhood parking identity • May affect driveway access • May be used on wide streets to • May create unnecessary u -turns at narrow the travel lanes mid -block locations • Provides a barrier between travel . Landscaping may create visibility lanes constraints • Landscaping may be costly to install and maintain • Ma affect roadway drainage TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Work FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Supervisor 1989 DATE: July 9, 2012 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - June, 2012 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in -house personnel for the month of June, 2012: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 58 B. Total signs installed 6 C. Total signs repaired 90 D. Banners Replaced 95 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 139 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 4,661 B. Total Tons 73.5 C. Slurry 1,360 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 119 B. Down Spouts 0 C. Under sidewalks 0 D. Bowls 11 V. RIGHT -OF -WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right -of -way abatement 450 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations 43 B. Total S.F. 1,883 VII. STENCILING A. 275 New and repainted legends B. 2,500 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose D. 11 Thermal Plastic E. 13 RPMs Installed RAMAINTMINNOACTRPT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 40 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A. C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 51 service order requests for the month of May, 2012. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 79.5 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, 2012 was $118,513.00 compared to 6 7$ 50.00 for the month of May, 2012. Account No. 5402 $ 98,768.00 Account No. 5401 $ 19,745.00 Account No. 999 -5402 $ -0- Electronic Copies: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer - Capital Improvements Mayra De LaTorre, Senior Engineer - Land Development Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer - Traffic Division RAMAINTAMMOACTRPT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED Date Submitted: 09- Jul -12 e FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 Submitted By: GREG BUTLER SECOND HALF t 1 Prepared By: RODNEY TIDWELL *. i '_ � ••[ ,a t; ;^ ,r' tz_ s -:�'ai b 3 to- "x "._, � }.- ...T�� `` L S F�� .. k .ie.7. j..: T+ L CONTRACTORS `JANUARY FEBRUARY'_ MARCHx ;APRIL ;. _MAY JUNE 2ND,HALF TOTALS YEAR.TO= DATE: Asphalt Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 68,000 68,000 68,000 Concrete Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage Channels 0 1 0 3 3 0 7 7 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $17,500.00 $49,543.00 $49,193.75 $9,079.00 $9 $1,349,358.75 $239,881.75 CONTRACT STRIPING Striping Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sandblasting Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $148,945.60 $0.00 $0.00 $148,945.60 $148,945.60 TREE CONTRACTORS Trees Trimmed 611 1,090 1,055 1,123 0 256 4,135 4,135 Trees Removed 6 11 7 2 0 6 32 32 TOTAL COSTS $32,102.00 $55,446.00 $50,427.00 $53,028.00 $0.00 $15,268.00 $206,271.00 $206,271.00 R.O.W. SPRAYING Square Feet 520,000 120,000 255,000 895,000 895,000 TOTAL COSTS $28,725.00 $16,800.00 $1 0 $6,750.00 14,250 $68,325.00 $126,833.00 CITY MAINTENANCE CREW Banners 94 80 95 0 185 95 549 1,134 Signs Replaced 27 93 107 78 54 58 417 861 Signs Installed 0 5 9 8 1 6 29 983 Signs Repaired 74 149 106 40 75 90 534 1,114 Catch Basins Cleaned 143 238 175 184 215 119 1,074 2,414 Trees Trimmed 119 310 40 100 79 139 787 1,405 R.O.W. Weed Abatement 0 8,400 5,600 4,400 44,200 - 450 63,050 108,710 New & Repainted Legends 244 358 525 767 379 286 2,559 4,347 After Hours Call Outs 56 35 212 67 63 80 513 1,274 Service Order Requests 51 34 50 57 51 40 283 631 Graffiti Removal - Sq Ft 4,847 1,922 1,989 4,306 2,594 $1,883.00 17,541 1 39,885 TOTAL COSTS $25,858.34 $43,448.85 $50,591.62 $43,102.49 $35,423.25 $107,138.00 $305,562.55 1 $ 790,490.41 R.V NTMNWOACRPTVMINT . WORK COMPLETED I JAN, TO JUNE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Date Submitted: July s, 2012 MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT Submitted By: Greg Butler STREET MAINTENANCE Prepared By: Rodney Tidwell FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 4th QUARTER 5: r a WORK TOTAL -COST FORS TOTAL:CO T FOR COMPLETED COST FOR APR R ' COMPLETED C0ST F0RFMAY ; COMPLETED COST FOR JUNE ,THIS FISCAL{ LAST'FISCAI SCOPE.OF,:WORK, _ ;APR ' 12 f 12 A, _ .a ; � 12r ', x ,,12� ___'r : y JUNE '12 '12 y _ YEAR ASPHALT AC Square Footage: 5,740 $17,047.80 3,618 $10,745.46 4,661 $13,843.17 $132,767.91 $95,917.63 Tons: 132 $0.00 98 74 $0.00 $0.00 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Square Footage: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 STRIPING LINEAR FEET: 235 $16.45 878 $61.46 2,500 $175.00 $798.56 $6,242.18 IN -HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 767 $6,136.00 379 $3,032.00 286 $2,288.00 $35,504.00 $27,488.00 SIGNS REPLACED Material: 78 $3,900.00 54 $2,700.00 58 $2,900.00 $42,950.00 $41,500.00 Labor: $2,058.42 $1,425.06 $1,530.62 $22,669.01 $21,903.37 SIGNS INSTALLED Material: 8 $400.00 1 $50.00 6 $300.00 $10,150.00 $5,100.00 Labor: $211.12 $26.39 $158.34 $5,357.17 $2,691.78 SIGNS REPAIRED Material: 40 $2,000.00 75 $3,750.00 90 $4,500.00 $39,500.00 $39,486.50 Labor: $1,055.60 $1,979.25 $2,375.10 $29,398.46 $15,965.95 GRAFFITI Square Footage: 4,306 2,594 1,883 DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED Basins: 184 $4,855.76 215 $5,673.85 130 $3,430.70 $63,995.77 $69,854.33 Channels: 0 $0.00 0 $82,650.00 $177,505.50 IN -HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: 100 $2,639.00 79 $2,084.81 139 $3,668.21 $32,222.19 $26,812.24 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: 57 51 40 AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 67 $2,632.74 63 $2,494.17 80 $3,147.40 $50,358.48 $48,200.99 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT: 4,400 $149.60 41,200 $1,400.80 450 $15.30 $3,621.14 $2,332.84 TOTALS $43,102.49 $35,423.25 $38,331.84 $551,942.69 $581,001.31 R:W MAINTAIN WIOACTRPT\STREETMAINTWPRIL, MAY, JUNE. STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of June, 2012 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT STREET /CHANNEL /BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT Date: 05.24.12 TEMECULA CREEK WEED ABATEMENT # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 5,375,00 Date: 05.25.12 CITYWIDE 2 ND APPLICATION OF POST EMERGENT TO CITY OWNED "OPEN RIGHT OF WAYS" # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 9,800.00 Date: 05.25.12 CITYWIDE 2 ND APPLICATION OF POST EMERGENT TO CITY OWNED CHANNELS # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 4,750.00 Date: 06.1 1.12 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT OLD TOWN WEED ABATEMENT 33 ACRES NEXT TO AM /PM FRONT STREET MARKET # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 2,800.00 Date: 06.20.12 CITYWIDE TRASH CLEAN -UP ALONG CITY R.O.W'S # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 3,200.00 CONTRACTOR: BECKER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Date: 05.29.12 CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS IN CITY MAINTAINED CHANNELS #5401 TOTAL COST $ 9,620.00 CONTRACTOR: WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. Date: 06.1 1.12 CITYWIDE ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING ALONG CITY R.O.W. # 5402 TOTAL COST $15,268.00 CONTRACTOR: IMPERIAL PAVING INC. Date: 06.28.12 CITYWIDE REPLACED DAMAGED ASPHALT AND TRAFFIC LOOPS # 5402 TOTAL COST $68,000.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 19,745.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 98,768.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99 -5402 -0- R: WAINTAMMOACTRPT CITY OF TEMECULA 2012 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 51000 49000 - 47000 - 45000 43000- - 41000 - SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL CALLS 39000 - 37000 - 35000 - January 4,847 January 117 33000 31000- - February 1,922 February 61 27000 - 25000 - March 1,989 March 44 23000 - 21000 - 19000 - April 4,306 April 112 17000 - 15000 . May 2,594 May 63 13000 11000 9000 - June 1,883 June 43 7000 - 5000 - July July 1000 - August August JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC September September SQ FT October October Totals for the Year November November To Date: July 1, 2012 December December Sq. Foot 17,541 Calls 440 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SOUTHWEST STATION CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT To: Capt.O'Harra Sgt. Leggett Sgt. Lee Cc: Sgt. McDonald Fm: Marianna Davis, Crime Analyst Date: July 2, 2012 Re: Part 1 Crime for the City of Temecula June 1 - 30 2012 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: 287 Total CRIME Homicide 0 Aggravated Assault 24 Arson 0 Burglary 53 Larcen /Theft* 176 Rape 2 Robbery 7 Veh Theft 25 Total Grand * 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. fa - — or JOB VE ■' an 1 ^Central Crime Analysis Unit i Average Times Southwest Station February to June h ail !i • i �` rr� �� 1 _ This report shows the average response times and calls for service for priority calls 1 (and 1A), 2, 3, and 4. It includes the station's unincorporated area and contract city as well as the station as a whole. The average response times were found by taking the total response time (in minutes) between the received time and the deputy's arrival time, adding this number together for all calls for service and dividing it by the total number of calls for service. Priority 1 and 1A calls were combined . together to achieve one average. This was accomplished by adding the response times for Priority 1 and the response times for Priority 1A together, and dividing it by the total number of calls for service for Priority 1 and 1A combined. Definition of Priority Calls If the call for service involves more than one crime, the call type with the highest priority shall be used. PRIORITY 1 CALLS: Involve circumstances that pose, or did pose in the immediate past, a clearly defined threat to human life or property and which involve a high level of violence or which have the potential for serious injury. These calls shall be entered by the PSCO within 60 seconds (1 minute) of receipt. The PSCO shall keep the reporting party on the line in circumstances where officer safety is a concern or when doing so may assist the officer in apprehending the suspect(s). PRIORITY 1A CALLS: Involve circumstances that pose, or did pose in the immediate past, a clearly defined threat to human life or property. These calls shall be entered by the PSCO within 60 seconds (1 minute) of receipt. The PSCO shall keep the reporting . party on the line in circumstances where officer safety is a concern or when doing so may assist the officer in apprehending the suspect(s). PRIORITY 2 CALLS: Involve circumstances of an urgent but not life threatening nature. They are generally disturbances with a potential for violence, minor assaults and batteries, unknown or suspicious circumstances, and certain thefts. These calls shall be entered within 120 seconds (2 minutes) of receipt by the PSCO. PRIORITY 3 CALLS: Involve circumstances which are neither urgent nor life threatening. Many of these calls are simple disturbances of the peace. July 2, 2012 A Product of Central Crime Analysis Page 2 of 5 Southwest Station Average Response Times and Calls for Service Total Yearly Average February March April May June Jurisdiction Type 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 Average Response 4.60 5.77 5.81 5.44 4.75 5.75 4.66 5.41 5.10 5.52 5.31 5.39 5.71 Priority 1 Calls for Service 40 48 51 55 57 54 58 63 49 45 628 602 314 Average Response 11.10 12.86 11.16 10.91 10.86 12.47 11.36 12.74 11.76 12.05 11.25 11.73 11.94 Priority Z Calls for Service 894 883 1,040 977 900 938 1,017 1,050 1,039 1,054 12,222 11,804 5,807 Temecula Average Response 20.68 23.08 23.50 21.84 23.32 23.60 23.11 25.17 24.05 23.41 1 21.46 23.12 23.28 Police Dept Priority 3 Calls for Service 783 765 866 1,067 921 1,010 893 1,228 936 1.362 10,843 10,597 6,242 Average Response 30.73 35.85 31.21 31.64 32.37 37.01 34.92 37.31 31.80 32.47 31.88 33.62 34.50 Priority 4 Calls for Service 524 486 595 549 591 607 634 692 768 760 7,831 7,628 3,633 Pri. 1.4 Total Average Response 18.92 21.41 19.91 19.50 20.51 22.35 20.98 23.23 21.28 21.58 19.77 21.00 21.37 Pri. 1-4 Total Calls for Service 2,241 2,182 2,552 2,648 2,469 2,609 2,602 3,033 2,792 3,221 31,524 30,631 15,996 YTD total Average Total Calls for Service Temecula Police Dept. Average Response Times Temecula Police Dept. February to June February to June 1400 40 1200 35 d .01000 30 25 800 p CL 20 N d 600 U 15 ea O 400 - - Q 10 2 - - 5 0 0 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun ■ Priority 1 Priority 2 ■ Priority 3 ■ Priority 4 ■ Priority 1 ■ Priority 2 ■ Priority 3 ■ Priority 4 July 2, 2012 A Product of Central Crime Analysis Page 3 of 5 Southwest Station Average Response Times and Calls for Service Total Yearly Average February March April May June Jurisdiction Type 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012* Average Response 7.91 9.45 9.46 9.12 6.76 12.81 8.30 12.23 10.23 9.80 7.90 7.94 11.21 Priority 1 Calls for Service 16 24 14 16 20 20 14 14 14 22 169 180 112 Average Response 14.12 14.95 15.34 15.78 13.39 17.92 14.67 18.77 15.82 18.84 16.39 15.38 17.01 Priority 2 Calls for Service 256 268 308 312 275 288 317 308 351 329 3,764 3,715 1,829 Southwest Average Response 23.91 35.74 22.47 28.95 24.47 31.22 27.59 33.14 26.84 29.19 26.83 25.31 30.78 Unincorp. Priority 3 Calls for Service 256 259 274 281 289 282 295 335 299 329 3,344 3,386 1,770 Average Response 26.88 47.10 26.34 39.50 29.43 44.08 35.29 42.60 30.59 40.71 32.85 29.76 40.28 Priority 4 Calls for Service 113 134 167 187 173 176 192 183 265 203 2,174 2,122 1,059 Pri. 1-4 Total Average Response 20.12 28.91 20.20 25.87 21.11 28.69 24.06 29.58 23.49 27.50 23.72 22.06 27.15 Pri. 1-4 Total Calls for Service 641 685 763 796 757 766 818 840 929 883 9,451 9,403 4,770 YTD total Average Total Calls for Service Southwest Unincorp. Average Response Times Southwest Unincorp. February to June February to June 400 50 350 y 40 d 300 E H it 0 250 a 30 ` O CL w 200 U 150 - 20 R 100 > a 10 50 - - - 0 0 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun ■ Priority 1 Priority 2 ■ Priority 3 ■ Priority 4 ■ Priority 1 Priority 2 ■ Priority 3 ■ Priority 4 July 2, 2012 A Product of Central Crime Analysis Page 4 of 5 Southwest Station Average Response Times and Calls for Service Total Yearly Average . 1 Priority 1 Average Response 5.54 7.00 6.60 6.27 5.27 7.66 5.37 6.65 6.24 6.92 5.86 5.98 7.16 ' Calls for Service 56 72 65 71 77 74 72 77 63 67 797 782 426 Average Response 11.78 13.34 12.11 12.09 11.45 13.75 12.15 14.11 12.79 13.66 12.46 12.60 13.15 Priority 2 Calls for Service 1.150 1,151 1,348 1,289 1,175 1,226 1,334 1,358 1,390 1.383 15,986 15,519 7,636 • Priority 3 Average Response 21.48 26.28 23.25 23.32 23.60 25.26 24.22 26.87 24.73 24.54 22.73 23.65 ;4,692 4.93 Calls for Service 1.039 1,024 1,140 1,348 1.210 1,292 1.188 1,563 1,235 1.691 14,187 13,983 ,012 Average Response 30.05 38.28 30.14 33.64 31.70 38.60 35.00 34.21 31.49 34.21 32.09 32.78 5.81 Priority 4 Calls for Service 637 620 762 736 764 783 826 963 1,033 963 10,005 9,750 `YTD total Average Total Calls for Service Southwest Station Average Response Times Southwest Station February to June February to June 1800 ao -- 1600 35 1400 Q E 30 1200 i. W H 25 1000 O „ 0 N a 20 800 e6 � U m 15 600 - - 400 > 10 Q - I 200 - 5 i 0 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 0 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Feb Feb Mar Mar A Apr May May J un Jun ■ Priority 1 ■ Priority 2 ■ Priority 3 ■ Priority 4 ■ Priority 1 ! Priority 2 ■ Priority 3 =9 Priority 4 July 2, 2012 A Product of Central Crime Analysis Page 5 of 5 Commission Members July 10, 2012 City of Temecula Public /Traffic Safety Commission 4100 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Ref: Public /Traffic Safety Commission Traffic Division Activities /Events Dear Commission Members; Below please find the Traffic Division activities for the month of June, 2012. These activities include the following: • Citation statistics (attachment) • Community Action Patrol supported call -outs: June 22, 2012, Rainbow Canyon Road (Major Injury Motorcycle Involved Collision) June 24, 2012, Rancho Cal x Moraga (Fatal Collision Scene) • Community Action Patrol activity/ patrol hours: 965 hours for June, 2012. Year -to -date total: 5,951 hours. "Included for June were 13 patrols with 20 CAP members participating" • Special Events for June, 2012: June 1 -3, 2012, Balloon and Wine Festival June 7, 2012, Chaparral High School Graduation June 26, 2012, Moreno Valley to Perris - Moving black and white patrol vehicles • Radar Trailer Deployments: June 6 —June 13, 2012, Nighthawk Pass at Channel Street — 3,874 vehicles June 6 —June 13, 2012, Regina Drive at Valentino Way — 3,649 vehicles June 18 —June 20, 2012, Riverton Avenue north of Calle Medusa —1,076 vehicles June 18 —June 20, 2012, Nicolas Road east of Alexandria — 10,247 vehicles June 25 — June 27, 2012, Rancho California west Promenade Chard Hills — 15,350 vehicles June 25 — June 27, 2012, La Serena north of Temeku — 10,058 vehicles If you have any questions regarding this package, please do not hesitate to call me at the Temecula Police Department — (951)696 -3072. Sincerely, Sergeant Mark Leggett Temecula Police Department Traffic Division CITATION STATS JUNE 2012 Citations Totals Total Hazardous Citations 928 Total Non - Hazardous Citations 402 Parking Citations 152 Total Citations 1482 Citation Breakdown S. L.A. P. 78 N.E.T. Citations 92 School Zones 34 Seatbelt Citations 51 Community Presentations 0 Traffic Collisions Non -Injury 22 Hit and Run 11 Injury 26 Fatal 1 Total 60 Note: Collision stats are only those calls for service resulting in a written Police report. D.U.1. Arrests D.U. I. Arrests 32 Cell Phone Cites Total cell phone cites (23123 & 23124 CVC) 159 Grant Funded DUI Checkpoints / Click it or Ticket Operations: None During June FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT Response Activity Incidents Reported for the month of ]une,2012 and TEMECULA City ■ Medical 401 72.3% Traffic Collision 51 9.2°x6 ■ False Alarm 37 6.7% a Public SeNce Assist 35 6.3°x6 ■ Standby 12 2.2% Other Fire 7 1.3% ■ Vehicle Fire 4 0.7% Wildland Fire 4 0.7% ■ Haz Mat 1 0.2°x6 Other Misc 1 0.2% ■ Res Fire 1 0.2% Rescue 1 0.2% Total: 555 100.0% False Alarm 37 Haz Mat 1 Medical 401 Other Fire 7 Other Misc 1 Public Service Assist 35 Res Fire 1 Rescue 1 Standby 12 Traffic Collision 51 Vehicle Fire 4 Wildland Fire 4 Incident Total: 555 Response Time* <5 Minutes +5 Minutes +10 Minutes +20 Minutes Average % 0 to 5 min 426 74 6 0 3.7 84.2% 'Excludes non emergency response times Page 2 of 5 Incidents by Battalion, Station and Jurisdiction False Haz Mat Medical Other Fire Other Public Res Fire Rescue Standby Traffic Vehioe Wildland Alarm Misc Service Collision Fire Fire 12 City of Temecula 12 0 62 2 1 6 0 0 1 20 1 1 anwcule Station Total 12 0 62 2 1 6 0 0 1 20 1 1 Station 73 Rancho City of Temecula 14 1 129 3 0 12 0 1 1 16 2 1 : r CalNomfa Station Total 14 1 129 3 0 12 0 1 1 16 2 1 Station 93 French City of Temecula 0 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Vallay Station Total 0 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 i4 City of Temecula 0 0 121 1 0 12 0 0 6 8 1 2 Station Total 0 0 121 1 0 12 0 0 6 6 1 2 Station 92 Wolf City of Temecula 11 0 83 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 0 0' Crank Station ToW 11 0 93 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 r Pape 3 of 5 i Incidents by Jurisdiction False Haz Mat Medical Other Fire Other Misc Public Res Fire Rescue Standby Traffic Vehicle Wlldland Narrn Service Collision Fire Fire ity of Temecula 37 1 401 7 1 35 1 1 12 51 4 4 Grand Total 37 ' Y_ Page 4 of 5 Incidents by Supervisorial District - Summary DISTRICT 1 BOB DISTRICT 3 JEFF BUSTER STONE False Alarm 0 37 Haz Mat 0 1 Medical 1 400 Other Fire 0 7 Other Misc 0 1 Public Service Assist 0 35 Res Fire 0 1 Rescue 0 1 Standby 0 12 Traffic Collision 0 51 Vehicle Fire 0 4 Wildland Fire 0 4 . r Page 5 of 5 2011 CITY OF TEMECULA EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND TRAINING REPORT PUBLIC SAFETY CLASS TOTALS 2012 Class Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total CPR/AED w ._ ... 56- _ _. :18 _. -. :� q _ 30. 17 . < .. _ 150 _'.. FIRST AID 36 37 27 9 109 "`.'-- .- .s.. -:'.. se..:� e* -.„: f : ,� • 'r �.a ��, *. ``S > r .+t L F '" , � , y a; y ,, '` �, e' SCHOOL CPR 42 36 78 AI SGHOOL.FIRST D ; v _x. 1a:. STAFF HCP 19 8 10 37 i T i 6" .16.' "�12 ems._ _43... CERT 40 40 90� �,67_;_ w 26 '0 $ a 0 ,. _ k. 0_ 0 INCIDENT /RESPONSE TOTALS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA 2012 Incident Response Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total False Alarm 68 58 61 46 57 37 327 ns 8 x Hazardous "Matenal .. _. �_! ._ _,._'r . • 'V_ — Medical 436 377 447 378 453 401 2492 ' k i 2 MulFamil Other Fire 4 1 5 2 2 7 21 PSA 35 42 23 19 31 35 185 Resid ntiaLFire�� x13 � `1 �1 _2, ti 1._. �•ixx d a9 7_,i_ Rescue 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 Traffic Collision 66 44 79 58 69 51 367 4 _13, 4 , Vehicle Fire 4 z.a < _2. ,, 14' _ >r5= Wildland Fire 0 0 0 =1 0 4 5 Totaf w �z w626: X533 _-, 625. �_ 51.7".x,' 620