HomeMy WebLinkAbout092597 PTS AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
the office of the City Clerk at (909) 694-6444. Noti~eatinn 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR35. 102.35. 104 ADA Title II]
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
AGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
TO BE HELD AT
CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California
Thursday, September 25, 1997 - 7:00 PM
COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not
listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with
the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the
Commission gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one
roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of August 28. 1997
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of August 28, 1997
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Pedestrian Crossing - Winchester Road at Nicolas Road
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a video tope of pedestrian activity at the
intersection of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road.
3. Traffic Signal Installation - Pala Road at Pechaqga Casino Main Entrance
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and recommend that a traffic signal be
installed on Pala Road at the main entrance to the Pechanga Casino.
4. Request for Installation of a Traffic Signal - Nicolas Road at North General Kearny
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny the request for installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road.
5. Proposed Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the median openings at the Claim
Jumper driveway and Target driveway be closed and the striping and signal timing at Town
Center/Hope Way be modified to increase capacity at this intersection.
6. Traffic Engineer's Report
7. Police Chief's Report
8. Fire Chief's Report
9. Commission Report
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
October 23, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
ITEM NO. I
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
AUGUST 28, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order
on Thursday, August 28, 1997, 7:00 P.M., at the City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Markham called the meeting to order.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Public Works Associate Engineer All Moghadam, Assistant Engineer Hasib
Baha, Police Sergeant Rodney Crisp, Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle, and Minute Clerk Pat
Kelley.
Commissioner Telesio led the flag salute.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Markham called for public comments on non-agenda items.
Ron Guerriero, 41510 Chenin Blanc, asked the Commission to recommend to the City Council
installation of a traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway be revisited as
traffic and speeds are increasing.
Associate Engineer All Moghadam reported a signal is under design and should be in operation
by Summer 1998.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1, Minutes of A~ril 24, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to approve
the minutes of April 24, 1997.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Telesio
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Minutes of June 26, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to approve the
minutes of June 26, 1997.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Telesio, Markham
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lvndie Lane
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Perry asked about the distance between the Town Center and the Target
Center entrances. Mr. Moghadam replied it was 200 feet intersection to intersection.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there were sensors for traffic build-up at the Town
Center entrance. Mr. Moghadam stated sensors have been installed at that location.
Commissioner Coe inquired into the possibility of two (2) left-turn lanes into the
shopping center at the Town Center intersection. Mr. Moghadam stated two (2) left-
turn lanes would require major re-striping and reconstruction and since there is not much
demand, it does not appear the cost is justified. He also stated that the existing left-
turn pocket could be extended to allow for additional left-turn storage.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the right-turn-only lane on Rancho California Road
could be eliminated with proposed median closures. Mr. Moghadam replied it is
proposed to be eliminated, which should improve Rancho California Road traffic as right-
turn and through traffic would utilize the same lane.
Commissioner Telesio noted the Ynez Road entrances are under utilized and could pick
up a large portion of the Center"s traffic. He mentioned Via Las Colinas provided good
access to the northern part of the Center.
Mr. Moghadam read into the record a letter from the manager of the Temecula Gardens
Apartment complex supporting closure of the median at the Target Center driveway
even though it is their exit intersection.
Ron Guerriero, 41510 Chenin Blanc, stated his support for closing the left-in and left-
out movements at the Target Center and Claim Jumper driveways. He suggested
extending the left-turn bay at the Town Center entrance and to re-phase the signals due
to the tremendous increase in Rancho California Road traffic in the last five (5) years,
plus the high number of accidents. Mr. Guerriero also suggested establishing left-turn
arrows on Ynez Road for traffic exiting Tower Plaza and the Town Center.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Nancy Bane, Director of Retail Properties, Radnor California Service Corporation, 27450
Ynez Road, Suite 314, stated she would like to work with staff and share the findings
of the Center's traffic engineer to develop solutions that consider economic impact as
well as safety. She stated new businesses, Oscar's, Texaco, etc, also contribute to the
Rancho California Road traffic problems and should be studied. Ms. Bane suggested
possible solutions were: widening of Rancho California Road; an additional signal, at the
Target Center entrance; deceleration lanes into the Center; and restriction of left-turn-
out movements from Target Center and Claim Jumper driveways.
Jose Covarrubias, 29370 Rancho California Road, General Manager, Claim Jumper
Restaurant, stated he has never had a problem making a left-turn movement into the
Claim Jumper driveway in his five (5) years of employment and statistics show only one
(1) left-turn-in accident has occurred. He believes eliminating the left-turn-in movements
will increase the existing traffic jam because motorists will have to use the already
congested Rancho California Road/Ynez Road intersection, or the Town Center entrance.
Mr. Covarrubias supported eliminating the left-turn-out movement out of the Claim
Jumper driveway.
Commissioner Coe reiterated the proposal is to have a deep pocket left-turn at Town
Center which makes entering the Center safer; and if the Center re-stripes, customers
can access the stores easier.
Larry Bill, 16721 Millikan Avenue, Irvine, Director of Customer and Community
Relations, Claim Jumper Restaurants, stated his opposition to the closure of the median
break, because the majority of his customers are traveling eastbound. He does not
believe the impact on traffic by new area businesses has been sufficiently studied. Mr.
Bill agreed with the recommendation for dual left-turn lanes at Town Center, and for
right-turn only movements out of the Claim Jumper driveway.
Robert Katan, 29676 Rancho California Road, representing Target Stores, expressed his
opposition to the closure of the median at the Target Center entrance as it is one of the
Center"s most popular entrances, the signal should be located at the Target Center
entrance rather than Via Las Colinas, which leads to a back parking lot of Target Center.
He mentioned the distance between signals on Ynez Road is also very short.
Chairman Markham stated the signal at Via Las Colinas has been approved by the City
Council and there are five (5) or six (6) office buildings utilizing Via Las Colinas.
Commissioner Johnson commented that one of Temecula's major medical buildings also
utilizes the Via Las Colinas access.
Bob Davis, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Wilbur Smith Associates, and technical
consultant for the Town Center, presented the findings of his traffic analysis of the
proposed median closures. His traffic counts were done over three (3) days with 24-
hour counts, including Saturday mid-day, one of the busiest times for the Center. He
found the Town Center access had the heaviest usage, while Via Las Colinas was
generally used by employees and trucks, and is the narrowest of the driveways. He
stated aisle orientation and close spacing create congestion at the Town Center
entrance and as most of the traffic is left-in and left-out movements, the intersection
would operate at Service Level D, and possibly Level E during the heaviest usage,
without modification. He stated the problem with focusing all left-turns in at Town
Center and lengthening the left-turn lane, is if there are no opposing left-turns, the left-
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
turns and the easterly-through traffic move at the same time. If there is a need to
accommodate more left -turns, the westbound through-traffic would have less time.
Mr. Davis listed a number of possible alternatives:
1) Left-turns-in at the Claim Jumper Entrance Left-turns out are a problem and could
be accommodated at the main signalized intersection.
2) Signalizing Target Center Intersection in Lieu of Via Las Colinas He said the signal
warrants need more review because with a signal at Target Center, traffic within the
Center would redistribute and there would be a better balance of left-turn movements
which would improve the existing signalized intersection. Mr. Davis noted it is not
unusual to have signals at intersections 300 feet apart and if signals are interconnected
with similar phasing and timing, traffic demands would look very similar.
3) Pedestrian Crossing at Existing Town Center signal Pedestrians crossing the street
get 10 seconds and according to the Highway Capacity Analysis, it should be 20
seconds. Pedestrians are moving across the intersection at the same time traffic is
coming out of the Hope Way driveway. Since there are many times during the day with
no traffic demand at that driveway, except for pedestrians, Mr. Davis suggested moving
the pedestrian crossing to the westside of the signal so pedestrians can cross while
traffic is exiting the Center, and to allow at least 20 seconds, He noted that a
signalized Target Center would be a better pedestrian crossing location.
4) Corncarlson of Volumes between Via Las Colinas and Target Center Weekday
volumes are comparable or higher at Target Center. Weekend volumes are higher at
Target Center.
5) Accident History Since Target Center has had more accidents than Via Las Colinas,
it warrants consideration for a signal.
6) Re-strioe the Exit out of the Center Two (2) outbound lanes stripped into the Center
to Rancho California Road would segregate traffic and increase outbound capacity
movement.
7) Adjust the Driveway Design i.e,, modify aisle to allow for a longer throat.
Mr. Davis stated if Target Center is signalized, the two entrances should operate at
Service Level B.
Commissioner Talesic asked if the Via Las Colinas signal is an absolute. Mr. Moghadam
replied it is the only access to the Medical Center and apartment complex and the City
Council has approved installation of the signal. He stated it is his opinion there is no
interconnect timing system that will let the two (2) signals operate efficiently together
since there are several other signals in the proximity of this location.
Mr. Davis commented both Oscar's and the Temecula Gardens contribute to the U-turn
movements at the Town Center intersection.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Commissioner Perry stated if both signals are linked and both have left-turn out
movements at the same time, there is no storage on Rancho California Road for waiting
vehicles. Mr. Davis suggested the left-turn out at Target Center start first, with Town
Center delayed slightly when Town Center traffic gets to Target Center, that signal will
be turning green for through movements.
Chairman Markham stated he would like modifications of the internal parking lot, i.e
longer stacking lanes to get in and out, and to eliminate crossing movements especially
at the Town Center entrance.
Mr. Moghadam noted the 300 foot spacing between the Town Center and Target Center
intersections is from center line to canter line and cars cannot be stacked at the center
of the intersection.
Chairman Markham stated it was his understanding that Radnor developed, sold the
parcels, and designed the Center, i.e., driveways and overall land use. Ms. Bane replied
it was a joint effort by the individual owners. Mobil, Target, Claim Jumper and
Albertsons had input into the approved plans as well as Radnor. Ms. Bane stated the
Wilbur Smith and Associates, narrative will be given to staff as soon as she receives
release approval from the corporate owners.
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to continue
this item to the September 25, 1997 meeting, to allow staff and Commissioners time
to review the Wilbur Smith and Associates report further on possible solutions, appoint
Commissioners Coe and Perry to an Ad Hoc Committee to work with Town Center and
Public Works staff, and to report back at the September meeting.
The motion was unanimously carried.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Installation of Painted School Crosswalk, Flashinq Beacons and Temoorarv Sidewalk -
Rancho Vista Road School Crossing
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Chairman Markham asked if Paseo Golita would meet warrants for a "Stop Sign". Mr.
Moghadam replied warrants consider volume and the number of accidents. He said the
numbers for Paseo Golita are not close enough to justify a "Stop Sign". However, since
warrants are only guideline, a "Stop Sign" could possibly be justified on a safety basis.
Chairman Markham stated children are going to cross at that location; a three-way stop
would help make a safer crossing. Mr. Moghadam noted students only cross twice-a-
day, while a "Stop Sign" would stop traffic 24-hours-a-day. Also, there could be rear-
end accidents, because a "Stop Sign" is not expected, and the location is at the crest
of a vertical curve.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Commissioner Johnson suggested the school district be asked to take another look at
a "Safe School Route" for that area.
Geneva Krag, 29917 Via Puesta del Sol, representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, stated counts of children crossing Rancho Vista Road at Camino Romo
were taken on several different occasions. She said a crosswalk gives children a false
sense of security. The school district could look into adding a crossing guards for next
year. She stated another location that may need a crossing guard is the middle of
Meadows Parkway where many children are crossing and going through the park to get
to school.
Sergeant Crisp stated a "Stop Sign" is a good idea at Paseo Golita; the problem with a
flashing amber light is sight distance.
Commissioner Telesio noted that there is not heavy traffic on Paseo Golita and therefore
a "Stop Sign" would not be a great inconvenience. He said he is uncomfortable with
a flashing beacon, a crosswalk, and not having a crossing guard, and strongly
encouraged the school district to fund a crossing guard for next year.
Mr. Guerriero brought up the possibility of using a Vehicle Code section which permits
the City to do a speed reduction in areas close to parks and schools. This has been
used for four-way "Stop Signs" at Rancho Vista Road and Meadows Parkway, at Pauba
Road and Meadows Parkway. Mr. Moghadam replied one criteria is the school must
front the street and Vintage Hills Elementary School does not front Rancho Vista Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to review the
issue in six (6) months and to obtain the School District's input.
The motion was unanimously carried.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. Request for "Stoo Sign" and "No Parking" Zone - Corte Mendoza at Camino Romo
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Tom Frederick, 31806 Corte Mendoza, chairman of the Neighborhood Crime Watch,
expressed support for a "Stop Sign" at Corte Mendoza and Camino Romo, and a "No
Parking" zone on Camino Romo, south of Corte Mendoza. He noted when an event is
held at the school, parking creates a sight distance problem and eliminates the use of
two (2) fire hydrants.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to
recommend the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a "Stop" location on Corte
Mendoza at Camino Romo and a "No Parking" zone on Camino Romo south of Corte
Mendoza.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
SDeed Limit - Various Locations
Coe, Johnson, Telesio, Markham
Perry
None
The motion was carried unanimously.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
None
None
Election of Public/Traffic Safety Commission Co-Chairoerson to Serve for the Remaining
1997 Calendar Year
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to nominate
Commissioner Telesio to serve as Co-Chairperson of the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission for the remainder of the 1997 calendar year.
The motion was unanimously carried.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Telesio
A~oint a Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner to the Joint Temecula/Murrieta
Transportation Committee
Commissioner Johnson volunteered to serve on the Joint Temecula/Murrieta
Transportation Committee and the Commission unanimously agreed.
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend
that the City Council adopt an ordinance establishing a speed limit on the following
roadways:
1. Pio Pico Road between De Portola Road and Margarita Road
2. Preece Lane south of Ynez Road
3. Del Rio Road between Front Street and Via Montezuma
4. Walcott Corridor between La Serena Way and Nicholas Road
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Mr. Moghadam indicated that two (2) new traffic signals have been added to the
1997/98 Citywide Traffic Installation List, Margarita Road at Yukon Road and at Pauba
Road near Fire Station 84.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the turning arrangements at the Winchester
Road/Jefferson Avenue intersection. Mr. Moghadam replied the turning arrangements
will be part of the Jefferson Avenue Corridor Study and major re-striping will be
required. He stated he is trying to get approval to hire a consultant to do the study.
Commissioner Perry asked if it would be worthwhile to have a hearing, sponsored by the
Commission after the consultant has been hired, to listen to the concerns of businesses.
It was agreed by the Commission to have a meeting between the consultant and
business owners.
Commissioner Johnson recommended Commissioners Perry and Talesic be named to an
Ad Hoc Committee to work with the consultant. The Commission unanimously agreed.
Chairman Markham clarified the signal at Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle East is
the westerly most intersection before the creek.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Commissioner Johnson complimented the Police Department on their traffic control at
the July 4 fireworks event.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No report was given,
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Perry mentioned the unloading of cars in the median of Ynez Road is
continuing. He suggested meeting with the auto dealers to participate in a concerted
effort to eliminate the problem rather than having the police write tickets. Chairman
Markham asked staff to draft a letter to the Auto Dealers Association expressing a
desire to jointly develop solutions to eliminate the problem.
Chairman Markham stated the Ford Dealer service customers are queuing up in the
center lane before the service center opens.
Commissioner Perry invited all Commissioners to attend an event honoring several
Temecula police officers on September 24, 1997, 7:00 PM, at the Masonic Center.
Police Chief Lebahn and the Chairman Larry Markham, will speak.
Commissioner Talesic asked if there is any way to extend the westbound Winchester
Road left-turn storage or the signal time at the Ynez Road intersection. Mr. Moghadam
responded that any change requires Caltrans approval.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Chairman Markham asked staff to compile a list of the proposed improvements/changes
for Margarita Road, Winchester Road, Ynez Road, and Overland Crossing for the
Commissions information.
Commissioner Johnson welcomed Commissioner Telesio to the Commission.
Commissioner Coe stated La Serena Way has a double yellow line and between Camino
Corto and Via Halcon, there is a broken yellow line which does not seem reasonable
since it is a winding, hilly location. Staff will review the situation.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:56 PM. The motion carried unanimously.
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
September 25, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Larry Markham
Secretary
ITEM NO. 2
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~Ali Moghadam, Associate Engineer
September 25, 1997
Item 2
Pedestrian Crossing - Winchester Road at Nicolas Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a video tape of pedestrian activity at the intersection of
Winchester Road and Nicolas Road.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request to evaluate the safety of pedestrian crossing Winchester Road at Nicolas Road and
to provide a separate left-turn phasing for Nicolas Road traffic.
Winchester Road at Nicolas Road is a 110 foot wide State Route with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH.
Nicelas Road which is a 86 foot wide roadway south of Winchester Road terminates in the recen~y constructed
Chaparral High School and provides the only ingress and egress to the Chaparral High School. This signalized
intersection currently provides a protected left turn phasing only from Winchester Road to Nicolas Road and
the left-turn from Nicolas Road to Winchester Road is not protected by a separate phase. Due to heavy
pedestrian crossing during the morning and afternoon school peak hours, the vehicles turning left from Nicolas
Road conflict with the high school students crossing Winchester Road.
Since the traffic signal at this intersection is under Caltrans' jurisdiction, City staff is currendy evaluating
different options with Caltrans. These options include modification of the existing traffic signal to provide a
separate left-turn phase from Nicolas Road, exclusive pedestrian phase which allows only pedestrians crossing
and no vehicular movements, and enforcement. Upon approval by Caltrans, the City will initiate
implementation of the most appropriate option at this intersection to enhance the safety of pedestrians.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Letter of Request
EXHIBIT "A'
LOCATION MAP
/High School
~v~ifBIT "B~"
ITEM NO. 3
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, Associate Engineer
September 25, 1997
Item 3
Traffic Signal Installation - Pala Road at Pechanga Casino Main Entrance
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and recommend that a traffic signal be installed on Pala
Road at the main entrance to the Peehanga Casino.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request to review and approve a traffic signal warrant analysis for installation of a traffic
signal at the main entrance to the Pechanga Casino.
Currently, Pala Road provides access to the Pechanga Casino at the southerly City boundary. Pala Road in
this vicinity is a narrow two (2) lane undivided roadway and the speed limit is posted at 55 MPH. The
weste~y half of Pala Road is within the Pechanga Indian Reservation and the easterly half is within the City
of Temecula.
Staff has reviewed the traffic signal warrant analysis (Exhibit "B") prepared by Pechangas' Engineer and
determined that installation of a traffic signal at this location is warranted. Warrants met are as follows:
Warrant No. 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
Warrant No. 8 - Combination of Warrants
Warrant No. 9 - Four Hour Volume
It should be noted that although this intersection does not meet the accident warrant at this time, the number
of accidents have been steadily increasing from one (1) in 1995 to two (2) in 1996 and three (3) up to August
1997.
Since this intersection meets the traffic signal warrant requirements as established by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), installation of a traffic signal is recommended. It should be noted
that the cost of signal design, installation, maintenance and energy will be borne solely by the Pechanga's and
the City will not participate in those costs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
r:\tna~ic~commissn\agenda\97\0925\palapeeh.sig/ajp
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED SIGNAL
N
ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS
August 20, 1997
JN401240
Mr. Patrick Murphy, Jr.
Corporate Officer
Pechanga Development Corporation
45000 Pala Road
Temecula, Califomia 92592
Subject: Pala Road and Pechanga Casino Main Entrance
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
Dear Mr. Murphy:
In accordance to your request, Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates has analyzed the
intersection of Pala Road and the Pechanga Casino Main Entrance to determine if existing conditions
warrant the installation of a traffic signal.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Pala Road is a two lane undivided north-south arterial road extending from San Diego County to
State Route 79 (S) in the City of Temecula that serves as an alternate route to Interstate 15. Portion
of Pala Road is located within the Pechanga Indian Reservation and is posted with a speed limit of
55 miles per hour.
Presently, Pala Road consist of one noahbound lane, one southbound lane and a southbound right-
turn lane at the Pechanga Casino Main Entrance.
The Pechanga Casino Main Entrance serves as the main entrance/exit to the existing Pechanga
Casino that is located in the Pechanga Indian Reservation. Presently, the Casino has only two
entrance/exit locations. The Pechanga Casino Main Entrance serves their costurners and employees
and the other entrance/exit serves their delivery vehicles.
The Pechanga Casino Main Entrance is a 48-foot roadway that provides one outbotmd lane and two
inbound lanes. The two inbound lanes are separated by a landscaped island (see Exhibit 1). Stop
control is provided at Pala Road.
Exhibit "A" shows the project location.
Professional Service Since 1944
74 410 HIGHWAY 111 · PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-4H4 · 619.346.7484 · FAX 619,346.8315
OFRCES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA · WEB SITE: www rbf corn
i'Ti~(fii ii., ii
I
III
Mr. Paltick Murphy, Jr.
August 20, 1997
Page 2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANAL YSIS
The intersection of Pala Road and the Pechanga Casino Main Entrance was analyzed using the latest
guidelines presented in the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic
Manual for determining need of a traffic signal control.
According to the guidelines, installation of a traffic signal may be warranted if specific conditions
exist at an intersection and one or more of the following warrants are met.
Warrant 1 -
Warrant 2 -
Warrant 3 -
Warrant 4 -
Warrant 5 -
Warrant 6 -
Warrant 7 -
Warrant 8 -
Minimum Vehicular Volume
Interruption of Continuos Flow
Minimum Pedestrian Volume
School Crossing
Progressive Movement
Accident Experience
System Warrant
Combination of Warrants
Warrant 9 - Four Hour Volume
Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay
Warrant 11 - Peak Hour Volume
A copy of Caltrans' guidelines for traffic signal control installation (1992 Caltrans' Traffic Manual
Section 9-01 ) is contained in the Appendix.
According to Caltrans' guidelines the intersection of Pala Road and the Pechanga Casino Main
Entrance is considered a rural location since the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the major street
exceeds 40 miles per hour.
Twenty-four hour traffic volume counts were taken on Augusi i, 2, and 3, 1997 ~at the intersection
of Pala Road and the Pechanga Casino Main Entrance and at the driveii;a>;iii'edT6r delivery vehicles.
A copy of the twenty-four hour traffic volume counts is contained in the Appendix.
Table 1 indicate the approach traffic volumes for the highest eight (8) hours recorded during the 24-
hour period for August 2, 1997.
A summary of the twenty-hour traffic volumes for all three days showing the vehicle/hour of both
approaches on Pala Road and the vehicle/hour one direction only at the Pechanga Casino Entrance
are shown in the Appendix.
The analysis of the traffic signal warrants for the intersection of Pala Road and the Pechanga Casino
Main Entrance are included in the Appendix.
Our analysis conclude that existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Pala Road and the
Pechanga Casino Main Entrance does meet the following traffic signal warrants: Minimum
Vehicular Volume, Combination Of Warrants, and the Four Hour Volume.
JN401240
Mr. Patrick Murphy, Jr.
August 20, 1997
Page 3
The City of Temecula provided us with a collision diagram (see Appendix) showing the number and
type of accidents for Pala Road and the Pechanga Casino Entrance and Pala Road and the service
entrance/exit driveway. Table 2 is a summary of their collision diagram for the past three years up
to July 3 l, 1997.
From the data collected, it shows that the number of accidents have increased within the past three
years. This increase may be due to an increase of traffic entering and exiting the Pechanga Casino.
Motorists involved in the rear-end accidents were all traveling northbound. These accidents were
probably due to vehicles stopping on the single northbound lane to make the left mm onto the
Pechanga Casino Main Entrance and at the service entrance/exit driveway.
STREET
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION APPROACH VOLUMES
PALA ROAD AT PECHANGA CASINO MAIN ENTRANCE
DIRECTION
OF
APPROACH
Pala Road Northbound
Pechanga
Casino Main
Entrance
Highest 8 Hour Approach Volumes
161 158 147 144 198 157 163 152
Southbound 347 328 362 420 378 505 385 347
Total
Approach
Volume
508 486 509 564 576 662 548 499
Eastbound 105 107 132 157 146 117 145 132
JN 401240
APPENDIX
· CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS GUIDELINES
PALA ROAD @ PECHANGA CASINO MAIN ENTRANCE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
24-HOUR VEHICLE COUNT SUMMARY
24-HOUR MACHINE COUNTS (8/1 - 8/3/97) - Pala Road N/O Pechanga Casino Main Entrance
- Pala Road S/O Pechanga Casino Main Entrance
- Pechanga Casino Main Entrance
- Pechanga Casino southern Driveway (Service Driveway)
COLLISION DIAGRAM FOR PALA ROAD IN FRONT OF
PECHANGA CASINO
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1
CHAPTER 9
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Signals, Basic Information and Warrants 9-01
9-01.1 Introduction
A traffic signal is an electrically powered
traffic control device, other than a barricade
warning light or steady burning electric lamp, by
which traffic is warned or directed to take some
specific action.
The following types and uses of traffic signals
are discussed in this chapter: Traffic Control
Signals, Pedestrian Crossing Signals, Ramp
Metering Signals, Flashing Beacons, Lane-use
Control Signals, Traffic Control at Movable
Bridges, Priority Control of Traffic Signals,
Traffic Signals for One-lane, Two-way Facilities
and Traffic Signals for Construction Zones.
Traffic control signals are valuable devices for
the control of vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
However, because they assign the right of way to
the various traffic movements, traffic control
signals exert a significant influence on traffic
flow.
Traffic control signals, properly located and
operated, should have one or more of the
following advantages:
I. They provide for the orderly movement of
~affic,
Where proper physical layouts and control
measures are used, they increase the traffic
handling capacity of the intersection.
They reduce the frequency of certain types
of accidents, especially the fight angle
type.
Under favorable conditions, they can be
coordinated to provide for continuous or
nearly continuous movement of traffic at a
definite speed along a given route.
They permit minor street traffic, vehicular
or pedestrian, to enter or cross continuous
traffic on the major street.
Improper or unwarranted signal installations
may cause:
1. Excessive delay.
2. Disobedience of the signal indications.
3. Circuitous 17avel of alternate routes.
4. Increased accident frequency.
Experience shows that the number of
right-angle collisions may decrease after the
installation of signals, but the number of rear-end
collisions may increase. The installation of
signals may increase overall delay and reduce
intersection capacity. Consequently, it is of the
utmost importance that the consideration of a
signal installation and the selection of equipment
be preceded by a thorough study of traffic and
roadway conditions made by an engineer
experienced and trained in this field. Equally
important is the need for checking the efficiency
of a traffic signal in operation. This determines
the degree to which the type of installation and
the timing program meet the requirements of
traffic.
9-01.2 Traffic SIgnal Warrants
The justification for the installation of a traffic
signal at an intersection is based on the wan'ants
stated in this Manual and in the Manual On
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The decision
to install a signal should not be based solely
upon the warrants, since the installation of traffic
signals may increase certain types of collisions.
Delay, congestion, approach conditions. driver
confusion, future land use or other evidence of
the need for fight of way assignment beyond that
which could be provided by stop signs must be
demonstrated. See Section 4-03 of this Manual
for stop sign warrants.
9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
4-1992
When the 851h pemcntilc speed of traffic on
the major street exceeds 40 miles per hour in
either,an urban or rural area, or when the
intersection lies within the built-up axea of an
isolated community having a population of less
than 10,000, the location is considered rttral. All
other areas axe considered urban.
Figures 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4 are examples of
warrant sheets..Warrant Sheet 9-4 should be
used only for new intersections or other locations
where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted.
The installation of a traffic signal should be
considered if one or more of the warrants listed
below urn met:
A. Warrant I - Minimum Vehicle Volume.
The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is
intended for application where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the principal reason for
consideration of a signal installation. The
warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours
of an average day the traffic volumes given in the
table below exist on the major street and on the
.higher-volume minor street approach to the
intersection.
Number of Vehicles pet
lanes for hour on
moving major stxect
traffic on (total of both
each approach approaches)
Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural
I I 500 350
2 or more I 600 420
2 or more 2 or mo~ 600 420
1 2ormor~ 500 350
Vehicles per
hou~ on
higher-volume
minor-street
approach (one
direction only)
Urban Rural
150 105
150 105
200 140
200 140
The major street and the minor street volumes
are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours
the direction of higher volume on the minor
street may be'on one approach during some hours
and on the opposite approach during other hours.
B. Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous
Traffic.
The Interruption of Continuous Traffic
waxrant applies to operating conditions where the
traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that
traffic on a minor intersecting street suffcrs
excessive delay or hazaxd in entering or crossing
the major sixeel. The warrant is satisfied when,
for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the
traffic volumes given in the table below exist on
the major street and on the higher-volume minor
street approach to the intersection, and the signal
installation will not seriously ~srupt progressive
traffic flow.
Number of Vehicles per Vehicles pet
lanes for hour on hour on
moving major sueet higher-volume
traffic on (total of bothminor-street
each approach approaches) approach (one
direction only)
Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural Urban Rural
! I 750 525 75 53
2 or more I 900 630 75 53
2 or more 2 or mor~ 900 630 100 70
I 2 or more 750 525 100 70
The major sixeel and the minor street volumes
are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours
the direction of higher volume on the minor
street may be on one approach during some
h
hours and on t e opposite approach during other
hours.
C. Warrant 3 Minimum Pedestrian
Volume.
A traffic signal may be waftanted where the
pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an
intersection or mid-block location during an
average day is:
100 or more for each of any four hours; or
190 or more during any one hour.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-3
4-1992
C
.(
The pedestrian volume crossing the major
street may be reduced as much as 50% of the
values given above when the predominant pedes-
trian crossing speed is below 3.5 feet per second.
In addition m a minimum pedestrian volume of
that stated above, there shall be less than 60 gaps
per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length
for pedestrians to cross during the same period
when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied.
Where there is a divided street having a median
of sufficient width for the pedesuian(s) to wait,
the requirement applies separately to each
direction of vehicular traffic.
Where coordinated traffic signals on each side
of the study location provide for platooned traffic
which result in fewer than 60 gaps per hour of
adequate length for the pedestrians m cross the
street, a traffic signal may not be warranted.
This warrant applies only to those locations
where the nearest traffic signal along the major
street is greater than 300 feet and where a new
traffic signal at the study location would not
unduly restrict platooned flow of traffic.
Curbside parking at non-intersection locations
should be prohibited for 100 feet in advance of
and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk.
A signal installed under this warrant should be
of the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for
pedesuians crossing the main street. If such a
signal is installed within a signal system, it shall
be coordinated if the signal system is
coordinated.
Signals installed according to this waxrant
shall be equipped with pedestrian indications
conforming m requirements set forth in other
sections of this Manual.
D. Warrant 4 - School Areas.
See Chapter I0 of this Manual.
E. Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement.
The Progressive Movement warrant is satisfied
when:
On a one-way street of on a street which
has predominantly unidirectional traffic,
adjacent signals are so far apart that the
necessary degree of platooning and speed
control of vehicles would otherwise be
lost; or
On a two-way street, where adjacent sig-
nals do not provide the necessary degree
of platooning and speed control and the
proposed and adjacent signals could con-
stitute a progressive signal system.
The installation of a signal according to this
warrant should be based on the 851h percentile
speed unless an engineering study indicates that
another speed is more desirable.
The installation of a signal according to this
warrant should not be considered where the
resultant signal spacing would be less than 1,000
feet.
F. Warrant 6 - Accident Experlence.
The Accident Experience warrant is satisfied
when:
Five or more reported accidents of types
susceptible to correction by traffic signal
control have occurred within a 12-month
period, each accident involving personal
injury or property damage to an apparent
extent of $500 or more; AND
Adequate trim of less restrictive remedies
with satisfactory observance and
enforcement has failed to reduce the
accident frequency; AND
There exists a volume of vehicular uaffic
not less than 80% of the requirements
specified in the Minimum Vehicular
Volume Warrant or the Interruption of
Continuous Traffic Warrant; AND
4. The signal installation will not seriously
disrupt progressive traffic flow.
G. Warrant 7 - Systems WarranL
A traffic signal i0stallation at some
intersections may be warranted to encourage
concenlration and organization of traffic flow
networks. The systems waxrant is applicable
9,4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
4-1992
when the common intersection of two or more
major routes has a total existing, or immediately
projected, entering volume of at least 1,000
vehicles during the peak hour of a typical
weekday, or each of any five hours of a Saturday
and/or Sunday.
A major route as used in the above warrant has
one or more of the following characteristics:
It is pan of the street or highway system
that serves as the principal network for
through traffic flow;
2. It includes rural or suburban highways
outside of, entering or traversing a city; or
It appears as a major route on an official
plan such as a major street plan in an
urban area traffic and transportation study.
H. Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants.
In exceptional cases, a signal may be justified
where no single warrant is satisfied but where
Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80
percent or more of the stated numerical values.
L Warrant 9 - Four Hour Volume Warrant.
The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied,
when for each of any four hours of an average
day, the plotted points representing the vehicles
per hour on the major street (total of both
approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per
hour on the higher volume minor street approach
(one direction only) all fall above the curve in
Figure 9-6 for the existing combination of
approach lanes.
When the 85th percentile speed of the major
street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when
the intersection lies within a built-up area of an
isolated community having a population of less
than 10,000, the four hour volume requirement is
satisfied when the plotted points referred to fall
above the curve in Figure 9-7 for the existing
combination of approach lanes.
J. Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay WarranL
The Peak Hour Delay Warrant is intended for
application where traffic conditions are such that
for one hour of the day, minor street traffic
suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the
major street. The peak hour delay warrant is
satisfied when the conditions given below exist
for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute
periods) of an average weekday. The peak hour
delay warrant is met when:
1. The total delay experienced by ~'affic, on
one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign, equals or exceeds four
vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and
five vehicle-hours for a two-lane
approach; AND
The volume on the same minor street
approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for
two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced during
the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for
intersections with four or more approaches
or 650 vph for intersections with three
approaches.
K. Warrant II Peak Hour Volume
Warrant.
The Peak Hour Volume Warrant is intended
for application where traffic conditions are such
that for one hour of the day minor street traffic
suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the
major street.
The peak hour volume wan'ant is satisfied
when the plotted point, representing the vehicles
per hour on the major street (total of both
approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per
hour on the higher volume minor street approach
(one direction only) for one hour (any four
consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average
day, falls above the curve in Figure 9-8 for the
existing combi~nation of approach lanes.
F
Joe NO.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS'
CALC ,/5-A<::~
CHK
Major St:
Minor St;
Cdtical speed of major street traffic~ 40 mph
in built up area of isolated community of(_.10,000 pop.
WARRANT 1 - Minlmum Vehicular Volume
Critical Approach Speed 5~ mph
Cdtical Approach Speed .2 .~' mph
..... ~/ RURAL(R}
[] ' URBAN (U)
1(X)% SATISFIED YES ~/'NO F1
80% SATISFIED YES ~/NO
~ffi~ ~ I~ ~ I 420
Street (~ (~OI (~e ~O ~
, NO ~ Heavier left tum movement kom M~or Stmef lnduded w~en L T'Phaslng ls Pm~sed 0
WAR~NT2-1ntermptlonofContinuousTmfflc lm ~SFIED YES ~ NO ~
8~ ~SFIED' YES, ~NO ~
AppROACH
L,~IF.,~
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT~
Bo~ App~h4, 750 625'% Ooo 630
~ 7o
· NOT~ HemHer left rum movement from M~r Stmt Included when LT~hlslng l$ m~sed ~
WARRANT 3 - MInimum Pedestrian Votume
kl~ No Median
Volume 4' Med~"'n
MINIMUM RE(3tdIRI~MENI~
U R
(~ (~
p~e~HQMdVd~ 1~ 105
IF MIDBL~K SIGNAL PROffiSED
IO0~ SATISFIED YES I'I NO FI
80416 SATISFIED YES [] NO
NOT APPUCABLE
The satisfaction of · warrant is not necessarily Justification for a signal Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown,
- j
JOB NO, , olZ o
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 4 -.School Crossings
Not Applicable ~
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet i"1
WARRANTS- Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES E] NO FI
NOT APPLICABLE Fg/
>soDDe N , S ~E. ~.W .~ Y~sE]
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES [::] NO I"J
NOT APPLICABLE ~3/
* NOTE: I, aft rum accidents c~n be Included when LT-phaslng Is proposed
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
IliUM VOI_UI4~
SATISFIED YES rl NO rl
NOT APPLICABLE ~3/
F,N~c~NQVO(,UMES*AI, L~E$ V' Rf, J~ern
The utldK~lo~ o4' · w~rrtnt b no( nece_-_*~dly J~Ulficetlo~t for · sig.aL Oe{~y, oo~3e~tlon, Co~ffusloa of effi~f
eddenoe d Ihe need for right o( wry ~lgnment mu=t be show~,
MAJOR ST, P~zA APQAZ::>
MINOR ST. ~'GZ/~/GA ~/As//uo E,d .?T"
j
F
MAJOR S1';
MINOR ST;
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combinatlon of Warrants
SATISFIED
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED
WARRANT
MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
YES [~NO I'1
FULFILLEO
YES r'} NO I'1
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
Approach Lanes
Htghe~tAINir0ac~e$ , Minor Street
*Refer to Fig, (URBAN AREAS) or Figure,
WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay
I. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by e STOP
sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours
for a two-lane approach; and
SATISFIED*
·
i
~~~~~: ;' ~9'/~' Hour
(RURAL AR~S) to determine i~ this warrant ls sat~fie~
YES ~/NO 0
SATISFIED YES FI NO I'1
NOT APPLICABLE E~/
YES I'l NO I']
2, The volume on the Same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and
YES D NO 0
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for
Intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches
WARRANT 11 - Peak HourVolume
Approach Lanes
6othApptolchel , MiJofSItse{
*Refer to Fig, (URBAN AREAS) or Figure
YES I'} NO FI
SATISFIED* YES [] NO ~3/
Hou,
(RURAL AREAS) to determine il' this warrant is satisfied.
The Satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence ot the need for right of way assignment must be shown.
j
o ~ 0
o ~ >
/
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
o
HdA--HOVOBddV 3Wfi'IOA H!DIH
.L3:lI:I.LS t~OHIW '
HdA--HOVOI:IddV ':I~IN'IOA HUIH
.I.::t~I:IAS I:IONIVt
'ON SKN'
DATE TIME
PECHANGA CASINO MAIN ENTRANCE
T1NENTY-FOUR HOUR VEHICLE COUNT SUMMARY
MAJOR No. OF VEHINOUR MINOR STREET No. OF VEFUHOUR
STREET LANES ON OF BOTH LANES ON ONE
EACH APPROACHES EACH DIRECTlION
APPROACH (REQ. 350) APPROACH ONLY
(REQ. 105)
PALA ROAD
08101/91 11 ~45 o 12:45 AM
12:45-1:45
1:45 - 2:45
2:45- 3:45
3:45 - 4;45
4:45 - 5:45
5:45 * 6:45
6:45 - 7:45
7:45 - 8:45
8:45 - 9:45
9:45 - 10;45
11:45 - 12:45 PM
12:45-1:45
1:45 o 2:45
2:45 - 3:45
3:45 - 4:45
5:45-6:45
6:45 - 7:45
7:45 - 8:45
8:45 - 9:45
8:45-10:45
CASINO MAIN ENTRANCE I
171 96
130 60
96 59
71 48
77 36
109 28
246 41
403 49
363 48
394 47
416 56
450 61
475 121
554 119
575 t23
669 t62
536 120
604 89
583 70
553 73
499 74
458 95
414 108
08102/97 11:45 - 12:45AM 265 117
12:45-1:45 178 74
1:45-2:45 135 76
2:45-3:45 122 75
3:45-4:45 98 55
4:45-5:45 117 22
5:45-6:45 170 50
6:45-7:45 248 52
7:45-6:45 238 51
8:45-9:45 321 39
9:45-10:45 375 45
10:45-11:45 361 36
11:45 - 12:45 PM 608 106
12:45-1:45 486 101
1:45-2:45 606 t32
2:45- 3:45 564 167
3:45- 4:45 678 146
4:45- 5:45 662 tll
5:45- 6:45 590 102
6:45-7:45 ~48 145
7:45- 8:45 499 t32
8:45- 9:45 604 t06
9:45-10:45 466 147
10:45 - 11:45 458 178
08/03197 11:45 - 12:45 AM 3t8 148
~12:45-1:45 222 104
1:45-2:45 186 86
2;45-3:45 92 79
3:45 - 4:45 89 64
4:45-5:45 87 42
5:45-6:45 123 40
6:45-7:46 191 50
7:45- 8:45 244 59
8:45- 9:45 304 49
9:45-10:45 426 51
10:45-1t:45 480 60
11:45 - 12:45 PM 492 92
12;45 - 1:45 542 101
1:45-2:45 638 88
2:45-3:45 686 t08
3:45 - 4:45 661 109
4:45-5:45 476 116
5:45 - 6:45 ~ 146
6:45 - 7:45 435 131
7:45-8:45 466 130
SITE CODE: TEMECULA 24 HCUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 2
~*S STREET: PALA ROAD FILE: D9708024
E-~ STREET: N/O PECHANGA CASINO
CLIENT : REF & ASSOC DATE: 8/01/97
TIME ....... NB .............. SE ............ COMBINED
BEGIN AM PM AM PN AM PM
12:00 65 70 32 85 97 155
12:15 67 63 Z5 58 92 121
lZ:30 44 77 23 86 67 163
12:45 39 215 61 271 21 101 72 301 60 316 133 572
1:00 34 75 20 94 54 169
1:15 38 7~ 24 92 62 165
1:30 28 92 17 69 45 161
1:45 38 138 52 292 21 82 93 348 59 220 145 640
2:00 40 80 18 69 58 149
2:15 25 86 14 75 37 161
2:30 24 97 16 80 40 177
2:45 50 117 95 358 11 59 95 319 41 176 190 677
3:00 34 99 10 100 44 199
3:15 29 102 8 82 37 184
3:30 24 80 10 96 34 176
3:45 23 110 87 368 6 34 91 369 29 144 178 737
4:00 27 85 3 93 30 178
4:15 17 85 6 78 23 163
4:30 18 82 14 100 32 182
4:45 18 80 86 338 19 42 91 362 37 122 177 700
5:00 12 80 8 101 20 181
5:15 24 91 17 100 41 191
5:30 15 59 10 124 25 183
5:45 22 7~ 74 304 29 64 104 429 51 137 178
6:00 38 66 31 120 69 186
6:15 32 77 24 88 56 165
6:30 24 57 38 103 62 160
6:45 60 154 66 266 46 139 101 412 106 293 167 678
7:00 56 49 69 129 125 178
7:15 41 74 64 112 105 186
7:30 55 50 52 95 107 145
7:45 69 221 55 228 50 235 86 422 119 456 141 650
8:00 72 74 52 92 124 166
8:15 62 60 42 77 104 137
8:30 40 68 39 88 79 156
8:45 62 236 50 252 47 180 95 352 109 416 145 604
9:00' 54 68 62 93 116 161
9:15 60 50 58 91 118 141
9:30 59 73 50 81 109 154
9:45 50 223 59 250 50 220 85 350 100 443 144 600
10:00 62 58 63 80 125 138
10:15 49 117 61 80 110 197
10:30 60 72 61 88 121 160
10:45 54 225 96 343 63 248 94 342 117 473 190 685
11:00 45 147 61 90 106 237
11:15 50 87 59 62 109 149
11:30 58 85 71 79 129 164
11:45 61 214 111 430 90 281 72 303 151 495 183 733
TOTALS 2006 3700 1685 4309 3691 8009
OAY TOTALS 5706 5994 11700
SPLIT % 54.3 46.2 45.7 53.8
PEAK HOUR 7:30 10:15 11:00 5:15 11:00 10:15
VOLUME 258 432 281 448 495 784
P,H,F. 0,90 0.73 0.78 0.90 0.82 0.83
SITE CODE: TEMECULA 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS 8Y TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 3
N-S STREET: PALA ROAD FILE: D9708024
E-g STREET: N/O PECHANGA CASINO
CLIENT : RDF & ASSOC DATE: 8102197
TIME ....... NB .............. SB ............ COMBINED .....
BEGIN AN PN AM PM AN PM
12:00 1tl 52 42 98 153 150
12:15 77 57 44 80 121 137
12:30 73 54 44 78 117 132
12:45 88 349 64 227 39 169 91 347 127 5t8 155 574
1:00 67 61 26 91 93 152
1:15 58 69 28 75 86 144
1:30 59 72 27 88 86 160
1:45 47 231 56 258 25 106 74 528 72 337 130 586
2:00 54 57 20 87 74 144
2:15 43 43 20 89 63 132
2:30 43 71 18 94 61 165
Z:45 58 198 70 241 15 T3 92 362 73 271 162 603
3:00 48 63 23 106 71 169
3:15 35 87 22 98 57 185
3:30 61 70 14 107 75 177
3:45 24 168 92 312 16 75 109 420 40 243 201 732
4:00 43 87 14 93 57 180
4:15 42 84 17 95 59 179
4:30 34 84 12 93 46 177
4:45 24 143 92 347 10 53 97 378 34 196 189 7Z5
5:00 42 65 12 129 54 194
5:15 30 60 13 127 43 187
5:30 26 58 13 99 39 157
5:45 28 126 70 253 11 49 150 505 39 175 220 758
6:00 35 77 17 104 52 181
6:15 23 78 25 104 48 182
6:30 31 75 23 112 54 187
6:45 39 128 79 309 45 110 106 426 84 238 185 735
7:00 30 61 49 113 79 174
7:15 38 62 40 107 78 169
7:30 41 73 38 81 79 154
7:45 52 161 78 274 41 168 84 385 93 329 162 659
8:00 53 89 36 84 89 173
8:15 55 66 38 91 93 157
8:30 38 78 38 93 76 171
8:45 35 181 65 298 31 143 79 347 66 324 144 645
9:00 47 79 58 94 105 173
9:15 45 69 44 90 89 159
9:30 29 64 58 100 87 164
9:45 39 160 65 2~7 53 213 114 398 92 373 179 675
10:00 52 67 63 88 115 155
10:15 46 142 59 85 105 227
10:30 53 114 59 71 112 185
10:45 44 195 84 407 60 241 87 331 104 436 171 738
11:00 54 160 63 86 117 246
11:15 36 110 60 64 96 174
11:30 35 113 60 75 95 188
11:45 42 167 111 494 62 245 68 293 104 412 179 787
TOTALS 2207 3697 1645 4520 3852 8217
DAY TOTALS 5904 6165 12069
SPLIT % 57.3 45.0 42.7 55.0
PEAK HOUR 12:00 10:15 11:00 5:00 12:00 10:15
VOLUME 349 500 245 505 518 829
P.H.F. 0.79 0.78 0.97 0.84 0.85 0.84
;ITE COOE: TEMECULA Z4 HOUR NACHZNE COUNTS BY TRAEF|C COUNTS PAGE: 4
STREET: PALA ROAD FILE: D9708024
STREET: N/O PECHANGA CASINO
;LIENT : RBF & ASSOC DATE: 8/03/97
rIME ....... NB .............. SB ............ COMBSNED .....
~EG]~ AM PM AM PN AM PN
12:00 121 58 63 82 184 140
12:15 104 64 59 76 163 140
12:30 99 66 39 87 138 153
12:45 72 396 67 255 44 205 98 342 116 601 165 598
1:00 70 74 44 ~ 114 160
1:15 67 75 34 92 101 167
1:30 68 52 26 111 94 162
1:45 58 263 91 292 35 139 102 392 93 402 194 684
2:00 55 7'~ 22 123 77 196
2:15 51 65 34 126 85 191
2:30 65 72 25 111 90 182
2:45 66 227 70 280 23 104 115 475 89 341 185 755
3:00 55 78 10 131 65 209
3:15 41 87 23 123 64 ZlO
3:30 47 88 9 108 56 196
2:45 41 184 88 341 12 54 138 500 53 228 226 841
4:00 45 85 14 113 59 198
4:15 46 90 14 88 60 178
4:30 34 82 7 92 41 174
4:45 24 149 77 334 14 49 104 397 38 198 181 731
5:00 32 71 18 86 51 157
5:15 27 79 12 83 39 162
5:30 23 76 8 74 31 150
5:45 28 111 83 309 8 46 75 318 36 157 158 627
6:00 25 90 21 85 46 175
6:15 29 81 13 72 42 152
6:30 26 84 17 74 43 158
6:45 23 103 80 335 28 79 88 219 51 182 168 654
7:00 25 68 44 61 69 129
7:15 25 80 15 80 40 168
7:30 36 84 35 75 71 159
7:45 50 136 86 326 35 129 79 295 85 265 165 621
8:00 41 98 26 74 67 172
8:15 51 98 43 61 94 159
8:30 41 148 47 70 88 218
8:45 35 168 81 425 43 159 72 277 78 327 152 702
9:00 45 162 45 59 90 221
9:15 36 122 50 54 86 176
9:30 33 97 53 56 86 153
9:45 55 169 78 459 62 210 45 214 117 379 123 673
10:00 50 85 57 51 107 136
10:15 50 74 86 48 136 122
10:30 50 70 70 46 120 116
10:45 53 203 54 283 72 285 50 195 125 488 104 478
11:00 55 71 85 62 140
11:15 47 64 93 43 140 107
11:30 52 56 86 37 138 92
11:45 38 192 66 257 88 352 27 169 126 544 92 426
TOTALS 2311 3896 1811 3894 4122 7790
DAY TOTALS 6207 5705 11912
SPLIT-% 56.1 50.0 43.9 50.0
PEAK HOUR 12:00 8:30 11:00 3:00 12:00 3:00
VOLUME 396 513 352 500 601 841
P.H.F. 0,82 0,79 0.95 0.91 0,82 0.93
SITE COOE: TEMECULA 24 NOUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 2
N-S STREET: PALA ROAD FILE: D9708025
E-W STREET: S/O HAIN ENTRANCE / EXIt
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC, DATE: 8/01/97
TIME ....... N8 .............. SB ............ CONDINED .....
BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM
12:00 21 49 12 29 33 78
12:15 23 36 11 20 34 56
12:30 11 53 11 25 22 78
12:45 15 70 39 177 6 40 31 105 21 110 70 282
1:00 18 58 2 37 20 95
1:15 13 51 9 31 ZZ 82
1:30 8 60 8 36 16 96
1:45 9 48 37 206 5 24 41 145 14 72 78 351
2:00 13 62 4 37 17 99
2:15 13 64 4 37 17 101
2:30 5 68 7 35 12 103
2:45 6 37 62 256 4 19 44 153 10 56 106 409
3:00 11 50 4 47 15 97
3:15 10 56 3 35 13 91
3:30 7 45 4 31 11 76
3:45 9 37 49 200 3 14 33 146 12 51 82 346
4:00 10 45 2 29 12 74
4:15 6 40 5 33 11 7~
4:30 8 41 7 49 15 90
4:45 11 35 48 174 12 26 33 144 23 61 81 318
5:00 9 45 4 39 13 84
5:15 14 45 9 36 23 81
5:30 13 33 5 45 18 78
5:45 9 45 52 175 14 32 33 153 23 77 85 328
6:00 26 45 25 38 51 83
6:15 20 52 13 31 33 83
6:30 20 38 24 26 44 64
6:45 41 107 36 171 27 89 38 133 ~ 196 74 304
7:00 46 29 30 44 76 73
7:15 25 38 38 44 63 82
7:30 54 32 26 32 80 64
7:45 43 168 32 131 29 123 30 150 72 291 62 281
8:00 50 45 23 25 73 70
8:15 41 38 29 24 70 62
8:30 39 35 18 33 57 68
8:45 53 183 29 147 19 89 37 119 rZ 272 66 266
9:00 42 37 22 33 ~ 70
9:15 51 25 23 27 74 52
9:30 45 29 18 28 63 57
9:45 36 174 17 108 23 86 21 109 59 260 38 217
10:00 51 13 22 26 7'~ 39
10:15 38 43 18 23 56 66
10:30 40 32 22 25 62 57
10:45 39 168 44 132 26 88 32 106 65 256 76 238
11:00 41 62 32 20 73 82
11:15 33 34 32 12 65 46
11:30 46 32 26 28 72 60
11:45 49 169 26 154 30 120 17 77 79 289 43 231
TOTALS 1241 2031 750 1540 1991 3571
DAY TOTALS 3272 2290 5562
SPLIT % 62.3 56.9 37.7 43.1
PEAK HOUR 8:45 2:00 7:00 2:15 7:30 2:00
VOLUME 191 256 123 163 295 409
P.H,F, 0.90 0,94 0.81 0.87 0.92 0.96
SITE CODE; TEHECULA 24 HOUR HACH]NE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 3
N-S STREET: PALA ROAD FILE: D9708025
E-W STREET: S/O HAIN ENTRANCE / EXIT
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC, DATE: 8/02/97
TINE ....... NB .............. SB ............ COMBINED
SEGIN AM PM AM PN AN PM
12:00 33 40 19 36 52 76
12:15 22 39 13 26 35 65
12:30 21 40 tl 32 32 72
12:45 20 96 42 161 10 53 26 120 30 149 68 281
1:00 21 33 6 34 27 67
1:15 17 46 8 24 25 70
1:30 21 42 13 36 34 78
1:45 13 72 37 158 5 32 17 111 18 104 54 269
2:00 19 26 6 27 25 53
2:15 15 30 6 38 21 68
2:30 11 42 3 36 14 78
2:45 I? 62 49 147 3 18 26 127 20 80 75 274
3:00 16 27 8 38 24 65
3:15 9 42 7 31 16 73
3:30 13 40 2 35 15 75
3:45 9 47 35 144 5 22 41 145 14 69 76 289
4:00 12 48 2 32 14 80
4:15 13 54 5 32 18 86
4:30 8 42 4 33 12 75
4:45 12 45 54 198 3 14 32 129 15 59 86 327
5:00 21 40 3 35 24
5:15 18 42 3 34 21 76
5:30 14 31 8 38 22 69
5:45 15 68 44 157 2 16 51 158 17 84 95 315
6:00 19 40 5 30 24 70
6:15 8 37 10 19 18 56
6:30 16 50 6 37 22 87
6:45 17 60 37 164 13 34 30 116 30 94 67 280
7:00 22 36 15 27 37 63
7:15 20 43 17 28 37 71
7:30 13 28 11 34 24 62
7:45 25 80 56 163 18 61 26 115 43 141 82 278
8:00 27 44 18 18 45 62
8:15 25 36 19 23 44 59
8:30 24 40 11 23 35 63
8:45 19 95 32 152 14 62 26 90 33 157 58 242
9:00 39 28 10 27 49 55
9:15 28 35 23 29 51 64
9:30 19 14 20 ZO 39 34
9:45 22 108 29 106 17 70 24 100 39 178 53 206
10:00 35 22 22 25 57 47
10:15 33 46 26 23 59 69
10:30 34 35 25 15 59 50
10:45 32 134 31 134 28 101 24 87 60 235 55 221
11:00 30 52 31 8 61 60
11:15 19 35 22 16 41 51
11:30 27 52 20 26 47 78
11:45 40 116 26 165 27 100 21 71 67 216 47 236
TOTALS 983 1849 583 1369 1566 3218
DAY TOTALS 2832 1952 4784
SPLIT % 62.8
57.5 37.2 42.5
PEAK NOUR 10:00 4:00 10:15 5:00 10:15 4:00
VOLUME 134 198 110 158 239 327
P,H.F. 0.96 0.92 0.89 0,77 0.98 0.95
SITE CODE: TEHECULA 24 HOUR HACH]NE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 4
N-S STREET: PALA ROAD FILE: D9708025
E-U STREET: S/O HAIN ENTRANCE / EXIT
CLIENT : RDF & ASSOC. DATE: 8/03/97
TIME ....... NB .............. S8 ............ COMBINED .....
BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM
12:00 34 38 22 30 56 68
12:15 26 30 13 26 39 56
12:30 32 36 11 23 43 59
12:45 21 113 45 149 10 56 34 113 31 169 79 262
1:00 14 37 12 26 26 63
1:15 22 52 19 17 41 69
1:30 24 24 6 36 30 60
1:45 23 83 37 150 7 44 31 110 30 127 6~ 260
2:00 23 41 9 29 32 70
2:15 9 39 6 44 15 8~
2:30 30 48 10 28 40 76
2:45 20 82 35 163 7 32 32 133 27 114 67 296
3:00 11 49 5 41 16 90
3:15 11 43 6 29 17 72
3:30 7 55 3 29 10 84
3:45 9 38 39 186 2 16 Z7 126 11 54 66 312
4:00 15 41 2 35 17 76
4:15 9 43 5 31 14 74
4:30 7 46 2 33 9 79
4:45 9 40 40 170 4 13 31 130 1] 53 71 300
5:00 20 37 7 29 27 66
5:15 9 38 3 25 12 63
5:30 5 44 3 27 8 71
5:45 7 41 38 157 2 15 20 101 9 56 58 258
6:00 11 41 7 20 18 61
6:15 11 40 4 22 15 62
6:30 8 40 5 27 13 67
6:45 14 44 40 161 6 22 27 96 20 66 67 257
7:00 11 29 3 21 14 SO
7:15 16 45 3 28 19 73
7:30 14 37 9 20 23 57
7:45 21 62 33 144 12 27 26 95 33 89 59 239
8:00 21 51 5 32 26 83
8:15 20 39 15 ZO 35 59
8:30 18 65 21 13 39 78
8:45 26 85 34 189 16 57 16 81 42 142 50 270
9:00 20 70 13 21 33 91
9:15 16 42 14 21 30 63
9:30 17 28 10 17 27 45
9:45 41 94 31 171 25 62 15 74 66 156 46 245
10:00 37 29 15 12 52 41
10:15 36 31 28 16 64 47
10:30 35 32 25 15 60 47
10:45 33 141 23 115 20 88 11 54 53 229 34 169
11:00 31 24 27 13 58 37
11:15 32 33 24 8 56 41
11:30 37 22 30 4 67 26
11:45 28 128 10 89 30 111 10 35 58 239 20 124
TOTALS 951 1844 543 1148 1494 2992
DAY TOTALS 2795 1691 4486
SPLIT % 63°7 61.6 36.3 38.4
PEAK HOUR 9:45 8:30 11:00 2:15 9:45 2:15
VOLUME 149 211 111 145 242 316
P.H.F, 0,91 0,75 0,93 0.82 0.92 0.88
SITE COOE: TEMECULA
N-S STREET: PECNANGA iNDiAN CASINO
E-M STREET: ENTRANCE / EXIT
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC.
TIME ....... IN .......
BEGIN AM PM
12:00 16 20
12:15 6 28
12:30 2 28
12:45 6 30 28
1:00 9 28
1:30 21
1:45 17 58 31
2:00 12 25
2:15 4 16
2:30 2 t3
2:45 I 19 21
3:00 0 23
3:15 2 17
3:30 0 37
3:45 1 3 25
4:00 1 40
4:30 1 31
4:45 3 8 28
3:00 3 35
5:15 3 37
5:30 4 38
5:45 3 13 43
6:00 7 42
6:15 4 44
6:30 7 43
6:45 5 23 39
7:00 28 45
7:15 15 36
7:30 22 32
7:45 13 78 23
8:00 15 35
8:15 16 23
8:30 16 19
8:45 11 58 26
9:00 13 22
9:15 23 28
9:30 18 25
9:45 15 69 33
10:00 26 38
10:15 33 18
10:30 28 67
10:45 23 110 25
11:00 28 16
11:15 26 24
11:30 30 26
11:45 36 120 19
24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS
....... OU ............ COHBINEO .....
AM PM AM PM
PAGE:
27 27 43 47
31 31 37 59
23 29 25 57
104 15 96 34 121 21 126 62 225
12 28 21 56
15 31 26 57
16 35 37 56
106 17 60 25 119 34 118 56 225
20 26 32 31
11 27 15 43
11 32 13 45
75 17 59 38 123 18 78 59 198
15 45 15 68
11 44 13 61
13 37 13 74
102 9 48 36 162 10 51 61- 264
12 37 13 77
10 29 13 50
8 27 9 58
120 6 36 27 120 9 44 55 240
7 28 10 63
7 29 10 66
6 14 10 52
153 8 28 18 89 11 41 61 242
11 16 18 58
8 20 12 64
7 14 14 57
168 15 41 20 70 20 64 59 238
14 15 42 60
13 24 28 60
6 16 28 48
136 16 49 18 73 29 127 41 209
17 15 32 50
17 20 33 43
7 21 23 40
103 7 48 18 74 18 106 44 177
13 20 26 42
12 19 35 47
9 28 27 53
108 13 47 28 95 28 116 61 203
18 23 46 90
85 15 61 47 165 51 181 66 250
1218 2727
3945
tOTALS 589 1408 629 1319
)AY TOTALS 1997 1948
;PLIT X 48.4 51.6 51.6 48.4
'EAK HOUR 11:00 5:45 12:00 11:00 11:00 3:15
mLUME 120 172 96 165 181 273
LH.F. 0,83 0.98 0.77 0,81 0.89 0,89
1
FILE: D9708028
DATE: 8/01/97
SITE COOE: TENECULA
N-S STREET: PECRANGA INDIAN CASINO
E*W STREET: ENTRANCE / EXIT
CLIENT : REF & ASSOC.
TiME ....... IN .......
BEGIN AN PN
12:00 11 33
12:15 8 17
12:30 13 28
12:45 13 45 35
1:00 9 29
1:15 7 22
1:30 13 11
1:45 12 41 23
2:00 7 22
2:15 10 25
2:30 3 32
2:45 3 ~3 25
3:00 9 44
3:15 8 27
3:30 5 38
3:45 8 30 36
4:00 8 47
4:15 1 31
4:30 9 25
4:45 1 19 37
5:00 3 73
5:15 1 45
5:30 3 40
5:45 2 9 39
6:00 5 42
6:15 5 42
6:30 5 38
6:45 5 20 41
7:00 22 56
7:15 12 60
7:30 13 64
7:45 16 63 65
8:00 10 62
0:15 16 6t
8:30 17 42
8:45 17 60 28
9:00 16 63
9:15 20 54
9:30 27 24
9:45 18 81 25
10:00 20 23
10:15 15 29
10:30 19 18
10:45 16 70 28
11:00 20 32
11:15 27 20
11:30 20 27
11:45 16 83 17
24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS
....... OU ............ COMBINED .....
AN PN AM PN
42 20
32 22
29 33
113 14 117 30 105
13 29
23 24
25 29
85 13 74 25 107
21 30
16 35
18 31
104 21 76 36 132
20 37
16 37
23 34
145 16 75 49 157
17 39
15 33
14 38
140 9 55 36 146
2 33
7 29
8 28
197 5 22 27 117
12 26
11 25
12 24
163 15 50 27 102
8 33
14 36
14 37
245 16 52 39 145
15 36
18 31
10 33
193 8 51 32 132
8 29
10 23
8 29
166 13 39 24 105
13 24
8 47
14 45
98 10 45 31 147
15 49
10 41
6 40
96 5 36 48 178
TOTALS 544 1745 692 157~
DAY TOTALS 2289 2265
SPLIT X 44.0 52.6 56.0 47.4
PAGE:
53 53
40 39
42 61
27 162 65 218
22 58
30 46
38 40
25 115 48 192
28 52
26 60
21 63
24 99 61 236
29 81
24 64
20 72
24 105 85 302
25 86
16 64
23 63
10 74 73 286
5 106
8 74
7 31 66 314
17 68
16 67
17 62
20 70 68 265
30 89
26 96
27 101
32 115 104 390
25 98
34 92
27 75
25 111 60 325
24 92
30 77
35 53
31 120 49 271
33 47
23 76
33 63
26 115 59 245
35 81
37 61
26 67
21 119 65 274
1236 3318
4554
PEAK HOUR 9:15 7:30 12:00 11:00 12:00 7:15
VOLUME 85 252 117 178 162 399
P.H.F, 0.79 0,97 0.70 0,91 0.76 0.96
FILE: D9708029
DATE: 8/02197
SITE COUE: TENECULA
N-S STREET: PECHANGA INDIAN CASINO
E-W STREET: ENTRANCE / EXIT
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC,
TIME ....... IN .......
BEGIN AM PM
12:00 33 25
lZ:15 20 25
12:30 20
lZ:45 25 98 25
1:00 15 28
1:15 12 33
1:30 10 26
1:45 10 47 27
2:00 8 36
2:15 16 18
2:30 10 25
2:45 13 47 33
3:00 6 45
3:15 10 31
3:30 7 35
3:45 6 29 30
4:00 10 22
4:15 7 25
4:30 5 30
4:45 6 28 17
5;00 6 13
5:15 6 15
5:30 3 20
5:A5 5 ZO
6:00 5 20
6:15 6 12
6:30 5 23
6:45 12 28 39
7:00 17 45
7:15 12 42
7:30 16 58
7:45 18 63 37
8:00 17 35
8:15 10 47
8:30 12 40
8:45 30 69 39
9:00 19 37
9:15 20 25
9:30 38
9:45 34 111 13
10:00 38 18
10:15 31 15
10:30 26
10:45 27 122 14
11:00 22 23
11:15 30 20
11:30 26
11:45 25 103 6
24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS
....... OU ............ COMBINED .....
AN PM AN PM
PAGE:
43 24 76 49
37 23 57 ~
37 20 57 ~
98 31 148 25 92 56 246 50 190
30 24 45 52
27 24 39 57
27 23 37 49
114 20 104 30 101 30 151 57 215
21 23 29 59
22 20 38 38
18 22 28 47
112 Z5 86 23 88 38 133 56 200
25 25 31 70
18 29 28 60
20 26 27 61
1A1 16 79 28 108 22 108 58 249
18 34 28 56
21 29 28 54
15 24 20 54
94 10 64 22 109 16 92 39 203
8 22 14 35
9 23 15 38
12 36 15 56
69 13 42 35 116 18 62 56 185
10 39 15 59
11 36 17 48
9 36 14 59
94 10 40 35 146 22 68 74 240
10 30 27 ~
14 37 26 ~9
12 33 28 91
182 14 50 31 131 32 113 68 313
10 27 27 62
26 45 36 9~
15 26 27 66
161 8 59 32 130 38 128 71 291
14 46 33 13
14 42 34 67
10 40 48 66
101 11 49 27 155 45 160 40 256
12 34 50 52
10 23 41 38
15 26 41 ~6
67 14 51 18 101 41 173 32 168
16 30 38 53
13 20 43 40
12 21 38 ~,
72 19 60 44 115 44 163 50 187
1597 2697
4294
TOTALS 765 1305 832 1392
DAY TOTALS 2070 2224
SPLIT % 47.9 48.4 52.1 ,51,6
PEAK HOUR 9:30 6:45 12:00 8:45 12:00 6:45
VOLUME 141 184 148 160 246 319
P.H.F. 0.93 0.79 0.86 0.87 0.81 0.88
1
FILE: 09708030
DATE: 8/03~97
SITE CODE: TEMECULA
N-S STREET: DRIVEWAY # 3
E-W STREET: SOUTHERN CASINO DRIVEWAY
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC.
24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS
PAGE: 2
FILE: D9708026
DATE: 8/01/97
VINE ....... ENTER
BEGIN AN PN
....... EXIT ............ COMBINED .....
AN PN AN PN
12:00 3
12:15 7
12:30 7
12:45 5 22
hO0 7
1:15 2
1:30 2
1:45 3 14
2:00 6
2:15 4
2:30 6
2:45 3 19
3:00 5
3:15 1
3:30 2
3:45 1 9
4:00 2
4:15 1
4:30 5
4:45 4 12
5:00 1
5:15 1
5:30 0
5:45 1 3
6:00 1
6:15 10
6:30 5
6:45 8 24
7:00 9
7:15 14
7:30 8
7:45 7 38
8:00 10
8:15 4
8:30 7
8:45 8 29
9:00 12
9:15 22
9:30 9
9:45 12 55
10:00 11
10:15 14
10:30 6
10:45 13 44
11:00 11
11:15 7
11:30 13
11:45 7 38
12
11
18
13 54
22
12
7
14 55
18
13
20 63
23
15
10
10 58
16
11
15
11 53
16
7
11 39
9
9
8
8 34
15
12
8
10 45
9
9
5 31
14
3
10
5 32
11
4
4
8 27
7
2
8
9 26
10
8
5
6 29
6
8
4
5 23
5
3
2
2 12
5
3
4
5 17
3
4
3
5 15
1
5
1
2
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
3
8
6
5
13
9
8
11
6
6
9
6
9
6
8
9
14
19
21
35
32
29
14
5
11
10 40
15
9
10
12 46
13
11
12
? 43
6
14
15
12 47
13
10
13
12 48
15
17
13
20 65
13
16
15
10 54
8
17
14
9 48
12
8
18
10 48
11
12
10 46
9
23
10
16 58
27
17
21
13 78
13
15
12
11 51
13
10
6
8 37
11
7
8
5 31
10
4
6
6 26
5
5
8
9 27
2
6
1
3 12
13
9
11 38
13
19
13
12 57
14
7
15
14 50
17
35
18
20 90
22
20
12
22 76
17
16
19
15 67
26
16
29
23 94
37
21
17
26 101
31
24
24
27 106
29
29
25
22 105
29
21
28
23 101
31
24
18
31 104
22
25
23
18 88
23
29
22
19 93
20
17
27
15 79
25
15
23
15 78
20
27
14
24 85
34
19
29
22 104
TOTALS 307 517 255
DAY TOTALS 824
SPLIT % 54.6 45.4 45.4
621
876
54.6
562
1138
1700
PEAK HOUR 9:00 2:30 9:15 10:45 9:15 12:30
VOLUME 55 70 41 81 95 110
P.H.F, 0.63 0.76 0,79 0,75 0.68 0.74
SITE COOE: TEHECULA 24 HOUR HACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 3
N-S STREET: DRIVENAY # 5 FILE: D9708026
E-W STREET: SOUTHERN CASINO DRIVEWAY
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC, GATE; 8/02/97
TiHE ....... ENTER .............. EXIT ............ COMB[NED
BEGIN AH PN AN PN AN PH
12:00 5 14 29 8 34 22
12:15 3 16 16 14 19 30
12:45 2 11 14 55 8 65 7 39 10 76 21 94
1:00 1 21 10 7 11 28
h15 0 14 9 12 9 26
1:30 5 12 9 10 14 22
1:45 0 6 13 60 5 33 11 40 5 59 24 100
2:00 0 12 10 8 10 20
2:15 3 16 9 8 12 24
2:30 I 13 7 17 8 30
2:45 1 5 18 59 8 34 12 45 9 39 50 104
3:00 2 20 7 8 9 28
3:15 1 19 5 15 6 34
3:30 2 14 6 12 8 26
3:45 1 6 27 80 7 25 12 47 8 31 39 127
4:00 0 27 5 15 5 42
4:15 2 17 8 16 10 33
4:30 2 15 6 14 8 29
4:45 0 4 17 76 7 26 26 71 7 30 43 147
5:00 2 15 8 14 10 27
5:15 1 19 6 18 7 57
5:50 1 17 8 14 9 31
5:45 O 4 16 65 4 26 18 64 4 50 34 129
6:00 O 17 3 17 3 34
6:15 15 16 5 17 20 33
6:30 16 19 5 17 21 36
6:45 14 45 17 69 13 26 19 70 27 71 36 139
7:00 8 19 12 22 20 41
7:15 2 16 7 17 9 33
7:30 3 19 8 15 11 34
7:45 5 18 19 73 6 33 18 72 11 51 37 145
8:00 4 10 7 19 11 29
8;15 12 13 5 14 17 27
8:30 6 19 8 16 14 35
8:45 1 23 19 61 4 24 15 64 5 47 34 125
9:00 4 19 11 16 15
9:15 12 19 8 17 20 36
9:30 11 10 4 10 15 20
9:45 18 45 12 60 7 30 17 60 25 75 29 120
10:15 10 10 8 20 18 30
10:30 15 14 5 11 20 25
10:45 18 54 18 55 9 29 13 54 27 83 31 109
11:00 14 14 8 27 22 41
11:15 18 19 5 21 23 40
11:30 18 14 9 25 27 39
lh45 19 69 t3 60 7 29 20 93 26 98 54 174
TOTALS 290 77'5 380 719 670 1513
DAY TOTALS 1063 1099 2183
SPLIT ~ 43.3 51.1 56.7 47.5
PEAK HOUR 11:00 3:15 12:00 11:00 10:45 11:00
VOLUME 69 87 65 93 99 174
P.N.F, 0.91 0.81 0.56 0.86 0.92 0.81
SITE COOE: TEMECULA
M-S STREET: DRIVEWAY # 3
E-~ STREET: SOUTHERN CASINO DRIVEWAY
CLIENT : RBF & ASSOC.
24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS BY TRAFFIC COUNTS
PAGE: 4
FILE: D9708026
DATE: 8/03/97
TiME ....... ENTER .......
BEGIN AM PH
....... EXIT ............ COMBINED .....
AN PM AM PN
12:00 10
12:15 12
12:30 5
12:45 4 31
1:00 5
1:15 11
1:30 6
1:45 7 29
2:00 6
2:15 1
2:30 8
2:45 8 23
3:00 3
3:15 2
3:30 2
3:45 2 9
4:00 3
4:15 3
4:30 1
4:45 3 10
5:00 3
5:15 4
5:30 3
5:45 2 12
6:00 6
6:15 6
6:30 3
6:65 4 19
7:00 4
7:15 1
7:30 2
7:45 3 10
8:00 1
8:15 5
8:30 6
8:45 3 15
9:00 8
9:15 10
9:30 3
9:45 9 30
10:00 9
10:15 11
10:30 11
10:45 17 48
11:00 12
11:15 15
11:30 10
11:45 18 55
10
9
13
17 49
19
15
14
15 63
15
18
19
11 63
16
15
12
16 59
15
11
r
10 43
9
9
6 31
5
3
8
6 22
9
15
13
18 55
16
12
19
15 62
11
16
14
12 53
12
T
7
2 28
4
4
1
16
16
9
12 53
8
9
12
10 39
10
6
16
11 43
5
9
6
6 26
9
8
8 32
9
5
5
6 25
5
8
9
9 31
2
2
4
6
5
5
6
6 22
5
5
10 24
5
5
10 26
10
8
8
7 33
9
7
6
13 35
5
8
12
7 32
12
11
8
9 40
18
15
19
18 70
14
15
16
12 57
9
9
11
14 43
8
8
10
11 37
8
13
10
10
12
15 63
25
11
14 63
12
10
9
9
12
10
4 40
26 19
28 16
14 19
16 84 30
13 24
20 23
18 26
17 68 22
16 27
7 29
24 27
19 66 ZO
8 34
11 30
8 31
8 35 34
10 29
12 26
9 23
11 42 22
12 18
9 16
8 20
8 37 20
11 13
14 11
12 18
13 50 17
6 17
3 28
6 2~
9 24 28
6 29
10 24
12 42
9 37 30
13 36
14 29
8 25
19 54 26
15 24
16 17
16 16
27 74 11
22 17
23 16
18 14
25 88 5
8~
95
103
129
100
59
96
125
116
68
52
TOTALS 291 540 368
DAY TOTALS 831
SPLIT % 44.2 49.0 55.8
561
929
51.0
659 1101
1760
PEAK HOUR 10:30 1:45 12:00 8:30 10:45 8:30
VOLUME 55 67 53 76 90 137
P,H.F. 0.81 0.88 0.83 0.76 0.83 0,82
C~XtND
15~7 CUP w
ITEM NO. 4
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, Associate Engineer
September 25, 1997
Item 4
Request for Installation of a Traffic Signal -
Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny the request for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection
of Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General
Kearny Road to assist the pedestrians who cross Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road.
Nicolas Road is a 86 foot wide four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 MPH. North
General Kearny Road is a 44 foot wide residential collector with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. The
intersection of Nicolas Road and North General Keamy Road is currently controlled with "Stop" signs on North
General Kearny Road. Nicolas Road at North General Knarny Road is a flat and straight roadway with an
unobstructed sight distance.
A request for installation of an "All-Way Stop" or a traffic signal was reviewed by the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission at the December 7, 1995 meeting. However, since the required traffic signal and "Stop" sign
warrants were not met at the time, the Commission denied the request for installation of a traffic signal or an
"All-Way Stop" at this intersection.
Staff conducted a comprehensive traffic signal warrant analysis to determine if this intersection met the warrant
requirements for installation of a traffic signal. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has
established 11 warrants for installation of traffic signals (Exhibit "B"). Meeting any one of these warrants
could be jnsti~eation for installation of a Waffle signal. However, the intersection of Nicolas Road and North
General Kearny Road did not satisfy any of the 11 warrants. The Caltrans Traffic Manual warrants are
identical to the warrants published by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTDC) which is a
nationally recognized traffic engineering publication. The City of Temecula has adopted these manuals and
currently utilizing their guidelines in evaluation and installation of various traffic control devices, including
waffle signals and "Step" signs. Adhering to these guidelines insures uniformity throughout the United States,
eliminates confusion and increases public safety. Since the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General
Kearny Road did not satisfy any of the required warrants for installation of a traffic signal, staff conducted a
warrant analysis for installation of an "All-Way Stop" at this location.
Caltrans Traffic Manual has established four (4) criteria for evaluation of "All-Way Stop" signs. These criteria
are as follows:
Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi-way stop may be an interim measure
that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal
installations.
An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents 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. Minimum Traffic Volumes
a. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500
vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day, and
The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at
least 200 units per hour for the same eight (8) hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular
traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but
c. When the 85-percenfile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the
minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements.
4. School area traffic control recommendations/warrants.
Staff has evaluated this location and found the results listed below:
1. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for this intersection and signal installation is not
warranted.
2. There has been no reported accident at this intersection within the last twelve (12) months (Exhibit
"B').
3. a. The total vehicular volume entering this intersection during the busiest eight (8) hours averages
650 as compared to 350 (500 X 70%) needed to meet this portion of the warrant (Exhibit "C").
The combination of vehicular and pedestrian volumes from the minor street averages 148 during
the same eight (8) hours as above. This compares to the 140 (200 X 70%) threshold. However,
the average delay to minor street is not at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour
as required by the Traffic Manual.
4. All children attending Nicolas Valley Elementary School that live south of Nicolas Road are currently
bussed to school and do not contribute to pedestrian crossings.
Staff recognizes that pedestrians on the south side of Nicolas Road have to cross this roadway m access the
parks on the north side. However, the pedestrian counts during the peak and non-peak traffic hours indicate
that a few pedestrians cross Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road and therefore, a traffic signal at this
location cannot be justified.
r:\tnfffic\commlssn\agenda\97\0925~nieolas.sig/ajp
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
and Traffic Collision Diagram
3. Exhibit "C" - "All-Way Stop" Warrant Analysis and Volume Data
4. Exhibit "D" - Caltrans Sign Installation Policy
CALLE
MEDUSA
EXHIBIT "B"
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC COLLISION DIAGRAM
9-6
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Manual
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CALC
CHK
OlST CO RTE PM
Minor S::/V',
Critical speed of maior street tral/ic > 40 mph ............. c~r 'X
In built up area of isolaled cemmunKy et < 10,0O0 pop. - ........ []
DATE ~- II- gf'7
DATE ~}- ll- ')'7
Critical Approach Speed ~rTA' mph
Critical Approach Speed ~ mpn
RURAL(R)
URBAN (U)
WARRANT I - Minimum Vehicular volume
APPROACH
'\- LANES
,,,, Both Apprchs.
MEIer Slyeel
,~ Highesl AOprch.
O~ Minor SITeel *
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U t n
500 ~
(4OO) )
150 105
(120)
100% SATISFIED YES [] NO :[~
80% SATISFIED YES [] NO ~
* NOTE: Heavier leH turn movement from MEier Street included when LT-phasing is proposed []
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO
80% SATISFIED YES [] NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u In uln A A P P P P P P
I ~ 151
Major S~t (600) ( ) (
Highesl Appr~ 75 ~
* NOTE: Heawer loll turn movement/rein Maior Sireel included when LT-phasmg is proposed~
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
loo% SATISFIED YES [] NO C~
REQUIREMENT FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the malor street is 100 or more
for each or any tour hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes [] No
nourT and
There are less than 60 gaps per hour ~n [he major slreet tral-
tic stream ot ade<~uate length tot pedeslnans to cross; and Yes E~ No
The nearest Iraffic srgnal along lhe malor street is greater
than 300 feel; and Yes
The new Irarhc s~gnal wdl not senously disrupt progressive Yes ~ No []
traffic flow on the major street a
/
The Satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justi/icaljon for a signal Delay, Congestion, Conlusion or other evidence
of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
Traffic Manual 9-7
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANTS 4 - School Crossings
Not Applicable ..................................
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED
MINIMUM REQUIREEMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
>IO00F'[ N/Jt')/v~.ft.S/,/O/V~;ft, E Aj/)t,j~Fff, W
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ANO ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
YES r-J NO ,~
FULFILLED
YES/~., NO []
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES (3 NO rl
REQUIREMENTS ] WARRANT ,./ FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATIFIED ................................................................................................
OR
80% WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES [] NO ,~ t
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUFT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ~ []
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY [] :~
ACC WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR $500 DAMAGE
"l ............................. ..............................
s OR MORE r ,V~JE ' (F/~(} a ~,
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
SATISFIED YES rq NO,,I~
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENTS ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES ~// FULRLLED
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR "'7 '~/'~ VEHIHR
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SAT AND/OR SUN.. VEH/HR
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR S'"E
800 VEH/HR
YES (:] NO
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE Or'/AN OFFICAL PLAN
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STS.
YES [] NO ,,~
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES [] NO ~
REQUIREMENT WARRANT ,/ FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED '~
80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES [] NO .C~
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
Approach Lanes
SATISFIED* YES [] NO ~
2or liE'~ {/~G~;F/~PF//~?~i~
?'~ ~f"'~ ~' '?Hour
One more ~ ~
Both Approaches Major Street / ~
Highest Approaches - Minor Street /
Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant ~s satisfied.
WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED YES [] NO J~
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five
vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND
YES [] NO []
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving Panes; ANI;)
YES [] .o []
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
YES [] NO ~
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume
SATISFIED YES [] NO J~
ApproaCh Lanes
Both Approaches Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor SIreet
Hour
Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS/or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied,
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or Other evidence
of the need for right-of-way assignmeftt must be shown.
9-10 Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9.5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
CALC DATE
DIST CO RTE' PM CHK DATE
Major SI: Critical Approach Speed
Minor St: CritiCal Approach Speed
Critical speed of malor street traffic > 40 mph ............. [] )
or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - ........
[] URBAN (U)
mph
~ mph
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED
YES [] NO []
Minimum Requlremems
PART A U R
Each ot
Veh ic!e Volume 2 hours 200 140
SATISFIED
School Age Pedestrian Each ol 40 40
Crossing Street 2 hours
AND
PART B
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph
AND
PART C
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away?
SATISFIED
YES [] NO ~
YES [] NO []
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
PART A U
Vemcle Volume Each ol
2 ho.,~ soo 350
sac. o,~oo 70
School Age Pedestrian 2 hours
Crossing Street ' ' ~r ...............
per day ~ 40 40
ANO
PART B
~s nearesl controlled crossing more than 600 feet away'?
SATISFIED
SATISFIED
SATISFIED
YES [] NO []
YES []
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-6
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
500
> 400
-r
uJ .,~ 300
uJ 0
~ r,
~ o,
CC "(
O uJ 200
..J
O
> 100
-p
0
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
%' ~ (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR)
//'1~\~ I OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE I LANE (MINOR)
I I
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
300 400 1200 1300 1400
NOTE:
115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
9-12
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Traffic Manual
0
200
'?' 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
~ .f 300
t.u ~: ' ~'OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
~O
i- if' O LANES (MINOR) /
n- ( 200
O
-r 100
-r
I LANE (MAJOR) & I LANE
I I
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
NOTE:
80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-8
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
9-13
1-1991
600
~ 500
u~ 0 400
"" '~ 300
~=_.,
0 200
"~ 100
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
Z OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR)
JOR} & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)~
1 LANE (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR) ~ -y I
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
400 500 1500 1600
1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES * VPH
* NOTE:
150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPN APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
9'14
1-1991
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Traffic Manual
500
> 400
..f,.
~0
,,, n- 300
frO.
zO s 200
.~._1
0
c2_ loo
-r'
JOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
300
I LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
1200:
'k
,
1300
*' NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VI~H APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
160
140
1 O0
I
0
I~, 80-
40
/
50% 100% 1
PERCENT WARRANT MET
200%
FiSure8
160 -
140 --
120 -
1 O0 ~ 97.5
65
60-
40-
32.5
20-
0%
INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
I
50~, 100% 150% 200%
PERCENT WARRANT MET
n.~Fe 9
MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
120
300 -
0
~' 80
4O
2 20
o%
100%
PERCENT
150% 200%
WARRANT MET
F:i~2~e ZO
COMBINATION OF WARRANTS
~00
80
~- _
~- 60
20
50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
PERCENT WARRANT M£T
Figure 11
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
5o
3o
2O
50~.
I
100~ 150~
PERCENT WARRANT
200% 250~.
MET
Fi&,uze 12
ACCIDENT EXEERIENCE
30O
250
'
200
150
1 O0
50
5 '~o 15 20
NUMBER OF CORRECTABLE ACCIDENTS
25 30
· igure 13
FOUR HOUR WARRANT
PEAK HOUR WARRANT
SYSTEMS WARRANT
100~ MET =
100~. MET =
100~ MET =
35 POINTS
30 POINTS
15 POINTS
n,-
SINIOd 'W. LOII
8NON ),lV3d q:) t
UnOH Hnoa G
NOIIVNI8fIOD ~
IN3CnO:iTf ~
'7~ND~ ~OOHOS
"iOA '03d 'Nlfi
'NOD
'IDA 'H~A 'NIH
Z
O
COLLISION DIAGRAM
LOCATION: N/CO/z/S ,P-,.D,4/~ ~ T N. ~z:~X/-F'/D--j~L//-,_E,4~ y'
PERIOD: FROM: I-F 9'9' TO: ~-/- E~7 D,4Fd: c)_ 16- 97
/VICoz,4S
I~ Injury Accident '
O FotoI Accident
CONST Construction Zone
---.o.---,,,-o. 7EA~
Heed-On Sideswipe
Overtokln~ Sideswipe
~"~' ~"~" t 1995
Ov~tak~ Turn ~ D P ~
Veh, Turned Ov~
HVJd~Y )VaA///V_Tr2,eY TOF,4L
/ Z
0 / /
/ o / ,
4
EXHIBIT "C"
ALL-WAY "STOP" WARRANT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
APPROACHING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE INTERSECTION OF:
Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road
Hours Northbound
Southbound
7:00 A.M. * 61 131
8:00 A.M. * 80 160
9:00 A.M. 41 80
10:00 A.M. 36 62
11:00 A.M. 33 70
12:00 Noon 25 85
1:00 P.M. 42 66
2:00 P.M. * 52 87
3:00P.M. * 42 136
4:00 P.M. * 47 55
5:00P.M. * 34 86
6:00 P.M. * 43 79
7:00P.M. * 31 57
Average
highest S hours 148
from minor
streets:
* Highest eight (8) hour count.
Pedestrians Count: 16 total
Eastbound Westbound ~ Total
205 305 702
221 189 650
170 132 423
184 111 393
220 107 430
279 108 497
245 97 450
317 166 622
307 144 629
369 151 622
461 134 715
406 224 752
313 107 508
Average
Highest 8 hours 650
All approaches:
(counted from 8 to 9 a.m. and from 2 to 3 p.m. and are
included in the above counts)
r:\baha~memox.stopw.frm
'Y OF TEMECULA
ERAL KEARNY DRIVE/NICOLAS ROAD
AM TUESDAY/10 AM WEDNESDAY
in < ......
A.M.
0 09/02 0
15 0
30 0
45 1
00 0
15 1
30 0
45 0
00 0
15 0
30 0
45 0
00
15 0
30 0
45 3
00 2
15 3
30 0
45 8
30 2
[5 4
30 2
Z5 2
l0 5
j 17
{5 13
)0 17
[5 2]
{0 12
[5 I1
)0 21
L5 15
~0 26
~5 14
)0 9
.5 15
~O 12
.5 5
)0 13
.5 13
.0 5
,5 5
0 12
5 8
0 5
5 8
is 320
Totals
' ) 30.5)
NBND ...... >< ...... SBND
P.M. A.M.
4 0
10 0
3 2
1 8 25 1 3
17 1
10 1
9 1
1 8 42 1 4
10 3
I2 1
14 0
* 6 42 2 6
I9 1
8 1
14 0
4 6 47 0 2
7 6
9 3
10 10
13 8 34 11 30
5 14
14 14
13 16
1O 11 43 23 67
9 22
8 29
8 23
44 6 31 38 112
6 38
13 35
16 22
61 10 45 36 131
7 28
3 24
II 88
76 7 28 50 160
4 22
7 15
4 17
41 0 15 26 80
4 18
0 8
2 17
36 1 7 19 62
3 15
0 15
2 23
33 i 6 17 70
365 V27
685 1449
33,5) 69,4)
COUPS UNLIMITED
909.247.6716
ENTERING VOLUMES
...... >< ...... Combined ...... >
P.M. A.M. P.M.
29 0 33
15 0 25
23 2 26
IB 85 2 4 26 110
18 1 35
11 2 2I
18 i 27
19 88 1 5 25 i08
13 3 23
20 1 32
24 0 38
29 86 2 6 35 I28
15 2 34
79 1 87
23 0 37
19 136 3 8 25 183
14 8 21
19 6 28
9 10 19
13 55 19 43 21 89
23 16 28
25 18 39
18 1E 31
20 86 25 77 31 129
20 27 29
15 46 23
24 32 32
20 79 51 156 26 110
20 55 26
13 56 26
14 34 30
10 57 47 192 20 102
13 49 20
11 39 14
9 84 20
4 37 64 236 11 65
7 31 I1
5 30 12
3 29 7
3 18 31 121 3 33
3 31 7
0 21 0
4 22 6
1 8 24 98 2 15
3 27 6
1 23 I
4 28 6
1 9 25 103 2 15
722 i047 1087
2134
66.4)
Site Code: 15762430
Start Date: 09/02/97
File I,D. TEGENINS
Page 1
Hour
08:00 02:15 08:00 02:30 08:00 02:30
76 51 160 I47 236 194
.73 ,67 .68 .46 ,70 .55
~egin < ......
'ime A.R.
2:00 09/02
2:15
,2:)0
.2:45 6
4:00
,Iris 3
,1:30 2
,l:t5 0
'2:00 2
{2:IS
2:30
2:15
3:00 4
3:15 3
3:38
3:45 3
(:GO 4
iris 0
(:34 4
4:iS l
5208 )
5:15
5:30 !
5:45
6:00 15
6:1S 2G
6:30
6:45 52
7:OO 63
?:30 32
7:45 44
|:00 Sl
{:15
!:30 55
1:SS
hDO 44
hIS 43
):30 44
1:45 39
}:00 42
1:15 43
}:30 48
I;45 51
:00 08
.:15 43
:38 67
:45 62
raIN
y Totals
lit I
NEE ...... >< ......
P.M.
41 1
73 2
26 76 2?9
61 0
41
14 61 245 0
55 0
46 1
129 1
7 67 117
U 1
11 67 397
107 9
) 92 369 II
i21 7
l]l 19
13~
18 92 451 23
138 30
102 3N
86 44
83
87
205 74 313 53
59 48
70 32
102
221 84 315 49
54 40
48
4~ 22
170 32 183 2t
3t 26
27 3~
21
29 1M 25
12
1~ 33
10
3347 1121
4541
7L 31
~k Boer
COI/N'~ ~i'~INITBD
909.247.6714
gNTgBIIG ¥OGURES
MILD ...... >< ......Combined
y.lq. X .R.
33
4 23 100 G 30
20 3
25 3
2 24 97 I ]G
25 2
2 50 166 O
10
11 t
tG (
9 37 144 6 20
37 13
32 32 151 12 41
26 10
30
44 18
63 34 134 31
23 45
30
2! 80
165 ]3 11,1 105
23 153
33 171
24
305 27 IQ? 97 Jlg,
21 121
12 116
189 II 39 74 die
10 84
132 13 35 6g 3~2
11
2
ill 9 28 76 295
107 1 9 8i 327
1152 2335
2273 6834
25.61
6ire Code: 15763921
start Date: 09/02/97
Pil~ I.B. T{CKMIEN
Page I
P.R.
91
100
lOS 387
01
90 342
80
80
184
137 483
112
164
131
104 451
126
144
124
126
161
132
114
ll]
106
120
101
7~
113
{S 374
61
~3
45 217
33
23
2N
18
17
12
449S
4?:45 O5:lS 06:45 02:15 06:45 05:15
240 478 305 171 510 609
.67 .86 .72 .75 .75 .87
;ZO ' d
':l-:l-a)foES e..4eq.seg mur!~ l: t l 16 - l l -demS
abed -- ,+/099 */Z6 606, moJd -- meg£:9 1661%t jequmldaS AepsJnql}
EXHIBIT "D"
CALTRANS SIGN INSTALLATION POLICY
4-26 SIGNS Traffic Manual
POLICY
W53
Standard. 24"
NOT A THROUGH STREET (ROAD) SIGN
The NOT A THROUGH STREET (ROAD) sign (W53)
may be used near the entrance to a dead-end street or
cul-de-sac.
W53A
Standard 30"
(W14 - 2)
NO OUTLET SIGN
The NO OUTLET sign (W53A) may be pete at the
entrance to a street which leads to a network of two or
more streets from which there is no public outlet.
W54
Stlftdlrd 24" X 8"
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SYMBOL SIGN
The Pedestrian Crossing symbol sign (W54) may be
used to warn motorists of Unexpected antdes Into the
roadway by pedestrians at a specific location.
The sign should be located adjacent to the crossing.
When the W54 Is used, the W54A may be placed as
advance warning when visibility is limited.
W54A
$tand8~l 30"
(wl 1 - 2)
PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL SIGN
The Pedest41an symbol sign (W54A) may be used In
advance of a pedestrian cross-wal~~and V-
in advance of the Pedestrian Crossing sigh'T'(w54).
The pedestrian crossing may be relatively confined,
or may occur randomly over 8 substantial distance or
roadway. At these locations, · NEXT MILES
plate (W71) should be used below the W54A, as
propdate.
These signs are not normally placed in urban areas
where motorists would expect pedestrians crossing at
intersections.
ITEM NO. 5
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~"~Ali Moghadam, Associate Engineer
September 25, 1997
Item 5
Proposed Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and
Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the median openings at the Claim Jumper
driveway and Target driveway be closed and the striping and signal timing at Town Center/Hope Way be
modified to increase capacity at this intersection.
BACKGROUND:
Per the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's direction, staff studied feasibility of restricting access to the Town
Center by modifying the existing median islands. This item has already been reviewed by the Public/Traffic
Safety Commission on three (3) separate occasions. At the August 28, 1997 meeting of the Public/Traffic
Safety Commission, the Commission continued this item to allow staff adequate time to review the study
conducted by the Town Center's engineer.
The final report which was submitted on September 17, 1997, was reviewed by City staff in great detail.
Although stuff does not agree with several assumptions made in this study, even at worse case, with
improvements to the signal timing and striping at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Town
Center/Hope Way, the level of service could be maintained at current levels. These improvements include
relocation of the crosswalk to the west side of the intersection, re-timing the signal to allocate more time to
Town Center, and re-striping the Town Center driveway.
It should be noted that the intersection of Via Las Colinas and Rancho California Road is the only access to
the medical center and the apartment complex on Via Las Colinas. In addition, since this intersection is
located downstream of a vertical curve, the sight distance is very limited for out-bound left-turn movement.
Also, the City has received a grant for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection which carmot be used
at any other location.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Wilbur Smith Assoc. Report
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS , PLANNERS
23()0 E KATELLA AVE · SUITE 275 · ANAHEIM CA 9280~-6047 · (714) 978-8110 · FAX (714)978-110~
September 16, 1997
Patricia M. Snow, CSM
Senior Property Manager
RADNOR/Califomia Services Corporation
27450 Ynez Rd. Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ms. Snow:
EXHIBIT
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) is pleased to submit this report to RADNOR which documents our
findings relating to the assessment of traffic access impacts on the Temecula Town Center
associated with Rancho California Road median modifications and inters~tion signalization plan
proposed to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission by the City of Temecula Public Works
Department Proposed median modifications presented in the City's Agenda Report dated June 26,
1997, are intended to reduce the number of traffic accidents which occur along Rancho California
Road at the un-signalized access d~iveway intersections serving Temecula Town Center and the
Temecula Gardens apartment complex.
The median modifications proposed by the City, essentially involve the closure of median openings
and elimination of un-restricted left-turn and through movements at the driveways served by the
median openings. While the proposed median closures would eliminate the occurrence of some
traffic accident categories, the median modifications would result in the elimination of access
features which were dedicated to the Town Center when the development plan was originally
approved. The loss of these access features will have an impact on the manner in which patrons
enter and exit the Town Center. The general scope of WSA's work has been to investigate the
access and circulation impacts of the proposed Temecula Public Works Department street
modifications and to formulate alternative measures which would reduce accidents and, at the same
time, minimize impacts on the Town Center access.
A more detailed description of WSA's work tasks for this study is provided below:
1)
This initial task included a careful review of the City's Jane 26, 1997 Agenda Report to the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission to understand the safety concerns and accessTcimulation
impacts implications of the proposed median modifications. A copy of the Agenda Report is
attached for reference purposes.
EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY
Pawicia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 2
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
2)
3)
In order to fully evaluate the access impacts associated with the proposed median closures,
additional traffic data was collected at the Town Center access driveways and along Rancho
California Road. This data served to gain a better understanding of traffic circulation paRems
and flow characteristics at the access driveway intersections serving the Town Center.
A comprehensive set of coants was conducted over a three-day period, from Thursday July 24
to Saturday July 26, 1997, which comprised of a combination of24-hour directioual tube counts
and peak period intersection mining movement counts at six of the seven Town Center access
paints (including four on Rancho California Road and two on Ynez Road). Additionally, 24-
hour direcfional counts were conducted on both Rancho California Road and Ynez Road (near
the intersection of these two streets) and peak period intersection turning movement counts at
the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The 24-hour tube counts were
conducted for both a typical weekday and weekend day. Intersection turning movement counts
were conducted during peak ingress/egress periods of the center as well as during peak traffic
periods on Rancho California Road.
The peak traffic ingress/egress period on weekdays typically occurs between 12:00 noon and
2:00 p.m. for the Town Center, while the peak traffic period on Rancho California Road
typically occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. On weekends the peak traffic period for both
the Town Center and Rancho California Road typically occurs between 12:00 noon and 3:00
p.m.
This task also included a detailed investigation of study area to collect information on lane
configurations at access intersections, access configurations and needs of properties south of
Rancho California Road, and general traffic operation characteristics within the study area
dunrig peak periods.
Using field data collected in Task 2, WSA evaluated the impact of the proposed street
modifications on ingress/egress traffic flows. This included a complete m-distribution
evaluation of patron traffic affected by the proposed street modifications and an analysis of
traffic operations at key center access points as well as the intersection of Rancho Califorma
Road/Ynez Road.
Patricia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 3
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
4)
Based on Task 2 field investigations and the results of analysis performed in Task 3, WSA
formulated several alternatives to the City proposed modifications which would reduce the
likelihood of traffic accidents and, at the same time, minimize access impacts on the Town
Center.
Temecula Town Center Access
The configuration of access driveways senang the Town Center is depicted in Figure 1. Four access
driveways are located along Rancho Califomia Road and three along Ynez Road. Primary access
on Rancho California Road is provided by the centrally located signalized Town Center/Hope Way
intersection. Secondary access is provided by both the Claim Jumper restaurant driveway and the
Target driveway. Opposite the Target driveway, is the exit chiveway for the Temecula Gardens
apartment complex.
The easterly Town Center driveway located opposite Via Las Colinas is designed to provide access
to delivery trucks and employees who park at the mar of stores located along the east perimeter of
the center. Convenient patron parking accessible via this driveway, is generally limited to parking
spaces located near the northern perimeter of the center, adjacent to Edward's Theater. The grade
features of Rancho Califomia Road, place this driveway at an elevation well above that of the
Target parking lot. The difference in elevation, combined with the relatively remote location of the
driveway result in few patrons recognizing that this driveway actually serves the Town Center.
On Ynez Road, the signalized center and south driveways serve as primary access points for the
Town Center. The north chiveway on Ynez Road is not signalized and serves as secondary access
for the center.
Access points originally approved for the site along Rancho California Road were constructed in
1989, just prior to the opening of the center. The raised median and median openings were
constructed at the same time the Town Center was under construction. In 1989, development along
the south side of Rancho California Road consisted of the Bedford Properties Visitor/Sales Office,
the original Hope Lutheran Church, Temecula Gardens apartment complex, Highlands Office
Building, and Rancho California Medical Plaza. Tuming movements at all four driveway were
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 4
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
unrestricted in 1989, as they are today. All four driveways operated as tin-controlled intersections
until 1993-94 when the signal at the Town Center driveway/Hope Way intersection was installed.
Accident History
Traffic collision diagrams presented in the June 261h and August 281h, 1997 Agenda Reports
summarize the accident history, for the period fi'om January 1995 through July 1997, along Rancho
California Road at the Claim Jumper driveway, Target driveway, and north Town Center driveway
opposite Via Las Colinas.
During 1995, four accidents occurred near the Claim Jumper driveway. Two of the accidents
involved turns to or from the driveway. One of these involved a left-turn movement into the
driveway and one involved a right turn out of the driveway. Between January of 1996 and July of
1997, a total of twelve accidents occurred in the vicinity of the Claim Jumper driveway. The more
recent accidents included four involving left turns out of the driveway, four involving right turns out
or into the driveway, and one involving a left turn into the driveway.
At the Target driveway/Temecula Gardens driveway intersection, ten accidents occurred during
1995. All of the accidents involved left turn or through movements into and/or out of these
driveways. Between January 1996 and July 1997, a total of ten accidents occurred at this
intersection with all involving left turn and through movements at the driveways.
In the vicinity of the east Town Center driveway/Via Las Colinas intersection, no accidents occurred
during 1995 and five occurred during the 1996-1997 period. In this case only one accident involved
a vehicle exiting/entering the side street.
The accident data shows that there has been an increase in the rate of accidents over time. During
1995, the accident rate averaged 1.2 accidents per month. From January 1996 through July 1997
the accident rate averaged 1.6 per month. One of the contributing factors to the increased rate of
accidents over time is the growth in traffic on Rancho Califorma Road.
While small increases in traffic may have occurred at the Town Center driveways the major portion
of traffic increases has occurred in through traffic on Rancho California Road. This is primarily due
Patricia Snow
S~ptcmb~r 16, 1997
Page 5
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
to the new housing development which is occurnng in the eastern part of the city. Other new
development which has contributed significant traffic to this segment of Rancho California Road
includestheOscaesmstauramandtheexpansion/reconstmctionofHopeLutheranChureh. Traffic
flows on Rancho California Road have increased from 26,000 vehicles per day in 1992 to 38,900
vehicles per day in 1997. This increase in traffic has impacted the ability of Town Center patrons
to negotiate left turns while exiting and entering at the un-controlled driveways.
Proposed City Modifications
As described in the Agenda Report, proposed modifications between Ynez Road and Via Las
Colinas am primarily intended to reduce the rate of accidents at the Claim Jumper and
TargetfI'emecula Gardens driveways. The proposed modifications include:
· closure of the median opening opposite the Target and Temecula Gardens driveways;
· either closure of the median opening opposite the Claim Jumper driveway or at a minimum
prohibit left turns out of the driveway;
· conversion of the westbound right-turn lane between the Town Center/Hope Way intersection
and Ynez Road to a third through lane; and
modifications to the median islands to provide additional left-turn lane storage on Rancho
California Road at the Town Center/Hope Way and north Town CenterNia Las Colinas
intersections.
The City Agenda Report also states that the intersection of Rancho California Road and Via Las
Colinas is scheduled for signalization in Fiscal Year 1997/1998.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Weekday and Saturday directional daily traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.
As can be noted, the signalized Town Center driveway on Rancho California Road is the most
heavily utilized driveway serving between 8,200 and 9,300 vehicles per day. This rapresents
Palricia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 6
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
between 46 and 48 percent of the total traflic which accessed to and from Rancho California Road.
This is followed by the Claim Jumper and Target driveways which serve an average of
approxamately 6,000 and 3,300 vehicles per day respectively. Daily traffic at the east Town Center
driveway averages only 480 vehicles per day or less than 3 pement of the traffic accessed via
Rancho California Road.
Peak-hour intersection and roadway segment traffic volumes for the weekday midday, weekday
p.m., and Saturday midday condition is presented in Figures 4 through 6 respectively. The weekday
and Saturday peak-hours at the Town Center access driveway intersections were found to generally
occur between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. The weekday p.m. peak-hour at these locations generally occurs
between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.
It should be noted that significant u-turn movements currently occur on Rancho California Road at
the Town Center/Hope Way intersection due to median restricted left-turn movements at the Oscar's
driveway and Temecula Gardens entrance driveway. Oscars traffic destined to the west, must
weave across the eastbound Rancho California Road traffic lanes to access the left-turn lane at the
nearby Town Center/Hope Way intersection. This traffic then makes a u-turn at the intersection to
travel westbound. Temecula Gardens apartment complex traffic approaching on Rancho California
Road from the east, must make a u~tum at the Town Center intersection in order to enter the
complex.
Evaluation of Impacts on Traffic Volumes
Based on the proposed median modification and associated access restrictions, WSA evaluated the
likely pattern oftraffic re<listribution for each ofthe movements affected. The estimated paths and
re-distribution of the affected traffic are illustrated in Figures 7 through 11. The resulting traffic
volumes during each of the peak-hour conditions with the proposed City median closures are
illustrated in Figures 12 through 14.
It should be noted that full closure of the median and restriction of left mm movements has been
assumed at the Claim Jumper driveway to evaluate the potential impact.
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 7
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
At the Claim Jumper driveway, the proposed median closure would impact approximately 4 to 9
outbound left turn vehicles per hour during the peak periods studied. Inbound left turns impacted
by the proposed median closure number between 75 and 155 vehicles per hour during peak periods.
The median closure at the Target driveway would displace an existing outbound left turn volume
of approximately 38 vehicles per hour during peak periods. The inbound left turn movement
impacted by the proposed closure totals approximately 33 vehicle on the avenge during peak-hours.
At the Temecula Gardens exit, an avenge of 29 vehicles per hour would be affected by the by the
median closure.
The analysis of impacts on traffic distribution patterns indicate that significant traffic increases
during peak periods can be expected at the Town Center/Hope Way intersection. Specifically, the
eastbound left turn into the Town Center and the outbound left mm from the Town Center would
be the most severely impacted. During peak-hour periods, increases of over 1130 vehicle would be
common at the inbound left turn from eastbound Rancho California Road.
Evaluation of Impacts on Traffic Operations
WSA has analyzed intersection operation during the peak-hour periods with and without the
proposed median closures. The results of the HCS signalized intersection analyses are summarized
below.
Peak-hour intersection operation at Rancho California Road/Ynez Road would be slightly better
(lower average delay) with during the weekday midday condition and slightly worse (higher
average delay) for the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday conditions with the re-distribution
in waffle. Level of Service (LOS) was not found to impacted however in any of the cases.
Peak-hour intersection operation at the Rancho California Road/Town Center-Hope Way
intersection was found to be more significantly impacted. While the overall intersection LOS
is not impacted during the weekday peak-hour periods, the level of service for the left turn into
and out of the Town Center driveway would in most cases be worsened from "C" to "D." For
the Saturday condition LOS at the intersection would worsen from "C" to "D."
Pattieta Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 8
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
It should be noted that the accommodation of pedestrian traffic crossing Rancho California
Road at this intersection, is particularly problematic. The current signal phasing allows
pedestrians to cross Rancho Califomia Road when Hope Way exiting traffic is given the
"green." Since Hope Way Waffle volumes are ve~ low, this signal phase is not always needed.
The pedestrian push-button will activate this phase of the signal even when Hope Way traffic
is not present. As a result of this, green time is being taken away from other approach
movements. Additionally, pedestrians are given only 10 seconds or less to cross Rancho
Calffomia Road when a typical pedestrian needs approximately 20 seconds to walk the width
of the street.
If minimum recommended pedestrian crossing times are provided existing traffic conditions
would result in LOS "D" for all study periods and with the re-distribution of traffic, overall
intersection delay is worsenod to LOS "E" in some cases. In all cases, the LOS for the inbound
and outbound left turns would deteriorate to "E."
On-site circulation conditions should also be considered. Current conditions in the vicinity of
the main Town Center access driveway are highly congested during peak periods. This is
partially due to the proximity of the first cross cimulation aisle to the signalized intersection.
Since many patrons find it difficult to turn left out of the site at the Claim Jumper and Target
driveways, they circulate on-site towards the signalized Town Center driveway. This
circulation pattern is evident from the directtonal imbalances in the hourly and daily traffic
flows at these three access driveways. The inbotmd volumes at the Claim Jumper and Target
driveways are higher than the outbound volumes while the outbound volumes at the Town
Center driveway are heavier than the inbound volumes. The median closure at both the Claim
Jumper and Target driveways would further exacerbate congestion on-site and could ultimately
cause back-ups at the Town Center entrance driveway and also reduce the efficiency of the
outbound lanes at this intersection.
Proposed Alternatives and Mitigative Measures for Consideration
l)
As pointed out in the Agenda Report, given the low accident rate for inbound left turns at the
Claim Jumper driveway, it appears reasonable at this time to limit the turn restriction at this
location to outbound left turns only. The resultant impact on traffic redistribution would be
Patricia Snow
S~t~rnh~r 16, 1997
Page 9
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
2)
negligible. Accidents involving inbound left turns at this driveway could be monitored over the
short term to see if additional measures are warranted. WSA agrees with the median
modification proposed by the City to physically discourage the outbound left turn movement.
It is assumed that this measure would be accompanied by appropriate signing.
As an alternative to closing the median at the TargeUTemecula Gardens driveways, WSA
suggests that a signal at this location be considered in lieu of the planned signal at the east
Town Center driveway. The combined weekday peak period traffic volumes entering and
exiting Target/Temecula Gardens driveways are comparable or higher than those at the north
Town Center driveway/Via Las Colinas. When weekend periods are considered, traffic
generated at the Target driveway is significantly higher than that experienced at Via Las
Colinas. Furthermore, due to the "service" nature of the areas served by the east Town Center
driveway and the poor visibility of this driveway, it is not likely that a signal at this location
would have much of an impact in attracting shopping center patrons.
It is also relevant to note that the east Town Center driveway/Via Las Colnias area of Rancho
California Road has experienced a very low accident rate since January 1995. No accidents
occurred during 1995 and only five occurred during the nineteen-month period from January
1996 through July 31, 1997. Of the five recent accidents, only one involved traffic at the
entering or exiting the side driveway/street.
Additionally, while we are ancertmn of the timing, it appears that Via Las Colinas will
ult~nately be extended to the east and then turn north to connect Rancho California Road at the
signalized intersecUon of Moraga Road. There also appears to be an opportunity to provide for
a shared access or dedicated street running between Via Las Colinas and the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane, which is also signalized. Either or both of these
potential signalized connections to Rancho California Road could safely serve traffic to and
from the Via Las Colinas area.
Although the Target driveway is relatively close to the Town Center signal location, these
signal could be interconnecmd to insure that they operate in a coordinated fashion and maintain
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 10
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
good traffic flow. The distance between these intersections is appwximately 300 feet, similar
to the distance between many freeway interchange ramps.
In Figure 15, WSA has estimated the re-distribution of Town Center traffic which would likely
result from the presence of a signal at the Target driveway. This is essentially the latent
demand for exiling traffic which currently diverts to the Town Center driveway. The peak-hour
traffic volumes which would result due to the Target signal are depicted in Figures 16 through
18.
3)
If a signal were to be located at the Target driveway, it would also offer an opportunity to
potentially relocate the pedestrian crossing at the Town Center/Hope Way intersection. This
location would actually be in closer proximity to the residential areas generating the pedestrian
Ixaff~c. In this case, pedestrians could be served by a single crosswalk located across Rancho
California Road on the west side of the intersection. Pedestrians would be given the "walk"
symbol during the signal phase which serves traffm exiting the Town Center.
Analysis of estimated peak hour conditions at both the Town Center/Hope Way signal and the
TargeUTemecula Gardens signal, indicate that the resulting re-distribution of traffic would offer
LOS "B" Irafire conditions at both traffic signals while safely accommodating pedestrians.
It is important to note however, that if a signal is located at the Target driveway, the on-site
circulation layout would need to be modified to accommodate a clear approach to the
intersection which if an-inten'upted by cross circulation aisles. The length of the intersection
approach should be at least 120 feet from the stop bar location. Inbound traffic would need to
be provided with a similar clear aisle to operate properly. The reconfigured driveway would
be striped to provide two outbound lanes and one inbound lane.
If a pedestrian crossing of Rancho California Road is to be maintained at the Town
Center/Hope Way intersection, WSA recommends that the City consider use of a single
crosswalk located on the west side of the intersection, and provide a minimum 20-second
interval for the Town Center approach traffic when the pedestrian push-button is used. Since
the traffic demand is higher at the Town Center approach than the Hope Way approach, in most
Patricia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 11
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
4)
5)
6)
instances both traffic and pedestrian movements would be served at the same time. This would
allow the intersection to operate more efficiently than with the present signal phasing.
The Town Center driveway approach to Rancho California Road should be striped in a manner
which would allow a dual left-turn movement. Figure 19 depicts two striping layout
alternatives which would provide traffic a more orderly approach to the intersection and
increase capacity. The main aisle leading to and from the Town Center approach should also
be striped in a manner which would provide two outbound (southbound) lanes and one inbound
(northbound) lane.
fithe decision be made by the City to continue with current plans to signalize the north Town
Center driveway/Via Las Colinas intersection, consideration should be given to delaying the
closure of the median opposite the Target driveway. The presence of a new signal to the east
combined with proposed operational improvements at the Town Center/Hope Way intersection
may result in more favorable conditions which would safely accommodate the Target and
Temecula Gardens driveway traffic movements.
One concern related to the signalization of the East driveway/Via Las Colinas intersection, is
the possibility that this improvement may encourage Via Las Colinas traffic to circulate through
the rear of the Town Center while travelling between Via Las Colinas area and the Ynez
corridor.
Another option would be to: (a) limit turns at the Claim Jumper driveway to "left in only"; (b)
add the westbound lane between the Town Center/Hope Way intersection and Ynez Road; (c)
lengthen the left-turn bays on Rancho California Road approaching the Town Center/Hope Way
intersection; (d) implement the proposed re-striping of the Town Center driveway and signal
timing modifications (including changes to the pedestrian crossing location and signal phasing;
and (e) provide a new "second" access driveway for Oscais which would connect to Ynez Road
at Tierra Vista Road. It is our understanding that the City is already considering this new
access. The cumulative affect of these measures may improve operations in the study area and
allow safer access at the TargetJTemecula Gardens driveways without closure of the median.
If these measures do not subsequently result in a reduction in the accident rate at the Target
Patricia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 12
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
driveway, then the left turns at the driveway could be limited to "left turn in only." Accidents
involving inbound left turns at this driveway could then be monitored for a period of rime to
see if additional measures are warranted.
Should RADNOR or City of Temecula staff have any questions concerning the results of this study,
please contact me (714) 978-8110.
Sincerely,
VflLBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Engineer
RAD:rad
At~achraents
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TARGET
TEMECULA
TOWN CENTER
FIGURE 1
~t
~ 0
4--909~
LB~OL-~
LU
0
z~ ~ ~
Oz ~
~o ~ ·
m< ~ ~ ~ ~
o z ' gi ~z
~0 0 ~ <
n"a~-LH,
,,0 z
·
fro 0 ~ ~"",,
W I--D
411Q-raz
frorrD z~
I--II.~0 rT_> ~ t
~ o ~
o
nl
D
AGENDAREPORT
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
All Moghadam, Associate Engineer r..q4- 6~.l/
June.26, 1997
Item 3
Proposed Median Modifications - Rancho California Road Between Ynez Road and
Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Cornmission review and recommend m~i~- modifica6ons on Rancho California
Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane as shown on Exhibit "A".
BACKGROUND:
Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane is designated as a four (4) lane arterial roadway
on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. This segment of Rancho California Road is
currendy heavily waveled and the exisdng un-reslxicted left-turn access w the Town Center driveways causes
an excessive number of waffle collisions and creates congestion. Currently full un-restricted access exisls on
Rancho California Road at Claim Jumper driveway and Target Center driveway. Exhibit "A" depicts the
existing median island configuration and the proposed modifications. Due to several conflicting movements
at these driveways during the AM, PM, and mid-day peak hours, numerous lraffic collisions have been
reported on Rancho California Road in this vicinity. A total of 27 accidents were reported from January 1,
1996 ~o May 1, 1997 on Rancho California Road at these driveways. Exhibit ~B" is the accident 5urnmary and
collision diagrams on Rancho California Road at these uncontrolled driveways.
It should be noted that the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vial Las Colinns is scheduled for
signalizalion in Fiscal Year 1996/1997. The proposed traffic signal at Via Las Colinas and the existing waffle
signal at Hope Way/Town Center should provide adequate and safe access to the Town Center from eastbound
Rancho California Road. Also, by eliminating the left-turn movement at these driveways the existing su-iped
right-ua-n only lane to the Town Center and Ynez Road can be utilized as a through lane which will increase
the capacity of this major east-west corridor.
The collision diagram (Exhibit 'B") indicates a low accident frequency caused by the eastbound left-turn
movement at the tirst driveway east of Ynez Road (Claim Jumper driveway), Therefore, to accommodate
some of the easthound left-ram demand (Exhibit "C"), a left-turn-in without a left-turn-out may be considered
at this location. The proposed project will also include modifications to the existing median islands to provide
additional left-turn storage capacity at the signalized intersections of Rancho California Road with Hope
Way/Town Center and Via Las Colinns,
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project has been identified in !he proposed FY97/98 Capital Improvement Program.
A~ehrnent~
1. Exhibit 'A" - Existing Median Island and Proposed Modifications
2. Exhibit 'B" - Traffic Collision Summary and Diagrams
3. Exhibit 'C' - Turning Movement and Direcfional Volume Counts
ALly-2'7-1997 18:21 E~INqOR TEFECULA 1 909 ~[~B
EXItIBIT "B"
TRAFFIC COLLISION SUMMARY
LOCATION
Ibx_NCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
TILAGET CENTER
~OSCAR'S
CLAIM JUMPER
;I TYPE OF
PROPERTY
YEAR DAMAGE
ONLY
1995 0
6
0
3
TOTAL 9
INJURY TOTAL
0 0
4 lo
0 0
I 4
5 14
LOCATION
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
TRAGET C~'NTER
OSCAK'S
CLAIM JUM~EK
TYPE OF ACCIDENTS,
PROPERTY
YEAR DAMAGE INJ'URY TOTAL
ONLY
1/1/96 to 4 I 5
7f31197
II 3 14
0 0 0
12 0
TOTAL 27 4 31
SEE COLLISION DIAGRAMS FOR DETAILS
AUG-2'Z-1997 18:21 RADNOR TEMECULA 1 91~9 31~8 2?03 P. 10
LOCATION:
P[RIOI::): FROU:
COLLISION DIAGRAM
I~H(_HO ~4LIF'OI'{N/,4 RO,~D ,
7b YI,4 Z/kS
~'-/-~)1 7-31-97
TO:
TOWN
DRIVE
cO L INx/S
~/~ ~
Co L/IVA S
::
tly/m e-q7
L 0 C A TI ON:
PERIOD: FROM:/'/'~'/~
COLLISION DIAGRAM
E.,4 / /,=O,,~W/,4' ,rED. L2 6~/.Z /,'vl .2(,/,~PE:f_. .D~IVS'V,4-~ ~
c~
~o:
W/~I. ?'
!I
Page 1 of 4
LOCATION:
PERIOD: FROM:
E~,Nr_J/a
/-t-,~
COLLISION DIAGRAM
C,~L/rd,~,V/A ~'a,~Z2 ~ i//4
LI/~ CDZ.
p/~
(~'x rr)
Page 2 of 4
,
LOCATION: ,/~,4/VE/-'/'O
OR, NF'WAY
\,
COLLISION DIAGRAM
r_5 4 L / F,~,~N /A' /'S,O L'p C /./t l/v/ _7'r/M /~ ~=/Z. D~ I V ~,4-~'
I
I
Page 3 of 4
LOCATION:
PERIOD: FROM:
F*,ANr..J-/,~
COLLISION DIAGRAM
C~4LjFoZ,V/A ~a,42 L~
To:/-/'~/-' ~
I J
LA~ EDL IAIHI~
~/~66T [bYE=P_
EXHI]3IT "C"
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
C~ak4 tk ~'~c.,rr
JUMPER CENTER
I F'7 ROAD OSCAR'S I~ ONLY
Turning movement count
Period: 12:00 Noon to 1:00 P.M.
F'OF °~T~E~LA/SITE 28
'gO CALIFORNIA/NE OF YNE~ ROAD
[ TUE/NCON
A.M.
08/~ 43
31
25
20
26
16
18
22
21
7
13
13
7
9
10
13
16
5
18
27
24
28
22
46
76
67
96
135
127
104
139
164
156
171
237
273
271
253
255
235
294
266
317
318
269
362
285
283
5633
41.1%
COUNTS UIU~INITED
909.247.6716
EAST/WEST
EMD ...... >< ...... WBND ...... ><------Combined ..... >
P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
254 24 305 67 559
252 9 310 40 562
260 17 313 42 573
119 271 1037 11 61 352 1280 31 180 623 2317
277 8 332 34 609
262 lO 260 26 522
282 12 292 30 574
82 267 1088 14 44 338 1222 36 126 605 2310
258 22 329 43 587
250 12 294 19 544
252 11 319 24 571
54 301 1061 19 64 303 1245 32 118 604 2306
279 12 306 19 585
304 9 370 18 674
298 16 344 26 642
39 380 1261 19 56 343 1363 32 95 723 2624
329 34 354 50 683
331 40 298 45 629
354 70 320 88 674
66 381 1395 87 231 336 1308 114 297 717 2703
379 99 302 123 681
382 107 246 135 628
382 162 244 184 626
120 385 1528 175 543 232 1024 221 663 617 352
295 234 243 310 538
326 218 270 285 596
249 363 249 459 498
374 242 1112 450 1265 245 1007 585 1639 487 2119
192 303 234 430 426
181 444 221 548 402
2?2 387 198 526 420
534 151 - 746 476 1610 160 813 640 2144 31I 1559
167 348 197 504 364
205 316 155 487 360
158 309 158 546 316
837 149 679 297 1270 159 669 570 2107 308 1348
151 233 120 504 271
129 219 114 472 243
107 237 t08 492 215
1014 95 482 263 952 89 431 498 1966 184 913
85 229 95 523 180
77 229 76 495 153
79 264 50 581 129
1195 62 303 247 969 50 271 565 2164 112 574
54 244 38 513 92
59 232 36 594 95
38 269 30 554 68
1199 42 193 255 1000 18 122 538 2199 60 315
10885 8065 10755 13698 21640
16518 18820 35338
50,3% 58.8% 49.7%
Site Code: 155720
Start Date: 08/06/96
File I.D.: TE28AU96
Pa~e : 1
10:30 ~,~ 05:00 ~ 07:15~ ~ 03:15/~w i0:30~ 03:15~M
1266 1528 1655 1411 2253 2722
,87 .99 .86 .95 .94 .94
ITEM NO. 6
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
'W897 http://www.cenewe.com/pwS97.htm
Take two Valium and call me at the next intersection
By Ronald Kirby, P.E., R.L.S.
Aug. 1997 issue
I have always considered engineers as having a language of precision and mathematical accuracy, that is,
until I heard one of my compatriots say the words, "traffic-calming devices" the other day. He explained
that he was studying methods to reduce vehicle speed on some of the streets in our town. His focus was
primarily in newer residential areas as well as some of the older portions of our community. He reported
that he was studying ideas in use in other areas such as traffic circles and speed humps. He also lent me a
videotape he had made of some of the local traffic studies that tested the ability of emergency vehicles
such as police and fire trucks to negotiate these obstacles. Clearly evident in the test was the fact that
these vehicles had to slow down to deal with the devices. When seconds count, I wonder why someone
would want to reduce the speed capacity of an emergency vehicle.
I understand that much of the hoopla about instituting "traffic-calming devices" in this area results from
the efforts of recent emigres from the noahwestern United States, where such mechanisms are common.
Few, if any, of our locally bred citizens are familiar with such obstacles to traffic. Frankly, the complaint I
most often hear is that traffic moves too slowly in this part of the wo~d. Thus, I was surprised when I
heard that some of our traffic engineers were studying ways to slow things down.
The words themselves are deceiving in that one set of these "calming devices" is installed along a
collector street I sometimes use. This type of installation involves purposefully narrowing the pavement
with islands that reduce the width of the street by several feet. This project was done at the behest of the
residents who live along this thoroughfare and who had complained vociferously about the amount of
traffic that frequented their street. They refused to accept the fact that this street had been designed as a
collector and was intended to carry traffic. Of course, I'm always confused by the person who buys a
house fronting on a street with 48 feet of pavement and then complains about the quantity and speed of
the vehicles that pass by. I guess they assume that such a road is an extraordinarily wide bike lane or they
may be arrogant enough to assume that no one should be able to use such a street except themselves and
a few friends.
Some years ago a local newspaper columnist would rail against DLEs -- a title he gave to nameless folks
at City Hall who he swore were Disappearing Lane Engineers. He believed that some of the local city
public works employees were specially trained in the an of eliminating traffic lanes at the worst possible
moment. He had certain favorite pans of town where he believed that the DLEs were busily at work
impeding the smooth flow of traffic. I'm sure he would crow with delight at this obvious proof that DLEs
really exist.
The usual practice in these pans is for the driver in a "disappearing" lane to speed up and merge into the
remaining lane with abandon. Of course, the "mergee" sometimes speeds up to foil this attempt, and it
becomes a test of wills as the lane devolves to nothing. Thus, rather than "calming" or reducing speeds,
such situations can serve to increase speeds and definitely reduce the purported calmative effects. I will
grant, however, that not all of our drivers are so oriented, but the question becomes how to identify the
1 of 2 09/17/97 15:57:14
?W897 http://www. cenews.com/pw897.h~m
different drivers. The institution of lane narrowing on a street can also mean that the driver who
unexpectedly encounters this invasive curbing will slow down and try to figure out why the street has
suddenly narrowed. That can be an abrupt surprise to a driver following that vehicle. In no case would
the driver be calm about this unexpected transition.
I read an article in the local newspaper that discussed the perceived effects of these narrowings and was
somewhat amused by the response of one homeowner. Apparently, she had noticed no reduction in speed
in her neighborhood until she'd put her lawn sprinkler out on the grass-filled island and allowed it to
spray into the remaining pavement. Only then, she said, did people slow down due to the shower.
I presented the words "traffic-calming device" to a friend of mine who is a scientist at St. Jude's
Children' s Hospital and I asked him what he thought I meant. His response was something along the lines
of a car and driver that are equipped with "an infusion pump and a Valium drip." This definition makes
more sense to me than the reality -- the insertion of an impediment into a perfectly good road whose
purpose is to reduce driver speed.
Due to the clamor by some residents for ways to reduce speed in neighborhoods, our traffic folks are
faithfully pursuing test sites. On one street they are even circulating a petition to be signed by the
neighborhood residents that agrees to allow the installation of some asphalt speed humps. The careful
reader of the petition will note that each signer aiso agrees to the opportunity of having the speed hump
installed in front of his or her house. One of my informants tells me that on this particular street some of
the worst offenders may be the local "soccer moms" who are rushing their progeny to a nearby practice
field. Whether they will be willing to participate in such a test might be an interesting question. By the
way, I have assiduously chosen not to discuss the possible ramifications of signs that would be installed in
residential areas announcing "Speed Hump Ahead" or "Slow Hump Ahead."
When George Orwell wrote the novel 1984 in 1948, he envisioned a society wherein "Newspeak" was the
language of the day. I read this book nearly 30 years ago, yet I still remember one of the main functions
of Newspeak, and that was to obfuscate the language. To Winston Smith, one of the protagonists of
1984, "Ignorance is bliss" and "War is peace." Perhaps they would also believe the term "traffic-calming
devices." Personally, I find nothing calming about them.
Home [ News I Features ] Letters [ Free subscription [ This month in print
Hot links I Classifieds [ Seminars I Discussion group [Ad info [ Talk to us
1997 Civil Engineering N~, Inc. All riglas reserved.
2 of 2 09/17/97 15:57:15
Norman Merrill is upset there
as no more Ocean Avenue/Strand Street crosswalk in Santa Monica.
SAFETY: Crosswalk Need Debated
Continued from BI
that," said Los Angeles pedestrian-
advocate Gloria Ohland. "So many
people walk there. They're usually
so politically correct there."
Traffic engineers have long con-
tended that marked crosswalks at
such intersections give pedestrians
a false sense of safety, encouraging
them to walk in front of cars
without looking.
Cities such as Los Angeles have
been removing such secondary
crosswalks for years. Traffic engi-
neers simply do not replace them
when intersections are resurfaeed
or old crosswalk paint fades or
peels away.
The crosswalk reinova[ pace is
picking up, however, thanks to a
new pedestrian safety analysis be-
ing made available to traffic plan-
ners throughout the state.
In the past, traffic experts have
based their crosswalk policies on a
pioneering 1970 San Diego safety
study suggesting that pedestrians
were safer without marked cross*
walks than with them at uncon-
trolled intersections.
San Diego officials began remov-
Ing crosswalks at their own uncon-
trolled corners after they pub-
lished the federally funded
analysis.
"Our study was groundbreaking.
It changed the way people look at
crosswalks," said Stephen Celni-
ker, semor traffic engineer for San
Diego. "We still get inquiries about
it."
The state added its weight
earlier this year when the Depart-
ment of Transportation published
results of a 1996 study of urban
intersections between San Diego
and Fresno.
The study concluded that "there
is a propensity for accidents to take
place" In crosswalks because pe-
destrians do not pay attention to
oncoming traffic, said CalLfans
spokesman Vincent Moreno.
But the anti-crosswalk movement
ns colliding with campaigns for pe-
destrian-friendly streetscapes
throughout Southern California.
Urban planners are calling for
widened sidewalks, decorative tile
crosswalks and other arechiLies to
entice motorists out of their cars in
places such as Westwood Village
and along the San Fernando Val-
ley's Venturn Boulevard.
In recent weeks, pedestrian ad-
vocates have lobbied Los Angeles
officials for more crosswalks--and
better marked ones.
City planning staffers writing a
new transportation element for Los
Angeles' general plan were urged
to require ladder-like cross-hatch
striping or rough -surface paving at
crosswalks to make them more
noticeable to motorists.
When traffic engineers objected,
the recommendations were toned
down by city planning commission-
ers earlier this summer. Pedestrian
advocates now plan to ask the City
Courted to take their fight to the
council's planning and land-me and
transportation committees.
"1 call transportation engineers
'plumbers.' That's because they
think of streets as pipes," stud Los
Angeles city planning staff member
Deborah Murphy. an advocate for
pedestrians. "Some traffic engineer
manuals even refer to pedestrians as
'traffic flow interruptors.'"
Ohland, Los Angeles proleer
manager for a national coalition of
public interest groups called the
Surface Transportation Policy
ProJect, said pedestrians have been
scorned long enough by an area
designed to pay homage to the
automobile.
~'~' edestrians have a hellish
Prime as it is in Los Angeles."
she said. "So it's critical to employ
things like traditional lines as well
as cross-striping and alternative
paving."
Los Angeles traffic engineers
disagree. They point out that legal
"crosswalks" exist at every inter-
section, whether or not they are
marked.
"Studies have shown that pc-
destrians are more cautious cross-
ing intersections that do not have
marked crosswalks." said Jack
Reynolds, a senior transportation
engineer for the city.
The city will add a traffic signal or
stop signs and replace eliminated
crosswalks if there is "an outcry"
from residents through petitions or
complaints to a City Council mem-
ber's office. Reynolds added.
Glendale traffic officials do the
same thing.
"Whenever we can, we like to
elimmate uncontrolled cross-
walks." said Wayne Ko. senior
Glendale traffic engineer.
When people complain about
missing crosswalks, "we take a
look and if we have to put them
back. we put them back," Ko said.
A highly publicized Glendale po-
lice crackdown last month on mo-
torists who failed to stop for pe-
destrians in crosswalks took place
at the uncontrolled intersection of
Brand Boulevard and Garfield Av-
enue. Thirty-seven citations (each
carrying a $103 penalty) were
issued in two hours July 9.
Ko said the Brand-Garfield
crosswalk lines remain because
officials need to "identify a path"
for pedestrians so they don't jay-
walk across Brand in the middle of
the block.
"Sometimes. it's hard to tell
what is best," he added.
Santa Monica officials might
agree with that.
City traffic engineer Ronaid K.
Fuehiwaki said inattention by driv-
ers using cellular phones is one of
the reasons he feels secondary
crosswalks need to go.
Contractors resurfacing Ocean
Avenue mistakenly put the cross-
walk lines back. city officials ad-
vised Strand Street resident Mer-
rill, When the error was noticed,
workers were dispatched to grind
the lines out.
Merrill. an actor who has lived
nearly 20 years at the comer, has
joined a group called Citizens for
Pedestrian Rights to fight the
crosswalk policy. He contends that
elimination of crosswalks sends a
message to motorists that "it's no
longer necessary to look out for
pedestrians."
Santa Monica Planning Commis-
sioner Lou Moench said the cross-
walk issue will be examined when
the city begins discussing the "cir-
culation element" of its own master
plan late this year or in early 1997.
"How do you make crossing
streets safer? I say leave cross-
walks in or replace them with
textured pavers' that make them
more noticeable to drivers. he said.
City Councilman Michael Fein-
stein said those on foot and on
wheels need to "share public rights
of way in a spontaneous and coor-
dinated manner."
"We need to shift our culture of
expectations," Feinstein said. "But
in the meantime this may cause us
to redesign those intersections
with signalized crosswalks or.. .
[by extending] the sidewalk to
make the pedestrian crossing area
shorter."
Those might be viewed as tenta-
tive, cautious steps.
Which makes them perfect for
pedestrian crosswalks.
land safely."
The quick, agile plane-
often used for stunt flyir
off and then banked hard,
east back toward the airp
ments before it nose-divt
nesses and officials said.
The aircraft erashed in I
ter of the four-lane street, I
Balboa Boulevard and WI,
Avenue, then slid 175 yard
said. The propeller, engine
and other parts were ripp
the fuselage as it careerie
the street.
"It seems almost mir
nothing was hit," said Fire,
ment spokesman Brian Hun
Several people who liv{
COMMAN
Continued from Bl
An Ohio baseball fan wi
played a "John 3:16" sign;
cinnati's publicly owned s
tried to settle an argument o
message by changing it i
Reds. John 3;16," and eve,
won in court.
A South Carolina judge
earlier this month ths
Charleston County Conre.
afoul of the Constitution by
ing the Ten Commandment~
chambers, saying: "Cover
may not affiliate itself will
ginus symbols or doctrine,
manner that suggests an en
ment of a particular rel
faith."
Downey school officials
based their defense on that
ment. Lawyers for the scho
trict also noted, however
since DiLoreto launched his
the district has taken dm
advertisements on baseball
at all its high schools. That:
they said, could render the
moot.
DiLoreto's attorney, P.
Manshardt, contends that r,
ing all the signs simply to
one--his client's--is unfair.
"If their intention is discrl
tory. they're clearly outsid
we ve ex]
offidal, n
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
AUGUST 1997
Submitted by: Joseph Kicak
Prepared by: Don Spagnolo
Date: September 23, 1997
I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
1.1-15/Winchester Road lnterchartge Modifications:
The contractor is in the process of completing the installation of the landscaping and ~rrigation
systems, as well as minor electrical items. The project is scheduled for completion in mid-
September.
2.6th Street Parking Lot:
The project's perimeter improvements are complete and the public parking area and restroom
facilities are in open to the public. The wood cap on the retaining wall along Front Street and the
wood railing along the stair cases are the remaining items that will be constructed and installed
at the Transportation Depot site.
3. Traffic Signal at SR-795 and Bedford Court:
The contractor is expecting delivery of the signal poles and equipment in late September. A field
utility meeting was scheduled with the Edison Company and Caltrans to locate the signal poles and
any potential conflicts on September 11. Installation is anticipated to begin during the third week
of September.
4. City Wide Intelligent Traffic Management System (ITMSh
The contractor has been installing 2" conduits on Margarita Road and Rancho California Road
during the last few weeks. The contractor will be installing conduits on Front Street north of
Rancho California Road during the week of September 15. The contractor has also been
constructing controller cabinet foundations concurrently. Upon completion of this project and
design and installation of communication software and hardware, all traffic signals within the City
will be interconnected and controlled from the City Hall.
5. ADA Improvement Project:
Construction bids for this project were opened on September 4 and staff will recommend a
contract be awarded to Moderaft, Inc. at the September 23, City Council meeting. The project
consists of the construction of sidewalk access, playground equipment, and surface improvements
to Veterans Park, John Magee Park, and Calle Aragon Park and well as ADA improvements to
Rancho Vista fields at the Rancho California Sports Park. Construction is anticipated to begin the
first week of October.
R;\MOACTRPIXCIP\97\SEP.MAR seh
Monthly Activity Report
September 23, 1997
Page 2
II. BID
1.1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications:
Construction bids for this project will be opened on September 25. GTE's phone line relocation
work is currently under construction and the work will be completed in mid-November. This
n n
project includes widening the Rancho California Road Bridge and provides a new orthbou d loop
entrance ramp.
III. WORK IN DESIGN:
1.1-15/Overland Drive Over Crossing hnOrovements:
The consultant will be resubmitting roadway plans to Caltrans (District 8) for final approval of
the roadway and electrical portions of the project during the week of September 15. The
structural plans have already been approved and signed by Caltrans, Division of Structures. SCE
is also worldng on the design for the relocation of the existing 115, 33, & 12 KVA overhead
power lines. These lines are scheduled to be relocated before the construction of the proposed
Overland Drive Over Crossing Improvements. The transmission and distribution sections of SCE
have finalized their alignment and the City's consultant is preparing legal descriptions and plats
for the SCE easements, temporary construction easements, and permission to grade documents.
2. Margarita Community Park:
The plans are near completion with the ballfield lighting plans under final review by the School
District. The project improvements will include picnic areas, a tot lot area, restrooms, and open
turf areas as well as widening Margarita Road adjacent to the park to its ultimate width.
Development of the two ball fields and the installation of two lighted tennis courts and one lighted
hockey facility will be bid as alternate items. The project will be bid once the review of the
ball field lighting by the School District is complete.
3. FY96-97 Pavement Management System:
The consultant has completed the base map drawings for the design plans. Prior to starting the
design. the consultant conducted a field review of the entire project and prepared a report for the
City's review. This report derails specific design parameters for the City to consider includes this
method of mad repair to be selected and potential changes in the general cross slope of road which
is expected to be submitted by the week of September 15. This project will provide street
rehabilitation of Jefferson Avenue from the northerly City limits to Rancho California Road. This
project will also include the installation of street lighting along the entire length of the project.
R:IMOACT~PT/CIPIOTXSEP,MAR seh
Monthly Activity Report
September 23, 1997
Page 3
4. Pavement Management System Up-Date:
The consultant has submitted a draft report which includes pavement conditions, recommended
maintenance and repair strategies, and a projected budget for the street maintenance program.
A meeting with the consultant will be conducted to discuss the report by the week of September
15. Recently, Community Service Department approved a proposal from the Consultant to
include 12 City owned parking lots to this Pavement Management System Up-Date. The field
work for the additional locations was started on September 8 and will be included in~the final
report. This project will review and update the existing Pavement Management System computer
program which will include new streets which were added to the City's maintained system,
preparing a new 5-year street maintenance program, and updating the computer generated City
map.
5. Winchester Road & Ynez Road Street Widening:
The consultant has submitted a preliminary design of the proposed improvements and is also in
the process of performing the field survey for the proposed street improvements. The scope of
work includes the street widening improvements on the south side of Winchester Road between
Ynez Road and Margarita Road, and the improvements on the east side of Ynez Road between
Winchester Road and Overland Drive.
6. Overland Drive Street hnprovements & Margarita Road Street Widening:
The consultant has submitted a preliminary design of the proposed improvements on both sides
of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and Overland Drive, and the new improvements on
Overland Drive between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. Also the utility companies have been
notified to address potential conflicts or new facilities which may be proposed.
7. Winchester Creek Park:
Preparation of the plans for the park is substantially complete. The developer east of the park will
be installing fill slopes along the easterly park boundary to meet proposed park elevations. The
developer will also install a 36" diameter storm drain pipe along the southerly park boundary to
drain the proposed subdivision as well as the park. The project consists of a 4.5 acre
neighborhood park with various improvements including restrooms, basketbail courts, volleyball
courts, play equipment, polygon shelters with picnic tables, concrete walkways, and a parking lot.
The project is scheduled to bid late September.
8. Flashing Beacons at Various Locations:
The consultant is still in the process of obtaining the last few street plans for the base maps. Once
all of the base maps are obtained, the consultant is expected to submit the first plan check within
one week. This project consists of installing flashing beacons that warn of children in the
immediate area at 10 different school sites throughout the City.
9. Cosmic Drive and Agena Street - Street Sidewalk Project #6:
The project consists of the installation of sidewalks on the west side of Cosmic Drive between
Rancho California Road and Agena Street and south side of Agena Street between Santa Cecilia
Drive and Cosmic Drive. Design of the sidewalk improvements are presently underway with
design completion scheduled for mid-September. The project is anticipated to bid early October.
Monthly Activity Report
September 23, 1997
Page 4
10. Margarita Road Sidewalk (Rancho Vista to Pauba):
The improvements will include the installation of concrete curbs, gutter, and sidewalk along the
west side of Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. The sidewalk will be
located across from the high school and ajso improve access to the Rancho California Sports Park.
Also, as part of the design, additive alternate improvements will include ADA ramp access from
Margarita Road to the adjacent ball fields along with an expanded parking area. The project is
scheduled to bc bid in mid-October.
11. 1-15/Winchester Southbound Off-ramp Widening:
Request for proposals were prepared and four responses wcrc received on July 30. The proposals
have been evaluated and a contract is scheduled to be awarded at the September 23, City Council
meeting. The Consaltant's scope of work includes preparation of Plans and Specifications for
widening the southbound off-ramp to provide additional turning lanes onto Winchester Road.
12. Winchester Road Median l~lands:
A design consultant has been selected from the Professional Consultant Selection list. On
September 8, a meeting was conducted with the consultant to discuss the project's scope of work.
The consultant is expected to submit a proposal for the design by end of September. This project
will install median islands with landscaping and irrigation along Winchester Road between
Enterprise Circle West and Jefferson Avenue along with the installation of a traffic signal at
Enterprise Circle West. Also, the existing median island at Jefferson Avenue will be modified
to provide for a longer left turn pocket for east bound traffic.
13. Pala Road Bridge:
Fourteen Requests for Proposal were sent out on August 18 and two proposals were received on
the deadline of September 4. Staff will be interviewing the consultants, and is anticipating
awarding a Consultant contract at the City Council meeting on October 28. This project will
include the relocation of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Rainbow Canyon Road, which will
require that a new bridge be constructed, two new traffic signals to be installed, the removal of
one traffic signal, the installation of sound walls, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, street
lighting, bike lanes, signing, striping, channel improvements, and along with Wetland Mitigation.
Right-of-way documents for these improvements will be required for land acquisition before the
work can begin.
R:\MOACTRPT\CIPI97\SEP,MAR seh
TO,'
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
September 2, 1997
Monthly Activity Report - August, 1997
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-
house personnel for the month of August, 1997:
I. SIGNS
A.
B.
C.
TREES
A.
Ill.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Total signs replaced
Total signs installed
Total signs repaired
Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns
POTHOLES
A, Total square feet of potholes repaired
CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations
B. Total S.F.
STENCILING
A. 531 New and repainted legends
B. 0 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
25
19
1
22O
57
13
3.085
514
R:~4AINTNN'~VIOACTRPT~97~AUGUST.RPT rh
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT- August, 1997
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 38 service order requests ranging from weed abatement,
tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings.
This is compared to 28 service order requests for the month of July, 1996.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 65 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/~lg!~.t, 1997 was
$12.141.00 compared to $69,477.02 for the month of July, 1997.
Account No. 5402 $4,550.00
Account No. 5401 7.591.00
Account No. 999-5402 -0-
CC:
Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Ron Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development
Alli Moghadam, Associate Engineer - (CIP/Traffic)
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of August, 1997
DATE STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE I DESCRIPTION OF WORK TOTAL
ACCOUNT # COST
CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING
Date: 8/4/97 1) La Serena at Meadows Pkwy. 1 ) Installed handicap ramp
2) Removed & replace 20' sidewalk for
2) Ynez Rd. 200' South of Pauba Rd. trip hazzard
Total S.F. 36
#5402
Totalyards p.cc. 6
TOTAL COST $4,550.00
Date:8/15/97
# 5401
Jedediah Smith Rd.
100' South of Lucero Place
Remove and reset 2 6' CMP 10' sections.
Construct concrete pad to set CMP culverts on.
Back fill and compact. Place 1/4 ton rip wrap and
slurry with 4 sack mix,
Date: 8/11/97
# 5401
PEST MASTER SERVICES
7 Channels located city wide
TOTAL COST $4,996.00
Treatment of channel bottoms for
summer weeds using post-emergent
TOTAL COST
$2,595.00
TOTAL S.F.
TOTAL A.C.
TOTAL AMOUNT ACCT #5402
TOTAL AMOUNT ACCT #5401
$4,550.00
$7,591.00
rn m~ ~
mH
n
tU 0
~ :;
_1
iXo~
u,
I-E
0~.
u~
ITEM NO. 7
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
~444 · Fa~ (9091 694 1999 P 0 Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589-9033
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Council
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ronald Bradley, City Manager
September 15, 1997
POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR August, 1997
The following report reflects Part One crimes, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity
occurring during August of 1997. Part One crime statistics are displayed by district within the City,
providing stable parameters for monitoring criminal activity, and aiding in planning police resource
deployment.
The Police Department issued 584 traffic citations last month, which compares with 581 issued in
August of 1996. The number of non-injury collisions decreased 15% this month as compared to
August of 1996. Injury traffic collisions were the same as August of last year. Temecula
experienced no fatal traffic collisions in August. Arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol
decreased slightly from August of 1996. Robberies remained the same as last year while felony
assaults increased dramatically compared to one year ago. Arrests made during the month were up
slightly from the previous year's figure. Reported burglaries increased significantly as did grand
thefts. Auto thefts increased greatly over last year. These increases were due in part to the acts of
one group of criminals. On August 27, three suspects were arrested after committing a residential
and auto burglary. The suspects were found to be responsible for more than a dozen burglaries, thefts
and auto thefts.
The Police Department responded to thirty-six "priority one" calls for service during the month of
August, with an average response time of six and one-half minutes. A total of 2,666 calls for police
service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month.
During the month of August, the Temecula Police Department's storefront served a total of 168
people. The number of citizens utilizing this facility is just slightly less than last month. Fifty-three
POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY
August, 1997
people were fingerprinted, twenty-seven people made police reports and six people had citations
signed off. In addition, four juveniles were provided with counseling at the request of their parents.
The POP Team of Deputies Jeff Kubel and Steve Mike continued training and development of the
T.A.G. Program (Temecula Against Graffiti). Two surveillance programs were initiated and resulted
in two arrests for narcotic violations. In addition, suspects in prior vandalism incidents were
identified and it is expected that charges will be filed on them. Also in August, the POP Team, in
cooperation with the Riverside County Department of Health Services conducted a Medi-Cal
Welfare Fraud sweep. A total of sixty-seven cases were reviewed of which seventeen had benefits
suspended. This resulted in the savings of more than $40,000 of taxpayer money paid to persons not
properly obtaining public assistance monies. T~ee felony arrests were also made for welfare fraud
and possession of false government documents. The POP Team will continue to work with other
govermnent agencies on a variety of projects to further enhance the quality of life in Temecula.
The newly constructed Chaparral High School opened its doors to students this month. Temecula
Police Officer Pete Wittenberg was chosen as the School Resource Officer for Chaparral High.
Officer Wittenberg will be on campus to provide guidance to students and faculty on a number of
issues important in the scholastic setting.
The Temecula Police Department's traffic team conducted a bicycle helmet safety and awareness
program in August. The purpose of the program was to reinforce the importance of wearing a helmet
when riding a bicycle. This was accomplished by conducting an enforcement and incentive
program. Youngsters who were observed to be wearing their helmet were contacted by officers who
presented them with McDonald's food coupons as a way of praising them for obeying the law.
Youngsters found to be riding in violation were either issued warnings or citations. A total ofninty-
three food certificates were issued as were thirty-five warnings and eleven citations. Thanks to
McDonald' s for donating the food coupons for this program.
Volunteers from the commtmity continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's
staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Ed Bekas, the Police Department's volunteer staff
contributed 492 hours of service in August.
Temecula Police
Department
Monthly Statistics
August 1997
Prepared: September 1997
I Table of Contents I:';
Statistical Inforrnation
Map of Districts .........................................................................
August 1997 Crime and Activity Totals ...........................................
Pa,qe
1
2-3
Graphs
Pad 1 Property Crimes ...............................................................
Part 1 Persons Crimes ..............................................................
Activity Breakdown by District .....................................................
Burglaries by District .................................................................
Burglary Comparison ................................................................
Arrest Statistics ........................................................................
Miscellaneous Activity ...............................................................
Traffic Violations .......................................................................
Traffic Collisions ......................................................................
Narcotic Activity .......................................................................
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
City of Temecula
Reporting Districts
3.
CRIME
HOMICIDE
RAPE
ROBBERY
FELONY ASSAULT
TOTAL PERSONS
BURGLARY
GRAND THEFT
AUTO THEFT
ARSON
TOTAL PROPERTY
GRAND TOTAL
HAZARD CITES
NON-HAZARD CITES
PARKING CITES
TOTAL CITES
DIST. PEACE
SHOPLIFT
PETTY THEFT
VANDALISM
MISD. ASSAULT
ALARMS
PUBLIC INTOX.
DUI
TOTAL
T/C INJURY
T/C NON-INJURY
FATAL T/C
TOTAL TIC
RESID. BURGLARY
COMM, BURGLARY
OTHER BURGLARY
VEHICLE BURGLARY
MISD. ARRESTS
FELONY ARRESTS
TOTAL ARRESTS
TOTAL ACTIVITY
Temecula Crime Statistics
Month of August 1997
A B C D E F G H I SUB~OTAL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3
2 3 5 0 0 0 6 0 1 17
21 31 5 OI 0 ~1 61 2l ~ 20
1 4 2 1 1 8 2 3 0 22
2 0 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 16
0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 3 41 4l 21 7 ~2l 51 7l 21 46
5 7 9 2 7 13 11 9 3 66
9 7 7 14 10 28 17 13 2 107
7 9 2 7 9 18 7 5 4 68
16 5 11 10 20 38 9 38 3 150
321 211 20l 311 391 841 331 561 91 325
10 19 21 2 13 18 17 14 5 119
1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 6
0 I 3 1 2 12 4 I 0 24
3 10 3 1 0 3 1 3 1 25
3 1 0 1 3 0 3 2 1 14
17 13 11 59 73 67 2 13 4 259
1 0 1 0 6 4 2 2 0 16
0 1 0 I 1 0 0 I 0 4
351 451 391 65 981 108 291 371 11 467
1 16 5 60
0 0 0
I 51 71 ol 21 ~8l ~8 71 31 5 65
0 4 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 10
1 0 0 1 1 7 0 1 0 11
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 7
I el 31 71 31 ~01 ~1 71 71 ~1 57
I 771 801 6el ~001 ~621 2231 801 ~051 z81 923
Page 2
Temecula Cdm Statistics
Month of August 1997
1 k' I~ k~ '
CRIME J K L M N O P Q SUB-TOTAL TOTAL
HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RAPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
FELONY ASSAULT 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 22
TOTAL PERSONS I 21 1 I 0l 01 21 01 1 0 6l 26
BURGLARY 4 5 3 1 0 0 1 0 14 36
GRAND THEFT 5 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 27
AUTO THEFT 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 8 16
ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL PROPERTY 101 9B 5} I I I 0J 3} 4| 33 79
GRAND TOTAL 12 10 5 I 3 0 4 4 39 105
HAZARD CITES 17 24 11 7 9 0 4 24 96 203
NON-HAZARD CITES 22 6 4 6 3 0 1 24 66 134
PARKING CITES 22 38 2 1 10 I 14 9 97 247
TOTAL CITES 61 I 68J 1 71 141 221 11 19B 571 259| 584
DIST. PEACE 28 23 8 3 18 0 15 6 101 220
SHOPLIFT 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
PETTY THEFT 1 6 2 1 1 0 2 2 15 39
VANDALISM 2 6 5 4 3 0 2 7 29 54
MISD. ASSAULT 4 3 4 0 3 0 2 0 16 30
ALARMS 42 19 17 13 15 2 10 6 124 383
PUBLIC INTOX, 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 37
DUl 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 7
TOTAL 971 61 J 36l 22B 401 2l 31 I 211 310 777
T/C NON-INJURY 1 ~) 25 85
FATAL T/C 0 0
TOTALT~C I 121 51 11 01 31 01 ~1 41 261 91
RESID. BURGLARY 0 3 2 0 0 0 I 0 6 16
COMM. BURGLARY 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14
OTHER BURGLARY 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 6
VEHICLE BURGLARY 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 14
FELONY ARRESTS 2 30
TOTAL A..ESTS I 281 91 01 21 41 01 I I 81 521 109
TOTAL ACTIVITY I 1821 144| 591 371 68| 3| 551 861 634| 1557
Page 3
[] ·
(D
0
0
[] ·
O 0 ~ ~ '
C~ w ~
·
n
~S
~_0
~ ~- ~ w
w h
~ W ,~
-~ -r n
~ ~' 0 n
n '-r
< ~ __
~ W D
· []
[] ·
D ~ n o
~ o n
ITEM NO. 8
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
September 17, 1997
TO:
Temecula City Council
Temecula Public Safety Commission
Attn: Mr. Ron Bradley
Temecula, City Manager
RE:
TEMECULA FIRE 8ERrICE8
July & August 1997, Activity Reports
Fire suppression and fire prevention statistics for the months of
July and August are attached to this letter. The most significant
incident to report during this period is the Pauba Fire that burned
east of the city. This fire was started by an escaped camp fire on
August 31, 1997, and burned approximately 7,000 acres. Over 1,000
personnel were assigned, aided by 12 air tankers, 4 helicopters, 80
fire engines, 12 dozers and 18 hand crews. It took 3 days to
completely control the fire.
All other incidents during this reporting period were routine in
nature.
If you have any questions or concerns related to your fire
protection services, please feel free to contact me.
By:
John J. Winder
Battalion Chief
Temecula Battalion
July 1997
EMERGENCY ACTIVITY
Structure Fires
Vehicle Fires
Vegetation Fires
Other Fires
Medical Aids
Traffic Collisions
False Alarms
Fire Menace Standbys
Public Service Assists
Assists & Covers
Haz Mat
TOTAL
Sta 12
2
2
15
3
86
17
27
3
3
8
0
166
Sta 73
5
2
11
1
45
16
26
4
12
13
0
135
Sta 84
4
3
7
0
61
9
9
5
6
9
0
113
TOTAL
11
7
33
4
192
42
62
12
21
30
0
414
FIRE PREVENTION
Community Activities
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Compnay Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections
Fire Investigations
Burning Permits Issued
TOTAL
1
0
0
20
0
0
6
27
N.R.
0
2
0
15
0
0
5
22
1
2
0
35
0
0
11
49
N.R. - No Report
JULY 1 997 TOTALS
414 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (30
False Alarms (62)
Traffic Collisions (42)
Structure Fires (11 )
,~-~/ehicle Fires (7)
...... ~yVegetat on Fires (33)
~!!;!~ ~Other Fires (4)
.... ,"~ ~
"':'.':,. "'_~ledical Aids (192 )
STATION 12
166 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (8
Public Service Assists (3
Fire Menace (3
False Alarms
Haz Mat
(2)
Fires (2)
etation Fires (15 )
Fires (3)
Traffic Collisions (17)--
""'~..,, ~"'~""" ~-Medical Aids (86)
STATION 73
135 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (13)~
Public Service Assists ()1~2 ~
Fire Menace Standbys (4 ~"'
False Alarms (26) -~." ~''::''"
Traffic Collisions (16)'
Structure Fires (5)
Vehicle Fires (2)
.:,!~Vegetatio. Fires (11)
~iii~!: ~ Fires (1)
Medical Aids (45)
STATION 84
113 RESPONSES
Structure Fires (4)
Public Se~ice Assists (6) :~?~> ~ ~Other Fires (0)
Fire Menace Standbys (5) ~:.~t~ (6)
... ......,...:...
'~ .~ ~- ~' :Medical Aids (61)
JULY RESPONSES
STATION BREAKDOWN
Sta 84 ( 113 )~
12 (166)
Sta 73 (135)~'
August 1997
EMERGENCY ACTIVITY
Structure Fires
Vehicle Fires
Vegetation Fires
Other Fires
Medical Aids
Traffic Collisions
False Alarms
Fire Menace Standbys
Public Service Assists
Assists & Covers
Haz Mat
TOTAL
Sta 12 Sta 73 Sta 84 TOTAL
5 5 5 15
8 3 1 12
16 6 2 24
0 2 1 3
62 46 63 171
20 19 7 46
32 19 7 58
7 8 2 17
4 13 9 26
9 11 34 54
0 0 1 1
163 132 132 427
FIRE PREVENTION
Community Activities
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Compnay Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections
Fire Investigations
Burning Permits Issued
TOTAL
5 3 3 11
2 0 0 2
0 1 0 1
45 78 0 123
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 1 0 3
54 83 3 140
AUGUST 1997 TOTALS
427 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (54 )~
Public Service Assists (26),.-----~..~
Fire Menace Standbys (17 )--~
False Alarms (58)- '~lb "'
-Structure Fires (15)
Vehicle Fires (12)
~/-Vegetation Fires (24)
.~........~.~ .. ....
Traffic Collisions (46 ~ "
) .
STATION 12
163 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (9)
Public Service Assists (4) ~
Fire Menace Standbys (7)
False Alarms (32
.tructure Fires (5)
licle Fires (8)
etation Fires (16)
Fires (0)
~-~ ;.,.
Traffic Collisions (20) -~_: .. _..
vledical Aids (62)
STATION 73
132 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (11 )~
Public Service Assists (13 )
Fire Menace Standbys (8)- ~""""' .....,
-Structure Fires (5)
,~iii~' Fires (2)
:.!:~:.~:i~:='
False Alarms (19
.%
Traffic Collisions (19)J
Aids (46)
STATION 84
132 RESPONSES
Assists & Covers (34
Haz Mat (1
-Structure Fires (5)
Fires (1)
etation Fires (2)
~ther Fires (1)
Public Service Assists (9
Fire Menace Standbys (2)
False Alarms (7)
Traffic Collisions (7)
Aids (63)
AUGUST RESPONSES
STATION BREAKDOWN
Sta 84 ( 132 )~
'rSta 12 (163)
Sta 73 (132 ):~
ITEM NO. 9
COMMISSION REPORTS