HomeMy WebLinkAbout051399 PTS Agenda
/);t(-' i ,
.0\<.-
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
the office of the City Clerk at (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting (28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
TO BE HELD AT
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California
Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
COMMISSIONERS: Connerton, Edwards, Markham, Telesio, Coo
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 not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be t'illed out and tiled 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 tiled with the Recording Secretary before the
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All 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
Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of Aoril 29. ]999
RECOMMENDA nON:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of April 29, 1999
r: Ilruffic \commi~8n \ug cnda \99\0513 \0513 99 Agcnda/ltjp
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Installation of "Multi-Wav Stoo" - Marl!arita Road at De Portola Road
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a
Resolution establishing a "Multi-Way Stop" at the intersection of Margarita Road and De
Portola Road.
3. Discuss Scooe of Work for the Prooosed Meadowview Area Traffic Circulation Study
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission provide input regarding the scope of work for the
proposed study for the Meadowview Area Traffic Circulation
4. Traffic Engineer's Report
5. Police Chief's Report
6. Fire Chief"s Report
7. Commission Report
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City of Temccula Public/Traffic Satety Commission will be held on Thursday,
May 27, ]999, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
r: \traffic\commissn\agenJll\99\0513 \051399Agcnda/ajp
ITEM NO.1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLlCITRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
APRIL 29, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting
at 6:05 P.M., on Thursday, April 29, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
FLAG SALUTE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Edwards.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Connerton, Edwards, 'Markham,
and Telesio.
Absent:
Chairman Coe.
Also Present:
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes,
Senior Engineer Moghadam,
Management Analyst Adams,
Management Assistant Comerchero,
Police Sergeant DiMaggio,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
, (Commissioner Markham arrived at 6:50 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of April 15, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception
of Chairman Coe and Commissioner Markham who were absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Parking 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.
Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (per agenda material); relayed
that this Agenda Item was before the Commission to obtain further community input from
the affected property owners; noted that staff had received three (3) correspondences
regarding the parking impacts, as follows: a) one letter from the Villages NO.2
Homeowners Association (HOA), inclusive of eight signatures, b) one phone
correspondence from an affected homeowner whereby it was relayed that the Police
Department could not cite vehicles that were legally parked, and c) a letter rescinding a
signature from the aforementioned HOA letter, relaying the her desire was to not
implement a restricted parking plan after clarification that the resident's parking would
also be restricted; for Commissioner Edwards, confirmed that if restricted parking was
implemented, parking would be restricted for students, as well as the residents, clarifying
the per Vehicle Code mandate there cannot be restricted parking solely for a certain
group; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that the property owners were noticed of the
April 29, 1999 Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting via door-to-door contact.
The following individuals addressed the Commission regarding parking on Avenida De
La Riena:
o Mr. Bill J. Smith
o Ms. Betty Lohrke
o Mr. Herschel Nave
o Ms. Diane Thorne
41664 Avenida De La Reina
41669 Avenida De La Reina
41682 Avenida De La Reina
41675 Avenida De La Reina
The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following concerns and desires:
,c The student parking obstructed residential street sweeping, trash pick-up,
and mail delivery.
,c The negative impacts included oil residue and trash being left on the streets.
,c Relayed a need to park their vehicles on the street.
,c Although not in favor of restricted parking for the residents, relayed a desire
to implement a restricted parking program whereby the residents would be
allowed to park on the street (i.e., parking stickers)
Senior Engineer Moghadam confirmed, for Commissioner Telesio, that there is no
current City Ordinance in Temecula permitting parking for stickered vehicles only.
2
Commissioner Telesio relayed that restricted parking during the designated street-
sweeping day and hours could be implemented, alleviating the obstruction of street
cleaning; noted that there was adequate parking provisions available for the students
that was not being utilized due to the convenience of a shorter walking distance when
parking in the residential areas; and commented that while the task of creating a City
Ordinance would be an immense undertaking, he was not opposed to a restricted
parking program to allow only residential parking via stickers; and relayed that in the Los
Angeles area there was parking restricted to residents only in various residential areas.
Commissioner Edwards reiterated the negative impacts the affected homeowners had
addressed regarding student parking; and queried whether the Police Department could
cite the students for jaywalking, thereby providing an impetus as to the desire for
students to park in the residential areas.
Police Sergeant DiMaggio clarified that jaywalking only applied (per vehicle code)
between two controlled intersections (i.e., traffic signals), relaying that it was not
applicable at this particular location
Commissioner Edwards recommended that if parking were restricted for only an hour or
two at an effective time, this would alleviate student parking, while imposing limited
restrictions on the residents.
Vice Chairman Connerton reiterated the parking areas available to students (i.e., the
sport's park.)
In response to Vice Chairman Connerton's comments, Police Sergeant DiMaggio
relayed the citations that could be applicable with the existing non-restricted parking (i.e.,
violations regarding parking distance from curb); and noted that if a no parking restriction
was implemented that it would be enforceable.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to recommend that parking be restricted on
Avenida De La Riena from 7:00 to 9:00 A.M., Monday through Friday, and that the
School District be notified of the parking restrictions prior to the implementation of the
restricted parking, via letter correspondence. Vice Chairman Connerton seconded the
motion.
For Commissioner Telesio, Police Sergeant DiMaggio relayed that the aforementioned
proposal would be enforceable, noting, additionally, that the residents could call the
Police Department for the purpose of notification that the no parking restrictions were
being violated.
Voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Chairman
Coe and Commissioner Markham who were absent.
3. Bvpass Roadwav Alianment Study - Calle Pin a Colada
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide
further direction to staff.
3
Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (of record); and, for
Commissioner Edwards, relayed that the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) has
implemented costly restrictions regarding construction of a roadway with the MWD's
facility easement between La Serena Road and Del Rey Road, clarifying the estimated
1.5 million dollar cost of the project.
Commissioner Telesio recommended that this project should be analyzed in conjunction
with the Meadowview Study.
Vice Chairman Connerton noted that Alignment "B" (per agenda material) would be more
cost effective; recommended that the City pursue some relief from the MWD restrictions;
and recommended that due to the complex implications of the project, that it be included
in the Meadowview Study.
It was noted for the record that Commissioner Markham arrived at the meeting at
6:50 P.M.
The fOllowing individuals spoke in favor of incorporating this particular project into the
Meadowview Study:
o Mr. Dennis Bueschel
oMs. Jayme Christian
41358 Yuba Circle
30762 Calle Pina Colada
The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments:
,/ That the study explore further alternatives.
,/ That the study take into account mall traffic.
,/ Expressed a desire for staff to expedite the process of completion of the
study.
The following individual spoke in opposition to the Bypass Roadway project due to the
negative traffic impact near his residence:
o Mr. Terry Cordell
41284 Bravos Court
For Ms. Christian, Commissioner Edwards relayed the lengthy process of completion of
a thorough study.
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that staff has prepared a Capital
Improvement Program to request funding for this particular study, noting the process and
timing constraints associated with completion of the study.
For Mr. Cordell, Vice Chairman Connerton relayed the process of approving the potential
Bypass Roadway project, clarifying that members of the public would be noticed,
enabling them to address their comments and concerns at a future point in time.
4
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to receive the report, and direct staff to
continue the study, and include this project in the Meadowview Study. Commissioner
Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Chairman Coe who was absent.
4. Speed Undulations - Calle Pina Colada
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 That the PubliclTraffic Safety Commission reaffirm the speed undulations
on Calle Pina Colada to remain in place until after the completion of the
Meadowview Circulation Study.
Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (via agenda material); clarified
that the criteria for the removal of the undulations is that a finding be made that the
undulations proved to be ineffective; relayed that the speed data indicated that the
undulations have been somewhat effective at reducing vehicle speeds; and for
Commissioner Telesio, specified the results of the speed data, clarifying that
approximately one-third of the residents were of the opinion that the undulations were of
some benefit.
The following individuals addressed the Commission regarding the Calle Pina Colada
issue:
1:1 Ms. Jan Lee
1:1 Mr. Dennis Bueschel
1:1 Ms. Jayme Christian
1:1 Mr. Terry Cordell
1:1 Mr. Rolfe Whitman
30899 Calle Pina Colada
41358 Yuba Circle
30762 Calle Pina Colada
41284 Bravos Court
30617 Calle Pina Colada
Although Vice Chairman Connerton clarified that the only issue the Commission could
address was whether or not the speed undulations should be removed (per agendized
matter), the above-mentioned individuals (with the exception of Mr. Whitman) relayed
that they were not opposed to the undulations as such, and relayed their additional
concerns and comments, as follows:
-' Recommended raising the height of the undulations to render a more
effective deterrent to speed
-' Concern regarding the current speed of the cars, creating a hazard with
respect to their children's safety, specifically denoting teen drivers
-' That staff consider the opening of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads
to alleviate cut-through traffic
-' Request that additional studies be done to consider altemate solutions
-' Volume of cars
-' Recommended placing Police Officers in alternate locations
5
For the record a letter was submitted to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson,
and Mr. and Mrs. Pettit, noting their concern with regard to the speed and volume of
traffic on Calle Pina Colada.
For Ms. Lee, Police Sergeant DiMaggio relayed that during a 20-day timeframe there
were officers and a radar trailer placed at the area of discussion; relayed that eight
citations were issued, primarily to residents, noting that the top speed was 45 MPH;
advised that the results of the data evidenced that speed was not an extensive issue;
and relayed that officers are currently being sent to cite speed violators in the area of
discussion.
For Ms. Christian, Senior Engineer Moghadam clarified that when speed sensors are
utilized for collecting data, that the sensors are placed for a minimum of two days,
measuring speed for twenty-four hours a day during that period.
Ms. Christian recommended that the sensors be placed in alternate locations (i.e., in
front of her residence) in order to obtain accurate information regarding speed
Commissioner Markham recommended that the speed undulations remain in place until
the completion of the Meadowview Study, requesting that the matter be expedited.
Commissioner Telesio recommended that if the speed undulations are proved to be
ineffective that they be removed; queried the effectiveness of a reduction in speed by
solely 4 MPH; and recommended that the decision to remove, maintain, or raise the
height of the undulations be made until after the completion of the study.
Commissioner Edwards concurred with addressing this matter after the completion of
the study.
For Community informational purposes, Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that the
traffic counts and studies that encompassed the speed data for this particular area were
done by an independent data collection firm; and for Vice Chairman Connerton, relayed
that although there is no code restricting the height of the undulations, that as far as
liability for the City, the recommendation is a height of approximately two and a half
inches-three inches.
MOTION: Commissioner Markham moved to reaffirm the speed undulations until the
completion of the study in the Meadowview area. Commissioner Edwards seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Markham advised that the Calle Pina Colada matter, as proposed, would
not be fully addressed until approximately five months after July 1,1999, specifying the
time-frame for adoption of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the funding process,
and the awarding of a contract; recommended that staff investigate avenues to expedite
the process (i.e., budget modifications), advising that the Meadowview HOA be
contacted in order to aid in the formation of a plan to expedite this particular issue (i.e.,
an ad hoc committee); and concurred with Community input, that this issue should not
be further delayed.
Voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Chairman
Coe who was absent.
6
For the record Mr. Dennis Bueschel submitted to the clerk a memorandum expressing a
request for consideration to sit on the aforementioned potential ad hoc committee.
5. Removal of Traffic Sianal - State Route 79 South at Bedford Court
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 That the PubliclTraffic Safety Commission discuss the feasibility of
removing the traffic signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South at
Bedford Court.
Commissioner Markham advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda
Item, and therefore left the dais for this matter; and recommended that the press, and its
staff, duly note his abstention.
By way of overheads, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff report
(per agenda material); clarified that the intent of agendizing this issue was to discuss the
merits of conducting a study which would encompass whether the traffic signal at Route
79 South at Bedford Court should be removed, or alternative access be provided to the
adjacent properties; relaying that the goal of staff is to mitigate traffic impacts,
specifically, after mall opening; advised that the County is involved in traffic
improvements in the area of discussion; relayed that the current trip count in the area of
discussion was 20,000 trips a day, with a potential at build out of 70,000 trips per day;
noted that if a study was implemented that the complex issues associated with this area
could be addressed; and presented four diagrams with potential options for the area of
discussion, relaying that for overall traffic improvement for the City alternate options
could potentially vastly improve traffic circulation while still providing access to the
adjacent properties.
In response to Commissioner Edwards' comments, Acting Director of Public Works
Hughes clarified that staff is recommending that the Commission support the
implementation of a thorough study to maximize 79 South, inclusive of consideration of
removal of the signal; relayed that the issue before the Commission is not based on
whether or not the signal will be removed, but solely whether or not a study would be
conducted to consider the best alternatives for traffic circulation in the area of
discussion.
Vice Chairman reiterated for the public that the issue before the Commission was to
approve or deny recommendation of a study in the area of discussion, and not to remove
the signal.
The following individuals spoke in strong opposition to the removal of the traffic signal:
[:J Mr. Victor Jones
[:J Mr. Jack Raymond
[:J Mr. Jay Beckley
[:J Mr. Burton Merrill
[:J Mr. Matt Greenberg
[:J Mr. Kauser Salman
[:J Mr. Ray Bozarth
PO Box 1624
44535 Bedford Court
44560 Classic Way
44535 Bedford Court
27311 Jefferson Avenue
44515 Bedford Court
44515 Bedford Court
7
Q Mr. Fred Grimes
Q Mr. John Moramarco
27311 Jefferson Avenue
PO Box 9061, Temecula
The above-mentioned individuals relayed the fOllowing concerns and comments:
,/ Opposition to the signal being removed
,/ Opposition to a study that would consider removal of the signal
,/ That the commercial properties have invested millions of dollars locating in
this particular area, relying on the signal access
,/ That if a study was done, it be postponed until construction on Highway 79 is
completed
,/ That if a study was implemented, that the adjacent properties' egress and
ingress be taken into consideration
For the record a memorandum was submitted expressing opposition to a study that
would consider removal of the signal, inclusive of three signatures from the Par Crest
Plaza Business Owners.
Commissioner Edwards, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, concurred that while removal
of this particular signal would improve overall traffic circulation, relayed that the alternate
options would not ensure safety; and recommended that the signal not be removed.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that prior to the installation of this signal there existed a
safety hazard regarding access to the adjacent properties, that resulted in fatalities;
noted that the potential options presented would compromise safety standards; and
therefore expressed opposition to a study to consider removal of the signal
Vice Chairman Connerton concurred with the Commissioner's comments, reiterating the
detrimental impact the removal of the signal would have on the adjacent property
owners.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to recommend that the signal not be removed,
and that the study be denied. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Markham who abstained
and Chairman Coe who was absent.
At 8:29 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:33 P.M.
6. Public Communication Tools for Traffic Issues
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 That the PubliciTraffic Safety Commission reviews and approves two (2)
new programs to improve public awareness regarding traffic
improvements.
8
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes presented the new programs for the provision of
public awareness; and introduced Management Analyst Adams and Management
Assistant Comerchero, noting that they would present detailed information regarding the
programs.
Management Analyst Adams presented the computer accessible interactive traffic map;
relayed that the user could obtain information pertaining to current projects in the City,
specifically, regarding the cost, the benefits, the closures associated with the
construction of the project, and an estimated completion date; presented the second
program which would be an information phone hotline, relaying information regarding
three options, listed, as follows: a) general information, b) CIP information, and c) up-to-
date descriptions of the City's current projects (i.e., the mall); advised that the City could
advertise for this toll-free number, informing the public of the accessibility to obtain
pertinent City information; relayed that the City has developed a traffic newsletter,
distributed on a quarterly basis; and noted that the press could access the City's website
in order to publish the City's up-to-date information in the newspaper; and for
Commissioner Edwards, clarified the process of filing a complaint via the proposed
programs.
Management Assistant Comerchero clarified, for Commissioner Telesio, that at this time
the City doesn't have the capability of measuring the number of incoming users that
access the website; in response to Commissioner Markham's comments, regarding
provision of the Public Works Report that is currently in the City Council packets, noted
that any information provided to her could be made available through the website,
relayed that the CIP could be made accessible through the program; and for Vice
Chairman Connerton, clarified that the programs presented tonight would be
implemented in conjunction with the City's current website.
In response to Commissioner Markham's comments regarding the size of the City's add
in the newspaper, providing the Public Works Report, Acting Director of Public Works
Hughes relayed that the City will be funding a quarter-page ad next year.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the new programs improving public
awareness. Commissioner Markham seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Chairman Coe who was absent.
7. Street Improvement Proiects Associated with the Temecula ReQional
Center
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receives and files a report on
the approved street improvement projects associated with the Temecula
Regional Center.
By way of maps, Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (of record).
The Commission received and filed the report.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
9
A. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the street
re-striping project would be complete in approximately a week.
B. Acting Director of Public Works Hughes informed the Commission of the
upcoming legal seminar the City will be holding on June 1, 1999 at 6:00 P.M,
regarding the Brown Act and conflict of interest issues.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
No comments.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No comments.
COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Commissioner Telesio queried the area of issues that encompassed public safety
issues, specifically, regarding animals.
B. Commissioner Edwards commented on the small size of the City's newspaper ad
which provides the Public Works Report.
C. Vice Chairman Connerton thanked staff for their diligent efforts associated with
the Public/Traffic Safety Commission.
D. Vice Chairman Connerton reiterated a request previously address by
Commissioner Markham, requesting staff to address the issue of traffic issues as
they relate to the site plan. Acting Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that
staff is in the process of addressing that issue.
E. To more effectively utilize public input, Commissioner Telesio noted for the
record that if members of the public submitted their statements and letters to the
Commission prior to the meeting, their input could be considered before action
was taken on an agenda item.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:00 Vice Chairman Connerton formally adjourned this meeting to Thursdav. Mav 13.
1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman Charles Coe
Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle
10
ITEM NO.2
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
€; Ali Mogbadam, P.E.. Senior Engineer, Traffic
DATE:
May 13, 1999
SUBJECT:
Item 2
Installation of "Multi-Way Stop" - Margarita Road at De Portola Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution establishing
a "Multi-Way Stop" at the intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road.
BACKGROUND:
A review of the City's Traffic Signal Priority List revealed that the intersection of Margarita Road at De
Portola Road did not appear on the list of intersections evaluated for potential traftic signal installation. An
evaluation of traffic conditions has been performed to determine if this intersection satisties the minimum
warrant criteria for the installation of traffic signals.
Margarita Road is identified on the City's Circulation Element as an 86 foot wide four lane Arterial Highway
with a 14-foot wide raised median. Currently, Margarita Road at De Portola Road is 44 feet wide with one
travel lane in each direction. The speed limit is posted at 45 MPH on Margarita Road.
De Portola Road, west of Margarita Road is identified on the City's Circulation Element as a 64 foot wide four
lane Secondary Highway. East of Margarita Road, De Portola Road is identified as a 76 foot wide four lane
Major Highway with a 12-foot wide raised median. Currently, De Portola Road is 40 feet wide with one
lravellane in each direction. The speed limit is posted at 50 MPH on De Portola Road. "Stop" signs on De
Portola Road control the intersection.
The justitication for the installation of a traftic signal at an intersection is based on a series of eleven (11)
warrants that have been established by Caltrans. Satisfying anyone of these warrants, or a combination of
warrants, could be justification for the installation of a traffic signal. These warrants are contained in the
Caltrans Traffic Manual that has been adopted by the City of Temecula as a guideline to be used in the
evaluation and installation of various traffic control devices, including traffic signals and "Stop" signs.
The traffic signal warrant analysis performed for the intersection of Margarita Road at De Portola Road
indicates that all applicable warrants are satisfied one hundred percent (100%) and a traftic signal is justitied
at this intersection. A copy of this analysis is included as Exhibit "B".
r: \truffic\commissn\agcndn\99\0513 \margdcport'ltopfajp
The Caltrans Traffic Manual indicates that under certain conditions where traffic signals are warranted and
urgently needed, multi-way stop controls may be used as an interim measure. There are four (4) criteria that
Caltrans has established for the evaluation of "Multi-Way Stop" signs. These criteria are as follows:
I. Where signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi-way stop may be an interim measure that
can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal
installations.
2. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents within a twelve (12) month
period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such accidents include
right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
3. Minimum Traffic Volumes
a. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least
500 vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day, and
b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must
average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight (8) hours, with an average delay to
minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour,
but
c. When the 85-percential approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour,
the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements.
4. School area traffic control recommendations/warrants.
The "Multi-Way Stop" warrant analysis indicates that all applicable warrants are satisfied one hundred percent
(100%) and "Multi-Way Stop" signs are justitied at Margarita Road and De Portola Road. A copy of this
analysis is included as Exhibit "D".
Since the intersection of Margarita Road at De Portola Road satisfies the criteria for installation of a traffic
signal, staff recommends the installation of "Multi-Way Stop" signs as an interim measure. Installation of a
signal at this intersection will be included in the five (5) year Capital Improvement Program for consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$500.00 for the installation of two (2) "Stop" signs and associated striping.
Attachment:
I . Exhibit" A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
3. Exhibit "C" - Collision Diagram
4. Exhibit "D" - "Multi-Way Stop" Warrant Analysis
5. Exhibit "E" - Traffic Signal Priority List
r: \tfllffic\commisan\agendll\99\0513 \murgdeportl!top/lljp
I
3Z6t
;~~
~
~
EXHIBIT "A" - LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT "B"
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
?-6
TRAFfiC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Manual
.'9\11
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
DIST co RTE PM
MaIOrS! 1i/1t~/rA /0AO
\!Ilnor St: __ _O_70L-n lOAD
Critical speed of ma[or street t~ai':c > 40 mph
CALC
CHK
DATE
DATE
4-.'5 mph
SO mph
RURAL (R)
URBAN (U)
YES ~ NO :J
YES 0 NO 0
Critical Approacn Speed
Critical Approacn Speed
------------- 6}
CJ
In built up area at Isolated community of < 10,000 pop.
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular volume
100% SATISFIED
80% SATISFIED
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U
APPROACH
LANES
Bolh Apprchs. 500
Malor Slreel (400)
Highest Apprch. 150
Minor Street'" (120i
. NOTE: Heavier len turn movement from Malor Street ",cluded when L T-phas'ng IS proposed 0
WARRANT 2 -Interruption of Continuous Traffic
100% SATISFIED-
80% SATISFIED
YES ~ NO 0
YES 0 NO 0
APPROACH
LANES
801h Apprchs.
Malor Street
Highest Apprch.
.\1lnor Street ."
MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN iN BRACKETS)
U R i U R
I 2 or more
750 I 525 'I 900 3
(600) (4201 I 1720) 50
75 53 '1100 70
(60) (4 I (80) (56)
* NOTE: HeaVier left turn rrovement from Malor Street Included when L T -phasing is prooosedC
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES n NO :2S!
LJ
RECUIREMENT I FULFILLED !
Pedestrian volume Cfoss:r.g :he malor street IS 100 or more I l
for each 01 any iour t-..CUiS or:s 190 or more dUring anyone /~s CJ No ~ i
rlour; and
There are less than 60 ~aps per hour In the malar street Irat- I 'Ies ~ No I::J l
f:c stream of adequate~"glh tor pedestnans to cross: and i
Tne nearest traffic signa, C]long the malar street 1$ greater 111.11 ./;:>5 ~ ~Jo
Iha, 300 feet; ana . ' -
The new !raff,c s,gnaIN'" no! serIOusly disrupt progresslv~-rl I~:-~- No
traffic flow on the major street I -
,
~
'-
'~
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
at the need for right.of.way assignment must be shown.
I
I
,
!
I
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
9-7
1.1991
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANTS 4 . School Crossings
Not Applicable .................................. Jill
See School CrosSings Warrant Sheet 0
WARRANT 5 . Progressive Movement
SATISFIED
YES 6i[ NO 0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL , FULFILLED
liDO ,
> 1000 FT. N h, S 1000 h. E - h. W - It. I YES B NO 0
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STRE=' S OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT;
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
...........................................................................................................................................,
ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND I
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SiGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM i 3- 0
WARRANT 6 . Accident Experience
SATISFIED
YES El NO 0
REQUIREMENTS WARRANT 1./1 FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT I~
' WARRANT 1 . MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATIFIED ...................... ........... ..... ........, ................................. ... .........~...
OR I,
8J% WARRANT 2 . INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES III NO 0 ,
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW I III Cl
ADEOUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY I lJ 0
.A~~. .~~:.~.I ~. ~ .1~ .~~~~~. .~.E~ '?? S.U.~.~~:.r~~~.:.?:'. ?~~~... ~ .I.~.~?~~~~~. ~~.:~~:. .?~...... ~.~?~. ?~~.A.~.:..I
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS I
5 OR MORE /' . a. Cl
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
SATISFIED
YES IllI NO 0
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES 1./1 FULFILLED
REQUIREMENTS
> 800 VEH/HR DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR /7 b9 VEH/HR! t
..~t.~;~~.~~~.~~.~~;.~.~.~~.~.~.~.:~.~~.~;~~.~~.~....................~~~;~~r... YES fa NO Cl
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJO<: ST.' MINOR ST.:
I , i
.. V
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PR1NC:PL" NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC V 1 I
,
..................................... ..................... ......................................... ....~. ............. ......................j
I I ,
f .R.U.R~~ .O.R..S ~ ~ ~ ~~~.N. .~~~ .~.L:~iD.E .O~. .E~T.~.~~ ~~: .~~. .:?O~V .~~~I~.~.~. ~~~......~........................I
: I I
i "PPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ~N AN OFFICAL PLAN V ,V !
ANY \IAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET. BOTH STS. YES J!!l NO 0
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion. contusion or other evidence
of the need for right-ot.way assignment must be shown.
9-8
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Manual
1-1991
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT a. Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED YES ~ NO 0
REQUIREMENT
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED
800/0
WARRANT
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
../
FULFILLED
YES sr NO 0
A roach Lanes
Both Approaches Major Street
! Highest Approaches - Minor Street
2 or
One more
V \,lb I?se 1'3'1'0
V 'Z..,?'l '?ll.> 37 I
131 NO 0
WARRANT 9 . Four Hour Volume
* Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10 . Peak Hour Delay
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED YES IXJ NO 0
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five
vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach: AND
YES
IZI NO 0
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes: AND
YES
l2!:] NO 0
3 !he total entering volume serviced dUring the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
YES
IZI NO 0
A roach Lanes
Beth Aoproaehes Malar Street
hlgnest Aporoaches - Minor Street
* IZI NO 0
SATISFIED YES
2 or
One more Hour
vi 1'1'04
V '?ll
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume
* Herer fO Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) 10 determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction at a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right.ot.way assignment must be shown.
9-12
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Manual
1-1991
400
:I:
C.
>
f-:I: 300
wU
w~
0:0
f-:I:
UlC.
C.
0: ~ 200
Ow
Z:.
~:::>
...J
o
>
:I: 100
c.:l
:r
o
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Ar
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
I I *
I
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) ,r )d
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
*
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) *
200
300
900
1000
400
500
600
700
800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWEr,
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
9-14
1-1991
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Manual
500
~
a.
> 400
J:
(,)
f-et
~ g 300
CI:a.
f-a.
<net
CI:W
~ ~ 200
-..J
::;0
>
a 100
J:
o
300
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
I I
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
,
I
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
I
I
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
I
400
500
900
1000
1100
600
700
800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
.. NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
'*
*
*
1200
1300
MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
140
160
~
I
120
L
(/) 1 00 I
!- .
Z r-
~ 801
r
60 I
I
L
40
20 r
07. 507. 1 007. 1507. 2007.
PERCENT WARRANT MET
F:l.gure 8
'2.8'2..../.
INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
160
140
120
~30
0,. 507. 1007. 150,. 200,.
PERCENT WARRANT MET
Figure 9
MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUIIE
120
'I
07.
507. 1007. 1507. 2007.
PERCENT WARRANT MET
Figure 10
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS N / A
50
tIl
~
Z -
I
0
a.. 40 I
r
I
301
20
r
10
07.
507. 1007. 1507. 200~
PERCENT WARRANT MET
2507.
Figure 12
ACCIDENT EXI?ERIENCE
300
250
(/)
~
Z
o
Cl.. 200
150
L
100
50
5 10 15 20 25 30
NUM8ER OF CORRECTABLE ACCIDENTS
Figure 13
100
80 I
~ l
~ I
a.. 60 i
40
I
~
20
COMBINA TION OF WARRANTS
50~ 100::; 1507- 200~ 2507-
PERCENT WARRANT MET
Figure 11
FOUR HOUR WARRANT
PEAK HOUR WARRANT
SYSTEMS WARRANT
Figure 14
10070 MET - 35 POINTS
10070 MET - 30 POINTS
10070 MET - 15 POINTS
(:)
~
. 1
C/l ;6
~ d:
Q:: 5
<: i
:::E
UJ CJ
Q:: cfJ
SlNIOd 1'V.LO.L () I I
ff)
I ~nOH >rv3d I ~ ,
r- !:InOH ~nQ:l I ~, , I
z
<:
0:: NOLlVNI8l'iOO I g I I I I I
0:: I
<(
~ SYGl.S.l.S u'1 I I I
-
~I l.N3010::JV 14\ I
j--
-. ,
~I 1VN~1S 100H::lS 4::
:0:.
- I I
0 iO^ "03d "NJI'i I.r\ I I
UJ t-
z '.fIrCU 'NOO 1Bl.N1 I 0 I I I
'-' <l'-
-
C/l1 lO^ "H3J\ "Nlt'i I Sl I I I I I
~I
i:l
'd
1
~
of.
~
Z ~
----
0 ---:.::
r- ~.
~
u DL
UJ
((I q:
t-
o:: .~
UJ
r- ~
Z
- <:
2:
<f.38YinN AlJl:lOIC:ld I I
FIGIlKE 15
EXHIBIT "C"
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Collision Diagram
North/South Street: MARGARITA ROAD
Cross Street: DE PORTO LA ROAD
~
From: 1/1/98 To: 12/31/98
Date Prepared: 4122/99
L1
r::
Il~~4~
I i'~~
C
4113/98
Auto R/IN
1111
4f2198 9119/98 414198 4/4198
Unsf Spd Improp Pass Auto RI\N Auto Rf\N
~t
I I
Number of Collisions Leczend L Right Turn 1:; Pedestrian
--- Moving Vehicle , OJ Fixed Object
~ Proper'y Damage Only -+--1 &topped Vehicle Left Turn
1 Injury Collisions lb Bicycle
~ Backing Vehicle ---- Sideswipe
Q Fatal Collisions ---- '( DUI
............ Ran Off Road
!!. Total Collisions Movement <l- Day 0 Injury
~.----
Unknown ---- Night 0 Fatal
EXHIBIT "D"
MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANTS
MARGARITA ROAD AT DE PORTOLA ROAD
Multi-Way stop Warranting Software
04/29/99
Major Street: MARGARITA ROAD
Minor street: DE PORTOLA ROAD
Date of Analysis: 04/29/99
Name of Analyst: JLG
Case Number:
Comments:
85th% Speed of Major Street: 45
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
WARRANT 1 - Accident Experience
SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable accidents
of a correctable type is met with 7 accidents over a 12 month period.
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
SATISFIED - The 100% vehicular warrant of 500 entering vehicles for
any 8 hours of the day is met with 16 hours meeting the warrant.
SATISFIED - The 70% vehicular warrant of 350 entering vehicles for
any 8 hours of the day is met with 16 hours meeting the warrant.
WARRANT 3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Road
SATISFIED - The combined total of 200 vehicles and pedestrians
from the minor approach is met with 6 hours meeting the warrant.
MARGARITA ROAD AT DE PORTOLA ROAD
Multi-Way stop Warranting Software
04/29/99
100% 70% COMBINATION
START NB SB EB WB HOUR WARRANT WARRANT WARRANT
TIME TOT MET MET MET
0:00 77 55 19 2 153
1:00 73 27 6 0 106
2:00 22 20 6 0 48
3:00 22 13 4 0 39
4:00 16 28 2 3 49
5:00 34 61 2 7 104
6:00 103 140 13 16 272
7:00 308 201 39 27 575 * *
8:00 708 377 80 31 1196 * *
9:00 715 410 106 50 1281 * *
10:00 523 270 90 22 905 * *
11:00 483 251 102 38 874 * *
12:00 467 317 136 33 953 * *
13:00 531 437 143 40 1151 * *
14:00 524 350 154 42 1070 * *
15:00 657 464 230 62 1413 * * *
16:00 802 574 252 59 1687 * * *
17:00 827 531 316 32 1706 * * *
18:00 826 572 371 32 1801 * * *
19:00 816 588 267 68 1739 * * *
20:00 642 444 189 22 1297 * * *
21:00 482 375 124 44 1025 * *
22:00 295 256 88 45 684 * *
23:00 167 137 34 6 344
EXHIBIT "E"
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST
"
0 N
E '.0 E E '"
'" Ci
""
~ '13 13 13 ....
'f! 0
" " ;::
> '" ~ >
0 >>- 0 .1
... ... ...
E' - E' E'
8 8 u N
~ .~
g " - "" - - 8 g " " "
"" oo "" "" ca
0 ~ N Ci ~ 0 0 0
'.0 '.0 '" - '" '" " '.0 '.0 '.0 '.0
u u 8 ~ - - - ~ ~ ... - u u u g
g g 8 8 ~ 05 8 g g g
N co N N '" '" .~ N
~ ~ 1:: ca >- >- u ca ca >- ~ ~ ~ ~
"" 0 0 >>- '" >>- >>- "" t 0 0 0 0
tIl ill u u OJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill g ~ u u u u
("I ... ... - " - - - ... ... :u ...
... s " .g gj, ~ gj, ~ '8 :a :a s ~-g i " .1:j .g
~ - -g "" "" Iii " - -g -g
8 " " ~ ~ " 8 0 0 "
;:> ;:> !Xl >>- !Xl >>- >>- U~ !Xl ;:> ;:> ;:> ;:>
ca 00 on 0 on '" on N on '" r- oo 0 '"
'0 ... 00 '" - - '" '" N 0 '" 00 00 ...
... on ... ... ... ... '" '" '" '" N N N N
0
== 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~
-< on
i:li: " on on on on on on on on 0 0 0 '" 0
i:li: '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
-<
~ 8 8 0 0 ~
i:li: ... 0 0 on on ... 0 0 '"
- - N r- N ... '" on ...
("I
>>-
tIl on
~ ("I 0 0 on 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 - so:
N ... N N ... N
-
~ ~ 00 <: <: -< <: <: <: r- <: <: 0 <: <:
~ - - z - - z z - - -
~ N Z Z Z Z N Z - Z Z
~ ...
"
- u on 0 0 0 0 on on on 0 0 0 - 0
tIl ... '" '" '" '" ... ... ... '" '" '" '"
tIl
-<
0 0 0 0 0 on 00 0 ...
I'l:l '" '" '" '" '" 0 on 00 '" 0 - 'C r-
- - - - - - 'C ... 00 - - r-
0 0 ~ 0 00 0 N ~ '" N
-< 'C 'C on - ... - on on 00 00 r-
- - - - - - - r- - 00 r-
oo oo
.~ "" - ~
u
~ '" " 0
'0 >Ll ~ '5' ""
U ~ ... iJ
oo " "" -'" 2 >>- :E g
j .0: '" ... -
'"
... 0 "" >>- ;; ca ~
0 "" i:li: ~ '" :E '"
"" '" "" 0 oo ::J 'C " E
'" ;;;: -g '" "" "" oo '" " ~ oo b'h Ci g
0 ~ 0 ;;;: 0 .5 05 >Ll
- '" ~ > ca '"
~ '" " ~ ~ '1:: 0 .~ ...
0; 'C " 0 u oo ... '" "" "" -
'" " "" .g g ~ ~ 0 ii: " g :E " " ca
~ "" 0 g, !Xl ! ..$ >Ll :E
'" '" "" D
0 ;:J S ..!! ca 0 - ...
N '" ;; '" - -
>>- ~ - '" '" '.0 ca :> 'E ii: 0; .,j g ca '"
z - '" >>- s - " .... - :i r;; :E
'" u '" ~
0 '" '" " j '" '" ~ 'S '" '" ~
"" is .5 "" '" - "" - u 0; -
- ... '" :E ... '" IE ... '"
... '" ;g '" - '" @ ~ .f!!
~ " - 0 '" ~ - ~ "" ~ ~
u ~ '" - - '" oo
ca '" ~ - oo '" '" ca '" ... ~ ...
("I "" " ;;;: ~ Eo-< b'h
~ u '" "" ~ " "" "" ~ U N N
tIl g ~ '" "" '" ~
i:li: 'C 0 '1:: 0 'C ~ " g ...
0 '" ~ ~ oo ... ~ >: '"
'" ..c: oo ~ '" ~ '" '" ~ :E
("I ... >-
~ g it! N ~ ;:: OJ) '0 ...
~ g '" '" '" ...
'" ca '" 8 ca ca '" u "
:E Pi " :E '" :E Pi z 0
- ..... >- >>- p., ~ >>- >>- ~ . . . .
ri M .f r-: 00 '" 0 - N '" ...
- on 'C - - - - -
Eo<
00
....
...::i
....
Eo<
~
o
~~
~....
~~
....
00
u
E
~
Eo<
.
~
~
~
~
'C
.!>
~
~
is
e
-E
"
0
'.p
'"
'"'
.~
u
'.p
"" ....
~ '"
P-
O) -
- 8 €
'"' 8
e '" is '"
0 ~ ~
u ~ u ~
i ~
.~ '"
>- u >-
'" ~ I ~
'" E - .~ -
r.l '" ~ 0)
Eo- .... .g
.... "g '"
0 '" 0)
z ~ P'l ~ P'l
.. 'f')
<-
- 'f')
0
Eo-
0
:I:: '"
~
-< 'f')
~ c.:; '"
~
-<
~ ~
~ ~
r.l
p-
'" 'f')
Eo- r.l <-
Z
-
~ -<
~ ~ Z
l.:i
Z 'f')
c.:; ""
- u
'"
'"
-<
= ?':
-
0
-< '"
-
~
j9
'"
"" ""
'" " ""
0 ..: I '"
~ .... 0
"" ~ t>~
'" '"
Ei ~ &l 0) 0
~ .~
.... o~
0 N -
P- ol '" u-
.... 0)
0) is ;g ~~
~ ;;; " 0
z - '" - -
0 '" "" 's !:l""
"" '" .... " '"
- '" ~ ~ 0) 0
Eo- 0 >~
u ~ .... .. -< ....
r.l 0)
.~ ~ u " -
'" '" o '"
~ .... 0) ~ ",,B
r.l '" ,.c:; .... u
"" g ~ .S
~ ....
'" ~ '" ~~
- ::s ~
'f') '" <- 00
- - - -
"
0.
.
'"
'"
'C
.9<
}
is
~
E
~
....
~ ~ ~
4-o.EE
000
,,:>:>
o
'.p t'l t'l
.g ~ ~
'S -'"
o !:l '"
u&:~
~Cl:I::
u
it
'"
....
f-< 0)
gJ ~
O.E~
S 0 ;!l
'.p :> 6h
r::: r::: .-
o '" '"
u..... <:)
....lilit
00)",
V'J r::: "'0 ~
ll) 0 iU E---
,,; Ei'.p P- '"
..!l -= 8 ~ 0)
..: ~ .... e <
-'" ~'s-
a5 ~ .s .- 8
-5] '::S-5
a.):E N I CI:l
~ u . (i'1 I
..!l:>:to""
'"'~-ZO
;G~d~Ez
:..!:l.1=< f:: ~ E
-g is Cl:S '-< ctl OJ
.0;;;. 0"'; ::: ~ '-' u
:::s . ~ ~ 5
r::: I.... ~._
~- r:!.-s t
~ .f-<:>sg ~
~ 0 -' . 6h~
Z S "".~ _
ll)..... 11) en I::
-!3"Up-_O)
.... e ~ . g ~
o ~ !\) r:::..c: U
>..=0;';;<:,)0
,;J?..s""",-<
j9
.g
.... .
&:..:a;iu~>Li
~
o
Z
ITEM NO.3
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM:
Ali Moghadam, P .E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
DATE:
May 13, 1999
SUBJECT:
Item 3
Discuss Scope of Work for the Proposed Meadowview Area Traffic
Circulation Study
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission provide input regarding the scope of work for the proposed study
for the Meadowview Area Traffic Circulation.
BACKGROUND:
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission has received and reviewed several traffic related issues in the
Meadowview area, including closure of Kahwea Road, Calle Pina Colada and Calle Medusa. At the meeting
of March 11, 1999 Commissioner Markham suggested that an overall circulation study be conducted for the
Meadowview area to evaluate the access points and alternative means of reducing cut-through traftic.
Statt' is in the process of developing and defining a scope for the proposed study. Input from the Commission
and residents should be included in the scope of the study to ensure that the study address the Commissions
concerns. The scope of the proposed study may include the following tasks.
. Review of all access points in and around the Meadowview Community
. Evaluation of needed improvements
. Evaluation of the existing traffic control devices
. Evaluation of need for additional traffic control devices
. Evaluation of sight distance at uncontrolled intersections
. Evaluation of potential impact by major projects in the area
. Meet with HOA and residents
. Feasibility of alternative access roads
. Determination of travel origination and destination poinl~
. Collection of additional vehicular speed and volume data
. Development of acceptable alternatives for reducing vehicular speed and volume
City Council will consider authorizing this study on May 11, 1999.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
r: \ll1ifric:kummissn\agendn\99\051399\mcltdowviewcircullajp
ITEM NO.4
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
ITEM NO.5
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
ITEM NO.6
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
ITEM NO.7
COMMISSION REPORTS