HomeMy WebLinkAbout070899 PTS AgendaIn ctlmpliance with the Americans with Disahilltlcs Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
the of 6ce of the City Clerk at (909) 694 6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangcments to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR35. 102.35. 104 ADA Title Ill
AGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
TO BE HELD AT
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California
Thursday, July 8, 1999 at 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMISSIONERS: Connerton, Edwards, Markham, Telesio, Coe
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__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with
the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the
Commission gets to that item. There is a 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 June 10, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of June 3, 1999 (Continued from the meeting of June 24, 1999)
1.2 Approve the Minutes of June 24, 1999
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Meadowview Area Circulalion Study
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a status report on the
Meadowview/North City Circulation Study
3. Median Island Modificaliuns - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Via Las Colinas
RECOMMENDATION:
3. I That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the feasibility of the Median Modifications
on Rancho Caliti~rnia Road between Ynez Road and Via Las Colinas and provide direction
to staff.
4. Protected/Permi&~ive Left-Turn Phasint,
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide further direction
to staff.
5. Traffic Engineer 's Report
6. Pulice Chief's Repor!
7. Fire Chief's Report
8. Cnmmission Repnrt
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
July 22, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
ITEM NO. I
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
JUNE 3, 1999
CALLTO ORDER
The City of Temecula Public/'l'raffic Safety Commission convened in a special meeting
at 6:04 P.M., on Thursday, June 3, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City
Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California.
FLAG SALUTE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Markham.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Markham, and Telesio, and
Chairman Coe.
Absent:
Commissioners Connerton, and Edwards.
Also Present:
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Engineer Moghadam,
Senior Management Analyst Papagolos,
Police Sergeant DiMaggio,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
1. Proposed Capital Improvement Proclram for the Fiscal Years 2000-2004
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and discuss the
proposed Capital Improvement Program for the Fiscal Years 2000-2004.
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the Cimulation Projects within the
proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be presented to the Commission
for their review and input; noted that, thereafter, the Commission's comments would be
forwarded to the City Council for their review on June 10, 1999; advised that the projects
have been categodzed, as follows: A) Projects that have been completed (or will be
completed dudng this fiscal year), B) Projects that are under construction, C) Projects
that are under design that will be entirely funded, inclusive of design, study, and
construction, D) Projects that are under design that will be funded solely for the design
portion of the project, with no current availability. for funding of the construction (clarified
the rationale for including this type project in the CIP as for the purpose of being
prepared to apply for applicable grant funding), and E) Future projects, solely identified,
without current availability of funding for the design, study, or construction of the project.
By way of slide overheads (operated by Senior Management Analyst Papagolos), Acting
director of Public Works Hughes presented the proposed Circulation portion of the CIP,
presenting the projects in categorical order, and as listed in the CIP.
A. Completed Projects (durin.cl the fiscal year)
- I-15 Bddge Widening, and southbound Loop-Ramp Project at Rancho
Califomia Road (Phase I)
- Southbound Ramp Widening Project at Winchester Road (Phase I)
- The Median Island on WincheSter Road, west of Jefferson Avenue
- The Front Street Widening, south of Rancho California Road -ties into
the Old Town Project
- Traffic Signals completed (dudng the fiscal year):
Rancho California Road/Via Las Colinas Road
Rancho Califomia Road/Meadows Parkway
Winchester Road/Enterprise Circle
Ynez Road/Tierra Vista
- Highway 79 South I-15 Interim Improvements
- Ynez Road Widening Project at Rancho California and Tierra Vista
B. Projects Under Construction
- Overland Ddve Overcrossing
- 1-15 southbound offramps (Phase II) at the Winchester Interchange
(additional auxiliary lane to the north), and the 1-15 southbound Offramp at
Rancho California Road
- The 1~ Street Bridge
- Additional Improvements at 1-15 and Rancho California Road
- Ovedand Road and Margadta Road improvements - for provision of
adequate circulation after the mall opening
- Winchester Road within the Ynez Road Widening
- Pala Road Bridge
- Margafita Road at Pauba Road - sidewalk improvements and
widening along the park area
2
Replacement of street signs in the Los Ranchitos area
Commissioner Markham specified that the replacement of street signs project would also
be inclusive of Santiago Ranches and Santiago Estates.
C. Projects Under Design (entirely funded)
Extension of Diaz Road to Date Street
- The Murdeta Bddge Crossing (between Rancho California Road and
Winchester Road)
- The Diaz Road Re-alignment to Vincent Moraga Road
- The Jefferson Avenue Median Project from Santa Gertrudis Creek to
Rancho California Road
The Rancho Califomia Road Widening east of Meadows Parkway
- The Winchester Widening between Jefferson Avenue and Enterpdse
Circle West
- Pauba Road Improvements (Phase II) - this project would include
additional widening along Pauba Road in order to serve the proposed
Library site
~ Replacement of two Traffic Signal Controllers (not currently Y2K
compliant)
- Additional Signal Interconnect Conduits - along Margadta Road, and
vadous remote areas on the outskirts of the City.
- Intersection Traffic Monitoring System (which would include remote
cameras at intersection locations in order to monitor traffic from City Hall)
Traffic Signals:
Additional flashing beacons at new school site
Pala Road/Loma Linda Road
Pala Road/Wolf Valley Road
Butterfield Stage Road/Rancho California Road
Margadta Road/De Portola Road
Margadta Road/Pio Pico Road
Margadta Road/Stonewood Road
With regard to the Winchester Road Widening Project, Commissioner Markham
recommended that after completion of the Ovedand Bridge Project, that a
dedicated right-turn lane be installed (eastbound on Winchester to southbound
on Jefferson Avenue) in order to direct traffic to Overland, relaying that the
current landowner has expressed a willingness to dedicate the right-of-way area;
and further recommended that the project be prioritized to Priority I, specifically,
at the east end of the Enterprise Circle Loop and Jefferson Avenue.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments with regard to the signal at
Margadta/Pio Pico Roads, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that
pdor to awarding that particular project, staff will bdng a report forward to the City
Council at the June 22, 1999 City Council meeting in order to address the
warrants for the signal and to present the schedule for the completion of
Meadows Parkway to Highway 79 South.
D. Project Under Desiqn (funded for desicln only)
-, Mumeta Bridge Crossing (north of Winchester Road) - potentially
located at Date Street or Cherry Street
- I-15/79 South Ultimate Interchange - to include funding to bring the
project report to completion, and to begin funding for the design services
- Widening of Pala Road (south of Pala Road Bridge)
- Feasibility Study which would potentially culminate into the design for
an Overpass Crossing of 1-15 at Date Street, Cherry Street or at an
alternate location
- Widening Improvement of Margarita Road from Pio Pico Road to
Highway 79 South
- Widening of Rancho California Bridge over Mumeta Creek
- Design of Butterfield Stage Road (Phase I) - contingent upon the
successful formation of an assessment distdct
- La Paz Street Widening from Ynez Road to Highway 79 South
In response to Senior Engineer Moghadam's querying, with regard to the Butterfield
Stage Road Extension Project, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that the
first phase would be from Nicolas Road to Rancho California Road (although the map
denotes La Serena Way); noted that the second district would be from Nicolas Road to
Mumeta Hot Springs Road, and then an extension of Murdeta Hot Springs Road to the
County line; and advised that this assessment district would be contingent upon
approval of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
With respect to the Butterfield Stage Road extension, with regard to the timing and
phasing of the project, Commissioner Markham suggested that staff investigate
pdoritizing the southerly portion of the project (from Rancho California Road to La
Serena Way, and then La Serena Way to the completed Bypasses) in order to attract
traffic to the Calle GerasoI-Calle Chapos-Walcott Lane Bypass.
E. Future Projects (not funded)
Mumeta Creek Improvements (Phase I and II)
- I-15 additional Interchange at Santiago Road
- Margarita Road Improvements (Phase II) from Pauba Road to Pio Pico Road
- Meadowview (North) Circulation Study
- Temecula Creek Crossing which would provide additional access to Highway
79 South in the southerly portion of the City
~ Ynez Road Widening from Rancho Vista to La Paz
- Western Bypass (Phase I and II)
For Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Markham provided additional clarification
regarding the Temecula Creek Crossing Project.
With respect to Commissioner Telesio's comments regarding the Bike Path Project,
Commissioner Markham specified that the project would be in compliance with the
General Plan; and advised that the project be considered in conjunction with the
Jefferson Avenue Median Project (and the associated turn lanes) in order to alleviate
any restrictions the median would impose on the installation of the bike paths, and,
additionally, in conjunction with the overall circulation in order to determine whether the
bike paths are still appropriate in the Jefferson Avenue/Ynez Road area; and suggested
relayed various alternate sites for the bike paths.
Regarding the above-mentioned Bike Path Project, Acting Director of Public Works
Hughes advised that the project has been brought forward by the Temecula Community
Service Department (TCSD) due to the obtaining of applicable grants to fund this
particular project; and relayed that he would forward the Commissioners comments to
TSCD.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that in order to qualify for certain federal
funding and particular grants there is a requirement to provide provision for alternative
transportation sources, advising that the funding of this particular project may be based
on specific criteria.
Chairman Coe recommended that the bike paths be installed, as proposed.
With regard to the Diaz Road Extension to Date Street, Commissioner Markham advised
that since Date Street will not go across the creek between Diaz Road and Adams
Avenue, that there be consideration to extend the extension to Elm Street, in light of the
fact that the City of Murrieta is considering an Elm Street Overcrossing.
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes advised that the City of Temecula is in the
continued process of meeting with the City of Mumeta to form an agreement on the
crossing of Mumeta Creek; and relayed that although the aforementioned extension's
location could be modified, the City of Temecula needs provision of a north/south
connection west of Mumeta Creek.
5
With regard to the I-15/South Ultimate Interchange (denoted on page 45 of the CIP),
Commissioner Markham advised that the map graphic should correctly reflect the intedm
alignment.
Commissioner Markham advised that with respect to the I-15 and Rancho California
Road Interchange Additional Improvements (denoted on page 48 of the CIP) that an
additional on-ramp (westbound to southbound loop) at the Steak Ranch location be
added into the CIP, although the project would entail relocating an existing building.
With respect to the 1-15 and Santiago Road Project (denoted on page 49 of the CIP),
Acting Director of Public Works relayed, for Commissioner Markham, that this project
would be funded solely for the feasibility study, relaying that there would be no current
funding for the design or construction, noting that the study would evaluate the area; and
advised that it could potentially be determined that no additional improvements may be
feasible.
Commissioner Markham noted that the map graphic (denoted on page 63 of the CIP),
should reflect the westbound to southbound I-15 Winchester Road on-ramp.
Regarding the Ynez Road Widening Project from Vista Road to La Paz Road (denoted
on page 109 of the CIP), Commissioner Markham recommended there be consideration
of measures to mitigate the potential acoustic impact to the adjacent neighborhood area
(i.e., berming, walls.)
With respect to the Margadta Road Improvement Project, (denoted on page 68 of the
CIP), Commissioner Markham recommended that the project be pdodtized as Pdodty 1;
and advised that since Pio Pico Road is currently being utilized as a cut-through street
that there be consideration to install a cul-de-sac in order to adequately address the
situation/
For informational putposed, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the warrant
analysis for the intersection at Pio Pico Road/De Portola Road revealed that 240
vehicles a day utilize that particular portion of Pio Pico Road.
Commissioner Telesio advised that the aforementioned area of discussion be further
analyzed after the construction on Highway 79 South is complete.
With regard to the Muftieta Creek Bddge Analysis Project (denoted on page 71 of the
CIP), Commissioner Markham advised that further analysis be performed in order to
investigate augmenting the turn-lane capability at Via Montezuma and Rancho Way at
the connection to Jefferson Avenue in order to direct traffic to Overland Drive, relaying
that due to the width of the aforementioned streets there is no existing provision for
turning movements.
Commissioner Markham queded with respect to the Murrieta Creek Bddge Crossing
Project (denoted on page 73 of the CIP), regarding the denotation of Date Street as the
proposed crossing, relaying that it could potentially be Cherry Street.
For Commissioner Markham and Police Sergeant DiMaggio, Acting Director of Public
Works Hughes relayed that the First Street Bddge Project is currently denoted in the CIP
as a Redevelopment Project, noting that the project will be funded by Redevelopment;
and confirmed that the aforementioned connection would be at Pujol Street.
For Police Sergeant DiMaggio, Commissioner Markham advised that in conjunction with
the aforementioned project there would be a Pujol Street Widening Project.
In response to Police Sergeant DiMaggio's concern with regard to high rates of vehicle
speed at Pujol/Main Streets, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes advised that a
warrant analysis of Pujol/Main Streets could be conducted in light of the 1'" Street Bddge
Project, noting that the results of the analysis could be brought back before the
Commission for their input.
For Commissioner Markham, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes provided
additional clarification regarding the pedestrian/bike overcrossing at Randno California
Road; and relayed that the aforementioned project has been categodzed as a future
project with no funding for study, design or construction.
For Chairman Coe, Commissioner Markham provided additional clarification regarding
the potential of Via Eduardo tying into Rainbow Canyon.
For Chairman Coe, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified the location of the
proposed school sites.
Commissioner Markham advised that the Murdeta Creek Improvements Phase I and II,
denoted as a Circulation Project should be categodzed under Infrastructure.
For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Engineer Moghadam specified that the Randno
California Road W~dening Project (denoted on page 83 of the CIP) would be widened to
four lanes without a median.
For Commissioner Markham, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed the
potential site for the proposed Fire Station.
After additional clarification from Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Commissioner
Markham advised that the previously discussed Via Eduardo Project be added to the
Circulation Element initially, as opposed to adding it directly to the CIP.
For clarification, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated the Commission's
comments, inviting their additional input, as to the specific Commission
recommendations that staff would relay to the City Council, as follows:
That the previously discussed Rainbow Canyon Project should be included in
the CIP for the purpose of diverting traffic from Highway 79 South
That an additional southbound on-ramp at the I-15 Rancho California
Interchange Project be added to the CIP
After additional discussion the recommendation regarding re-pdoritizing the
Randno California Bridge Widening Project was to recommend that the
project be pdoritized as Priority II.
After additional clarification from Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, it
was the consensus of the Commission to recommend inclusion as a future
project in the CIP, the addition of a Diaz Road Improvement adjacent to the
Creek, specifically, to include a four-lane Widening Project in this particular
area.
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the following comments have been
duly noted, but would not be relayed as recommendations to the City Council:
Recommended analysis of the Pio Pico Road area after the surrounding
improvements are complete.
Recommended analysis to provide turning movements at Jefferson Avenue
dependent on the location of the Murrieta Bddge Crossing.
That the comments regarding the bike paths would be addressed by staff
further investigating the matter and then bhnging additional information
regarding the project back to the Commission pdor to the initiation of the
project.
For Mr. Kenneth Ray, 31647 Pio Pico Road, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes
clarified the process and timing of the Pio Pico Road Signal Project; noted that the Street
Sign Project for Santiago Estates, Santiago Ranchos and the Los Ranchitos area is in
the process of being prepared for bid; advised that the Santiago Extension Project
Between Ynez and Margarita Roads is part of the Circulation Element, ultimately
identified as a necessary route, relaying that this particular project is not part of the five-
year CIP; and clarified the procedure for assessment district fees.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:30 Chairman Coe formally adjourned this meeting to a City Council/Commission
Workshop regarding: Brown Act/Conflict of Interest on Tuesday, June 15, 1999 at 6:00
P.M., and the next regular Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting will be on
Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman Charles Coe
Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
JUNE 24, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting
at 6:01 P.M., on Thursday, June 24, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula
City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California.
FLAG SALUTE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Telesio.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Connerton, Edwards, Telesio, and
Chairman Coe.
Absent:
Commissioner Markham.
Also Present:
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes,
Senior Engineer Moghadam,
Fire Battalion Black,
Police Sergeant DiMaggio,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Nelson Betancourt, 40835 Calle Medusa, relayed that he would like the matter of
the closure of Calle Medusa agendized; advised that by the City's standards he believes
that the street warrants closure; noted that the residents have funded a Traffic Count
Study revealing that the street generates approximately 5,000 tdps a day, and have
conducted surveys of the surrounding residents; relayed that he had himself been hit by
a vehicle in front of his house; and advised that the matter of closure of Calle Medusa be
scheduled for consideration at a Public Headng or the matter would potentially be
pursued legally.
For Mr. Betancourt, Chairman Coe recommended submittal of the traffic count study,
and the resident surveys for review pdor to agendizing the matter.
Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that he had initially presented Mr. Betancourt's
request to agendize the aforementioned issue at the May 13, 1999 Public/Traffic Safety
Commission meeting; noted that in light of the City Councils' determination to postpone
consideration of the Meadowview Study until after review of the CIP, it was the
recommendation of the Public/Traffic Commission to postpone the Calle Medusa matter;
and noted that due to the concern expressed from Mr. Betancourt that he was advised
that if it was his desire he could readdress the issue with the Commission dudng the
Public Comment portion of the meeting.
For Commissioner Connerton, Mr. Bedancour~ clarified the specific location of the area
of concam, specifically at Calle Medusa between La Serena and Nicolas Road.
Commissioner Telesio provided clarification with regard to the matter, relaying that
initially the Commission had recommended addressing the matter of closure of Calle
Medusa after completion of the Meadowview Study; noted that, subsequently, the City
Council determined that the study would be postponed until after mall opening; and
advised that due to the Council's determination, the Commission, therefore, had
recommended postponement of consideration of the matter.
Providing assurance for Mr. Betancourt, Commissioner Connerton relayed that once all
the data has been provided in order to address the facts of the matter adequately, that
the Commission would take action and agendize the matter.
In order to provide clarification regarding Mr. Betancourt's comment that Senior Engineer
Moghadam had not presented his request to agendize the matter at a Commission
meeting, Senior Engineer Moghadam read into the record, page 4, paragraphs 2-3, from
the minutes of the May 13, 1999 Public/Treffic Safety Commission meeting, referencing
the portion of the meeting at which point he addressed the Commission with the request,
and the Commission's recommendation to postpone the matter.
After submittal of the referenced data (surveys and traffic study) which would
substantiate Mr. Betancourt's concam, Chairman Coe requested that staff investigate
City standards as to whether or not the criteria has been met warranting the agendizing
of the issue.
Mr. Robert Purmont, 45099 Corte Valte, recommended that a stop sign be installed on
Loma Linda Road to control the rapid speed of vehicle traffic.
In response to Chairman Coe's querying, Senior Engineer Moghadam and Police
Sergeant DiMaggio relayed the data collected with respect to the Loma Linda area,
relaying that the average speed is less than 40 MPH (40 MPH being the highest cited
speed); and noted that recently additional speed limit signs have been installed in the
area of discussion.
Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that the area did not meet the warrants for
installation of stop signs.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes-May 13, 1999 and June 3, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
1.2
Approve the Minutes of May 13, 1999
Approve the Minutes of June 3, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 1999, as
written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Markham who was absent.
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the matter of approval of the June
3, 1999 minutes to the July 7, 1999 Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Request for Traffic Si.qnal Controls - Santia~lo Road at "C" Street
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny the request for
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Santiago Road and "C"
Street.
Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (of record); relayed that the initial
traffic study revealed that the area did not meet the warrants for installation of a traffic
signal; noted that due to a second request to evaluate the area specifically with respect
to parishioners being able to access Santiago Road, additional studies were performed
inclusive of both weekday and Sunday traffic volumes; relayed that justification for the
installation of traffic signals is based on 11 warrants that have been established by
Caltrans, noting that the analysis performed for the intersection indicated that one
warrant is met on Sunday; advised that since none of the warrants are satisfied on
weekdays, it is staff's recommendation to deny the request; presented alternatives due
to the impact involving pdmadly the church use and not the City as a whole, as follows:
1) that the church fund the installation of the signal, or 2) due to the limited hours the
traffic is generated, that the church hire a uniformed officer to assist with the direction of
traffic on Sundays; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the vehicle code states that
only a uniformed officer can direct traffic; for Chairman Coe, advised that at alternate
sites, signals have been installed and funded by the entity which benefited from the
signalization; for Commissioner Connerton, relayed that the cost of installing the signal
would be approximately $120,000, with an additional annual cost of $5,000 for energy
and maintenance.
For Commissioner Edwards, Police Sergeant DiMaggio advised that one officer could
adequately direct traffic at the intersection, relaying that there is a four-hour minimum on
an off-duty basis at a cost of approximately $75 an hour.
Father Anthony DiLeo, 43981 C Street, specified that the church holds six services on
the weekend, with 200 vehicles exiting at one time, creating chaos; advised that the
traffic would increase to 400 vehicles after the church's expansion; relayed the he directs
traffic on Sundays due to the padshioner's fear in exiting the parking lot; and for
Connerton, noted that the services were held Saturday evenings, Sunday mornings, and
Sunday evenings.
In response to Chairman Coe's quedes with respect to the church participating in the
funding of the signalization due to the fact that the project may benefit only the church,
Father DiLeo relayed that due to the use being utilized by 25% of the population that the
City should participate in the installation of the signal.
For Commissioner Telesio, Father DiLeo clarified that 25% of the Temecula residents
are Catholic.
Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed the improvements the City has funded in the area of
concern, as follows: approximately one and-a-half years ago Santiago Road was re-
striped for provision of a left-tum lane, and there was provision made for a left-turn
pocket onto C Street; advised that the church's plan to expand was approved many
years ago; and noted that if the request to expand was proposed at this point in time, the
City would have requested a traffic study which would have revealed that a signal would
be required and the development would have been conditioned to install the signal.
In response to Commissioner Edward's suggestion for the parish to utilize volunteer
police officer parishioners to direct traffic, Police Sergeant DiMaggio advised that there
would be liability issues with respect to the officers not working, specifically regarding
workmen's compensation.
Mr. Frank Miklas, 30625 Avenue Buena Suerte, noted that he was advised not to direct
traffic voluntarily as an off-duty Highway Patrol Officer due to the workmeWs
compensation issue; relayed that the church parking lot is impacted by parking for
weekend City activities (i.e., the Rod Run); and requested that the City participate in the
signalization project due to a large portion of the community being impacted.
Chairman Coe relayed his own personal history with respect to his own church's
expansion project; and advised that after requesting the City to fund the street project
associated with the expansion project, ultimately the church was required to fund the
costs associated with the signal; and advised that for this particular project, the church
consider the matter of funding the signal as a part of the expansion program.
Commissioner Connerton relayed that the financial comparison between hiring officers
verses the church funding the installation of the signal would be that the signal
installation would be justified in less that four years, yielding a long-term lower cost; and
suggested continuing the matter in order for the church to consider participating in the
funding of the signal.
Commissioner Edwards relayed that while she could not support the project being
installed by the City, she had no objection to continuing the matter.
After additional Commission discussion with the representatives of the church, Acting
Director of Public Works clarified for informational purposes that the Commission's
charge was not to present offers with respect to the City funding a portion of the signal;
and advised that the Commission make a recommendation to deny or approve the
request for the installation of the signal.
Commissioner Edwards relayed that if the Commission recommended approval of the
request, conditioning the church to fund the project that the matter would go before the
City Council and at that time the church could be prepared to present their contributory
ability to fund the project.
Commissioners Connerton and Telesio relayed that based on the analysis provided they
could not support the City funding the entire project.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the request for installation of the
signal, conditioning the church to fund the costs associated with the project.
Commissioner Connerton seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Markham who was absent.
Re~luest for Multi-Way Stop Controls - Via Cordoba between Redhawk
Parkway and Via Del Coronado
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request for Multi-Way
Stop Controls at the following intersections:
Via Cordoba at Court Zodta;
Via Cordoba at Loma Linda Road; and
Via Cordoba at Corte BravoNia Salito
By way of overheads, Senior Engineer Moghadam presented the staff report (per
agenda material); noted that the request was generated from community concern with
regard to speed and traffic in the area; relayed that the analysis revealed that none of
the intersections warrant installation of a stop sign; advised that (per Caltrans standards)
stop signs are effective in controlling dght-of-way assignments and not speed; relayed
that the volume counts revealed that the traffic impact is generated from the residential
area and not from cut-through traffic, specifying the details of the data; provided
additional information with respect to speed in the area; and for Commissioner
Connerton, confirmed that two of the three proposed stop signs would be
3-way stop signs.
The following individuals relayed their desire for installation of the stop signs:
Mr. Robert Purmont
Mr. William Kelley
Mr, Larry Vicino
Mr. Matthew Dixon
Ms. Janet Dixon
Mr. Theodore Angle
Mr. Jeff Jones
Mr. Chades Hankley
Ms. Keli Jones
Miss Camellia Mclntosh
Ms. Kim Ciabattini
45099 Corte Valle
31542 Via San Carlos
31850 Via Cordoba
31860 Via Cordoba
31860 Via Cordoba
31750 Via Cordoba
31675 Via. Cordoba
31745 Via Cordoba
31675 Via Cordoba
31990 Via Cordoba
32000 Via Cordoba
The aforementioned individuals relayed their concerns and comments, as follows:
Stop signs are effective in controlling speed
The area is impacted by additional traffic due to soccer activities on weekends,
(also impacting the area with double parking on the streets)
The area is used as a short cut from Pala Road and the Redhawk area
,~ Resident Highway Patrol Officer has clocked speeds of 40-50 MPH in the area
· -'Not safe for children to play in their own neighborhood
Relayed a desire to be individually noticed of Public Hearings regarding this
issue
,~ Appealed to the City to not wait until a death occurs to address the issue
,~ Queried the results of the survey
· ~Suggested increased police enforcement
· ~The danger is emotionally upsetting
· -'Placing house for sale due to the danger
For informational purposes, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Commission serves
as a recommending body, and did not have the power to approve of deny the installation
of stop signs, but only to make a recommendation.
One individual spoke in opposition to the installation of stop signs listed, as follows:
z~ Mr. Mario Carvajal 31645 Via Cordoba
The aforementioned individual relayed the following concerns and comments:
· ~Read the data and concurred with the analysis
~' Not enough traffic to warrant a stop sign
· ~Stop signs do not control speed
· ~The speed of vehicles is negatively affected by the street sloping
· -'Recommended increase in traffic enforcement
Commissioner Connerton relayed that while he concurred with community input with
respect to the speed in the area, that since stop signs would not address the problem,
he would recommend increased police enforcement.
Concurring with Commissioner Connerton, Commissioner Edwards advised that the stop
signs would provide a false sense of security; and ensured the community that if stop
signs were effective tools in reducing speed, the commission would recommend the
installation of stop signs; and recommended additional enforcement for speed violators.
Police Sergeant DiMaggio relayed that the majority of citations issued in the area of
discussion were issued to residents in the area.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that the City of Temecula has installed stop signs in
alternate areas due to community concern regarding speed, and the data has revealed
6
that the stop signs are ineffective for controlling speed; advised that the only solution for
the control of speed is traffic enforcement; and commended the public for taking the time
to address their comments to the Commission.
For Chairman Coe, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that it would be possible to
install additional speed limit signs; and reiterated that the analysis revealed that 1400 out
of 2200 ddvers in the area are ddving within a reasonable speed; noted that with respect
to individual notification of the headng, that all members of the public in the area of
discussion who had contacted staff via phone correspondence over the past few years
were noticed of the headng via a phone call; and in response to community comment,
relayed that the City has recently extended a right-turn lane on Pala Road at Highway 79
South.
For Chairman Coe, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that although the
data reveals that stop signs are not warranted, if the City Council determines to install
stop signs, the stop signs would be enforceable; and advised that City installation of
unwarranted stop signs could potentially involve the City in liability issues with regard to
accidents associated with the stop signs.
Chairman Coe expressed that he was opposed to the installation of unwarranted stop
signs; advised that the children should not be in the streets; noted that due to similar
matters with respect to the Commission recommending denial of unwarranted stop
signs, and the City Council appmving the stop signs due to the appeals of the
community, that he would, therefore vote to approve the request.
MOTION: Commissioner Connerton moved to deny the request for the installation of
stop signs. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion.
For Commissioner Edwards, Police Sergeant DiMaggio advised that there is heavy
police enforcement in the area of concern; noted that it would be maintained; and
relayed that due to the community comments he would increase enforcement on
Saturdays due to the sports activities, and the associated traffic impacts.
At this time voice vote was taken and reflected approval of the motion with the exception
of Chairman Coe who voted n_,Qo and Commissioner Markham who was absent.
Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that to have the matter agendized for a City Council
meeting, a member of the public would need to address the Council dudng the Public
Comment portion of the meeting and present their request that the matter be agendized.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Senior Engineer Moghadam invited the Commissioners to provide input with
respect to the Planning Applications provided to them.
For informational purposes, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the
Engineer's report (per agenda material) was inclusive of the high-accident
locations, and a list of improvement projects, and the status of those projects.
For Commissioner Connerton, Senior Engineer Moghadam provided additional
clarification regarding the stdping project at Rancho California Road.
For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that with respect
to the project at Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue the cost of the signs
associated with the project was approximately $1,000.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Police Sergeant DiMaggio commended Commissioner Edwards for her recent
assistance with respect to an overturned mobile home on Winchester Road on
the 1-15 overpass.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No comments.
COMMISSION REPORTS
For Commissioner Connerton with respect to the dead vegetation located on the
newly constructed on and off-ramps at Rancho California Road, Acting Director
of Public Works Hughes relayed that the plants are still under warranty, noting
that staff has contacted the contractor in order to address the issue.
Commissioner Connerton relayed that in five days he has received approximately
ten phone correspondences with respect to the traffic control at Diaz Road and
Rancho California Road, recommending additional enforcement in the area with
regard to vehicles blocking the intersection; and with regard to the Wolf Valley
Ranch project, recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review
the project, with respect to traffic impact prior to the project being presented to
the Planning Commission.
For Commissioner Telesio, Acting Director of Public Works Hughes clarified the
street projects with regard to trenching and the phases of improvement.
Commissioner Edwards commended the Police Department for their diligent
efforts regarding the overturned mobile home on the Winchester Road 1-15
Overpass.
Commissioner Edwards commended Administrative Secretary Pyie for her
diligent efforts regarding the provision of an excellent, comprehensive agenda
packet.
For Commissioner Edwards with respect to the median project at Randno
California Road, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the medians would be
landscaped.
For informational purposes, Commissioner Edwards relayed that the construction
of the pedestrian ramp associated with the Margadta Road Improvements has
been completed, noting that the Commission recommended project was very
functional; and thanked the Community Service Commission for their diligent
efforts associated with the project.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:29 Chairman Coe formally adjourned this meeting to Thursday, July 8, 1999 at
6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman Chades Coe
Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle
9
ITEM NO. 2
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~'~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
July 8, 1999
Item 2
Meadowview Area Circulation Study
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a status report on the Meadowview/North City
Circulation Study.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of March 11, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission reviewed a request from the
residents of Calle Pina Colada to consider closing this street. After some discussions and receiving testimony
from the residents of the area, the Commission directed staff to conduct a comprehensive circulation study of
the Meadowview area and provide a status report in 90 days. It was also requested that the speed undulation
issue be presented at the April 1999, Commission meeting.
At the meeting of April 29, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a staff report that discussed
the possible construction of a bypass roadway within the Metropolitan Water District's titcility easement
between La Serena Road and Del Rey Road. After a discussion of the alternatives preented in the staff relx>rt
and receipt of public testimony, the Commission directed staff to include the bypass roadway alignment study
with the Meadowview Circulation Study.
Also presented at the April 29, 1999 Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting, was the Calle Pina Speed
Undulation issue. Following staff's pre~ntation and receiving public testimony, the Commission reaffirmed
the speed undulations until the completion of the Meadowview Circulation Study. Staff was asked to explore
alternatives to expedite the study process.
Due to the broad scope of the Meadowview Circulation Study and the limited City staff resources, it was
recommended that an outside consulting firm conduct the study. The funding tar the proposed study was
considered in the five (5) year Capital Improvement Program and it was not approved tier Fiscal Year
1999/2000.
Since the circulation study was not included in the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 budget, staff could conduct specific
studies for this area as requested by the residents and the Commission. Also, the residents of Calle Pina
Colada have the option to request that staff investigate the possibility of removing the speed undulations on
Calle Pina Colada by submitting a petition.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachmenls:
1. Exhibit "A" - Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Agenda Reports and Minutes of March 11, 1999 and April 29, 1999
EXHIBIT "A"
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
All Moghadam, P.E.. Senior Engineer, Traffic
March 11, I999
Item 2
Request for Street Closure - Calle Pina Colada
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request to close Calle Pina Colada west of Salt River
Court.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a petition signed by approximately 46 residents of the area requesting that a barrier be
installed on Calle Pina Colaria between the Meadowview and Ridgeview Communities.
Calle Pina Colaria is a 44 foot wide residential collector street between La Semna Way and Del Rey Road.
A 25 MPH speed limit is currently posted on Calle Pina Colada. The speeding issue on Calle Pina Colaria
was reviewed several years ago by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council. As a
result, speed humps and appropriate signage were installed on Calle Pina Colada.
Speed studies conducted on February 8 and September 14. 1993 indicate 85m percentlie speeds of 31 and
34 MPH respectively. A similar study in 1994 indicated an 85a' percentile speed of 27 MPH. Also, in
November 1998, the City conducted a comprehensive speed and volume study for a period of one (1)
week. The results of the new data indicate that although the majority of drivers travel through Calle Pina
Colaria at a masonable speed, speeding does occur on this roadway. It should be noted that speed data was
collected mid-point between the existing speed humps.
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Calle Pina Colada is approximately 1,400. Based on the number of
homes fitat access Calle Pina Colaria and tripe generation rates established by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), an ADT of approximately 500 can be expected.
Recently, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommended that Kahwea Road be permanently closed
to through traffic. Additional road closures in the area could adversely affect other residential
neighborhoods and adjacent roadways. In addition, since vehicular speeding occurs on majority of
residential street and requests for street closures are common. we recommend that other alternatives such
as enforcement of the existing speed limits. striping centerline, parking lanes and bicycle lanes to narrow
down the travel lanes be considered and implemented prior to considering road closure. Consideration
should also be given to emergency response time when closing any public street to through traffic.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Volume and Speed Data
3. Exhibit "C" - Street Closure Policy
TRAFFIC PETITION
";-CS-99AO::ZC REF:
With coheres of speeding cam and increased traffic on the residential 8tmet of Calle PIns Colada, this
petition is being circulated by the rtBiclents to request that a barrier be placed at the homer Of Meadowvisw
and Ridgeview, west of Slit River C,t. The PeUUon will be preented to the City of Temecil' Public Worlm
Director and the City Council.
DATE
/~y~y~z
/,,y.r
F;
i" <" ~r., ~"J h. -;,.: --'/
. , /E-?
(~7~,, -6.zq I
/.
32, ~
~.~ ,,
31. J~., W .... ~, ~
TRAFFIC PETITION
Wiffi concerns of speeding cam and incr,ased b"aWic on the midential ttrlet Of Calle Pina Col,tdl.. this
petition i~ being circulated by the midenm to mqueet that · barrier be pllce(! at the border olr MeldowvMw
and Ridgeview, west of Sa/t R/vet Ct. The Petition wlll be presented to the City of Teme~uli Public Worlm
DirectoF and ~e City Council.
NAME
41.
42.
L
45.
47.
8.
49.
51.
57.
59.
60.
62.
63.
64.
65.
67.
70.
72.
74.
7~.
?~.~
Page2of3
ADDRESS PHONE
%,/,2 ~' C:~jcz/-~/Uc ,"z.,{;~ ,z',c ;' ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~,~c o ~ C~-.'~,~,',
~lZ~'
DATE
~ .~'- c,'7.,~r~ [ ' ~ ~ ~',~
October 3. 1998
Teresa G. Rimmer
30732 CaMe Pina Colada
Temecula, CA 92591-1551
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
Re: Street Barricade
Dear City Manager and City Council:
I am writing to request a bamcade in the middle ofCalle Pina Colada. between La Serena
and Del Rey Road. between the developments of Meadowview and Ridgeview.
This street is incredibly unsafe due to the traffic conditions, and the spe~ds at which cars
travel along Calle Pina Colada. The type of speed bump instaMed along the street is
absolutely useless and does not require one to slow down hardly at all. Recently, radar
detectors have been present on the street; however, these do nothing ~nless someone is
handing out speeding tickets.
We also have a very large amount of vandalism. Just about every weekend. mailboxes on
the street are damaged. and trash is strewn all over. Moreover, the mailbox damage is n~t
minor, and has required a lot of repair and cement work by other neighbors and myself.
Please consider placing a barricade in the location listed above. Meadowview is a private
neighborhood and does not need to serve as the city. '~short cut". There are plenty of other
access roads.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
/ '~Z~,~-~ ,
Teresa G. Rimmer
cc: Mr. Joe Kicak
Director of Public Works
,/
February 2],, 1998
City of Temecula
c/o Joe Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
A division of RBCM, Inc.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Traffic concerns along Calle Pins Colads in the Ridgeview Rancho California
Homeowners' Association
Dear Mr. Kicak:
In response to your request during our telephone conversation of the other day, I am writing to you
to voice the coneeros of the membership for the above mentioned association with respect to traffic
problems along Calle Pina Colada.
In particular, they are concerned with the mount of traffic and the speed at which this traf~c is
traveling along the roadway. It is of the opimon of several owners that live along Calle Pina
Colada, that the majority of this traffic is the result of ingress and egress to the Meadowview
Association. As a result of this preliminary finding, several concerned residents would like to see
the City limit the accessibility of this roadway. It has been suggested, again by these residents, that
some form ofbarner be placed in the roadway where the two association's meet,
With this in mind, we ask your help with the following: To conduct a traffic study along Calle
Pina Colada to help determine the source of the traffic, a meeting with yourself and the Board of
Directors of the Association to discuss this issue and the findings of the study and, a
recommendation to the City Council that will alleviate this traffic problem.
I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation regarding this matter and I will await your
response. As always, should you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, please do
not hesitate to call my office.
Sincerely,
Tim McLean
Project Manager
for Ridgeview R.C. Homeowners' Association
co: Board of Directors
11717 Bernardo Plaza Ct., Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92128
Business: (619) 485-0881 · Service: (619) 485-0672
FAX: (619) 485- 7844
27720 Jefferson Ave., Suite 101
Ternecula, CA 92590
Business: (909) 699-1220 · Accounting: (888) 336-4438
FAX.' (909) 699-1661
EXt-lmIT "A-
LOCATION MAP
CALLE PINA COLADA/
~ / / ~
/
/
WIll
EXHIBIT "B"
VOLUME AND SPEED DATA
SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 2
STREET : Calte Pina Cotada FILE: PinscoLa
LIMITS : 100, East of De{ Rey
: DATE: 9/03/98
.E ....... e/b .............. w/b ............ CGI48INED ..... DAY: TNURSDAY
BEGIN AH PN AN PN AN PN
12:00 0 16 0 9 0 25
1:00 1 10 1 12 Z 22
1:30 0 7 0 1 0 8
1:45 I 2 7 38 0 2 10 30 1 4 17 68
2:00 0 20 0 11 0
2:15 1 21 0 18 1 39
2:30 1 22 0 19 1
2:45 0 2 30 93 0 0 16 64 0 2 46 157
3:00 0 21 0 29 0 50
3:15 0 17 0 27 0
3:30 0 27 0 9 0 36
3:45 0 0 12 77 1 1 14 79 I I 26 156
4:00 0 10 0 15 0 25
~:15 1 24 4 9 5
~:45 1 Z
5:00 0 30 1 14 1 44
5:15 0 20 1 21 1 41
5:30 2 17 4 12 6 29
5:45 3 5 19 86 8 9
15 2 21 4 11 6 32
6:30 11 26 6 8 17 34
6:45 11 25 16 80 20 34 10 45 31 59 26 128
7:00 36 16 6 16 42 32
7:15 36 12 11 14 47 26
7:30 16 12 14 S 30 17
7:45 13 101 7 47 14 45 10 45 27 146 17 92
8:00 15 7 6 5 21 12
8:15 17 9 12 7 29 16
8:30 24 6 17 5 41 11
8:45 18 74 4 26 20 55 7 24 30 129 11 50
9:00 3 9 10 8 13 17
9:15 12 10 7 7 19
9:30 3 3 6 5 9 8
9:45 9 27 4 26 7 30 6 26 16 57 10 52
10:00 6 3 9 3 15 6
10:15 6 6 7 2 13 0
10:30 4 2 6 2 10 4
10:45 15
11:00 10 I 10 0 20 1
11:15 9 2 6 0 15 Z
11:30 18 0 9 2 27 Z
11;45 18 50 Z 5 9 34 2 4 22 84 4 9
TOTALS 322 595 249 489 571 1084
DAY TOTALS 917 7~J8 1655
SPLIT % 56.4 54.9 4].6 45.1
.K HOUR 7:00 2:45 8:15 2:30 6:45 2:30
vOLUME 101 95 59 91 150 181
P,H,F. 0.70 0.79 0,74 0,78 0.80 0.90
ITE CODE: 00000000 CXTY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 1
TREET : CatLe Pina CoLada F/LE: cpcZ
IHITS : Bravos to Yuba
: ~estbound Onty DATE: 3/11/~
INE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVE
,EGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 56-~0 ~1-~5 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 ~-70 70+ (NPH)
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SiTE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TENEODLA PAGE: Z
STREET : CaLte P~na Cokada FILE: cpc2
LIMITS : Bravos to Yt~oa
: westbound Onty DATE: 3/12/98
.E TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERJ~GE
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (NPB)
12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 49 0 4 7 16 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
9:00 28 0 6 6 3 5 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
10:00 39 0 3 3 16 9 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
11:00 35 0 0 8 9 8 ? 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
12:00 PM 37 0 2 8 18 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
1:00 44 1 4 7 16 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
2:00 66 0 3 11 26 14 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
3:00 70 0 1 4 22 19 15 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 33
4:00 66 0 4 13 Z2 13 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 30
5:00 84 0 5 16 33 17 ? 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 29
6:00 55 0 1 10 12 18 6 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 32
7:00 36 0 0 5 9 11 5 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 33
8:00 25 0 2 3 7 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 31
9:00 27 0 2 7 5 6 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 30
10:00 14 0 1 3 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 8 0 O I 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 34
DAY TOTAL 683 1 38 112 218 161 92 45 10 6 0 0 0 0
;ITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEI~CULA PAGE: )
;TREET : CaLLe Pina Cotada FILE: cpc2
.INITS : Bravos to Yuba
: westbound OnLy DATE: 3/13/98
FINE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AV~
lEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (NPH)
12:00 AN 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
1:00 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
Z:O0 2 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
3:00 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 53
4:00 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
5:00 4 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
6:00 27 0 1 5
7:00 82 0
8:00 63 0 1 14 22 14 S 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 30
9:00 31 1 4 9 7 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Z7
10:00 31 1 5 8 7 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
[1:00 27- 0 2 7 8 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
12:00 PN 37 0 2 11 15 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
1:00 50 1 6 12 14 9 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 28
2:00 65 0 3 12 28 16 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
3:00 71 2 2 11 22 19 11 4 0 0 0 O 0 0 30
4:00 6~ 0 0 11 30 8 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 30
5:00 77 0 4 15 24 24 5 3 I 1 0 0 0 0 29
6:00 51 0 1 11 14 11 8 Z Z 2 0
7:00 49 0 Z 6 12 16 5 5
8:00 22 0 0
9:00 28 0 0 5 13 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 29
I0:00 23 0 0 4 7 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 19 O 1 1 6 4 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 35
}AY TOTAL 829 5 35 164 271 197 89 43 16 7 2 0 0 0
SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECIJLA PAGE: 4
STREET : Ce/te Pfna CoLada FILE: cpc2
LIMITS : Bravos to Yuba
: Westbound Onty DATE: 3114198
; TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERAGE
BEGIN COUNTEO 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPH)
12:00 AM 13 0 0 0 2
1:00 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
2:00
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 6 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 14 0 0 0 5
8:00 33 0 2 4 11 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 38 0 1 7 10 13 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 31
10:00 58 1 3 8 16 16 11 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 30
11:00 41 3 1 8 14 9 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 28
12:00 PM 56 0 3 22 16 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 49 Z 1 10 14 12 9 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
2:00 39 0 4 6 10 10 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 30
3:00 53 0 5 11 21 3 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
4:00 45 0 3 7 19 8 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 29
5:00 58 0 7 13 22 7 ? 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 28
6:00 50 0 2 12 14 8 ? 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 31
7:00 23 0 3 4 5 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
8:00 20 0 0 7 6 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 29
9:00 21 0 0 4 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
10:00 20 0 1 1 6 6
11:00 16 0 1 1 5 4
DAY TOTAL 663 6 38 127 205 135 98 34 15 2 3 0 0 0
;ITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECtJLA PAGE: 5
;TREET :Catte Pina Cotada FILE: cpc2
.IMITS : Bravos to Yuba
: Westbour~ Only DATE: 3/15/O~
'XME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPN) AV,
lEGIN COtJNTED 0-15 1&-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (MPR)
[Z:O0 AM 7 0 0 1 Z 0 1 Z 1 0 0 0 0 0 35
1:00 5 0 0 1 2 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 32
2:00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 2 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
4:00 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
5:00 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 O 35
6:00 6 0 1 1 2 2 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 Z7
7:00 8 0 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
8:00 15 0 0 1 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
9:00 23 1 1 1 8 5 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 31
IO:OO 28 0 1 4 6 8 8 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 44 0 2 9 14 7 4 5 Z I 0 0 0 0 31
12:00 PM 24 0 0 11 9 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
1:00 51 1 3 12 16 10 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 29
2:00 50 2 1 12 18 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
3:00 43 0 S 7 8 9 9 4 0 1 0 O 0 0 31
4:00 39 1 S 7 12 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
5:00 49 O 4 7 7 19 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
6:00 32 0 0 5 9 10 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
7:00 20 0 0 4 7 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
8:00 27 0 1 5 8 7 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 32
g:O0 9 0 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 30
10:00 5 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
ql:OO 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 O O 0 0 33
TOTAL 495 5 24 92 141 117 71 34 5 5 1 0 0 0
SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECtJLA PAGE: 6
STREET : Calle Pina Colada FILE: cpc2
LINITS : Bravos to Yuba
: westbound Only DATE: 3/16/98
,E TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERAGE
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-SS 56-60 61-65 66-70 70~ (NPH)
12:00 AM 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1:00
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 27 0 2
7:00 76 0 1 11 28 18 12 4 1 I 0 0 0 0
8:00 74 1 2 14 22 15
9:00 24 1 3 7 2 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
10:00 19 0 2 4 6 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
11:00 33 0 2 8 6 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
12:00 PM 32 1 5 6 9 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 28
1:00 38 0 1 14 10 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
2:00 74 1 4 11 25 16 B ? 2 0 0 0 0 0 30
3:00 84 I 2 14
4:00 71 0 1 10 25 13 13 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 32
5:00 84 0 0 18 38 20 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 29
6:00 51 1 3 12 13 11 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
7:00 29 0 0 5 9 5 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 32
8:00 21 0 1 4 3 6 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 33
9:00 17 0 0 3 4 3 4 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 33
10:00 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35
DAY TOTAL 777 6 29 148 235 180 113 49 15 3 1 0 0 0
;TE COOE: 00000000 CZTY OF TENECULA PAGE: 7
rREET : Carte Pina Cotada FILE: cpc2
[NITS : Bravos ~o Yuba
: wesTbound only DATE: ]/17/98
INE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVE,
~GIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 Z1-25 Z6-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 ~6-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (NPN)
Z:00 AN S 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ]5
1:00 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Z:O0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
~:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
5:00 5 0 1 0 1 1 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
6:00 ZB 0 1 2 8 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
7:00 75 1 Z 19 19 18 8 S 2 0 1 0 0 0 30
B:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
~:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D:O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AY TOTAL 122 1 5 21 29 31 21 10 3 0 1 0 0 0
SITE COOE: 00000000 CTTY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 1
STREET : Calle Pina coLada FILE: cpceb
LIMITS : West of Salt River
: Eastbound Only DATE: 3/11/98
~ TOTAL SPEED RANGE8 (NPH) AVERAGE
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-~5 ~6-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 6~-70 70+ (MPH)
11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ZTE CODE: 00000000 CZTY OF TENECULA PAGE: 2
~TREET : CaLLe Pina CoLada FXLE: cpceb
.XNITS : West of SaLt River
: Eastbound Only DATE: 3/lZ/9R
fINE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPN) AV,
3EG]N COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51~55 56*60 61-G5 66-70 710+ (NPH)
12:00 AN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 15 3 Z 7 1 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
8:00 6Z 6 17 Z6 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZZ
9:00 31 Z 8 14 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
10:00 22 1 5 8 S 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z3
11:00 30 0 7 9 12 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
12:00 PN 51 4 10 22 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
1:00 46 1 12 17 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
2:00 67 1 15 30 12 8 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 24
3:00 73 1 16 30 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
4:00 67 1 15 25 19 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z4
5:00 79 1 16 33 20 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 67 2 10 25 ~ 6 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 24
7:00 34 1 9 9 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
8:00 35 1 6 7 13 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
9:00 17 0 6 4 2 3 1 O I O 0 0 0 0 25
10:00 8 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
11:00 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
DAY TOTAL 707 25 155 269 176 67 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
SZTE CCOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 3
STREET : Calte Pina Colada FILE: cpceb
LIMITS : west of Sa(t River
: Eastbound Only DATE: 3113198
~ TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERAGE
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 7(3+ (MPH)
12:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
1:D0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 5 0 I 3 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 23
5:00 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 20 0 6 7 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 51 2 5 17 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
8:00 63 5 12 27 15
9:00 27 0 5 12 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 32
11:00
12:00 PM
1:00
2:00 75 4 23 22 18 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,33
3:00 87 1
~:00 6~ 0 13 32 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
5:00 61 0 15 27 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
6:00 67 2 19 25
7:00 50 0 10 19 17
8:00 39 1 6 14 12 5 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
9:00
10:00 13 0 2
11:00 31 1 7 7 11 2
DAY TOTAL 835 25 17S 318 237 60 15 5 0 0 0 O 0 0
SZTE CGOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENE{3JLA PAGE: 4
STREET : Carte Pina CoLada FILE: cpceb
L[NZTS : West of SaLt River
: Eastbound only DATE: 3/14/o~
TIME TOTAL SPEED RANGES (MPH) A~
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 Zl-Z5 26-30 31-35 36-&0 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 ~-70 70+ (NPN)
12:00 AM 14 1 0 4 4 3 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z8
1:00 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
2:00 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 26
3:00 Z 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
4:00 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
5:00 5 0 1 I Z 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
6:00 7 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2~
7:00 20 0 6 7 6 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 24
8:00 28 0 6 15 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
9:00 37 2 10 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
10:00 38 0 6 12 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
11:00 54 1 17 19 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2~
12:00 PM 45 2 11 19 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
1:00 45 8 9 13 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
2:00 62 5 24 ZZ 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
3:00 48 3 8 17 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
4:00 42 3 14 15 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
5:00 50 3 12 24 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
6:00 54 2 18 26 6 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
7:00 27 0 8 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2~
8:00 24 2 2 8 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
9:00 29 1 9 9 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
10:00 24 0 7 9 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
11:00 12 0 0 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
DAY TOTAL 674 33 170 263 142 54 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 5
STREET : Calle Pina Colada FILE: cpceb
LINITS : West of Salt River
: Eastbound Only DATE: 3/15/D8
AE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AVERAGE
BEGZN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+ (NPH)
12:00 AM 9 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
1:00 3 0 0 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
2:00 4 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
3:00 7 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
4:00 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
5:00 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
6:00 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
7:00 12 0 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
8:00 17 0 4 8 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
9:00 29 0 7 12 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
10:00 32 0 5 15 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
11:00 35 1 7 15 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
12:00 PH 37 3 11 13 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1:00 54 1 13 26 6 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
2:00 45 1 10 17 11 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
3:00 42 0 10 16 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
4:00 45 Z 11 13 11 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
5:00 41 1 14 15 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
6:00 40 2 12 15 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
7:00 30 1 5 10 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
8:00 25 1 4 15 2 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
9:00 15 1 2 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
10:00 10 0 1 1 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
11:00 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
DAY TOTAL 544 14 125 215 119 50 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECtJLA PAGE:
STREET : CaLte Pina Cotada FILE;
LINITS : Nest of Salt River
: Eastbound Only DATE:
TIHE TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPN)
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-53 56-60 61-65 66-70 70+
6
cpceb
3116/98
AVL
(NPH)
lZ:O0 AN Z 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z3
1:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z8
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
4:00 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
5:00 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 18 0 9 5
7:00 50 0 4 25 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 64 2 17 25 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
9:00 26 0 7 10 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
10:00 29 1 3 16 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
11:00
12:00 PM 36
1:00 34 1 9 17 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
2:00 67 5 12 25 19 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.~
3:00 98 2 23 39 Z9 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
4:00 59 1 16 22 14 S 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
S:O0
6:00 55 0 11 24 13 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
7:00 38 0 9 14 8 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
8:00 36 2 7 10
9:00 17 0 1 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
10:00 8 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
11:00 5 0 0 I 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DAY TOTAL 759 18 164 293 187 67 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
SITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 7
STREET : Ca//e Pina CoLada FILE: cpceb
LIMITS : West of SaLt River
: Eastbound OnLy DATE: 3/17/98
E TOTAL SPEED RANGES (NPH) AI/ERAGE
BEGIN COUNTED 0-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 ~-70 70+ (NPR)
12:00 AM 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
2:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
5:00 6 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 24 0 6 1g 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
7:00 53 2 7 17 Z2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DAY TOTAL 91 2 16 ]3 29 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Speed vs. Cummulative %
Street: Calle Pina Colada
c
120
115 ..............
110 ..............
851h percentile: 27 mph
5 in pace : 855
lOmph pace : 18-28 mph
5 in pace : 705
Date : 2~3~94
U
nl
u
I
a
t
i
v
e
Section:
105 .................................................
100 ...............................................:_- .....
75 .......................
70 .....................
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
10 15
Bravos Ct. to Yuba Cir.
20 25 30 35 40 45
speed in mph ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Street:
;corder:
MPH
65
VEHICLE SPEED DATA SHEET
" ";~ J/c Location:
L ~... ,
- ' ' Weather: r
5 10 15
Day of the week: ~ u Date:
Begin Time: ,r',~2End Time:/Z-'~:'Exist. Posted Limit:
'NUMBER OF VE~ICLES
20 25 30
35 4O 45
Percent Cumulative
oftoral Percentage
60
55
50
45
4O
35
30
25
20
15
, ,i t', ,
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES:
SEth Percentile: ?'7 F1Fil.
10mph pace range is: t~ tO ~; 7~ % of total.
pwO4/veh.sh/OSO~
Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program
STREET ................ 0 Blk. CALLE PINA COLADA
LIMITS ................ bet BRAVOS and 1M~ TUBA
~ECTION(S) .......... N & S BOUND
DATE .................. 9-14-93
TIME .................. 1011 TO 1210
POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 25
SPEED NO. PCT.
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 3
21 2
22 2
23 2
24 8
25 9
26 6
27 9
28 9
29 7
30 11
~ 3
~2 5
33 2
34 5
35 2
36 5
37 0
38 1
39 1
40 0
41 0
42 2
43 0
44 0
45 0
46 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
8.0
9.0
6 0
9 0
9 0
7 0
11 0
3 0
5 0
2 0
5 0
2 0
5.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
CUE.
PCT.
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
12 0
14 0
22 0
31 0
37 0
46 0
55 0
62 0
73 0
76 0
81 0
83 0
88.0
90.0
95.0
95.0
96.0
97.0
97.0
97.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 28
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 34
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 23 through 32
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 69.0
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. 19.0
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 12.0
RANGE OF SPEEDS ................. 15 to 46
VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 100
AVERAGE SPEED ....................... 28.2
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
100 ************************100
90 ** 90
C - * -
U 80 * 80
M - ** _
70 70
p - _
E 60 * 60
R - · _
C 50 50
E - * -
N 40 40
T - , -
S 30 · 30
20 · 20
10 ***
0'* 0
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
15 25 35 45 55 65
20 20
P 15 15
E - _
R - -
C - _
E - · _
N 10 * 10
S - ** ** * -
CII"Y OF TEMECIJLA
VEHICLE SPEED DATA SHEET
'Neatnet: ~L~ (~'~ I ~' Begin Time: IC"il End i'~me: t2: iO Exist. Posted U~mit:
MPH
65
60
55
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
5 10 15 ~5
50
~5
~0
2O
35
25
20 35 40
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES:
85th Petcentjle:
lOmph pace range ms:
to __; % af total.
Bather Belrose Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program
STREET ................ 0 Blk. CALLE PINA COLADA
LIMITS ................ bet SALT RIVER ~and DEL REY
~RECTION(S) .......... N & S BOUND
DATE .................. 9-13-93
TIME .................. 0900 TO 1100
POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 25
SPEED NO. PCT. PCT.
14 2 2.0
15 1 1.0
16 1 1.0
17 2 2.0
18 3 3.0
19 0 0.0
20 4 4.0
21 4 4.0
22 2 2.0
23 4 4.0
24 7 7.0
25 11 11.0
26 11 11.0
27 6 6.0
28 2 2.0
~9 9 9.0
3 7 7.0
31 5 5.0
32 5 5.0
33 2 2.0
34 0 0.0
35 2 2.0
36 4 4.0
37 1 1.0
38 2 2.0
39 1 1.0
40 0 0.0
41 0 0.0
42 0 0.0
43 0 0.0
44 0 0.0
45 1 1.0
46 1 1.0
2.0
3 0
4 0
6 0
9 0
90C
130U
17.0 M
19 0
230P
300E
410R
520C
580E
600N
690T
760S
81 0
86 0
88 0
88 0
90.0
94.0
95.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
99.0 P
100.0 E
R
C
E
N
T
S
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 26
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .....
10 MPH PACE SPEED .........
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .....
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED...
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED..
RANGE OF SPEEDS ...........
VEHICLES OBSERVED .........
AVERAGE SPEED .............
100
90
80
70 *
60 **
50 *
40 *
30 *
20 *
10 **
0*
23 through 32
........ 67.0
......... 14.0
......... 19.0
..... 14 tO 46
......... 100
......... 27.0
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + ....
_
,
,
,
90
** ************** ** ,
--***** ************** ***** ,,
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
14 z~ s4 4~ ~
20
**
** ,
**
***
****
****
** ***** ,*** ,
, ** ,~,,, ****
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
14 24 34 44 54 64
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
20
MPH
5
55
60
55
50
45 '~
40
15 'X* ::
CITY OF TEMECULA
VEHICLE SPEED DATA SHEET
Weather: ~{~ Begin Time: ~End ~me: )~Exis=. Postea Umit: ~ ....
NUMBER Of VEHICLES
10 15 20 25 30 45
35 40
I I
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES:
Percent CumuliEve
of total Percentage
Ii
'2-
85th Percentile:
10mph pace range is: to __; % of total.
pwO41veh.sh/05069;
Speed vs. Cummulative %
Street: Calle Pina Colada
u
m
in
I1
1
a
t
i
v
e
85th percentile: 31 mph
percent in pace: 86%
120 lo mph pace : 21-31 mph
115 .......... percent in pace: 53% ....................
Date: 2/8/93
110 .......... . ...................
105 ...................................................
100 ................................................
90 ..................................................
85 ..................................................
80 ...................................................
75 .................................................
65 ..................................................
60 ..................................................
55 ..................................................
50 ..................................................
40 ..................................................
35 ..................................................
30 ..................................................
25 ...................................................
20 ..................................................
15 ..................................................
10 ..................................................
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Section: Del Rey Rd. & Salt River Ct.
speed in mph
5v~ l [ ~ ~
R~ Jet:
MPH
5
65
6O
55
5O
30
· I
25'
20
,~'
15
85th Percentlie:
CiTY OF TEMECULA
vEHICLE SPEED DATA ~HE=F
Location: 5/90 '.t~ ,~_- :,;cT "'2,r,z- Or. Day of the week: ~'~JE Date:
2~TI~" ' 'r/ C~'I ~2 ~ ,; , _,,j~ rr
Weather: C:..y~v, ;z ,: Begin ~me: ~2.'~ End ~me: ,/,/J5 ~ist. Posted Limit: t~
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
Percent Cumula~ve
ot total Percentlgl
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES:
10mph pace range is: 3 ~ to ~ ~ · '~ ~ % of total.
/00
ComRlents:
p~,~34/vmtt.sh/O5089;
EXHIBIT "C"
STREET CLOSURE POLICY
CITY OF TE1VIECULA
POLICY FOR CLOSURE OR MODH~iCATION
OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON PUBLIC STREETS
Traffic flow modifications covered by this policy include all "official traffic control devices"
authorized by the California Vehicle Code. Some of the methods authorized in particular
circumstances might include traffic islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design
features, removing or relocation traffic signals and one-way traffic flow.
CRITERIA
A petition request for the closure or modification of traffic flow on public streets, including re-
opening previously closed streets, will be considered by the City for those streets meeting all of
the following criteria:
The street must be classified as a "local street" based on the City's Circulation Element
of the General Plan.
b. The street should be primarily residential in nature.
Traffic volumes on the street must equal or exceed 2,000 vehicles per day for a
complete closure. Volumes for a partial closure must equal or exceed 1,000 vehicles
per day.
d. Public Safety Agencies have not provided sufficient evidence of any major public safety
concerns regarding the proposed street closure or traffic flow modification.
An engineering safety study has determined that the proposed closure or traffic flow
modifications will not create unreasonable traffic on the subject street or on streets
which may be impacted by diverted traffic.
The changes in traffic flow will not result in unreasonable liability exposure for the
City.
All persons signing a petition requesting a street closure or traffic flow modification
acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in all costs directly
associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the
funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic
flow modifications.
h. The requested action is authorized by legislative authority in State law.
PETITION REQUIREMENTS
The following procedures must be followed for submitting a petition to the City:
The City Traffic Engineer will examine the technical feasibility and anticipated impacts
of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. This review will include,
but will not be limited to, items such as State law, the Circulation Element of the City's
General Plan, the type of road or street involved, compliance with engineering
regulations, existing traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions, the potential for
traffic diversion to adjacent streets, the increased liability exposure for the City or
confl/cts with future planned improvements.
The City Traffic Engineer will determine the boundary of the "affected area" to be
petitioned. The affected area will include those properties where normal travel routes
are altered by the street closure or traffic flow modifications, and/or properties which
are significantly impacted by traffic that is to be diverted.
The petition requesting the street closure or traffic flow modifications must be
supported by a minimum of 75 percent of the total number of properties within the
"affected area." Persons submitting petitions must attempt to contact all property
owners within the affected area to determine their views on the proposed street closure
or modifications in traffic flow. The City will not accept a petition unless the petitioner
offers confirmation in a form satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer that at least 85
percent of the property owners in the affected area have been contacted and have either
signed the petition in support of the street closure or traffic flow modification or have
signed a document indicating non-support for the street closure or traffic flow
modification.
d. At a minimum, petitions submitted to the City for review must include the following:
· A statement that all persons signing the petition acknowledge it is the City's polic
y that they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic
flow modifications in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to
implement the street closure or traffic flow modifications.
A drawing showing the exact location of the proposed street closure or traffic flow
modifications and the boundary of the "affected area" must be provided: The
drawing must include changes in traffic patterns anticipated as result of the
proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications.
· The petition language must also clearly explain the location and nature of the
proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications.
The petition language and attached drawing must be reviewed and approved by the
City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation to ensure its accuracy and ability to be
clearly understood.
· A specific reference to the Vehicle Code section authorizing such street closure or
traffic flow modifications must be provided.
A sample petition has been provided as an attachment to this policy.
PETITION REVI'EW PROCFSS
The following process will be used to review all pettons associated with a proposed street closure
or trafac flow modifications:
The City Traffic Engineer wil/review any petition to verify compliance with all petition
requirements set forth above, including whether the request in the petition is authorized
by State law. Any petition not complying with these requirements will not be accepted
for consideration.
If the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, the proposed
sweet closure or traffic flow modifications will be referred to all affected public
agencies in conjunction with the environmental review process. When applicable, these
agencies will include all City Departments, the local office of the California Highway
Patrol, County Sheriff and Fire Departments, all affected local utility companies,
Temecula Valley Unified School District, Riverside Transit Agency, the local office of
California Department of Transportation and any other agencies affected by the
requested closure or traffic flow modification.
If the perdon contains all of the required information under this policy, where the street
closure or traffic flow modifications on a street or system of streets may be
accomplished by several different methods, a public workshop will be held to which all
peddone_rs, affected property owners, and long-term tenants such as mobile home park
residents will be invited to participate after the petition requesting the traffic flow
modifications or street closure has been received and verified by the City. The purpose
of the workshop will be to attempt to determine the method that has the greatest
community support.
CITY ACTION ON STREET CLOSL'RE OR TRAFFIC FLOW MODIFICATION
REQUESTS
Once a petition contains all of the required information and all of the matters described above
under "Petition Review Process" have been completed, the City Traffic Engineer will prepare a
report with recommendations and initiate and complete the environmenta/review process for the
project. Project alternatives to the extent required will be defined for a temporary or permanent
street closure or traffic flow modifications. The City of Temecula, Public/Traffic Safety
Commission will review the street closure or traffic flow modifications request, any environmental
review document prepared for the project, all public agency referral responses received during the
environmental review process, and the results of the technical staff review. The City of Temecula
Public/Traffic Safety Commission may support or recommend against the street closure or traffic
flow modifications. If the Public/Traffic Safety Commission denies the proposed street closure
or traffic flow modifications, that action will be final unless within ten days from the date of the
City Traffic Engineer's notification of the Commission 's decision to all property owners within
the affected area, a property owner within the affected area appeals the Commission's decision
to the City Council In order to appeal the decision. the property owner shall file a written notice
of appeal with the Department of Public Works. The appeal will be heard in accordance with the
Appeal Process listed below. If the request is recommended for further consideration, after public
notice is given, the City Council may, after making any necessa.,-y findings, establish a temporary
or permanent period of street closure or traffic flow modifications.
When the City Council considers a recommendation of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission or
an appeal of a decision of the PubLic/Traffic Safety Commission with respect to a proposed street
closure or traffic flow modifications, it wil/follow the process ou~ined below:
A letter explaining the street closure or traffic flow modifications and the time and
place when the matter will be heard by the City Council will be sent to all property
owners, within the affected area prior to its installation.
b. All approaches to the proposed closure or modification will be posted notifying
motorists of upcoming Public Hearing.
A Public Hearing will be set before the City Council and public notice will be given
at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing by letter to property owners in the affected
area and by posting of signs on the affected roadways as described in this Section and
by a notice published in the newspaper.
Public notification of the City Council action will be given in cases when a street
closure or traffic modifications is approved by the City Council, and signs giving notice
of the street closure or traffic flow modifications will also be erected at least two weeks
prior to the date of implementation of the street closure or traffic modifications.
In the event the action involves a highway not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
City of Temecula, the City will obtain the proper approvals from the California
Transportation Commission pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21101 or
21100 (d) prior to implementation of the street closure or traffic flow modification.
A letter explaining the final City Council decision will be sent by the City to all
property owners, within the affected area.
The City Council lias the sole discretion, subject to all applicable laws, to approve, modify,
continue or deny any street closure or traffic flow modifications request regardless of any support
or lack thereof via the petition process. Any action by the City Council to approve or deny a
street closure or traffic flow modifications request will be by adoption of a formal resolution.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PETITION TO CLOSE OR MODIFY THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON STREET
BETWEEN AND
BY THE INSTALLATION OF (Nature of Changes)
AT fLocation)
DATE:
BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS PETITION, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SIGNING! IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT YOU FIRST READ THE CITY'S POLICY FOR CLOSURE OR
MODIFICATION OF TRAI-I~IC FLOW ON PUBLIC STREETS.
We, the undersigned resident of the area shown on tlie attached map do/do not petition the City of Temecula
to on Street as shown on the
attached drawing.
All persons signing this petition acknowledge it is the City 's policy that they will need to participate in all costs
direc~y associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the funding of the
ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modification.
The specific California Vehicle Code section(s) authorizing such closure or traffic flow modi~catiom states:
All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside within the area impacted by the proposed
txaffic flow change as shown on the attached map.
Our designated contact person is:
Phone:
Signature Print Name Print Address
-5- r:\u'~cXpolicyht~loeute-ll/95/~jp
APPENDIX "A"
RULES AND REGULATIONS: SUBJECT MATTER
VEHICLE CODE SECTION
21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the
following ma~rs:
a. Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.
b. Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire and drivers of passenger vehicles for
hire.
c. Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers.
d. Regu/ating traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of Section
21400.
Regulating traffic by means of any person given temporat7 or permanent appointment for such
duty by the local authority whenever official traffic control devices are disabled or otherwise
inoperable, at the scenes of accidents or disasters, or at such locations as may require traffic
direction for orderly traffic flow.
No person shall, however, be appointed pursuant to this subdivision unless and until the local authority
has submitted to the commissioner or to the chief law enforcement officer exercising jurisdiction in the
enforcement of traffic laws within the area in which such person is to perform such duty, for review, a
proposed program of instruction for the training of a person for such duty, and unless and until the
commissioner or such other chief law enforcement officer approves the proposed program. The commissioner
or such other chief law enforcement officer shall approve such a proposed pro~am if he reasonably
determines ~t the program will provide sufficient training for persons assigned to perform the duty described
in this subdivision.
Regulating traffic at the site of road or s~reet construction or maintenance by persons authorized
for such duty by the local authority.
Licensing and regulating the operation of tow truck service or tow m~ck drivers whose principal
place of business or employment is within the jurisdiction of the local authority, excepting the
operation and operator of any auto disman~er's tow vehicle licensed under Section 11505 or any
tow u'uck operated by a repossessing agency licensed under Chapter 11 (commencing with Section
7560) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and its registered employees. Nothing
in this subdivision shall limit the authority of a city or city and county pursuant to Section 12111.
Operation of bicycles, and, as specified in Section 21114.5, electric carts by physically disabled
persons, or persons 50 years of age or older, on the public sidewalks.
Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school crossing guards for the protection of persons
who are crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter to a
place of safety.
Regulating the methods of deposit of garbage and refuse in streets and highways for collection by
the local authority or by any person authorized by the local-authority.
Regulating cruising. The ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall
regulated cruising, which shall be defined as the repetitive driving of a motor vehicle past a traffic
control point, in traffic which is congested at or near the traffic control point, as determined by
the ranking peace officer on duty wiltin the affected area, within a specified time period and after
the vehicle openmr has been given an adequate written notice that further driving past the control
point will be a viohtion of the ordinance or resolution. No person is in violation of an ordinance
or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision tinless (1) that person has been given the written
notice on a previous driving trip past the control point and then again passes the control point in
that same time interval and ('2) the beginning and end of the portion of the street subject to cruising
controls are clearly identified by signs that briefly and clearly state the appropriate provisions of
this subdivision and the local ordinance or resulution on cruising.
Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire
lane, as described in Section 22500.1, on private property. Any removal pursuant to this
subdivision shall be consistent to the extent possible with the procedures for removal and storage
set forth in Chapter 10 (cormneneing with Section 22650).
TRAffIC CONTROL DEVICES: UNIFORM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE CODE SECTION
21100.1 Whenever any city or county, by ordinance or resolution, permits, restricts, or prohibits the
use of public or private highways pursuant to this article, any traffic conlxol device erected by it on or after
January 1, 1981, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications adopted by the Department of
Transportation pursuant to Section 21400.
REGULATION OF HIGHWAYS
VEHICLE CODE SECTION
21101. Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations
by ordinance or resolution on the following matters:
a. Closing any highway to vehicular traffic when, in the opinion of the legislative body having
jurisdiction, the highway is no longer needed for vehicular traffic.
Designating any highway as a through highway and requiring that all vehicles observe official
traffic control devices before entering or crossing the highway or designating any intersection as
a stop intersection and requiring all vehicles to stop at one or more entrances to the intersection.
Prffnibifing the use of particular highways by certain vehicles, except as otherwise provided by the
Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Article 2 (cormneneing with Section 1031) of Chapter 5
of Part 1 of Division I of Public Utilities Code. No ordinance which is adopted pursuant to this
subdivision after November 10, 1969, shall apply to any state highway which is included in the
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has been
approved by the California Transportation Commission by a four-fifths vote.
Closing particular streets during regular school hours for the purpose of conducting automobile
driver training programs in the secondary schools and colleges of this state.
Temporarily closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and
other punposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary
for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the
temporary closing.
Prohibiting entry to, or exit from, or both, from any street by means of islands, curbs, waffle
barriers, or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a general plan
adopted pursuant to Ar~cte 6 (commencing with Section 65350) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Ti~e
7 of the Government Code. The rules and regulations authorized by fffis subdivision shall be
consistent with the responsibility of local government to provide for the health and safety of its
citizens.
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE HIGHWAY: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
VEHICLE CODE SECTION
21101.4 (a) A local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt rules and regulations for
temporarily closing to through waffic a h~ghway under its jurisdiction when all of the following conditions are,
after a public hearing, found to exist.
The local authority finds and determines that there is serious and continual criminal activity in the
portion of the highway recommended for temporary closure. This finding and determination shall
be based upon the recommendation of the police department or, in the case of a highway in an
unincorporated area, on the joint recommendation of the sheriffs department and the Deparunent
of the California Highway Patrol.
2. The highway has not been designated as a through highway or arterial sweet.
3. Vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the highway contributes to the criminal activity.
The closure will not substantially adversely affect the operation of emergency vehicles, the
performance of municipal or public utility services, or the delivery of freight by commercial
vehicles in the area of the I-~ghway proposed to be temporarily closed.
A highway may be temporarily closed pursuant to subdivision (a) for not more than 18 months, except
that period may, pursuant to subdivision (a) , be extended for one additional period of not more than _18
months.
-9- r: \U'affic\policyhtdoeun- l l1951ajp
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1999
CALLTO ORDER
The City t~f Temecuta Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:04 P.M..
on Thursday. March 11, 1999. in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula. California.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Connerton, Edwards. Markham, Telesio. and Chairman Coe
Absent: None
Also Present:
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks.
Acting Public Works Director Hughes.
Assistant Engineer Gonzalez.
Fire Captain Black
Police Sergeant DiMaggio,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Kelley
O
FLAG SALUTE
t,'.mmissioner Markham led the flag salute.
PLI~,I.IC COMMENTS
>.ll Steve Fisher, 40545 Nob Court, presented a petition signed by 19 residents who requested that
Kahx~¢a Rt~ad be permanently closed due to blind driving spots and to increased traffic which endanger
childrelt: that the road be closed with a divider that indicates a permanent closure and which is more
,~c',thcti,:ally pleasing than the wrought iron fence.
¢.mm~ss.mer Telesio intbrmed Mr. Fisher that in October 1998, the Commission recommended that
Kahx~ea R,lad he permanently closed. In resptmse to Commissioner Edwards' comment about the
tcnce matching an adjacent/~nce. Mr. Fisher agreed that the wrought iron fence was an improvement
the iiId chain link fence.
\h Bruce Ft~sdike. 45033 Corte Zorita. representing the Bridlevale Homeowners Association,
,u,:'gcsted that three-way stop signs be placed at Corte Zorita and Via Cordoba, and Loma Linda and
\.t C,rdoba due t, the increased traffic and the resultant high speeds on Via Cordoba which is being
utilized as an access road.
In r'e~ponse to Chairman Coe's inquiry about speed violations. Sgt. Dimaggio replied that he as
unaware iin any Police Department tbcused attention being directed on speed violators in that area.
C,munissi{}ner Connerton asked that the issue be agendized for a future meeting.
r:\traffic\commissin\minutes\99\031199Amin
COM M I SSION CONSENT CALENDAR
I. Minutes of January 14. 1999
On Page 1. last paragraph. line 3, Commissioner Edwards requested that the word Chairman
be changed to Commissioner.
should
Minutes of February 11, 1999
On page 7.2nd paragraph. line 1. Commissioner Telesio requested that City of Temecula. be added.
MOTION: Commissioner Markham moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 1999 and February
I l. 1999. as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairman Coe who abstained on the minutes of
.lanuar,, 14, 1999.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Request for Street Closure - Calle Pina Colada
R ECO M M ENDATION
It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission
den'. a request to close Calle Pina Colada west of Salt River Court.
[)elm[3 Directtit ot Public Works Parks presented the staff report (of record).
In ic-p~,n,c ttl Chairman Coe's inquiry about City Council policy regarding street closures. Deputy
I)ucct~lt Parks stated that the City Council's adopted street closure policy includes a number of
lesp, msihilities tot p, ltentially impacted residents. For example. he noted that acceptance of financial
~csp,,nsibilit_,. lilt the costs incurred in closing the street. and an engineering safety study has to be
omducted ill &tennine whether the street closure would create unreasonable traffic on other streets.
Xcting Directlit Hughes distributed copies of the policy to interested individuals.
Chailman Coe expressed concern that those individuals who signed the petition to close Calle Pina
('illaria ma', not have been aware of the financial considerations.
C,,mmissioner Edwards clarified that Kahwea Road was never opened.
\h Michael Brannigan. 30960 Calle Pina Colada. spoke in favor of closing Calle Pina Colada.
Mr Jack Morehouse. 41334 Salt River Court. stated that he had authored the petition to close Calle
Pina (',llatla in an attempt to solve the traffic problems on the street. He noted that paving MWD's
dirt road easement trom Del Rey Road to La Serena Way would lessen the traffic on both Calle Pina
Colada and Kahwea Road.
2
r:\trafficXcormmissin\minutes\99\031199Amin
In reply to Chairman Coe's question regarding consideration of the dirt road, Deputy Director Parks
explained that a study had been completed several years ago, which reflected problems with the grade
tit' the road grade and building over MWD's easement.
Chairman Coe requested that the feasibility of paving the dirt road be agendized for a future meeting.
Colnmissioner Markham mentioned that in meetings held with Meadowview homeowners
apprllximately two (2) years ago, it had been suggested to study Meadowview's overall traffic
problems. but such a study has never been undertaken and therefore, consideration of individual traffic
problems continue to come before the Commission. He advised that the overall circulation patterns of
the Meadnwview area. including access points, ways to discourage through traffic. etc need to be
,tudied iir area traffic issues will continue to arise.
Mr..h,e Femia. 30831 Avenida Buena SueHe, spoke in favor of keeping Calle Pina Colada open as it
is an important route to Rancho School and Margarita Middle School and that it minimizes traffic on
.\\ enida Barca which is a dangerous street. He suggested that increased police entbrcement and stop
',lgn5 will stllve the speed problems.
% .I,thn Broderick. 40612 Nob Court. was of the opinion that keeping Calle Pina Colada open as well
as Kahwea Road and completing North General Kearny Road would lessen the traffic problems.
Xh Riiger Johnson. 30702 Colic Pina Colado, spoke in favor of closing the street as the volume and
\:eh,cit> ot traffic has increased over the years and the speed undulations have not solved the speeding
prllhldllls
M, Heather Johns{m. 30702 Calle Pina Colada. spoke in favor of closing the street as it is her opinion
lhat ilattic ~ill increase and safety will decrease when the new school and the mall opens since Colic
[lll/,~ ('~llada is used as an arterial road.
\1- Bctt\ Petlet. 30642 Colic Pina Colado. remarked that she was in/brmed that the speed undulations
~ q~td be removed b> the City if the speeding problems were not resolved. In response to her question
~,,ncc~ning costs. Deputy Director Parks stated that residents would pay tbr the labor and materials
leqtlll cd [¢1 cltlse the street: that the residents would be given an estimate: and that an assessment
dp, tl i,:I x~tltlld he tiu'med or a procedure formulated to collect the money. He mentioned that the street
J,,-urc ptllic) was adopted by the City Council in November 1995. which was after the public hearing
reg,ndmg Kahwea Road closure.
hi rc-i~,,n,¢ tt, Ms. Pettet's inquiry, Assistant Engineer Gonzalez explained how the speed survey was
In t c,,p~mse to Ms. Pettet's comments regarding La Serena Way. Deputy Director Parks stated that as
p,ul ,,~ the Circulation Element Plan. La Serena Way will be extended to Butterfield Stage Road. which
~il[ eventually be extended to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Rancho California Road. but that the
e,,ten'-ltlns ~ill not occur for approximately five (5) years.
Ms Pettel expressed ct~ncern that the additional homes being built on Kahwea Road will increase area
Xls Marcelvn McComb. 30879 Colic Pina Colado. spoke in favor of closing Calle Pina Colada
because tit traffic. vandalism. and harassing incidents.
3
r:~lraffic~commissin\minutes/99\O31199Amin
Mr. R,,Ife Wittmann. 30617 Calle Pina Colada, supported the suggestion of developing the MWD
easement road as it would have the most impact in solving the traffic problem. Mr. Wittmann
~ttggested that a speed survey taken in the morning when people are going to work and parents are
taking children to school and then in the late afternoon when the reverse is occurring would show
higher speeds on Calle Pina Colada.
Mr. Andrew Roni. 40575 La Colima Road, commented that the City's overall traffic problems need to
be reviewed: the extension of Butterfield Stage is a permanent solution to the circulation problem; and
that chasing Calle Pina Colada would be a better solution than leaving it open as an access to the
substandard streets of Meadowview.
Mr .h~hn Lee. 30899 Calle Pina Colada. spoke in favor of closing the street.
Ms..lan Lee. 30899 Calle Pina Colada, gave a brief history of decisions/studies regarding closure of
('alle Pina Cotada, and stated that Fire Station 84 does not use the street: that approximately 95% of
the area residents thvor the closure: that the road is only 40' feet wide: that previous studies showed
1.800 i~, 2.000 cars per day: and that drivers are not abiding by the posted speed limits when the police
,tl'e Iltl[ visual.
C, mmussioner Connerton noted that 15 MPH signs are posted for the speed bumps.
M~. I)ennis Bueschel. 41358 Yuba Circle. representing the Bridgeview HOA. stated that he favored
ct,,~ure ,it Calle Pina Colada and that the street has been miss-classified as a residential collector street
~, ~t ,,Ill\ measures 40' to less than 40' in some places.
In resp, mse tll C{mm~issioner Telesio's question about the number of homes in the HOA. Mr. Bueschel
-Illled Ihat approximately 45 homes out of 172 homes in the Ridgeview tract are addressed or directly
.~ccc,, (',dl~. Pina C,~lada. At the times the closure issue was discussed bv the Ridgeview Board, there
~e~c m~ dissenting ~pinions.
x. 1, I,t~me Christian. 30762 Calle Pina Colada. provided the Commissioners with a packet of maps
,rod imttcrial regarding the past history of the closure of Calle Pina Colada and usage of the street by
lil~.~ cnhlrcement. Fire Department and school buses. She supported the suggestion of paving the
~,~, atc~ I)i~trict road. and closing of Calle Pina Colaria.
t',,xlln~,~.lner Ed~ards stated that public streets are fi~r the public use and. generally. she would not
hi le,p, lnse t,i Comn~issioner Telesitfs question. Ms. Christian affirmed that it' Kahwea Road and
x,~l~ th General Kearn.~ were opened. the traffic situation on Calle Pina Colada would be reduced.
Mi 5, tcx cn Rimmet. 30732 Calle Pina Colada. stated that the residents would gladly pay for the cost
,,1 m,latling a wrought iron fence across Calle Pina Colada and to fulfill all the policy requirements.
He ;~l,- menti,med that the street is used as a drag street late at night.
Nls..h,Ellen Byrnes. 30035 Via Norte. stated that the proposed golf course in Meadowview will
increase area traffic and create safety problems: and that concerned individuals' opinions need to be
Illken into} ctlnsideratitm when resolving traffic problems.
4
r:\traffic\commissin/minmes\99\031199Amin
Commissioner Connerton noted that the speed bumps have not resolved the problems, but closing the
street is will impact mail delivery, meter readers. fire and police. school buses, etc. He supported to
keep the street open. to remove the speed bumps, and to have police enforcement present at various
Illlies tit the day to make it difficult for people to speed through the area.
Commissioner Markham commented that the alignment study regarding the Water District easement
should be revisited: noting that. in his opinion. it is impractical for law enforcement to be on that
particular street all day. every day: stated that the structural design of the overall Meadowview loop
.nd its various access points. which may require capital improvements should be studied because stop
signs. triad closures. etc. will not solve the problems. He suggested consideration be given to
providing ram-driveway loaded access points into Meadowview along North General Kearny to the
t,ther side of Pina Colada: breaking up the loop; and/or adding key gates only tbr Meadowview
residents. He stated that if Kahwea Road were opened, Via Norte and Del Rey Road traffic numbers
~ill increase. Commissioner Markham suggested that the matter be continued and staff develop some
umt~ati\'e long-term solutions/br the entire area.
Ctmm~issitlner Edwards stated that closing Calle Pina Colada would not be the solution; other ways.
such as the Water District road. painting a line down the middle of the street which visually narrows
the street. remote traffic camera placed at Calle Pina Colada which photographs violators are options
until other viable routes are found for the Meadowview area.
C,mm~i~sioner Telesio commented that he does not have sufficient information to make a decision: that
the Cilx Cltuncil's policy tbr road closure has not been met: and that increased enforcement would be
cllectlxc .ince the drivers are Temecula residents. not tourists.
('hail man Coe expressed the opinion that streets should remain open if at all possible and noted his
,tq~l~,ut ~,~ exploring i~ther possibilities of accessing Via Notre or Del Rey Road such as paving the
x.~ ,ttcl I)i,,tx'ict rllad.
\I()TION:
II x~,t, intlxed by Commissioner Connerton to continue the issue for 60 days to allow staff tim~ to
tleveitlp ,,ther alternatives including the possibility of improving the water district road. It was
,,cctultlcd hy Commissioner Markham.
[)elmI> Direcrier Parks suggested that since it may take up to 90 days or more to develop a study
mtldl/\ ing Xleadtlwview streets and getting the Meadowview HOA involved. the motion should be
iiitltlillctl to prtlvide a status report in 60 days.
I'hc mt,ditication was agreeable to Commissioners Connerton and Markham and voice vote reflected
tlllillllllltlus approval.
'MOTION:
It ~.t~ rodred hy C.mmissioner Markham to recommend to the City Council or City Manager to
ctllllFacI l}tlI an overall solution to the circulation review of the Meadowview area as soon as possible.
The rotill,in was seetraded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
It wan requested by Commissioner Connerton to agendize the speed bump issue for the April 8. 1999
5
r:\traffie\commissin\minutes\99X031199Amin
Commissioner Connerton suggested that the police patrol the area in the early mornings and evenings
t, which Sgt. DiMaggio agreed.
Chairman Coe called tbr a recess at 8:36 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:51 P.M.
3. Implementation of Selected Short-Term Traffic Circulation Imnrovement Proiects
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission
review. comment and approve implementation of selected short-term traffic circulation
improvement projects.
Deputy Director Parks presented the staff report (of record).
~.~,inchestel Road at Margarita Road
In resp,nse to Commissioner Telesio's question regarding #6. Assistant Engineer Gonzalez defined a
right-turn t~verlap phase as an exclusive right-turn signal that would activate at the same time as a left-
turn signal and stated that Margarita Road will be widened.
Rancho Califi~rnia Road at Ynez Road
C,mmissioner Telesio mentioned that signs indicating a dedicated right-turn lane should be installed on
the ca~tside lit Ynez Road. south of Rancho California Road. Acting Director Hughes stated that the
,,ug.~c,litln will be incorporated and also installation of an eastbound clarification sign as requested by
I)cpulx Directlit Parks noted that fi~r a clearer understanding of the situations, exhibits will accompany
[he I~',l iz~ the tulure
In leaptinge to Commissioner Connerton's question regarding widening of the northbound on-ramp.
\cilng Director Hughes stated that negotiations are underway for a contract change order with
Ri~c~ ,id¢ CilnMrucdtm that would. prior to the mall opening. add a second northbound on-ramp and
,tl,,~l ~den Rancho Calitbrnia Road from Ynez Road to that on-ramp. and it appears as though
('dlt~ ,m,' ~ ill approvcd this change order.
F,, (',lmmissilmer Connerton, Acting Director Hughes confirmed that the striping would occur in 60
it) t)(} thl'~',. (#10).
I~ll ('tlmn~issitmer Edwards who commented on the right-turn overlap from eastbound Rancho
('alih,lnii~ Road at Y'~ez Road. Deputy Director Parks stated that it has been deactivated tbr the next
cnupic tit nltlnths because of construction activity at the corner.
6
r:Xtraffic\commissin\minutes\99\031199Amin
Ranchl~ Califi~rnia Road - Ynez Road to Morasa Road
Commissioner Tetesio suggested that while removing and replacing the sidewalk on the westside. the
Town Center's internal striping at that intersection should also be incorporated. Assistant Engineer
Gonzalez stated that the improvement is identified in Category 2 as a long-term issue because working
with private entities often take an extended period of time.
Acting Director Hughes stated that a status report on the projects will be given at the second monthly
meeting.
MOTION:
C,munissioner Markham moved to approve implementation of the selected short-term traffic circulation
imprllvement projects noted in Exhibit "A", Category I, Priority 1 as amended. Commissioner
Edx~ards secl~nded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Exhibit B - Traffic Circulation Improvement Plan
Winchester Road -Ynez Road to Mar~arita Road
('ommissitmer Connerton commented that the inside curb lane has limited usage during peak traffic
hllur~, and suggested that two dedicated right turn lanes at Ynez Road be explored. Deputy Director
I'ark~ stated that the road widening at Winchester Road is under contract and staff will research that
~klggc~tilm.
hi ic,p, lnse to Commissioner's Connerton question regarding status of the Margarita Road widening.
t)eput> Director Parks replied that completion is anticipated in August 1999.
4. Public/Traffic Safety Commission Areas of Responsibility
J, I Reviev, and Discuss Areas of Responsibilities
{'/,remissloner Telesio suggested the following areas of responsibility:
· ('ilculation - Chairman Coe
%atet.~ - Cummissitlner Telesio
(',immunity Relations/Education - Commissioner Edwards
· M,nntenance/lnstallation - Commissioner Connerton
· Capital hnprlwements - Commissioner Markham
The C,,mmissioners agreed to Commissioner Telesio's suggested division of responsibilities.
('tlmmissioner Connerton stated that he, and Commissioners Edwards and Markham are generally at
cverv City Council meeting and are available to answer any questions.
7
r:\trafficXcornmissin\minutes\99\031 I99Amm
Deputy Director Parks suggested that these additional responsibilities be ratified with the City Council
because they differ from the duties and responsibilities that were determined when the Commission was
estal',l ished.
In response tn Commissioner Telesio's statement that all City traffic safety issues should be considered
by this Commission with a recommendation forwarded to the Planning Commission. Acting Director
Hughes stated that since the Commissioners serve at the discretion of the City Council. such action
may require City Council approval: and regarding working on planning cases, there are specific
mnutran~es which must be adhered to and adding another review body will not meet the time
constraints. He added that Public Works staff currently address traffic concerns. To keep the
Commission informed. Acting Director Hughes suggested providing the Commissioners a list of
projects under review by the City.
Commissioner Markham suggested that when a case is submitted for pre-application review or direct
submittal that will impact traffic circulation, a copy of the site plan or tract map should be transmined
It} lhe Ctmlmissioners.
4.2 Bi-Monthlv Meetings
Dcpul.x Director Parks suggested that the second monthly meeting be a workshop to address the
~dected short-term traffic circulation improvement projects.
Commissioner Connermn stated that to effectively resolve the City's traffic problems. the Commission
needs tl} regularly meet twice a month.
~,ctin~ Directtit Hughes stated that the City's overall thrust is to meet the immediate project list prior
t,i the mall t,penlng and the second meeting is added to have this Commission review the CIP
cq~c,,mmg prtll¢cts in detail. He mentioned that at the March 23. 1999 City Council meeting.
c,,n,Mcl.aitm tit increasing the compensation tbr the Public Traffic/Safety Commission to $100 per
ii~l~/l[i bccdtls~2 tit the ~ccond meeting will be considered.
t',,mmlssltlner Markham noted that the proposed .joint workshop session between the City Council and
lh¢ 'l rztltic S, atet.x Ciimmission has not yet been held and suggested scheduling it in the immediate
ttttul c [tl kllSCUSk~. am~lng other issues. the present and future role of the Commission.
(',,mml,,i,,ner Telesi,, stated that there could be times when review of the priority lists would take
time. and theretore other issues should be agendized.
MOTION:
It x~a, mr,red hx C~nnmissioner Markham that the Public Traffic/Safety Commission's regularly
,ct~cduled and nt,ticed meetings will be on the second and tburth Thursday of each month at 6 P.M.
The mtllitln was secl}nded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
N. further report was given.
POIACE CHIEF'S REPORT
8
r:\traf~c\commissin\minmes~99X031199Amin
Commissioner Connerton complimented S~, DiMaggio on the readability of the graphs in the report.
Sgt. DiMaggio reported that Sgt. Crisp has been reassigned to the Patrol Division and that he will
replace Sgt. Crisp at the Public Traffic/Safety Commission meetings. He passed out 1999 Vehicle
Traffic Code books to the Commissioners.
Sgt, DiMaggio stated that in a meeting with Guidant personnel, it was mentioned that the pedestrian
crossing cycle on Ynez Road near the old Moss Motors parking area does not allow time for enough
personnel to cross the street. and the northbound double left-turn lane on Ynez Road into their facility
does not allow more than three (3) or tbur (4) cars to get through in a cycle. Acting Director Hughes
~tated that he had also received the same comments and that he had informed them that the Walk/Don't
Walk cvcle is set at the maximum and the City is also maximizing the left-turn cycle on Ynez Road to
keep traffic flowing smoothly.
~,IOTION:
It ~;,s moved by Commissioner Edwards to extend the meeting to 10:15 P.M. The motion was
.¢clmded by Commissioner Connerton and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
lu ,'e~p,mse to Commissioner Connerton's comment regarding the increase in burglaries. Sgt.
l)iMaggitl replied that although there is no particular reason, but there are more unsupervised
leena~er~, due to the increase in populatiun.
('t,mn~isMoner Connerton mentioned that he would like the false alarm report issue addressed some
Itu~c in the thture,
FIRE CIIIEF'S REPORT
In lc.p~ll~se to Commissioner Edwards' question regarding speed bumps. Captain Black stated that
,pccd bump~, shlw down the fire engines and Calle Pina Colada is not a primary egress road for the
I ~cp,u'tmcnt
C()XlMI~SION REPORT
('~mmll.~.lner Connerton stated that he would like two items agendized tBr the April 8. 1999 meeting:
dl,cusqon tin the staggering tit work shifts; and (2) town hall public meetings. one held in the City
Chamber5 and one at the CRC. to receive input on ways to improve the traffic problems.
c'.mnlis~,lner Telesio raised the concern that the City Council might have to approve the town
idea and Deputy Director Parks stated that he would research the matter.
(',,mmb~.lner Markham commented that he would like a presentation of the entire mall package
including Margarita and Overland Roads and the widening of Margarita Road.
i'.mn~,i,,ner Markham stated that it is essential that the Jefferson Drive study be completed and that
t~ M~{ittld be coordinated with the Overland Bridge construction. He noted that he was informed that the
.tud~ x~as going to be contracted out, but nothing has ever happened. He mentioned that there have
been previtms Jet~&rson Drive studies regarding access openings in the median and Category 2 projects
inchld¢ a median project on Jefferson Avenue. north and south of Winchester Road. to limit turning
9
r:\traffic\commissin\minutes\99\031199Amin
In response to Commissioner Telesio's questions on the Public Works engineering handout from San
Bernardino. Deputy Director Parks commented that it was information staff was considering for the
Web page as it provides answers to frequently asked questions by the public and if the Commission
were interested. staff will work with the City Manager to publish the information on the Web page.
The C,immission was in agreement that the information should be on the Web page.
Commissioner Telesio commented that since Pauba Road continues to considered for the location of the
library. the widening of Pauba Road is essential.
Cimm~issioner Telesio mentioned that he has observed blinking lights at Margarita Middle School,
Linfield School. and Temecula Valley High after school hours. Deputy Director Parks stated that staff
will investigate the matter.
Commissioner Edwards thanked staff for all their extra work.
Chairman Coe stated that he had read that three (3) to five (5) new schools will be built in the area and
suggested the need to let the School Board know that this Commission is available to comment on
traffic issues. Deputy Director Parks mentioned that the State Architect has control over the plans. but
,tart i, closely working with the local school board and will inform them of the Commission's interest.
ADJOURNMENT
~\t 10:13 P.M.. Chairman Coe tbrmally adjourned this meeting to the next regular Public/Traffic
'iateD, Commission meeting to be held on Thursday, March 25, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., in City of
T¢lllectl[a City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive. Temecula, Calitbrnia.
Charles Coe. Chairman
Secretary
r:\traffic\commissin\minutesX99\031199Amin
EXHIBIT "C"
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~"")Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
April 29, 1999
SUBJECT:
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 (MV~D) between La
Screna Way and DeI 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 MVvI) 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 MTvVD facilities.
The cost to construct this Alignment "A' is estimated at $1.5 million including design, inspection and contract
administration. 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 MWD in January 1995, for their review and processing. Subsequendy,
a list of comments and requirements was forwarded to Markham and Associams 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
concept with Ali~m'anent "A' being the preferred alternative. To date, this issue has not been pursued further
with 1VI~rD.
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
VIA
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: I WPDOCS~JOHNT1650COT.RPT
41750 Winchester Road, Suite N · Temecula, 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
the Calle
speed.
preliminary horizontal and vertical alignment for
Pina Colada Bypass with a minimum 30 mph design
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 ~ 6 5 0 CO T. RP T
7-27-9a Page 1
PROFILE ~1 ALIGNMENT "A"
TYPE STATION ELEV % GRAOE/ROC OFFSET TAN ELEV
P08 10+20.00 1274.00
-5.000%
VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: 100,100
PUC ll+O0.OO 1270.00
-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
-10.000%
17+00.00 1218.00
-10.000%
VERTICAL CURVE LENGTM: 1S0,150
PVC 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 I191.59
2.109%
PVT 20+50,00 1189.49
-3.674%
21+0O.00 1187.65
-3.674%
22+00.00 1183.98
-3.674%
23+00.00 1180.30
-3.674%
24+00.00 1176.63
-3.674%
25+00.00 1172.96
-3.674%
END 25+26.00 1172.00
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 Psge 1
PROFILE ~2 ALIGNMENT g"
TfPE STATION ELEV ~ GRADE/ROC OFFSET TAN ELEV
P08 10+20.00 1248.50
2.826%
11+00.00 ]246.24
-2.826%
'jERTICAL CURVE LENGTH:
Put' 11+50.00 1244.83 0.000 1244.83
2.678~
12+00.00 1243.08 -.335 1243.41
-2.678~
PvI 12+50.00, 1240.66 -[.339 1242.00
-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
-8.1821
VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: 100,100
PVC 17+00.00 1205.i8 O.O00 1205.]8
1.636~
PV[ 18+00.00 1197.82 .818 1197.00
1.636~
PVT 19+00.00 1192.09
-4.909~
20+00.00 1187.18
-4.909%
21+00.00 1182.27
-4.909~
22+00.00 1177.36
4.9091
VERTICAL CURVE LENGTH: 125.125
PVC 22+25.00 1176.14 0.000 1176.14
2.457~
23+00.00 1173.15 .691 1172.45
2.457%
PVI 23+50.00 1171.92 1.920 1170.00
2.457%
24+00.00 ,II71.31 .691 1170.62
2.457~
HI/LOW 24+24.76 1171.23 .310 I170.92
2.457%
PVl 24+75.00 1171.54
1.2351
25+00.00 1171.85
1.235%
END 25+12.00 1172.00
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 200-5
Msy 2, 1988
18
I--
Z
U, I15
fr14
UJ
Q,
I 13
(012
LU
(11
n-
(~10
Z
8
UJ
Z 8
LU
LU 7
U,
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
end 504.2.
CURVE LENGTH - FEET
ALGEBRAIC GRADE DIFFERENCE - 'll
SIGHT DISTANCE - FEET
DESIGN SPEED - M.P.H. FOR °8'
DISTANCE IN FEET REQUIRED TO
ACHIEVE A 1% CHANGE IN GRADE.
K VALUE SHOWN IS VALID WHEN S< L,
For sustained downgrades, see
Index 201.3.
See FIgure 204.4 for vertical
curve formulas,
WHEN S~L WHEN S(L
400+3.58 AS2
L=2S- L=
A 400+3.58
See Index 204.4 for minimum
length of vertical curve.
DESIGN SPEED -- M.P.H.
/ ,/?
/
/ ~
5
4
3
2
0
200
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 t600
LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE -- FEET
1800
I
2000
200-4 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 201.4
Sto ping Sight Distance on
rest Vertical Curves
Height of eye-3.60 feet.
Height of obJect-O.50 feet.
NOTE:
· Before using this chart for
Intersections, branch connections
and exits, see Index 201.7,
405.1 and 504.2.
L: CURVE LENGTH - FEET
A: ALGEBRAIC GRADE DIFFERENCE
8 = SIGHT DISTANCE - FEET
V: DESIGN SPEED - M,P.H. FOR
K = 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,
0~O O tO
I--
~ 13 -~
~12
11
Z 8
Z
~ 6
Q 4
( 3
~ 2
J 1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
WHEN
WHEN
AS2
L=2S - 1329 L =
A 1329
DESIGN SPEED -- M.P.H.
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE -- FEET
eMWD
/VIETROPOL/TAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CAL/FORNIA
Office of The General Manager
EXHIBIT "C'
; ' ,
/ f
~ CA9
MAR~51~
~ ~an ~ego ~e~ine
Nos I a~d 2
Sta. 1256+00 to 1273+00
R/W Parcel SDN-23-81, 2P-81
MWD Work Order No. 7-Pending
Subsnr. 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
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF :OUTHERN C~LIFORNIA
~r~am ~ ~sso~i~e~
- 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 OY SOUTHERN D~IFORNIA
Markham and Associates
3 MAR J, 5 1995
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 5ofeet 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 1 and 2. Our marLhole 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 Co assist in gaining access to
this manhole.
12. We require that you submit the specification
of any equipment which will impose loads greater than
]LASHT0 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 M[TROY~LITAN W4T[P DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Markham and Associates
- 4 -
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 o~rner
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 i~uninent construction of
a public road for which there is a pre-co~aitment by the
local municipality to accept a dedication of the right-of-
way and improvements. Such pre-cormnitment 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 Nun~ber 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 MW'D
Substructures Job Nu~ber shown in the upper right hand corner
THE METROPOLITAN WATER OlITRI~'T OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Markham and Associates
HAR ! 5 1~
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
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 facilities must be full9 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 Metrcpolitan's Rights-of-Way
a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent
are normally not allowed within Me=ropolitan'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 the driveway approach to access
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 footingsof 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 wTitten
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 property is 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 B-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 M&tropolitan.
(Please see Figure 5 for details)·
Utilities in Metropolitan's Fee Properties and/or Easements
or Adjacent to Its Pipeline in Public Streets
Metropolitan's policy for the alinament of utilities
permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and
street rights-of-way is as follows:
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.
- 6 -
g. Overhead electrical and telephone line
requirements:
1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the
California State Public Utilities Co~ission, General
Order 95, for Overhead Electrical Line Construction or
at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan.
Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than
35 feet.
2) A marker must be attached to the power pole
showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help
prevent daubage to your facilities during maintenance or
other work being done in the area.
3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be shown on the
drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line
under the most adverse conditions including
consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change,
and support type. We require that overhead lines be
located at least 30 feet laterally away from all
above-ground structures on the pipelines.
4) When underground electrical conduits,
120 volts or greater, are installed within
Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the
conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches
of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning
signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines
where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way.
h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's
fee properties and/or easements must conform to the
California Department of Health Services Criteria for the
Separation of Water Mains-and Sanitary Services and the
local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates to
installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure
waterlines. The construction of sewerlines should also
conform to these standards in street rights-of- way.
i. Cross sections shall be provided for all pipeline
crossings showing Metropolitan's fee property and/or
easement limits and the location of our pipeline(s). The
exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their
elevations shall be marked on as-built d~awings for our
information.
- 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"
- 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 oarrier 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 enem~l 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 1539 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 commercial 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 associati~
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. Bowever, 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
Metropoli=an'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 =he
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 of.noise, 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 enviroumental 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 ~he Act have been established:
a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of
any determination that a Categorical Exemption
applies to ~he 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 co~unent. 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 rec/uirements 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.
15.
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
Encl.
22, 1989
~10 PER,~d, ON~'NT STRUCTURES PERMITTED M.W,D, PERMAN£NT RIGHT OF WAY
NO ROOF OVERHANG PERMITTED ~ ~'
BUILDING
FOOTING MUST NOT ADJACENT
ENCROACH INTO TO RIGHT
RIGHT OF WAY. · OF WAY
FINISHED '
DEPTH OF
REQUIRED
· FOOTING
NOTE.' M. VtD. PIPELINE SIZE, DEPTH, LOCATION
AND VIIOTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF
Vt,~Y VARIES.
R~c'OUIREMENTS FOR
BUIL. DINGS AND FOOTINGS
ADJACENT TO
RIGHT OF WAY
WmGURE
\
\
· .. ...'.. . .;~ . i ~.~/~~- .x'~"premolded ·
.~ . -. ', -.. · ~ '
::-., ,,,.,,,,,.... ,,,,.,,. ,,
· " '" ' ""' lt~ ~'n~ineor, totnl volume
v ~, nat ro extoed ~ t~e ~alume .......
" ' "" ""' """' O( the suppartin~ well
'{'j'.:;: ' ";;"":i':~ '?.:. ' ....':=:
~';~';'..~Conottte support well to
~..
· be placed a~oinsl undis-
: "'" ' i ' turbed Dround
'::~'~"~ ~ -'~-:~"':-
SECTION
CROSS SECTION
Su~poftin~ woH shall hove o firm beurin~ on the
subSrode and o~oinst the side of t~e eRaovation.
Premolde~ exnonsion joint filler pet ~$ru D-IZ~I-TS
to be u$e~ in $uJtt tot $tetl ~i~
I( trench width is 4 leer or ~ater, me~ure~ o1~
oenlerline at ~a pipe,~onortte ~u~p~t mu~t
be constructe~
I( trun~ width is less than 4 t~t, aleart son~ book-'
fill, o~poote~ to 90~ ~ensity in ooRorffonot
the provisions Of ~STM Stan~o~ 0-1557-70 may
be used in lieu of the oonorete support wall.
SECTION
TYPICAL SUPPORT FOR
M.W.D. PIP~LIN~
lC-~54?
Trench width
SECTION
_E S"Preformed exponsion
joint fillet
NOTES ..
I. This method to be .used where the
utility line is 24'ot greotet in
diometer ond the cleo?onte
between the utility line ond M.W.D.
pi#e is IZ" or less.
2. Speciol protection may be t~uited
if the utility line cliometer is
gteot~t thon ~0 pipe ~tif the
~over over the utility line tO
siteel sutfo~e is minitool and
iS I~e~t leSS cl~otonce b~lwl~n
~i~e ~nd the utility line.
3. P?efotm~d exportsion joint fillet 1o
comply ~ith A~M dlsignoHon
D- 1151 -
4. ~D. requests I~"mintmum
cjeotonce whenever possible.
' 0.75D
'/,'--y/ty/,~,x- .. -;- ,.~7_.-,ESc~yo,:~tZon 'limits
DOckfill "' "~ ~efotmeN exportsion
oshl fillet
CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL EXPANSION dOINT
FILLER PROTECTION FOR
OVERCROSSING OF
M,W.D, PIPELINE
~c, u63z
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
(/~/Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
April 29, 1999
SUBJECT:
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 Colaria 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
patterns, 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 854 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 data suggests that the speed undulations have provided an
effective means of maintaining a speed limit hhat is considered both reasonable and prudent by motorists using
Calle Pina Colaria.
tnso/ar as the removal of the speed undulations, the City's policy allows the removal of the undulations when
the following conditions are satisfied:
1. Undulations are ineffective in redt~cing 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.
Removal 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 tbr the removal of the undulations would be borne by the City, Staff suggests that the speed undulations
on Calle Pina Colaria remain in place until the Meadowview Circulation Study has been completed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
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
V~ DEL
~ A
EXHI]}IT "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: Marry 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'.'er~t
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 03108/94skg
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 l~he 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 O3/08194skg
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 sl~eed 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?
I 12 ] Yes [ 7 ] No, number of houses away
Since the installation of the speed undulations, vehicle speeds on my street have:
[ 6 I 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 ] 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
[ lz~ ] 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:~egdrpt\94~O322~speedunds.fup 03108194skg
EXHIBIT "C"
SPEED UNDULATION POLICY
Prior to the construction of a speed undulation, the subjec~ 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 flied with The CiW of Temecula Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering
Division.
2. The average Traffic shall range between 1,200 - 2,500 vehicles in a TwenW-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 for'o/(40) feet wide, unless aiDproved by CiW 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 (%) 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 aiDproved by CiW Engineer.
6. The distance between undulations shall range between 200 - 250 feet.
7. Uiona shall not normally be constructed in isolated blockS along a continuous street or
on · r/alively short (< 800') cul-de-sac.
8. Undulations shall be constructed per the CiW of Temecula STandard Drawings.
9. Undulations are still experimental roadway features; therefore, additions, alternations or
removal of any humid may occur at any Time.
pwOt Xtraffic~s;>edhump,cri fau1021193
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
r~roperty 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"
CILL~ PlffA COLiDA ~/0 2gL
:nt. 3- 16 2: 26 31
12:00 03109 2 2 O 1 D
12;j3 0 0 0 0 ~ C
ii:45 C O Q C 0 0
Rout 7ozal ] 0 1 i 1 0
Cl:OO am
21:15
21:30
01:45
Hour Total
CI:0C am O 0 0 C ~ O
~2:15 3 O 0 C 3 0
02:]0 0 O 0 C 0 0
;2:45 0 0 3 O O 0
Xcur Tctal 0 0 0 0 0 0
33:2U am
C3:!5
03:30
33:45
Eour Total
am
34:15
34:]3
34:45
~our Total
35-i5 O O O 0 0 O
}5:30 0 0 0 C 0 0
~5:45 2 i 0 I 0 O
Lout Total 2 I O i O 0
6:20 am 2 0 C C 3 2
6:15 2 O O O
6:30 6 I 1 i 2 O
6:45 5 3 O 2 2 1
our To;al 15 2 1 3 5 3
7:00 am 23 0 2 ~ 4 ?
7:15 33 0 5 15 7 6
7:3C 21 2 6 8 4 3
7:45 12 0 I 2 8 1
;Dr ?OLaf 89 2 14 23 23 14
R'nn am 9 1 1 3 2 2
13 0 I 7 4 1
Y::u 26 I 8 ~ 8 1
~ur Total H 2 14 1~ 18 ~
909.247.67i6
]6 41 46 51
C O 0 G
0 O 0 ' 0
0 0 0 C 0
O O 0 0
O O 0 O 0
i 0 O ~ 0
0 O 0 ~ 0
0 0 O 0
0 0 0 U 0
O O 0 O G
0 0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 U
O 0 O 0 O
G O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O
O 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 O 0 0
O 0 O 0 ,"
O O 0 G 0
O C O O 0
0 0 O O 0
1 0 O 0 O
0 0 0 ~ 0
1 0 0 3
2 0 O O G
0 0 S 3 0
i 0 0 O 0
0 0 0 0 0
3 3 0 U 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ; 0
0 O 0 0 0
0 O 0 C 0
O 0 0 C 0
File I,D,: TEPCNODR
Pa~e
61 66 71 7~
O 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
O 0 3
0 0 o C
0 C 0 0
0 0 ,~ 0
O 0 0 O
0 0 O 0
O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 O ~ 0
0 G 0 0
0 0 0 G
0 0 0 0
0 0 O 0
0 0 0 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 O 0 0
0 0 0 0
O 0 0 O
0 0 O O
0 O 0 0
0 O 0 O
0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0
0 0 {} 0
0 0 : 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 O 0
0 0 O 0
0 ~ 0 0
0 0 0 0
BR BP~ED SUR~EY File [.3.: TEPCE~DR
RASTBgUN~ Page : 2
9~n lnt. 0- I6 21 26 ]l ]6 41 4~ 51 56 61 66 71 76
=e Total 15 2~ 25 30 35 40 ½S ~C 55 60 65 70 75 9999
:00 am B O 4 2 0 1 O 2 O D 0 0 O O
:15 i2 $ 4 4 2 2 O 0 0 U C O 0 O 0
.)0 V 3 3 2 2 0 0 G O : 0 U O D O
~:~5 6 : i 2 O 2 O O 0 ~ Q O 0 0 :
lur To~al ]l 2 8 12 4 4 1 0 0 0 O O O 0 O
,:DO a~ 7 C 2 2 I 2 0 C 0 0 O O O 0 :
1:15 9 0 I 3 { 0 ! 0 C O D 0 O 0 0
h]O 2 0 1 0 ! 0 O 0 U 0 O 0 O 0 0
):45 6 1 0 2 3 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 ~ 0
}ur lctal 24 I t 7 9 2 I O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O
:00 am I1 2 3 4 2 O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0
.:15 5 O 2 3 0 O 0 C O 0 O 0 0 0 O
.:30 i5 I 4 3 4 2 i O O : 0 O 0 0 0
lur To~al 39 3 lI 13 8 3 1 O O 0 0 U O 0 O
!:00 pm
!:15
!:30
his
)ur Total
.:De pm T I 2 3 1 O 0 O : O 0 O 0 0 0
.:15 11
,:30 17 1 4 5 5 2 0 0 ~ O 0 O 0 0 0
.:45 8 2
lur T~tai 43 3
[:00 pm 8 C ~ 1 3 O 0 O O C 0 O 0 0 O
!:15 29 : 5 14 5 5 0 0 : O O 0 0 O O
~:3C 15 2 5 4 5 1 0 U O G O 0 O 0 O
!:~5 22 5 12 2 O ~ O 0 0 O 0 O
lur Total 74 15 24 25 8 i U C 0 O O 0 0 O
~:0C p~ 26 1 6 9 I0 O 0 D 0 0 0 O 0 O 0
[:1~ 22 2 4 4 3 5 2 ~ G : 0 0 O O U
~:30 15 O 3 7 3 2 0 S O 0 O O 0 O O
~:45 2~ O 2 I{ G 2 i ~ 0 D 0 O 0 0 0
nr Total 88 ] 15 36 22 9 3 C 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
:CO p~ 21 I 4 9 6 1 0 0 G 0 0 0 O O 0
,:15 25 O 7 1O ? 1 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0
::3C 27 O 5 B I1 3 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0
!:4~ I9 0 ( 9 3 2 Q 0 0 t O O 0 O O
tur Tctal 92 : 2D 36 27 V [ 0 O O 0 0 0 0
:00 pm 15 3 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O
,:15 23 3 a 9 3 0 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0
:30 23 O 3 12 4 2 0 2 O O 0 O 0 0 0
;~5 17 C 7 5 4 0 I 0 9 O 0 0 0 O 0
,~r Total 7B ~ 23 29 15 2 i 2 0 O O O O 0 O
ALL[ PtNA CGLADA E/O D]L REY ROAD 9Dg.247.GTI6 Start Date:
4 HR SPEMD SURVEY File I.D.: TEPCMODR
Znt, O- 16 21 26 ]l ]6 41 46 51 56 G1 6~ 7i
6:15 19 g 5 8 4 O 2 O C ~ C O 0 Z 0
6:3C 11 C i 4 5 1 0 3 0 O 0 0 O 0
~:45 I: ~ 2 4 2 ] O 3 0 C 0 0 3 0
our Total 61 i 12 21 18 6 3 O O 0 0 O 0 O
7:33
7:15
7:30
7:45
our
8:00 pm G 2 i 2 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
B:!5 9 C ] 4 i 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 O O 0
]:3C 9 3 ~ 4 3 i 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0
~:45 10 C 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
~ur total 3~ 1 8 12 6 = 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
)zOO pm
;::5
):3C
l:45
>ur Total
pm 2 O 0 : 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0
-!9 5 1 O I 3 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:33 3 0 0 I 1 0 0 O I 0 0 0 0 0 0
:45 3 0 I 0 O 0 0 c O 0 0 0 0 0
ur T:cal :1 2 ~ 3 5 O O 0 : 0 O 0 0 0 0
:0~ p: 1 0 O 0 O 0 0 3 0 O C 0 U O
:25 3 0 O , 0 0 0 3 0 O 0 0 O 0
:33 2 0 C 1 I 0 0 0 9 0 O O 0 O 0
:~5 O O C O O 0 0 3 3 0 O 0 0 3 O
ur To~al 4 0 0 I 2 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0
Totals 879 34 !74 316 238 92 21 2 1 1 ' '
+ t I t
~ed Suustic5.
:5[h Percentlie Speed :
Median Speed fS0tb percenfiie):
Average Speed - All Vehicle~
BSth Petcen~ile Speed
95[~ Perceeti!e Speed
10 M~ Pace Speed
Number ~t Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles xe Pace
RumPer of Vehzcles > 55 MPH
Percen~ of veh~cles , 55 MPH:
17
23
29
33
21-30
554
0
MPB
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPB
MPH
174 316 238 92 21 2 I 1 0 0 0 0 0
9Q9.247.~716
~RSTBOUNU
!9xn l~t. 0- 16 21 24 ~: 34 41 44 5! 56 61
.me TG;al 1B 2U 25 3U ]5 40 45 50 55 60 65
:15 0 C 0 O 0 C 0 3 0 O O
::]0 3 0 0 O O
lur Total : 0 U O 0 0 C
:00 am C 0 0 0 0 3 ) 3 0 0
:15 ; 0 i 0 O 0 O 0 O
:30 0 U 0 O 0 3 0 O 0 0
:45 ~ C 0 0 O 0 3 0 O O
,ur To~al I C 3 1 O 0 3 0 0 0
0
Star: Dace:
File I.D.:
Page
71
~ 0
C 0
Oo am O i 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
I5 ~ 0 2 2 1 3 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O
30 2 O 0 2 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0
45 12 O 1 3 4 3 O 1 0 0 0 U O 0 O
tr Total 21 0 4 ? 5 4 O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
OO a; 13 0 0 9 3 2 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0
15 13 0 1 4 5 i O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O
30 21 0 3 5 8 I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 i~ 0 3 9 4 3 ~ 0 O O O 0 O O 0
r To:&i d8 0 7 29 2~ 8 4 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 9
D0 am 15 0 0 V 8 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0
15 15 0 0 3 9 I 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 0
30 :9 O 9 8 2 O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 2] O 2 [ I0 2 i O O O O O 0 3 0
r Total 72 0 11 26 29 ] 2 0 O 0 0 1 0 ~ O
:oo a{
:15
:30
:45
;r Total
:08 am 0 O 0 O 0 G 0 3 0 O 0 3 0 0 0
:15 3 O 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0
:3C : 0 0 i 3 0 3 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
:45 : 0 O 0 I O 0 C ~ 0 0 ~ 0 O 0
Jr Totai 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 0
:OC am O 0 0 O 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O
:iS 0 0 0 O O ~ 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0
:30 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
:45 3 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 ) 0 ~ 0 0 0
ur Total 2 O 0 1 0 ; 0 O 0 O 0 ~ 0 O 0
:00 am
:15
:3D
:45
ur Total
O 0 c O 0
0 G 3 0 0
0 C 0 0 0
0 O 0 0 0
lhL~ PINA COLADA E/O D5 REY ROAD
am
13 0 3 4 6
Total 36 1
15 7 0 0 4
:It i0 i 4 2
:45 ]0 2 5 1I
put Total 46 ] ll 20
:C0 px 9 0 2 5 2
:15 ii 0 2 6 2
:]O 15 0 4 5
:45 9 0 i 2 5
._, p~ 12 1 5
:30 Ii 0 2 6 4
:45 I1 0 4 6 1
ur Total
:GO pm l0 0 3 4 3
:15 iS i 3 4 1
:]3
:45
ur To:HI
:15 27 0 2 13 1U
:30 31 2 1 13 13
:45 2I 1 5 6 7
ur To~ai 97 3 z2 37 ]4
to0 p: L5 0 I 7 5
:15 15 O 1 ] 6
:30 12 1 2 3 4
:45 20 0 3 5 8
Jr Togal 62 1 7 ~8 23
pm 16 0 4 7 3
15 1 ] { 4
:]3 15 2 4 2 6
:45 26 2 3 5 4
{r To~al 62 5 14 18 I7
909.247.6716
WMSTBGUND
35 40 ~ 50 55 60 65
0 3 O O O O C
0 G O D O C O
C C 0 O 0 O 3
1 1 0 0 C O G
i ~ 0 O O 0 0
:
0
Start Date: 0)/09/g9
File 1.3.: TEPC~ODR
Paqe : Z
71 76
75 99~9
O O
O 0
C 0 C
0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 g
i .* 0 O 0 D 0 O 0 O
0 G 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0
I O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O
2 G 0 C 0 0 0 0 O 0
1 0 0 ~ O 0 C rm 0
2 O ; 0 0 0 0 0 O
~ 0 0 C 0 0 0 ~ 0 0
2 3 0 0 0 0 O 3 0 0
0 O 0 0 C O 0 3 0 O
i 3 0 ,* 0 O 0 C 0 0
:. 0 3 0 C 0 C 0 0
4 2 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0
6 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 : 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
1 ] O 0 0 O O 3 0 O
2 O 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0
i I 0 2 {2 0 0 G 0 0
7 3 0 ! 0 O 0 O 0 O
2 C 0 C O 0 0 3 0 0
5 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O
2 C 0 O 0 0 0 C 0 0
2 O 1 0 ~ 0 O 0 0
11 i 0 0 0 O O 0 O
2 C O 3 0 0 0 G 0 O
2 0 G 0 O 0 O 0 0
1 0 0 O 0 0 0 3 0 0
2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0
7 0 0 0 O 3 0 O 0
0 C 0 O 0 0 0 C 0 0
O C 0 0 C 0 O ¢ 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 C O 0
O O 0 ? 0 0 ,~ 0 0 0
I 1 0 0 0 0 O 3 0 0
i ; C O 0 O 0 C O O
C C O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0
O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ~
i C 0 ~ 0 0 O 3 0 0
.LE FINA COLADA g/C 3FL
R~Y ROA~
~:n !nt. 0- 16
re Total 15 20 25
· ': :5 0 0 8
tic 18 0 O 5
:4} 14 0 4 3
ir Total 6C C 5 24
:0O p% il 0 0 8
:iS 7 1 1
· 30 12 ! 2 2
:45 6 O O 2
Jr Total 36 2 3 13
30 25 40 45 50 55
2 0 C 0 0 0
4 2 i 0 U 0 C
8 3 i 1 0 0 0
2 2 0 C 0 O 0
6 0 0 0 O 0
4 3 3 0 0 0 0
15 2 I 0 0 0 O
pm 7 0 0 5
1O 0 I 6
? 0 O !
8 C 1 4
Total 28 0 2 16
2 0 0 0 0 O 0
2 0 1 3 0 0 3
0 i O 0 0 3
2 1 0 0 0 0 0
:C0 pm
:15
:45
:r Total
0 0 0 0 0 O
1 i 0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0 0 O
I ~ I O O 0
3 2 1 0 0 0
:C0 p; 4 O 0 : 0
:15 2 0 O 2 O 0
zlO ] 0 0 0
:45 1 O i 0 0
ur Tctal i0 : 1 4 2 2
O i 0 0 0
0 0 O 0 0
0 3 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
pm 1 0 0 C 3 C
0 0 0 0 C C
3 0 O 0 ~ C
0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 0 0 O 0
C 0 0 0
C C 3 0 0
0 3 : 0
' 0 O 0 0
y Totals 796 IB 121 299 251 72
tal 796 la !21 299 251 72
27 4 2 ,
27 4 2 0
15[h Perceotile Speed : 18 MPM
Median Speed (50tl percenniie!: 2] MPH
Average Speed * All vehicles : 25
85th Percentile Speed : 29 MPH
95tb Percentlie Spee~ : 34
MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 MPH
Nu{her UI Vehicles in Pace : 550
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 69.11t
Number o~ Vehicles · 55 MPB : 2
Percent of vehzcles > 55 MPB:
61
S~art Da:e: uj/uy/y~
Yfie I.D.: TEPC~ODR
Paqe : 3
66 71 76
70 ~5 9999
~ 1 O O
0 O S 0
~ O C O
O 1 O O
G 0 O O
O O 0 O
0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
0 O 3 0
0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C
0 0 O 0
0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0
O 0 0 O
0 O 0 C
0 C 0 O
0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0
,~ 0 0 O
0 O C O
0 0 0 0
0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0
0 I 1 0 O
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COM MISSION
APRIL 29, 1999
CALLTO 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 Em:jineer Moghadam,
Management Analyst Adams,
Management Assistant ComercherO,
Police Sergeant DiMaggio,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Hartsen.
(Commissioner Markham arrived at 6:50 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
11 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
~ Chairman Coe and Commissioner Markham who were absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Parkincl 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
s~gnature 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:
Mr. Bill J. Smith
Ms. Betty Lohrke
Mr. Herschel Nave
Ms. Diane Thorne
41664 Avenida De La Reina
41669 Avenida De La Reina
41682 Avertida De La Reina
41675 Avenida De La Reina
The above-mentic~ned individuals relayed the following concerns and desires'
The student parking obstructed residential street sweeping, trash pick-up,
and mail delivery.
The negative impacts included oil residue and trash being left on the streets.
Relayed a need to park their vehicles on the street.
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.
Commissioner Tetesio 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 queded 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 thatjaywalking 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 Connenon 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 AM., 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
bemg violated
Voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Chairman
Coe and Commissioner Markham who were absent.
3. Bypass Roadway Aliclnment Study - Calle Pina Colada
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide
further direction to staff.
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
15 million dollar cost of the project.
Commissioner Telesio recommended that this projec~ 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 restnctions;
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:
-~ Mr. Dennis Bueschel
Q Ms. 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:
Q 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.
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 Coo who was absent·
4. Speed Undulations - Calle Pina Colada
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.
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:
[] Ms. Jan Lee
[] Mr. Dennis Bueschel
Ms. Jayme Christian
[] Mr. Terry Cordell
rn 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, creatir~g 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 alternate solutions
Volume of cars
Recommended placing Police Officers in alternate locations
For the record a tetter 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 Pine 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 am 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 penod.
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 Calie 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 Siclnal - State Route 79 South at Bedford Court
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
That the Public/Traffic 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
~mplementation 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:
[] Mr. Victor Jones
[] Mr. Jack Raymond
[] Mr. Jay Beckley
n Mr. Burton Merrill
Mr. Matt Greenberg
Mr. Kauser Salman
[] Mr Ray Bozarth
PO Box 1624
44535 Bedford Court
44560 Classic Way
44535 Bedford Court
27311 Jefferson Avenue
44515 Bedford Court
44515 Bedford Court
-~ Mr. Fred Grimes 27311 Jefferson Avenue
rq Mr. John Moramarco 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 Commissioners 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 Public/Traffic Safety Commission reviews and approves two (2)
new programs to improve public awareness regarding traffic
improvements.
Acting Director of Public Works Hughes presented the new programs for the provision of
public awareness; and introduced Management Analyst Ariains and Management
Assistant Comemhero, 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
~n 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.
Street Improvement Projects Associated with the Temecula Reclional
Center
RECOMMENDATION:
7A
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
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
Commissioner Telesio queried the area of issues that encompassed public safety
issues, specifically, regarding animals.
Commissioner Edwards commented on the small size of the City's newspaper ad
which provides the Public Works Report.
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.
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 priorto 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 io Thursday, May 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. 3
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safely Commission
Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
July 8, 1999
Item 3
Median lsland Modifications - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road
and Via Las Colinas
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the feasibility of the Median Modifications on
Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Via Las Colinas and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
In June, 1997, staff recommended that the two (2) uncontrolled median openings on Rancho Calitbrnia
Road at the Claim Jumper Restaurant and Target driveways be closed. This recommendation was
made based on the excessive number of accidents caused by left-turn movements at uncontrolled
accesses to the Town Center. The median closure and access control on Rancho California Road
between Ynez Road and Via Las Colinns was reviewed by the Public/Traffic Safely Commission and
an Adhoc Committee seven (7) times in the past. During this process consideration was given to
safely, operational efficiency and monitory impact to the businesses in the area. A copy of the agenda
reports and minutes uf the five (5) Public/Traffic Satiety Commission meetings on this issue is attached
as Exhibit "C". As a result of these meetings, the Center restricted the left-turn out of the Claim
Jumper Restaurant driveway by signing and striping the driveway.
Since the beginning of this process in June, 1997, 39 additional reported accidents have occurred at
the two (2) uncuntrolled accesses, which 26 are caused by left-turns in or out of these driveways
(Exhibit "B"). Based on this data staff is still of the opinion that the median openings at the Claim
Jumper Restaurant driveway and Target Center driveway should be closed, thereby restricting these
driveways to right-in/right-out.
An additional important benefit of the prolx~,'ed median mc, di~cations would be to convert the existing
westbound right-turn lane inD the center, to a through lane which would increase the capacity of this
major roadway, and extend the existing left-turn pockets at signalized intersectiuns of Town Center
Drive and Via Las Colinns if necessary.
Plans g~r modification of median islands and traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Califurnia
Road and Town Center Drive have been completed and will be advertised for construction in the near
future. These improvements, which will include relocation tithe existing crosswalk from the eastside
to the westside of the intersection and providing additional outbound lanes at the Town Center
driveway, will provide adequate ingress and egress to the Center. It should be noted that the cost of
the proposed improvements will be borne by the City while benefiting the Center.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" Collision Diagram and Summary
3. Exhibit '~C" - Previous Public/Trafik Safely Commission
Agenda Reports, Minutes and Data
Target Center
Town Center Drive -
[, '
ml
EXHIBIT "B"
Collision Summary
June 1, 1997 to June 1, 1999
LOCATION
Claim Jumper
Caused by Left Turns TOTAL
5 10
Target Center Dwy
21 29
I TOTAL 26 39 I
o~
Oaa(lo~O~
I
o
o
0
EXHIBIT "C"
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
All Moghadam, Associate Engineer
June 26, 1997
Item 3
Proposed Median Modifications - Rancho California Road Between Ynez Road and
Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the PubLic/Traffic Safety Commission review and recommend median modifications on Rancho California
Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane as shown on Exhibit
BACKGROUND:
Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane is designated as a four (4) lane arterial roadway
on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. This segment of Rancho California Road is
currently heavily traveled and the existing an-restricted left-turn access to the Town Center driveways causes
an excessive number of traffic collisions and creates congestion. Currently full un-restricted access exists on
Rancho California Road at Claim Jumper driveway and Target Center driveway. Extfibit "A" depicts the
existing median island configuration and the proposed modifications. Due to several conflicting movements
at these driveways during the AM, PM, and mid-day peak hours, numerous traffic collisions have been
reported on Rancho California Road in this vicinity. A total of 27 accidents were reported from January l,
1996 to May 1, 1997 on Rancho California Read at these chiveways. Exhibit "B' is the accident sununary and
collision diagrams on Rancho California Road at these uncontrolled driveways.
It should be noted that the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vial Las Colinas is scheduled for
sigrmliTation in Fiscal Year 1996/1997. The proposed traffic signal at Via Las Colinns and the existing traffic
signal at Hope Way/Town Center should provide adequate and safe access to the Town Center from eastbound
Rancho CaLifornia Road. Also, by eliminating the left-turn movement at these driveways the existing striped
right-turn only lane to the Town Center and Ynez Road can be utilized as a through lane which will increase
the capacity of this major east-west corridor.
The collision diagram (Exhibit "B') indicates a low accident frequency caused by the eastbound left-turn
movement at the first driveway east of Ynez Road (Claim Jumper driveway). Therefore, to accommodate
some of the easubound left-turn demand (Exhibit "C'), a left-turn-in without a left-torn-out may be considered
at this location. The proposed project will also include modifications to the existing median islands to provide
additional left-turn storage capacity at the signalized intersections of Rancho California Road with Hope
Way/Town Center and Via Las Colinns.
fiSCAL IMPACT:
This project has been identified in the proposed FY97/98 Capital Improvement Program.
A~ehment~
1. Exhibit "A" - Existing Median Island and Proposed Modifications
2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Collision Summary and Diagrams
3. Exhibit "C" - Turning Movement and Directional Volume Counts
LOCATION:
PERIOD:
DP,_~VE:WAY
R~NEHO
PROM:/'/'
COLLISION DIAGRAM
(_,4 L /Fdze/V /,z7 ,eD. L2 C M /lv/ _7(/M /PZ[1Z. .D /? l [/ ~f'v'A-Y
to: ~"'-t-:~9'
Page 1 of 4
LOCATION:
PERIOD: FROM:
/- i-q~
COLLISION DIAGRAM
~o: ~- I-q7 ~
LilS EDL.
--~e.-(:)-~-m,- Rear End ~
~ Overtaking Sidesw,De ~
[] Fixed O~ject ~ INT r ~ Right An~e ~
Page 2 of 4
LOCATION:
,.~.,o,,:
pP,_i~/P_-WAY
c.2LAi H
COLLISION DIAGRAM
E_,4L/Fd,~A///7 /Z/3 LP CM/,v/
Page 3 of 4
4r"l~ COLLISION DIAGRAM
LOCATION: ~,A,N(._~ CALIFd,~AIIi~
I-l'q~
PERIOD: FROM:
J
L/j~ (DL /,'V/,~'
7'6~'~ ~ # OF
0
®
·
DPO
"...--.,., '-,.' ,, - -.od-o,, ,,,,,,...,,..~.~.~'~
T,oin ~ Overtokra9 Sideswipe
ro¢~ Acc,dent 7 O~¢rta;~.n9 turn
Defective Vanwell ~ Veh Tur.ed Over ~/
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "C"
FIANCHO CAUFORNIA ROAD
CLAIM
CENTER
\ 1~O '~j ~4.
42;L 3G
IEZ ROAD OSCAR'S E~ ONLY
Turning movement count
Period: 12:00 Noon to 1:00 P.M.
~IT/'0F'TEMECULA,S2TE 28
RARCH0 CALIFOHIA/NE OF t'NEZ ROAD
NOON TUE/I~ON WED
CO[~TS UNLIMITED
909.247.6716
EAST/WEST
Begin < ...... EBND ...... >< ...... WBND ...... >< ...... Combined ....... >
~jme A.M. P.M. A,M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
1ZzOO 08/06 43 254 ~ 24 305 67 559
12:15 31 252 9 310 40 562
I2:30 25 260 17 313 42 573
i2:45 20 I19 271 1037 11 61 352 1280 31 180 623 2317
01:00 26 277 8 332 34 609
01:15 16 262 10 260 26 522
01:30 i8 282 12 292 30 574
01:45 22 82 267 1088 14 44 338 1222 36 126 605 2310
02:00 21 258 22 329 43 587
02:15 7 250 12 294 19 544
02:30 t3 252 11 319 24 571
02:45 I3 54 301 1061 19 64 303 1245 32 118 604 2306
33:00 7 279 i2 306 19 585
)3:15 9 304 9 370 18 674
]3:30 10 298 16 344 26 642
]3:45 13 39 380 1261 19 56 343 1363 32 95 723 2624
)4:00 16 329 34 354 50 683
)4:15 5 331 40 298 45 629
)4:30 I8 354 70 320 88 674
t4:45 27 66 381 1395 87 23I 336 1308 114 297 717 2703
~5:00 24 379 99 302 123 681
~5:15 28 382 107 246 135 628
'5:30 22 382 162 244 184 626
,5:45 46 120 385 1528 175 543 232 1024 221 663 617 2552
6:00 76 295 234 243 310 538
6 [S 67 326 218 270 285 596
6'30 96 249 363 249 459 498
6:45 135 374 242 1112 450 1265 245 1007 585 1639 487 2119
7:00 127 192 303 234 430 426
7:15 104 181 444 221 548 402
7:30 139 222 387 198 526 420
7:45 I64 534 15i 746 476 1610 160 813 640 2144 311 1559
5:00 156 167 348 197 504 364
h15 171 205 316 155 487 360
h30 237 158 309 i58 546 316
~:45 273 837 149 679 297 1270 159 669 570 2107 308 1348
~:00 27i 151 233 120 504 271
':15 253 129 219 114 472 243
:30 255 107 237 108 492 215
:45 235 1014 95 482 263 952 89 431 498 1966 184 913
:00 294 85 229 95 523 180
:15 266 77 229 76 495 153
:30 317 79 264 50 581 129
:45 318 1195 62 303 247 969 50 271 565 2164 112 574
:00 269 54 244 38 513 92
:15 362 59 232 36 594 95
:30 285 38 269 30 554 68
:45 283 1199 42 193 255 1000 18 122 538 2199 60 315
:als 5633 10885 8065 10755 13698 21640
I Totals 16518 18820 35338
!t % 41.1% 50.3% 58.8% 49.7%
Site Code: 155720
Start Date: 08/06/96
File I.D.: TE28AU96
Page : 1
~k Hour
10:30 05:00 07:15 03:i5 10:30 03:15
i266 1528 1655 1411 2253 2722
.87 .99 .86 .95 .94 .94
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
JUNE 26, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order
on Thursday, June 26, 1997, 7:03 P.M., at the City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Co-Chairman Guerriero called the meeting to order.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Coo, Guerriero, Johnson, Perry
Markham
Also present were Public Works Associate Engineer All MoChadam, Assistant Engineer Hasib
Baha, Police Sergeant Rodney Crisp, Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle, and Minute Clerk Pat
Kelley.
Commissioner Perry led the flag salute.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Co-Chairman Guerriero called for public comments on non-agenda items.
Timothy Jay Miller, 45052 Corte Bella Drive, asked the Commission to consider two (2) through
southbound lanes on Margarita Road at its intersection with Hwy 79S as evening rush hour
traffic is backed up consistently.
Commissioner Perry asked if there was significant backup for either the thru lane or the right
turn lane in the mornings. Mr. Miller replied he has never seen any back-up for either lane in
the mornings.
Commissioner Coe stated he was in total agreement with Mr. Miller's position.
Associate Engineer All MoChadam stated a striping work order is in place which should correct
the problem and staff is working with Caltrans to relocate the loops.
Phyllis Price, 42136 Avenida Alvarado, representing MIE, Inc. stated it is very difficult to drive
25 MPH on Enterprise Circle West and asked the Commission to reconsider the speed limit.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned speeds are set by the Vehicle Code and the Commission
cannot change those speed limits and the drivers should observe the posted speed limits.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of Aoril 24, 1997
Continued to the meeting of July 24, 1997
Minutes of May 22.1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to approve the
minutes of May 22, 1997.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JUNE 26. 1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Guerriero, Johnson, Perry
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Markham
Traffic Calming Reauest - Southern Cross Road
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the speed studies had been made available to the people
requesting the stop sign. Mr. Moghadam replied the entire package was sent to the
Homeowners Association (HOA).
Commissioner Coe questioned why the HOA declined a center-line strip. Mr. Moghadam
replied he was only told it was an unacceptable solution.
Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena Street, disagreed with the staff report that high school
students are not a majority of the speeding drivers from his observation, but agreed
many adult drivers also drive too fast. He would like to have stop signs in the area.
Ken Bruckman, 42244 Cosmic Drive, reported the stop sign at Cosmic Drive and Santa
Cecilia has slowed traffic down and that sign was erected without meeting warrants.
He spoke about the need for pedestrian access across Rancho Vista Road at Southern
Cross Road to get to the Sports Park and Community Recreation Center.
Commissioner Perry reiterated it is the Commission's position that a demand-signal is
needed at that location.
Co-Chairman Guerriero clarified if a stop sign does not meet warrants, it cannot be
enforced. He suggested residents talk to their neighbors about speeding, and residents
can take down license plate numbers of speeders, contact the police with the numbers
to find out name and address to issue a ticket.
Mr. Bruckman suggested the Commission recommend that the group looking at the high
school traffic problem also consider a pedestrian crossing at Rancho Vista Road leading
to the Sports Park.
Co-Chairman Guerriero mentioned traffic calming methods, of which striping is one, and
suggested the HOA meet with staff and the Commission to discuss such methods.
Sam Rascoe, 42953 Virgo Court, stated the Southern Cross HOA thought the stripe
down the m~ddle of the road was not a good idea because the street is narrow and
drivers sometimes drive in the middle of the road when cars are parked on the side. He
stated Agena Street at Southern Cross Road and Spica Court and Southern Cross Road
are two (2) bad intersections as they are at the bottom of a hill and on a curve. He
suggested if stop signs are not possible, striping, other traffic calming methods, or a
mid-block stop sign might be considered. Mr. Moghadam stated a mid-block stop sign
will cause rear end accidents as it is not expected.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JUNE 26° 1997
Commissioner Coe stated center line stripping might make people think and thus slow
them down.
Mr. Rascoe asked if striping is done, will there be studies to determine if speed be
actually reduced. Mr. Moghadam replied the area would be reviewed a month or so
after installation of striping or other traffic calming measure to determine its
effectiveness.
Raymond Johnson, 30764 Sky Terrace Drive, president of the Starlight Ridge South
Homeowners Association, stated the Board has not discussed a stripe down the middle
of the street and he will take the idea of a strip or any other calming methods to the
Board for their consideration.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to deny the
request for installation of "Stop" signs and partial street closure on Southern Cross Road
and directed staff to meet with the Homeowners Association to discuss striping and
other traffic calming methods.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Guerriero, Johnson, Perry
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Markham
Proposed Median Modifications - Rancho California Road Between Ynez Road and Lvndie
Robert Katan, 30054 Corte Cantera, representing Target Stores, spoke against the
closure of the Claim Jumper and Target Center driveways. He stated a signal at Via Las
Colinas is of no benefit to the shopping center as it goes behind all the stores; is an
entrance that could be closed with little consequence; and a signal is needed at the
Target Center driveway where accidents occur and people need a way to make left
turns safely.
Mr. Moghadam clarified in addition to the Via Las Colinas and Hope Way access, there
is also access from Ynez Road; and Via Los Colinas lines up with a driveway which
makes maneuvering of trucks easier, and the on-site stacking distance is best; the
Target Center entrance cannot stack an adequate number of cars.
Commissioner Perry commented customers will not use a back area to exit and truckers
can utilize the Ynez Road entrances.
Commissioner Coe asked how a signal at Via Las Colinas might impact potential
accidents at the Target Center entrance. Mr. Moghadam replied it will provide accident
relief for turns into the center, but turning out may not be affected.
Pat Snow, 27450 Ynez Road, representing the Temecula Town Center, stated she did
not receive notice of this meeting until 3 PM, Tuesday, June 24, 1997, and requested
a couple of months to have an independent traffic study completed in order to find a
solution that works for retail concerns and addresses the safety issue.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JUNE 26. 1997
Mr. Moghadam remarked the signal at Via Los Colinas has nothing to do with closing
the medians as it has been a CIP project for a number of years and he does not know
if it can be revised. A signat at Target Center is too close and would not provide relief
for people exiting Via Los Colinas. Co-Chairman Guerriero asked since the distance
between Town Center and Target Center is about the same as between the signals on
Ynez Road, why is there a problem to signalize Target Center. Mr. Moghadam replied
traffic volumes on Rancho California Road are almost double that of Ynez Road, and the
purpose of the median closure is to restrict access due to the number of accidents.
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to continue this
item until the July 24, 1997 meeting. Commissioner Johnson asked the motion be
amended to direct staff to help Town Center Management locate a traffic engineer. The
amendment was approved as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Guerriero, Johnson, Perry
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Markham
4. Speed Limit - Various Locations
Associate Engineer Ali Moghadam presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to
recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance re-affirming the speed limits on the
following roadway segments:
1. Solana Way between Ynez Road and Del Rey Road
2. Santiago Road between Front Street and Ynez Road
3. La Serena Way between Margarita Road and Calle Medusa
4. Rainbow Canyon Road between Pala Road and South City Limits
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Guerriero, Johnson, Perry
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Markham
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Mr. Moghadam reported the following:
Winchester Road Bridge Opening - Many favorable comments have been received and
the PM peak traffic does not back up as much as before the improvements.
Citv Wide Intelligent Traffic Management Svstem- All the signals should be
interconnected within a couple of months so signal timing can be coordinated.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JUNE 26. 1997
Co-Chairman Guerriero stated Walcott Corridor southbound from Nicholas Road seems
to have inadequate signage. Mr. Moghadam replied signage modifications are planned.
Commissioner Johnson commented the on interchange at I-15/Winchester Road and the
Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road intersection stacking problems need to be reviewed,
Co-Chairman Guerriero asked about the status of Mr. Simon's suggestions for the
Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue intersection. Mr. Moghadam replied he had talked
to Mr. Simon and suggested they hire an independent engineer to look into on site
effects and then to make any request that would come out of that investigation.
Commissioner Perry encouraged staff to take a more pro-active stance as the
improvement would be mutually beneficial.
Mr. Moghadam reported he is working toward hiring a consultant to help with the
Jefferson Corridor project which was determined to be the Commission's Number 1
priority at the May 22, 1997 meeting.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Sgt. Crisp reported two (2} arrests during Saturday's checkpoint and commended the
wineries for telling their customers to watch their consumption and/or to have a
designated driver as there was a checkpoint.
Co-Chairman Guerriero mentioned the City was getting two (2) additional police officers,
but they are not going to the Traffic Division.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No report was given.
Co-Chairman Guerriero mentioned the grand opening of Fire Station 84 on Pauba Road
July 1, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Coe reiterated the deplorable condition of northbound Rainbow Canyon
Road. Mr. Moghadam reported the re-evaluation of the existing priority list is still
underway.
Co-Chairman Guerriero suggested the minutes on the Jefferson Avenue Ad Hoc
Committee would provide good input into re-evaluating at the Jefferson Corridor.
Co-Chairman Guerriero expressed his appreciation and privilege to have served on this
Commission and to have worked with staff.
Commissioner Johnson stated it has been an honor to work with Ron Guerriero and the
Commission will miss him as he takes on his new position as Planning Commissioner.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to adjourn the meeting
at 9:02 PM. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JUNE 26. 1997
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, July
24, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Councit Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Chairman Larry Markham
Secretary
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM:
All Moghadam, Associate Engineer - Traffic/CIP
DATE:
SUBJECT:
August 28, 1997
gg' tem 2
Median Modifications - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie
Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and recommend median modifications on Rancho California
Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane.
BACKGROUND:
Currently, several full movement driveways provide access to the Town Center from Rancho California Road.
In addition to the signalized intersection of Town Center/Hope Way, unrestricted accesses exist on Rancho
California Road at Claim Jumper driveway, Target Center driveway and Via Las Colinas (Exhibit "A"). These
full movement driveways which allow right-turns as well as left-turns cause an excessive number of traffic
collisions and create congestion on Rancho California Road cast of Ynez Road.
The combination of nigh traffic volumes on Rancho California Road (Exhibit "C") and several conflicting
turning movements at these driveways has resulted in 31 collisions from January 1, 1996 to July 31, 1997.
Four (4) new collisions have occurred since the last Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting at these un-
signalized driveways (Exhibit "B").
This issue was reviewed by the Public/Traffic Safety Conunission at the June 26, 1997 meeting and was
continued at the request of the Town Center property management representatives to allow adequate time for
a traffic study addressing the access issue to the Town Center. As of date of preparation of this report, City
staff did not receive a traffic study.
The proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Via Las Colinas has been on the
Signal Priority List and Capital Improvement Program for several years, and is independent of the median
modification project. An additional signal, as suggested, at the Target Center driveway will adversely impact
the traffic flow on Rancho California Road and is not recormnended.
It should be noted that, among other things, the main purpose of a raised median island is to restrict left turning
movements. To allow full access at all driveways defeats this purpose compromising the public safety and
reducing arterial capacity. Therefore, staff recommends modification of the existing median islands on Rancho
California Road to restrict access at Claim Jumper driveway and Target Center driveway to right-in and right-
out only. The proposed modification will include reconstruction of the existing median islands to provide
additional left-turn storage capacity at the signalized intersections of Rancho California Road with Town
Center Drive/Hope Way and Via Las Colinas.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project has been budgeted for the FY97/98 Capital Improvement Program.
1. Exhibit "A" - Existing median island and proposed modifications
2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Collision summary and diagrams
3. Exhibit "C" - Turning movement and directional volume counts
YNEZ ROAD
2° ·
s.
·
z
0
Z
o
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
TRAFFIC COLLISION SUMMARY
LOCATION
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
TRAGET CENTER
OSCAR'S
CLAIM ILrMPER
YEAR
1995
TOTAL
TYPE OF
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
0
6
0
3
9
ACCIDENT
INJURY
o
4
0
1
5
TOTAL
0
10
0
4
14
LOCATION
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
TRAGET CENTER
OSCAR'S
CLAIM JUMPER
PROPERTY
YEAR DAMAGE INJURY
ONLY
1/1/96 to 4 1
7/31/97
11 3
0 0
12 0
TOTAL 27 4
TOTAL
5
14
0
12
31
SEE COLLISION DIAGRAMS FOR DETAILS
LOCATION:
PEriOD: FROM:
COLLISION DIAGRAM
CUttA~ ,7ur~t~z~Z
Out of Control
D3C,4~:
LOCATION:/~ANE, A/O
PERIOD: FROM:
D~iVEWAY
COLLISION DIAGRAM
E.,4 L /Fd/~ AZ //7 ZZD. ~ C ZA /k7 _7(l'kl /2ZE:r~ D/'Z / V'Lr-Z¢,4-;~,4 ~ g
TO:
CLAI
Property Ooff~oge Only
7'~TAL NUI~g,~ oF
AC, glDeNTS : ~
(4LL
ii
LOCATION:
PERIOD: FROM:
f, ANgJ-/a
/-/-,~
COLLISION DIAGRAM
EALIFO~W/A ~OAP /P VIAL
L_
To:-f'l'd/7
L./IE (DL
75q~'GE T L"L-:~v/"E/Z
AL fZ,/ p ~.FI3 =_ ~7
E:>
[]
0
®
·
CONST
DPD
OV
8_ ,
Pemlfion ~ Rear
Fixed Object ~ IN~r I "' (~ Righi Angle
Oelec,lve Veh~le ~ v~, Turned Over
LOCATION:
PERIOD: FRO~:/'/~ ~/~
TO:/'
COLLISION DIAGRAM
~ ~KSE T dew 1Z=/2..
LOCATION:
~CLAi
ZUMp~,
COLLISION DIAGRAM
~ Veh. Moving A~eod
.~4.-,e- Veh. Backing Up
L ~ _m~ OvertOk,rig Sidesw,De
EXHIBIT "C"
~TI~ :OF ~T~ECULA/SITE 28
P, AK~ CALIFORNIA,/NE OF YNEZ ROAD
NOON TUE/NOON WED
COIINT~ ~NLIMITED
909.247.6716
A.N. P,M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
· 58/06 43 254 24 305 67 559
[z: 15 31 252 9 310 40 562
12: 30 25 260 17 313 42 573
[2:45 20 119 271 1037 11 61 352 1280 31 180 623 2317
)1: oO 26 277 8 332 34 609
)1: 15 16 262 10 260 26 522
)1: 30 18 282 12 292 30 574
)1:45 22 82 267 1088 14 44 338 1222 36 126 605 2310
)2:00 21 258 22 329 43 587
Q:15 7 250 12 294 19 544
~2: 30 13 252 II 319 24 571
,2:45 13 54 301 1061 19 64 303 1245 32 118 604 2306
3: 00 7 279 12 306 19 585
3: 15 9 304 9 370 18 674
3:30 10 298 16 344 26 642
3:45 13 39 380 1261 19 56 343 1363 32 95 723 2624
4: O0 16 329 34 354 50 683
4: 15 5 331 40 298 45 629
4: 30 18 354 70 320 88 674
4:45 27 66 381 1395 87 231 336 1308 114 297 717 2703
5:00 24 379 99 302 123 681
5:15 28 382 107 246 135 628
): 30 22 382 162 244 184 626
k45 46 120 385 1528 175 543 232 1024 221 663 617 2552
76 295 234 243 310 538
67 326 218 270 285 596
, J 96 249 363 249 459 498
;:45 135 374 242 1112 450 1265 245 1007 585 1639 487 2119
':00 127 192 303 234 430 426
:15 104 181 444 221 548 402
: 30 139 222 387 198 526 420
:45 164 534 151 746 476 1610 160 813 640 2144 311 1559
:00 156 167 348 197 504 364
:15 171 205 316 155 487 360
: 30 237 158 309 158 546 316
: 45 273 837 149 679 297 1270 159 669 570 2107 308 1348
:00 271 151 233 120 504 271
: 15 253 129 219 114 472 243
: 30 255 107 237 108 492 215
:45 235 1014 95 482 263 952 89 431 498 i966 184 913
:00 294 85 229 95 523 180
: 15 266 77 229 76 495 153
~ 30 317 79 264 50 581 129
:45 318 1195 62 303 247 969 50 271 565 2164 112 574
:00 269 54 244 38 513 92
15 362 59 232 36 594 95
30 285 38 269 30 554 68
45 283 1199 42 193 255 1000 18 122 538 2199 60 315
als 5633 10885 8065 10755 13698 21640
'Is 16518 18820 35338
41.1t 50.3% 58.8% 49.7%
Site Code: 155720
Start Date: 08/06/96
File I.D.: TE28AO96
Paee : 1
k Hour
10:30 05:00 07:15 03:15 10:30 03:15
1266 1528 1655 1411 2253 2722
.87 .99 .86 .95 .94 .94
"/OF T~CUIA/MA~ER 1
:Z RD/MORT~ OF P, AMc~O CALIFORMIA RD
mAYCOUIff/JSLY
COUNTS UNLIMITED
909.247,6716
NORTH/SOUlq{
lin < ...... NMD ..... >< ..... SBRD ...... ><------Combined ..... >
· A.H. P,M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P,M.
) 07/16 20 271 35 244 55 515
15 10 279 21 294 31 573
30 11 237 1B 312 29 549
45 6 47 245 1035 28 102 290 1140 34 149 538 2175
O0 6 288 27 300 33 588
15 15 259 13 295 28 554
30 7 292 13 252 20 544
45 3 31 253 1092 3 56 274 1121 6 87 527 2213
O0 3 247 6 258 9 505
:15 7 239 12 253 19 492
30 7 218 8 256 15 474
:45 2 19 251 955 1 27 284 1051 3 46 535 2006
:00 9 281 8 249 17 530
15 2 254 7 275 9 529
:30 7 263 5 310 12 573
:45 15 33 280 1078 10 30 302 1136 25 63 582 2214
:00 18 275 17 305 35 580
~15 22 245 14 272 36 517
:30 25 280 20 270 45 550
r45 21 86 270 1070 27 78 303 1150 48 164 573 2220
:00 27 289 27 355 54 644
:15 41 260 26 285 67 545
:30 57 242 42 300 99 542
~45 56 181 234 1025 53 148 280 1220 109 329 514 2245
:00 53 204 61 276 114 480
% 64 209 68 230 132 439
.j 74 209 78 207 152 416
:45 116 307 195 817 99 306 193 906 215 613 388 1723
:00 98 189 66 158 164 347
:15 130 132 102 205 232 337
:30 114 142 94 162 208 304
:45 172 514 146 609 108 370 158 683 280 884 304 1292
:00 155 137 103 171 258 308
:15 I98 114 ili 157 309 271
:30 2~ 122 124 154 324 276
:45 260 813 115 488 133 471 138 620 393 1284 253 1108
:00 203 84 t93 125 396 209
:15 212 74 154 119 366 193
:30 188 63 169 101 357 164
:45 234 837 58 279 200 716 91 436 434 1553 149 715
:00 254 48 186 83 440 131
:15 219 43 205 87 424 130
:30 211 33 246 62 457 95
:45 243 927 35 159 285 922 32 264 528 1849 67 423
:00 260 23 218 46 478 69
:15 231 16 243 61 474 77
;30 241 25 254 24 495 49
:45 261 993 23 87 258 973 29 160 519 1966 52 247
:als 4788 8694 4199 9887 8987 18581
! Totals 13482 14086 27568
'~t % 53.2% 46.7% 46.7% 53.2%
11:00 04:30 10:45 04:45 10:45 04:30
993 1099 1000 1243 1975 2312
.95 .95 .87 .87 .93 .89
Hour
Site Code: 15572231
Star~ Date: 07/12/96
File I.D.: TEYNJL96
PaQe : 5
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
AUGUST 28, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order
on Thursday, August 28, 1997, 7:00 P.M., at the City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Markham called the meeting to order.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Public Works Associate Engineer All Moghadam, Assistant Engineer Hasib
Baha, Police Sergeant Rodney Crisp, Administrative Secretary Anita Pyte, and Minute Clerk Pat
Kelley.
Commissioner Telesio led the flag salute.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Markham called for public comments on non-agenda items.
Ron Guerriero, 41510 Chenin Blanc, asked the Commission to recommend to the City Council
installation of a traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway be revisited as
traffic and speeds are increasing.
Associate Engineer All Moghadam reported a signal is under design and should be in operation
by Summer 1998.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of April 24, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to approve
the minutes of April 24, 1997.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Telesio
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Minutes of June 26, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to approve the
minutes of June 26, 1997.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Telesio, Markham
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lvndie Lane
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Perry asked about the distance between the Town Center and the Target
Center entrances, Mr. Moghadam replied it was 200 feet intersection to intersection.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there were sensors for traffic build-up at the Town
Center entrance. Mr. Moghadam stated sensors have been installed at that location.
Commissioner Coe inquired into the possibility of two (2) left-turn lanes into the
shopping center at the Town Center intersection. Mr. Moghadam stated two (2) left-
turn lanes would require major re-striping and reconstruction and since there is not much
demand, it does not appear the cost is justified. He also stated that the existing left-
turn pocket could be extended to allow for additional left-turn storage.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the right-turn-only lane on Rancho California Road
could be eliminated with proposed median closures. Mr. Moghadam replied it is
proposed to be eliminated, which should improve Rancho California Road traffic as right-
turn and through traffic would utilize the same lane.
Commissioner Telesio noted the Ynez Road entrances are under utilized and could pick
up a large portion of the Center's traffic. He mentioned Via Las Colinas provided good
access to the northern part of the Center.
Mr. Moghadam read into the record a letter from the manager of the Temecula Gardens
Apartment complex supporting closure of the median at the Target Center driveway
even though it is their exit intersection.
Ron Guerriero, 41510 Chenin Blanc, stated his support for closing the left-in and left-
out movements at the Target Center and Claim Jumper driveways. He suggested
extending the left-turn bay at the Town Center entrance and to re-phase the signals due
to the tremendous increase in Rancho California Road traffic in the last five (5) years,
plus the high number of accidents. Mr. Guerriero also suggested establishing left-turn
arrows on Ynez Road for traffic exiting Tower Plaza and the Town Center.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28. 1997
Nancy Bane, Director of Retail Properties, Radnor California Service Corporation, 27450
Ynez Road, Suite 314, stated she would like to work with staff and share the findings
of the Center's traffic engineer to develop solutions that consider economic impact as
well as safety. She stated new businesses, Oscar's, Texaco, etc, also contribute to the
Rancho California Road traffic problems and should be studied. Ms. Bane suggested
possible solutions were: widening of Rancho California Road; an additional signal, at the
Target Center entrance; deceleration lanes into the Center; and restriction of left'turn-
out movements from Target Center and Claim Jumper driveways.
Jose Covarrubias, 29370 Rancho California Road, General Manager, Claim Jumper
Restaurant, stated he has never had a problem making a left-turn movement into the
Claim Jumper driveway in his five (5) years of employment and statistics show only one
(1) left-turn-in accident has occurred. He believes eliminating the left-turn-in movements
will increase the existing traffic jam because motorists will have to use the already
congested Rancho California Road/Ynez Road intersection, or the Town Center entrance.
Mr. Covarrubias supported eliminating the left-turn-out movement out of the Claim
Jumper driveway.
Commissioner Coe reiterated the proposal is to have a deep pocket left-turn at Town
Center which makes entering the Center safer; and if the Center re-stripes, customers
can access the stores easier.
Larry Bill, 16721 Millikan Avenue, Irvine, Director of Customer and Community
Relations, Claim Jumper Restaurants, stated his opposition to the closure of the median
break, because the majority of his customers are traveling eastbound. He does not
believe the impact on traffic by new area businesses has been sufficiently studied. Mr.
Bill agreed with the recommendation for dual left-turn lanes at Town Center, and for
right-turn only movements out of the Claim Jumper driveway.
Robert Katan, 29676 Rancho California Road, representing Target Stores, expressed his
opposition to the closure of the median at the Target Center entrance as it is one of the
Center's most popular entrances, the signal should be located at the Target Center
entrance rather than Via Las Colinas, which leads to a back parking lot of Target Center.
He mentioned the distance between signals on Ynez Road is also very short.
Chairman Markham stated the signal at Via Las Colinas has been approved by the City
Council and there are five (5) or six (6) office buildings utilizing Via Las Colinas.
Commissioner Johnson commented that one of Temecula's major medical buildings also
utilizes the Via Las Colinas access.
Bob Davis, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Wilbur Smith Associates, and technical
consultant for the Town Center, presented the findings of his traffic analysis of the
proposed median closures. His traffic counts were done over three (3) days with 24-
hour counts, including Saturday mid-day, one of the busiest times for the Center. He
found the Town Center access had the heaviest usage, while Via Las Colinas was
generally used by employees and trucks, and is the narrowest of the driveways. He
stated aisle orientation and close spacing create congestion at the Town Center
entrance and as most of the traffic is left-in and left-out movements, the intersection
would operate at Service Level D, and possibly Level E during the heaviest usage,
without modification. He stated the problem with focusing all left-turns in at Town
Center and lengthening the left-turn lane, is if there are no opposing left-turns, the left-
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28.1997
turns and the easterly-through traffic move at the same time. If there is a need to
accommodate more left -turns, the westbound through-traffic would have less time.
Mr. Davis listed a number of possible alternatives:
1) Left-turns-in at the Claim Jumper Entrance Left-turns out are a problem and could
be accommodated at the main signalized intersection.
2) Signalizing Target Center Intersection in Lieu of Via Las Colinas He said the signal
warrants need more review because with a signal at Target Center, traffic within the
Center would redistribute and there would be a better balance of left-turn movements
which would improve the existing signalized intersection. Mr. Davis noted it is not
unusual to have signals at intersections 300 feet apart and if signals are interconnected
with similar phasing and timing, traffic demands would look very similar.
3) Pedestrian Crossing at Existina Town Center sianal Pedestrians crossing the street
get 10 seconds and according to the Highway Capacity Analysis, it should be 20
seconds. Pedestrians are moving across the intersection at the same time traffic is
coming out of the Hope Way driveway. Since there are many times during the day with
no traffic demand at that driveway, except for pedestrians, Mr. Davis suggested moving
the pedestrian crossing to the westside of the signal so pedestrians can cross while
traffic is exiting the Center, and to allow at least 20 seconds. He noted that a
signalized Target Center would be a better pedestrian crossing location.
4) Comparison of Volumes between Via Las Colinas and Target Center Weekday
volumes are comparable or higher at Target Center. Weekend volumes are higher at
Target Center.
5) Accident History Since Target Center has had more accidents than Via Las Colinas,
it warrants consideration for a signal.
6) Re-StriDe the Exit out of the Center Two (2) outbound lanes stripped into the Center
to Rancho California Road would segregate traffic and increase outbound capacity
movement.
7) Adjust the Driveway Design i.e., modify aisle to allow for a longer throat.
Mr. Davis stated if Target Center is signalized, the two entrances should operate at
Service Level B.
Commissioner Telesio asked if the Via Las Colinas signal is an absolute. Mr. Moghadam
replied it is the only access to the Medical Center and apartment complex and the City
Council has approved installation of the signal. He stated it is his opinion there is no
interconnect timing system that will let the two (2) signals operate efficiently together
since there are several other signals in the proximity of this location.
Mr. Davis commented both Oscar's and the Temecula Gardens contribute to the U-turn
movements at the Town Center intersection.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28. 1997
Commissioner Perry stated if both signals are linked and both have left-turn out
movements at the same time, there is no storage on Rancho California Road for waiting
vehicles. Mr. Davis suggested the left-turn out at Target Center start first, with Town
Center delayed slightly when Town Center traffic gets to Target Center, that signal will
be turning green for through movements.
Chairman Markham stated he would like modifications of the internal parking lot, i.e
longer stacking lanes to get in and out, and to eliminate crossing movements especially
at the Town Center entrance.
Mr. Moghadam noted the 300 foot spacing between the Town Center and Target Center
intersections is from center line to center line and cars cannot be stacked at the center
of the intersection.
Chairman Markham stated it was his understanding that Radnor developed, sold the
parcels, and designed the Center, i.e., driveways and overall land use. Ms. Bane replied
it was a joint effort by the individual owners. Mobil, Target, Claim Jumper and
Albertsons had input into the approved plans as well as Radnor. Ms. Bane stated the
Wilbur Smith and Associates, narrative will be given to staff as soon as she receives
release approval from the corporate owners.
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to continue
this item to the September 25, 1997 meeting, to allow staff and Commissioners time
to review the Wilbur Smith and Associates report further on possible solutions, appoint
Commissioners Coe and Perry to an Ad Hoc Committee to work with Town Center and
Public Works staff, and to report back at the September meeting.
The motion was unanimously carried,
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Installation of Painted School Crosswalk, Flashing Beacons and TempOrary Sidewalk -
Rancho Vista Road School Crossing
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Chairman Markham asked if Paseo Golita would meet warrants for a "Stop Sign". Mr.
Moghadam replied warrants consider volume and the number of accidents. He said the
numbers for Paseo Golita are not close enough to justify a "Stop Sign". However, since
warrants are only guideline, a "Stop Sign" could possibly be justified on a safety basis.
Chairman Markham stated children are going to cross at that location; a three-way stop
would help make a safer crossing, Mr. Moghadam noted students only cross twice-a-
day, while a "Stop Sign" would stop traffic 24-hours-a-day. Also, there could be rear-
end accidents, because a "Stop Sign" is not expected, and the location is at the crest
of a vertical curve.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28. 1997
Commissioner Johnson suggested the school district be asked to take another look at
a "Safe School Route" for that area.
Geneva Krag, 29917 Via Puesta del Sol, representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, stated counts of children crossing Rancho Vista Road at Camino Romo
were taken on several different occasions. She said a crosswalk gives children a false
sense of security. The school district could look into adding a crossing guards for next
year. She stated another location that may need a crossing guard is the middle of
Meadows Parkway where many children ere crossing and going through the park to get
to school.
Sergeant Crisp stated a "Stop Sign" is a good idea at Paseo Golita; the problem with a
flashing amber light is sight distance.
Commissioner Telesio noted that there is not heavy traffic on Paseo Golita and therefore
a "Stop Sign" would not be a great inconvenience. He said he is uncomfortable with
a flashing beacon, a crosswalk, and not having a crossing guard, and strongly
encouraged the school district to fund a crossing guard for next year.
Mr. Guerriero brought up the possibility of using a Vehicle Code section which permits
the City to do a speed reduction in areas close to parks and schools. This has been
used for four-way "Stop Signs" at Rancho Vista Road and Meadows Parkway, at Pauba
Road and Meadows Parkway. Mr. Moghadam replied one criteria is the school must
front the street and Vintage Hills Elementary School does not front Rancho Vista Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to review the
issue in six (6) months and to obtain the School District's input.
The motion was unanimously carried.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. Reouest for "Stop Sian" and "No Parkina" Zone - Corte Mendoze at Camino Romo
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Tom Frederick, 31806 Corte Mendoza, chairman of the Neighborhood Crime Watch,
expressed support for a "Stop Sign" at Corte Mendoza and Camino Romo, and a "No
Parking" zone on Camino Romo, south of Corte Mendoza. He noted when an event is
held at the school, parking creates a sight distance problem and eliminates the use of
two (2) fire hydrants.
it was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to
recommend the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a "Stop'" location on Corte
Mendoze at Camino Romo and a "No Parking" zone on Camino Romo south of Corte
Mendoze.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Speed Limit - Various Locations
Coe, Johnson, Telesio, Markham
Perry
None
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
The motion was carried unanimously.
Election of Public/Traffic Safety Commission Co-Chairoerson to Serve for the Remaining
1997 Calendar Year
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to nominate
Commissioner Telesio to serve as Co-Chairperson of the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission for the remainder of the 1997 calendar year.
The motion was unanimously carried.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Appoint a Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner to the Joint Temecula/Murrieta
Transoortation Committee
Commissioner Johnson volunteered to serve on the Joint Temecula/Murrieta
Transportation Committee and the Commission unanimously agreed.
Coe, Johnson, Perry, Markham
None
None
Telesio
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend
that the City Council adopt an ordinance establishing a speed limit on the following
roadways:
1. Pio Pico Road between De Portola Road and Margarita Road
2. Preece Lane south of Ynez Road
3. Del Rio Road between Front Street and Via Montezuma
4. Walcott Corridor between La Serena Way and Nicholas Road
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Mr. Moghadam indicated that two (2) new traffic signals have been added to the
1997/98 Citywide Traffic Installation List, Margarita Road at Yukon Road and at Pauba
Road near Fire Station 84.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the turning arrangements at the Winchester
Road/Jefferson Avenue intersection. Mr. Moghadam replied the turning arrangements
will be part of the Jefferson Avenue Corridor Study and major re-striping will be
required. He stated he is trying to get approval to hire a consultant to do the study.
Commissioner Perry asked if it would be worthwhile to have a hearing, sponsored by the
Commission after the consultant has been hired, to listen to the concerns of businesses.
It was agreed by the Commission to have a meeting between the consultant and
business owners.
Commissioner Johnson recommended Commissioners Perry and Telesio be named to an
Ad Hoc Committee to work with the consultant. The Commission unanimously agreed.
Chairman Markham clarified the signal at Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle East is
the westerly most intersection before the creek.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Commissioner Johnson complimented the Police Department on their traffic control at
the July 4 fireworks event.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No report was given.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Perry mentioned the unloading of cars in the median of Ynez Road is
continuing. He suggested meeting with the auto dealers to participate in a concerted
effort to eliminate the problem rather than having the police write tickets. Chairman
Markham asked staff to draft a letter to the Auto Dealers Association expressing a
desire to jointly develop solutions to eliminate the problem.
Chairman Markham stated the Ford Dealer service customers are queuing up in the
center lane before the service center opens.
Commissioner Perry invited all Commissioners to attend an event honoring several
Temecula police officers on September 24, 1997, 7:00 PM, at the Masonic Center.
Police Chief Lebahn and the Chairman Larry Markham, will speak.
Commissioner Telesio asked if there is any way to extend the westbound Winchester
Road left-turn storage or the signal time at the Ynez Road intersection. Mr. Moghadam
responded that any change requires Caltrans approval.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 1997
Chairman Markham asked staff to compile a list of the proposed improvements/changes
for Margarita Road, Winchester Road, Ynez Road, and Overland Crossing for the
Commissions information.
Commissioner Johnson welcomed Commissioner Telesio to the Commission.
Commissioner Coe stated La Serena Way has a double yellow line and between Camino
Corto and Via Halcon, there is a broken yellow line which does not seem reasonable
since it is a winding, hilly location. Staff will review the situation.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:56 PM. The motion carried unanimously.
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
September 25, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., Temecuia City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Larry Markham
Secretary
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
BAli Moghadam, Associate Engineer
September 25, 1997
SUBJECT:
Item 5
Proposed Median Modification o Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and
Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the median openings at the Claim Jumper
driveway and Target driveway be closed and the swiping and signal timing at Town Center/Hope Way be
modified to increase capacity at this intersection.
BACKGROUND:
Per the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's direction, staff studied feasibility of restricting access to die Town
Center by modifying the existing median islands. This item has already been reviewed by die Public/Traffic
Safety Commission on three (3) separate occasions. At the August 28, 1997 meeting of the Public/Traffic
Safety Commission, the Commission continued this item to allow starf adequate time to review the study
conducted by the Town Center's engineer.
The final report which was submiued on September 17, 1997, was reviewed by City staff in great detail.
Although staff does not agree with several assumptions made in this study, even at worse case, with
improvements to the signal timing and striping at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Town
Center/Hope Way, the level of service could be maintained at current levels. These improvements include
relocation of the crosswalk to the west side of th6 intersection, re-timing the signal to allocate more time to
Town Center, and re-striping the Town Center driveway.
It should be noted that the intersection of Via Las Coilhas and Rancho California Road is the only access to
the medical center and the apartanent complex on Via Las Colinas. In addition, since this intersection is
located downstream of a vertical curve, the sight distance is very limited for out-bound left-turn movement.
Also, the City has received a grant for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection which cannot be used
at any other location. i
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B" - Wilbur Smith Assoc. Report
~VOH Z~A
EXHIBIT "B"
TRAFFIC COLLISION SUMMARY
LOCATION
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
TPAGET CENTER
OSCAR'S
CLAIM IUMPER
YEAR
1995
TOTAL
or 'Xccm,gNv
PROPERTY
DAMAGE INXURY
ONLY
0 0
6 4
0 0
9 5
TOTAL
0
10
0
4
14
LOCATION
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
XqA LAS COLINAS
TRAGET CENTER
OSCAR'S
CLAIM JUMPER
YEAR
1/1/96 to
7/31/97
TOTAL
ONLY
4 I
TOTAL
5
11 3 14
0 0 0
12 0 12
27 4 31
SEE COLLISION DIAGRAMS FOR DETAILS
ssu!lo3 se~l
~¢Oli Z~INA
~-x"IBIT
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS * PLANNERS
23">0 :' ~, ATE_LA AVE · SdffE 275 · ANAhEIM CA 0280~-b047 * (7 f4) C78-81!0 · ;AX ,,7:4~ 978-I~ 00
September 16, 1997
Patncia M. Snow, CSM
Senior Property Manager
RADNOR/Califomia Services Corporation
27450 Ynez Rd. Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ms. Snow:
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) is pleased to submit this report to RADNOR which documents our
findings relating to the assessment of traffic access impacts on the Temecula Town Center
associated with Rancho California Road median modifications and intersection signalization plan
proposed to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission by the City of Temecula Public Works
Department Proposed median modi~canons presented in the City's Agenda Report dated June 26,
1997, are intended to reduce the number of traffic accidents which occur along Rancho Califorma
Road at the un-signalized access driveway intersections serving Temecula Town Center and the
Temecula Gardens apartment complex.
The median modi~caUons proposed by the City, essemially involve the closure of median openings
and elimination of un-restricted left-turn and through movements at the driveways served by the
median openings. While the proposed median closures would eliminate the occurrence of some
traffic accident categories, the median modifications would result in the elimination of access
features which were dedicated to the Town Center when the development plan was originally
approved. The loss of these access features will have an impact on the manner in which patrons
enter and exit the Town Center. The general scope of WSA's work has been to investigate the
access and circulation impacts of the proposed Temecula Public Works Department street
modificauons and to formulate alternative measures which would reduce accidents and, at the same
time, minimize impacts on the Town Center access.
A more detailed description of WSA's work tasks for this study is provided below:
II
This initial task included a careful revmw of the City's Jane 26, 1997 Agenda Report to the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission to understand the safety concerns and access/circulation
impacts implications of the proposed median modifications. A copy of the Agenda Report is
attached for reference purposes.
EMPLOYEE'OWNED COMPANY
Pamcia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 2
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
2)
3)
In order to fully evaluate the access impacts associated with the proposed median closures,
additional traffic data was collected at the Town Center access driveways and along Rancho
Califorma Road. This data served to gain a better understanding of traffic circulation panems
and flow characteristics at the access driveway intersections serving the Town Center.
A comprehensive set of counts was conducted over a three-day period, from Thursday July 24
to Saturday July 26, 1997, which comprised of a combination of24-hour dimctional tube counts
and peak period intersection turinrig movement counts at six of the seven Town Center access
points (including four on Rancho California Road and two on Ynez Road). Additionally, 24-
hour directional counts were conducted on both Rancho California Road and Ynez Road (near
the intersecUon of these two streets) and peak period intersection turning movement counts at
the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The 24-hour tube counts were
conducted for both a typical weekday and weekend day. Intersection turning movement counts
were conducted during peak ingress/egress periods of the center as well as dunng peak traffic
periods on Rancho California Road.
The peak traffic ingress/egress period on weekdays typically occurs between 12:00 noon and
2:00 p.m. for the Town Center, while the peak traffic period on Rancho California Road
_typically occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. On weekends the peak traffic period for both
the Town Center and Rancho Catiforma Road .typically occurs between 12:00 noon and 3:00
p.m.
This task also included a detailed investigation of study area to collect information on lane
configurations at access intersections, access configurations and needs of properties south of
Rancho California Road, and general traffic operation characteristics within the study area
dunng peak periods.
Using field data collected in Task 2. WSA evaluated the impact of the proposed street
modifications on ingress/egress traffic flows. This included a complete re-distribution
evaluation of patron traffic affected by the proposed street modifications and an analysis of
traffic operations at key center access points as well as the intersection of Rancho California
Road/Ynez Road.
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 3
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
4)
Based on Task 2 field investigations and the results of analysis performed in Task 3, WSA
formulated severat alternatives to the Civy proposed modificauons which would reduce the
likelihood of traffic accidents and, at the same time, minimize access impacts on the Town
Center.
Temecula Town Center Access
The configuration of access driveways serving the Town Center is depicted in Figure 1. Four access
driveways are located along Rancho California Road and three along Ynez Road. Primary access
on Rancho Califorma Road is provided by the centrally located signalized Town Center/Hope Way
intersection. Secondary access is provided by both the Claim Jamper restaurant driveway and the
Target driveway. Opposite the Target driveway, is the exit driveway for the Temecuta Gardens
apartment complex.
The easterly Town Center driveway located opposite Via Las Colinas is designed to provide access
to deliver5.' trucks and employees who park at the rear of stores located along the east perimeter of
the center. Convenient patron parking accessible via this driveway, is generally limited to parking
spaces located near the northern perimeter of the center, adjacent to Edward's Theater. The grade
features of Rancho California Road, place this driveway at an elevation well above that of the
Target parking lot. The difference in elevanon, combined v, qth the relatively remote location of the
driveway result in few patrons recognizing that this driveway actually serves the Town Center.
On Ynez Road, the signalized center and south driveways serve as primary access points for the
Town Center. The north driveway on Ynez Road is not signalized and serves as secondary. access
for the center.
Access points originally approved for the site along Rancho Califorma Road were constructed in
1989, just prior to the opening of the center. The raised median and median openings were
consumeted at the same time the Town Center was under construction. In 1989, development along
the south side of Rancho California Road consisted of the Bedford Properties Visitor/Sales Office,
the original Hope Lutheran Church, Temecula Gardens apartment complex, Highlands Office
Building, and Rancho California Medical Plaza. Turning movements at all four driveway were
Pamcia Snow
September 16.1997
Page 4
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
unrestricted in 1989, as they are today, All four driveways operated as un-controlled intersections
until 1993-94 when the signal at the Town Center driveway/Hope Way intersection was installed.
Accident History
Traffic collision diagrams presented in the June 26th and August 28th, 1997 Agenda Reports
summe the accident history, for the period from January 1995 through July 1997. along Rancho
Califorma Road at the Cla~rn Jumper driveway, Target driveway, and north Town Center driveway
opposite Via Las Colinas.
Dunng 1995, four accidents occurred near the Claim Jumper driveway. Two of the accidents
involved turns to or from the driveway. One of these involved a left-turn movement into the
driveway and one involved a right turn out of the driveway. Between January of 1996 and July of
1997, a total of twelve accidents occurred in the vicinity of the Claim Jumper driveway. The more
recent accidents included four involving lef~ turns out of the driveway, four involving fight turns out
or into the driveway, and one involving a left turn into the driveway.
At the Target dnveway/Temecula Gardens driveway intersection, ten accidents occurred dunng
1995 All of the accidents involved left turn or through movements into and/or out of these
driveways. Between January 1996 and July 1997, a total of ten accidents occurred at this
intersection with all involving left turn and through movements at the driveways.
In the vicimty of the east Town Center drivewayNia Las Colinas intersection, no accidents occurred
dunng 1995 and five occurred during the 1996-1997 period. In this case only one accident involved
a vehicle exiting/entenng the side street.
The accident data shows that there has been an increase in the rate of accidents over time. During
1995. the accident rate averaged 1.2 accidents per month. From January 1996 through July 1997
the accident rate averaged 1.6 per month. One of the contributing factors to the increased rate of
accidents over time is the growth in traffic on Rancho Califorma Road.
While small increases in traffic may have occurred at the Town Center driveways the major portion
of traffic increases has occurred In through traffic on Rancho California Road. This is primarily due
Pamcia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 5
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
to the new housing development which is occurnng in the eastern part of the city. Other new
development which has contributed significant traffic to this segment of Rancho California Road
includes the Oscars restaurant and the expansion/reconstruction ofHope Lutheran Church. Traffic
flows on Rancho California Road have increased from 26,000 vehicles per day in 1992 to 38,900
vehicles per day in 1997. This increase in traffic has impacted the ability of Town Center patrons
to negotiate left turns while exiting and entering at the an-controlled driveways.
Proposed City Modifications
As described in the Agenda Report, pmpesed modifications between Ynez Road and Via I.as
Colinns are primarily intended to reduce the rate of accidents at the Claim Jumper and
TargevTemecula Gardens driveways. The proposed modifications include:
· closure of the median opening opposite the Target and Temecula Gardens d~veways;
· either closure of the median opening opposite the Claim Jumper driveway or at a minimum
prohibit left turns out of the driveway;
· conversion of the westbound right-ram lane between the Town Center/Hope Way Intersection
and Ynez Road to a third through lane; and
modifications to the median islands to provide additional left-trim lane storage on Rancho
California Road at the Town Center/Hope Way and north Town Center/Via Las Colinns
intersections.
The City Agenda Report also states that the intersection of Rancho California Road and Via Las
Colinns is scheduled for signalization in Fiscal Year 1997/1998.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Weekday and Saturday directional daily traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.
As can be noted, the signalized Town Center driveway on Rancho Califorma Road is the most
heavily utilized driveway serving between 8,200 and 9,300 vehicles per day. This represents
Patricia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 6
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
between 46 and 48 percent of the total traffic which accessed to and from Rancho California Road.
This is followed by the Claim Jumper and Target driveways which serve an average of
approxamately 6,000 and 3,300 vehicles per day respectively. Daily raffle at the east Town Center
driveway averages only 480 vehicles per day or less than 3 percent of the traffic accessed via
Rancho California Road.
Peak-hour intersection and roadway segment traffic volumes for the weekday midday', weekday
p.m., and Saturday rrddday condition is presented in Figures 4 through 6 respectively. The weekday
and Saturday peak-hours at the Town Center access driveway intersections were found to generally
occur between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. The weekday p.m. peak-hour at these locations generally occurs
between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.
It should be noted that sigm~cant u-turn movements curremly occur on Rancho California Road at
the Town Center/Hope Way intersection due to median insmeted left-turn movements at the Oscars
driveway and Temecula Gardens entrance driveway. OscaYs traffic destined to the west, must
weave across the eastbound Rancho California Road traffic lanes to access the left-turn lane at the
nearby Town Center/Hope Way intersection. This traffic then makes a u-turn at the intersection to
travel westbound. Temecula Gardens apartment complex traffic approaching on Rancho California
Road from the east, must make a u-turn at the Town Center intersection in order to enter the
complex.
Evaluation of Impacts on Traffic Volumes
Based on the proposed median modification and associated access restrictions, WSA evaluated the
likely pattem of traffic m-distribtmon for each of the movements affected. The estimated paths and
re-distribution of the affected traffic are illustrated in Figures 7 through 11. The resulting traffic
volumes during each of the peak-hour conditions with the proposed City median closures are
illustrated in Figures 12 through 14.
It should be noted that full closure of the median and restriction of left turn movements has been
assumed at the Claim Jumper driveway to evaluate the potential impact.
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 7
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
At the Claim Jumper driveway, the proposed median closure would impact approximately 4 to 9
outbound left turn vehicles per hour during the peak periods studied. Inbound left turns impacted
by the proposed median closure number between 75 and 155 vehicles per hour dunng peak penods.
The median closure at the Target driveway would displace an existing outbound left turn volume
of approximately 38 vehicles per hour dunng peak periods. The inbound left turn movement
impacted by the proposed closure totals approramately 33 vehicle on the avenge during peak-hours.
At the Temecula Gardens exit, an avenge of 29 vehicles per hour would be affected by the by the
median closure.
The analysis of impacts on traffic distribution panems indicate that significant traffic increases
durmg peak periods can be expected at the Town CenterMope Way intersection. Specifically, the
eastbound left turn into the Town Center and the outbound left turn from the Town Center would
be the most severely impacted. Dunng peak-hour periods, increases of over 100 vehicle would be
common at the inbound left turn from eastbound Rancho California Road,
Evaluation of Impacts on Traffic Operations
WSA has analyzed intersection operation dunng the peak-hour periods with and ruthout the
proposed median closures. The results of the HCS signalized intersection analyses are summarized
below.
Peak-hour intersection operation at Rancho Califorma Road/Ynez Road would be slightly better
(lower average delay) w~th dunng the weekday midday condition and slightly worse (higher
average delay) for the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday conditions with the re-distribution
in traffic. Level of Service (LOS) was not found to impacted however in any of the cases.
Peak-hour intersection operation at the Rancho Califorma Road/Town Center-Hope Way
intersection was found to be more significantly impacted. While the overall intersection LOS
is not impacted dunng the weekday peak-hour periods, the level of service for the left turn into
and out of the Town Center driveway would in most cases be worsened from "C" to "D" For
the Saturday condition LOS at the intersection would worsen from "C" to "D."
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 8
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
It should be noted that the accommodation of pedestrian traffic crossing Rancho California
Road at this intersection, is particularly problematic. The current signal phasing allows
pedestrians to cross Rancho Califorma Road when Hope Way exiting traffic is given the
"green." Since Hope Way u'affic volumes are very low, this signal phase is not always needed.
The pedestrian push-button will activate this phase of the signal even when Hope Way traffic
is not present. As a result of this, green time is being taken away ~'om other approach
movements. Additionally, pedestnans are given only 10 seconds or less to cross Rancho
Califorma Road when a typical pedestrian needs approximately 20 seconds to walk the width
of the sweet.
If rmnimum recommended pedestrian crossing times are provided existing traffic conditions
would result in LOS "D" for all study periods and with the re-distribution of traffic, overall
intersection delay is worsened to LOS "E" in some cases. In all cases, the LOS for the inbound
and outbound left turns would deteriorate to "E"
On-site circulauon conditions should also be considered. Current conditions in the vicinity. of
the main Town Center access driveway are highly congested during peak periods. This is
partially due to the proximity of the first cross circulation aisle to the signalized intersection.
Since many patrons find it difficult to turn left out of the site at the Claim Jumper and Target
driveways, they circulate on-site towards the signalized Town Center driveway. This
carculation pattern is evident from the directional irabalances in the hourly and daily traffic
flows at these three access driveways. The inbound volumes at the Claim Jumper and Target
driveways are higher than the outbound volumes while the outbound volumes at the Town
Center dnveway are heavier than the inbound volumes. The median closure at both the Claim
Jumper and Target chiveways would further exacerbate congestion on-site and could ultimately
cause back-ups at the Town Center entrance chiveway and also reduce the efficiency of the
outbound lanes at this intersection.
Proposed Alternatives and Mitigative Measures for Consideration
1)
As pointed out in the Agenda Report, g~ven the low accident rate for inbound left turns at the
Claim Jumper driveway, it appears reasonable at this time to limit the turn restriction at this
location to outbound left turns only. The resultant impact on traffic redistribution would be
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 9
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
2)
negligible. Accidents involving inbotmd left turns at this driveway could be monitored over the
short term to see if additional measures are warranted. WSA agxees with the median
modification proposed by the City to physically discourage the outbound left turn movement.
It is assumed that this measure would be aceompamed by appropriate sigrang.
As an alternative to closing the median at the Target/Temecula Gardens driveways, WSA
suggests that a signal at this location be considered in lieu of the planned signal at the east
Town Center driveway. The combined weekday peak period traffic volumes entering and
exiting Target/Temecula Gardens driveways are comparable or higher than those at the north
Town Center driveway/Via Las Colinas. When weekend periods are considered, traffm
generated at the Target driveway is significantly higher than that experienced at Via Las
Cohnas. Furthermore, due to the "service" nature of the areas served by the east Town Center
driveway and the poor visibility of this driveway, it is not likely that a signal at this location
would have much of an impact in am'acting shopping center patrons.
It is also relevant to note that the east Town Center driveway/Via Las Colinas area of Rancho
California Road has experienced a very. low accident rate since January 1995. No accidents
occurred dunng 1995 and only five occurred during the nineteen-month period from January.
1996 through July 31, 1997. Of the five recent accidents, only one involved traffic at the
entenng or exiting the side driveway/street.
Additionally, while we are uncertain of the timing, it appears that Via Las Colinas will
ulumately be extended to the east and then turn north to connect Rancho California Road at the
s~gnalized intersecuon of Moraga Road. There also appears to be an opportunity to provide for
a shared access or dedicated street running between Via Las Colinas and the intersection of
Rancho Califomia Road and Lyndie Lane, which is also signalized. Either or both of these
potential signalized connections to Rancho California Road could safely serve traffic to and
from the Via Las Colinas area.
Although the Target ariveway is relatively close to the Town Center signal location, these
signal could be interconnected to insure that they operate in a coordinated fashion and maintain
Patncia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 10
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
good traffic flow. The distance between these intersections is approximately 300 feet, similar
to the distance between many freeway interchange ramps.
In Figure 15, WSA has esUmated the re-dislribution of Town Center traffic which would likely
result from the presence of a signal at the Target driveway. This is essentially the latent
demand for exiting traffic which currently diverts to the Town Center driveway. The peak-hour
traffic volumes which would result due to the Target signal are depicted in Figures 16 through
18.
3)
If a signal were to be located at the Target driveway, it would also offer an opportunity to
potentially relocate the pedestrian crossing at the Town Center/Hope Way intersection. This
location would actually be in closer proximity to the residential areas generating the pedestrian
traffic. In this case, pedestrians could be served by a single crosswalk located across Rancho
California Road on the west side of the intersection. Pedestrians would be given the "walk"
symbol during the signal phase which serves traffic exiting the Town Center.
Analysis of estimated peak hour conditions at both the Town Center/Hope Way signal and the
Target/Temecula Gardens signal. indicate that the resulting re4ismbution of traffic would offer
LOS "B" traffic conditions at both traffic signals while safely accommodating pedestrians.
It is xmportant to note however, that if a signal is located at the Target driveway, the on-site
circulation layout would need to be modified to accommodate a clear approach to the
intersection which if un-inten-upted by cross circulation aisles. The leng~ of the intersection
approach should be at least 120 feet from the stop bar location. Inbound traffic would need to
be provided vath a similar clear aisle to operate properly, The recon~gured driveway would
be striped to provide two outbound lanes and one inbound lane.
If a pedestrian crossing of Rancho California Road is to be maintained at the Town
Center/Hope Way intersection, WSA recommends that the City consider use of a single
crosswalk located on the west side of the intersection, and provide a minimum 20-second
interval for the Town Center approach traffic when the pedestrian push-button is used. Since
the traffic demand is higher at the Town Center approach than the Hope Way approach, in most
Pamcia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 11
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
4)
5)
instances both traffic and pedesman movements would be served at the same time. This would
allow the intersection to operate more efficiently than with the present signal phasing.
The Town Center driveway approach to Rancho Califorma Road should be striped in a manner
which would allow a dual left-turn movement. Figure 19 depicts two striping layout
alternatives which would provide traffic a more orderly approach to the intersection and
increase capacity. The main aisle leading to and from the Town Center approach should also
be smped in a manner which would provide two outhound (southbound) lanes and one inbound
(nonhbotmd) lane.
If the decision be made by the City to continue with current plans to signalize the north Town
Center driveway/Via Las Colinas intersection, consideration should be given to delaying the
closure of the median opposite the Target driveway. The presence of a new signal to the east
combined with proposed operational improvements at the Town Center/Hope Way intersection
may result in more favorable conditions which would safely accommodate the Target and
Temecula Gardens driveway traffic movements.
One concern related to the signalization of the East driveway/Via Las Colinas intersection, is
the possibili.ty that this improvement may encourage Via Las Colmas traffic to circulate through
the rear of the Town Center while travelling between Via Las Colinas area and the Ynez
comdor.
6)
Another opnon would be to: (a) limit turns at the Claim Jumper driveway to "left in only"; (b)
add the westbound lane between the Town Center/Hope Way intersection and Ynez Road; (c)
lengthen the left-turn bays on Rancho Califorma Road approaching the Town Center/Hope Way
intersection: (d) implement the proposed m-striping of the Town Center driveway and signal
timing modifications (including changes to the pedesman crossing locauon and signal phasing;
and (e) provide a new "second" access driveway for Oscars which would connect to Ynez Road
at Tierra Vista Road. It is our understanding that the City is already considering this new
access. The cumulative affect of these measures may improve operations in the study area and
allow safer access at the TargevTemecula Gardens driveways without closure of the median.
If these measures do not subsequently result in a reduction in the accident rate at the Target
Patricia Snow
September 16, 1997
Page 12
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
driveway, then the left turns at the driveway could be limited to "left turn in only." Accidents
involving inbeund left turns at this driveway could then be monitored for a period of rime to
see if additional measures are warranted.
Should RADNOR or City of Temecula staff have any questions concermng the results of this study,
please contact me (714) 978-8110.
Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Pnncipal Transportation Engineer
RAD:rad
Attachments
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROA~)
TEMECULA
TOWN C~NTE~
FIGURE 1
W
~g69~l
LB~OL
0 ~ T
:~ o z
w _\,
s°;' y2/f
~t
t
S6 ~
O0
Oz °
~0~0
~ O0
~ 0
o 4
\ rr
Z~
OZ
~Owl-
,,',=>,17
C3U.Ia
LLOI-UZ
W I-~
_~-r
W
I--~
<0
0
Z
<~
0
C.)
~t
o
rr
uJ
rr
z
o Z
n..JUJ~
>0>
r,:::)a~ ---=-- O
Ow~- ~ _~o~-;=
I'O i 0
~ ~ o ~
<l: ,,- 90~ iT ~ ''\
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safe~y Commission
All Moghadam, Associate Engineer
Item ~
Pmlx~d Median Modifications - R~ncho California Road Between Yne~ Road and
Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review and recommend median modificalions on Rancho California
Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie L~ne as shown on Exhibit "A".
BACKGROUND:
Rancho Califorrua Read between Ynez Rood ~ Lyndie Lane is dasignated as a four (4) lane arterial roadway
on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. This segment of Rancho California Rood is
currently heavily waveled and the existing un-resnicted left-turn access m the Town Center driveways causes
a,n exc. e,s~ve number of waffle collisions and creates congestion. Currently full tin-restricted access exists on
Rancho California Road at Claim Jumper driveway and Target Center driveway. Exhibit "A" depicts the
e~ median island coafiguraUon and the proposed modifications. Due to several cort~icting movements
at these driveways during the AM, PM, and mid-day peak hours, numerous lxaffic collisions have been
reporaxt on Rancho California Road in axis vicinity. A total of 27 accidents were reported from January 1,
1996 to May 1, 1997 on Rancho Califorma Road at these chiveways. Exhibit 'B" is the accident summary and
collision diagrams on Rancho California Road at these unconlxolled driveways.
It should be noted that the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vial l .q~ Colinas is scheduled for
sigr~ali:,ation in Fiscal Year 1996/1997. The proposed ~affic signal at Via Las Colinas and tbe existing traffic
signal at Hope Way/Town Center should provide adequate and safe access to the Town Ceater from eas~bottnd
Rancho C. aliforraa Road. Also, by eliminating the left-turn movement at these driveways the existing sniped
right-turn only lane to the Town Center and Ynez Road can be utilized as a through lane which will increase
the capacity of this major east-west corridor.
The collision diagram (Exhibit "B") indicates a low accident frequency caused by the eastbound left-turn
movement at the first driveway east of Ynez Road (Claim Jumper driveway). Therefore, to accommodate
some of the east~und left-lxtrn demand (Exl'dbit "C") , a left-turn-in without a left-turn-out may be considered
at fixis location. The proposed project will also include modificanons to the existing median islands to provide
additional left-turn storage capacity at the signalized intersections of Rancho Califorma Road with Hope
Way/Town Center and Via Las Colinas.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project has been identified in the proposed F'Y97/98 Capital Improvement Program.
A~ehm~nt:
1. F, x3aibit 'A" - Existing Median island and Proposetl Mocli~ea~oms
2. Exhibit 'B' - Traf'~e Collision Summary and Diagrams
3. Exhibit 'C' - Turning Movement and Directional Volume Counts
I ~9 3~ 2?03 P. 09
~2'7-l.g~J7 1,8:21 g'~mtW,,~g~ 7'Er'ECU_~q
EXHIBIT "B"
TRAFFIC COLLISION SUMMARY
LOCATION
RANCHO CAI..FFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
T1LAGET CENTER
, OSCAR'S
CLAIM IUMPEP,
:t TYPE OF
PROPERTY
YEAR DAMAGE
ONLY
1995 0
0
TOTAL 9
,~1!...
INJURY TOI'AL
0 0
4 lO
0 0
I 4
5
LOCATION
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
AT
VIA LAS COLINAS
TRAGET CEN rhR
OSCAR'S
CLAIN[ JUMPER
TYPE OF
PROPERTY
YEAR DAMAGE
ONLY
1/1/96 to 4
7/31197
I1
0
12
TOTAL 27
SEE COLLISION DIAGILAMS FOR DETAILS
INJURY 'I'OTAL
l 5
3 14
0 0
0
LOCATION:
COLLISION DIAGRAM
TO: 7-31-97
T'AI~ET aTC ~
TDWA/ ~J~l~r~
J
F~,4D
LOCATION:
PERIOD:
COLLISION DIAGRAM
'to:
W/~1' 7'
Page I of 4
!i
LOCATION:
PERIOD: FROU:
/-/-e~
COLLISION DIAGRAM
CY/L/F~,~,'V/// ~'OAZ2 ~ 1//,4
To: E-/47 ~
\
LA~ EDL. tlV/I~
CONST
OPO
DV
Page 2 of 4
,
LOCATION:
/~N~D
,:,~.,oo: .,o,.,:
A55/PEN 7'5': ~
( 1 IN3UI~/~a:/pz'AlTp
EP~,NE'WAY
~-LAIH
COLLISION DIAGRAM
TO: ~ ) I
I
i \
I ,,.
O$ca~-s
Page 3 of 4
LOCATION:
PERIOD:
COLLISION DIAGRAM
L~umbVui ~a,~O ~ Vl,~
m:/' l'~/& ~
\
i )
L.J
L/J ~ ED L IN/l~
T~K6E r z~'~v ~z~=/2,
Page 4 of 4
EXI-ffR1T "C"
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
CLAIM '
CEhi~-n
OSCAR'S I~ ONLY
Turning movement count
Period: 12:00 Noon to I:00 P.M.
! 'OF °TD4EC~LA/SITE 28
'g0 ~L~FOI~IA/NE OF YNE~ ROAD
I TUE/~ON
< ...... EBND
08/06 43
31
25
20 119
26
16
18
22 82
21
?
13
13 54
7
9
10
13 39
16
5
18
27 66
24
28
22
46 120
76
67
96
135 374
127
104
139
164 534
156
171
237
273 837
271
253
255
235 1014
294
266
317
318 1195
269
362
285
283 1199
5633
16518
P.M. A .M.
254 24
252 ] 9
260 [ t7
271 1037 I 11
277 I 8
262 10
282 12
267 1088 14
258 22
250 12
252
301 1061 19
279 12
304 9
298 16
380 1261 19
329 34
331 40
354 70
381 1395 87
379 99
382 i07
382 162
385 1528 175
295 234
326 218
249 363
242 1112 450
192 303
181 444
222 387
151 - 746 476
167 348
205 316
158 309
149 679 297
151 233
129 219
107 237
95 482 263
85 229
77 229
79 264
62 303 247
54 244
59 232
38 269
42 t93 255
i0885 8065
61
44
64
56
231
543
1265
1610
1270
952
969
t000
18820
232
243
270
249
245
234
221
198
160
197
155
158
159
120
114
108
89
95
76
50
50
38
36
30
13
10755
COOlITS UNLIMITED
909.247.6716
DST/WF,~
..... ><- Combined
P.M. A.M.
305 67
310 40
313 42
352 1280 31 180
332 34
260 26
292 30
338 1222 36 126
329 43
294 ~ 19
319 24
303 1245 32 118
306 19
370 18
344 26
343 1363 32 95
354 50
298 I 45
320 88
336 1308 114 297
302 123
246 135
244 184
1024 221 663
310
285
459
1007 585 1639
430
548
526
813 640 2144
504
487
546
669 570 2107
504
472
492
431 498 1966
523
495
581
271 565 2164
513
594
554
122538 2199
13698
35338
41.11 50.3% 58.8% 49.7~
.___>
P,M.
559
562
573
623 2317
609
522
574
605 2310
587
544
571
604 2306
585
674
642
723 2624
683
629
674
717 2703
681
628
626
617 2552
538
596
498
487 2119
426
402
420
31I 1559
364
360
316
308 1348
271
243
215
184 913
180
153
129
112 574
92
95
68
60 315
21640
10:30 ,/ 05:00 =r 07:15 ,~ 03:15/~,. iO:30A~ 03:15~M
1266 1528 1655 1411 2253 2722
.87 .99 .86 .95 .94 .94
Site Code: 155720
Shirt Date: 08/06/96
File I.D.: TE28AU96
Pa~e : 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order
on Thursday, September 25, 1997, 7:00 P.M., at the City Hall Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Markham called the meeting to order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Johnson arrived at 7:14 PM.
Coe, Perry, Telesio, Markham
Johnson
Also present were Public Works Associate Engineer All Moghadam, Assistant Engineer Hasib
Baha, Police Sergeant Rodney Crisp, Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle, and Minute Clerk Pat
Kelley.
Commissioner Perry led the flag salute.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Markham called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests
to speak.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of August 28.1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to approve the
Consent Calendar.
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Coe, Perry, Telesio, Markham
None
Johnson
Pedestrian Crossing - Winchester Road at Nicolas Road
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
A video presentation, prepared by Becca Woodward, showing students crossing at the
Nicolas Road/Winchester Road intersection was reviewed by the Commission.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25.1997
Commissioner Telesio asked if Caltrans made a decision based on their own analysis or
did they take staff's recommendations/suggestions. Mr. Moghadam replied this signal
was part of the County of Riverside Assessment District 161 project and City staff had
no input.
Commissioner Perry asked if the Commission could take any action to expedite the
process and if the City Council needed to approve the decision. Mr. Moghadam stated
staff is in contact with Caltrans and they have already reviewed the situation and City
Council approval is not required for Caltrans action. Commissioner Perry requested staff
to continue contact with Caltrans on this particular problem.
Becca Woodward, 40225 Holden Circle, stated she has worked with the School District,
the Police Department, City staff and Caltrans to rectify this problem. She commented
she is in agreement with staff's recommendations and reiterated the need for a solution
now.
Barbara Miller, 30508 Sierra Madre, asked if an overhead pedestrian crossing would be
appropriate. Commissioner Perry replied that experience has shown many people will
not use an overpass crossing and there will still be jaywalkers.
Chairman Markham suggested Ms. Woodward give a copy of her tape to Geneva Krag,
Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Traffic Signal Installation - Pala Road at Pechanga Casino Main Entrance
Chairman Markham stepped down due to a conflict of interest and Co-Chairman Telesio
presided.
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Perry asked if this signal could be conditioned for cost sharing of a signal
at Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road. Mr. Moghadam replied there are discussions for
cost sharing of a Loma Linda/Pala Road signal; the possibility of negotiating is open for
a signal at Wolf Valley Road, but not conditioning.
Dennis Chiniaeff, 27555 Ynez Road,//'200, representing the Pechanga Development
Corporation, stated the heavy traffic on Pala Road creates conflict with patrons exiting
the casino and heading northbound toward Hwy. 79(S). He stated the Tribal Council
plans to improve Pala Road from Via Eduardo/Wolf Valley Road to their southerly
boundary. Mr. Chiniaeff said although it is planned to have the signal completed by the
end of the year, an interim three-way "Stop" would be very beneficial if it could be
approved in the meantime. Mr. Moghadam stated an interim "Stop" sign can be erected
when signals are warranted and urgently needed, but he is reluctant to state a signal is
urgently needed at that location.
Commissioner Coe commented "urgently needed" often refers to a signal's position on
the priority listing and since the Tribal Council is paying for the signal, it's position is
moot.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25. 1997
Ms. Axton mentioned children were off track when the counts were taken. Chairman
Markham stated the need for a signal will be reviewed at a later time and counts will be
taken during all tracks, He mentioned a "Stop" sign can be installed immediately after
City Council action.
Ms. Axton stated Summerfield Development was approved with no left turns out of the
exit closest to the park and North General Kearny Road, yet people are making left turns
which create a traffic hazard. Chairman Markham stated a raised median on Nicolas
Road from Winchester Road to the point urbanized development ends will be installed
in the near future.
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to recommend
to the City Council that a four-way "Stop" sign and crosswalk with appropriate flashing
yellow lights be installed at intersection of Nicolas and North General Kearny Roads for
60 to 90 days.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Proposed Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lvndie
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Telesio asked if the signal at Via Las Colinas will permit U-Turns and Mr.
Moghadam replied it will.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the right-turn only lane. Mr. Moghadam stated if
the median is completely closed, the lane could be turned into a through lane.
Commissioner Perry reported on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee and suggested
another meeting or two, prior to the next Commission meeting, would be appropriate
and recommended the matter be continued.
Commissioner Coe, Ad Hoc Committee member, stated options developed were:
determining if the City Council would delay the signal installation at Via Las Colinas,
preventing left-turn exits from the two (2) driveways, keep the left-turn in, and the
Center is looking at re-striping internally.
Commissioner Perry proposed studying an alternative which would consist of traffic
coming down Via Las Colinas and curving to Lyndie Lane beyond the medical center.
He stated there were no problems with power lines, but right-of way would have to be
acquired.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 25. 1997
Mr. Moghadam stated the intersection will be monitored and if there are additional
accidents, the matter will be brought back to the Commission to reconsider an interim
"Stop" sign.
Commissioner Perry asked Mr. Chiniaeff if the Tribal Council would be interested in
participating in a signal at Wolf Valley and Pala Road. Mr. Chiniaeff replied it would
depend on the development across the street.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend
a traffic signal be installed on Pala Road at the main entrance to the Pechanga Casino.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAINS: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Markham
4. Request for Installation of a Traffic Signal - Nicolas Road at Nor~' General Kearnv
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Perry asked how close the numbers were to meeting the 30-second-per-
vehicle delay warrants. Mr. Moghadam stated during peak hours, traffic experienced
a seven (7) to eight (8) second average delay.
Wanda Faille, 30209 Sierra Madre Drive, described the problems she and her pre-
schoolers have encountered getting to and from the park.
Forrest Thomas, Director of Transportation, Temecula Valley Unified School District
(TVUSD), supported a four-way stop or a traffic signal, a painted crosswalk with a
crossing guard there from eight to nine AM and three to four PM Monday through
Friday. He said with these installations, the School District would no longer bus children
living within a mile of the school on the south side of Nicolas.
Jon Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive, described his experiences in crossing the street
and left a video for staff's review. He questioned whether any warrant should be
connected to public safety. Mr. Moghadam stated the number of accidents at a location
is the public safety consideration.
Lori Cundiff, 30185 Sierra Madre Drive, supported a four-way "Stop" sign with a
crosswalk.
Cecilia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive, supported TVUSD's position. She questioned
the bike/equestrian trail at Nicolas and Joseph Roads as many people use it as a
pedestrian crosswalk and suggested it either be marked as a pedestrian crossing or
taken out. Chairman Markham stated staff will review the trail.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 25. 1997
Chairman Markham stated the City would lose grant money if the signal at Via Las
Colinas is not installed and the money cannot be used at another location, He re-
iterated Via Las Colinas is a dangerous intersection. He said he feels people will not
drive east to go west and does not agree with the proposal because acquisition of right-
of-way is a lengthy process.
Commissioner Johnson suggested another option would be changing the Center's
internal traffic flow. Commissioner Perry stated that option was mentioned at the
meeting. The Center states they are prepared to review the traffic flow. He said the
only compromise made by the Center was to limit left-turns out at the Claim Jumper
exit.
Larry Bill, 16721 Millican Avenue, Irvine, representing Claim Jumper Restaurant, stated
it is his belief that at the last Commission meeting left-turns in at the Claim Jumper
driveway would remain. He stated closing the median could cause a loss of up to
$500,000 annually for the Claim Jumper and it is his belief, the proposed traffic
solutions are at the expense of the businesses on the north side. Mr. Bill asked the
Commission to reconsider their decision regarding the left-turns in at the Claim Jumper
driveway.
Chairman Markham stated the proposed closure will not benefit the office and medical
buildings as it will cut off their direct turn movements and they will be restricted to
right-in/right-out movements. He mentioned that proposed park development will move
the existing barricaded driveways near the Duck Pond, about 200 feet to the south.
Commissioner Perry noted the Black Angus and Chili's Restaurants do not seem to suffer
due to indirect street access. Mr. Bill stated it was his opinion Claim Jumper has a
distinct advantage over the two (2) restaurants due to its direct access.
Jose Covarrubias, 29540 Rancho California Road, General Manager of Claim Jumper,
recommended retaining the left-turn in and restricting left-turns out on a two (2} month
trial basis.
Arthur Robertson, 27450 Ynez Road, representing Town Center, stated the Ad Hoc
Committee meeting was helpful, and he is of the opinion that there would be a
recommendation to: 1) further study Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and
Lyndie Lane as traffic is generated by both sides of Rancho California Road; 2) prohibit
left-turns out of the Claim Jumper exit with left-turns in remaining for a period of time;
3) design/installation of the signal at Via Las Colinas be postponed; 4) consideration of
a signal at another location; and 5) internal re-striping to provide easier access to
Rancho California Road from the Town Center exit. He suggested the Ad Hoc
Committee continue meeting and there be further study of Rancho California Road for
traffic solutions.
Commissioner Telesio asked if the signal at Via Las Colinas is negotiable. Mr.
Moghadam stated because Via Las Colinas is the only access to the medical and office
buildings, and because sight distance is restricted, the City Council approved a signal
to be installed and therefore, it is not a consideration.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25. 1997
Commissioner Coe mentioned a signal at Via Las Colinas was agreed to prior to
consideration of the median closure on Rancho California Road which means the
decision did not consider the signal's impact on the Center.
Mr. Robertson stated concern has been addressed regarding Dublic safety, yet a signal
is being installed at a location where no accidents have occurred. Chairman Markham
noted Via Las Colinas is a dedicated public street and all the other access points are
driveways with a severe accident problem.
Mark Katan, 30054 Corte Cantera, representing Target Stores, requested the
Commission review the proposed signal at Via Las Colinas to determine if it would be
installed based on current warrants.
Chairman Markham stated the Via Las Colinas signal is not agendized for tonight's
meeting so the Commission is unable to consider the issue.
Commissioner Telesio expressed the need for ground rules in order to be able to
determine options which the Commission can vote on. He mentioned one option is to
restrict left-turns out, but not left-turns in at the Claim Jumper and Target access point.
Commissioner Perry stated the only options without considering the signal at Via Las
Colinas are compromises inside the Center; i.e, re-striping inside the Center to increase
traffic flow. He commented Bob Davis mentioned at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting
that possible egress from Via Las Colinas might be possible. Since he sees no other
alternatives beyond closing the median, he would like to have the Via Las Colinas' signal
reviewed.
Commissioner Johnson stated he is not ready to make a decision tonight. He
commented the Commission's concerns are the accidents and increased traffic along
Rancho California Road and considering anything that can reduce driver antagonism.
He said the Center must look at internal flow to direct traffic to safer exits and
entrances,
Commissioner Coe stated he also was not ready to make a decision as he is not
convinced the Via Las Colinas signal is not negotiable. He stated the accident history
cannot be permitted to continue but further study is needed for at least 60 days.
Chairman Markham supported prohibiting left-turns out at both driveways; did not
support closing left-turns in at the Claim Jumper driveway; does not support asking City
Council to modify the Via Las Colinas signal design and installation; would like the
Center to physically expand the Town Center driveway (i.e., dual lefts and rights out),
to do some channelization back in the parking lot to eliminate cross movement and
increase queuing space; supportive of a 30-day continuance; and encouraged that
nothing be done to disrupt Christmas shopping. He mentioned the General Plan's
circulation streets are being reviewed and it is possible Rancho California Road will be
upgraded from a 110 foot standard to a 134 foot to get more through and turn lane
capacity.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to continue the
matter to the October 23, 1997 meeting and to request the Ad Hoc Committee to meet
again.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Mr. Moghadam will schedule an Ad Hoc Committee meeting in about two (2) weeks at
either 8:00 a.m. or late in the afternoon.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Mr. Moghadam stated a bid opening for the Rancho California Road loop improvements
was held today. He reported most of the signals for FY 1997/98 are either under design
or a design consultant is being selected.
Commissioner Johnson suggested a listing of all the exceptions to the "pedestrian has
the right of way rule" would be helpful.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Chairman Markham mentioned the local Masonic Lodge recently honored four (4)
Temecula police officers.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No report was given.
Commission Coe complimented the Fire Chief for reporting a DUI.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Perry has noticed many people going through red lights.
Commissioner Johnson remarked about the excellence of traffic control on Margarita
Road during construction; and suggested police patrol during the night to ascertain if
the yellow lights are working. Mr, Moghadam stated the contractor is supposed to
remove certain signs and dirt from the road. He will pursue the matter with the
inspector.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25. 1997
Chairman Markham complimented the staff on their effectiveness in using excess budget
money from the Winchester interchange to design and construct the widening of the
southbound Winchester Road off-ramp. He asked if enforcement could be concentrated
at Nicolas Road and Winchester Road until the matter is resolved by Caltrans. Sgt. Crisp
indicated, they will continue monitoring this intersection.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:03 PM. The motion carried unanimously.
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
October 23, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Larry Markham
Secretary
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: ~ Ali Moghadam, Associate Engineer
DATE: October 23, 1997
SUBJECT: Item 3
Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission continue the median modification on Raneho California Road
between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane to the meeting of December 11, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has directed the staff to schedule a meeting consisting of two (2) Councilmembers and two
(2) PublicFFmffic Safety Commission members to discttss this item prior to review by the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission.
Since this meeting did not take place prior to the October 23, 1997 meeting, staff recommends that this issue
be continued to the December 11, 1997 Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
OCTOBER 23, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order
on Thursday, October 23, 1997, 5:00 P.M., in the Main Conference Room, Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Markham called the meeting to
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
order.
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
None
Also present were Public Works Associate Engineer All Moghadam, Principal Engineer-Capital
Projects, Don Spagnolo, Assistant Engineer Hasib Baha, Police Sergeant Rodney Crisp, and
Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Markham called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests
to speak.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
City Clerk June S. Greek swore in John Telesio as Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner and
presented him with a Certificate of Appointment.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of Sootember 25.1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Coe, to approve the
Commission Consent Calendar.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: ' 0
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
None
None
Establishing a Specific Date for the November 27 and December 25.1997 Public/Traffic
Safety Commission Meeting
It was moved by Commissioner Coo, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to consolidate
the November 27 and December 25, 1997 meetings and to set Thursday, December 11,
1997, at 7:00 PM, City Hall Council Chambers, as the next meeting.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION OCTOBER 2:3, 1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Coo, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
None
None
Median Modification - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lvndie Lane
Chairman Markham noted the public hearing remains open.
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to continue
the median modification on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane
to December 11, 1997.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Mr. Moghadam reported the Claim Jumper driveway has been signed as a right-turn-only
exit and he has not received any negative complaints. There was an on-site meeting
concerning the second driveway at the Town Center and iml~rovements discussed
included relocation of the crosswalk to the west of the existing crosswalk to improve
traffic flow; and dual left-turn-out of this driveway which will require cutting back the
eastern side of the median island. A meeting will be scheduled with Councilmembers
Roberts and Stone, the Council's Public Works Subcommittee, the ad hoc committee,
and the Center's representatives to discuss the issues.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the driveway east of Hope Way was going to be right-
turn-only. Mr. Moghadam replied the issue has not been fully discussed.
Chairman Markham asked about the timing of the contract for the design of the
Winchester Road median and if the signal at the second intersection of Enterprise Circle
North/South is included in the project. Mr. Spagnolo replied there is approximately a 3
~-month design period with construction starting in late spring/early summer 1998, and
the project includes the signal, median improvements and landscaping.
Chairman Markham questioned whether Nichol Development's proposal to add a
driveway on Jefferson Avenue was included, perhaps as a Phase II. Mr. Spagnolo
answered the driveway is not included in the current project, but possibly will be dealt
with in a later project.
pUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
OCTOBER 23.1997
Commissioner Perry asked if RBF will have the design completed for the Winchester
Road Median Island Project by the December 11, 1997 meeting. Mr. Moghadam stated,
as-built plans for the signal were requested from the City today. Chairman Markham
suggested the Commission only needs to see the conceptual design, not the
construction details.
Chairman Markham in~luired about the time frame for the southbound Winchester Road
Off-Ramp Project. Mr. Spagnolo stated it will be a nine (9) or ten (10) month project
as Caltrans is involved.
Chairman Markham asked who was awarded the contract for the Pala Road Bridge and
the Rancho California Road Interchange. Mr. Spagnolo stated McDaniel Engineering was
selected for the Pala Road Bridge, and Riverside Construction, (the same company that
did the Winchester Road Interchange), for the Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange.
Commissioner Perry inquired into the status of the Hwy 79S/I-15 Interchange
Improvements. Mr. Spagnolo stated the project is ready to go to bid and the County
will probably start the bid process in late November, with bids opening in January,
1998.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the status of the intersection improvements at
Solana Way and Margarita Road. Mr. Spagnolo replied the developer of the northeast
corner has been conditioned to improve the intersection, which includes lowering and
widening Margarita Road, and signal installation. Chairman Markham noted the ground
breaking for the apartment complex took place this week and the intersection has to be
improved before the apartments can open. He suggested adding the location and
completion date in the next Public Works update for the newspaper.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Sergeant Crisp corrected Traffic Violations, page 11 of the Police Department Activity
Report for September, 1997:
September 1997 hazard citations are 391, instead of 142; non-hazard citations, 113
instead of 105; and parking, 264 instead of 180.
Chairman Markham asked if the Temecula Police Department utilized the same criteria
in reporting crimes as the Murrieta Police Department as the disparity noted in a recent
newspaper article was great even though the population and demographics of the two
(2) Cities are fairly similar. Sergeant Crisp replied he did not know what system the
Murrieta Police Department was using.
Commissioner Telesio noted there was another left-turn-out accident at the Target
Center on Rancho California Road last week at 9:00 P.M.
FIRE CHIEFS REPORT
No report was given.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION OCTOBER 2:3. 1997
COMMISSION REPORT
Commissioner Telesio mentioned the poles placed at the Margarita Road and Pauba Road
intersection appear to help drivers negotiating a left-turn onto Pauba Road. Chairman
Markham stated the developer of the southwest corner should be making intersection
improvements within 6 to 12 months.
Commissioner Perry reported there was a four-car, non-injury accident at Hwy 79S and
Bedford Court about a week before the Bedford Court signal was activated and then on
October 22, 1997, a few days after activation, a five-car accident occurred.
Commissioner Coe reiterated the need for a "Stop Sign" at Rainbow Canyon Road and
Pala Road, especially in the morning rush hour.
Commissioner Johnson asked about dual left-turn lanes southbound on Jefferson
Avenue at Winchester Road. Mr. Moghadam stated that issue is part of the overall
corridor study and he is trying to get a consultant for the study.
Commissioner Johnson suggested the requested list of exceptions to the "Pedestrian has
the Right-of-Way Rule" could be in pamphlet form and given to people wanting
crosswalks. Commissioner Perry stated the Commission's viewpoint is to have a
brochure which points out even though there is a crosswalk and the law says a vehicle
must yield, which it does in most cases, it does not mean one is safe in a crosswalk.
Chairman Markham inquired about the status of the policy designating several circulation
streets as "No Parking". Mr. Moghadam stated he was waiting for Mr. Kicak's approval
to implement the parking restrictions.
It was moved by Commissioner Coe, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adjourn the
meeting at 5:40 PM. The motion carried unanimously.
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
December 11, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Larry Markham
Secretary
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~'q)Ali Moghadam, P.E., Associate Engineer
December ll, 1997
Item 4
Median Modifications - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road
and Lyndie Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
That rite Public/Traffic Safety Comrmssion receive and file the outcome of the Public Works
Comminee/Adhoc Committee meeting regarding the Rancho California Road median modifications.
BACKGROUND:
Staff presented a proposal to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission for modification of the existing median
islands on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lyndie Lane. In an effort to eliminate or
minimize the number of accidents at tmcontroLied median openings to the Claim Jumper Restaurant and Target
Center driveways, staff recommended that these driveways be restricted to right-in and right-out only.
However, this recommendation was opposed by some of the Town Center property owners and business
owners indicating that the proposed access restriction would adversely impact the businesses within the Center.
The PubLic/Traffic Safety Commission reviewed this issue at several regular meetings and recommended that
an Adhoc Committee consisting of two (2) Commjssioners, Town Center representatives and City staff be
formed to discuss all aspects of the proposed median modification. Two (2) Adhoc Comminee meetings were
held including an on-site meeting, and various options were discussed. These options included improvements
at the existing sig, ali,ed intersection of Rancho California Road and Town Center/Hope Way, installation of
a traffic signal at the Target driveway instead of Via Las Colinas and extension of Via Las Colinas to die
existing signalized intersection of Lyndie Lane. However, staff contended that Via Las Colinas extension
would be a long term solution and a traffic signal at the Target driveway would be too close to the existing
traffic signal at Town Center/Hope Way intersection.
Meanwhile, the Town Center representatives reutired a traffic consultant to study the overall traffic operations
within the Center as w~ll as the accesses to Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Several improvements
were identified by this study which, also included restricting the left-turn out of the driveway at the Claim
Jumper Restaurant. This modification has already been completed by the Town Center.
During this time, a representative of the Town Center at a City Council meeting requested that the City
Council consider installation of a signal at Target driveway instead of Via Las Colinas. At that meeting two
(2) Councilmembers were added to the Acthoc Committee to provide input and direction to staff.
A meeting was held on November 25, 1997 and after considering all the issues involved, the following
directions were given by the Committee.
· The driveway at the Claim Jumper Restaurant to remain as is with the new resuricted left-turn out of
the center.
· The signalized driveway of the Town Center/Hope Way be modified to provide two (2) outbound
left-turn lanes and the crosswalk be relocated to the west side of the intersection.
· The driveway at Target to remain the same (unrestricted) and be re-evaluated following the signal
installation at Via Las Colinas.
· A traffic signal design and installation for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Via Las
Coliuas be initiated immediately.
No other immediate modifications were identified at this meeting, therefore the existing median configuration
and driveway accesses remain the same except the left-out restriction from the Claim Jumper Restaurant
driveway.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Armchmerll:
Exhibit "A" - Location Map
CIVOH 7]k~ x
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 11, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order
on Thursday, December 11, 1997, 7:02 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Larry Markham called the meeting to order.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
COMMISSIONERS: Coe
Also present were Public Works Associate Engineer All Moghadam, Police Sergeant Rodney
Crisp, Battalion Chief John Winder, Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle, and Minute Clerk Pat
Kelley.
Commissioner Johnson led the flag salute.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Markham asked for public comments on non-agenda items.
Cecelia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive, representing the Temecula Valley Council PTA,
requested a review of the posting of a "No Left Turn" sign on Warbler Circle because the
alignment of Nicolas Road inhibits westbound traffic from seeing traffic at that intersection.
Ms. Axton thanked the Commission for recommending approval of the four-way "stop" at
Nicolas Road and North General Kearny as it has reduced the speeding motorist.
Commissioner Perry recommended the "No Left Turn" sign for Warbler Circle and Nicolas Road
matter be placed on January, 1998 agenda.
Chairman Markham asked staff to pull Conditions of Approval to determine if the s. triping plan
denotes a "No Left Turn". Ms. Axton suggested checking the City Council minutes relating to
this matter.
Ms. Axton also asked for an inspection of the trees around the June Street intersection as sight
is restricted because the trees need trimming.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of October 23. 1997 and SDecial Meeting of November 20. 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry to approve
the Minutes of October 23, 1997 and the Special Meeting Minutes of November 20,
1997, with the following amendment:
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 11. 1997
Minutes of November 20, 1997, - Page 4, 3rd sentence - ...left-turns onto Ynez Road.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER: Coe
Flashing Yellow Lights - Nicolas Road near North General Kearny Road
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Chairman Markham asked about the status of the median construction. Mr. Moghadam
stated the median fronting the gas station up to the southerly boundary should be
constructed within a year, but he is unaware of any plans east of the driveway.
Cecelia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre, representing the Temecula Valley Council Parent
Teachers Association (PTA), spoke in support of a permanent warning signal at Nicolas
Road near North General Kearny Road. It was her understanding the temporary flashing
signs would be in place for a minimum of six (6) months, but were in for only one (1)
week. She expressed the need for the temporary warning light for a longer period of
time.
Mr. Moghadam stated he talked to Forrest Thomas, Temecula Valley Unified School
District (TVUSD) and the TVUSD is in favor of flashing beacons and a crossing guard.
Commissioner Johnson asked if school children are crossing Nicolas Road. Ms. Axton
replied, because there are not proper sidewalks on Nicolas Road, the children are
currently being bused.
Chairman Markham noted since the school district determines the school sites and
develops those sites with very little infrastructure in place, it places children at risk, he
suggested Ms. Axton talk to Mr. Thomas of the TVUSD about the issue. Ms. Axton
replied she is working closely with TVUSD, individual developers, City and County staffs
regarding various traffic/school safety issues.
Bob Lopshire, 40244 Atmore Court, expressed concern about children crossing at
Nicolas Road and North General Kearny because motorists continue to speed along
Nicolas Road. He supported east and west warning lights on Nicolas Road, a crossing
guard, and a lower speed limit.
Commissioner Perry mentioned that Mr. Thomas, TVUSD, stated to this Commission the
school district would have cross guard stationed at this location when busing is
stopped. He noted temporary flashing yellow lights are put up to warn drivers of a
change in driving conditions at a particular location. He commented that since this
particular "Stop" sign can be easily seen, a flashing warning light will not stop
motorists. Commissioner Perry stated increased traffic enforcement might be a solution.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 11.1997
He said in his opinion, a permanent flashing yellow light will set a precedent and he does
not support putting one at this location.
Commissioner Telesio recommended the temporary flashing lights be installed for the
period the Commission approved, to daily acclimate motorists to a different driving
condition and he also expressed concern about setting a precedent.
Commissioner Johnson stated temporary flashing beacons were installed when "Stop"
signs were put in at the Del Norte/Calle Pina Colada and Via Norte/Del Rey intersections
and people still ran the "Stop" signs.
Chairman Markham inquired about any accident history since the "Stop" signs were
installed and Sgt. Crisp, Temecula Police Department, replied no accidents had been
reported.
Chairman Markham asked about the cost of permanent warning signs. Mr. Moghadam
replied the cost is approximately $15 to $20,000 for a new solar powered two-
directional permanent flashing light in both directions.
Chairman Markham noted on September 25, 1997, flashing lights were approved for 60
to 90 days at that location. Mr. Moghadam stated the initial lights had been stolen were
replaced, vandalized and stolen again within a three-to-four week period.
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Telesio, that
temporary flashing lights be erected for the remainder of the original 90-day period and
to formally request enhanced enforcement at that intersection.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Coe
Chairman Markham inquired about reviewing the intersection from a traffic signal
warrant basis. Mr. Moghadam replied it would be possible to do a new study in
approximately six (6) months and he will report back to the Commission after the study
is completed.
3. ProDosed Driveway - Jefferson Avenue North of Winchester Road
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson asked if it would be worthwhile to make the present Arco
driveway a "Right-Turn-Only". Mr. Moghadam replied it does not seem feasible for
motorists to go to the north driveway to make a left turn during off-peak hours.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 11. 1997
Carliene Anderson, 41593 Winchester Road, Nichol Investment, representing the
property owners and tenants, stated since motorists cannot make a left-turn out of the
Center between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and often cannot turn right due to blockage,
the owners are proposing this driveway for the safety of tenants and clients and it will
be paid for by the owners. She said it is recognized traffic will cut through the Center
and that this will be dealt with internally.
Commissioner Perry asked if the owners would participate in a "No Left-Turn" out of the
existing driveway between certain hours. It was Ms. Anderson's opinion they would be
amenable for specific restricted hours.
Dennis Jackson, 43180 Business Park Drive, representing the applicant, spoke in
support of the driveway.
Chairman Markham recommended enlarging the driveway to 40 feet to facilitate the
three (3) turning movements because with a 26 foot driveway, motorists making a left-
turn out will freeze right-turn movements and possibly even the ability to enter, and
making the driveway a curb-return style to maximize entrance speed.
Chairman Markham asked staff to make certain there is a "No Parking" restriction to the
north on Jefferson Avenue in front of Richie's Dinner, due to sight distance problems.
Mr. Moghadam will determine if the City Council has approved the red curbing on
Jefferson Avenue, if not, he will bring the matter to the January, 1998 Commission
meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to
recommend the City Council adopt a resolution vacating a portion of restricted abutters
right-of-access to Jefferson Avenue. The owners are to post a "No Left-Turn" sign for
the hours they deem appropriate at the existing driveway, and the driveway is to be
extended to 40 feet.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Coe
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 11.1997
Median Modifications - Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Lvndie Lane
Associate Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report.
Chairman Markham inquired about the timing on the modifications of the Town Center
driveway and the relocation of the crosswalk. Mr. Moghadam stated the Center's
consulting engineer has preliminary drawings and the work should be completed within
two (2) months. He noted all of these on-site improvements are to be paid by the
property owner.
Chairman Markham asked about the schedule for the signalization project of Via Las
Colinas. Mr. Moghadam rel~lied the signal is estimated to be operational by July 1998.
Chairman Markham questioned whether consideration had been given to extending the
left-turn lane on Rancho California Road at the Town Center driveway to provide
additional stacking room. If not, he suggested staff alert the Center's consultant to that
possibility. Mr. Moghadam answered he is unaware of any extension consideration
since no median modifications were recommended by the Joint Adhoc/Public Works
Committee.
Owen Wickstrand, 13062 Caminito del Rocio, Del Mar, representing GMS Realty who
is in the process of purchasing the Town Center complex, stated he had been led to
believe Radnor was offering the engineer's studies as their portion of the cost and the
City was paying for the signalization and other changes. He is in support of the left-turn
at Target Center drive to remain open.
Commissioner Perry stated it was his understanding, from a previous meeting, the
Center would pay for all on-site improvements and the City would pay for the street
improvements.
Mr. Moghadam said it was his impression the Center would pay for the proposed on*site
improvements. He commented these on-site improvements will help the Center as
outbound traffic flow will be improved, however, they will not solve the accident
problem on Rancho California Road.
Chairman Markham noted the original action item was to close the median openings at
both driveways. If that is denied or continued, until the signal at Via Las Colinas is
operational for 90 days, the issue can be reconsidered. In the interim, the on-site
improvements do not involve the City; the City's involvement is modifying the timing
of the signals and the loop detectors tieing into the signal.
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to receive
and file the report of the Public Works Committee/Ad Hoc Committee meeting as
submitted. Second to table the matter until the Via Las Colinas signal has operational
for 90 days.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 11.1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Coo
5. Election of Public/Traffic Safety Commission Chairperson and Co-Chairoerson
Commissioner Johnson nominated John Telesio to serve as Chairperson of the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission for the 1998 calendar year. The nomination was
unanimously accepted.
Commissioner Johnson nominated Ron Perry for Co-Chairperson, who will assume the
duties of the Chairperson in his absence, for the 1998 calendar year. The nomination
was unanimously accepted.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Mr. Moghadam reported the following:
The field work for the interconnection and timing of City traffic signals is near
completion. A consulting engineer is currently inputting the software and new
timing, and will provide one (1) year for training and monitoring the system.
Traffic signals in design and to be advertised soon: Fire Station No. 84 at Pauba
Road; Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road; Santiago Road at Margarita
Road; and Rainbow Canyon Road at Paia Road. The design for the signal at Via
Las Colinas will begin shortly.
A preliminary design for signal and median installation on Winchester Road at
Enterprise Circle West and Jefferson Avenue will be presented to the
Commission in the near future.
Preliminary design for flashing warning beacons, which are to be installed near
schools on high vehicular volume streets, is complete.
Chairman Markham asked if the Intelligent Management System (ITMS) has the
capability to show the entire signal system and feedback capability regarding traffic
counts, etc. Mr. Moghadam stated this system will show a map of the City and all
signalized intersections which will enable staff to determine if a signal is realfunctioning
and timing, as needed, can be changed from the office. He mentioned there is the
possibility of adding options, such as counts, loops, etc. Chairman Markham asked staff
to demonstrate the system to the Commission after it is operational and Mr. Moghadam
indicated he will try for a February 1998 presentation.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 11. 1997
Chairman Markham reported Don Spagnolo, P.E., Capital Improvements Principal
Engineer, has accepted a position in the California Central Coastal area.
Chairman Markham inquired about the status of the Overland Drive Bridge and Pala Road
Bridge. Mr. Moghadam replied he was not aware of a schedule for the Overland Drive
Bridge and design is completed for the Pala Road Bridge, with an anticipated completion
by the end of 1999.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff to look at the northbound left-turn signal at
Margarita Road and Winchester Road. Mr. Moghadam stated he will review the signal
and notify Caltrans.
Commissioner Perry asked about the locations for the permanent flashing lights on Ynez
Road. Mr. Moghadam replied exact locations have not been determined, but he is
comfortable with the present southbound location. Commissioner Perry expressed his
disagreement with that location because when the warning is seen, the "Stop" sign is
also visible. He would prefer a location just before the top of the hill; and for
northbound, just around the curve. Mr. Moghadam stated that proposed southbound
location was considered, but then the flashing light would be placed in front of a
residence. He mentioned the effectiveness is lost if located too far away from the
"Stop" sign.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Commissioner Johnson expressed his satisfaction in seeing the radar trailer throughout
the City, Sgt. Crisp reported there had been 189 hours of use in November.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned enforcement is needed at the southbound off-ramp
at Winchester Road and Interstate 15. Sgt. Crisp stated enforcement has been present
during peak hours at this location.
Commissioner Telesio reported 20 to 25 skateboarders are skating through the Town
Center in the off-hours creating potential accidents. Sgt. Crisp stated he will pass the
information to the swing shift officers as well as the Center's security.
Chairman Markham inquired about the status of reviewing other cities' ordinances
relative to false alarms. Sgt. Crisp stated he had been conducting a study shortly after
the issue was raised. Chairman Markham suggested the Fire Department could hand out
an awareness flyer about false alarms when undertaking the annual building permit
inspections. Chief Winder stated Temecula needs a more flexible policy.
FIRE CHIEFS REPORT
Chief Winder stated he will make arrangements for a tour of the new fire station for the
Commissioners.
Chairman Markham inquired into the status of staffing a fire station at French Valley
Airport. Chief Winder stated that the County is looking into the staffing of this facility,
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DECEMBER 11.1997
COMMISSION REPORT
Chairman Markham reported at the Tuesday, December 9, 1997 City Council meeting,
staff was directed to consider obtaining a consultant to review the southbound off-ramp
at Rancho California Road and Interstate 15. He noted the southbound Winchester Road
ramp is presently being designed. Chairman Markham clarified traffic controllers being
are proposed to direct traffic at Hwy 79S/I-15 Interchange during construction.
Chairman Markham stated at the December 2, 1997 Murrieta Council meeting, Council
selected three (3) representatives to serve on an interview panel to select a firm to
update the Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan. Mr. Moghadam explained
that due to the proposed mall the City of Temecula and invited members of the City of
Murrieta staff to participate in the consultant selection process. Chairman Markham
asked about Temecula's representation on the panel. Mr. Moghadam responded a
Councilmember, Planning Commissioner Guerriero, and Public Works Director Kicak have
been designated to serve. Chairman Markham asked that the City Engineer be strongly
encouraged to request the City Council appoint Commissioner Johnson to the panel.
Chairman Markham noted a letter received from Mr. "Curt" Curtsinger expressing his
appreciation for the Commission's action and responsiveness regarding the "Stop" signs
at Ynez Road and La Paz Street.
Commissioner Perry asked staff to review the idea of monitoring intersections with
cameras for red light violations and suggested a field trip to a city where they are used
effectively. Mr. Moghadam reported they are effective where some of the cameras are
portable so motorists are not aware of the day-to-day locations.
Commissioner Telesio asked for clarification from an enforcement viewpoint of the "25
MPH when children are present" sign. Sgt Crisp stated the 25 MPH is enforced one (1)
hour before and one {1) hour after school and whenever school guards are present.
Commissioner Johnson noted the flashing yellow lights, to be erected around schools,
will flash one (1) hour before and after school.
Chairman Markham commented the City of Temecula came through the recent rain in
good shape and Chief Winder indicated he had not heard of any problems.
Chairman Markham asked staff to look into the paving of Santiago and John Warner
Roads.
Chairman Markham asked staff to develop a schedule for the studies, such as
Winchester Road/Jefferson Road, Meadowview and Los Ranchitos areas.
Chairman Markham discussed changing the time of the meeting to 6 PM.
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 11.1997
It was moved by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adjourn
the Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting to the third Thursday of January 1998 at
6 PM, and requested staff to prepare a resolution to the Commission, establishing the
third Thursday of each month at 6:00 PM as the scheduled meeting time for the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Perry, Telesio, Markham
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Coe
It was moved by Commissioner Telesio, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:06 PM. The motion carried unanimously.
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday,
January 15, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Larry Markham
Secretary
ITEM NO. 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
~ii~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
July 8, 1999
Item 4
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission requested that staff investigate the possibility of using
protected/permissive left-turn phasing at various intersections in the City. In order to determine the
et't~ctiveness of protected/permissive left-turn phasing, staff has performed a comprehensive review of an
infi~rmational report on Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing, prepared by the Orange County Traffic
Engineering Council (OCTEC). A copy of this report is included as Exhibit "A" .
The concept of protected/permissive left-turn phasing has been in use since the 1960's. In recent years, the
operation has gained widespread use throughout Califi~rnia and the United States as a means of mitigating
vehicle delays, reducing fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. The protected/permissive operation allows
vehicles to make left-turns during a fully protected interval with a green arrow indication or to make a
permissive left-turn with a green ball indication. Typically, under this operation left-turn traffic is first
directed to turn left on the green arrow display and then permitted to turn left during the non-protected interval
on the circular green display yielding to through traffic. The green ball indication allows drivers to continue
making left-turns, as a permissive movement, depending on suitable gaps in opposing traffic.
Although there are no specific criteria tbr the use of protected/permissive left-turn phasing, the Caltrans
Traffic Manual suggests that when left-turn phasing is justified at an intersection, the protected/permissive
tlperatk~n should be comidered as an alternative prior to implementation of protected left-turn phasing. There
are several factors that should be considered when determining if the protected/permissive operation is
appropriate at an intersection. The filetors identified in the OCTEC report are shown below:
1. A high incidence of left-turn accidents in a specific direction. This may indicate that condithms are not
appropriate for protected/permissive left-turn phasing.
2. Sight distance restrictions ii~r left-turn vehicles. These are potential accident generators tbr a non-
protected left-turn operation.
3. High approach speeds (45 MPH or greater) of opposing through movement traffic. This makes it difficult
ft~r left-turn motorists to identity an adequate gap during the permissive portion of the green phase.
4. Two-or more left-turn lanes in one direction. This introduces potential confusion and may affect the
judgemerit of motorists attempting a permissive left-turn.
Three or more opposing approach lanes. Additional judgement factors and confi~sion are introduced to
the decision process as the motorist attempts to select an adequate gap in traffic to safely complete a
permissive left-turn.
Gaps in peak hour traffic. Opposing through movement traffic volumes during peak hours may not
adequately prnvide for the sate movement of a permissive left-turn. Protected left-turns during the peak
hl~ur and protected/permissive left-turns in the off-peak hour would introduce further confusion tbr
motorists and likely compromise overall safety.
7. Geometric Constraints. This may include horizontal and vertical curves, and wide medians that may
create sight distance obstructions.
The study of protected/permissive left-turn phasing has been ongoing since it inception. Various studies have
concentrated un the technical aspects of the operation. In 1994, OCTEC lbrmed a committee to study
protected/permissive left-turn phasing and to determine the opinion of the various agencies in Orange County
regarding the use of protected/permissive left-turn phasing. Within the jurisdiction of the 18 responding
agencies there are approximately 2,118 traffic signals. Of these, only 96 traffic signals, or 4% use the
protected/permissive left-turn operation. The survey results al~ identified other issues such as future and past
use of the protected/permissive left-turn operation. The results of the survey are shown in Appendix C of
Exhibit
Other studies have evaluated the driver's perception of the protected/permissive left-turn phasing signal
displays and operation. A compilation of these past studies has resulted in the identification of pros and cons
tbr the use of protected/permissive left-turn phasing. These are shown in Appendix D of Exhibit "A".
In addition to the surveys, staff contacted the City of Palm Desert to determine their experience with the
protected/permissive left-turn operation. The City had twu locations with the protected/permissive operation
recently, but the operation was changed back to a protected left-turn operation. They cited a high incidence
of leh-turn accidents and driver confusion at both locations as reasons for removing the protected/permissive
left-turn uperation. Because both intersections are located within a uniform system of protected left-turn
signals, it was their opinion that this was the primary cause of the left-turn accidents. Vehicles making left-
turns during the permissive phase (green ball) expected opposing through traffic to stop.
The use of the prutected/permissive left-turn phasing may be a viable operation during non-saturated traffic
flow conditions. Most motorists wuuld prefer not to remain at a signalized intersection any longer than
necessary. However, it is a good idea to reinember that many locatiuns are not well suited t~r this form of
operation. In the City of Temecula, a ma:iority of the signalized intersections have protected left-turn phasing.
Those intersections that do not have a protected phase are strictly permissive. This means that left-turn
vehicles must turn on a "green ball" and yield to opposing through traffic. Typically, these intersections are
isolated low traffic volume intersections that would not benefit from a protected/permissive operation.
Because Temecula's arterial roadway system is made up of a uniform signalized system of protected left-turn
phasing~ the introduction of the protected/permissive operation at certain locations or during off peak hour
times will create unnecessary driver confusion and compromise safety. Experience has shown that the lack
of signal system unitbrmity can lead to high incidences of left-turn accidents.
In order to maintain a unit;arm signalized system throughout the City, a majority of the traffic signals would
need to be m{xlified to accommodate this operation. This does not include the traffic signals along Winchester
Road and State Route 79 that are maintained by Caltrans. The costs associated with the implementation of a
protected/permissive left-turn operation would exceed the benefits that could be realized by this operation.
Moreriver, a protected/permissive operation is difficult to implement where arterial traffic signal coordination
is being used. Currently, the traffic signals along Rancho California Road, Winchester Road and Ynez Road
are operating as a coordinated system. The introduction of a protected/permissive operation would
compromise the efficiency of this system and likely cause more delays and congestion along the arterial.
The motorists in Temecula have learned that when initiating a left-turn movement, they can expect a protected
phase with a left-turn arrow display. A change to this learned behavior would create a great deal of confusion
with the end result being a compromise in safety. For this reason, staff would recommend that the
implementation of any protected/permissive left-turn phasing be limited to new signalized locations only.
Alternatives
If the Public/Traffic Safety Commission wishes to pursue implementation, we suggest that an intersection,
which will be signalized in the thture be nsed as a test location.
Since the protected/permissive operation adversely efl~cts the operation of coordinated systems, other leti-turn
phasing operations such as lead/lag, could be implemented. With coordinated systems, this type of operation
has been found to be more efficient than using the protected/permissive operation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Attachment:
Exhibit "A" ln~rmational Report: Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing, prepared by Orange County
Traffic Engineering Council
EXHIBIT "A"
Informational Report:
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
Prepared by:
Orange County Traffic Engineering Council
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing Committee
Final Report April, 1995
OCTEC
Orange County Traffic Engineering Council
ORDER FORM
ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COUNCIL (OCTEC)
'PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN PHASING
DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES'
This report is the product of hundreds of hours of voluntary service by the Committee members and
addresses many important issues related to the issue of Protected/Permissive Left Turn (P/PLT) Phasing, The
primary topics in the report are:
INTRODUCTION
Past research and history.
GUIDELINES
Guidelines for the use of P/PLT and factors to consider,
OPERATIONS
Operational considerations, including the 'trap", queue
detection, all-red considerations, and MORE.
DESIGN
Recommended type of equipment and placement, geometric
constraints, and MORE.
PUBLIC AWARENESS -
8 EDUCATION
Discussion of this important factor and includes two sample
public information handouts that will be made available in
large quantities for use by agencies.
NOTE: We need your assistance in determining if there is a demand for large quantities of the pedestrian and
traffic signal operation handouts included in the study. They are color brochures suitable for
providing to the public, Pleaseletusknowifyoumayhaveaninterestinthesebrochuresiftheywere
about $0.15 each.
The cost of this report is $20.00. Please order ASAP to be a part of the initial printing. Future printings may
depend on demand and could be subject to receipt of a specific number of orders. Please complete this order
form and include a check (no cash please) made payable to 'OCTEC'.
AGENCY/COMPANY:
- ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE:
NUMBER OF REPORTS REQUESTED X $20.00/COPY = TOTAL COST
SEND ORDERS TO: Mr. Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer
City of Hunljngton Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-0190
YES, I have a potential interest in ordering the public information brochure. Let me know when they
are available.
Understanding Pedestrian Signals (Quantity ~ / The ABC's of Traffic Signals (Quantity )
Orange Count,! Traffic Engineering ¢oa~!cii
April 13, 1995
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairperson:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
1st Past Chairperson:
2nd Past Chairperson:
Alfred Yalda, City of Anaheim
Senne A. Clandella,
Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc.
James D. Otterson,
City of Huntington Beach
Steven S. Sasaki,
WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
David Kwan,
Traffic Control Engineering, Inc.
To OCTEC Members:
This report on protected/permissive left-turn phasing is intended to broaden the base of knowledge, promote
increased application uniformity, and improve driver understanding of traffic signal operations. This is intended as
a first step in a continuing effort of professional understanding and public education of the various aspects of the
subject. The report reflects consideration of comments received on the draft report dated October 27, 1994.
It is the Comnuttee's recommendation, with the support of the Board, that this informational report be considered
approved by the OCTEC membership for use and distribution as an OCTEC publication.
I'm very proud and appreciative of the hundreds of hours of voluntary professional effort devoted by the Cornnuttee
in serving the professional traffic engineering cogunity and the driving public in the preparation of this report.
Steve Sasaki initiated and provided the general guidance and leadership for the project as OCTEC Chairman for the
1993-94 term.
While our report covers many aspects of the subject and we recognize that all of the elements are interrelated, the
understanding by the driving public of their responsibilities when making a left turn on a "green ball" is perhaps the
key to the successful use of this delay and air emissions saving traffic engineering tool.
Subsequent to the letters in Appendix L, the Committee's public education efforts were recognized by the
Department of Motor Vehicles in its 1995 edition of the "California Driver Handbook." The Committee expresses
its sincere thanks to the DMV for using many of the suggestions submitted.
We acknowledge with sincere thanks fellow Committee member Ignacio Ochoa and the Orange County EMA for
pri~ting the draft report for distribution to all Orange County cities and OCTEC members.
It is our hope that this report will assist you in the continuing effort to better serve our "customers," the driving
public.
Res)fc~bmitted,
R. Henry Mohle, P.E.
Chairman, OCTEC Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing Committee
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC) Board on behalf of the general
membership hereby acknowledges the hundreds of hours of voluntary professional service
by the Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing Committee:
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing Committee
Cory A. Bersch (Boyle Engineering Corp.)
H. William Dickson (Robert Bein, Frost & Associates)
Gary P. Foxen (Automobile Club of Southern California)
R. Paul Grimm (Consultant)
Tram Hartzog (Hartzog & Crabill, Inc.)
R. Henry Mohle (Hank Mohle & Associates)
Ignacio G. Ochoa (Orange County EMA)
James D. Otterson (City of Huntington Beach)
James M. Paral (City of Anaheim)
Steven S. Sasaki (WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.)
Dennis Schmitz (City of Orange)
James J. Sommers (WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.)
Bernard J. Vokoun (formerly of City of San Juan Capistrano)
We are truly appreciative of your service to our profession and proud of the quality of this
report. This is a timely publication and we are sure it will serve our membership well. We
accept this report with the hope it will gain widespread use, assist other professionals in
their duties, and benefit the general public.
Board of Directors, 1994-95
Chairperson: Alfred Yalda, City of Anaheim
Secretary: Serine A. Ciandella, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Treasurer: James D. Otterson, City of Huntington Beach
lst Past Chairperson: Steve Sasaki, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
2nd Past Chairperson: David Kwan, Traffic Control Engineering, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REPOKT CONTEXT ............................................................................................i
L SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................
A. Conclusions ..................................................................................................
B, Recommendations ........................................................................................2
[L INTKODUCTION ................................................................................................3
A. Orange County Protected/Permissive Usage .................................................4
B. Previous Study Review .................................................................................4
HI. GUIDELINES ......................................................................................................8
A. Use Guidelines ..............................................................................................8
B. Additional Factors to Consider .....................................................................9
IV, OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................10
A. Why Use Protected/Permissive Lei~-Tum Phasing? .....................................10
B. The "Trap" and Keal World Considerations .................................................10
C. Queue Detection .........................................................................................! 1
D. All-Ked Consideration ................................................................................14
E. Survey of Orange County Agencies ............................................................14
F. Conclusion .................................................................................................14
V. DESIGN .............................................................................................................15
A. Introduction ...............................................................................................15
B. Description of Operation ............................................................................15
C. Design Characteristics ................................................................................15
D. Recommended Design Characteristics and Equipment .................................16
E. Geometric Constraints ................................................................................17
F. Signal Indications .......................................................................................18
G. Summary ....................................................................................................20
VI. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION ..................................................... 20
A. Goals ..........................................................................................................20
B. Findings ......................................................................................................20
C. Conclusions ................................................................................................22
FIGURES
FIGURE 1--TIME SPACE DIAGRAM WITH LEAD/LAG ..................................... 12
FIGURE 2--TIME SPACE DIAGRAM WITH PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE .......... 13
APPENDICES
"A" MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
"B" THE "TRAP" EXPLANATION
"C" SURVEY RESULTS
"D" PROS AND CONS OF PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT-TURN PHASING
"E" RECOMMENDED SIGNAL HEAD LOCATIONS
"F' VISIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
"G" DIVIV DRIVER HANDBOOK PAGES 14 & 15
"H" PROPOSED DMV DRIVER HANDBOOK REVISIONS
'T' TRAFFIC SIGNALS HANDOUT
"J" PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS HANDOUT
"K' LETTERS SENT BY EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE
"L" REPLY LETTERS FROM DMV
"M" AGENCY PUBLIC EDUCATION BULLETINS & SIGNS
"N" DRAFT SCRIPT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE VIDEO
genof}XhanklocteclrhmrO694,doc
Protected/Permissive Le~-Tum Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
I.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This is an overview of the Report's "bottom lines." This brief summary only highlights the
various issues that the Committee considered and, therefore, the entire document must be
considered to fully understand the various detailed conclusions and recommendations.
The Report was prepared with special focus on Orange County's multi-agency and multi-ethnic
composition.
A. Conclusions
The advantages of P/PLT phasing include:
· Significantly reduced overall intersection vehicle delays.
· Reduced fuel consumption.
· Reduced vehicle emissions.
· Potential of reduced left-turn conflicts compared to permissive-only
operation.
The disadvantages of P/PLT phasing may include:
· A reduction in "green band width" for system operation.
· Initial misunderstanding by a portion of the area's drivers.
· Potential for increased left-turn conflicts compared to protected-only
operation.
Improved driver education on "taming left on a green ball" is a challenge that is
believed to be the most important step toward effective utilization of the more
sophisticated P/PLT traffic signal phasing. This phasing has been used in Orange
County since the 1960's, but recently has been gaining more widespread use.
Unifomaity of the traffic signal displays by local agencies is expected to help the
driver comprehend and understand the P/PLT phasing and better facilitate the
education process.
The traffic engineering profession should be actively involved in the public education
process, not just the technical aspects, of P/PLT. To this end, the Committee has:
· Communicated to the California DMV our recommendations for changes
in the "California Driver Handbook" concerning traffic signals (and
pedestrian signals).
· Designed color public information "handouts" on traffic and pedestrian
signal operations that can be used as a model by local agencies.
-I-
Protecuxl/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
Developed a draft script for a public service video that could feature a
celebrity. The Committee intends to follow this project to completion of
a video that also can be fi.u'nished to local agencies as a part of their
educational efforts.
Local agency traffic engineers need to be knowledgeable about the various aspects of
P/PLT.
B. Recommendations
Adopt the "cluster" five-section head mounted on the mast arm and the stacked five-
section signal head at the far-left comer as the standard signal displays for leading
P/PLT operations. In this arrangement, the cluster head should normally be mounted
over the barrier line separating the left-tum lane from the adjacent thru lane, with a
supplemental three-section head for thru traffic on approaches with two or more thin
lanes. Where an existing signal is converted to P/PLT, the supplemental head for
thru traffic may be omitted on approaches with two or fewer thna lanes until such
time as signal standard upgrades are required.
Where a local agency deems it necessary, an R73-7 CLeft Turn Yield on "green ball") .
sign may be mounted on the mast arm adjacent to the cluster head.
Traffic engineers should be very aware of the following:
· Sight distance restrictions affecting drivers "turning left on the green ball"
may need to be minimized to reduce the existing or potential accident
rates.
· The "trap" situation is not to be allowed when using P/PLT.
· In some system situations, lead/lag full-time left-turn phasing may be
more efficient than using lead/lead P/PLT.
· As the number of approach lanes and the speeds ofthru vehicles increase,
the task of selecting a safe gap in oncoming traffic while turning left on a
green ball is made more difficult. This factor should be evaluated when
considering the suitability of P/PLT.
· The use of queue detection may be appropriate to minimize the display of
the green arrow when the left-tum volume (during a particular cycle) can
be adequately served with the green ball only.
· The number of left-turn accidents (that cannot be corrected by sight
distance improvements) warranting use of only full-time left-tum phasing
should be determined by each local agency. This determination will
require engineering evaluation and will consider the agencfs desired
balance between minimizing overall traffic delay and accidents.
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
Overall, the Committee has recognized that the successful technical aspects of traffic signal
operations are closely related to the driving public's knowledge of our methods to increase the
degree of mobility.
INTRODUCTION
The use of protected/permissive left-tum (P/PLT) traffic signal operation has, over recent
years, proliferated throughout Califomia and the United States. The P/PLT traffic signal
operation provides a dual function where an exclusive left-turn movement, under the arrow
display, is followed by a permissive lefi-tum movement on a green ball. The green ball
indication allows drivers to continue matting left turns, as a permissive movement, depending
on suitable gaps in approaching traffic. The benefit of this P/PLT type of signal operation is a
reduction in stops and delays, which reduces driver frustration, fuel consumption, and
pollution.
The program for the August 26, 1993, OCTEC meeting, presented by Mr. Hank Mohie, Mr.
Dave Royer, and Mr. Frank Tecca, was "Protected/Permissive Left-Tum Phasing (P/PLT)
Background Information." The presentation elaborated on the use of P/PLT displays and
accident research and initiated a substantial response from OCTEC members. It was noted at
the meeting that there exists no uniform guidelines for the design and operation of P/PLT in
Orange County. A request was made to form an OCTEC Committee to examine current
usage of P/PLT and to develop a set of guidelines for Orange County. Mr. Steve Sasaki,
OCTEC Chairman, set the Committee in motion by asking for volunteers. A Committee was
formed consisting of representatives from the County of Orange, various cities, consultants,
and the Automobile Club. The Committee elected a Chairperson who accepted the
responsibility of coordinating the Committee's actions. Subcommittees were formed for the
five primary subjects to be addressed, and Chairpersons for each Subcommittee were
appointed.
Committee Chairperson:
Subcommittees
Introduction
Operations
Guidelines
Design
Public Education
Mr. Hank Mohle
Chairperson: Mr. Jim Sommers
Chairperson: Mr. Jim Paral
Chairperson: Mr. Paul Grim
Chairperson: Mr. Cory Bersch
Chairperson: Mr. Bill Dickson
Mr. Gary Foxen. with the Automobile Club of Southern Caiifomia, provided information
regarding legislation and procedures.
A complete list of Committee members is contained in Appendix A.
ProtectedfPernussive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
A. Orange County Protected/Permissive Usage
For years, various P/PLT configurations have been used in Orange County. The City
of Santa Ana had an installation on 17th Street and Main Street in the early 1960's
that displayed a leading left-tum arrow followed by a green ball for eastbound left
turns. This operation allowed the heavier eastbound left-turn movement to start
early as a protected phase, followed by permissive movements. Caltrans had a
similar operation for the southbound on-ramp signal at Red lrrnll Avenue and the 1-5
Freeway. These displays used four-section heads and a blank amber operation. In
the 1970's, the City of Tustin installed P/PLT signals at various locations on Irvine
Avenue, Newport Avenue, and McFadden Avenue. The installations used four-
section, mast-ann-mounted signal heads with the lower section being a dual-color
(yellow, green) arrow display that was switched electronically. This allowed for a
yellow arrow clearance interval. The dual-color signal indication was phased out of
production, which led to using stacked and cluster five-section heads for mast-ann
mountings. Five-section heads are generally considered to be a requirement for
P/PLT operation. In the 1980's, the County of Orange installed several P/PLT
signals in the Mission Viejo and North Tustin areas; however, most of the
installations were designed for ease of conversion to full protected by placing the
P/PLT mast-arm head where a future full protected head would be located. The
potential conversion to full protected was ultimately made at most locations,
although the North Tustin area still has locations on Newport Avenue. Cities such as
Anaheim and Huntington Beach presently have aggressive programs for the
installation of P/PLT signals. Anaheim, along with installing new P/PLT signals, has
converted existing signals (including protected left-tum locations) to P/PLT.
Besides the various signal head display configurations used in Orange County, we
also have various placement of the signal heads. As with a fully protected operation,
mast-arm and far-lef[ display locations are used; however, both are five-section
heads. The existing mast-arm-mounted locations va~j from a position in the center
of the lef~ lane to somewhere in the number one lane. Actual placement of the P/PLT
mast-arm head is currently determined by agency design policy.
B. Previous Study Review
Historically, the study of P/PLT has been occurring for decades throughout the
United States. Various studies have reviewed signal head displays, lane orientation,
operation, warrants, and accident information. Public surveys have been taken to
evaluate drivers' perception of P/PLT signal displays and operation. The vast amount
of information has become somewhat redundant. Therefore, for the purpose of this
Report, information was selected that either involves the Southern Califomia area or
applies to the focus of the OCTEC Committee program.
-4-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
The following is a list of study documents pertaining to P/PLT research. A brief
overview of each document is also provided. The information is for research only
and does not imply endorsement by the OCTEC Committee in general.
"A Study of Clearance Intervals, Flashing Operation, and Left-Tum Phasing
for Traffic Signals"; Volume 4, Left-Tum Phasing; January 1978; Prepared
for the Federal Highway Administration by Mr. R. Henry Mohle and Mr.
Thayer K. Rorabaugh.
The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the utilization
of P/PLT phasing. Several signalized intersections in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties were retrofitted for various P/PLT configurations. Before
and after accident data was obtained, along with a public awareness study.
Recommendations:
· Use P/PLT where motorists understand the operation.
· Standardize the signal displays.
· Initiate a public education program.
· Use leading P/PLT at isolated intersections.
· Use yellow arrow clearance intervals.
· Do not use median-mounted poles on narrow medians.
"Left-Turn Phase Design in Florida"; Final Report; Technical Activities
Committee, Florida Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE);
December 1981.
A technical subcommittee studied the lef~-tum phase design situations in
Ho~da and produced a set of recommended guidelines to promote statewide
consistency. The types of left-turn phasing reviewed included protected-
only, protected/permissive, permissive/protected, and split phasing.
Advantages and disadvantages for various phasing were reviewed, followed
by a recommendation section. It was recommended that
protected/permissive phasing should be provided for all intersection
approaches that meet left-turn phase warrants, unless there is a reason for
using protected-only left-turn phasing.
Conditions for Protected-Only Are as Follows:
· Double left-tum lanes.
-5-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
· Intersection geometrics that force left-turn drivers to have an
exclusive head, not shared with adjacent through drivers.
· Sight distance constraints.
· The approach is the lead portion of a lead/lag phasing sequence.
· The speed limit of opposing traffic exceeds 45 MPH.
· The lef~-tum traffic must cross three or more lanes of opposing
through traffic.
· P/PLT phasing currently exists, and the number of left-turning
accidents exceeds the limit (six per year).
"Signal Displays for Protected/Permissive Left-Tum Phasing"; ITE Southern
Section Report to the Executive Board by the Committee: Messrs. Richard
M. Edmonston, Albert L. Grovel R. Hemy Mohle, and David C. Royer;
Published in the January-February 1985 Edition of Western ITE, Vol.
XXXVIII, No. 1.
The focus of the report is P/PLT signal display configurations used on mast-
arm poles. The motivation was to promote uniform signal displays for
P/PLT installations.
Recommendations:
· Use five-section cluster heads for mast-arm mountings where
leading P/PLT operation is used or where lagging P/PLT results
in simultaneous displays.
· Where lagging P/PLT is used and there is no opposing left-turn
movement, head "g" found in the MUTCD Figure 4-1 should be
used.
· P/PLT mast-ann-mounted stacked or cluster heads should be in
the through lanes within the prescribed left-turn lane cone of
vision.
"Guidelines for the Use of Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing"; ITE
Journal; Kenneth R. Agent; July 1987.
The study results reviewed previous recommendations and acddent history
of P/PLT installations in Kentucky. It was recommended that P/PLT be used
as a time-saving operation, rather than protected-only. However, P/PLT is
not recommended for installation when any of the foBowing conditions exist:
· Speed limit exceeds 45 MPH.
-6-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
· Current signal operation is protected-only and speed limit is more
than 35 MPH.
· Left-turn movement crosses three or more lanes of opposing
traffic.
· Intersection geometrics require that the left-turn lane have a
separate signal head.
· Double (or more) left-turn-only lanes on the approach.
· A left-tum accident problem exists (four or more left-turn
accidents in one year or six or more in two years on an
approach).
· A potential leet-tum accident problem exists as documented by a
traffic conflicts study.
Sight distance limitations.
When P/PLT is used, the following recommendations are made for
installation purposes:
P/PLT Installation Recommendations
The signal head for P/PLT should be located above the line
separating the left-turn lane from the adjacent through lane, so
that the left-turning traffic does not have a separate signal head.
The five-section cluster head should be used.
No regulatory sign is necessary.
The San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC), Committee
Memorandum; Left-Turn Phasing Committee; January 8, 1992.
The committee reviewed several reports, conducted field observations of
existing P/PLT operations, and discussed issues. Guidelines were developed
that generally recommended satisfying warrants for left-turn phasing. The
use of P/PLT should be used when left-turn phasing is warranted and
protected-only phase criteria is not satisfied. The criteria included accident
warrants, mukiple let~-tum lanes on an approach, inadequate sight distance,
and lead-lag left-turn phasing. Hardware should be a five-section cluster
head located on a mast-arm aligned on the opposing 8" white channelizing
line between the left-tum pocket and adjacent through lane.
-7-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
"Improved Protected-Permitted Left-Turn Signal Displays--The Texas
Approach"; ITE Joumal; Gerry De Camp and Richard W. Denney, Jr.;
October 1992.
The Texas method allows use of P/PLT phasing in a lead-lag signal
operation. The article presents a sequence of signal displays involving a five~
section cluster head for left-tum control and conventional three-section heads
for adjacent through lanes. An inherent "trap" situation is avoided by use of
special wiring techniques that allow the P/PLT to be displayed during the
opposing protected left-tum green arrow. Use of louvered or optically
programmed signal indications is recommended for the five-section-head ball
displays to avoid confusing adjacent through traffic during the
permissive/lagging protected interval.
"MUTCD Requirements for Signal Displays to Left-Turning Drivers, The
Signal Technical Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices"; ITE Journal; September 1992.
The report recommends signal displays for various left-turn phasing. It is
noted that the most widely used display complying with MUTCD
requirements for P/PLT is to make one of two required primary signal heads
for the approach a five-section device with a circular red, yellow, and green,
plus a yellow arrow and a green arrow. The head is located over the lane line
between the left-turn lane and the adjacent through lane. Regulatory or
information signs are not required.
GUIDELINES
A. Use Guidelines
Caltrans Traffic Manual and other studies and reports indicate in their guidelines for
left-turn phasing that when left-turn ph~ing is justified, P/PLT operation should be
considered prior to implementation of exclusive protected lef~-tum operation. These
guidelines should be used to determine the need for left-turn phasing including the
use of P/PLT.
However, several additional factors should be considered in order to determine
whether P/PLT should or should not be implemented if left-tum phasing is justified:
Left-turn accidents in one direction may indicate conditions that P/PLT
cannot address. If it is determined that the accidents are the result of visibility
restrictions or other factors that cannot be corrected by changing the
configuration of the approaches, then exclusive protected left-tum operation
is recommended. (See Design section.)
-8-
Protected/Permissive Left-Tum Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
Sight distance restrictions related to the driver deskring to turn left should be
analyzed in all locations where P/PLT is being considered. Sight restrictions
for the left-turning driver are potential accident generators for non-protected
lefi-tum operation, and if no mod'dication of the intersection is possible to
eliminate the problem, fully protected left-tom operation is recommended.
(See Design section.)
The high-speed approach (45 MPH or greater) of oppos'mg through
movement traffic makes it more difficult to idenfury an adequate gap for the
driver attempting to turn left during the permissive portion of the green
phase. Experience indicates that, as the approach speed of the opposing
through traffic increases, the ability to determine an adequate gap for making
a permissive left turn is reduced.
Two or more left-turn lanes in one direction introduces potential confusion
and may affect the judgment of drivers attempting to complete a permissive
left turn.
The two or more lefts can also result in a visibility problem for one of the
left-turning drivers and/or the through lane drivers. There also will likely be a
pedestrian movement occurring during the permissive left-tum period of the
cycle, which raises concern of a visibility blockage between the pedestrian
and the left-turn driver.
When three or more opposing approach lanes exist, additional judgment
factors become part of the decision process of the left-turning driver.
Confusion may be introduced as the left-turning driver attempts to determine
the required gap needed to safely complete a permissive left turn. As more
factors are introduced, the ability to select an adequate gap for safe
permissive left turns is reduced.
B. Additional Factors to Consider
If there are few or no gaps in the peak hour for the safe movement of a
permissive left turn, is there significant gain in reducing overall delay to
justify using P/PLT?
Is there any way to provide protected left tums in the peak and P/PLT in the
off-peaks, and will it be economically feasible? Would this operation
introduce a liability factor into the operation?
3, If a signal is operating flee and fully actuated and fully flexible in its ability to
terminate greens and respond to left-tum demand, is P/PLT valid?
-9-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
4. Is there a need for P/PLT operation at some level below fully protected left-
turn warrant satisfaction?
5. Should P/PLT be considered on the street crossing a coordinated arterial
even though P/PLT cannot be used on the arterial due to lead/lag operation?
Implementation of P/PLT must include a guaranteed red interval for
through traffic prior to the showing of the protected portion of the left-
turn phase, under all conditions, in order to eliminate the possibility of
a "trap" situation. This can either be a secondary phase green or an all-red
interval if there is no demand on any secondary phase.
IV. OPERATIONS
A. Why Use Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing?
From an operational standpoint, an agency will consider the use of the P/PLT
phasing operation to reduce delay. This is an especially effective remedy for
reducing left-tum vehicle delay when operating a coordinated fixed-cycle-length
timing plan at an intersection. By providing the ability for left-rum vehicles to rum
left during permissive gaps in the through phase, required left-turn green phase time
can be reduced, therefore reducing minimum required cycle length for the
intersection, and hence reducing delay for all vehicles in all non-sync phase
movements.
Along with travel time savings, other associated benefits of reduced delay include
reduction in fuel consumption and vehicle pollution, thus improving air quality. The
Committee also recognizes that motorists sometimes become frustrated at fully
protected locations during off-peak hours and illegally tum in spite of the red arrow.
This is one safety consideration related to fully protected operations, and motorists
can develop an indirect disrespect for traffic control devices in general, as their
frustration level increases.
Other factors may cause agencies to consider P/PLT. Intersections operating with
protected left-turn phas'mg under unwarranted conditions may realize improved
operations with P/PLT. Another use of P/PLT may be as a solution for left-tum
capacity constraints when right of way is not available for a second left-turn lane.
However, caution should be taken when operating P/PLT under high capacity levels
as discussed later.
B. The "Trap" and Real World Considerations
When operating P/PLT, the protected portion of the left-turn movement may be
either s'unultaneous leading or lagging. Leading left tums are the most common, as
they tend to be seen as operationally most efficient. Combination lead/lag operation
-10-
Protect~l/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
may be a desirable use at an intersection to promote arterial progression, since
through greens are not constrained to start simultaneously. However, lead/lag
operations can incur "trap" situations (see Appendix B for the "trap"
explanation). Lagging left turns may be an effective way to clear left-tum queues at
intersections, although they should be simultaneous.
An important operational factor to consider with P/PLT is the impact on arterial
progression. Many agencies take advantage of lead/lag left rums to maximize green
bandwidth. But under P/PLT operation, agencies may not want to design around the
"trap" scenario. No lead/lag operation is possible without the "trap" scenario
unless it is a "T" intersection. Therefore, agencies face the decision of instituting
P/PLT with leading left turns, or maintaining their existing lead/lag left-turn
combinations without P/PLT. Figures 1 and 2 present a comparison of the difference
in bandwidths between the two operations, using a real world arterial signal system.
C. Queue Detection
With continual advancements in controllers and signal systems, possibilities exist to
operate P/PLT under certain times of day. An operation commonly used that is
similar to a "combined" phasing is to fully take advantage of P/PLT operation during
off-peak hours by not bringing up the protected left-tum arrow unless there is a
predetermined threshold of vehicles in the left-tum lane. This operation requires
special left-tum queue detection.
The utilization of a queue detector system, usually located 50 to 80 feet from the
limit line in the left-tum lane, provides a logic mechanism to display the green arrow
only when there is a queue so long that the left-turning volume cannot be served by
the "green ball" only on that particular phase. With only the "green ball" under many
situations of opposing thru traffic, the left turners will find an adequate gap in the
opposing thru traffic and/or they will be able to make their left tum during the
"yellow ball" clearance period.
The exact distance back of the limit line to set the queue detector depends on the
designers judgment on the number of vehicles in the queue that warrants "bringing
up" the green arrow at the predetermined time in the particular signal cycle.
In many installations, if the queue detector is "occupied" at the time in the cycle for
the left arrow phase to begin, the left-turn lane will be shown a green arrow. After
the start of the left-turn arrow, the timing of the arrow is transferred to the "up close"
loops in the left-tum lane for green arrow gap timing with a predetermined maximum
time.
It is recognized that there is much to be learned in operating the most efficient queue
detection system, including the prediction of the number of adequate gaps that will be
available in the opposing thru traffic so that the number of vehicles that could tum
-11-
:::)~.
LUz
I,--
I--i__
rrU,
(::)LU
I.ULU
2:I_
ILl
U.,LU
LU
UJI-,
, >
tu~
z~
lure
>LLI
-,.,
~LLI
LUI.-
rr
I--i_,
I--U.I
I.--
LLrr
>_>
i._=9.
I--
~U
(~)
(.)
o
Protectecl/Pennissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
left in the gaps can be estimated. In most situations, two cars can make a left turn
during the "yellow ball" clearance. This means that if the intersection was operating
on an 80-second cycle length, there would be 45 cycles per hour or 90 cars per hour
mining left without the need to take time away from the opposing thru traffic phase
to serve the left turners. In addition to these "yellow clearance" left tumers, under
many conditions during the day, the le~-turn demand can be satisfied by the gaps in
the opposing thru traffic, thereby increasing the capacity of the left-tum lane without
the need for the green arrow.
A future system with true "dual mode" operation could even allow agencies to turn
off P/PLT during unfavorable gap acceptance periods (i.e., peak). This operation,
however, may require a future six-section head with a red arrow display for exclusive
protected left-turn control.
D. All-Red Considerations
Intersections near major event generators can be good candidates for P/PLT
operation. This would occur at an intersection with nominal cross-street traffic
volumes most of the time, but with heavy directional flow on the cross street during
events. An agency can operate the cross street under P/PLT and change the phase
sequencing to mn split phase on the cross street during event periods.
Agencies operating P/PLT may consider increasing "all red" time following through
greens and yellows for permissive left-turn vehicle movements during the clearance
interval (i.e., sneakers). However, there is data that indicates that once motorists
become aware of the "all red," they begin to utilize it similar to a yellow clearance
interval.
E. Survey of Orange County Agencies
In surveying the various agencies in Orange County, it is apparent that some type of
regional uniformity is highly desirable. Region-wide consistency on head design
(cluster vs. vertical), head placement on the mast arm, and possible use of
supplemental signing are most desirable. Agencies that have implemented many
P/PLT signals have found that the operation works best when implemented on a
corridor- or area-wide basis. Appendix C presents the results of a survey distributed
among the agencies in Orange County. The resuks indicate a rather wide range of
present and past use of P/PLT.
Conclusion
Strong and continual public education and awareness is an integral part of driver
acceptance of this type of signal operation.
-14-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
V. DESIGN
A. Introduction
While this design element of the report is not intended to be used as a standard of
practice for the design of P/PLT phasing, it is, however, intended to add
uniformity and consistency in the design of traffic signals utilizing P/PLT
phasing. Its use as a reference guideline could be extremely beneficial for traff'tc
design professionals to facilitate design of different scenarios facing today's
designer, ranging from a 'T" intersection to a fully actuated eight-phase major
arterial intersection.
The Committee has endeavored to incorporate the most recent hardware and
software advances, as well as leading edge philosophical and operational
practices.
These design guidelines attempt to dispel long-standing myths associated with
P/PLT phasing and address technical questions concerning operation, design,
timing, peak-hour use, and indication placement. Its advantages and
disadvantages, geometric constraints, and design characteristics are discussed in
detail to allow the designer to be more informed and to make intelligent design
decisions.
B. Description of Operation
This part discusses P/PLT and some other left turn possibilities. The particular
types of left-turn signal phasing possibilities are as follows: lead/lead, lag/lag,
lead/lag, and lag/lead. It seems that for as many different intersection
configurations that exist today, there are an equal number of available operating
possibilities and phase sequences. The four conditions mentioned previously are
the four sequences specifically analyzed for these guidelines. Being consistent in
the design of P/PLT signal phasing is a two-fold proposition: first of all, it will
help driver initiation, recognition, and acceptance of this particular form of
phasing; and second, it will assist the governing agency for which you are
designing a new installation to operate, program, and maintain, with familiarity,
this phasing system.
C. Design Characteristics
This section has been compiled to point out many of the pros and cons the
P/PLT designer might encounter (see Appendix D for summary). Review of the
pros and cons will assist the designer in determining whether or not it is
appropriate to implement this particular type of left-turn phasing at any given
location. Also, for determining mounting and signing locations at new, modified,
-15-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
or retrofitted intersections, please review the technical diagrams in Appendix E
for desired head placement, sign placement, and indication type considerations.
Traditional Design Characteristics
Some of the traditional design elements for left-turn phasing (other than
protected/permissive) that the designer might encounter are outlined below.
This report attempts to show how most left-turn phasing is being designed or
operated and the equipment being used. In order to modify a traditional left-turn
phasing intersection into a P/PLT phasing intersection and to reuse existing
equipment or hardware, the designer needs to be aware of all associated left-turn
phasing patterns. The list shows, but is not limited to, these general items:
· The left-turn phasing is either lead/lead or lag/lag
· At times, a four-section signal head will be used with one green arrow
and then a green, yellow, and red ball (for lagging operation or "T"
intersections).
· Typically, a mast-arm or, infrequently, a center median mounted three-
section arrow-only signal head is still being used.
· The left-turn head is positioned on the lane line in conjunction with
program visibility heads or in the middle of the left-turn lane if a standard
three-section arrow head is used.
· At "T' intersections where left-turn phasing is either leading or lagging.
D. Recommended Design Characteristics and Equipment
This section provides the engineer/designer a brief overview of the recommended
equipment and design characteristics for P/PLT phasing.
For further explanation or clarification on any of the recommendations outlined
below, please refer to Appendix E-l, E-2, or E-3 at the end of this report.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Use a five-section cluster head for mast arm mounting only.
2. The five-section cluster head should be placed on the left-turn barrier line
or not more than five feet to the fight of the barrier line~ .
3. Far-left indications should be a five-section stack head type.
x The Comrmnee recognizes that some agencies have successfully used a mounting location for the cluster head to
the right of this recommendation.
~16-
Protected/Permissive LetS-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
4. Use left-turn pocket detector switching during permissive periods or use
queue detectors to call protected periods (see Operations section).
5. No sign is recommended; however, if one is considered needed by a
particular agency, then an R73-7 "Left Turn Yield on 'green ball'" shall
be used.
6. A four-section stack head type is recommended for use at "T"
intersections or one-way streets with lagging left turns. Clearance time is
during the yellow ball.
7. For an intersection being converted to P/PLT phasing (from fully
protected left-turn phasing) that has a mast arm that extends into the left-
turn lane, an R73-7 sign is recommended and may be placed at the end of
the mast ann with the cluster head being placed on or within five feet to
the right of the left-turn barrier line.
8. For intersections with one approach lane and a separate left-turn lane, a
cluster head should be mounted in the thru lane (near the barrier), along
with a pole-mounted three-section head for thru traffic (unless the thru
lane is 19' or wider--then, an additional three-section head should be
installed on the mast arm for thru movements).
9. For intersections with two approach lanes and a separate left-turn lane, a
cluster head should be mounted on the barrier line and a three-section
head should be mounted between the thru lanes (or on the lane line),
along with a pole-mounted three-section head.
Use of only the mast arm mounted cluster head (for both left-turn and
thru traffic) where there are two thru lanes in one direction is considered
acceptable during the conversion of a two-phase operation to a P/PLT
operation. However, when funding becomes available, a full upgrade
should be implemented, which would install longer mast arms for
preferred use of two signal heads.
10. Queue detection should be considered as a part of any P/PLT installation.
There are many methods to implement this design feature, which allows
greater signal efficiency. See the Operations section for discussion on the
operational parameters.
E. Geometric Constraints
The provisions listed in this geometric constraints section are a quasi-check-list
of unfavorable geometric conditions that may exist at certain locations and to
help determine if the proposed location is adaptable to P/PLT phasing.
· Horizontal curves creating sight distance problems (see discussion on
sight distance problems in the Guidelines section and in Appendix F).
-17-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
· Vertical curves creating sight distance problems (see discussion on sight
distance problems in the Guidelines section and in Appendix F).
· Wide medians could obstruct sight distance (see sight distance
considerations in Appendix F).
F. Signal Indications
As the variety of signal displays for similar movements by agencies increases, so
does driver confusion. There is a need for the driver to be able to associate
(identify) specific indications for specific movements. These design guidelines
will help resolve some of the problems with conflicting displays.
To aid drivers in movement identification, the following recommendations for
protected/permissive signalized intersections are made:
1. The cluster head be used exclusively for left-turn displays on mast arm
mount.
2. Three-section vertical heads only (on the mast arms) for thru movements
(for two or more approach lanes and a separate left-turn lane).
3. Five-section stack heads should be used for far-left indication.
A graphic display of the signal heads, their uses, and their functions are discussed
as follows:
Common Name:
Cluster Head
Uses:
Sign:
(if used)
Advantages:
Disadvantal~es:
Mast-arm mounting. P/PLT
phasing.
R73-7 "Left-Turn Yield on
'green ball'."
Distinctive indication arrangement,
which alerts people to the P/PLT
operation. Consistent with heads
already in use.
May be confusing to first-time
users.
Note:
Due to the distinctive shape of the cluster head and the Committee's
desire to distinguish P/PLT operations, it was determined that this head
should be used only for P/PLT operation (for the mast arm indications).
-18-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
Common Name:
Five-Section Stack
®
Common Name:
Four-Section Stack
®
Uses: Fax-left mounting, Uses:
P/PLT phasing.
Sign: R73-7 "Left-Turn Signs:
(ffused) Yield on 'green (ffnsed)
Advantages: Morn consistent Advantages:
with traditional
displays. Consistent
with existing
installations. (TV-1-
T mounting
recommended.)
l)isadvanta~es: Not as compact as Disadvantages:
the cluster head.
May not be
identified by drivers
as a P/PLT
operation.
Fax-left and mast-
arm mounting.
P/PLT phasing at
"T" intersections
and where lagging
left turns axe used.
R73-7 "Left-Turn
Yield on 'green
ball'."
Compact size and
ease to recogl~ze.
(TV-I-T mounting
recommended. )
No yellow arrow
display.
Note:
There are numerous other signal head configurations in use today to list
separately here. We are displaying and discussing only the recommended
configurations in this section.
-19-
Protected/Permissive Left-Tum Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
G. Summary
Use of the P/PLT phasing sequence is a viable operational parameter during non-
saturated traffic flow condition. Through the use of accepted updated traffic
signal equipment, the installation, operation, and maintenance of these systems is
an acceptable alternative to conventional left-turn design. Most people would
prefer not to remain at a signalized intersection any longer than possible. At the
same time, you are saving the commuter time and increasing the efficiency of the
signal systems, which translates into time savings, fuel efficiency, and less driver
frustration.
It is always a good idea to remember that many locations are not well suited for
this form of operation, such as arterials with high approach speed, multiple left-
turn lanes, vertical and horizontal alignment problems, and high left-turn accident
history. Therefore, extra care should be taken when designing a new P/PLT
phasing intersection or in the modification of an existing conventional left-turn
phasing intersection.
The benefit of using the protected/permissive operation is clearly in time savings
and pollution reduction. This is a trend that has far-reaching impacts. The
majority of public agencies using this system are increasing their measure of
effectiveness, reduced stop delay, fuel consumption, and citizen complaints.
The Committee acknowledges this operation is not ideal for every situation, but
recommends considering this type of left-turn phasing at locations that could
benefit from P/PLT phasing.
PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
A. Goals
The Education Subcommittee's goals were to research non-technical documentation
related to traffic signals and signal leit-turn phasing that is available to the public and
to develop methods to better inform the public of traffic signal operations. The
technical design and operation guidelines for traffic signal P/PLT are the primary
goals of the OCTEC Committee.
B. Findings
The Committee collected and reviewed existing non-technical documentation from
the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), various governmental
agencies, and non-profit organizations. Appendix G includes copies of pages 14 and
15 from the D1ViVs Driver Handbook related to traffic signals and typical
information bulletins used by some public agencies~
-20-
Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Des~ga and Operational Guidelines
The Committee's consensus was that the DMV's Driver Handbook (pages 14 and 15)
is unclear in informing the public on various traffic signal operations; i.e., protected
left turns versus P/PLT operation. The Handbook does provide the basic California
Vehicle Code (CVC) rules and driver requirements under ball and arrow signal
indications and different pedestrian conditions. The Committee recommended that
the traffic signal and pedestrian signal section of the Handbook be revised to better
inform the public of their responsibilities and the CVC rules. Appendix H contains
the Committee's proposed DMV driver handbook revisions.
The public information bulletins and handouts varied in content, from the reasons for
traffic signal and pedestrian signal controls to the basic information on the use of
P/PLT. The Committee recommended that a traffic signal public information bulletin
or handout be prepared to better inform the public on the left-turning operations for
various types of controls; i.e., no-left-turn phase, protected-left-tum phase, P/PLT,
and "black out" conditions (see Appendix I). In addition, the Committee
recommended that a separate pedestrian signal bulletin be prepared to better inform
the public on the CVC rules and provide safety tips on crossing a street at a traffic
signal (see Appendix J).
One of the Committee's concerns regarding the signal design was the minimal
research of the public's perception and understanding of left-turning-vehicle traffic
signal indications, especially the P/PLT five-section cluster (dog house) indication
versus a five-section vertical indication. The Commirtee's consensus was that a
research study on public understanding of various left-turning-vehicle indications
should be conducted. It appears that a research study may be funded and conducted
in the near future, with the results made available to the OCTEC Committee.
The Committee also discussed other methods to disseminate information on "tuming
left at traffic signals," in addition to the public information bulletins. It was
determined that the best method to disseminate the information was through the use
of a Public Service Announcement (PSA) video. The Committee recommended that
two PSA videos be prepared. One PSA by the OCTEC Committee, essentially
presenting our DMV Driver Handbook revision, and one PSA professional video
would be prepared as the result of the potential research study grant on "public
awareness" of turning left at traffic signals; i.e., P/PLT desis.
Other methods to disseminate public information on traffic signals and pedestrian
signals include, but are not limited to:
· Radio Public Announcements
· Newsletters
· Video TV Announcements
-21-
Protected/Permissive LeR-Tum Phasing
Design and Operational Guidelines
C. Conclusions
The Committee developed proposed traffic signal and pedestrian signal revisions to
the DMV Driver Handbook. The Committee has forwarded a request for the
revisions to various departments of the DMV through the City of Huntington Beach
Chief of Police, who has endorsed the revision. The Committee has forwarded
requests directly to the DMV. The California Highway Patrol Commissioner has
subsequently endorsed the recommended DMV Handbook revision. Appendices K
and L include copies of this correspondence.
Public Information Bulletins entitled "The ABC's of Traffc Signals" and "Pedestrian
Signals" were developed using the information that was included in the DIVIV Driver
Handbook proposed revision. Additional safety tips in crossing a street at a traffic
signal were included in the "Pedestrian Signal" Public Information Bulletin. The
Committee recommends that upon approval of OCTEC members, the Public
Information Bulletins be made available to agencies directly by OCTEC. These
Public Information Bulletins are included in Appendix M.
The bulletins are developed using computer graphics in order to have colored
printing on both sides. The computer file disk is forwarded to a printing firm for
printing the required copies. Costs for printing will range from approximately $0.10
to $0.20 each, depending on the quantity of order. Appendix N contains a list of
printing firms and estimated costs for printing. The Cornunttee will determine how
these bulletins can be made available to agencies requesting multiple copies for
distribution within their area.
The Committee is continuing work on the OCTEC video, "Tuming Left at Traffic
Signals". The City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department will
provide technical services in preparation of the video. Preliminary information from
the City indicates that a movie celebrity may volunteer his service for the narrative
part of the video. Appendix O contains a draft script of the public service video.
The Committee has requested a research study regarding public awareness of traffic
signals through the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA),
Traffic Engineering Division (Mr. Ignacio Ochoa, Traffic Engineer). The scope of
services for the research study will be reviewed by the Education Subcommittee with
input from the entire OCTEC Committee on P/PLT. OCEMA is pursuing an OCTA
grant for the research study.
The Education Subcommittee will also continue work on:
· Radio--Public Announcement Information
· Newsletters
· Video TV Announcements
-22-
APPENDIX A
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Cory A. Bersch, Transportation Engineer
H William Dickson, P.E., Senior Director
Gary P. Foxen, Traffic Engineer
R. Paul Grimm, P.E, Traffic Engineer
Tram Hartzog, President
R Henry Mohle, P.E., President
Ignacio G Ochoa, P.E, County Traffic Engineer
James D. Otterson, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
James M. Paral, P ~E, Principal Traffic Engineer
Steven S. Sasaki, P.E., Senior Engineer
Dennis Schmitz, Sr. Engineer/Traffic Operations
James J. Sommers, Senior Engineer
Bernard J. Vokoun, P.E
forme~y Traffic Engineer for the
City of San Juan Capistrano
Boyle Engineering Corp.
Robert Bein, Frost & Associates
Auto. Club of Southern California
Consultant
Hartzog & Crabill, Inc.
Hank Mohle & Associates
Orange County EMA
City of Huntington Beach
City of Anaheim
WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
City of Orange
WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
Relocated to Washington state
in May of 1994
(714) 476-3360
(714) 855-5765
(213) 741-4429
(714) 537-0691
(714) 731-9455
(714) 738-3471
(714) 834-3484
(714) 536-5523
(714) 254-5183
(714) 871-2931
(714) 532-6427
(714) 871-2931
APPENDIX B
THE "TRAP" EXPLANATION
This appendix contains diagrams to explain the "trap" situation which shall not be
permitted when protected/permissive left-turn phasing is used.
The "trap" occurs when a person turning left on a "yellow ball" is crossing in from of
opposing thru traffic that continues to be controlled by a "green ball."
A basic driving assumption is that when a driver is turning left on a "yellow bali," the
opposing thru traffic is also observing a "yellow ball" and, therefore, the opposing thru
traffic will be stopping on the "red ball" following the "yellow ball." The driver turning
left on the "yellow ball" must be assured that this basic assumption is true.
The diagrams were furnished by Brian Gallagher, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Signal
Systems and Research Section, Department of Transportation, City of Los Angeles.
Brian's valuable contribution to the Committee's work is hereby acknowledged with
sincere appreciation.
2)
s)
THE "TRAP"ILLUSTRATED
QUESTION - What is a "left turn trap" ?
ANSWER - This is o "trap" for Northbound & Westbound left turns. The left turns
are permissive.
G
~ t
g
SPECIFIC SITUATION ILLUSTRATIONS
1 2 3 4
USED
NOT ~l NOT NOT
USED ~ USED USED
G G
Trap for S/B Left-Turn if ~4 not on recall or ¢1
does not place a call to ~4.
¢1 can be either Protected-Only or
Protected/Permissive.
5 6 7 8
B)
3 4
NOT ·
USED
NOT NOT
USED USED
? 8
Trap for either N/B Left-Turn or S/B Left-Turn if
there is no e4 call and both Left-Turn Phases do
not come up simultaneously.
Only applies if ¢1 and ¢5 are Protected/Permissive
Left - Turn.
c)
1 2 3 4
NOT
(LAG) USED
NOT ~ l NOT NOT
USED USED USED
5 6 ? 8
You can Not have a Logging Permissive/Protected
Left-Turn when the cross street is 2-way.
This would be acceptable (and preferred) if the
East-West street shown was One Way Westbound.
D)
1 2 3 4
NOT ~ ~ C
USED ·
NOT ~T ) "~'¢>
USED
5 6 7 8
RULES:
As long as ¢2 and ~6 are on recall, this is O.K. for
Protected only or Protected/Permissive Left-Turn in
either ¢3, ~7 or both.
See note "C" regarding Lagging Permissive/Protected.
1. If Left-turn phase
or min. recall for
2. Don't use Logging Permissive/Protected left-turn phases when
a one-way street or T-intersections is Not Involved.
,%. Even a 2-phase intersections a left-turn trap can occur during
preemptions - BE CAREFUL.
for only 1 of 2 directions, use coil to phase
side street.
Page 1 of 1
.JULY oo 1994
APPENDIX C
SURVEY RESULTS
From:
Date:
SUBJECT:
Orange County Agency Traffic Engineers/Transportation Managers
Orange County Traffic Engineering Council - Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Committee
March 10, 1994
SURVEY
The Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC) has formed a committee to study
protected/permissive (P/P) left-turn phasing. The purpose of this survey is to determine the opinions of
P/P left-turn phasing and acquire as much information as possible.
We request the return of your completed survey by March 25, 1994. Please FAX to Jim Paral,
City of Anaheim, at (714) 254-5225. Your taking time and completing the attached form is greatly
appreciated.
Agency Name:
Street Address:
City:
Contact Person:
Phone Number: (
1.
State: Zip:
Title:
) FAX Number: ( )
Does your agency currently use protected/permissive (P/P) left-turn phasing at all?
Yes No
How many signals in your agency:
Total Protected/Permissive
Are you planning to install any P/P left-turn phasing in the future? Why or why not?
If you answered 'Yes' to question 1, then go on to question 6.
4. Have you used P/P left-turn phasing in the past? If so, describe your experience.
If our committee was to come up with recommended guidelines regarding P/P left-turns, would
you consider using them?
If you answered 'No' to question 1, go to question 13.
6. How many of your protected/permissive signals are:
Leading LTs Lagging LTs
Lead/Lags
Do you keep accident data at these intersections? If so, could this data be made available for our
analysis under confidential terms?
Can you provide us with the name and phone number of a contact from your law enforcement
department?
Name: Phone Number: ( )
Please circle and describe the signal head design for the left-turn on the mast ann, the placement of
the head with respect to the travel lanes, and any special sighing utilized.
10. Do you follow any formal or informal warrants for volumes and accidents in determining candidate
locations for P/P left-turns?
11. What are the impacts of P/P left-turns on signal coordination (arterial progression) for your agency?
12. If our committee was to come up with recommended guidelines regarding P/P left-turns, would
you consider modifying your existing installations?
13. Any conmaents, warnings, or advice regarding P/P left turns you would like to add?
uJ
>-
LU
rr
:::)
wc ~cI_ co
~ c "o ez o o._~ o ~"
'~ = =>'
'~ o '~
~ ,', c ®
~ w z:o-wow w we gE
z ~
Zz I-~
0 o o o ~ oo o~0
0 =~=~ = = =~ c=~c° '~=
~ =< = ~Z c m =._EZ<--'~<
o
"' ~ S ~z>-z~_zz ~-~zz ~z ~ Szzz ~z
~: --c---=O'~'~ {~ --0
d 0, . o o, ,< ,,< o<< ~, ~zz~-~-~-~-zz>.>.z
o< ~-~-z>->..z>.zzzz>.o.
t-,; w
I-- LLi
~ :)
>..>->->->, >,Z>,Z: >->-ZZ>,>,>,>,>,Z>.>.Z
F ~-~-~-~- >- ~-~-{"~-zz>.z>.>.>.zzz ,,
2-') Q, 0
~) ~ O.,
00ZZ 0 0 ZZ o OZ
~t.o 6c,-.oozoZ>.ZZcc cEc~' cc
< ~' ~'z z zz~zz~ zz
APPENDIX D
Pros/Cons of Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing
Pros
Reduces delays and stopped time on coordinated systems.
Allows for selective use of shorter cycle lengths at each intersection.
Reduces fuel consumption.
Keduces pollution.
Provides high signal system efficiency (slightly less than only permissive in the worst
case and as good in the best case) because it allows for all left-turn phasing
combination and will produce the best fit in the green band, while still providing
protected left-turns, especially during peak hour, conditions that require the most
protection during maximum saturated traffic flow.
Provides high individual signal efficiency while still providing protected left-turns (as
in the case of lag/lag, this phase may be skipped completely during light traffic
conditions when vehicles turn on the permissive).
Fewer right-angle accidents may occur than if it were just permissive because of the
protected left-turn phase.
Cons
Lost time due to various measures required to prevent left-turn trap phasing
situations.
Driver confusion and resistance to acceptance.
More fight-angle accidents may occur than if it were protected only.
Additional signage at every P/PLT indication location.
Signal head configuration and placement not uniform throughout area.
Arterial system timing is difficult to use with protected/permissive operation.
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDED SIGNAL HEAD LOCATIONS
i J NOTE
NO SCALE NOTE
PREFERRED R73-7
TI
LOCA ON
SECTION STACK
~USE TYPE TV-1-T OR
SIMILAR MOUNT)
CLUSTER HEAD
I I
LEGEND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
3 SECTION HEAD
¢ OR 5 SECTION STACK
OR CLUSTER HEAD
SIGN MOUNT
DESIGN NOTES:
AT A "T" INTERSECTION OR ONE WAY STREET WITH LAGGING LEFT TURNS A ~ SECTION
HEAD IS APPROPRIATE AND CLEARANCE TIME IS ON THE YELLOW BALL.
CLUSTER HEAD PLACEMENT SHOULD BE EITHER ON THE LEFT TURN BARRIER LINE (PREFERRED
OR WITHIN 5' TO THE RIGHT (ACCEPTABLE) OF THE LEFT TURN LANE BARRIER LINE FOR NEW
PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS.
['~ IF AN INTERSECTION IS BEING DOWN SIZED (GOING FROM PROTECTED ONLY TO PROTECTED/
PERMISSIVE) A SIGN SUCH AS AN R73-7 SHOULD BE USED. THE END TENON CAN BE USED
ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CLUSTER HEAD FOR SIGN MOUNTING.
4. IF A SIGN IS TO BE USED AT A NEW INSTALLATION, THE PLACEMENT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY
TO THE RIGHT OF THE CLUSTER HEAD AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR MORE THAN ,~ YEARS.
5. A CLUSTER HEAD SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR PROTECTED ONLY LEFT TURN INDICATIONS.
FOR QUEUE DETECTION OPERATION REFER TO OPERATION SECTION.
TYPICAL
LOCATIONS
INDICATION
PLACEMENT
O.C.T.E.C.
Orange County Traffic
APPENDIX E1
NO SCALE
5 SEC~ON STACK
5 SECTION
CLUSTER HEAD
LEGEND
DIRECTON OF TRAVEL
3 SECTION HEAD
5 SECTION STACK OR
CLUSTER HEAD
SIGN MOUNT
DESIGN NOTES:
AN ADDITIONAL 3 SEC~ON HEAD MAY NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE MAST ARM IF THE
APPROACH LANE WIDTH EXCEEDS APPROXIMATELY 19'.
USE A R73-7 "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN BALL" IN THIS LOCA'RON, IF REQUIRED.
CLUSTER HEAD PLACEMENT SHOULD BE TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE THROUGH LANE.
IN THE EVENT THAT A SECOND ,3 SECTION HEAD IS REQUIRED, THIS WILL LEAVE ENOUGH
ROOM FOR THE ADDITION WITHOUT LENGTHENING THE MAST ARM.
O.C.T.E.C.
Orange County Treffic
Engineering Council
TYPICAL
LOCATIONS
INDICATION
PLACEMENT
APPENDIX E2
NO SCALE
5 SEC~ON STACK --
5 SECTION~
CLUSTER HEAD
I
I
LEGEND
DIRECTION OFTRAVEL
3 SEC~ON HEAD
5 SEC~ON STACK OR
CLUSTER HEAD
SIGN MOUNT
DESIGN NOTES:
USE A R73-7 "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN BALL" IN THIS LOCATION, IF REQUIRED
BY AGENCY,
CLUSTER HEAD PLACEMENT SHOULD BE ON THE LEFT TURN BARRIER LINE WTH THE
THROUGH HEAD PLACEMENT REGULATED BY THE MANUFACTURER'S "F" DISTANCE
OR SPECIAL REQUIREMENT BY A SPECIFIC AGENCY.
O.C.T.E.C.
Oronge County Troffic
:_r c!~ eer;'' ~ ~_?,; r
TYPICAL
l_,n,C A T101xl S
INDICATION
DL~,CEME!xlT
APPENDIX E3
APPENDIX F
VISIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
An important consideration for motorists making a left turn on a "green ball" is the adequacy of
being able to see the opposing through traffic. Left-turning motorists must have adequate sight
distance so that they can select an adequate gap in the through vehicle flow of opposing traffic.
One of the most frequent view obstructions for the left turner can be vehicles also waiting to
make left turns from the opposing left-turn lane.
While each situation is unique, there are some situations that can be illustrated to show possible
sight opportunities and restrictions. Figures 1 through 4 illustrate some specific situations.
The intent of this discussion and the diagrams is to assist in creating an increased awareness on
the part of the traffic signal designer of left.turn sight distance situations.
The required sight distances and, therefore, the gaps that left turners accept vary with the
particular driver and the overall situation at the time the left turn is being made. Typical gap
acceptance values in the range of 4 to 5 seconds have been reported.
For purposes of this informational report, it is believed prudent to recommend wet pavement
stopping sight distance standards as published by Caltrans in their "Highway Design Manual,"
fourth edition, Table 201.1, pages 200-201, dated July 1, 1990.
The required sight distances from this table are as follows:
Design Speed Stopping Sight Distance
(mph} (wet navement) (~.)
20 125
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
45 360
50 430
For use in evaluating "approaching traffic sight distance," the 851h percentile speed of the
approaching through traffic is the same as "design speed" in the table (for purposes of this report).
It is emphasized that each situation is unique, and there is no single distance that is either not
adequate or adequate for all situations. The distances and speeds listed above are intended to
increase the designers' awareness of the sight distance issue in the design and operation of left
turns on "green balls."
e. ,_
'~0
,ia,,
W
e,,"'~
k,,$
!___,,.k
uoNm
/
UONIIRI
w
,. j
/
/
/
/
/
/
MONIIN
LU
D
0"C3
*"'0
ITEM NO. 5
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
ITEM NO. 6
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
ITEM NO. 7
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
ITEM NO. 8
COMMISSION REPORTS