Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
031199 PTS Agenda
In coml~liancc with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you nce. d special assistance to participate in this mectlng, please contact the o l/ice of the City Clerk at {909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Connerton, Edwards, Markham, Telesio, Coe PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so melnbers 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 no__!t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Ctnmnission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All anatters listed tinder Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one nnanimous 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 l~ar separate action. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of .January 14, 1999, .loint Plannint, Commission and PublicFFraffic Safety Commission tneetinll of Fehruarv il, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 1.2 Approve the Minutes of January 14, 1999 Approve the Minutes of February 11, 1999 Joint Planning Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission ITEM NO. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1999 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., m~ Thursday, January 14, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Connerton, Edwards, Markham and Telesio Absent: Chairman Coe Also Present: Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senk>r Engineer Moghadam, Senior Planner Fagan, Pulice Sergeant Crisp, Police Sergeant Damagio, Administrative Secretary Pyle, and Minute Clerk Kelley In the absence of Chairman Coe, Co-Chairman Connerton presided over the meeting. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Edwards led the flag salute. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comlnents. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR I. Minutes nf December 10, 1998 On Page 3, Traffic Engineer's Report, paragraph 5, line 5, Commissioner Edwards requested that the word sklewalk be changed to crnsswalk. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the minutes of December 10 1998, as amended. The motinn was seconded by Chairman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Markham who abstained. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Shurt-Term Circulation lmpruvement Projects RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and provide input regarding prioritization of short-term circulation improvement projects. Be~lre introducing Mr. Bob Davis of Wilbur Smith Associates, Senior Planner Fagan requested the Commissioners provide their input on the Circulation Improvement Projects that would be presented by Mr. Davis and to include any other project they felt should be added. He explained that recl~mmendations made tonight will be presented at the January 21, 1999, City Council Capital hnprtlvement Program (CIP) workshop. Mr. Robert Davis of Wilbur Smith Associates, consultant for the General Plan Circulation Element Update Report, presented the prioritized proposed short-term (5-year) projects that will relieve traffic congestien, improve traffic flow and/or enhance capacity in various areas and that will provide alternate north/south, east/west routes for the Commission's consideration. These projects will be discussed at the joint Public/Traffic Safety Commission and Planning Commission meeting on January 20, 1999. In reply to Commissioner Edwards' question regarding the westbound widening of Rancho California Rl,ad (#23), Mr. Davis explained that most of the congestion uccurs westbound and that road widening in that directk~n will provide the most benefit. In response to Commissioner Edwards' question about the status of the extension of Meadows Parkway (#16), Mr. Davis stated that it was under design. Commissioner Edwards suggested moving #13 ahead of #11 and #12. in the Capital Improvement Table. since thnding is currently being discussed for #13. In response ttl Commissioner Markham, Mr. James Miller of the City of Murrieta advised that the northerly extension ~f Jefferson Avenne was ti~nded by the RCTC on January 13, 1999. Commissioner Markham made the following comments: Project #1 should be split into two projects as the interchange construction is under contract, and the widening from Bedfi~rd Court to Avenue Las Missions will be going out to bid about the first week of February 1999. · Overland Overpass is under contract and awarded. Ctlnsideration of splitting #20 into two phases should be given: First phase, Butterfield Stage Road north to Nicholas Road which would relieve the Calle Medusa traffic; second phase, to Murrieta Ht~t Springs Road, which is more long-term and more difficult. · Both directions should be h>t~ked at in the Rancho California Road study (#23) as some numbers show Rancho Calitilrnia at 6 to 8 lanes at buildout. #42 appears to have migrated to Phase 1 verbiage under #12 (Rancho Way) and questioned if #42 should read from Ynez Road to Margarita Road. Mr. Davis advised that #42 needs further study as to whether the new crossing needs to be at Rancho Way or at Via Eldorado. · #10 under verbiage appears to be #32 in the middle range items and for consistency, Westside Parkway should probably read Western Bypass. #7 under Winchester Interchange and #8 under Rancho California Interchange need to be moved up t{i #1 because development of a traffic management plan can immediately begin and traffic capacity could be improved without any improvements. Commissioner Telesio offered the ti311owing comment: Pauba Road should he addressed in the plan since City-owned property on the north side is being considered for building. Mr. Davis stated that there is the option of widening Pauba Road and maybe delaying the extension of Santiago Road or to provide the Santiago Road connection to relieve a considerate amount of Pauba Road traffic. In response to Co-Chairman Connerton's questiun about the process to re-designate the 1-15 Freeway ti-om rural to urban (#22)~ Mr. Davis replied that it is a petition-type process which should be im~nediately started and that he is unaware of the time length tbr the Caltrans process, and that FHWA approval would also be required. He mentioned that an urban designation will lower the speed limit. Mr. Davis also presented medium-range (6 to 10 years) and long-range (beyond 10 years) improvement consideratiuns and mentioned that the lists will be expanded to include every other widening, extension, or new segment that is remaining in the City so that the Circulation Element will agree with the buildout of the General Plan. Cotnmissioner Markham otl'ered the following comments: The project study tbr a collector/distributor/frontage road system should be accelerated into at least the mediu~n- or near-term range since the Santiago Road Interchange potential is in the medium range. Mr. Davis agreed that #33 and #40 should probably be considered together. Putting the westbound-tn-southbound Rancho California loop ramp beyond the 10-year range should be reconsidered because it will become a critical movement, noting that a part of the needed area is currently vacant. Mr. Davis noted that a study tier that particular loop ramp is mentioned tin another list and consideration will be given to placing it toward the end of the medium range and then a study would fin'ther determine its need. In response to Commissioner Edwards' concern about a collector/distributor/frontage road (#33) and traffic exiting into Los Ranchitos, which is primarily residential, Mr. Davis stated that the road would run hmnediately adjacent to the freeway lanes and would accommodate ramp spacing of less than a mile. He also noted that widening of lower Ynez Road to ti3ur (4) lanes does not appear on this list, but that it should be tbned accordingly, Commissioner Markham mentioned that when the Update Committee discussed the extension of Santiago Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads (#24), it was determined that a majority of the traffic exiting at Santiago Road will be going to Paloma del Sol. Co-Chairman Connerton expressed the opinion that it is important to move some of these projects into the short-term in an attempt to relieve traffic at the off-ramps, but acknowledged the amount of coordination it will require. He suggested identifying and prioritizing a solution to the northbound lefi-tnrn lanes on Ynez Road to westhound Winchester Road/l-15 on-ramps. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that a short-term solutkm was being considered. MOTION: Co-Chairman Connerton received and filed Mr. Davis' report on behalf of the Commission. 3. Request for Traffic Flow Modifications - Los Ranchitos Area Cmnmissioner Markham noted that he would abstain with regard to this issue. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request to establish a 10,000 pound weight limit on all streets within the Los Ranchitos area. Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (of record) and noted that a letter had been sent Io the Lus Ranchitt>s Homeowners Assnciation notifying them that this matter was on this meeting's agenda, Commissioner Telesio reiterated that even though the Commission has determined that a right-turn lane at Ynez Road and La Paz Street would not be necessary at this time, there is available easement for the lane. Ms. Rebecca Weersing, 41775 Yorba Avenue spoke in support of statt's recommendation. Commissioner Telesio remarked that if tour buses or other heavy vehicles are using the streets, the problem will probably be eliminated once Highway 795 construction is completed. Conm~isskmer Edwards stated that she recently drove the area with Mr. Victor Jones, president of the HOA: explained slaws recommendation; and reminded him this matter was on the agenda for tonight's meeting. MOTION: Commissiuner Edwards moved to deny the request to establish a 10,000 pound weight limit on all streets within the Los Ranchilos area. The motion was seconded by CummisMoner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Colmnissioner Markham who abstained. TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT Senior Engineer Moghadan~ int~rmed the Commissioners that with Caltrans' cooperation, the signal coordination at both Winchester Road and Rancho California Road intersections has improved traffic flow. POLICE CHIEFS REPORT Co Chairsnan Connerton requested that the graphs in the report be patterned so that they are distinguishable from each other. FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT No report given. Ctmsidering the series uf fires thruughout the City, Co-Chairman Connerton viewed it as unusual to not have a repurt. COM MISSION REPORT Commissioner Markham stated that the Circulation Element Update has been an eight-month process and reiterated the request fi~r the cummissioners to provide their comments/recommendations. Clmm~issioner Markham ti~rther noted the folluwing: · that staff provide the two new commissioners with a copy of the report on the workshop that this Cmmnission held about a year-and-a-half ago and that the report should be agendized for the next meeting tier possible update; · that staff consider the feasibility of providing remote parking oppurtunities, possibly at Chaparral High School ur the industrial areas, for shuttle service to the mall: · that the proposal ti>r Commissiuner Areas of Responsibility developed by Commissioner Edwards should be agendized fnr the February meeting; · that the Commission have a more involved role in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process: that the gates at the storm drain that goes underneath the Target Center, (the outlet on the west of Ynez Road), are torn uff or partially torn off. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the matter will be investigated. In response to Commisskmer Edwards concern regarding the crosswalk at Hope Drive and Rancho Calif~lrnia Road, Commissioner Markham related that the issue was part of the overall Town Center traffic problems and that the matter should be re-addressed by the Commission six (6) months after installatitm t>f the Via Las Colinns signal. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that the Via Las Colinns is scheduled to be installed in about five (5) months. Commissioner Edwards requested that the matter be agendized in the near future. In response to Commissioner Edwards' question about in-house signal maintenance, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks stated that the contract must be approved by the City Council; and if the Commission determined it was feasible to provide in-house signal maintenance, they may recommend it tll the City Council. Commissioner Edwards' explained her rationale of the proposed Commissioner Areas of Responsibility, advising of her interest to keep the commissioners better informed and to make the Commission more effective. She requested that the matter be agendized for the February meeting. Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that he will investigate permissive left turns as requested by Cmmnissioner Telesio after his discussion with Bill Renny and that the matter will be agendized. Co-Chairman Connerton mentioned that the sidewalks on both sides of Ynez Road, south of Rancho Cali|i}rnia Road. had signs saying "Sidewalk Closed. Use Other Side" and suggested that the signs be removed as soon as the sidewalk is completed. For inti~rmational purposes, Co-Chairman Connerton requested that a list of future repairs, etc be given to each commissioner. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that he prepares a monthly city project status report, but utility company projects are not included, and a construction project schedule is printed hi-monthly in the Press Enterprise and The Californian. Commissioner Markham brought up a past request for a presentation of the mall's traffic improvements aud stated that a summary would still be very inlbrmative. He mentioned that Mr. Pratt presented his CATS (Citizens Against Traffic Stagnation) proposal at a recent City Council meeting and it would be helprid to have the proposal included in the commissioners' tblders. In resp,mse to Ct~mnljssioner Markham's concern about installation of the new rural street signs, Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that the signs are currently under design and specifications are being put together. In response to Commissioner Telesio's inquiry as to when the parking and loading zones of Margarita Road that were approved by the City Council and the School Board will be marked, Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that a work order was immediately submitted after approval by the City Council and that he will check on the job's status. Commissioner Telesio noted that although parking is permitted on the westside of Margarita Road, north of Rancho Vista Road, people do not park there. ADJOURNMENT At 7:54 P.M., Co-Chairman Connerton tbrmally adjourned this meeting to the Joint Planning Cmnmissk>n and Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 20, 1999. at 6:00 P.M., in City of Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Calitbrnia. The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held im Thursday, February 11, 1999. at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive. Temecula, Calitbrnia. Co-Chairman, Connerton Secretary MINUTES OF A JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FEBRUARY '1'1, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission and the Planning Commission convened in a joint workshop at 6:00 P.M., on Thursday, February 11, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Edwards. ROLLCALL Public/Traffic Commission: Commissioners Connerton, Edwards, Markham, Telesio*, and Chairman Coe. Planning Commission: Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, Soltysiak, and Webster. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hogan, and Minute Clerk Hansen. (Commissioner Telesio arrived at 6:09 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS Development Service Director Miller, rapresenting the City of Mumeta, addressed the Commissions regarding the proposed projects associated with the City of Murrieta referenced in Temecula's Circulation Element Update (per submitted memorandum), relaying that the majority of the items referenced are not part of Murrieta's one-five year Circulation Implement Plan (CIP.) In response to Mr. Millers comments, the Commissioners commented, as follows: Chairman Coe relayed that due to the current heavily impacted traffic circulation (created by the County when the freeway was constructed without provision of adequate off-ramps) the City of Temecula is proactively addressing the issue for future impact; and queried whether the City of Murrieta will address the traffic, specifically denoted in the Circulation Update, for provision of adequate traffic flow for the future. In response to Commissioner Connerton's comments, Commissioner Markham confirmed that the City of Murrieta was involved in the recent traffic meetings due to its concern regarding traffic impact at mall-opening, noting that the City of Murrieta was specifically represented by Mr. Mole, or Mr. Miller. Commissioner Connerton queried whether the pertinent information discussed at the numerous traffic meetings went back to the City Council of Murrieta. Commissioner Markham queried the timing of the response, echoed by Commissioner Connerton, in light of the active involvement the City of Murdeta had regarding this particular Circulation Update; and advised that the primary issue of concern is the Date Street Interchange, involving the Split Diamond at Cherry Street, the connection across the Creek, and the connection of the Interchange tying into State Highway 79; and queded whether the City of Mumeta had identified alternate routes, other than those referenced in the Capital Improvement Program, specifically denoted as Project No. 31. Commissioner Soltysiak relayed for informational purposes, the condition of heavy impact at the Winchester Road on-ramp; noted that numerous projects referenced in the Update refer to the W~nchester Road Interchange; relayed that Murdeta's growth in development, specifically with regard to Industrial construction along Cherry Street impacts the Winchester Road on-ramp; and queried how the Industrial projects associated with the City of Murrieta will affect the traffic impact if the City does not address the issue. Mr. Miller relayed that it is the desire of the City of Murrieta to work with the City of Temecula to address traffic impact; clarified that the items referenced in the Circulation Update associated with Murrieta have been identified as areas for improvement, advising, however, that the aforementioned areas have not been placed in the one-five year plan of the CIP for Murrieta due to the lack of funding; in response to Commissioner Markham's comments, relayed that if the City of Temecula would provide funding through mitigating measures, that the City of Murdeta would be agreeable to such a proposal; in response to Murrieta's involvement in the traffic discussions, relayed that there wasn't cladty as to the timing of the projects; with regard to the aforementioned Project No. 31 (regarding Cherry Street), relayed that although there is a potential for the project to be developer driven, at this point in time the project is viewed as long-term for Murrieta; for Commissioner Naggar, clarified that the memorandum (of record) submitted was authored by himself per Murrieta's City Managers direction; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that the General Plan Update for Murrieta is proposed to be brought to the City Council of Murrieta on March 30, 1999; noted that the Circulation Element Update is currently being processed, proposed to be in draft-form in June or July, clarifying that few of the projects referenced in Temecula's one- five year plan will be included in Murrieta's one-five year plan due to the priodfy projects currently being implemented in Muraleta, encompassing its one-five year plan; and assured the Commissioners that he would forward their comments to the City of Murrieta. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes - January 20, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Circulation Element Update Senior Planner Hogan relayed that a bdef introduction of the actual proposed circulation map will be presented by Mr. Bob Davis, specifying the deletions, revisions, and the new components reflective of the central, southern, and northern portions of the City; relayed that the comments of the Commissions will be brought to the City Council at a future point in time; and advised that the comments of Mr. Miller, representing the City of Murrieta, will be forwarded to both City Councils for further discussion. Mr. Bob Davis presented the revised version of the Capital Improvement Program for the one-five year plan, and beyond ten years; relayed that the previous comments of the Commissions have been incorporated into the revision; and invited the Commissioners to address any questions or concerns. Commissioner Markham noted, for Commissioner Connerton, that Via Eduardo is located in the Pechanga Valley. For Commissioner Connerton, Mr. Davis clarified that one project may be denoted on the priodty list twice due to the provision of the studies required for the project represented as the first listed entity, relaying that the following listed entity would be the actual improvement. A. Presentation of Level of Service (LOS) Determinations By way of overheads, Mr. Davis presented detailed clarification as to Level of Service (LOS) determinations; and noted that LOS measures density of traffic and the accessibility of lane changing. B. Presentation of the Proposed Revisions to the General Ran Circulation Element By way of maps, Mr. Davis provided extensive clarification of the revisions to the Circulation Plan; and reviewed the deleted, revised and new components of the revision. 1. Deletions, Revisions and New Components (central portion of the City) · Deletions the extension of the Western Bypass continuing into Murrieta, currently proposed to terminate at Cherry Street · the Date Street Interchancle · Revisions since the Western Bypass will not be a continuous route into Muraleta, this project will be downqraded to a Principal Collector, updatinq Chern/Street to a Secondan/ regarding re-alignment of Diaz Road at the Rancho California Road Connection, eliminate one of the siqnalized intersections upqrade Rancho California Road to a six-lane facilitv (between Morega and Ynez Roads) · upqrade a small portion of Ynez Road (south of Rancho California Road) up.qrade from Secondary, to Maior a small portion of the Western Bypass (as it approaches the freeway) · New Components connection from the Western Bypass over to Cherry Street, widening to four lanes; relayed two options regarding the Cherry Street improvement (as it continues east), as follows: a) tie into the Date Street Extension to State Highway 79, redesignating Date Street as State Route 79, diverting treffic from the Winchester Road Corridor, and b) leave Date Street as it exists, bring Cherry Street across south to the top of the ridge (north of the Santa Gertrudis Creek) and tie into Margadta Road, advising that the ~ret option provides for even and extensive reduction in treffic from the Winchester Road Corddor an additional Principal Collector two-lane crossincl at the creek (at Via Montezuma) · Interchan~3e at Santiaao Road For Chairman Coe, Mr. Davis confirmed that if there is no consideration for the utilization of the Split Diamond Interchange now, the use may not be possible at a future point in time due to the continued development in the area, noting that it is one of the few opportunities with the potential of provision for diverting traffic from W~nchester Road in the area of discussion. For Commissioner Markham, Mr. Davis relayed that Date Street is on the County's Circulation Element, classified as Major; and noted that currently there are no proposed overcrossings in Murrieta between Mumeta Hot Springs Road and Date Street. 4 2. Deletions and Revisions (northern portion of the City) · Deletions · the elimination of the Borel Road Connection to Anza Road · regarding the Johnson Ranch Project area, Anza Road terminates and the connection is eliminated · the extension of Nicolas Road to Calle Contento has been eliminated · Revisions · Borel Road downGraded from Major to Principal Collector · Leon Road downGraded to Principal Collector · Nicolas Road downGraded in stages, first to a Major, then to Principal Collector (as it approachers Butterfield Stage Road) For Commissioner Connerton, Mr. Davis relayed that Butterfield Stage Road is still proposed to continue from Washington Street, noting that a portion (between Murrieta Hot Spdngs and Nicolas Roads) will be six lanes; and, for Commissioner Webster, noted that although the connection of North General Keamy Road (from Nicolas Road to Margadta Road) would divert 10-11,000 cars a day from Winchester Road, this connection has been deleted. With regard to the deletion of the aforementioned North General Keamy Road Connection, the Commissioners comments were, as follows: · Commissioner Webster recommended that the City Council reconsider the connection. · Commissioner Naggar queded what action the Commissioners could make to bdng this issue forward for consideration due to the substantial traffic alleviation the connection provides, reiterating Mr. Davis' comments that the lack of this connection would have a detrimental impact on altemate streets in the area. · Commissioner Edwards advised that this particular connection appeared to be the most effective diversion of traffic. Commission Recommendation: It was the consensus of the Commissions that staff add the North General Keamy Road Connection back into the Circulation Element as a Secondary read. 3. Deletions, Revisions and New Components (southern Dortion of the City) · Deletions · Extension of Butterfield StaGe Road to Pala Road Revisions · uDarade Loma Linda Road to a Principal Collector · downGrade De Portola Road (between Jedediah Smith and Margarita Roads) · downGrade Jedediah Smith Road (between Margarita and De Portola Roads) New Components a new crossing at Temecula Creek proposed (east of Paia Road), the exact location yet to be determined Senior Planner Hogan relayed, for Commissioner Edwards, that the Pala Road Bddge encompassed four lanes. W~th regard to the extension of Butterfield Stage Road being eliminated due to the existing development, Mr. Davis relayed, for Commissioner Connerton, the impact of this revision. Commissioner Markham further specified the existing development in the aforementioned area of discussion. Senior Planner Hogan further clarified the rationale for the revision of the extension. Commissioner Connerton recommended downgrading the aforementioned alignment, but adding it back into the Circulation Update. in response to Mr. Connerton's comments, Mr. Davis advised that the extension could be added back into the Circulation Update, downgrading it to a Principal Collector. Commission Recommendation: It was the consensus of the Commissions that the Butterfield Stage Road Extension be added back into the Circulation Plan as a Principal Collector, based on the topography. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Davis clarified the rationale for the downgrading of De Portola Road; and relayed the proposals northwest of the Jedidiah Smith Road area. For Commissioner Markham, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that although there are intergovernmental issues that need to be addressed, a connection in the Via Eduardo area is being considered for a future point in time. Senior Planner Hogan thanked the Commissioners for their efforts associated with the Cimulation Update, relaying that their comments will be forwarded into the final Update to be brought to the City Council in May or June. Senior Traffic Engineer Moghadam introduced Mr. Hughes, the City's Senior Engineer of the Capital improvement Program, relaying that he will be Acting Director of Public Works when Director of Public Works Kicak retires from the City. Mr. Hughes addressed the Commissions, providing an overview of his role with the Temecula; and noted his pleasure to be working with the City. The Commissioners welcomed Mr. Hughes; and Commissioner Edwards commended Mr. Hughes for his diligent efforts associated with the Old Town Construction Project, regarding his interaction with the merchants. ADJOURNMENT At 7:25 P.M. Chairman Cce formally adjourned this joint workshop to the next regular Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting Thursday, March tl, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., and the next regular Planning Commission meeting Wednesday. Februarv 17. 1999, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Charles Coe Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske ITEM NO. 2 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission All Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic March I l, 1999 Item 2 Request tier Street Closure - Calle Pina Colada RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commissk~n deny a request to close Calle Pina Colada west of Salt River Court. BACKGROUND: The City received a petition signed by approximately 46 residents of the area requesting that a barrier be installed on Calle Pina Colada between the Meadowview and Ridgeview Communities. Calle Pina Colada is a 44 foot wide residential collector street between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road. A 25 MPH speed limit is currently posted on Calle Pina Colada. The speeding issue on Calle Pina Colada was reviewed several years ago by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council. As a result, speed humps and appropriate signage were installed on Calle Pina Colada. Speed studies conducted on February 8 and September 14, 1993 indicate 85m percentile speeds of 31 and 34 MPH respectively. A similar study in 1994 indicated an 85~h percentile speed of 27 MPH. Also, in November 1998, the City condncted a comprehensive speed and volume study tbr a period of one (1) week. The restfits of the new data indicate that although the majority of drivers travel through Calle Pina Colada at a reasonable speed, speeding dues occur on this roadway. It should be noted that speed data was collected mid-point between the existing speed humps. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Calle Pina Colada is approximately 1,400. Based on the number of homes that access Calle Pins Colada and tripe generation rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), an ADT uf approximately 500 can be expected. Recently, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommended that Kahwea Road be permanently closed to through traffic. Additional road closures in the area could adversely affect other residential neighborhoods and attiacent roadways. In addition, since vehicular speeding occurs on majority of residential street and requests fin' street closures are common, we recommend that other alternatives such as enforcement of the existing speed limits, striping centerline, parking lanes and bicycle lanes to narrow down the travel lanes be considered and implemented prior to considering road closure. Consideration should also be given to emergency response time when closing any public sweet to through traffic. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: I. Exhibit "A' - Location Map 2. Exhibit *'B' Volume and Speed Data 3. Exhibit *'C' - Street Closure Policy TRAFFIC PETITION "~'C'5-99AC'.e:Z(, REF: With coheres of speeding c~r~ and increaed traffic on the residential street of Calm Pins Colads, this ~etition is being circulated by the re~idenl~ to requeSt that a barrier be placed at the border Of Meadowview and Ridgeview, west of Salt River C(. The PetiUon will be presented to the City of Temecgll Public Works Director and the City Council. 2s. u~cd 32. 37. L.~ ', DATE ~c,I~(9~ ~'/~-q'/r4 ~'7"- 9, >J f~ -;~ .%,/' .Sn~;-//z4,' fi fie ' ¢,F,>" f q zSSc i.,,':.9'~ .2'~'&, , :',','-~,,"k/-' TRAFFIC PETITION With Concerns ol speeding cars and increased traffic on the residenUal ttreet or Calle Pina Colada, this petition is being circulated by the residents to request that a barrier be IllIced It the bo~ler of Meadowview and Ridgeview, west o1' Salt RIver Ct. The Petition will be pre~ented to the City of Teme~ula Public Worlgl Director and the Cjty Council. NAME 45. ~n H, 51. 57. 62, 65. 70. 12. 7~ P~e 2 of 3 ADDRESS PHONE DATE G-'J~/~/zzc ,'{{~Z,c;'~ JG~I9~2~ /o-:'5' October 3. 1998 Teresa G. Rimmer 30732 Calle Pina Colada Temecula, CA 92591-1551 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Street Barricade Dear City Manager and City Council: I am writing to request a barricade in the middle of Calle Pina Colada. between La Serena and Del Rey Road. between the developments of Meadowview and Ridgeview. This street is incredibly unsafe due to the traffic conditions, and the speods at which cars travel along Calle Pina Colada. The type of speed bump installed along the street is absolutely useless and does not require one to slow down hardly at all. Recently, radar detectors have been present on the street; however, these do nothing ~nless someone is handing out speeding tickets. We also have a very large amount of vandalism. Just abent every weekend, mailboxes on the street are damaged, and trash is strewn all over. Moreover, the mailbox damage is n~t minor, and has required a lot of repair and cement work by other neighbors and myself. Please consider placing a barricade in the location listed above. Meadowview is a privaie neighborhood and does not need to serve as the city "short cut". There are plenty of other access roads. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Teresa G. Rimmer cc: Mr. Joe Kicak Director of Public Works February 21, 1998 City of Temecula c/o Joe Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT A division of RBCM, Inc. RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Traffic concerns along Calla Pine Colada in the Ridgeview Rancho California Homeowners' Association Dear Mr. Kicak: In response to your request during our telephone conversation of the other day, I am writing to you to voice the concerns of the membership for the above mentioned association with respect to traffic problems along Calla Pina Colada. In particular, they are concerned with the amount of traffic and the speed at which this traffic is traveling along the roadway. It is of the opinion of several owners that live along Calla Pine Colada, that the majority of this traffic is the result of ingress and egress to the Meadowview Association. As a result of this preliminary finding, several concerned residents would like to see the City limit the accessibility of this roadway. It has been suggested, again by these residents, that some form of barrier be placed in the roadway where the two assoeiation's meet. With this in mind, we ask your help with the following: To conduct a traffic study along Calla Pina Colada to help detemune the source of the traffic, a meeting with yourself and the Board of Directors of the Association to discuss this issue and the findings of the study and, a recommendation to the City Council that will alleviate this traffic problem. I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation regarding this matter and I will await your response. As always, should you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to call my office. Sincerely, Tim McLean Project Manager for Ridgeview R.C. Homeowners' Association cc: Board of Directors 11717 Bernardo Plaza Ct., Suite 110 San Diego. CA 92128 Business: (619) 485-0881 · Service: (619) 485-0672 FAX: (619) 485-7844 27720 Jefferson Ave., Suite 101 Ternecula, CA 92590 Business: (909) 699-1220 · Accounting: (888) 336-4438 FAX: (909) 699-1661 E33-11RIT "A" LOCATION MAP PINA COLADA EXHIBIT "B" VOLUME AND SPEED DATA SITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 2 STREET : CaUe Pina Colada FILE: P~nacoLa LIMITS : 100' East of De~ Rey : DATE: 9/03/98 ,6 ....... e/b .............. w/b ............ COMBINED ..... DAY: THURSDAY BEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 0 16 0 9 0 25 12:45 0 3 3 34 1 3 9 40 1 6 12 74 1:00 1 10 1 12 2 22 1:30 0 7 0 1 0 8 1:45 1 2 7 2:00 0 20 0 11 O 31 2:15 1 21 0 18 1 39 2:30 1 22 0 19 1 41 2:45 0 2 30 93 0 0 16 64 0 2 46 157 3:00 0 21 0 29 0 50 3:15 0 17 0 27 0 44 3:30 0 27 0 9 0 3:45 0 0 12 77 1 1 14 79 1 1 26 156 4:00 0 10 0 15 0 25 4:15 1 24 4 9 5 33 4:45 1 2 14 66 1 6 26 64 2 8 40 130 5:00 0 30 1 14 I 44 5:15 0 20 1 21 I 41 5:30 2 17 4 12 6 29 5:45 3 5 19 86 3 9 14 61 6 14 33 147 90 1 17 4 16 5 6:30 11 26 6 8 17 6:45 11 25 16 80 20 34 10 45 31 59 26 125 7:00 36 16 6 16 42 7:15 36 12 11 14 47 26 7:30 16 12 14 5 30 17 7:45 13 101 7 47 14 45 10 45 27 146 17 92 8:00 15 7 6 5 21 12 8:15 17 9 12 7 29 16 8:30 24 6 17 5 41 11 8:45 18 74 4 26 20 55 7 24 38 129 11 50 9:00 3 9 10 8 13 17 9:15 12 10 7 7 19 9:30 3 3 6 5 9 8 9:45 9 27 4 26 7 30 6 26 16 57 10 52 10:00 6 3 9 3 15 6 10:15 6 6 7 2 13 8 10:30 4 2 6 2 10 4 10:45 15 31 6 17 8 30 0 7 28 61 6 24 11:00 10 I 10 0 20 1 11:15 9 2 6 0 15 2 11:30 18 0 9 2 27 2 11:45 13 50 2 5 9 34 2 4 22 84 4 9 TOTALS 322 595 249 489 DAY TOTALS 917 738 SPLIT % 56.4 54.9 43.6 45.1 571 1084 1655 ,K HOUR 7:00 2:45 8:15 2:30 6:45 2:30 VOLUME 101 95 59 91 150 181 P,H.F. 0.70 0,79 0,74 0.78 0.80 0.90 ;ITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 1 ;TREET : CaHe Pina Cotada FILE: cpcB .IHITS : Bravos to Yuba : ~estbound OnLy DATE: 3/11/98 'IRE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPN) AVERAGE ~EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-Z0 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LI:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;ITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 2 ;TREET : Carte Pina Colada FILE: cpc2 .IMtTS : Bravos to Yuba : Westbound Onty DATE: 3/12/98 'IME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE lEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 49 0 4 7 16 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 9:00 28 0 6 6 3 S 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 I0:00 39 0 3 3 16 9 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 H:O0 35 0 O 8 9 8 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 12:00 PM 37 0 2 8 18 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1:00 44 1 4 7 16 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2:00 66 0 3 11 26 14 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 3:00 70 0 1 4 22 19 15 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 33 4:00 66 0 4 13 22 13 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 5:00 84 0 5 16 33 17 7 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 29 6:00 55 0 1 10 12 18 6 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 32 7:00 36 0 0 5 9 11 5 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 33 8:00 25 0 2 3 7 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 31 9:00 27 0 2 7 5 6 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 10:00 14 0 1 3 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 11:00 8 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 34 )AY TOTAL 683 1 38 112 218 161 92 45 10 6 0 0 0 0 ;ITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 3 ;TREET : Carte Pina Co[ada FILE: cpc2 .IMITS : Bravos to Yuba : Westbound Only DATE: ]/13/98 'IME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE IEGIR COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56*60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) ~2:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1:00 2 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2:00 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 3:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 53 4:00 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 5:00 4 0 I 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 6:00 27 0 1 5 3 11 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 7:00 82 0 0 19 28 19 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 8:00 63 0 1 14 22 14 5 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 30 9:00 31 1 4 9 7 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 I0:00 31 1 5 8 7 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 11:00 27 0 2 7 8 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 12:00 PM 37 0 2 11 15 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1:00 50 1 6 12 14 9 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 2:00 65 0 3 12 28 16 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 3:00 71 2 2 11 22 19 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 4:00 64 0 0 11 30 8 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 5:00 77 0 4 15 24 24 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 29 6:00 51 0 1 11 14 11 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 31 7:00 49 0 2 6 12 16 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 32 8:00 22 0 0 3 6 6 5 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 32 9:00 28 0 0 5 13 8 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 O 29 I0:00 23 0 0 4 7 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 O 31 11:00 19 0 1 1 6 4 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 35 )AY TOTAL 829 5 35 164 271 197 89 43 16 7 2 0 0 0 ;ITE CODE; 00000000 CITY OF TEHBCULA PAGE: 4 ;TREET : CaLLe Pina Cotada FILE: cpcZ .IMITS : Bravos to Yuba : Westbound Onty DATE: 3/14/98 'IME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE IEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 13 0 0 0 2 3 1 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 39 1:00 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2:00 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 6:00 6 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 O O 0 0 0 0 28 7:00 14 0 0 0 5 ] 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 8:00 33 0 2 4 11 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 31 9:00 38 0 1 7 10 13 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 10:00 58 1 3 8 16 16 11 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 11:00 41 3 1 8 14 9 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 12:00 PM 56 0 3 22 16 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 1:00 49 2 1 10 14 12 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2:00 39 0 4 6 10 10 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 3:00 53 0 5 11 21 3 10 3 0 O 0 0 0 0 29 4:00 45 0 3 7 19 8 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 29 5:00 58 0 ? 13 22 7 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 6:00 50 0 2 12 14 8 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 31 7:00 23 0 3 4 5 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 8:00 20 0 0 7 6 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 9:00 21 0 0 4 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10:00 20 0 1 1 6 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 11:00 16 0 1 1 5 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 lAY TOTAL 663 6 38 127 205 135 98 34 15 2 3 0 0 0 ;ITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 5 ;TREET : Ca[re Pina CoLada FILE: cpc2 ,IMZTS : Bravos to Yuba : Westbound OnLy GATE: 3/15/98 rIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE IEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 7 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 35 1:00 5 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 35 4:00 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 5:00 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 6:00 6 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 7:00 8 0 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 8:00 15 0 0 1 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 9:00 23 1 1 1 8 5 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 31 I0:00 28 0 1 4 6 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 11:00 44 0 2 9 14 7 4 5 2 I 0 0 0 0 31 12:00 PH 24 0 0 11 9 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1:00 51 1 3 12 16 10 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 2:00 50 2 1 12 18 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 3:00 43 0 5 7 8 9 9 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 31 4:00 39 1 5 7 12 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 5:00 49 0 4 7 7 19 10 2 0 0 0 0 6;00 32 0 0 5 9 10 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 7:00 20 0 0 4 7 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 8:00 27 0 1 5 8 7 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 O 32 9:00 9 0 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0:00 5 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:00 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 lAY TOTAL 495 5 24 92 141 117 71 34 5 5 I 0 0 0 ;ITE CODE: 00000000 C]TY OF TEMECULA PAGE; 6 ;TREET : Calle Pina Cotada FILE: cpc2 _IMITS : Bravos to Yuba : Westbound Onty DATE: 3/16/98 FINE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERAGE 3EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (HPH) 12:00 AN 1:00 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 5:00 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 6:00 27 0 2 7:00 76 0 1 11 28 18 12 4 1 1 0 0 0 8:00 74 1 2 14 22 15 9:00 24 1 3 7 2 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 I0:00 19 0 2 4 6 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 11:00 33 0 2 8 6 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 12:00 PM 32 1 5 6 9 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 28 1:00 38 0 1 14 10 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2:00 74 1 4 11 25 16 8 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 3:00 84 1 2 14 23 28 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 4:00 71 0 1 10 25 13 13 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 32 5:00 84 0 0 18 38 20 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 6:00 51 1 3 12 13 11 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7:00 29 0 0 5 9 5 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 8:00 21 0 1 4 3 6 3 2 1 I 0 0 0 0 33 9:00 17 O 0 3 4 3 4 2 1 O 0 0 0 0 I0:00 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35 )AY TOTAL 777 6 29 148 235 180 113 49 13 3 1 0 0 0 ~ITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 7 ~TREET : Carte Pina CoLada FILE: cpc2 .IMITS : Bravos to Yuba : Westbound Only DATE: 3/17/98 FINE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (HPH) AVERAGE ]EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-Z0 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (NPH) 12:00 AH 5 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35 1:00 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z8 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 5:00 5 0 1 0 1 1 6:00 28 0 1 2 8 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 7:00 75 1 2 19 19 18 8 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 30 8:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 9:00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 )AY TOTAL 122 1 5 21 29 31 21 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 SITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Caite Pina Cotada FILE: cpceb ,IMITS : West of Salt River : Eastbound Only DATE: 3/11/98 rIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE ~EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (HPH) 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 )AY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;ITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 2 ;TREET : Ca[ie Pina CoLada FILE: cpceb .IMITS : ~est of SaLt River : Eastbound OnLy DATE: ]/12/98 rIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE IEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 ]6-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 15 ] 2 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8:00 62 6 17 26 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 9:00 31 2 8 14 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 I0:00 22 1 5 8 5 11:00 30 0 7 9 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 12:00 PM 51 4 10 22 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1:00 46 2:00 67 1 15 30 12 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 3:00 73 1 16 30 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 4:00 67 1 15 25 19 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 5:00 79 1 16 33 20 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 6:00 67 2 10 25 23 6 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 24 7:00 ]4 1 9 9 10 ] 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:00 35 1 6 7 13 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 9:00 17 0 6 4 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 I0:00 8 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 29 11:00 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 )AY TOTAL 707 25 155 269 176 67 11 ] 1 0 0 0 0 0 ;ITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 3 ;TREET : CaLLe Pina Cotada FILE: cpceb .IMITS : West of Satt River : Eastbound Onty DATE: 3/13/98 '|ME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE lEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1:00 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 5 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 5:00 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6:00 20 0 6 7 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 7:00 51 2 5 17 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 63 5 12 27 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 9:00 27 0 5 12 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 IO:O0 32 3 6 10 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 11:00 32 0 7 14 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 12:00 PM 44 3 9 16 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1:00 36 2 5 15 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2:00 75 4 23 22 18 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 3:00 87 1 14 32 26 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 4:00 64 0 13 32 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 5:00 61 0 15 27 17 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6:00 67 2 19 25 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7:00 50 0 10 19 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:00 39 1 6 14 12 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 9:00 32 0 9 12 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 IO:O0 13 0 2 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 i1:00 31 1 7 7 11 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 )AY TOTAL 835 25 175 318 237 60 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 SITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 4 STREET : CaLLe Pina Cotada FILE: cpceb LIMITS : West of Satt River : Eastbound Onty DATE: 3/14/98 rIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE )EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 14 1 0 4 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1:00 2 0 0 0 O 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2:00 4 0 0 1 3 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z6 3:00 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 4:00 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 5:00 5 0 1 1 Z 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 6:00 7 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7:00 20 0 6 7 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:00 28 0 6 15 3 1 3 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 24 9:00 37 2 10 19 6 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 10:00 38 0 6 12 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 )1:00 54 1 17 19 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 12:00 PM 45 2 11 19 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1:00 45 8 9 13 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 2:00 62 5 24 22 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 3:00 48 3 8 17 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 4:00 42 3 14 15 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 5:00 50 3 12 24 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 6:00 54 2 18 26 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 7:00 27 0 8 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 8:00 24 2 2 8 4 7 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 9:00 29 1 9 9 4 6 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 I0:00 24 0 7 9 4 3 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 24 I1:00 12 0 0 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 )AY TOTAL 674 33 170 263 142 54 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 SITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 5 STREET : Ca[[e Pina CoLada FILE: cpceb LIMITS : West of Salt River : Eastbound Only DATE: ]/15/98 TIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE SEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-Z0 Z1-25 26-30 31-]5 ]6-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 9 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1:00 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2:00 4 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 3:00 7 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 4:00 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5:00 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 18 6:00 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 7:00 12 0 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:00 17 0 4 8 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 9:00 29 0 7 12 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 10:00 32 0 5 15 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 11:00 35 1 7 15 8 4 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 24 12:00 PM 37 ] 11 13 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1:00 54 1 13 26 6 5 ] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 2:00 45 1 10 17 11 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 3:00 42 0 10 16 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 4:00 45 2 11 1] 11 7 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 24 5:00 41 1 14 15 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6:00 40 2 12 15 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 7:00 30 1 5 10 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:00 25 1 4 15 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 9:00 15 1 2 6 2 3 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 25 10:00 10 0 1 I 5 2 O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 11:00 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 )AY TOTAL 544 14 125 215 119 50 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;ITE CDDE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 6 ;TREET : Ca[[e Pina Colada FILE: cpceb .IMITS : West of Salt River : Eastbound Only DATE: 3/16/98 FINE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERAGE )EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AM 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 4 0 I 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 6:00 18 0 9 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 7:00 50 0 4 25 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:00 64 2 17 25 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 9:00 26 0 7 10 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 10:00 29 1 3 16 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 11:00 24 2 8 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 12:00 PM 36 1 10 9 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1:00 34 1 9 17 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 2:00 67 5 12 25 19 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 3:00 98 2 23 39 29 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 4:00 59 1 16 22 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 5:00 63 1 13 25 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 6:00 55 0 11 24 13 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 7:00 38 0 9 14 8 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0:00 36 2 7 10 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 9:00 17 0 1 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 IO:O0 8 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 I1:00 5 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 )AY TOTAL 739 18 164 293 187 67 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 IITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 7 ;TREET : CaLLe Pina Cotada FILE: cpceb .IMITS : West of SaLt River : Eastbound OnLy DATE: 3/17/98 rIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) AVERAGE lEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH) 12:00 AN 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 5:00 6 O 2 1 2 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 24 6:00 24 0 6 12 3 3 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 23 7:00 53 2 7 17 22 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 )AY TOTAL 91 2 16 33 29 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 O Speed vs. Cummulative % Street: Calle Pina Colada C U U l a t i V 120 115 .............. 110 .............. 105 ............... 85th percentile: 27 mph % in pace : 85% 10mph pace : 18-28 mph % in pace : 70% Date : 2/3/94 80 ....................... 75 70 ..................... 65 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Section: Bravos Ct. to Yuba Cir. speed in mph CItY OF Tt~MECULA Street: ;carrier: MPH 65 5 10 15 VEHICLE SPEED DATA SHEET ;:: Day of the week: -r~ u Date: Z: ~ - Begin Time: ,/; '~:~End Time: "2.'~':'Exist. Posted Limit: ~E MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES Percent Cumulative of total Percentage 20 25 30 35 40 45 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 ~'O'r~L NU.~B~R O~ VE.ICLES; /~0 l{ 85th Percentile: F'~2L lOmph pace range is: I~ to ~,~) ; 7'(2 % of total. pw041veh,sh/05069 Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET ................ 0 Blk. CALLE PINA COLADA LIMITS ................ bet BRAVOS and 15~ YUBA AECTION(S) ....... DATE ............... TIME ............... POSTED SPEED LIMIT. CUM. SPEED NO. PCT. PCT. 15 1 1.0 1.0 16 1 1.0 2.0 17 1 1.0 3.0 18 1 1.0 4.0 19 1 1.0 5.0 20 3 3.0 8.0 21 2 2.0 10.0 22 2 2.0 12.0 23 2 2.0 14.0 24 8 8 0 22.0 25 9 9 0 31.0 26 6 6 0 37.0 27 9 9 0 46.0 28 9 9 0 55.0 29 7 7 0 62.0 30 11 11 0 73.0 ~ 3 3 0 76.0 ~2 5 5 0 81.0 33 2 2 0 83.0 34 5 5.0 88.0 35 2 2.0 90.0 36 5 5.0 95.0 37 0 0.0 95.0 38 1 1.0 96 0 39 1 1.0 97 0 40 0 0.0 97 0 41 0 0.0 97 42 2 2.0 99 43 0 0.0 99 44 0 0.0 99 45 0 0.0 99 46 1 1.0 100 ...N & S BOUND ...9-14-93 ...1011 TO 1210 ...25 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 28 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 34 10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 23 through 32 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 69.0 PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. 19.0 PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 12.0 RANGE OF SPEEDS ................. 15 to 46 VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 100 AVERAGE SPEED ....................... 28.2 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + 100 ************************100 90 ** 90 C * ' U 80 * 80 M ** ' 70 70 p - - E 60 * 60 R - * ' C 50 50 E - * ' N 40 40 T - * ' S 30 * 30 20 * 20 10 *** 10 0'* 0 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + 15 25 35 45 55 65 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + 0 20 20 0 - 0 - ' 0 - ' 0 - ' 0 P 15 15 E - ' R - ' C - ' E - ' N 10 10 T - ' S - ' 5 5 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + CITY OF TEMECULA &-d to. q, ~o VEHICLE SPEED DATA SHEET Weather: ~ i~'~ ~ ~ Be~jin Time: IC' i l End Time: 12': iO Exist. Posted LZmit: MPH MPH 65 60 55 50 45 ,<y,,,, 40 5 10 NUMBER OF VEHICLES 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: I I I I 7G 2~ ~o E; I 85th Percen+jle: lOmph pace range ~s: __ to __; % of total, Comments; pwOi/veh.sh1050892 Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program STREET ................ 0 Blk. CALLE PINA COLADA LIMITS ................ bet SALT RIVERWand DEL REY b~RECTION(S) ....... DATE ............... TIME ............... POSTED SPEED LIMIT. CUM. SPEED NO. PCT. PCT. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ...N & S BOUND ...9-13-93 ...0900 TO 1100 ...25 2 2.0 2.0 1 1.0 3.0 1 1.0 4.0 2 2.0 6.0 3 3.0 9.0 90 0 0.0 9.0 C - 4 4.0 13.0 U 80 4 4.0 17.0 M - 2 2.0 19.0 70 4 4.0 23.0 P - 7 7 0 30.0 E 60 11 11 0 41.0 R - 11 11 0 52.0 C 50 6 6 0 58.0 E - 2 2 0 60.0 N 40 9 9 0 69.0 T - 7 7 0 76.0 S 30 5 5 0 81.0 - 5 5 0 86.0 20 2 2 0 88.0 0 0 0 88.0 2 2 0 90.0 4 4 0 94.0 1 10 95.0 2 2 0 97.0 1 10 98.0 0 0.0 98.0 0 0.0 98.0 - 0 0.0 98.0 - 0 0.0 98.0 - 0 0.0 98.0 - 1 1.0 99.0 P 15 1 1.0 100.0 E - R - C - E - N 10 T - S - 5 _, 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 26 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 32 10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 23 through 32 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED ...... PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED .... PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED... RANGE OF SPEEDS ............ VEHICLES OBSERVED .......... AVERAGE SPEED .............. ....... 67.0 ........ 14.0 ........ 19.0 .... 14 to 46 ........ 100 ........ 27.0 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + 100 **************************100 10 ** _ *** + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + 10 14 24 34 44 54 64 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + 20 20 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + J ~ z~ 34 4q ~ ~ CITY OF TEMECULA O-o,tlc RrTo ?"~et: O-c lc~dq VEHICLE SPEED DATA SHEET Weather: ~{~ Begin Time: fi~End Time: I~eExist, Posted Limit: MPH MPH 65 NUMBER OF VEHICLES 10 20 25 30 35 45 60 55 50 45 ~ ~ 40 35 x~, 30 ~< 25 ! ~ 20 i~ 15~1 ~ 15 4O TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 85th Percentile: lOmph pace range ~s: __ to __; __ % of total. ~omnqerlts: pwO41veh.sh/~)50892 Speed vs. Cummulative % Street: Calle Pina Colada C U In In u 1 a t i v e 851h percentile: 31 mph percent in pace: 86% 10 mph pace : 21-31 mph percent in pace: 53 % Date : 2/8/93 120 115 110 105 100 ................................................ 95 .................................................. 90 .................................................. 85 .................................................. 75 .................................................. 70 .................................................. 65 .................................................. 55 .................................................. 50 .................................................. 40 .................................................. 35 .................................................. 30 .................................................. 25 ................................................... 20 .................................................. 15 .................................................. 10 .................................................. 5 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Section: Del Rey Rd. & Salt River Ct. speed in mph MPH 5 10 65 ' 60 55 50 ~5 k 85th Percentlie: CITY Of TEMECULA vEHICLE SPEED DATA SHE~-F Location: ~DO %' i.,:: '-'c7 "'jF, g- C7. Day of the week: T!JE. Date: Weather: C-" y£-,v, ,~;,,: Begin Time: 2'/:' End T~me: ,/,/J_c Exist. Posted Limit: ?-5' MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES 15 20 25 30 35 Percent Cumuladve of total Percentage 40 45 I TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 10mph pace range is: -~ I to; ] · G 3 % of tatal. T /oo 7o Comments: pwO41veh.sh/050692 EXHIBIT "C" STREET CLOSURE POLICY CITY OF TEMECULA POLICY FOR CLOSURE OR MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON PUBLIC STREETS Traffic flow modifications covered by this policy include all "official traffic control devices" authorized by the California Vehicle Code. Some of the methods authorized in particular circumstances might include traffic islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features, removing or relocation traffic signals and one-way traffic flow. CRITERIA A petition request for the closure or modification of traffic flow on public streets, including re~ opening previously closed streets, will be considered by the City for those streets meeting all of the following criteria: a. The street must be classified as a "local street" based on the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. b. The street should be primarily residential in nature. Traffic volumes on the street must equal or exceed 2,000 vehicles per day for a completd closure. Volumes for a partial closure must equal or exceed 1,000 vehicles per day. d. Public Safety Agencies have not provided sufficient evidence of any major public safety concerns regarding the proposed street closure or traffic flow modification. An engineering safety study has determined that the proposed closure or traffic flow modifications will not crate unreasonable traffic on the subject street or on streets which may be impacted by diverted traffic. f. The changes in traffic flow will not result in unreasonable liability exposure for the City. All persons signing a petition requesting a street closure or traffic flow modification acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modifications. h. The requested action is authorized by legislative authority in State law. PETITEON REQUI3REMENTS The following procedures must be followed for submitting a petition to the City: The City Traffic Engineer will examine the technical feasibility and anticipated impacts of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. This review will include, but will not be limited to, items such as State law, the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the type of road or street involved, compliance with engineering regulations, existing traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions, the potential for traffic diversion to adjacent streets, the increased liability exposure for the City or conflicts with future planned improvements. The City Traffic Engineer will determine the boundary of the "affected area" to be petitioned. The affected area will include those properties where normal travel routes are altered by the street closure or traffic flow modifications, and/or properties which are significantly impacted by traffic that is to be diverted. The petition requesting the street closure or traffic flow modifications must be supported by a minimum of 75 percent of the total number of properties within the "affected area." Persons submitting petitions must attempt to contact all property owners within the affected area to determine their views on the proposed street closure or modifications in traffic flow. The City will not accept a petition unless the petitioner offers confirmation in a form satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer that at least 85 percent of the property owners in the affected area have been contacted and have either signed the petition in support of the street closure or traffic flow modification or have signed a document indicating non-support for the street closure or traffic flow modification. d. At a minimum, petitions submitted to the City for review must include the following: · A statement that all persons signing the petition acknowledge it is the City 's polic y that they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic flow modifications in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modifications. A drawing showing the exact location of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications and the boundary of the "affected area" must be provided: The drawing must include changes in traffic patterns anticipated as result of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. · The petition language must also clearly explain the location and nature of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. The petition language and attached drawing must be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation to ensure its accuracy and ability to be clearly understood. · A specific reference to the Vehicle Code section authorizing such street closure or traffic flow modifications must be provided. A sample petition has been provided as an attachment to this policy. -2- r: ~txaf~e\policy\s~zlosure- l 1/95/ajp PETITION REVIEW PROCESS The following process will be used to review all petitions associated with a proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications: The City Traffic Engineer will review any petition to verify compliance with all petition requirements set forth above, including whether the request in the petition is authorized by State law. Any petition not complying with these requirements will not be accepted for consideration. If the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications will be referred to all affected public agencies in conjunction with the environmental review process. When applicable, these agencies will include all City Departments, the local office of the California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff and Fire Departments, all affected local utility companies, Temecula Valley Unified School District, Riverside Transit Agency, the local office of California Department of Transportation and any other agencies affected by the requested closure or traffic flow modification. If the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, where the street closure or traffic flow modifications on a street or system of streets may be accomplished by several different methods, a public workshop will be held to which all petitioners, affected property owners, and long-term tenants such as mobile home park residents will be invited to participate after the petition requesting the traffic flow modifications or street closure has been received and verified by the City. The purpose of the workshop will be to attempt to determine the method that has the greatest community support. CITY ACTION ON STREET CLOSURE OR TRAFFIC FLOW MODIFICATION REQUESTS Once a petition contains all of the required information and all of the matters described above under "Petition Review Process" have been completed, the City Traffic Engineer will prepart a report with recommendations and initiate and complete the environmental review process for the project. Project alternatives to the extent required will be defined for a temporary or permanent street closure or traffic flow modifications. The City of Temecula, Public/Traffic Safety Commission will review the street closure or traffic flow modifications request, any environmental review document prepared for the project, all public agency referral responses received during the environmental review process, and the results of the technical staff review. The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission may support or recommend against the street closure or traffic flow modifications. If the Public/Traffic Safety Commission denies the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications, that action will be final unless within ten days from the date of the City Traffic Engineer' s notification of the Com mission's decision to all property owners within the affected area, a property owner within the affected area appeals the Commission's decision to the City Council. In order to appeal the decision, the property owner shall file a written notice of appeal with the Department of Public Works, The appeal will be heard in accordance with the Appeal Process listed below. If the request is recommended for further consideration, after public notice is given, the City Council may, after making any necessary findings, establish a temporary or permanent period of street closure or traffic flow modifications. When the City Council considers a recommendation of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission or an appeal of a decision of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission with respect to a proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications, it will follow the process outlined below: A letter explaining the street closure or traffic flow modifications and the time and place wben the matter will be heard by the City Council will be sent to all property owners, within the affected area prior to its installation. b. All approaches to the proposed closure or modification will be posted notifying motorists of upcoming Public Hearing. A Public Hearing will be set before the City Council and public notice will be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing by letter to property owners in the affected area and by posting of signs on the affected roadways as described in this Section and by a notice published in the newspaper. Public notification of the City Council action will be given in cases when a street closure or traffic modifications is approved by the City Council, and signs giving notice of the sweet closure or traffic flow modifications will also be erected at least two weeks prior to the date of implementation of the street closure or traffic modifications. In the event the action involves a highway not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, the City will obtain the proper approvals from the California Transportation Commission pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21101 or 21100 (d) prior to implementation of the street closure or traffic flow modification. A letter explaining the final City Council decision will be sent by the City to all property owners, within the affected area. The City Council tias the sole discretion, subject to all applicable laws, to approve, modify, continue or deny any street closure or traffic flow modifications request regardless of any support or lack thereof via the petition process. Any action by the City Council to approve or deny a street closure or traffic flow modifications request will be by adoption of a formal resolution. r:Xtn~c\FolicyXslelosure-ll1951ajp DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PETITION TO CLOSE OR MODIFY THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON STREET BETWEEN AND BY THE INSTALLATION OF (Nature of Changes) AT (Location) DATE: BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS PETITION, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SIGNING! IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU FIRST READ THE CITY'S POLICY FOR CLOSURE OR MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON PUBLIC STREETS. We, the undersigned resident of the area shown on the attached map do/do not petition the City of Temecula to on Street as shown on the attached drawing. All persons signing this petition acknowledge it is the City 's policy that they will need to participate in all costs direc~y associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modification. The specific California Vehicle Code section(s) authorizing such closure or traffic flow modifications states: All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside within the area impacted by the proposed traffic flow change as shown on the attached map. Our designated contact person is: Phone: Signature Print Name Print Address APPENDIX "A" RULES AND REGULATIONS: SUBJECT MATTER VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters: a. Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways. Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire and drivers of passenger vehicles for hire. c. Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers. d. Regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of Section 21400. Regulating traffic by means of any person given temporary or permanent appointment for such duty by the local authority whenever official traffic control devices are disabled or otherwise inoperable, at the scenes of accidents or disasters, or at such locations as may require traffic direction for orderly traffic flow. No person shall, however, be appointed pursuant to this subdivision unless and until the local authority has submitted to the commissioner or to the chief law enforcement officer exercising jurisdiction in the enforcement of traffic laws within the area in which such person is to perform such duty, for review, a proposed program of instruction for the training of a person for such duty, and unless and until the commissioner or such other chieflaw enforcement officer approves the proposed program. The commissioner or such other chief law enforcement officer shall approve such a proposed program if he reasonably determines that the program will provide sufficient training for persons assigned to perform the duty described in this subdivision. Regulating traffic at the site of road or street construction or maintenance by persons authorized for such duty by the local authority. Licensing and regulating the operation of tow truck service or tow truck drivers whose principal place of business or employment is within the jurisdiction of the local authority, excepting the operation and operator of any auto dismantler' s tow vehicle licensed under Section 11505 or any tow track operated by a repossessing agency licensed under Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 7500) ofDivision 3 of the Business and Professions Code and its registered employees. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the authority of a city or city and county pursuant to Section 12111. Operation of bicycles, and, as specified in Section 21114.5, electric carts by physically disabled persons, or persons 50 years of age or older, on the public sidewalks. Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school crossing guards for the protection of persons who are crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter to a place of safety. -7- r:%traffic\policy\stclosure~ll/95/ajp Regulating the methods of deposit of garbage and refuse in streets and highways for collection by the local authority or by any person authorized by the locat authority. Regulating cruising. The ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision shalI regulated cruising, which shall be defined as the repetitive driving of a motor vehicle past a traffic control point, in traffic which is congested at or near the traffic control point, as determined by the ranking peace officer on duty within the affected area, within a specified time period and after the vehicle operator has been given an adequate written notice that further driving past the control point will be a violation of the ordinance or resolution. No person is in violation of an ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision unless (1) that person has been given the written notice on a previous driving trip past the control point and then again passes the control point in that same time interval and (2) the beginring and end of the portion of the street subject to cruising controls are clearly identified by signs that briefly and clearly state the appropriate provisions of this subdivision and the local ordinance or resolution on cruising. Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane, as described in Section 22500.1, on private property. Any removal pursuant to this subdivision shall be consistent to the extent possible with the procedures for removal and storage set forth in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650). TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES: UNIFORM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21100.1 Whenever any city or county, by ordinance or resolution, permits, restricts, or prohibits the use of public or private highways pursuant to this article, any traffic control device erected by it on or after January 1, 1981, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications adopted by the Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 21400. REGULATION OF HIGHWAYS VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21101. Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution on the following matters: a. Closing any highway to vehicular traffic when, in the opinion of the legislative body having jurisdiction, the highway is no longer needed for vehicular traffic. Designating any highway as a through highway and requiring that all vehicles observe official traffic control devices before entering or crossing the highway or designating any intersection as a stop intersection and requiring all vehicles to stop at one or more entrances to the intersection. Prohibiting the use of particular highways by certain vehicles, except as otherwise provided by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 1031) of Chapter 5 of Part i of Division 1 of Public Utilities Code. No ordinance which is adopted pursuant to this subdivision after November 10, 1969, shall apply to any state highway which is included in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has been approved by the California Transportation Commission by a four-fifths vote. d, Closing particular streets during regular school hours for the purpose of conducting automobile driver training programs in the secondary schools and colleges of this state. Temporarily closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing. Prohibiting entry to, or exit from, or both, from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a general plan adopted pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 65350) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The rules and regulations authorized by this subdivision shall be consistent with the responsibility of local government to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. LOCAL AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE HIGHWAY: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21101.4 (a) A local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt rules and regulations for temporarily closing to through traffic a highway under its jurisdiction when all of the following conditions are, after a public heating, found to exist. The local authority finds and determines that there is serious and continual criminal activity in the portion of the highway recommended for temporary closure. This finding and determination shall be based upon the recommendation of the police department or, in the case of a highway in an unincorporated area, on the joint recommendation of the sheriff s department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. 2. The highway has not been designated as a through highway or arterial street. 3. Vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the highway contributes to the criminal activity. The closure will not substantially adversely affect the operation of emergency vehicles, the performance of municipal or public utility services, or the delivery of freight by commercial vehicles in the area of the highway proposed to be temporarily closed. (b) A highway may be temporarily closed pursuant to subdivision (a) for not more than 18 months, except that period may, pursuant to subdivision (a), be extended for one additional period of not more than 18 months. -9- r:\traffic\pol;cyXstclosure~ll/95/ajp ITEM NO. 3 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic March I1, 1999 Item 3 Implementation of Selected Short-Term Traffic Circulation Improvement Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Satiety Commission review, comment and approve implementation of selected short- term traffic circulation ilnprovement prt~iects. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula, Public Works Department has identified several projects to improve the traffic flow withni the City. These projects have been divided into three (3) categories as follows: Category I includes prnjects that only require signing, striping and signal timing modifications. Category 2 consists of prqiects that require minor roadway improvements within the existing right-of-way such as median modifications, driveway modifications and roadway widening. Category 3 projects consists of improvements which will require additional right-of-way such as interchange romp improvements and addition of traffic lanes on major roadways. The attached list (Exhibit "A") is a list nf some of the Category I projects for the Commission's review, input and approval. A list nf all traffic circulation improvement projects (Exhibit "B") is also attached. FISCAL IMPACT: $40,000.00 Attachment: I. Exhibit '~A" -List of Selected Category I Projects 2. Exhibit "B" List of all Traffic Circulation Improvement Projects r: \traf~c\commissn\agenda\ 99 \O31199\trafficcircl/ajp 0 0 o ,C,O (-)'~ o o~'~ ~ ~ o.~° ITEM NO. 4 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic March 11, 1999 Item 4 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Areas of Responsibility RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission: I. Review and discuss additional areas of responsibility 2. Consider the t~asibility of bi-monthly meetings BACKGROUND: A propo~l has been submitted by Commissioner Edwards concerning assignment of each commission member to various specific tasks. As proposed, areas of responsibility could be assigned by the Chairperson in mutual agreement with the Commissioners on an annual basis. The specific areas of responsibility could include closer interaction with the City Council, other City Commissions, various City Departments and community relations. A copy of the proposal is attached as Exhibit "A". [t has been suggested by the City Council that the Public/Traffic Sat~ty Commission meetings be held on a bi- monthly basis. This issue has been placed on the agenda for review and recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attacht:qent: Exhibit "A" - Proposal r: \traf~c\cormnissn\agenda\99\031199\responsibilities/ajp E rrRlT "A" City of Temecula Traffic Commission Commissioner Areas of Responsibility PROPOSAL In an eftbrt to keep each traffic Commissioner better lntbrmed. and provide a better flow of mtbrmation bemeen the Public Salary. Traffic Commission. Planning Commission. Planning Department. City Councd. and Temecuta's residents. I propose that specific "areas responsibility" (as outlined on the attached page l be assigned to each Commissioner. These areas of responsibility may be assigned bv the Public Sat~tv:'Vraffic Chairman in mutual agreement with the Commissioners. Assignments may remain in place tier the period of one year xvith reassignment bv the newly elected Chairman and bv rnutual consent of the Commissioners annually at the January meeting ..\ss~gnment o/' these areas of responsibility x~d l not detract ti'om or minimize the responsibility that each trat'tic Commissioner has to bc x~eil inlbrmed in all areas o/' traffic and public sail:Iv. hut x~til augment the o,,erail ell~ct~x'eness ol'the CommassKin · providing updated intbrmanon m all commissioners t'mm all departments. · allowing each commissioner to ti~cus more intently on his area ofresponsnbility and share his expertise and findings monthly with other commissioners. · providing a safety net by tracking progress and monitoring each area more closely. · providing a liaison to the Planning Commission. City. Council. and Temecula's residents thereby improving communication. education. and understanding. Just as the City Council assigns its members to the Redevelopmerit Agency, Community Service District. etc.. by adopting these *'areas or' responsibility", the Public Traffic/Safety Commission will work with staff to operate more efficiently and therebv better serve Temecula*s residents. City of Temecula Traffic Commission Commissioner Areas of Responsibility Circulation Apprise Commission or' updates, changes ~n the c~ rculation element. 2. Work with staff to pro,, ide to Commission current list of projects in Planning Department. Public Vv'orks. Commumtx .%cr','ices. and Traffic x~hich ¢t't~ct c~rculation 3 Liaison to Planning Commission ti>r dialogue on current and upcoming prOlects and their effect on circulation. Safety I. Work with staff to maintain current list. and track progress ot' all sati:tx. issues under consideration Lc.. sidewalk at Nicolas Vatlev Elementan'_ TVHS student access stairs to sports park parking lot. Marganta Road crossx~alk removal at l'emecula Elementarx' School. etc. 2. Evaluate accident report Io~, Suggest concerns and Commission actions ti~r staff fi~l low-up. 3. Review and evaluate all Fire and Police reports. Maintain close working relationship with Fire and Police. 4. Liaison to Fire and Police. Community Relations/Education I. Work with staff to establish and produce biweekly new. spaper article ancb'or monthly 30 rain. cable TV show TRAFFIC ~4LK to fi:ature: · Presentations/updates by each traffic Commissioner in his area ot'responsibility. · Topical video clips, example: "Don't block that intersection" "Rush hour blues" "Work in progress" · [frequently asked questions: '-Why ~s the speed limit on mv street so thst'?" · Satiety tipS, stallstics, Ihcts. graffiti removal and traffic hot line numbers, Maintenance/Installation Work with staff to: I. Maintain list ol'current and pending maintenance pr~iects. Follow-up ( Mr. Pothole l 2. Maintain list of current and pending signal/si gns/crossxvalk installations, Follow-up. 3. Maintain and track graftill removal statistics. Prevention:deterrence measures. Report at Commission meetings as necessary.. Capital Improvements I. Work with staff to maintain list of short-term capital improvement projects, costs and completion dates. Follox~-up. Report progress to Commission as necessan.' 2. Act as Traffic Commission liaison at City Council meetings when invited. Keep Commission apprised of Council actions elicling traffic as necessar-.'. ITEM NO. 5 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page I of 8 SAN B~<U'NO. CAL~C,P.hn.~ City Home City Government Site Map Public Works Home Administration & En.qineerin.q Traffic Enaineerina Freauentlxt Asked Questions (FAQ's) TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS · HOW TO MAKE A REQUEST TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMITTEE ('TSPC) · WHEN IS A CROSSWALK UNSAFE? WHEN WILL A LOWER SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED ON MY STREET? · WHY SHOULDN'T WE HAVE SPEED BUMPS TO SLOW DOWN THE HOT RODDERS? · DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO BE KILLED BEFORE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL BE INSTALLED? · WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME BIKEWAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? · WHY WON'T THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY'' SIGNS? WHY DON'T THEY PUT IN MORE STOP SIGNS? INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING A REQUEST TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMITTEE {TSPC) Write a letter (it can be handwritten) to TSPC, City of San Bruno, 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066 STATE IN YOUR LETTER: 1. Problems. 2. Any solution or requests that you feel would alleviate the problem. 3. State your name, address, and day time phone number. 4. Ask to be heard by the TSPC at their monthly Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 2 of 8 meeting. 5. Ask to be notified of the hearing date if you would like to be present. 6. Mail or hand deliver your letter. TSPC meets on the first Wednesday of every month at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall in the Council Chambers. Your request must be received by the first of the month to be heard at the following month's TSPC meeting. This lead time is necessary in order for Engineering to research all the requests we receive and make sound recommendations. For example: If your request is received by February 1, it will be heard at the March meeting (1st Wednesday in March). If received after February 1, It will be heard at the April Meeting (1 st Wednesday in April). WHEN IS A CROSSWALK UNSAFE? Apparently, whenever it is painted on the street. A number of years back, the City of San Diego published some startling results of a very extensive study of the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks. San Diego looked at 400 Intersections for five years (without signals or four-way stops) that had a marked crosswalk on one side and an unmarked crosswalk on the other. About two and one half times as many pedestrians used the marked crosswalk, but about six times as many accidents were reported in the marked crosswalks, Long Beach studied pedestrian safety for three years (1972 through 1974) and found eight times as many reported pedestrian accidents at intersections with marked crosswalks than at those without. One explanation of this apparent contradiction of common sense is the false security pedestrians feel at the marked crosswalk. Two painted lines do not provide protection against an oncoming vehicle and the real burden of safety has to be on the pedestrian to be alert and cautious while crossing any street. A pedestrian can stop in less than three feet, while a vehicle traveling at 25 MPH will require 60 feet and at 35 MPH approximately 100 feet. The California Vehicle Code says that a crosswalk exists at all intersections unless pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signs. Some of these crosswalks are marked with painted lines, but most of them are not. Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 3 of 8 Pedestrian crosswalk marking is a method of encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Such marked crossings may not be as safe as an unmarked crossing at the same location. Therefore, crosswalks should be marked only where necessary for the guidance and control of pedestrians, to direct them to the safest of several potential routes, Back to Top WHEN WILL A LOWER SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED ON MY STREET? A common belief is that posting a speed limit will influence ddvers to drive at that speed. The facts indicate otherwise. Research conducted in many parts of this country over a span of several decades has shown that ddvers are influenced more by the appearance of the highway itself and the prevailing traffic conditions than by the posted speed limit. California's Basic Speed Law requires that:"No person shall ddve a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is responsible or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Under California law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is now 65 miles per hour. All other speed limits are called pdma facie limits, which "on the face of it" are safe and prudent under normal conditions. Certain pdma facie limits are established by law and include the 25 MPH limit in business and residential districts, the 15 MPH limit in alleys, at blind intersections and blind railroad crossings and a part-time 25 MPH limit in school zones when children are going to and from school. These speeds are not always posted but all California motorists are required to know these 10, 20, and 30 mile per hour speed laws. Intermediate speed limits between 25 and 55 miles per hour may be established by local authorities on the basis of traffic engineering surveys. These surveys include an analysis of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of prudent drivers. If speed limit signs are posted for a lower limit than is needed to safely meet these conditions, many drivers Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 4 of 8 will simply ignore the signs. At the same time, other drivers will stay within the posted limits. This generally increases the conflicts between faster and slower ddvers, reduces the gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely and increases the difficulty for pedestrians to judge the speed, of approaching vehicles. Studies have shown that where uniformity of speed is not maintained, accidents generally increase. Back to Top WHY SHOULDN'T WE HAVE SPEED BUMPS TO SLOW DOWN THE HOT RODDERS? The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods, while maintaining acceptably safe street and roadway conditions, is a wide-spread concern which requires persistent law enforcement effort. The inability of posted speed limit signs to curb the intentional violator, leads to frequent demands for installation of "speed bumps" in public streets and alleys. However, actual tests of various expodmental designs have demonstrated the physical inability of a speed bump to control all types of light weight and heavy-weight vehicles successfully. In fact, a soft sprung sedan is encouraged to increase speed for a better ride, while some vehicles may lose control. California courts have held public agencies liable for personal injuries resulting from faulty designs; increased hazard to the unwary; challenges to the dare-devils; disruption of the movement of both emergency and service vehicles; and undesirable increase in noise, have caused speed bumps to be officially rejected as a standard traffic control device on public streets and alleys. Bac~ tO Top DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO BE KILLED BEFORE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL BE INSTALLED? Traffic signals don't always prevent accidents. They are not always an asset to traffic control. In some instances, total accidents and severe injudes increased after signals were installed. Usually, in such instances, right angle collisions were reduced by the Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 5 of 8 traffic signals, but the total number of collisions, especially the rear-end type, increased. There are times when the installation of signals results in an increase in pedestrian accidents. Many pedestrians feel secure with a painted crosswalk and a red light between them and an approaching vehicle. The motorist, on the other hand, is not always so quick to recognize these "barriers." When can a traffic signal be an asset instead of a liability to safety? In order to answer this, traffic engineers have to ask and answer a series of questions: 1. Are there so many care on both streets that signal controls are necessary to clear up the confusion or relieve the congestion? 2. Is the traffic on the main street so heavy that ddvers on the side street will try to cross when it is unsafe? 3. Are there so many pedestrians trying to cross a busy main street that confusing, congested or hazardous conditions result? 4. Are there so many school children trying to cross the street at the same time that they need special controls for their protection? If so, is a traffic signal the best solution? 5. Are signals at this location going to help drivers maintain a uniform pace along the route without stopping unnecessarily? Back tO Top WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME BIKEWAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? Bikeways have raised a lot of interest in the past few years. Some cities have built separate off-road bike paths. Many more have painted bike lanes on streets. Others have installed green "Bike Route" signs without the special lanes. The cost of both building and maintaining bikeways can be a deterrent to many city bike programs. Initial cost can range from a few dollars to paint a lane to a small fortune to build a separate path including special bridges where needed. Before plunging into a bikeway program, your city or county should look at the total problem of bicycle operation and safety. Bike lanes and signs alone cannot solve the problem of bicycle accidents; in some Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 6 of 8 places they have increased the problem by giving riders a false sense of security. An overall bicycle safety program should include: enforcement of traffic laws; bike safety training in the schools at an early age; follow-up training every year in the schools; and involvement of the parents of minor children who violate traffic laws or exhibit dangerous dding habits. The overwhelming cause of bicycle accidents is the violation of the RULES OF THE ROAD, If these recommendations seem to be oriented toward the younger set, there is good reason. Over 70 percent of cyclists involved in accidents were violating a traffic law; over 60 percent were age 17 or under. It only makes good sense to emphasize the children in training programs, since they are the principal users of bicycles, The bike program for your community should include three principal points: 1. Education in safe dding. 2, Enforcement of rules of the road. 3. Development of well-engineered bike lanes and bike paths. This will involve the active participation of: 1, The schools, 2. The police or sheriff. 3. The traffic engineers; and, of course, you, the citizen. Back to Top WHY WON'T THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGNS? An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs with "'SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY'' or other similar messages, Parental concern for the safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide-spread public faith in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests. Although some other states have posted such signs widely In residential areas, no factual evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents, operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 7 of 8 attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice results. Because of these serious considerations, California does not recognize, and Federal Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where cleady justified. Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travel ways. The sign has long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable. Back to Top WHY DON'T THEY PUT IN MORE BTOP SIGNB? A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of-way. One common misuse of stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers," there is a high incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used as a speed control device. A school crossing may look dangerous for children to use, causing parents to demand a stop sign to halt traffic. Now a vehicle which had been a problem for 3 seconds while approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period. A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings could Public Works Traffic FAQ's Page 8 of 8 be made safely no longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy now looks like a major intersection. It really isn't - it just looks like it. It doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't. Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often do conflict with tragic results. Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration, among other things, the probability of vehicles: arriving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities. Back to Top qity Home I Cit~/Government I Site Map Public Works Home ( Administration & Enaineering Traffic I Traffic FAQ's CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report January 1999 Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: February 23, 1999 WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. 1-15/Rancho Cali~rnia Road Interchange Modifications: The contractor is ~natizing landscaping throughout the project, and relocating the traffic signal at the southeasterly corner of Rancho California Road and Front Street. The new northbound loop entrance ramp is now open for traffic. Completion of the project, based on an accelerated schedule including time extensions for weather is March 1999. The City is now pursuing other additional congestion relief projects. 2. Margarita Community Park Phase h The project improvements include restrooms, parking areas, picnic areas, play equipment, tennis courts, a roller hockey rink, ballfields, lighting, picnic shelters, sidewalks, landscaping with open tuff areas as well as widening Margarita Road adjacent to the park to its ultimate width. Installation of the concrete walkways, picnic areas, roller hockey rink and tennis court has been completed. The north ballfield lighting and backstops are completed and the south lighting and backstops are presently being installed. Construction of the restrooms and shade structures are nearly complete. The project is completed and is currently in a 90-day landscape maintenance period. 3. Old Town Streetscape Prnject The street improvements have been completed. A punch list and other design items are now being worked on by the contractor. The project is substantially complete and the contractor expects to complete the remaining items in February 1999. 4. Winchester Road Sidewalk: The contractor has completed the sidewalk installation. The sidewalk portion on the north side of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Roripaugh Road was deleted, since the developer is conditioned to install the sidewalk. The contractor installed additional sidewalk on the south side of Winchester Road from 200' west of Roripaugh Road to gas station's driveway south of Nicolas. This project consists of the installation of sidewalks on the north side of Winchester Road between Margarite Road and Winchester Creek Avenue. Construction is completed and the recommendation for acceptance should be on the City Council agenda for the February 23, 1999 meeting. 5. 1-15/Winchester Southbound Off-ramp Widening: The contractor has ctlmpleted the first phase of paving on the southbound loop ramp. This project consists widening the southbound off-ramp to provide an additional left turn lane. Construction is anticipated to be completed in March 1999. moactrptlcip1991fcb 6. Temecula Duck Pond Park: Good progress has been made on the perimeter wall around the pond and off site construction activity is gearing up tier the construction of the Traffic Signals and widening of Ynez Road. The restroom building is nearly complete and landscaping activities should begin shortly. The Temecula Duck Pond Park Project will include both park and off-site street improvements. Park improvements will include a gazebo/bandstand, picnic facilities, a restroom, walkways, a parking lot, security lighting, monumentation, landscaping and irrigation. The street improvements will consist of the widening of Ynez Road to titll width between Rancho Caliti~rnia Road and Tierra Vista Road and will include new sidewalks along with additional turn lanes, traffic signal modifications at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, a new traffic signal at Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road, and pavement restriping to improve traffic circulation. Construction of the off-site street improvement has begun and the completion is scheduled t~3r June 1999. 7. Margarita Road Sidewalk (Rancho Vista to Pauba Road): Demolition and relocation of existing facilities is continuing. Rapid progress should be made as soon as the various utilities are relocated. The improvements will include the installation of concrete curbs, guitar, and sidewalk along the west side of Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. The sidewalk will 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 ballfields along with an expanded parking area. Construction is expected to be completed in March 1999. 8. Winchester Road & Ynez Road Street Widening: City Council awarded the construction contract to Riverside Construction Company at the January 12 meeting. A pre-construction meeting was held on February 9. 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. Construction is anticipated to begin in March 1999 with an estimated completion date of July 1999. 9. Overland Drive Street Improvements & Margarita Road Street Widening: City Council awarded the construction contract to Riverside Construction Company at the Janua~' 12 meeting. A pre-constmction meeting was scheduled for January. 28. The scope of work includes pro[xlsed improvements ,If Overland Drive between Ynez Road and Margarita Road and Margarita Road from Overland Drive to Winchester Road. The storm drain system in Margarita Road has been separated from the project. Construction began in February 1999 with an estimated completion date of July 1999. 10. Winchester Road Median Islands: A pre-ct~nstructit>n meeting was held on December 22. The contractor will install the traffic signal at the interaction of Winchester Rt~ad and Enterprise Circle West before any median island work. The traffic signal poles are on order and are expected to be delivered in March. This project includes installation of median islands, 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 lbr a longer let~ turn pocket ti>r eastbound traffic. Construction is anticipated to begin in March 1999 with an estimated completion date of June 1999. 2 moactrptlcip/99/reb I I. Traffic Signal at Rancho California Road and Via Los Colinas: On January 12. City Council awarded a contract to DBX, Inc. This prqiect will install a traffic signal at the intersection Rancho California Road and Via Los Colinas. Construction is anticipated to begin in February 1999 with an estimated completion date .f June 1999. 12. 1-15/Overland Drive OvercHtssing Improvement: On December 15, 1998, City Council awarded a contract to CC Myers Inc. Construction is anticipated to begin in February 1999 with an estimated completion date of March 2000. SCE overhead power lines will be relocated during the first phase of construction. 13. Front Street Widening South of Rancho California Road This project is currently under construction as part of the Rancho California Road Loop project. The work consists of widening the west side of Front Street from Rancho California Road to the southerly Moreno Road along with paving the total width of Front Street. Front Street will be striped to provide two (2) lanes for both north and south bound traffic. OUT TO BID: 1. Pala R~md Bridge: The bids were opened on February 4, 1999. This project will include the realignment of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Rainbow Canyon Road, which will reqnim that a new bridge be constructed, installation of two (2) new traffic signals, the removal of one traffic signal, the installation of sound walls, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation. street lighting, bike lanes, signing, striping, channel improvements, and provisions tbr Wetland Mitigation. Construction is anticipated to begin in March 1999 with an estimated completion date of March 2000. 2. Tennis Cuurt Lighting at Temecula Valley High Sch~d The bid opening will be February 25, 1999. This project will install tennis court lighting along with landscaping, irrigation, t~ncing, striping, and minor concrete work at Temecula Valley High School. Construction is anticipated to begin in May 1999 with an estimated completion date of July 1999. WORK IN DESIGN: 1. FY96-97 Pavement Management System: Staff returned the third plan check to the consultant on February lOth. This project will provide street rehabilitation of Jefli~r~n Avenue from the northerly City limits to Rancho Calitbrnia Road. This project will also include the installation of street lighting along the entire length of the project. Construction is anticipated to begin in March 1999 with an estimated completion date of June 1999. 3 moactrpt/cip/9911~:b 3. Pu.iol Street Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: A Consultant has been selected to perform engineering surveying tbr design purposes. After the Consultant perfilrms the survey, staff will start the design process. 4. Rntary Park The design is complete. The project will be out to bid once the Economic Development Agency of Riverside County gives the City authorization to bid. This project will install a picnic shade structure, picnic tables, fencing, concrete and drainage structures. 5. Street Name Sign Replacement - Phase I This project is currently being designed in-house. This project will replace existing street name signs in the Santiago Estates area with new plastic molded signs. 6. 1-15 Suuthbound Off-Ramp Widening at Winchester Road The City Council approved the Consultant's contract at the February 9 meeting. This pro. iect will add one (1) southbound lane on the 1-15 Freeway and also widen the bridge over the Santa Gertrudis Creek at the southbound off-ramp. The consultant will provide a design to widen the northbound on-ramp from Winchester Road. 7. 1-15 Southbound Off-Ramp Widening at Rancho California Road The City Council approved the Consultant's contract at the February 9 meeting. This project will add one (I) southbound lane on the 1-15 Freeway. This design will also require the extension of the existing Empire Creek Bridge box culvert. 8. Butterfield Stage Park Improvements This pr¢~iect is currently being designed and is approximately 90% complete. This prt~ject will construct a basketball court near the existing parking lot. 9. Traffic Signal un Margarita Road at Pio Pico Road and at Pauba Ruad A Consultant has been selected and once a Purchase Order is processed the consultant will start the design. 10. Old Tnwn Southside Parking Lots This prqiect is currently being designed in-house. This project consists of two (2) proposed parking lots. One ( I ) will be located on the west side of Front Street just north of Second Street, and the other one (I) is on the south side of Fourth Street west of Front Street. 11. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Undercrt~ssing This prtlject is currently in first plan check. This project will construct a bike trail in the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek under Winchester Road (Hwy. 79N) bridge. ""r Z 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent February 3, 1999 Monthly Activity Report - January, 1999 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in- house personnel for the month of January, 1999: I. SIGNS A. B. C. Total signs replaced Total signs installed Total signs repaired 21 0 0 2 935 19 494 0 10 1,020 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. VII. STENCILING A. 197 B. 0 New and repainted legends L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 25 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 16 service order requests for the month of December, 1998. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 22 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 January, 1999 was $ -0- compared to $ -0- for the month of December, 1998, Account No, 5402 $ '0- Account No. 5401 $ '0- Account No. 999-5402 $-0- cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer - (Land Development) Bill Hughes, Senior Engineer - (CIP) · ,,, · ITEM NO. 6 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT City of Temecula 43200 Busine= Park Dr~ve · Temecula, CA 92590 · Ma~lmgAddre~ P O Box 9033 · Ternecula, CA 92589-9033 /909) 6946444 · Fax (909) 694-I 999 TO: FROM: DATE: City Council Public/Traffic Safety Commission Shawn Nelson, Acting City Manager Pete Labahn ~ Police Department January 19, 1999 POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR December 1998 The following report reflects Part One crimes, traffic enfomement and miscellaneous activity occurring during December of 1998. 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 681 traffic citations last month, which compares with 735 issued in December of 1997. The number of injury collisions increased while the number of non-injury accidents decreased this month as compared to December of 1997. Temecula experienced one fatal traffic collision in December. Arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol doubled from December of 1997. Robberies increased and felony assaults decreased compared to one year ago. Reported grant thefts, burglaries and auto thefts increased when compared to December 1997. The total number of arrests made during the month is higher than in the previous year. The Police Department responded to fifty-three "priority one" calls for service during the month of December, with an average response time of approximately six minutes. A total of 2,473 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During the month of December, the Temecula Police Department's storefront served a total of 256 people. Of this number, ninety-two people were finger printed, twenty people made police reports, twenty-two people had citations signed off and four solicitor's permits were issued. Officer Fanene also counseled two juveniles at the request of a parent. In addition, thirteen three-day parking permits were issued to residents pursuant to the oversize vehicle ordinance. POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY December, 1998 The POP Team also conducted an off-road vehicle enforcement program. This ongoing program focuses on illegal off-roading within the city and surrounding areas. Programs focus on areas which have been identified as having problems with off-roaders either through citizen complaints or complaints from property owners. This month's program resulted in the issuance of six citations and ten warnings. The program has proven to be successful, as the team has had a decrease in the amount of citations issued and contacts made with illegal off roaders and have received positive feedback from members of the community. The POP Team continued work on the Crime Free Multi Housing Program, attempting to certify all of the city's apartment complexes. To date, fourteen of the city' s complexes have been certified. During the month, the POP Team also conducted a quarterly ABC Business Monitoring program in which an officers monitor local businesses for alcohol and/or adult entertainment violations. Five locations were visited with no violations observed. Volunteers from the community 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 577 hours of service in December. No new voltmteers were accepted into the program during the month. Some of the duties volunteers assist with include logistics, telephone answering, filing and computer entry and assistance with the TAG Program. Another valuable volunteer resource provided to the Police Department is the reserve officer program and mounted posse. The Police Department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enfomement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 324 hours during the month. Of this time, 227 hours were spent on patrol and 97 hours were spent assisting on special programs such as TAG and the off-road vehicle program. The posse contributed a total of 399 hours during the month on various special functions including a great deal of support with the off-road enforcement program as well as high visibility patrol in the Old Town Temecula area. Temecula Police Department Monthly Statistics December 1998 Prepared: January 1999 I Table of Contents Statistical Information Map of Districts ......................................................................... December 1998 Crime and Activity Totals ....................................... Page 1 2 Graphs Part 1 Property Crimes ............................................................... Part 1 Persons Crimes .............................................................. Burglary Comparison ................................................................ Arrest Statistics ........................................................................ Miscellaneous Activity ............................................................... Traffic Violations ....................................................................... Traffic Collisions ...................................................................... Narcotic Activity ....................................................................... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 T/C RESID. BURGLARY COMM, BURGLARY OTHER BURGLARY VEHICLE BURGLARY MISD. ARRESTS FELONY ARRESTS TOTAL ARRESTS TOTAL ACTIVITY Te mecula ..!bt iesi Month .of,December li998 A B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 01 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 4 20 10 18 4 16 3 541 171 9 7 0 0 6 2 2 1 4 5 14 19 0 0 4 0 C D E F G H I SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 6 ol ol 21 41 41 tl tl ~3 4 13 15 13 2 I 0 52 0 4 4 4 1 0 0 16 0 0 2 1 3 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4l t71 21l tel el 51 ol 78 4 17 23 22 10 6 I 91 24 6 32 42 29 32 4 199 4 6 18 40 13 26 3 132 5 5 7 23 6 9 4 78 331 ~71 sTI to5{ 481 eTI t~l 409 4 1 5 10 7 13 2 58 0 1 2 9 0 0 0 12 I 1 3 3 I 6 0 23 1 9 13 1 2 3 4 36 4 2 2 4 I 2 1 25 5 59 74 56 2 20 8 257 1 0 0 I 1 0 0 3 0 0 5 4 0 3 0 16 I 0 0 2 i ! 1 0 1 1 I I 3l ql tl 31 16l 24l 4l 31 3l 0 2 4 11 9 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 1 0 0 0 I 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 430 14 43 1 58 32 16 4 10 I el tl 4l ~1 6l 49l 7l z21 ol 98 I tool 56l 54l ttol 200l 2391 761 123l 30l 988 Page 2 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 Month e~De~ember: 1998 K L M N 0 P Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 ol 21 ol 11 ol ol 31 11 8 3 1 2 4 0 3 3 7 2 I 1 0 0 3 3 I 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 8 21 41 61 ol 71 61 16 10 2 5 6 0 10 7 12 67 6 7 11 0 12 20 11 21 7 6 2 0 8 11 6 23 12 6 8 5 6 4 291 1111 251 191 211 51 261 351 17 24 5 1 3 0 11 5 1 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 I 1 I 4 1 1 2 6 2 0 0 0 4 3 6 0 0 2 0 6 2 38 31 12 18 21 1 14 12 13 I 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 761 70J 25J 23J 271 2J 36J 24J 31 21 61 21 11 21 el ~1 4 3 1 1 3 0 3 2 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 11 71 ol 51 81 I 141 121 R SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 OI 71 0 24 0 17 0 8 0 0 01 491 0 56 I 136 0 66 0 70 11 272| 0 66 0 3 I 16 0 15 0 19 3 150 0 17 I 2 51 2881 ilil 1 ol 231 0 17 0 6 0 1 0 6 TOTAL 1 0 7 12 20 76 33 18 0 127 147 335 198 148 681 124 15 39 51 44 407 20 18 718 22 58 1 81 49 22 5 16 1 46 ol 601 158 I 1241 1931 581 491 551 91 781 671 61 6391 1627 Page 3 0 [] © 0 o '~ 0 E · [] o City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula, CA 92590 · MailingAddress: P O Box 9033 · Ternecula, CA 92589-9033 (909) 694~444 · Fax (909) 694 1999 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Council Public/Traffic Safety Commission Shawn Nelson, Acting City Manager February17,1999 POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR January 1999 The following report reflects Part One crimes, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occttrring during January of 1999. 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 952 traffic citations last month, which compares with 899 issued in January of 1998. The number of injury collisions increased while the number of non-injury accidents was the same this month as compared to January of 1998. Temecula experienced one fatal traffic collision in January. Arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol increased from January of 1998. Robberies decreased, as did felony assaults compared to one year ago. Reported burglaries increased while auto thetis and grant thetis decreased when compared to January 1998. The total number of arrests made during the month is lower than in the previous year. This is due to a change in the way the number of arrests are reported and recapped. The Police Department responded to thirty-five "priority one" calls for service during the month of January, with an average response time of approximately five minutes. A total of 2,486 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During the month of January, the Temecula Police Department's storefront served a total of 187 people. The number of citizens utilizing this facility continues to remain steady. Ninety-seven POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY January, 1999 people were fingerprinted, ten people made police reports, twenty people had citations signed off and four solicitor's permits were issued. In addition, ten three-day parking permits were issued to residents pursuant to the new oversize vehicle ordinance. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene wrote an article for the Valley Business Journal titled "Bad Check Restitution, Part 2" in addition to his duties at the Storefront Office. Officer Fanene routinely provides public safety information to various community groups. During the month of January, Officer Fanene made a Stranger Danger and McGruff Truck presentation to fifty preschool children at Hope Lutheran Preschool. Officer Fanene also hosted a quarterly meeting of the Califomia Crime Prevention Officers Assocation. The group consisted of officers from agencies throughout San Bemardino and Riverside Counties. He also made a safety presentation at Rancho West Apartment's Crime Free Multi-Housing re-certification ceremony. During the event he provided handouts, gave tours of the Mobile Command Post and also conducted child fingerprinting. Temecula Canine Officer Joey Nardone and his dog Hunter made a presentation at Van Avery Prep School. Officer Nardone also made a presentation to the Temecula Valley School Board on the subject of campus drug detection searches. The POP Team also conducted two off-road vehicle enforcement programs. This ongoing program focuses on illegal offroading within the city and surrounding areas. Programs focus on areas which have been identified as having problems with off roaders either through citizen complaints or complaints from property owners. This month's program resulted in the issuance of nineteen citations and fourteen warnings. The program has proven to be successful, as the team has had numerous calls from residents thanking them for the continued enforcement efforts. Volunteers from the community 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 527 hours of service in January. Some of the duties volunteers assist with include logistics, telephone answering, filing and computer entry and assistance with the TAG Program. Also during the month, four new volunteers were recruited. The reserve officer program and mounted posse provide another valuable volunteer resource to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 218 hours during the month. Of this time, 120 hours were spent on patrol 98 hours were spent assisting on special programs such as TAG and the off-road vehicle program. The posse contributed a total of 105 hours during the month on various special functions including a great deal of support with the off-road enforcement program. Temecula Police Department Monthly Statistics January 1999 Prepared: February 1999 Table of Contents Statistical Information Map of Districts ......................................................................... January 1999 Crime and Activity Totals .......................................... Paqe 1 2 Graphs Part 1 Property Crimes ............................................................... Part 1 Persons Cdmes .............................................................. Burglary Comparison ................................................................ Arrest Statistics ........................................................................ Miscellaneous Activity ............................................................... Traffic Violations ....................................................................... Traffic Collisions ...................................................................... Narcotic Activity ....................................................................... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 C~ or Temeculs Repor~in~ Distrim CRIME A B C D E F G H I SUB-TOTAL HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ROBBERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FELONY ASSAULT 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL PERSONS I 11 ~ I o ~ I ol o o ol o 3 BURGLARY 0 1 1 2 10 4 I 1 1 21 GRAND THEFT 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 7 AUTO THEFT 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PROPERTY ~' 1 1 ~ 3 15 5 1 I 2[ 1 31 GRAND TOTAL 3 2 I 4 15 5 I 2 1 34 HAZARD CITES 44 22 28 2 44 57 19 96 8 320 NON-HAZARD CITES 37 6 4 4 28 32 11 17 14 153 PARKING CITES 13 2 3 0 5 46 3 8 I 81 TOTAL CITES 94 30 35 6 77 135 33 12! ~ 23 554 DIST PEACE 2 10 6 0 7 8 14 19 8 74 SHOPLIFT 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 PETTY THEFT 3 I 0 0 4 3 2 2 0 15 VANDALISM 1 3 5 0 4 1 2 9 7 32 !MISD, ASSAULT 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 3 0 12 ALARMS 1 6 10 47 66 47 7 25 7 216 :PUBLIC INTOX I 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 5 DUI 0 1 0 0 7 3 1 1 0 13 TOTAL 9 23 23 47 93 74 28 [ 59 22 378 TIC INJURY 1 0 0 1 i ~ 6 i 0 0 12 T/C NON-INJURY 2 0 0 0 8 1 0 15 FATAL T/C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL TIC 31 ot ol ~ 81 ~4 ~ ~ o 2a RESID BURGLARY 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 1 1 4 COMM BURGLARY 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 0 0 16 OTHER BURGLARY 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 VEHICLE BURGLARY 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 F"'E%%%%I"o321to '; 'o°01% TOTALARRESTSI41Sl~101'114161710143 TOTAL ACTIVITY I 1091 551 591 581 1931 2281 631 1831 461 994 Page 2 ! CRIME J K L M HOMIQDE 0 0 0 RAPE 0 0 0 ROBBERY 0 0 0 FELONY ASSAULT 2 2 0 TOTAL PERSONS 2 2 0 I BURGLARY 7 2 0 GRAND THEFT 2 2 0 AUTO THEFT 1 1 0 ARSON 0 0 0 TOTAL PROPERTY 10l Sl ol GRAND TOTAL 12 7 0 HAZARD CITES 9 38 11 NON-HAZARD CITES 18 13 30 PARKING CITES 46 65 12 TOTAL CITE S 73 116 53 DIST, PEACE 17 22 16 SHOPUFT 0 0 0 PETP'r'THEFT 2 3 5 VANDALISM 1 3 4 MISD. ASSAULT 2 3 2 ALARMS 47 22 7 PUBLIC INTOX 9 4 2 DUI 3 1 0 TOTAL 81 58 36 T/C INJURY i 0 1 TIC NON-INJURY 1 1 :FATAL TIC 0 0 7OTAL TIC 0 1 2 ~RESID BURGLARY 5 2 0 iCOMM. BURGLARY 1 0 0 mOTHER BURGLARY 0 0 0 VEHICLE BURGLARY 1 1 0 m%,?,,'.%%.I;; 'ol TOTAL ARRESTSI 91 4[71 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 14 11 13 I 1 20 1 10 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 11 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 P Q R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 11 1 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3~ 0 0 4 1 3 8 39 4 4 29 0 19 2 7 31 70 0 12 7 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 22 20 i 0 1 3 1 0 0 01 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUEFTOTAL TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 6 9 0 11 32 0 7 14 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 20 51 0 26 60 0 130 450 0 122 275 0 146 227 0 398 952 2 87 161 0 3 t4 0 18 33 0 11 43 0 12 24 4 105 321 0 15 20 0 6 19 6 257 635 0 2 14 0 7 22 0 0 1 0 9 37 0 9 13 0 1 17 0 0 2 0 3 5 11 lol ,lol ol 421 85 TOTALACTI~TY I 1661 ~Bzl 911 331 461 131 801 931 61 6901 1684 Page 3 · 0 Z I- u. W I.- ft. I n~ W W 0 W o 0 I-- I,- E 0 I::L u} ~/~_ I::L 0 ITEM NO. 7 FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT 1909] 694-1989 · FAX (909) 694-1999 March 9~ 1998 To: Temecula City Council Temecula Public / Traffic Safety Commission Attn: Shawn Nelson Temecula, Acting City Manager Temecula Fire Services February 1999, Activity Report The attached statistics reflect the monthly fire suppression and fire prevention activities for the month of February 1999 and also includes a recap of the activity for 1998. The Temecula Volunteers were very busy during the Rod Run weekend. Several members were coveting additional equipment in the "Old Town" area throughout the event to help provide a greater level of service to the community. Crews at all four stations have been busy updating and converting preplans into a newer program as well as conducting fire safety inspections within the business community. Fire Department personnel have been completing training assignments. All station personnel are participating in Continuing Professional Training. This training covers a wide variety of subjects including ICS 300, Fire Prevention, Vehicle Operation and Maintenance, as well as many administrative issues. By: Alan Black Battalion Chief Temecula Battalion Activity report Stucture fires Vehicle fires Vegetation fires Other Fires Medical Aids Traffic Collisions False Alarms Fire Menace Standbys Public Sevice Assists Assists & Covers Haz Mat Total Temecula City Fire Services Activity Report February-99 Sta. 12 Sta. 73 Sta. G3 Sta. 84 Totals 2 5 2 5 14 5 0 0 2 7 3 5 I I 10 2 11 I I 15 69 35 30 81 215 25 16 3 6 50 25 13 3 5 46 4 I I 3 9 3 2 3 6 14 6 6 0 8 20 0 0 0 0 0 144 94 44 118 400 Fire Prevention Community Activities School Programs Fairs & Displays Company Inspections LE - 38 Dooryard Inspections Fire Investigations Burning Permits Issued Totals Sta. 12 Sta. 73 Sta. 83 Sta. 84 Totals 0 I 0 0 1 3 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 I 1 84 40 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 21 30 0 I I 32 117 62 I 8 188 ITEM NO. 8 COMMISSION REPORTS