HomeMy WebLinkAbout112890 TTC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
AGENDA
TEMECULA TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TO BE HELD AT
TEMECULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
31350 RANCHO VISTA ROAD
NOVEMBER 28, 1990 - 7:00 PM
COMMISSIONERS: Goldnick, Guerriero, Johnson
Roberts, Sanders
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. speakers are limited to two
(2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a pink 'IRequest to Spesk" 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 Spesk" form must be filed with the
Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. there is a five (5),
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
Recommendation:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of October 2q, 1990.
Resolution No. 90-01 Establishing the date, time, and location of commission
meetings.
Recommendation:
2.1 Consider the request of Commissioner Sander to select a different day for
for meeting days.
3. Procedure for Public Hearings
Procedure for Public Hearings Presentation by John Cavanaugh, Deputy City
Attorney.
Speed Humps
Recommendation:
4.1 Receive and File Staff Report.
6.
7.
8.
Speed Zone Presentation by Mark Greenwood
City Engineer Reports
City Attorney Reports
Commission Reports
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: December 20, 1990 7:00 P.M., Temecula Unified School
District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
MC\lb
docs\forms\T R - 11-28
ITEM NO.
1
MJNUTES ()F A )41.:(IUI,AR MEETJNG
OF THE (;PRY OF TRMECUf,A
'PR~F~'I(: SAFETY (:OMM] SS ION
HEr,l) OCT()~E~ ')4. ~990
ARS~:N'I': 0 COMMESS[ONERS: Nnne
I)enutv Cltv Attorney ,inbn Cavanallah and (tail Zlcller, MiDHIe Clerk(.
PilBf, IC C,()MMRNq'
Mayor Prn-'rem~ requested that the Cnmmjs.~inn take :item No. 5 out of
order and annDt the remn[utl, on tn e~tabLi, sh time and place o{ the
me~tlnas tar the 'Prattjc SateLy Cnn~nl ssi nn.
COM,M I~I'ON MER~TN(I~
5.{ Ann~t a r~nlutinn entitled:
RESOhI1TION NO, TS 90-O:1
A ~.ESOT,IIq'[ON OF THE PURL[C TRAFFIC COMMISSION OF ~H~: CITY
()F 'W'l, IMJ~f;ImI,A I)E,qlGNA'PING TIME AND PLACE OF MONTHLY COMMISSION
MEET I' NGS.
M~nute Clerk Gaij ?,.3cller read
After discussion, the Comml.~i. nn de~ided the
of each month as their renlllar meetln~ date,
desiqnated at a Later date.
third Wednesday
the D.lace tn De
COMMfSSIONER JOMNSON moved to adopt Re,~n.lutlon No. T.q 90-03
and e~tabl i,~h the third Wednesday a,~ thel. r reqlli ar m~etlncl
date. C()MMI,qSIONF. R {~()I)NICM ~econded the motion and was
c~rrl Pd Itn~ni. moll~ i V,
TSMINIO/24/90 -1- 10/28/90
]0/24/90
Mayor Pro--'Pems ],jndemans opened nominations for the
Dositlon Of Chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission for
COMMISSIONER C. UERRIERO moved to nominate Knox Johnson as
Chairman, seconded by COMMISSEONER gANDF.R.
COMM] SS] ONF. RS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
FJ,F.C~'ION OP VIC~ CH~IRNAN
Godnit){, Guerriero,
Johnson, Roberrs, gander
Hayor Pro-Toms Y,jndemans opended nominations for the
PoSition nf Vice--Chairman of the Traffj. c Safety Commfssion
for a one year term.
COMMISS]ONF. R JOHNSON moved to nominate Ron Guerrjero as
Vice-Chairman, seconded bV COMMISSIONER GODNICK.
5 COMMISSIONF.RS:
Godnick, Guerrjero,
Johnson, Roberts, Sander
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
COMM]SS]ONER ' ,q 'P~:RMS OF OFFICE
MaYor Pro-Toms IdndemaDs asked eacD Commissioner to draw
a term of office from prepared lots, Commissioner Sander
drew a three-year term, Commissioners Godn~ck and Roberrs
drew two-Year terms and Commissioners Guerriero and
Johnson drew one-vear terms.
4. GAVEL PRESENTATIOM
4.3
MaVor Pro-Tems ],jndemans then presented Chairman Johnson
with an engraved oave[, declared him duly e[ected and
turned the meefino over to him.
TSMINI0/24/90 -2- 10128/90
'PRAFt~']C SAFETY COBMISS]ON M]NUT~:S
]0/24/90
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved to ta~e Item 9 out of order due to the
number o~ DoODle at the meetinq that wanted to addren~ this item,
~coD~e~ ~v COMMJSSIONER SANDE~ ~nd carried as
AYES: 5 COMMISS[ONE8S: Godni. c~, Guerr]ero,
Johnson, Roberrs, SaDder
NOES: 0 COMMCSS[ONERS: None
9. I
T~m Setlet oresopted tbP Commission with ~ Traffic
lnv~nt~.~ation/Studv staf~ was I. ookin~ at ~or al. ternat~v~
The tol{owinQ i. ndividuaks expressed their concern for the
~r~fjc problems On caJ]e Medusa and h~ob)v ODDOSed the
closing of one ~nd of Cairo Medusa m~king it a cut-de-sac:
gate) I,~ndemans - 42740 I.as Vio)etas, Temecu3a
Paul Val. encia - 4041.7 Yardtev Court, Temecuta
Ken ),]ndsav - 3]082 Riverton I,ane, '.Pemecu)a
eo~rt Kniqht - 40409 Yardtoy Court, Tometufa
RoD~rt Smjtb 40435 Cb~IIDCeY Way, Temeeu] a
Dennis Green 30378 Deer Meadow Road, Temecul. a
Miteheft Rosen 40412 Chauncey Wav, Temecu[a
Frank Grant - 404~9 Yard]ev Court. Temecu]a
Scott TlnQlev - 3],378 Ashmill Court, Temecu[a
i,~DOa Ashcraft 40397 Ca]]e Medusa, Temecu]a
[~.s Wil. lev - 30932 Wel.].inQton Circl. e, Temecula
Edward Doran 39985 Stamos, Temecu]a
Karen Hec~endor[ 31].06 Riverton Lane, Temecula
C.S. R]dd~ck 30945 WellinGton C~rc]e, Temecu]a
GarV ~]anchette - 40~],~ Vidette Circt. e, Temecu]a
M~n~v Movers 40~9] C~lJe Medulla, Temecu)a
Marie R~chardnon - 40493 Yardtev Cou~t, Temecu[a
Ed Burke - 30944 Wellinqton Circle. Temecu]a
Vic deforest 39675 Cont~e[[ Road, Temecula
Carr~e Parent - 30979 We]]inQton Circ]e. Temecu)a
James L. Hess - 400],2 Ambeviev Circle, Temecuta
Martv Derk 39750 Amber]ev C~rc]e, Temecul~
Frank GeVer - 40466 Chauncev Wav, TemecuIa
J~m M~])er - 39355 Pourrov, Temecu]a
TSMIN10/24/90 -3- 10/28/90
't'RAFF~C S~TY C(~M~fSS]ON
]0/24/90
'Pracev Rorrnel 40,%(~4 YardJev Court, T~mecu:la
f,orefta Gonzal. es - 40451 Y~rd t~v Court, Temecul. a
Dor~ l,j 4(1454 Y~r~leV Cnllrt, Temecuje
COMMISS[ONF, R JOHNSON advl,~ed the audience member.~ that
the Commission wol]ld not be vot]ncl On anvth~n~ at this
t~m~ however, there wnutd h~ nuhl i. c noti. c~ of the hear~nq
~or action on this ~t~m nv t~e Commission.
COMMISSrONER JOHNSON dec[ared a five minute recess at 8:10 PM. The
meet~Do reCopvened at H~I5 PM.
6. BR(~N ACT
DePutY City Attorney ,lo}~n c~avanauob Presented the Brown
Act to the comml,~sion.
7. ;{
Tim Ser]et presented the Commjss3oners with a book]et
from the Automobil. e Association exD[ai. nino California
Ve~]c]e Code ~nd laws for settiD~ speed ~oDes. He
requested the Commission to read the handout and
to addre5~ any crue.~tlons to the Enc~ineerjn~ Department.
8. VEHICf,E AND TRAFFIC ORDINANCES
Tim Setlet presented the Commissi, oners with the drafted
Dar~]no add traffic ordinance for the City prepared bV
the Poli. ce Department and the Enqineeri. nq Department.
Me a~ked the Commission to review the ordinance and br~nQ
back tn the next meetinq any o{ their concerns so that
they may be incorporated in the ord)nance before it ~s
presented to the City Council.
FUTURE AGENDA ITFJ4S
TIM SRRI,ET questioned the Commission as to what type of
items they would like addressed on future aqendas.
The Commission had the fo]]owino ideas and discussions:
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS asked about the development of a
qenera] traffic plan. TIM SERLET responded that the
TSMIN10/24/90 -4- 10/28/90
'PRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTZR,q
]0/24/90
City has petitionact for a clenera,i D~an consuJtant and
that would enenmnass traffic ci. rcul. ati on. TIM SERLET
statec~ that he wnuj~ brina the Commission
o~ the ~Anera]. D[~n ~ we[% as what it will cnve~ in
r~ards to ~rat~]c c~r~ulatjon.
COMMISSIONER SANDER reco~n~ended that staff provide
~tn~e~ don~ hv other organizations on traffic
~rcul. ation. COMMISSIONER SANDER al.~n egprA~ed
as we[[ a~ i. nt~rsection aPPrOaCh siQns. TIM SR~[,ET
county nffici. al.s.
COMMISSIONER jI()HNSON directed staff to ]nok into the
cost of a study and what staff couJd PrePare relating
[nn~ the study would take and what the benefits would
be.
COMMiSSJONRR GIJERRIERO brought attention to the hazard
on westbound Rancho California at Motago. He stated
there js no sians ind]catjna that the Jane ends.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON expressed the same concern for
Dorthbol]nd YDeZ at SoJano.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON advised staff that the City had
set aside $?00,000 to be used for hjab-pr~orjty traffic
.Drob],ems. He directed staff to look into utilizing any
rema]n]n(~ fllnds for correctjn~ an~ traffic problems.
· COMMISSIONER ROBERTS ~uestioned the status of the
~rjvewav ~D the Tower P,laza at North County Bank. TIM
SERLET stated that the county was involved in this
pro~)em add the ]aDd owner did DOt want to participate
in the placement of traffic signals however, the city
i~ ne~otiat~n~ with Bedford Properties to ~nstaj] the
signals under a reimbursement agreement. COMMISSIONER
GODNICK suggested that the city close down the driveway
which is providing a traffic hazard.
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS requested that staff provide the
Commission with a update of thls si. tutation and to al. so
]OO~ at iDstaJJin~[ a ]eft tllrn DOCket at the Northern
dri. v~wav of the Target center.
TSMIN10/24/90 -5- 10/28/90
)0124190
zone study. He al~o a~ked each (7ommi. ssloner to make a
Ij~t Of th~ streets they t~el Dealt to h~ Surv~ved as We~i
AI),II)IINNMWN'I'
C()MMI,q.q:ION.:N N(~B~:)~'f'S mnve~ to a~tqourr~ at 9:50 PM, Seconded hv
C(~MM [ SS I ONE~ GOI)N [CK and c~rrl ed llnanl. mn~ls I v .
'rh~ ne~t reelsliar me~t~na of tn~ ']'emecl]la 'l'r~'~r]c ~qat~tv
wl it b~ held Wednesday, November '~l, 1990 at '/:0O ~M at the Un~ied
KNOX 0OHNSON, CHAIRMAN
'PSM]NI0/?4tg0 -6- 10/28/90
ITEM NO. 2
RESOLUTION TC NO. 90-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
SETTING THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETINGS.
The Traffic Commission of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and
order as follows:
WHEREAS, The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-02, establishing the
Temecula Municipal Code on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 90-05, Section 13.01.020, requires the Traffic
Commission to establish a schedule of time and place for meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION of the
City of Temecula;
Section 1. That the Temecula Traffic Commission will meet regularly on
the 3rd Wednesday of each month. Regular meetings shall commence at 7:00 pm
and adjourn at 10:00 pm, subject to an adopted motion to extend the meeting.
Section 2. Regular meetings will be held at the Temecula Unified School
District at 31350 Rancho Vista P, oad, Temecula. If a regular meeting falls on
a holiday, the regular meeting shall be held on the next business day. (Cov.
Code Section 36808. )
Section 3. The Traffic Commission may, by resolution, designate
another date, time and location for a meeting.
Section ~,. The City Clerk shall verify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2u, th day of October, 1990.
ATTEST:
Chairman
Tim D. Setlet, Secretary
TRAFFIC\RES90.01
ITEM NO. 4
CITY OF T~ECULA
AGENDA PaPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Traffic Commission
Tim D. Serlet, City Engineer
November 28, 1990
Report on Speed Humps
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Mark Greenwood
The Engineering Department recommends that speed
humps not be installed on public streets within the City.
BACKGROUND:
In response to a request by the Traffic Commission, the
Engineering Department has investigated speed humps as
a traffic control device on public residential streets.
All official traffic control devices are regulated by the California Traffic Control
Devices Committee through the California Department of Transportation ( CalTrans ).
Although speed humps are not specifically identified as an official traffic control
device by CalTrans, they are used to influence or control the route and speed of
vehicles, therefore, they function as a traffic control device and should be
considered as such. While speed humps are, by their function, a traffic control
device, they have not been approved for use by the California Traffic Control
Devices Committee. Installation of speed humps could put the City in the difficult
position of installing unapproved devices, which may violate the regulations of the
Vehicle Code.
Studies, reports, and policies from the cities of Thousand Oaks, Pasadena, and San
Jose were reviewed for this report.
The City of Thousand Oaks published a report of their experience with speed humps
in September, 1982. While they found that reduction in speeds could be facilitated
by speed humps, a variety of negative side effects were identified, including the
fol Iowincj:
Vehicle undercarriage and trailer hitch bottoming on the speed hump,
damaging the hump or vehicle.
There is a tendency for light-weight stiffly sprung vehicles, such as
mini-trucks, to become airborne at or slightly above the 25 MPH speed
limit, which obviously could cause the driver to lose control of the
vehicle.
STAFFRPT\TRFC - 001 1
Acceleration and deceleration due to the speed humps can create a
substantial speed variance among the vehicles on the street. Excessive
speed variance can cause an increase in collision occurrence.
Response time for emergency vehicles, especially fire trucks and
ambulances, could be slowed down by as much as ~,0%. In Thousand
Oaks, the "best case" for emergency vehicles was 30% slower response
time.
A tendency of speed humps to upset motorcycles and bicycles.
especially when located on curvelinear roads.
Traffic Engineers from various jurisdictions were consulted for their experiences
and opinions. The Traffic Engineers disclosed these past experiences:
After speed humps are installed, complaints from residents and
motorists can be expected. The complaints may include the following:
a) Excessive noise and fumes
b) Damaged vehicles and loads
c) Daredevils intentionally using speed humps as "jumps"
d) Increased travel time.
After speed bumps are installed at a location, several additional
requests or demands will probably be received for nearby locations.
If the speed humps are successful in reducing traffic volumes and
speed, requests to remove the speed humps may arise.
Battalion Chief Mark Brodowski, of the City Fire Department, was contacted for a
preliminary opinion regarding the installation of speed humps. Chief Brodowski
indicated that the Fire Department would oppose the installation of speed humps due
to increased response time and wear and tear on emergency vehicles.
The City of Thousand Oaks reported that the shape, height, and spacing of the
speed humps were of great importance. In order to maintain an acceptable level of
quality control, a group of ternplates had to be made to use as a screed. The asphalt
concrete had to be laid in multiple lifts { layers ) and a survey crew followed to assure
that the desired height and shape were achieved. Advance signs and pavement
markings were then installed and the speed hump was striped to increase its visual
impact to the driver. This intensive method of construction results in a cost that
may be greater than anticipated. A cost estimate for construction and maintenance
of speed humps follows:
I nstal latlon:
Design $ 100.00
Survey 150.00
Speed Hump Construction 1,000.00
Signing and Striping 500.00
TOTAL $1,750.00
( each )
STAFFRPT\TRFC-001 2
Maintenance: ( yearly )
Asphalt Concrete Pavement
Signing and Striping
TOTAL
$ 100.00
200.00
$ 300.00 (each)
For a typical 1/4 mile long residential street, this equates to approximately $7,000
for installation and $1,200 per year for maintenance.
CONCLUSION:
Although speed humps seem attractive for controlling
speeds on residential streets, it is recommended that they
not be installed for the following reasons:
1. Increased response time for emergency
vehicles.
Possible loss of control of vehicle if any
unwary or daredevil motorist traverses the
speed hump too quickly.
3. Additional maintenance cost.
TDS:ks
STAFFRPT\TRFC7 0 0 1 3