Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042999 PTS AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting 128 CFR35.102.35. 104 ADA Title Ill AGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Thursday, April 29, 1999 at 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: FLAGSALUTE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Connerton, Edwards, Markham, Telesio, Coe PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no_A listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Coinmission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one unanimous vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety Comn~ission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar fi~r separate action. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minut~ of April 15. 1999 RECOMMENDATION: l. 1 Approve the Minutes of April 15, 1999 COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. 9. 10. 11. Parktrip Restriction - Avenida De La Riena RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend a parking restriction program on Avenida De La Riena based on the input from the affected residents. Bypass Roadway Alignment Study - Calle Pina Colada RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide further direction to staff. Speed Undulations - Calle Pina Colaria RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission reaffirm the speed undulations on Calle Pina Colada to remain in place until after the completion of the Meadowview Circulation Study. Removal of Traffic Signal - State Rnute 79 South at Bedford Court RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commasmort discuss the feasibility of removing the traffic signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South at Bedford Court. Public Co~nmunication Tools for Traffic Issues RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and approve two (2) new programs to improve public awareness regarding traffic improvements. Street Improvement Proieets Associated with the Temecula Rel~ional Center RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a report on the approved street improvement projects associated with the Temecula Regional Center. Traffic Engineer' s Report Police Chief's Report Fire Chief's Report Commission Report r:\traffic\comrnissn\agcnda/99\0429\042999Agenda/ajp ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, May 13. 1999, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ITEM NO. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 15, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Public/Traftic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:05 P.M., tm Thursday, April 15, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Calitbrnia. ROLl; CALL Present: Commissioners Connerton, Edwards, *Markham, Telesio and *Chairman Coe Absent: None Also Present: Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Engineer Moghadam, Management Analyst Adams, Police Sergeant DiMaggio, Administrative Secretary Pyle, and Minute Clerk Kelley *Chairman Coe arrived at 6:15 P.M.; Commissioner Markham arrived at 6:20 P.M. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Telesio led the flag salute. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR I. Minutes uf March 25. 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairman Coe and Commissioner Markham who had not yet arrived. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Formation of a Subcummlttee to Implement Sta-.ered Work Hours RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission establish a subcommittee to study and make recommendations to the City Council regarding a staggered work hour program. Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (of record). Deputy Director of Public Works Parks suggested that an inventory of businesses in westside area and their working hours be undertaken as many of them currently have staggered working hours between 3:30 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Telesio suggested that study parameters be established and then businesses identified who do not have staggered work hours be targeted. Management Analyst Adams suggested that a meeting of the subcommittee and a representative of the Manufacturers Council be held next week and stated that the project should be completed in about a month. Commissioner Edwards pointed out that although a majority of westside businesses only have 10 to 35 emphlyees, their participation is vital to the success of the program. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to nominate Commissioners Edwards and Connerton to the subcommittee to study and to make recommendations regarding a staggered work hour program. The motion was seconded by Chairman Coe and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissinner Markham who had not yet arrived. Comn~issioner Telesio requested that the appointed Commissioners provide an update to the Comnlission at each meeting. 3. Feasibility of Establishing Town Hall Meetings Senira' Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (of record). Chairman Coe expressed his opinion that the regular Commission meetings are publicized; noted that the Public Comment section of the agenda is designed for people to bring forth any type of traffic issue: and stated that he was against adding more meetings. Conunissioner Connerton stated that 19 out of 20 people that he talked to were of the opinion that the Public Comment section was for agenda items only. Commissioner Edwards commented that the intent of the Public Comment section needs to be imblicized and citizens should be encouraged to bring forth any traffic/safety issue. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that residents are infi~rmed of Commission review process, staff r,:view process as well as the appeal process. Depaly Director Parks mentioned that one of the purposes of the Commission is to deal with significaut issues which affect a large group of penpie and/or areas and to make recommendations to the City Council. He stated that if the Commissioners would like to have a log of the daily calls and e- mails handled by staff, they can be made available. Deputy Director Parks added that since the completion of Old Town and better signal timing, complaints have tremendously decreased except for accidents and issues with Caltrans noting that the City has no control over Caltrans issues. Commissioner Markham remarked that people respond to a particular issue that affect their particular situation; i.e., house, business or children's school and meetings/workshops do not attract the general ptd~lic. He suggested that the City Council make a comment about the Commissions being the forum t~l bring tbrth concerns/complaints, or during a recess, have the statement on the screen as the televised City Council meetings reach many of the City's residents. Commissioner Edwards suggested utilizing The Californian as a means to apprise the public of how to voice complaints, ctmcerns, questions, etc at a Commission meeting. the Commission meetings might be worth pursuing. She also mentioned that if any Commissioner wanted his/her e-mail address on the Coum~ission's Web site, they should inli~rm the City Clerk's Office. Commissioner Telesio suggested that placing the Public Comment section at 7:30 P.M. or at the end of the meeting in order to allow commuters time to attend the meeting and, therefore, having the ability to express their opinions. Chairman Coe summarized that the intent of the Commission is to provide the opportunity for citizens ~lf the City to express their comments; to invite the public to attend the meetings and express their views using the various Ibrmats suggested; and to leave the meeting in its present format at this time. 4. Street Impruvement Prujects Assuciated with the Temecula Regional Center RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a report on the approved street improvements projects associated with the Temecula Regional Center. With the use of overheads, Senior Engineer Mnghadam presented the staff report (of record). Commissioner Markham stated that when he requested this item, it was his intent to have a one page summary along with a striping plan illustrating what is being built around the Regional Center in order to be able to explain the situation to citizens. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that informational ~lrmat would be ready for the next meeting. Chairman Coe tabled the matter and continued it to the next meeting TRAFFIC ENG1NEER'S REPORT Seni{lr Engineer Moghadam reported that the numbers ti3r the Press-Enterprise article on staggered work hours were erroneously stated as being for the entire day, not the peak hour, and a correction should be printed in a few days. In respm~se to Commissioner Telesio's questkin about the Via Las Colinas signal, Deputy Director Parks stated that signal installatkm should start next week and that the signal should be in operation within a month. In response to Commissioner Markham's comments. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that the Town ('enter issues will be on the agenda for the April 29, 1999 meeting and Town Center property management staff will be invited. 3 R:\colnmissn\minutes\99\041599min In response to Commissioner's Telesio's inquiry, Senior Engineer Moghadam reported that the plans for the Pauba Road/Margarita Road signal have been approved; that the matter will be placed on the City Council's May 11, 1999, agenda to advertise for bids; that the project will take six (6) to eight (8) months; and that the City is ordering the equipment in order to expedite the process. Deputy Director Parks noted that the widening of Pauba Road in order to create a full intersection has been added to the proposal. In response to Commissioner Markham's concerns, Deputy Director Parks stated that the City is delaying the Margarita Road paving contract until the sewer line has been installed. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT Pillice Sergeant DiMaggio reported on the following: The Police Department has received a number of calls regarding construction trucks speeding through residential areas and that his staff has spoken to the Regional Center's construction managers and requested their assistance in having the truck drivers detour around residential areas as tile truck weights are creating pavement problems and to lower their speeds. The radar trailer was placed on Pina Colada for 10 days during a 20-day period and complaints were received from the street's residents because skateboarders were utilizing it to test their speed. He reported that very few speeding citations were issued, and a majority of those were given to area residents. · For the month of March, the radar trailer was set up for approximately 200 hours in various areas of the City. TIle success of red light cameras, both from a traffic and an enfnrcement viewpoint, in San Diego and he offered to set up a tour for the Commissioners if they are interested in pursuing the matter. In response to Chairman Coe, Police Sergeant DiMaggio stated that he would recommend the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Street, Front Street/Rancho Califbrnia Road, and Rancho California Road/Ynez Road for the camera installation. Commissioner Markham suggested that the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection be added to the list. With regard to these cameras, Senior Engineer Moghadam mentioned that the City of Poway has not experienced the same success rate as the City of San Diego. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the matter be agendized and that the City of Poway be contacted to determine why their success rate with the cameras is not as effective. · Residents are unaware that Winchester Road problems are the responsibility of Caltrans and not the Uity. FIRE CHIEFS REPORT No report given. COMMISSION REPORT Commissioner Connerton requested that the Pina Colada speed bump removal issue be agendized for the next meeting. Commissioner Telesio requested that Police Sergeant DiMaggio's report regarding Pina Colada be included in stafl's report. Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that the circulation study tlf the general overview of Meadowview will be completed in 90 days as it is necessary to hire a consultant to complete the study. He also mentioned that the traffic study for the Meadowview Golf Course has been submitted. Commissioner Markham noted that the golf course needs to be considered in the circulation overview. Commissioner Edwards reported on her meeting with the City Manager regarding development of a television show on traffic and safety issues and that she will be developing a story board to take to the City Council for their approval. In response to Com~nissioner Markham's inquiry about the expansion of the Public Works newspaper ad, Administration Secretary Pyle explained that it may have to wait until the next fiscal year due to budget constraints. Commissioner Edwards stated that she and the City Manager's Office were discussing a bi-weekly column setting lbrth the information, which would have no cost. Commissioner Markham commented that he liked the present fnrmat as a lot of in/i~rmation is provided in a quick glaacc. In resp{>nse to Co~nmissioner Markham's question about the progress of the Commissioners receiving copies of site plan submittals so that they could comment or raise questions before a project is apln'oved, Deputy Director Parks stated that the matter was being worked on. Commissioner Markhanl emphasized that he does not intend tier the Commission to be any part of the approval process. In response to Commissioner Markham's inquiry, Senior Engineer Moghadam stated that the specit'ications tbr the street signs have been completed and will be going to bid shortly. Chairman Coe stated that he would be on vacation April 29 and requested Co-Chairman Connerton to preside over the meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 7:55 P.M., Chairman Coe ti~nnally adjourned this meeting to the next Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting to be held on Thursday, April 29, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., in City of Temecula City Hall C{luncil Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Charles Coe, Chairman Secretary ITEM NO. 2 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission  li Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic April 29, 1999 Item 2 Parking Restriction - Avenida De La Riena RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend a parking restriction program on Avenida De La Riem based on input from the affected residents. BACKGROUND: The City has received at least two (2) separate requests to restrict the parking on Avenida De La Riena. The residents indicated that Temecula Valley High School students park on the street causing interruption Io the mail delivery trash pick-up and street sweeping functions. Since the parking restriction would affect all property owners fronting Avenida De La Riena, the City requested that this item be discussed during a homeowner association meeting and a formal letter from the association be forwarded to the City. The City received a letter from the association signed by eight (8) homeowners requesting that parking be restricted as indicated in the letter (Exhibit "B"). However, after receiving the petition, several homeowners indicated that when signing the petition, they were under the impression that the parking would be restricted only to the students and not the residents. We explained that the Vehicle Cede does not allow a restriction for a certain group only, and if parking is restricted it will affect the homeowners as well. With this information several homeowners opposed the parking restriction. Several years ago, the City received a similar request from the residents of Calle Rio Vista, which is the next street west of Avenida De La Riena. After reviewing this situation the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommended installation of "No Parking, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Monday - Friday" signs on Calle Rio Vista. The signs were installed on Calle Rio Vista to discourage the students from parking on the street. This item has been placed on the agenda and all affected property owners have been notified to discuss this issue and recommend a viable solution which is acceptable by all or majority of the homeowners. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" - Correspondences r:\traf~c\commissn\agenda\99\O42999\avenldaDeLaRienalajp % I PALOI~R nLl.~ i VALLEY LIRFIEIJ) O.IRISTMII EXHIBIT "A" - LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "B" CORRESPONDENCE rile AVALON MANAGEMENT GROUR INC. "Excellence in Association Management" 31590 Railroad Canyon Road, Canyon Lake. Californm 92587 (909) 24441048 Fax 1909) 244-0520 October 27, 1998 City of Temecula ATFN: Joe Kiack -- Traffic Engineer PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RECEtV OCT 2 8 199E CITY OF TEMECUL ENGINEERING DEPART Villages No. Two Homeowners Association Street Parking Dear Mr. Kiack: I understand that you are waiting for a letter from the Villages No, Two Board of Directors authorizing the City to install No Parking signs on Avertida de la Reina off of Rancho Vista across from Temecula High School. During a duly held Board meeting, of which Jeff Stone attended, homeowners that live on Averedo de la Reina complained of the numerous high school students that park on Avenida de la Reina. The parking has interfered with street sweeping, mail delivery and trash pick-up. In addition, the students sit on the curbs, smoke, eat and leave all the trash behind. They also tend to speed up and down the street prior to and after school hours. To verify the above mentioned. I have enclosed a signed petition from several homeowners that reside on Avertida de la Reina. We would greatly appreciate it if the City would install No Parking signs. I understand that you have signs in stock that state, No Parking between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; such hours should significantly curtail future problems. Once again, thank you for your assistance! Sincerely ,/, / Rebecca Pesak, AMS As Agent for the Board of Directors Villages No. Two HOA Playa del Rey (310) 577-77I 1 · Canyon Lake t909) 244-0048 · Ema~h hoa~avalonl .corn Rod CRISP Jeff Stone, Joe Kicak, Mitch ALM, Pete LABAHN, ... 1 l/3/98 10:09am Mrs. Irma Saenz (VillaSes II Homeowners) I spoke with Mr. Saenz this morning at approximately 0915 hours. I explained that his wife had called twice and not lell a call back number. I further explained that Dep. Potter is aware of the situation and is in the area daily m an unmarked unit. 1 also explained to Mr. Saenz, that as long as the vehicles were parked legally on his street, we couldn't take any enforcement action. I told Mr. Saenz I would speak with Sgt. AIm concerning this matter since it appears to involve TVHS. I encouraged Mr. Saenz to contact either Sgt. AIm or myself in the event the situation worsens. Mr. Saenz was cordial and said he would notify his wife of our conversation. CC: James DOMENOE, Scott Bates '7 ITEM NO. 3 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~"')Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic April 29, 1999 Item 3 Bypass Roadway Alignment Study - Calle Pina Colada RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide further direction to Staff. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of March 11, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission requested that Staff develop alternatives to the closure of Calle Pina Colada including the possibility of constructing a roadway within the Metropolitan Water District's facility easement between La Serena Road and Del Rey Road. Calle Pina Colada Bypass Alignment Study In July 1994, a study was prepared by Markham and Associates to determine the feasibility of constructing a bypass roadway on a water line easement held by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road. The proposed roadway was to be constructed to Collector Highway standards. A Collector Highway is identified as a 56-foot wide roadway within a 78-foot right-of-way section. The study included the evaluation of the profile and alignment for the proposed roadway. The study identified two potential roadway alignment alternatives. Alignment "A" located on the eastside of the MWD water line facilities has an approximate vertical difference of 152 feet between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road. This profile resulted in roadway design speeds of 34 to 35 miles per hour. Alignment "B" located on the westside of the MWD water line facilities has an approximate vertical difference of 77 feet between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road. This profile resulted in roadway design speeds between 32 and 50 miles per hour. Each of the alternatives identified the need for drainage structures and concrete roadway crossings over the MWD facilities. The cost to construct this Alignment "A' is estimated at $1.5 million including design, inspection and contract admi~stration. Construction costs for Alignment "B' are estimated at $1.3 million including design, inspection and contract administration. A copy of the study was submitted to MVqD in January 1995, for their review and processing. Subsequently, a list of comments and requirements was forwarded to Markham and Associates in March 1995. Among those, was a requirement for an indemnification and certificate of insurance for $1 million from the City of Temecula naming MWD as coinsured including joint and several liability coverage. Those comments are included as Exhibit "B" . The letter received from MWD suggests that they were receptive to the roadway r:\ttaffic\cmmnissn\agenda\99\042999\MWDroadway/ajp concept with Alignment "A' being the preferred alternative. To date, this issue has not been pursued further with MWD. Since the City of Temecula will be performing a comprehensive circulation study of the Meadowview area, the Bypass Roadway Alignment Study could be included in the analysis to determine the benefits of the proposed roadway to the overall circulation system FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" Calle Pina Colada Bypass Study 3. Exhibit "C" Letter from Metropolitan Water District dated March 15, 1995 r:\traffic\commissn\agenda\99\O42999\MWDroadwaylajp % I VALL~q' I EXHIBIT "A" - LOCATION MAP MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants EXHIBIT "B" CALLE PINA COLADA BYPASS STUDY Profile and Alignment Prepared for: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 July 28, 1994 JN 650 C: IWPDOCS~JOHNT~ 650COT.RPT 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N · Temecu|a, California 92590 · (909) 676-6672 · FAX (909) 699-1848 Calle Pina Colada Bypass Study City of Temecula JN 650 July 28, 1994 Page 2 SCOPE OF WORK Prepare a preliminary horizontal and vertical alignment for the Calle Pina Colada Bypass with a minimum 30 mph design speed. PREPARATION and COMMENTS Two alignment were proposed. Alignment "A" is on the east side of the MWD line and Alignment "B" is on the west side of the MWD line. The profile of each alignment meets the design speed criteria. Each alignment will require drainage structures to pass the natural drainage from east to west in at least two locations. Each alignment can be adjusted vertically to obtain a balance in earthwork quantities without significant changes. It also should be noted that it is standard MWD practice to place concrete protection over any of its facilities at roadway crossings. c: I WPDOCS ~ JOHNT ~ 650 COT. RP T ./0.,z. ~ /.2,4-e.r--2 . , ..... -'~,./,~ 'h', / -/-/.2'~f, ........ Z.~.,'..IZ"' . _/L'/LO. - ...... ~._ 7-27-94 Page 1 PROFILE f~l ALIGNMENT "A" TYPE STATION ELEV % GRADE/ROC POB 10+20.00 1274.00 5.000% VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: lO0,100 PVC 11+00.00 t270.00 -2,500% PVI 12+00.00 1263.75 -2.500% PUT 13+00.00 1255.00 -10.000% 14+00.00 1245.00 -10,000% 15+00.00 1235.00 -10.000% 16+00.00 1225.00 -t0.000% 17+00.00 1215.00 -10.000% VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: 150,150 PUG 17+50.00 1210.00 2.109% 18+00.00 1205.26 2.109% PVI 19+00.00 1197.37 2.109% 20+00.00 1191.59 2.109% PVT 20+50.00 1189.49 -3.674% 21+00.00 lt87.65 3.674% 22+00.00 1183.98 -3.674~ 23+00.00 1180.30 -3.674% 24+00.0U 1176.63 3.674% 25+00.00 1172.96 3.674% END 25+26.00 1172.00 OFFSET rAN ELEV 0.000 1270.00 -1.250 1265.00 0.000 1210.00 .264 1205.00 2.372 1195.00 .264 1191.33 7-27-94 Page 1 PROFILE i~2 ALIGNMENT O" TYPE STATION ELEV % GRADE/ROC OFFSET TAN ELEV PO8 10+20.00 1248.50 -z.826% 11+00.00 1246.24 -2.826% VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: :ou,lO0 PV/: 11+50.00 1244.83 0,000 1244.83 M.678% 12+00.00 ]243.08 -.335 [243.41 PV[ I2+50.00, 1240.66 -1,339 [242,00 -2,678% 13+00.00 1237.57 -.335 1237.91 2,678% PuT 13+50.00 1233.82 -8.182% 14+00.00 1229.73 --8,182% 15+00.00 1221.55 -8.182% 16+00.00 1213.36 -8,182% VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: 100,100 PVC 17+00.00 1205.18 0.000 1205.18 1.636% PVI 18+00.00 1197.82 ,818 1197.00 1.636% PUT 19+00.00 1192.09 4.909% 20+00.00 [187.18 -4.909% 21+00.00 1182.27 4.909% 22+00.00 1177.36 4.909% VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: 125,125 PVC 22+25.00 1176.i4 0.000 1176.14 2.457% 23+00.00 1173.15 .691 1172,45 2,457% PV[ 23+50.00 1171.92 1,920 1170.00 2,457% 24+00.00 1171.31 ,691 1170.62 2,457% HI/LOW 24+24,76 1171.23 .310 1170.92 2,457% PVl 24+75.00 1171.54 1.235% 25+00.00 1171.85 1.235% END 25+12.00 1172.00 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 200-5 M~y 2, 1988 Figure 201.5 Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curves NOTE: · Before using this chart for Intersections, branch connections and exits, see Index 201.7, 405.1 and 504,2. CURVE LENGTH - FEET ALGEBRAIC GRADE DIFFERENCE - % SIGHT DISTANCE - FEET DESIGN SPEED - MoP.H, FOR *S" DISTANCE IN FEET REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A 1% CHANGE IN GRADE. K VALUE SHOWN I$ VALID WHEN 8< L. For sustained downgrades, see Index 201.3, See FIgure 204.4 for vertical curve formulas. WHEN WHEN 400+3.58 A82 L=2S- L= A 400+3.58 16 I-- Z LU15 CC14 LU I 13 (fJ12 UJ f~ (11 (~10 Z 9 UJ (,) Z 8 LU n,' LU 7 U,. ri- m .c. UJ _1 See Index 204.4 for minimum length of vertical curve, DESIGN SPEED -- M.P.H. ,,,, I ~,o/,////~,o 4 3 200 :' 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE -- FEET 200-4 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL May 2, 1988 Figure 201.4 Sto p,ng Sight Distance on rest Vertical Curves Height of eye-3.50 feet. Height of obJect-O.60 feet. NOTE: · Before using this chart for Intersections, branch connections and exits, see Index 201.7, 405.1 and 504.2. CURVE LENGTH - FEET ALGEBRAIC GRADE DIFFERENCE - % SIGHT DISTANCE - FEET DESIGN SPEED - M.P.H. FOR IS* DISTANCE IN FEET REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A 1% CHANGE IN GRADE. K VALUE SHOWN IS VALID WHEN 8<L. See Figure 204.4 for vertical curve formulas. See Index 204.4 for minimum length of vertical curve. 15 I-- Z UJ14 j'~"'~ O: 13 .(/)--I/ LU o. 12 lit rj~ UJ 010 ,.., C~ .cv Z 8 UJ LU 8 n- UJ U,. ~ ~ 4 ~ 3 ~ 2 ILl _11 0 0 200 400 600 800 WHEN WHEN AS2 L=2S- 1329 L_- A 1329 DESIGN SPEED -- M.P.H. 0 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 8000 LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE -- FEET ~ / /~ / / / / eMWD METROPOL/TAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of The General Manager EXHIBIT "C" MARl51995 N'w'D San Diego PiDeline NOS 1 and 2 Sta. 1256+00 to 1273+00 R/W Parcel SDN-23-81, 2P-81 MWD Work Order No. 7-Pending Substr. Job No. 2028-95-003 Markham and Associates Development Consultants 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N Temecula, California 92590 Attention Mr. John T. Reinhart, RCE 23464 Senior Civil Engineer Gentlemen: Proposed Bypass Between La Serena Way and Del ReV Road After a further review of your proposed bypass over Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline 1 or 2 between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road in the City of Temecula, the following comments and requirements are provided for your information: 1. If the City of Temecula decides to proceed with this project, Metropolitan will require a deposit in the amount of $4,000 to apply towards the cost of our engineering review of your plans. The final billing for such review will be based on the actual cost incurred, which will include our engineering plan review, administration, and overhead charges calculated in accordance with THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Markham and Associates - 2 - Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount within 30 days. 2. Additional deposits will also be required for manhole adjustments and inspection fees involved with pipeline protection. An estimate of cost of will be forwarded to you once detailed information is available. 3. If you agree to the foregoing terms and conditions, please so indicate by signing the duplicate of this letter where indicated and returning it to Metropolitan. 4. Details of all grading, street improvements, drainage, landscaping, utility, and irrigation plans must be submitted for our review and approval. Metropolitan's easement, pipelines, and other facilities must be fully shown and identified on all applicable plans. 5. During construction Metropolitan's field personnel will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation be added to your plans for notification of Mr. Roy Howard of our Operations Maintenance Branch, telephone (213) 217-7780, at least two working days (Monday through Thursday) prior to any work in the vicinity of our facilities and easement. 6. To assist you in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements, we have enclosed a copy of our "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." 7. The proposed bypass should be incorporated solely over one pipeline, with no adjustment to grades allowed within 30-feet from the centerline of the remaining pipeline. This is necessary to keep the proposed bypass outside the theoretical trench prism of the remaining pipeline should excavation of this line become necessary. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Markham and Associates 3 HAR ] 5 t995 8. Attachment A gives the maximum and minimum covers allowed over San Diego Pipelines Nos. 1 and 2 without protection. Metropolitan's preferred alignment would be the one requiring the least protection and drainage facilities. Potholing will be required prior to the start of any grading of the easement to verify the location and depth of the existing pipelines. Please contact Mr. Roy Howard to coordinate this work. 9. For any reach where the total cover will be increased by 5-feet or more, a soils report showing the predicted settlement of the pipeline at 10-foot intervals will be required. This data shall be carried past the point of zero change in each direction and the actual size and varying depth of the fill shall be considered when determining the settlement. The possible settlement due to soil collapse should also be considered. Subject to possible lower limits due to settlement, the maximum allowable total cover on the pipeline without protection is as shown on attachment A. 10. Where a protective slab is required, it should be similar to the one used in Temecula Sports Park. Construction joints will be required at 20-foot intervals due to the potential lengths involved and to assist in the removal of the protection slab should excavation of the pipeline become necessary. 11. Please verify that the vertical datum used to produce your plan-and-profile drawings is compatible with the datum used to produce the plan-and-profile drawings for San Diego Pipelines i and 2o Our manhole at Sta. 1254+98.08 of San Diego Pipeline No. 1, located just north of Del Rey Road, has a datum set inside the manhole of 1267.080 feet. Please contact Mr. Roy Howard to assist in gaining access to this manhole. 12. We require that you submit the specification of any equipment which will impose loads greater than AASHTO H-20 on our pipeline. These specifications must be reviewed and approved by our engineering staff at least one week prior to the use of such equipment THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Markham and Associates - 4 - M~R 15 ~M 13. Metropolitan must have vehicular access along San Diego Pipelines Nos. 1 and 2 at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance of our pipelines on a regular basis. Please incorporate details of these requirements into your bypass plans and provide suitable barriers to prevent public access to areas outside the proposed road but within Metropolitan's easement. 14. Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's easement shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use the easement for the purpose for which it was acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the easement, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. 15. Furthermore, it is Metropolitan's long-standing policy not to consent to longitudinal rights over its easements with the exception of the imminent construction of a public road for which there is a pre-commitment by the local municipality to accept a dedication of the right-of- way and improvements. Such pre-commitment must be in the form of an official letter from a local municipality stating that it is willing to immediately accept dedication of the road improvements and easement upon completion of road construction. An indemnification and a certificate of insurance naming Metropolitan as coinsured must be posted with Metropolitan for $1 million, including joint and several liability coverage. Upon receipt of the deposit and the executed original of this letter agreement, we will continue with our review of your plans and provide additional comments and requirements. Please reference the Substructures Job Number as shown on the top right-hand corner of the first page of this letter on your check, so that Metropolitan's Controller Branch may notify us immediately of your deposit. Enclosed for your use is one print each of our plan and profile Drawings Nos. B-69687, B-69688, and B-69689, for San Diego Pipelines Nos. 1 and 2, between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road. For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please make reference to the MWD Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right hand corner THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT L~Y SOUTHERN CALIFL~RNIA Markham and Associates - 5 - of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional information, please contact Mr. Kieran Callanan, telephone (213) 217-7474. Very truly yours Gary M. Snyder Chief Engineer BY Le~slie~j.~~,~.E. Substructures Section LJB/KC/Ss DOC# SSKC003 Encl. 15629 In duplicate CONFIRM ACCEPTANCE: Signature Date Cc: City of Temecula Department of Public Works 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590-3661 Attention Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. Principal Engineer Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Introduction a. The following general guidelines should be followed for the design of proposed facilities and developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, properties, and/or easements. fee b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement, landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or easements, prior to the commencement of any construction work. Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps: a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and its pipelines and other ~acilities must be full~ shown and identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans. b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the official recording data on all applicable parcel and tract maps. c. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied to the parcel or tract boundaries. d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be referenced on the parcel and tract maps. - 2 - Maintenance of Access Along Metropolitan's Rights-of-Way a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide access to its aboveground and belowground facilities. b. We require that 16-foot-wide commercial-type driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. Openings are required in any median island. Access ramps, if necessary, must be at least 16-feet-wide. Grades of ramps are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a 40-foot-long level area on t~e driveway approach toaccess ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's fee properties, we may require fences and gates. c. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities. Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance of the pipelines and other facilities on a routine basis. We require a 20-foot-wide clear zone around all above-ground facilities for this routine access. This clear ~one should slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed 2 percent. We must also have access along the easements with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on Figure 1. d. The footings'of any proposed buildings adjacent to Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not encroach into the fee property or easement or impose additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or easement must be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee property or easement area. - 3 e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities, e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc. within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans for the easement area. Easements on Metropolitan's Property a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights- of-way by governmental agencies for public street and utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of the propertyis accepted into the agency's public street system and fair market value is paid for such use of the right-of-way. b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302, concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain, sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county will accept the easement' for the specific purposes into its public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had not been made. There will be a charge for the easement. Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior to issuance of the'easement, an entry permit must be obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit. Landscaping Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee properties and/or easements are as follows: a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's fee property or easement. b. All landscape plans shall show the location and size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other facilities therein. - 4 - c. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future pipelines and facilities. feet d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow- rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow-rooted trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from the centerline of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than 20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See Figure 3). e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein. Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also, any walks or drainage facilities across its access route must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards. f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge for any entry permit or easements required. Fencing Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee properties and facilities be constructed of universal chain link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan. (Please see Figure 5 for details). Utilities in Metropolitan's Fee Properties and/or Easements or Adjacent to Its Pi~eline in Public Streets Metropolitan's policy for the al~nement of utilities permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and street rights-of-way is as follows: - 5 a. Permanent structures, including catch basins, manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall not be located within its fee properties and/or easements. b. We request that permanent utility structures within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. c. The installation of utilities over or under Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the theoretical trench prism' for uncovering its pipeline and must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-way lines as practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be at least two feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approval. Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or tunnel must be filled with grout. - 5 - a. Permanent structures, including catch basins, manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall not be located within its fee properties and/or easements. b. We request that permanent utility structures within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. c. The installation of utilities over or under Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the theoretical trench prism' for uncovering its pipeline and must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-way lines as practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be at least two feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approval. Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or tunnel must be filled with grout. - 7 j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide a representative to assists others in locating and identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is requested. k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the zone shown on Figure 4. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements: 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" 2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" 5) Telephone, or television conduit: A two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide a representative to assists others in locating and identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is requested. k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the zone shown on Figure 4. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements: 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" 2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" 5) Telephone, or television conduit: A two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" - 8 - m. Cathodic Protection requirements: 1) If there is a cathodic protection station for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed work, it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and manner of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans. Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714) 593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic protection stations. 2) If an induced-current cathodic protection system is to be installed on any pipeline crossing Metropolitan~s pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E. Risner at (714} 593-7474 or (213) 250-5085. He will review the proposed system and determine if any conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic protection systems installed by Metropolitan. 3) Within Metropolitan's rights-of-way, pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated with an approved protective coating to conform to Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolitan. The application and monitoring of cathodic protection on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal' Regulations, Part 195. 4) If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used: (a) Cathodic protection shall be provided by use of a sacrificial magnesium anode (a sketch showing the cathodic protection details can be provided for the designers information). (b} The steel carrier pipe shall be protected with a coal tar enemel coating inside and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification. n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning with Sections 1529 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be placed in 8-inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698). o. Control cables connected with the operation of Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the area, the control cables shall be located and measures shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in place. p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service Alert (USA). The contractor (excavator) shall contact USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities as a result of the construction. Paramount Right Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties and/or easements for the purpose for which they were acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons- truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include materials, construction, engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. - 10- 10. Drainage a. Residential or cormmercial development typically increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation, obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee properties and/or easements. b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan will insist that plans for development provide that it be carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be maintained by others, e.g., city, county, homeowners association, etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan in writing. 11. Construction Coordination During construction', Metropolitan's field representative will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications for notification of Mr. of Metropolitan's Operations Services Branch, telephone (213) 250- , at least two working days prior to any work in the vicinity of our facilities. 12. Pipeline Loadinq Restrictions a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in structural strength, and some are not adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines are typically adequate for AASHTO ~-20 loading provided that the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary cover over the pipeline during construction is between three and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which - 11 imposes loads no greater than AASHTO H-10. If the cover is between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract-type tractor. If the cover is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used. Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications of such equipment for our review and approval at least one week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines 1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits. b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance. 13. Blasting a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to Metropolitan as follows: in b. Part I of the conceptual plan shall-include a complete summary of proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. c. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and controls ofnoise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration. 14. CEQA Requirements a. When Environmental Documents Have Not Been Prepared 1) Regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the agency or consultants preparing any environmental documentation. We are required to review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for your project before committing Metropolitan to approve your request. - 12- 2) In order to ensure compliance with the regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to ensure compliance with the Act have been established: a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of any determination that a Categorical Exemption applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during the preparation of the Negative Declaration or EIR. c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or draft EIR. d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. b. When Environmental Documents Have Been Prepared If environmental documents have been prepared for your project, please furnish us a copy for our review and files in a timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to review and comment. The following steps must also be accomplished: 1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. 2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. Metropolitan's Plan-Review Cost a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities and developments and the preparation of a letter response - 13- giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If an engineering review and letter response requires more than 8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the proposed facility or development is compatible with its facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s) or other facilities will be required, then all of Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior rights. b. A deposit of funds will be required from the developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The amount of the required deposit will be determined after a cursory review of the plans for the proposed development. c. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan review, inspection, materials, construction, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit. Caution We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and responses are based upon information available to Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. - 14- 17. Additional Information Should you require additional information, contact Mr. Jim Hale, telephone (213) 250-6564. please JEH/MRW/lk Rev. January 22, Encl. 1989 .I ',1 '1 NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES PERMITTED M.W.D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY NO ROOF OVERH~NG PERMITTED ~ FOOTING MUST NOT ENCROACH INTO RIGHT OF WAY~~.~I.~ FINISHED SURFACE -~ ~ ~=~ FOOTING BUt~OtNG ADdAC~NT TO RIGHT ,......-~ M. YL.D. PtPE~INE NOTE.' M.~.D. PIPELINE SIZE, DEPTH, LOCATION ,~ND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF VtAY VARIES. aNl7 ,~,L~YadO~td ....... I ex~Tnsion Joint .0~+:.--.'.---:.:-: ' ~""' :' "' :': ": "~":"r~.' ''~ ~'~'; ~' ' · not rO exoeed ~ th~ volume ' ' of the sul)l)orting wall .::..::.:. :. ~.':~-::!:.======:: ':':: '~C~nctete su;;ort wall to : ~' b~ ;laced against undis- ~ "' turbed ground ~'.i:.:... :..~.:..::. SECTION CROSS SgCTIOIV Su;~orting wall shall hove o firm bearing on the subgrade one against the side of the excavation. Premolded expansion joint filler ;at to be used in su;;ort for steel #i;e onlY. If trench width is 4 feet or greater, measured along centerline of M.W.O pi;e, conctate su;;ort must be constructed. If trench width is less than 4 l~et, clean sand boclr- fill, compacted to 9O~ density in oocordonce with the ;rovisions Of ASTM Stondot~ 0-15~?-?0 may be used in lieu of the concrete su;;ott wall. SECTION "~-~" TYPICAL SUPPORT Y'OR M.W.D. IC.954? SECT/ON I A -- 3"Proformed expansion joint filler I. This method to be 'used where the utility line is 24"or greater in diameter and the clearance between the utility line and M. VI.D. pipe is 12" or less. 2. Special protection may be required if the utility line diameter is greater than M.W.O pipe or if the cover over the utility line to the street surface is m/n/rap/and there is 12'or less clearance between pipe and the utility fine. 3. Proformed e2rponsion joint filler to Comply with ASTM designation D- 1751 - 73. 4. M. VZD, requests/2"minimum clearance whenever possible. ~rmed expansion joinl filler CROSS SKCT/ON ITEM NO. 4 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission (~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic April 29, 1999 Item 4 Speed Undulations - Calle Pina Colada RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission reaffirm the speed undulations on Calle Pina Colada to remain in place until after the completion of the Meadowview Circulation Study. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of March 11, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission requested that staff agendize the Calle Pina Colada Speed Undulation issue to determine if conditions satisfy the criteria for the removal of the undulations. The issue of speeding, speed undulations, and potential closures on Calle Pina Colada has been addressed numerous times by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council. Eventually, the City Council adopted the use of speed undulations on Calle Pina Colada between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way at their meeting of September 14, 1993. Subsequently, a follow-up analysis was performed that included an evaluation of before and after travel parterre, results of the public survey, and input from public service proriders. The results of the analysis were presented to the City Council at the meeting of March 22, 1994. The before and after evaluation revealed that the traffic volumes increased by approximately twenty-four (24) vehicles per day but, average vehicle speeds were reduced by approximately four (4) miles per hour. The City Council Agenda report is attached as Exhibit "A'. At their meeting of April 5, 1994, the City Council considered the recommendation to increase the height of the speed undulations on Calle Pina Colada from two inches (2") to three inches (3"). The proposed height increase was in response to public concern of sporadic incidence of motorists violating the posted speed limit of fifteen (15) miles per hour. The City Council denied the height increase to allow staff the opportunity to research the Calle Pina Colada Bypass route along the Metropolitan Water District easement between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road. On January 5, 1999, Staff received a petition requesting the closure of Calle Pina Colada west of Salt River Court. The request was presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at the March 11, 1999, meeting. Prior to the meeting a comprehensive speed and volume study was conducted by Counts Unlimited, Inc., an independent data collection firm. The study revealed that the 85th percentile speed on Calle Pina Colada is approximately twenty-nine (29) miles per hour. This speed is consistent with vehicle speeds observed in 1994, after the installation of the speed undulations. This dam suggests that the speed undulations have provided an r: Itraf~c\commiasn\agenda\99\O42999\pinacolada/ajp eft~ctive means of maintaining a speed limit that is considered both reasonable and prudent by motorists using Calle Pina Colada. lnsofar as the removal of the speed undulations, the City's policy allows the removal of the undulations when the tbllowing conditions are satisfied: 1. Undulations are ineffective in reducing speeds and volumes of vehicles. 2. Undulations were placed in locations conflicting with adopted guidelines. 3. There is evidence that the original location is no longer in the best interest of the community. 4. There is a petition with 65 % of residents in favor of removal. 5. Undulations have been installed for at least two (2) years. Reinoval of undulations which have been installed less than two (2) years will only be considered if the City is compensated by those requesting the removal for the full cost of the original installation, including design, construction and inspection. Since speed data indicates the undulations have been somewhat effective at reducing vehicle speeds and the cost for the removal of the undulations would be borne by the City, Staff suggests that the s~eed undulations tin Calle Pina Colada remain in place until the Meadowview Circulation Study has been completed. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" Location Map 2. Exhibit "B' City Council Agenda Report dated March 24, 1993 3. Exhibit "C" Speed Undulation Policy 4. Exhibit "D" Calle Pina Colada Speed Survey dated March 9, 1999 see % alC~~ P~,t31Ne VAL/.D' /~ EXHIBIT "A" - LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "B" APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer March 22, 1994 Speed Undulations - Follow-Up Report PREPARED BY: Marty Lauber, Traffic Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND: As a follow-up to the installation of speed undulations on Calle PiCa Colada, the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department has complied the following information. Our research is broken down into three distinct areas: Travel Patterns - Before and After Speed Undulation - Public Survey Results Input from Public Service Providers Travel patterns on Calle PiCa Colada have been compared using count and speed data. Our data shows a two direction, 24 hour volume of 1425 prior to the installation of speed undulations and 1449 after. Radar speed studies conducted indicated an average critical speed of 33 mph before and 29 mph after. Speeds were taken between both Bravos Court/Yuba Circle and Del Rey/Salt River Court and averaged to represent the change over the complete roadway link. This represents an average decrease in speeds of 4 mph during off peak (unrestrained) periods. Public input surveys (93 Total) were distributed to all property owners fronting Calle PiCa Colada, Salt River Court, Yuba Circle and Bravos Court. These are the same properties that were required to provide 65% signatures in favor of the installation of speed undulations. Thirty-seven (37} surveys were returned, which repre,.-ent approximately 40% response. Exhibit "A" is a copy of the survey and the number of responses received for each question. Questions 3 through 5 reflect responses from those people who live on Calle PiCa Colada. Resident perceptions indicate a feeling that speeds have remained the same or decreased, that r:\agdrpt~94\O322\speedunds.fup 03/08/94skg traffic volumes have remained the same and that noise has stayed the same or increased. Those surveyed were evenly split between the benefit or detriment of installing this type of residential traffic control. Those surveyed also felt that the height of the undulation was too low to be most effective. It should be noted that the height of the undulations was modified to eliminate the possibility of the School District diverting their buses to another residential street. Additional comments received regarding citizen perceptions included: - Cars speed between undulations - Undulations are an eye sore, ugly - Sporadic thrill seekers grossly violate speed limit - Undulations are ineffective at high speeds - Undulations are detrimental to car maintenance - Drivers try to avoid undulation by driving in gutter - Kids use undulations as play toy In order to gage the complete impacts of speed undulations, staff also solicited input from all related public service providers. The Police Department observed vehicles hugging the curbline in order to avoid hitting the undulations with both sides of their car. They have also worked radar after installation and have cited very few drivers because of conformance to the posted speed limit. The School District, Fire Department, Public Works Maintenance Division, and Solid Waste Haulers all responded by stating the undulations did not create a significant problem for their operations. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Calle PiCa Colada Speed Undulation Survey Results r:\agdrpt\94\O322\speedunds.fup 03/08/94skg CALLE PINA COLADA SPEED UNDULATION SURVEY January 1994 The Traffic Engineering Division of the City of Temecula's Public Works Department is conducting a follow-up evaluation of the speed undulations recently installed on Calle PiCa Colada. Please take a few minutes to fill out the attached survey and return to my office. Thank you. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) I live on: [ 19 ] Calle Pina Colada [ 16 ] Other street. Name: If you live on Calle Pina Colada, is a speed undulation directly in front of your house? [12] Yes [7] No, number of houses away Since the installation of the speed undulations, vehicle speeds on my street have: [ 6 ] decreased [ 11 ] stayed the same [ 4 ] increased Since the installation of the speed undulations, the amount of traffic on my street has: [ 2 ] decreased [ 17 ] stayed the same [ 3 ] increased Since the installation of the speed undulations, the noise of traffic on my street has: [ 3 I decreased [ 9 ] stayed the same The installation of the road humps has had: [ 10 ] an overall beneficial impact [ 9 ] no impact [ 11 ] an overall negative impact I feel that the height of the road humps are: [ 2 ] too high [ 12 ] just right increased [ 14 1 too low 8) Any additional comments? Please complete survey and return to City of Temecula, Public Works Department, 43174 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590 by February 1, 1994. Thank you for your participation in this survey. r:\agdrpt\94~O322~speedunds.fup 03/08/94skg EXHIBIT "C" SPEED UNDULATION POLICY Prior to the construction of a speed undulation, the subject street section shall meet the following criteria: 1. A "speed undulation petition" signed by at least sixty percent (60%) of the affected residents shall be filed with the City of Temecula Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division. 2. The average traffic shall range between 1,200 - 2,500 vehicles in a twenty-four (24) hour period. 3. The speed limit shall be no greater than twenty-five (25) mph as determined by State law. 4. At least sixty percent {60%) of the surveyed vehicles are exceeding the twenty-five (25) mph speed limit. 5. The subject street: a. Shall not be over forty (40) feet wide, unless approved by City Engineer. b. Shall not be more than two (2) traffic lanes. c. Shall not have a grade greater than five percent (5%) in the section where humps are to be constructed. d. Shall be at least one quarter ('A) mile in length. e. Shall not have severe vertical or horizontal alignment features. f. Shall not be a truck route or transit route. g. Shall not be an important access route for emergency vehicles. h. Shall not be listed on the City Circulation Plan, unless approved by City Engineer. 6. The distance between undulations shall range between 200 - 250 feet. 7. Undulations shall not normally be constructed in isolated blocks along a continuous street or on · rlatjvely short ( < 800') cul-de-sac. 8. UndulatiOns shall be constructed per the City of Tsmecula Standard Drawings. 9. Undulations are still experimental roadway features; therefore, additions, alternations or removal of any hump may occur at any time. pwOl\traffic\spedhump.cri faul 021193 Speed Undulation Policy Page 2 Changing the location of undulations on a street, or the removal of undulations, may be considered when all the findings listed below are made by the Commission: Relocation of Undulations 1. Undulations are ineffective in reducing speeds and volumes of vehicles. 2. Undulations were placed in a location conflicting with adopted guidelines. 3. There is evidence that the original location is no longer in the best interest of the community. 4, There is a petition signed by at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the affected property owners in favor of relocation. Removal of Undulations 1. Undulations are ineffective in reducing speeds and volumes of vehicles. 2. Undulations were placed in a location conflicting with adopted guidelines. 3. There is evidence that the original location is no longer in the best interest of the community. 4. There is a petition signed by at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the affected property owners in favor of removal. 5. Undulations have been installed for at least two (2) years. Removal of undulations which have been installed for less than two years will only be considered if the City is compensated by those requesting removal for the full cost of the original installation, including design, construction and inspection. The original installation and maintenance of the undulations will be financed as all other signs, striping and pavement features. pwOS\traffic\undulatn~spdund.pol EXHIBIT "D" ]ALLE PIMA COLADA R/O DEL RE¥ ROAD 909.247.6716 Stare Dale: !~ ~R SPEED SURVEY File I.D.: TEPC80U~ EASTBOUND Page : ~egin Int. 0- 16 21 26 3t 36 41 46 5i 56 61 66 71 Cima Total ~5 20 25 ]0 35 {0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9999 h2z00 03/09 2 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O L2:15 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 O 0 0 C 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 ~our Total 3 0 1 i 1 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 01:00 am 01:15 01:30 01:45 Hour Total 02:00 am 32:15 02:10 02;45 Hour Total 33:00 am g3:15 03:30 33:45 Eour Total 34:00 am 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0{:15 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 04:]0 0 0 ~ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:45 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~our Total 1 0 0 0 O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 05:00 am 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 05:30 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~5:~5 2 i 0 I O 0 O 0 ~ Q 0 0 0 ~ 0 Hour Total 2 I O 1 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 am 2 0 0 C 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 06:!5 2 I D 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 36:30 6 I 1 i 2 0 1 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 Z6:45 5 O 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O HOUr Total 15 2 1 3 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GT:0U am 23 0 2 8 4 V 2 0 0 0 0 0 O Q 0 07:15 33 O 5 15 7 6 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 C7:30 21 2 6 8 4 0 I 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 07:{5 12 0 1 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 O EOUr 70t~l 89 2 14 33 23 14 3 3 0 0 0 O 0 C 0 08:00 am 9 1 L 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 13 0 i 7 4 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O8:]O 26 1 B 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 ~8:45 10 O 4 I 4 I 0 0 0 O 0 0 Q 0 O Eour Total 58 2 14 !g 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IALLE PiNA COBADA E/0 DRL HEY ROAD 909.247.6716 Start Date: 03i09/~Y !4 HR SPB{D 0URVEY File I.D.: THPC~0DR EASTBOUND Page : 2 )egiu int. 0- 16 21 26 31 3~ 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 ~ime Total 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5~ 55 60 65 70 75 999) 39:00 am B 1 0 4 2 0 1 0 D 0 D 0 0 O 0 39:15 12 0 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 D 0 09:30 7 ~ 3 2 2 D O U 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 09:~5, 6 ~ ~ 2 Q Z O ~ Q Q 0 O 0 0 ~ Hour Total 33 2 8 12 ~ 4 1 U 0 O O O 0 0 D lo:O0 a~ 7 ~ 2 2 1 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 ~ 0 I ~ 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:]O 2 0 t 0 1 D 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 6 1 0 2 3 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 Hour Total 24 1 4 7 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Q D 0 li:00 am 11 2 3 4 2 D 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ii:15 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 O D 0 0 0 0 11:30 15 1 4 ] 4 2 1 0 0 D 0 O 0 0 0 I1:~ 8 0 2 3 2 I O 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 Hour Total 39 3 11 13 ) 3 1 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 12:00 pm I5 1 3 5 4 2 0 0 0 O 0 D 0 0 0 12:15 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 4 I 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 12:45 16 0 1 10 { ~ O 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 Hour Total 39 2 4 19 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Ol:O0 pm 7 1 2 3 1 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:15 11 O 0 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 01:30 17 1 4 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:~5 S 1 2 3 2 0 0 Q O O Q D O 0 ~ Hour Total 43 ] 8 12 14 6 0 0 G O 0 O 0 Q 0 02:00 pm 8 0 { 1 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:15 29 Q 5 14 5 5 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 15 D 5 4 5 1 0 O 0 G 0 0 O 0 0 02:45 22 1 I 5 J2 2 1 O 2 D 0 0 0 0 O Hour Total 74 i 15 24 25 8 1 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0):00 pm 26 1 6 g 10 D O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 03:15 22 2 { 6 3 5 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 15 Q 3 V 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 25 D 2 II 6 2 i O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 HOur Total 88 ] I5 36 22 9 3 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 04:00 pm 21 1 4 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 04:15 25 O 7 lO 7 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 04:30 27 O 5 8 11 3 0 0 C 0 O O 0 O 0 04:45 19 0 4 9 3 2 Q 0 0 1 O Q 0 0 O Hour Total 92 I 20 36 27 7 [: 0 0 1 O D 0 0 0 05:00 pm 15 3 5 3 4 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 05:15 23 3 B 9 ] 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 D 0 O 05:30 23 O 3 12 4 2 0 2 05:45 17 0 7 ~ 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 Hour TOtal 78 ~ 23 29 1S 2 I 2 0 O O O ~ 0 0 ILLE PINA COLIDA E/O DEL REY ReAD I HR SPEBD SURVEY 908.247,6716 ~gln Int. 0- 16 2I 26 31 ]6 41 46 51 56 61 ~6 ~me Total 1S 20 25 ]0 ]S 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 6:00 pm 20 i 4 5 7 2 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 i9 3 5 8 { 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 I1 U 1 4 5 1 0 ~ O 0 U 0 0 6:45 11 U 2 4 2 ] O U O Q 0 0 0 our Total 61 I 12 21 1~ 6 3 0 O O 0 0 0 Start Date: 03/09/99 File I.D. ~ TEPCMODE PaQe : 3 71 76 75 9999 O 0 D 0 0 0 0 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 U 0 0 0 O O 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 i O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 6 5 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ,9:00 pm 8 0 0 4 { 19:15 7 0 0 0 4 .9:30 l0 0 3 1 1 }9:45 6 C O 4 2 [our Total tl 0 3 9 11 .0:00 pm 2 1 0 0 1 O:15 5 1 0 I 3 0:30 3 0 O 1 1 .0:45 1 0 O i 0 [our Total I1 2 0 3 5 .l:OO pa 1 O 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 Li:i5 1 0 0 0 1 O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 LI:]O 2 0 0 I 1 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 L1:45 0 O O O O 0 O 0 ~ O O 0 O O O four Total 4 O 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 879 34 174 316 238 92 21 2 1 1 , , + , , + Fotal 879 34 174 316 238 92 21 2 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 ]need 8tati~ticL 15th Percentlie Speed Median Speed (50th percentlie Average Speed - All Vehides BSth Percentlie Speed 95th Percentile Speed 18 MPH Pace Speed Number of Vehicles in Pace Percent of Vehicles in Pace Number of Vehzoles > 55 MPH Percent of vehicles > 55 MPH: 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 5 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 8 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 I 0 O 0 0 0 0 17 23 2i 29 33 21-30 63.11% 0 .00) B:O0 pm 6 2 1 8:15 9 0 3 4 8:]0 9 0 O 4 8:45 iO G } l :our Total 34 1 8 12 MPH MPH MPH gPH MPH MPH 7:0Q pm 19 0 3 10 4 O 2 0 O O 0 0 0 0 D 7:15 21 1 3 6 B 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 10 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 7:45 8 0 1 5 ~ 1 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 our Total 58 ! 12 25 i4 3 ] 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 ALLE PINA COSADA E/O DEL RNY ROAD egin iut. 'xme Tu~al 15 20 25 30 ]5 2:00 03/09 O 0 0 2215 0 2:30 3 0 0 O 0 0 [our Total ~ 0 O 0 0 0 l:00 am O 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 O 0 1 0 0 ,i:30 0 O 0 0 0 0 ~:45 O O 0 0 O 0 {our Total 1 0 0 i O 0 12:00 am }2:15 12:30 }2:45 iour Total 13:00 am 0 0 0 O 0 0 )3:15 0 0 0 0 O O ~3:30 2 0 0 1 0 1 }3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 {our Total 2 0 0 I 0 1 >4:00 am 0 0 O 0 0 0 >4:15 0 O 0 0 0 0 ~4:30 1 o 0 0 I 0 ~4:45 1 O 0 0 1 0 {our Total 2 O 0 O 2 D ,5:00 am 2 0 0 1 0 l 15:35 1 0 0 0 1 0 ,5:30 i 0 0 O 1 0 N5:45 3 O 0 O 2 1 {our Total 7 0 0 1 4 2 .6:00 am I D 1 0 0 0 )6:15 S 0 2 2 I 1 .6:30 2 D 0 2 O O }6:45 12 O 1 3 4 3 {our Total 21 0 4 ? 5 4 ~7:U0 am 15 O D 9 3 1 N7215 13 0 1 6 5 ~7:30 21 D 3 5 8 )7:45 19 0 ) 9 4 3 [our Tot&l 68 0 ? 29 2~ 8 {8:00 am 15 0 0 7 B 0 )B:15 15 O 0 3 9 [8:3U 19 U 9 8 2 0 [our Total 72 0 11 26 29 3 9O9.247.6716 wESTBOUND 36 41 46 51 56 40 45 50 55 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 I O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 Q O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 2 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o 4 0 O 0 0 C 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 O i O 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Start Date: File I.D.: TXPCEOUR Page : 1 61 66 71 76 65 7U 75 9999 8 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 D 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 U 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 RIY ROAD ?gin lot. 0- tG 21 26 ~me Total 15 20 25 ]0 9:00 am 3 0 1 2 0 9:15 11 0 1 G 4 9:30 3 0 0 ~ 2 9:45 l0 1 1 3 3 our Total 27 1 3 12 9 0:00 am 9 0 4 2 2 0:15 13 0 3 4 6 0:30 6 0 2 3 i ~:45 8 1 3 3 1 [our loLal 36 I 12 12 10 1:00 am 9 0 2 3 4 .1.15 7 0 U 4 3 .1:90 10 1 4 2 I ,1:45 ~0 2 5 11 2 {our Total 46 3 11 20 10 L2:OO pm 9 0 2 5 2 L2:15 11 0 2 6 2 [2:30 15 0 9 5 6 12:45 9 0 1 ~ 5 Hour To[al 44 0 9 18 15 91:00 p{ 12 1 01:15 11 D 2 4 2 01:30 QI:4S I1 0 & 6 1 Hour Total 02:00 pm 02:15 10 I 3 4 1 02:]0 Q~:95 16 0 I 4 5 Hour ToTal 03:00 pm 18 0 ~ 5 4 03:15 27 0 2 13 30 03:30 31 2 I 13 i3 03:45 21 1 5 6 7 Hour Total 97 3 12 37 04:00 pm 15 0 I 7 5 04:15 15 0 1 ] 6 04:30 12 1 2 3 4 04:45 20 O 3 5 8 Hour Total 62 1 7 ~B 23 05:00 pm 16 0 4 7 ] 05:15 15 1 ] { 4 05:30 15 2 4 2 6 05:45 16 2 3 5 4 Hour Tota~ 62 5 14 1N 17 909.247.6716 Start BaLe: 0]/09/99 File I.D.: TEPCMODR WESTBUUND Paqe : Z ]1 ]6 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 ~0 75 9~99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O U 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 D 0 1 1 0 Q 0 0 0 Q 0 0 1 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 U D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 0 3~ i 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O 1 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 i 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 O ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 Q 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 i 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O {) 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 2 3 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 { 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 i 1 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 1 0 O 0 O 0 0 2 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 5 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 2 1 0 I 0 0 D 0 0 0 11 1 0 i O 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 2 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 ALLE PINk COLADA S/O D~L REY ROAD 90H.2~7,6716 Start Date: ~ ER SPEED SURVEY File I.D.: RESTBOUND Page : ~e~in Int. 0- 1{ 21 20 1i 0& 41 ~6 51 56 61 $~ 71 '{me Total 15 20 25 ]Q ]5 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9999 ~6:00 pm 13 O 1 8 2 i 0 O 0 0 0 D 1 O O JG:iS 15 0 0 8 4 2 1 0 0 0 O O 0 0 :E:30 ~8 0 0 5 S 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 ~6:45 14 O 4 3 5 ! 1 O 0 O Q 0 0 O {our Total G0 0 5 24 19 7 ] I O 0 0 0 1 O O 37:03 pm 11 0 0 8 ] 37:!5 7 1 1 1 2 07!30 12 1 2 2 6 07:45 6 Q O 2 4 Hour Total 36 2 ] 13 15 3 0 O D 0 0 O 0 0 0 2 0 O 0 D 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 D 0 0 O 0 0 O O 2 1 O 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0B:O0 p~ ? 0 0 5 08:15 1O 0 1 6 CB:]D ] 0 0 1 08:45 8 0 1 4 Hour Total 28 O 2 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 C D 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 i 1 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 6 2 2 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 09:00 pm 10 0 0 4 39:15 6 0 O 1 09:30 ] 0 0 1 09:45 5 G O 1 Hour Total 24 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D 0 C ] I 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 I D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 I O 0 0 D O S 0 ll 3 2 1 O O 0 0 0 0 0 lO:00 pm 4 0 0 2 10:15 2 O 0 2 10:30 3 0 0 0 10:{5 1 0 1 0 Eour Total 1O 0 1 4 O 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 D 0 C 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 2 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i1:30 pm 1 0 0 0 11:15 O 0 0 0 if:]0 0 0 O 0 ~3:45 0 O 0 O Rout Total I 0 0 O 0 0 i O 0 0 O D 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 Day Totals 796 1B 121 299 Total 796 18 121 299 251 V2 27 4 2 ' ' 1 251 72 27 4 2 0 0 I S~eed StatisticS. 15[h Percent{In Speed : 1B MPN Median Speed (50th percentile): 23 MPX Average Speed - All Vehicle~: 25 MPH 85tb Percent{In Speed : 29 MPH 95tb Percentlie Speed : 34 MPR 10 MPH Pace Speed : 2>30 MBR Number of Vehicles in Pace : 550 Percen~ of Vehicles in Pace: 69,11% Number of Vehicles ~ 55 MPB : 2 Percene of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .25i 1 0 O ITEM NO. 5 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission C/~j~AIi Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic April 29, 1999 Item 5 Removal of Traffic Signal - State Route 79 South at Bedford Court RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission discuss the feasibility of removing the traffic signal at the intersection of State Route 79(S) at Bedford Court. BACKGROUND: The City Council has directed the staff to evaluate and implement projects which could improve the traffic circulation within the City. Several short term, mid-term and long-term projects have been identified in an ettbrt to increase efficiency and minimize congestion and delay on the City's arterial roadways. Several improvements have been proposed for Rancho California Road, Winchester Road, Margarita Road and Ynez Road corridors. However, except the currently awarded construction projects, only one (1) short term project has been identified on the SR 79(S) corridor, removal of the traffic signal at Bedford Court. It is our understanding this signal was installed per the request of one (1) business owner on Bedford Court, which since has sold the business. Currently this signal operates at a level of service (LOS) "F" during the AM and PM peak hours. Although a current traffic study indicates a LOS "B" at this intersection, after completion of the awarded improvement prnjects, the study does not and can not account for back ups that occur on SR 79(S) due to close spacing of the traffic signals at La Paz Street, Bedford Court and 1-15 interchange. We anticipate that even with the improvements currently under construction, the traffic signal at Bedford Court will impede the traffic flow, degrade the LOS and efficiency of the SR 79(S), and create delay and congestion on this major east-west corridor. The existing traffic signal at Bedford Court does not comply with the general concept of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and Caltrans. The MOU requires ~A mile (1320 feet) spacing between full access intersections and 1/8 mile (660 feet) for limited access driveways on SR 79(S) from 1-15 to Anza Road (Exhibit "B"). However, Bedford Court has been identified as a full access driveway on the exhibit attached to the MOU. The existing signal at Bedford Court is approximately 650 feet from 1-15 northbound on/off ramp signal and approximately 700 feet from the La Paz Street signal. Development plans and a history of the properties to the north of SR 79 (S) at Bedford Court will also be presented to the Commission at the meeting. It also should be noted that a major southerly Ix>rtion of the City is still undeveloped or is underdeveloped including the Pechanga Indian reservation. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" - Memorandum of Understanding between City and Caltrans Commun~ Lo,' ~. Ranc!' / of Fotmer USH~hway395 EXHIBIT "A" - LOCATION MAP EXHI BI'I MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Unden'tanding is between the State of California, Depm'tment of TnmspotUtion (herbal'mr C, altrana) and ths City of Temoc'..da (hez~inafi~r ~e City). This Memorandum of Und~tsundlng solely a guide to the respective obligations, inttmtinns and policies of the City and Caltrans to use in approving new development along north and south State Route 79. This MOU has not been designed to authorks funding for project effort, nor is it a legally binding contact. It is the intent of this MOU to e~a~Bsh a mutual policy which will lead to a cooperative agn~ement between C.,aitrmas and the City within approximately twelve (12) months afar the execution of this MOU. The basic understanding is ms follows: NORTH ROUTE 79 (WINCHESTER ROAD') Route' 79 nhall have up to three lanes for thxough traffic and up to two lanes for local circulation. Realignment may be n,-c',~,-y upon future development along Route 79. The City shall protect the right- of-way for said resligamenL Route 79 is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing with 1/3 mile spacing for l;mi~l ~_cc~s driveways (i.e. right in, right out only) from 1-15 to Margarita Rd. 3. From Margad,- Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road the spa~ing shall be 1/4 mile intersections. 4. Intersection spacing beyond Murrieta Hot Springs Road will be 1/2 mile. 5. Approvals prior to the date of thjs MOU are excepted. SOUTH ROUTE 79 Route 79 is to have I/4 mile intersection spacing and 1/8 mile limited Rcc~,~-s_ driveway spacing f~m 1-15 to Anza Road. 2. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU axe excepted. APPLIES TO NORTH & SOUTH ROUTE 79 Intersection and limited access design shall be developed in ~cordanc~ with policies, Focedttr~, practices and standards normalJy followed by C. altrans and the City. Eventual P_.aLignm~nt of Route 79 may be nec,',~ry due to development along current RoUte 79. The City shall provide Caltran.s future right-of-way protection for Route 79 realignment through negotiations. KEN STEELE, District Director District 8 RON.Ar-D H. ROBE~TS, Mayor City of Temecttla Date SEE ATTACHED MAPS -I-FF ITEM NO. 6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission FROM: William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Item 6 Public Communication Tools for Traffic Issues PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and approve two (2) new programs to improve public awareness regarding traffic improvements. BACKGROUND: With the abundance of capital projects currently under construction, the need to keep residents and local businesses informed about traffic congestion and capital projects is essential. The first recommended program is an "Internet traffic map". This map would be located on the City's web site with up-to date construction information. PC users could point and click on various City Capital hnprovcment Projects for a brief synopsis of several items including: What the prqiect entails How much it costs When it is expected to be complete and What if any forecasted traffic delays (lane closures) will be necessary and Recommended alternative routes The second program involves a traffic hotline. This toll-free number would serve as a means of informing callers about the various traffic projects and provide a means to leave complaints and/or suggestions. This "custtlmized call Ix~x", would be advertised through City Council/Commission meetings, Traffic Newsletters, and the posting of signs throughout the City will provide yet another line of communication. Presentations on these programs will be presented at the Commission meeting. In addition to these two (2) programs the City has upgraded our newspaper construction updates to ~ page ads. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time ITEM NO. 7 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission '~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic April 29, 1999 Item 7 Street Improvement Projects Associated with the Temecula Regional Center RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a report on the approved street improvement projects associated with the Temecula Regional Center. BACKGROUND: Com~nissioner Markham requested a report on the City's traffic circulation improvement projects related to the Promenade Mall. At the meeting of April 15, 1999 this item was continued to allow staff an opportunity to develop a simple exhibit showing the lane configurations on Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Overland Drive and Margarita Road in the vicinity of the Regional Center. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment Exhibit "A" - Lane Configurations EXHIBIT "A" ITEM NO. 8 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT APPROVAL CITY A'I'I'ORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 20, 1999 Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of March, 1999. rv~3ACTRPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report March 1999 Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: April 20, 1999 WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. 1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications: This phase of the loop ramp project improvement is now complete. The landscape maintenance period has begun and the contractor is correcting punch list items. On April 2, 1999 additional plans and specifications were submitted to Caltrans for review 1) widened both the southbound and northbound on-ramps to two lanes, 2) widen the north side of Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the northbound on-ramp to provided an additional lane optional westbound right turn lane, and 3) modify the existing median island just east of Front Street to extend the existing left turn pocket. The City is trying to accelerate this new work so it can be included in the loop ramp contract as a change order. 2. Margarita Community Park Phase I: The park dedication is April 22. 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 turf areas as well as widening Margarita Road adjacent to the park to its ultimate width. The project is completed and is currently in a 90-day landscape maintenance period. 3. Old Town Streetscape Project The street improvements have been completed. A punch list and other detail items are now being worked on by various contractors. 4. 1-15/Wincheqer Southbound Off-ramp Widening: The contractor has completed the second phase of paving on the southbound exit ramp consisting of widening the southbound off-ramp to provide an additional left turn lane. The City is currently designing an auxiliary exit lane for the southbound 1-15 Freeway off-ramp north of the Santa Gertmdis Creek. This will allow for significantly more vehicle storage off of the freeway. Once this design is completed, the plans will be submined tO Caltrans for approval. 5. Temecula Duck Pond Park: The rough grading, duck pond construction and site improvements are now nearly complete and the final grading and landscaping will take place during April. The bandstand and restroom structures are complete with the installation of the metal roof remaining. Ynez Road widening will be completed in April, however, traffic delays may occur during the final paving & striping operations. Park improvements include a gazebo/bandstand, picnic ti~cilities, a restroom, walkways, a parking lot, security lighting, monumentation, landscaping and irrigation. The street improvements will consist of the widening of Ynez Road to full width between Rancho Califi~rnia Road and Tierra Vista Road and will include new sidewalks, additional turn lanes, !," ~c signal modifications at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, a new traffic signal at Ynez Rc:ad and Tierra Vista Road, and pavement restriping to improve traffic circulation. Ctnnpletion is scheduled for June 1999. moactrpt/¢ip/991mar 6. Marllarita Road Sidewalk (Rancho Vista to Pauba Road): Demolition and relocation of existing facilities is continuing. Rapid progress should be made as soon as the varklus utilities are relocated. The improvements will include the installation of concrete curbs, gutter, and sidewalk along the west side of Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. The sidewalk will 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 April 1999. 7. Winchester Road & Ynez Road Street Widening: The contractor is continuing to rough grade along Winchester Road and Yeez Road and will begin placing base the third week of April. Electrical sub-contractor is continuing to place su'eefiight and traffic signal conduits. RCWD relocation on Ynez Road is complete. The contractor has began the placement of curb and gutter. Construction is scheduled to be completed in August 1999. 8. Overland Drive Street Improvements & Margarita Road Street Widening: The c~lntractor has completed the box culvert at Overland Drive, grading of the Long Canyon Creek channel began the first week of April. A new detour tbr the construction of the box culvert at Margarita Road should be complete the third week of April. The electrical sub-contractor is continuing to place street light and traffic signal underground. Construction is scheduled to be completed in August 1999. 9. Winchester Road Median Islands and Enterprise Circle Traffic Signal: The c~lntractor is expected to have the new traffic signal at Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle North/Siluth up and running on the week of April 13, 1999. The median island work will begin on April 14. The proiect includes the installation of a median island, landscaping and irrigation along Winchester Road from .le~rstln Avenue to 900' west. The new median island at Jefferson Avenue will be constructed to provide for a longer left turn pocket for northbound traffic. Coustructk~n has begun, the estimated completion date is June 1999. 10. Traffic Signal at Rancho California Road and Via Lus Coilhas: Installation of the traffic signal by DBX, Inc. has commenced with the layout of pole foundations and preparation of the site. Construction began in March 1999 with an estimated completion date of June 1999. 2 moactrpt/cip/991mar I 1.1-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement: The contractor will be performing the following construction operations: Reconstruction of 1,000 feet of Jefferson Avenue, relocation of an existing sewer line, grading for footings/abutments, pile driving east of the I- i 5 fi'eeway, and storm drain/channel improvements. The project includes construction of an 800 foot bridge ,~ver I 15, installing a new traffic signals where Overland Drive meets Jefferson Avenue relocation of SCE pt~wer lines, and mist. irrigation/landscape improvements. The estimated construction time for the entire project is 13 months. 12. Pala Rnad Bridge: The clearing operation is complete with overexcavation and preparation of the site for the bridge foundation cuntinuing through the month of April. The pile driving operation is scheduled to begin the second week of April. This project will include realignment of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Rainbow Canyon Road, including a new bridge, installation of two new traffic signals, the removal of one existing traffic signal, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, bike lanes, signing, striping, channel improvements, and provisions tier Wetland Mitigation. It is anticipated that the new bridge will be open for vehicle traffic by ,lanttary 2000. Constructiun began March 1, 1999 with an estimated completion date of March 2000. 13. Tennis Court Lighting at Temecula Valley High School The City Council awarded the project at the March 23, 1999 meeting. A pre-construction meeting is expected to be conducted in mid-April. This project will install tennis court lighting along with landscaping, irrigation, t~ncing, striping, and minor concrete work at Temecula Valley High School. C~lnstructhln is anticipated to begin in May 1999 with an estimated completion date of July 1999. OUT TO BID: I. Rotary Park The bid opening was held on April 1, 1999 and staff will be recommending award at the April 13, 1999 City Council meeting. This prqiect will install a picnic shade structure, picnic tables, fencing, concrete and draillag~ structnres. WORK IN DESIGN: I. FY96-97 Pavement Management System: Stat'f returned the third plan check to the consultant on February 10th. This project will provide street rehabililation of le~r.~n Avenue from the northerly City limits to Rancho California Road. This prqiect will ~tls{i inchlde the installation of street lighting along the entire length of the project. C~lnsn'uction is anticipated to begin in June 1999 with an estimated completion date of August 1999. 3 moactrpUcip199/mar 2. Pu.jnl Street Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: The ctmsultant has completed the design survey and City staff is currently designing the project. 3. 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. 4. 1-15 Snuthbound Off-Ramp Widening at Winchester Road The City Council approvexl the Consultant's contract at the February 9 meeting. This project will add one (I) southbound lane on the 1-15 Freeway and also widen the bridge over the Santa Gertrudis Creek at the southbound oft;ramp. The consultant will provide a design to widen the northbound on-ramp from Winchester Road. Currently staff has a consultant designing the portion to add an auxiliary exit lane for the southbound I- 15 Freeway north of the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Once this design is completed, the plans will be submitted to Calltans for approval and the inclusion into the current ramp-widening project. 5. 1- 1 5 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 (1) southl~lund lane on the 1~15 Freeway. Currendy the City has a consultant designing an auxiliary exit lane for the southbound I- 15 Freeway just north of Rancho California Road. Once this design is complete the plans will be submined to Caltrans tbr approval and inclusion into the current loop ramp-widening project. 6. Butterfield Stage Park Improvements This project is currently being designed and is approximately 90% complete. This project will construct a basketball court near the existing parking lot. 7. Traffic Signals nn Margarita Road at Pio Pico Road and at Pauba Road Design is complete, and authorization to advertise tbr public bids is anticipate to be on the City Cotmcil agenda filr the May I I~ 1999 meeting. 8. Old Tuwn Southside Parking Lots The prt~iect is currently being designed in-house. This project consists of two (2) proposed parking lots. One will be located on the west side of Front Street just north of Second Street, and the other lot is located on the sleuth side tff Fourth Street west of Front Street. 9. Sunta Gertrudis Creek Trail Undercrassing The proiect design is now complete. This project will construct a bike trail in the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek under Winchester Road (Hwy. 79N) bridge. 10. First Street Bridge Fimtl clmstruction drawings are completed; construction advertisement is scheduled for May 1999. 4 raoaetrpt/eip/99/mar 0 o 0 o o TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Ac~jng Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~l~Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent April 5, 1999 Monthly Activity Report - March, 1999 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in- house personnel for the month of March, 1999. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 67 B. Total signs installed 54 C. Total signs repaired 26 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 3 ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons 1,500 50 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 370 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 19,400 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. 16 3,598 VII. STENCILING A. 432 B. -0- New and repainted legends L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 27 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 38 service order requests for the month of February,1999. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 50 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 March, 1999 was $ 29.481.35 compared to $ 21,958.00 for the month of February. 1999. Account No. 5402 $ 24,270.25 Account No. 5401 $ 5,211.00 Account No. 999-5402 $ - 0 - cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer - (Land Development) 0 I- 0 ITEM NO. 9 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT ITEM NO. 10 FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT ITEM NO. 11 COMMISSION REPORTS