In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11].
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 26, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 PM
CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957 and 54957.6 to evaluate the performance of the City Manager and establish goals and performance objectives for the next year as required by the City Manager's Employment Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 the Council will also meet with its designated representatives, Mayor Matt Rahn and City Attorney Peter Thorson, to provide direction to the designated representatives concerning the negotiation of salary, compensation and/or benefits for the unrepresented employee position of City Manager. Any changes to the City Manager's Employment Agreement would only be taken at a regularly scheduled open and public meeting of the City Council.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn
INVOCATION: Sylvester Scott of Baha'is of Temecula
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Matt Rahn
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart
PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation for Arbor Day
Presentation for Temecula Valley High School Girls' Soccer Team - D 1 State Champions Presentation for Great Oak High School Cyber Team - Inland Empire/California Mayors Cup
BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS
Community Services Commission, Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission
PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code.
Attachments: Agenda Report
2. Approve Action Minutes of April 12, 2022
Recommendation:
Attachments:
That the City Council approve the action minutes of April 12, 2022.
Action Minutes
3. Approve List of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
List of Demands
4. Appoint Council Member Edwards as Alternate to Animal Friends of the Valleys Recommendation: That the City Council appoint Council Member Edwards as the alternate to the Animal Friends of the Valleys.
Attachments: Agenda Report
5. Approve Three -Year Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for Animal Control Services
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $126,000 for fiscal year 2022-2023, $129,150 for fiscal year 2023-2024, and $132,378.72 for fiscal year 2024-2025, for a total three-year agreement amount of $387,528.72, for Animal Control Services.
Attachments: Agenda Report
Agreement
6. Approve Local Road Safely Plan LRSPLport
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report.
Attachments: Agenda Report
Local Road Safety Plan
7. Approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Architectural Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024
Recommendation: That the City Council approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Architectural Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows:
- Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc, $1,000,000 total term - Miller Architectural Corporation, $1,000,000 total term - TR Design Group, Architecture, $1,000,000 total term
City Council
Agenda April 26, 2022
Attachments: Agenda Report
First Amendment - Gillis + Panichapan
First Amendment - Miller
First Amendment - TR Design Group
8. Approve Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Engineering, Surve and Environmental Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows:
- CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., First Amendment, $1,000,000 total term
- Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., Second Amendment, $1,350,000 total term
- SB&O, Inc., First Amendment, $1,000,000 total term
Attachments: Agenda Report
First Amendment - CASC
Second Amendment - Engineering Resources
First Amendment - SB&O
9. Approve First Amendment to the Non -Exclusive Commodity Agreement for the Purchase of Overhead Street Name Signs with Main Street Signs
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Non -Exclusive Commodity Agreement with Main Street Signs, for the purchase of Overhead Street Name Signs, in the amount of $129,602.81.
Attachments: Agenda Report
First Amendment
10. Approve First Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement with Mariposa Tree Management, Inc., for Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services Recommendation: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement with Mariposa Tree Management, Inc., for citywide tree trimming maintenance services, in the amount of $900,000.
Attachments: Agenda Report
First Amendment
11. Approve Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2021-69, a Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Interests in Billboards Identified as Sign Number 33321 and Sign Number 33322 Located on Portions of the Real Properties Identified as Assessor's Parcel
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
Numbers 910-060-002 and 910-060-004 in Connection with the I-I5/French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, PW 16-01
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021-69, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH THE
1-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE 11
(CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN CONNECTION WITH
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURES/BILLBOARDS
IDENTIFIED AS SIGN NUMBER 33321 AND SIGN NUMBER 33322,
LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTIES
IDENTIFIED AS APNS 910-060-002 & 910-060-004)
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
Resolution No. 2021-69
Project Description
Project Location
12. Approve Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2021-70, a Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Certain Real Property Interests on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-020-077, 910-060-002, 910-060-003, 910-060-009, & 910-060-015 in Connection with the I-I5/French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, PW 16-01 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021-70, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH THE
I-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE II
(CERTAIN PROPERTY INTERESTS ON APNS 910-020-077,
910-060-002, 910-060-003, 910-060-009, & 910-060-015)
City Council
Agenda April 26, 2022
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
Resolution No. 2021-70
Project Description
Project Location
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: President James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart
CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
13. Approve Action Minutes of April 12, 2022
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of April 12, 2022.
Attachments: Action Minutes
14. Approve Three -Year Agreement with Advantage Mailing, LLC for Printing Services of the Guide to Leisure Activities
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve a three-year agreement with Advantage Mailing, LLC for printing services of the Guide to Leisure Activities.
Attachments: Agenda Report
Agreement
City Council
Agenda April 26, 2022
CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT
CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS
CSD ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO
MEETING
TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Matt Rahn
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart
TPFA PUBLIC COMMENT
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
TPFA BUSINESS
Any member of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
15. Approve Issuance of Special Tax Refunding Bonds for Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-03 (Wolf Creek)
Recommendation
That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS RELATED
TO THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK),
APPROVING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF A FISCAL
City Council
Agenda April 26, 2022
AGENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVING OTHER RELATED
DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
Fiscal Agent Agreement
Escrow Agreement
Preliminary Official Statement
Bond Purchase Agreement
TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS
TPFA ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Temecula Public Financing Authority will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant's position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker's time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
16. Approve Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan, 2022-2026 Five -Year Consolidated Plan, 2022 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, and Citizen Participation Plan
Recommendation
That the City Council adopt the resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
(2022-2023), 2022-2026 FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2022
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING, AND CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION PLAN AS AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING
THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
INCLUDING ANY AMENDED OR REVISED AMOUNTS PROVIDED
BY HUD
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
Attachments:
RTT.C>(NFCC
Agenda Report
RPcnlntinn
Exhibit A
Notice of Public Hearing
Any member of the public may address the City Council on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected].
Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
17. Introduce Ordinance Amending Section 10.28.010(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain Streets
Recommendation
That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
•10IZ \•.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE
SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS
Attachments: Agenda Report
Ordinance
Summary of Recommendations
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (Receive and File)
18. Community Development Department Monthly Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Planning Activity Report
19. Fire Department Monthly Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Fire Department Report
20. Police Department Monthly Report
City Council Agenda April 26, 2022
Attachments: Agenda Report
21. Public Works Department Monthly Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Project Status Report
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes unless extended by a majority vote of the City Council. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. General discussion amongst the City Council on items listed under this section of the agenda shall be limited to 15 minutes.
Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
1. Availability of Cancer Related Services in Temecula (At the Request of Mayor Rahn)
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 694-6444.
Item No. 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: None
Item No. 2
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 12, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 P.M.
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council convened in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees Union Local 911.
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Mayor Matt Rahn
INVOCATION: Aaron Adams, City Manager
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jessica Alexander
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart
PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation for National Education and Sharing Day
Proclamation for National Crime Victims' Rights Week
Proclamation for DMV/Donate Life Month
Proclamation for Autism Awareness Month
BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS - None
PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
Riverside County Sheriffs Department
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS
The following individual(s) addressed the City Council:
• John Hunneman
• Laura Durcan
• Kim Gerrish
• Sonia Perez
• Karyn Loy
• Jon Stallo
• Tiffany Richter
• Patrick McConnell
• Bob Kowell
• Bob Quaid
The following individual(s) submitted an electronic comment:
• Rick Reiss 0 Lenny Martinez
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS
The following individual(s) addressed the City Council:
• Bob Kowell (Item #9) • Seth Thomas (Item #24)
• Dario Bianchi (Item #9) • Ted Thomas (Item #24)
• Mary Williams (Item #24) • John Mario (Item #24)
Alana Joos (Item #24)
Nancy Vandenberg (Item #24)
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
• Daryl D. Hansen (Item #24)
• Maria Cantrell (Item #24)
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.
Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval.
Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions
Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code.
2. Approve Action Minutes of March 22, 2022
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of March 22, 2022.
3. Approve List of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4. Approve City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2021 Recommendation:
That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2021.
5. Adopt Ordinance 2022-06 Amending Title 9 and Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to Include Entertainment Licenses, Further Clarify the Definitions of Restaurants, Entertainment, Taverns and Bars, and Provide Regulations for Private Security Operators, and Establishing Noise Standards for Mixed -Use Developments With a Residential Component Second Reading)
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE 2022-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING TITLES 9 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE ENTERTAINMENT LICENSES,
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEFINITIONS OF RESTAURANTS,
ENTERTAINMENT, TAVERNS AND BARS, AND PROVIDE
REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE SECURITY OPERATORS, AND
ESTABLISHING NOISE STANDARDS FOR MIXED -USE
DEVELOPMENTS WITH A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, AND
FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (B)(3)
6. Adopt Ordinance 2022-07 Amending Section 2.04.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code Relating to the Time of City Council Meetings (Second Reading_) Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 2.04.020 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE TIME AND PLACE OF
MEETINGS
7. Approve Governing Body Resolution Designating Certain City Officials to Execute Applications and Documents for the Purposes of Obtaining Grant Funding through the Department of Homeland Security and Sub -Granted Through the State of California and Riverside County
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt this resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING AND AUTHORIZING
CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE APPLICATIONS AND
DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF OBTAINING FEDERAL
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND SUB -GRANTED
THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE
8. Approve Sponsorship Agreement with Veterans of Foreign Wars, Temecula Valley VFW Post #4089 for 2022 Memorial DU Observance
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the sponsorship agreement with Veterans of Foreign Wars, Temecula Valley VFW Post #4089 for in -kind support valued at $700 in City support services and $11,415 in promotional services for the 2022 Memorial Day Observance.
3 Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Schwank. The vote reflected unanimous approval.
9. Approve Second Amendments to Agreements with Convergint Technologies, LLC, for the Purchase, Installation, and Maintenance of a Citywide Surveillance System Recommendation:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the second amendment to the purchase and installation agreement with Convergint Technologies, LLC, extend the term to May 22, 2025, increase the amount of the contract by $2,000,000, plus contingency of $200,000, for citywide surveillance system expansion and enhancements, bringing the total agreement amount to $7,656,035; and
2. Approve the second amendment to the maintenance work agreement with Convergint Technologies, LLC, increase the amount of the contract by $1,000,000, plus contingency of $100,000, for citywide surveillance system maintenance and repairs, bringing the total agreement amount to $2,240,819, for a term of five years beginning April 12, 2022.
Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-1), Alexander oppose): Motion by Alexander, Second by Schwank. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Alexander opposing.
10. Approve Seventh Amendment to the Agreement with Proactive Fire Design & Consulting Inc. for Plan Review Services
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the seventh amendment to the agreement with Proactive Fire Design & Consulting, Inc., in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars and no cents ($25,000) for Fiscal Year 2021-22, for the Fire Department plan review service.
11. Approve Agreement for Consultant Services with Placeworks, Inc. for the Preparation of the Proposed Old Town Outdoor Dining Program
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the agreement for consultant services with Placeworks, Inc., in the amount of $138,320, with a 10% contingency of $13,832, for a total agreement of $152,152, for the proposed Old Town Outdoor Dining Program.
12. Approve First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with De Novo Planning Group for Additional Work Related to the Preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the agreement for consultant services with De Novo Planning Group in the amount of $7,500, for a total agreement amount of $87,887, for additional work related to the preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.
13. Approve First Amendment to Agreement with Kris R. Winchak dba KRW & Associates for Engineering Plan Check, Map and Legal Description Review Recommendation: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the agreement with Kris R. Winchak dba KRW & Associates for engineering plan check, map and legal description review, to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2023, and increase payment in the amount of $100,000.
14. Approve First Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services for Engineering, Survey and Environmental Services with David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the first amendment to the agreement for consultant services for engineering, survey and environmental services with David Evans and Associates, Inc., for a total agreement amount of $1,000,000, for the total term of the agreement.
15. Appropriate Additional Funds and Increase Contingency Authorization for the Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project, PW08-04 Recommendation:
That the City Council:
1. Approve an appropriation in the amount of $885,000 from Measure S for the Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project, PW08-04; and
2. Approve an increase to the contingency for construction of the Project by $600,000; and
3. Increase the City Manager Authority to approve construction contract change orders by $600,000.
16. Approve Appropriation and Award Construction Contract to IE General Engineering Inc. for the Ronald Reagan Sports Park Restroom Expansion and Renovation, PW 18-03 Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve an appropriation of $290,000 from Measure S to the Ronald Reagan Sports Park Restroom Expansion and Renovation, PW 18-03; and
2. Award a construction contract to IE General Engineering Inc. in the amount of $311,496 for the Ronald Reagan Sports Park Restroom Expansion and Renovation, PW18-03; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve construction contract change orders up to 10% of the contract amount, $31,149.60; and
4. Make a finding that the Ronald Reagan Sports Park Restroom Expansion and Renovation, PW18-03, is exempt from Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees.
17. Approve Appropriation of Additional Funds for the Traffic Signal - Park and Ride Access Improvements, PW18-11
Recommendation: That the City Council approve an appropriation of $170,000 from Measure S to the Traffic Signal - Park and Ride Access Improvements, PW18-11.
18. Approve the Initial Study and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II - Margarita Road Undercrossing Project, PW19-04 Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve the Initial Study and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II - Margarita Road Undercrossing Project, PW19-04; and
2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination.
19. Approve Minor Construction Services Agreement with American Ramp Company, Inc. for the Construction of the Infill Mini Pumn Track at Wolf Creek Park. PW21-05 Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve the minor construction services agreement with American Ramp Company, Inc. in the amount of $60,000, for construction of the Infill Mini Pump Track at Wolf Creek Park, PW21-05; and
2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alternations to Land, of the CEQA Guidelines.
20. Approve Agreement Pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5 Between City of Temecula and Woodside 055, LP and Wingsweep Corporation Regarding Acquisition of Property Interests in Connection with Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol Improvements Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5 BETWEEN WOODSIDE
055, LP AND WINGSWEEP CORPORATION AND CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
INTERESTS (CALLE GIRASOL/NICOLAS ROAD CONNECTION)
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents and
take all steps necessary to effectuate the purposes of the agreement.
21. Approve Tract Map 37341-17 (Located on East Side of Butterfield Stage Road Between Calle Chapos and Murrieta Hot Springs Road)
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve Tract Map 37341-17 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; and
2. Approve the Subdivision Improvement and Monumentation Agreements with the developer; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements on behalf of the City.
RECESS:
At 7:36 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting. At 7:58 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda.
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
BUSINESS
24. Consider Opportunities for a Performing Arts Center (At the Request of Mayor Rahn) Recommendation: That the City Council consider opportunities for a performing arts center, create an ad hoc subcommittee that would ultimately work directly with the arts community on a possible private capital campaign, and provide general direction regarding the same.
Approved the Staff Recommendation and appoint Mayor Matt Rahn and Council Member Stewart to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
The City Attorney stated there was no reportable actions from closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:55 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 26, 2022, at 4:30 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Item No. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands
PREPARED BY: Pam Espinoza, Accounting Technician I
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. List of Demands
RESOLUTION NO.2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $ 8,421,727.18.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of April 2022.
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
03/30/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$ 199,893.68
03/31/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
1,136,511.17
04/05/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
165,351.20
04/07/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
6,402,883.61
03/31/2022 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
517,087.52
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 4/26/2022 COUNCIL MEETING:
$ 8,421,727.18
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
GENERALFUND
$ 5,157,045.37
125
PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT
48.94 140
COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
8,586.69
150
AB 2766 FUND
10,000.00
165
RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
3,923.22
190
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
315,611.99
194
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING
9,059.03
196
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT.
430.63
197
TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND
38,944.23
210
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND
2,269,351.15
300
INSURANCE FUND
1,849.22
305
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
1,849.17
320
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
41,603.01
330
SUPPORT SERVICES
10,939.88
340
FACILITIES
20,630.02
475
CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND
87.00 501
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD
498.01
502
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK
388.41
503
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS
0.41 504
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS
197.41
505
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES
850.41
506
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY
297.41
507
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW
392.01
508
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE
1,240.28
509
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA
0.01 510
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE
201.41
511
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW
192.01
512
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS
913.59
513
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP
9.48 514
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES
498.01
515
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES
201.01
516
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS
9.48 517
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA
100.01
518
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS
1,799.79
519
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR
563.49
520
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL
188.97
521
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH
2,645.48
522
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE
195.01
523
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN
0.92 524
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON
151.41
525
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS
18.95 526
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION
249.01
527
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE
249.41
528
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK
2,628.32
529
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT
(0.01)
$ 7,904,639.66
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 309,242.85
140
COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
446.12
165
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
3,645.44
190
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
143,621.18
194
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING
1,238.68
196
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT.
536.72
197
TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND
3,162.91
300
INSURANCE FUND
1,983.08
305
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
1,983.08
320
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
36,263.44
330
SUPPORT SERVICES
4,300.83
340
FACILITIES
8,559.85
501
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD
0.06 502
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK
0.51 503
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS
0.51 504
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS
0.51 505
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES
0.51 506
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY
0.51 507
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW
0.06 508
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE
258.42
509
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA
0.06 510
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE
0.51 511
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW
0.06 512
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS
129.20
513
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP.
12.94 514
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES
0.06 515
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES
0.06 516
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS
12.94 517
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA
0.06 518
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS
77.49 519
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR
108.51
520
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL
258.43
521
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH
490.98
522
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE
0.06 523
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN
1.09 524
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON
206.69
525
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS
25.80 526
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION
0.06 527
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE
0.51 528
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK
516.75
529
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT
(0.01)
TOTAL BY FUND:
517,087.52
$ 8,421,727.18
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
03/30/2022 11:35:11AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502037
3/31/2022
020724
79 FIELD HOCKEY INC
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
502038
3/31/2022
004240
AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES
APR STAND BY FEE: POLICE
AFN
502039
3/31/2022
012951
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT
QUALITY OF LIFE MASTER PLAN:
ECONOMICS
PLANNING
502040
3/31/2022
018408
BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL
MAR POOL MAINT SVC: CRC & TESC
SERVICE
FEB FOUNTAIN MAINT SVC: OLD TOWN,
502041
3/31/2022
021588
BRAUN PETER, DBA
MAR PLANTSCAPE SVCS: CIVIC
TEMECULA PLANTSCAPE
CENTER
MAR PLANTSCAPE SVCS: LIBRARY
502042
3/31/2022
021502
BUCHER, BRET PHILLIP
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
502043
3/31/2022
004248
CALIF DEPT OF
FEB FINGERPRINTING SVCS: POLICE
JUSTICE-ACCTING
502044
3/31/2022
000442
COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS
INSTALL DMP SYSTEM: SOMMERS
502045 3/31/2022 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING &
HVAC INC
502046 3/31/2022 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL
BEND
INSTALLALARM: SOMMERS BEND PARK
PERGOLA PAINT/REPAIR: VAIL RANCH
PARK
NEW BLINDS: CIVIC CTR
A/C MOTOR CRANE LIFT/WINDOW TINT:
PLUMBING REPAIRS: FIRE STA92
A/C MOTOR CRANE LIFT/WINDOW TINT:
PLUMBING SVCS: TEMEKU PARK: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING REPAIRS: FIRE STA 92
PLUMBING REPAIRS: FIRE STA92
PLUMBING SVCS: FRIENDSHIP PARK: P%
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK
MAINT: PW
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PN
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: F
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEP'
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW-CIP
Amount Paid Check Total
3,773.43
1,379.17
5,150.00
1,100.00
950.00
500.00
200.00
1,193.50
2,456.00
1,635.00
1,079.00
29,500.00
6,735.00
2,680.00
2,000.00
960.00
786.91
737.77
595.00
586.13
490.00
479.52
262.07
225.00
1,741.34
929.96
819.06
478.92
208.72
196.01
140.43
138.09
3,773.43
1,379.17
5,150.00
2,050.00
700.00
1,193.50
2,456.00
2,714.00
46,037.40
4,652.53
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
03/30/2022 11:35:11AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502047
3/31/2022
004068
ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA,
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
AILEEN
502048
3/31/2022
020904
ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES INC
MAR CONDENSER WTR SYS PM: CIVIC
CTR
502049
3/31/2022
013076
GAUDETYVONNE M, DBA YES
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
YOU CAN DRAW
502050
3/31/2022
004890
GOLDEN STATE FIRE
ANNUAL FIRE SPRINKLER
PROTECTION
INSPECTION: CIVIC
ANNUAL FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION:
502051
3/31/2022
017334
HOUSE OF AUTOMATION INC
GATE SERVICE: PARKING GARAGE
502052
3/31/2022
010766
INLAND VALLEY SYMPHONY
SYMPHONY PERF: CARNIVAL OF
MUSIC CONCERT
502053
3/31/2022
006914
INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT
FEB COPIER MAINT/USAGE/REPAIR:
SOLUTIONS
CITYWIDE
FEB COPIER MAINT/USAGE/REPAIR: CIT
502054
3/31/2022
022824
EMPLOYEE #07205
REIMB: TEAM PACE
502055
3/31/2022
011920
MASTER CONCEPTS LLC, DBA
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
MASTER SPORTS
502056
3/31/2022
019823
MERCHANTS BLDG MAINT LLC
JAN JANITORIAL SVCS: MRC
502057
3/31/2022
021071
MGT OF AMERICA LLC DBA,
Ann'I SB 90 Claiming Srvcs:Finance
MGT OF AMERICA
CONSULTING
502058
3/31/2022
020907
MICHELLE MEDINA, DBA
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
MICHELLE Q MEDINA
502059
3/31/2022
013827
MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC
EXCAVATE VIA LOBO CHANNEL: PW
502060
3/31/2022
004586
MOORE FENCE COMPANY INC
INSTALL GATE: DIAZ/DENDY LOT
502061
3/31/2022
004040
MORAMARCO ANTHONY J,
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS
GRAPHIC DSGN SVCS: TCSD ACTIVITY(
502062
3/31/2022
002925
NAPA AUTO PARTS
MISC AUTO PARTS: STREET MAINT:
PW
Amount Paid Check Total
1,295.00
1,295.00
538.67
538.67
1,771.00
1,771.00
900.00
650.00
1,550.00
981.00
981.00
16,000.00
16,000.00
4,323.15
447.62
4,770.77
119.54
119.54
2,492.00
2,492.00
691.79 691.79
10,959.00 10,959.00
3,874.50
3,874.50
17,820.00
17,820.00
2,949.46
2,949.46
1,888.60
1,200.00
3,088.60
5.55 5.55
Paget
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
03/30/2022 11:35:11AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502063
3/31/2022
014173
NPG INC DBA, GOLDSTAR
WINCHESTER RD ASPHALT
ASPHALT PRODUCTS
REPAIR/STRIPING
502064
3/31/2022
021121
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR
Medical Screenings: HR
OF CA, DBA CONCENTRA
MEDICAL CTR
3/4 MEDICAL SCREENINGS: HR
502065
3/31/2022
021998
OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE
VEHICLE MAIN-F. STREET MAINT: PW
INC
502066
3/31/2022
021858
PLACEWORKS INC, DBA
JAN CONSULTING SRVCS: PLANNING
PLACEWORKS
DEPT
502067
3/31/2022
022537
REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES,
MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: CHILDRENS
DISTRIBUTOR
MUSEUM
502068
3/31/2022
003591
RENES COMMERCIAL
SHOPPING CART CLEAN-UP: STREET
MANAGEMENT
MAINT
502069
3/31/2022
002412
RICHARDS WATSON AND
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
GERSHON
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
502070
3/31/2022
003072
RIVERSIDE AREA RAPE CRISIS
CDBG REIMB: JUL- SEP'21
CTR
CDBG REIMB: OCT - DEC '21
502071
3/31/2022
004274
SAFE AND SECURE
LOCKSMITH SVCS: SOMMERS BEND
LOCKSMITH SRVC
502072
3/31/2022
005329
SAFE FAMILY JUSTICE
CDBG REIMBURSEMENT: JAN 2022
CENTERS
502073
3/31/2022
013482
SILVERMAN ENTERPRISES
3/11-3/27 SECURITY SVCS: TCSD
INC, DBA BAS SECURITY
502074
3/31/2022
022051
SINGH GROUP INC
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEAN-UP
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEAN-UP
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEAN-UP
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEAN-UP
502075
3/31/2022
009452
EMPLOYEE #00427
REIMB:SUPPLIES FOR COMMUNITY
THEATER
502076
3/31/2022
000668
TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC
DJ/MC/SOUND: ART OFF THE WALLS:
TCSD
502077
3/31/2022
021603
TITAN RENTALS GROUP INC,
TABLES/CHAIRS RENTAL: EOQ
TITAN TENT & EVENT RENTAL
TABLES/CHAIRS RENTAL: SPEC EVENT:
Amount Paid Check Total
25,765.00
25,765.00
87.00 35.00
122.00
769.13
769.13
3,239.98
3,239.98
78.18 78.18
1,774.00
1,774.00
157.50
90.00 247.50
2,052.69
1,966.00
4,018.69
947.75
947.75
3,819.71
3,819.71
2,839.00
2,839.00
3,651.00
3,651.00
3,651.00
3,601.00
14,554.00
368.38
368.38
300.00
300.00
1,093.75
418.70
1,512.45
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
03/30/2022 11:35:11AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor
502078 3/31/2022 018147 WADDLETON, JEFFREY L
(Continued)
Description Amount Paid Check Total
DJ/MC/SOUND SVCS: SPECIAL 525.00 525.00
EVENTS:TCSD
Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 199,893.68
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
03/30/2022 11:35:11AM CITY OF TEMECULA
42 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks: 199,893.68
Page:5
apChkLst
Final Check List
Page: 1
03/31/2022
3:13:44PM
CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
union UNION BANK
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
13087
3/16/2022
022864
ALLISON MCCLOSKEY
LAND ACQUISION: APN 910-100-018
200,500.00
200,500.00
ESCROW CO
13088
3/16/2022
022864
ALLISON MCCLOSKEY
LAND ACQUISITION: APN 910-060-002 &
733,397.50
733,397.50
ESCROW CO
004
102114
3/22/2022
022862
MARC S JONES
REFUND: CANCELLED PERMIT
133.92
133.92
CONSTRUCTION
B21-6156
102115
3/22/2022
019018
SUNRUN INSTALLATION SRVCS
REFUND: CANCELLED PERMIT
133.92
133.92
INC
B21-5093
208506
3/31/2022
004422
AMERICAN BATTERY
PURCHASE OF BATTERIES: LIBRARY
98.98 98.98
CORPORATION, DBA
AMERICAN BATTERY SUP
208507
3/31/2022
021136
ARCADIA PUBLISHING INC
BOOKS: TVM: GIFT SHOP
423.31
423.31
208508
3/31/2022
011421
BRODART CO
BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL: TCSD
404.32
404.32
208509
3/31/2022
022670
BROWN, JAMAL DEON, DBA
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
2,047.50
2,047.50
JDB TRAINING
208510
3/31/2022
005417
CINTAS PROTECTION NO 2,
ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER
195.00
CINTAS FIRE 636525
INSPECTION: PBS
ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGSHR INSPECT
195.00
ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPE
306.08
ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPE
208.20
904.28
208511
3/31/2022
012627
CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES
WINDOW CLEANING: CONF CTR: TCSD
270.00
270.00
INC, DBA:CLEAR IMAGE
WINDOW CL
208512
3/31/2022
013379
COSSOU, CELINE
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
3,543.75
3,543.75
208513
3/31/2022
004329
COSTCO TEMECULA491
MISC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD
84.26 84.26
208514
3/31/2022
001233
DANS FEED AND SEED INC
MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW
13.02 MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PV
78.97 MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PV
75.07 167.06
208515
3/31/2022
003945
DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL
PORTABLE RESTROOM & SINK
122.61
SRVCS
RENTAL: TEM SHE
TEMPORARY FENCING: JRC
95.00 PORTABLE RESTROOM/SINK RENTF
127.08
344.69
Page:1
apChkLst
03/31/2022
3:13:44PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 2
Bank : union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208516
3/31/2022
002982
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
SUPPORT PAYMENT
50.00 50.00
208517
3/31/2022
002982
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
KRACH, BREE - CASE# 603016103
34.80 KRACH, BREE - CASE# 603016103
13.32 48.12
208518
3/31/2022
000186
HANKS HARDWARE INC
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC
56.52 56.52
208519
3/31/2022
021606
IE INC DBA IPERMIT
REFUND: CANCELLED PERMIT
177.20
177.20
B22-0221
208520
3/31/2022
022569
INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC
VEHICLE REPAIR: TRAFFIC LINE
3,500.06
3,500.06
REMOVER:PW
208521
3/31/2022
016257
KELLY SPICERS INC, DBA
WHITE COPY PAPER: CENTRAL SVCS
2,005.13
2,005.13
KELLY SPICERS STORES
208522
3/31/2022
011767
LEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC
LEICA ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION
2,263.20
2,263.20
INSPECTION
208523
3/31/2022
004905
LIEBERT, CASSIDY AND
FEB HR LEGAL SVCS FORTE060-00011
1,104.00
WHITMORE
FEB HR LEGAL SVCS FOR TE060-001
3,881.00
4,985.00
208524
3/31/2022
014796
EMPLOYEE #00443
REIMB: RFRSHMNTS: MTG WITH ED
56.76 56.76
DIRECTOR
208525
3/31/2022
013982
M C I COMM SERVICE
MAR 7DK90589 XXX-0346 GEN USAGE
35.56 MAR 7DK89878 XXX-0714 GEN USA(
37.40 72.96
208526
3/31/2022
017427
MATCHETT, VIVIAN
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
364.00
364.00
208527
3/31/2022
016297
MID-AMERICAARTS ALLIANCE
EXHIBIT RENTAL FEE: CLOTH AS
1,500.00
1,500.00
COMMUNITY
208528
3/31/2022
001214
MORNINGSTAR PRODUCTIONS
MISC STAGE SUPPLIES: THEATER
1,718.10
1,718.10
LLC
208529
3/31/2022
006140
NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS
APR-JUN '22 ASSN DUES 3561 #17: FV
521.05
PARK
APR-JUN '22 ASSN DUES 3561 #16: F
560.64
APR-JUN '22 ASSN DUES 3561 #20: F
707.93
1,789.62
208530
3/31/2022
006552
PAINTED EARTH
TEEN ZONE SPECIAL EVENT
87.00 87.00
PROJECT:CRC
208531
3/31/2022
000249
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
783.38
783.38
Paget
apChkLst
Final Check List
Page: 3
03/31/2022
3:13:44PM
CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208532
3/31/2022
005075
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY
UNIFORM SRVCS: STREET MAINT: PW
315.26
UNIFORM SVC: PARKS MAINT: PW
-4.62
310.64
208533
3/31/2022
020127
QUINN COMPANY
GENERATOR MAINT: STA95: FIRE
605.73
GENERATOR MAINT: STA84: FIRE
819.36
GENERATOR MAINT: STA 73: FIRE
590.75
2,015.84
208534
3/31/2022
011853
RANCON COMMERCE CNTR
APR-JUN'22 BUS PKASSN DUE:
198.38
198.38
PH2,3&4
OVRLND PRJT
208535
3/31/2022
014027
RIVERSIDE CO ECO DEV
STAFFING: LIBRARY
34,580.00
34,580.00
AGENCY, LIBRARY DIV
208536
3/31/2022
001365
RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF,
RENEW PERMIT: CRC
812.00
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DEPT
RENEW PERMIT: THEATER
550.00
1,362.00
208537
3/31/2022
000278
SAN DIEGO UNION -TRIBUNE
FEB PUBLIC NTCADS: CITY CLERK
192.38
192.38
208538
3/31/2022
009980
SANBORN GWYNETH A, CO
COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 3/19
675.00
675.00
TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY
208539
3/31/2022
000519
SOUTH COUNTY PEST
PEST CONTROL SRVCS: BEE
94.00 CONTROL INC
REMOVAL: PW
PEST CONTROL SVCS: JRC
74.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: LIBRARY
90.00 258.00
208540
3/31/2022
008337
STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT
MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD
36.96 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: THEATER: TC!
53.46 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CIP: PW
105.62
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: LAND DEV: P`
5.87 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: LIBRARY: TCS
-123.36
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CLASSES: TC:
83.72 162.27
208541
3/31/2022
022870
STEPHENS, CARISSA
REFUND: BUSY BEES PARENT & ME
50.00 50.00
208542
3/31/2022
009061
STURDIVANT, ANGELA P
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
2,305.80
2,305.80
208543
3/31/2022
010046
TV CONVENTION &VISITORS
JAN'22 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICT
126,922.29
126,922.29
BUREAU, DBA VISIT TEMECULA
ASMNTS
VALLEY
208544
3/31/2022
014486
VERIZON WIRELESS
2/11-3/10 TASK FORCE TABLETS
468.53
468.53
POLICE
208545
3/31/2022
018871
WONDER SCIENCE
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
5,099.50
5,099.50
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
03/31/2022 3:13:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,136,511.17
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
03/31/2022 3:13:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA
44 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks: 1,136,511.17
Page:5
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
04/05/2022 2:51:52PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502079
4/7/2022
009374
ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES
PIANO TUNING/MAINT: THEATER
DBA, ALLEGRO PIANO
SERVICE
PIANO TUNING/MAINT: LIBRARY
502080
4/7/2022
021959
AMERICAN HEART
TRAINING SUPPLIES: MEDIC: FIRE
ASSOCIATION INC
DEPT
502081
4/7/2022
022670
BROWN, JAMAL DEON, DBA
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
JDB TRAINING
502082
4/7/2022
021502
BUCHER, BRET PHILLIP
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
502083
4/7/2022
004248
CALIF DEPT OF
FEB BLOOD & ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: PD
JUSTICE-ACCTING
DEC BLOOD &ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: PD
502084
4/7/2022
010650
CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING &
Tankless Water Heater Install: Civic Ctr
HVAC INC
502085
4/7/2022
022506
DESIGN PATH STUDIO
PERMIT READY ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT
502086
4/7/2022
020648
DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2
CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE PROJ:
INC, CONVERGINT
PARK & RIDE
TECHNOLOGIES
CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE: INFO TECH
502087
4/7/2022
004192
DOWNS ENERGY FUEL
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG & SAFI
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI
502088
4/7/2022
012217
DUDEK
FEB CONSTRUCT MGMT SVCS:
PW11-10
502089
4/7/2022
010804
FEHR AND PEERS
TRANSP
DISCOVERY/BENCHMARKING: PLAN
502090
4/7/2022
022726
FORENSIC NURSING OF
SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF
SOCAL INC
502091
4/7/2022
013076
GAUDET YVONNE M, DBA YES
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
YOU CAN DRAW
502092
4/7/2022
000177
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCC: FIRE DEPT
INC
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCC: FIRE DEPT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE STA84
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CENTRAL SVCS
Amount Paid Check Total
1,275.00
350.00
1,625.00
2,901.78
2,901.78
5,699.89
5,699.89
1,965.04
1,965.04
1,505.00
70.00 1,575.00
5,640.00
5,640.00
4,600.00
4,600.00
21, 867.20
13,666.80
35,534.00
955.34
199.75
68.93 1,224.02
22,021.03
22,021.03
12,823.13
12,823.13
800.00
800.00
346.50
346.50
386.06
155.84
97.85 38.64
678.39
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
04/05/2022 2:51:52PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502093
4/7/2022
020628
HASA INC
POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS:
VARIOUS POOLS
502094
4/7/2022
021370
MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY
FEB DSGN CONSULTANT SVCS:
INC
CHERRY ST EXT
502095
4/7/2022
004951
MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING
WELDING SVCS: OLD TOWN
INC
502096
4/7/2022
012264
MIRANDA, JULIO C
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
502097
4/7/2022
004043
MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY
MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC
INC
CTR
MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: THEATER
502098
4/7/2022
004040
MORAMARCO ANTHONY J,
ART EVENTS: TVM: TCSD
DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS
ART EVENTS: TVM: TCSD
ART EVENTS: TVM: TCSD
502099
4/7/2022
009337
NV5 INC
FEB PROJ MGT SVCS: MRC, PW17-21
502100
4/7/2022
021998
OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE
VEHICLE MAINT: TRAFFIC MAINT: PW
INC
502101
4/7/2022
022537
REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES,
COMPRESSORS FOR HVAC UNTIS:
DISTRIBUTOR
CRC: PW
502102
4/7/2022
002412
RICHARDS WATSON AND
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
GERSHON
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
FEB 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
502103
4/7/2022
004274
SAFE AND SECURE
LOCKSMITH SVCS: THEATER
LOCKSMITH SRVC
LOCKSMITH SVCS: PARKS: PW
502104
4/7/2022
009213
SHERRY BERRY MUSIC
STAND-UP COMEDY @ THE MERC 3/26
JAZZ @ THE MERC 03/31/22
JAZZ @ THE MERC 3/17/22
JAZZ @ THE MERC 3/24/22
502105
4/7/2022
009746
SIGNS BY TOMORROW
SIGN POSTING SVCS: SGC
MARGARITA UNDER X
502106
4/7/2022
000645
SMART AND FINAL INC
RECREATION SUPPLIES: MPSC: TCSD
Amount Paid Check Total
1,170.80
1,170.80
11,043.06
11,043.06
85.00 85.00
2,007.60
2,007.60
233.07
137.22
370.29
1,900.00
1,200.00
999.00
4,099.00
9,450.00
9,450.00
5,103.58
5,103.58
2,289.42
2,289.42
4,569.00
3,782.00
3,266.00
1,735.44
930.00
773.50
87.00 15,142.94
80.75 48.94
129.69
1,785.00
705.00
455.00
336.00
3,281.00
213.75
213.75
349.48
349.48
Paget
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
04/05/2022 2:51:52PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check #
Date
Vendor
502107
4/7/2022
014783 SOFTRESOURCES, LLC
502108
4/7/2022
003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY
502109
4/7/2022
016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS
502110 4/7/2022 011351 TRITECH SOFTWARE
SYSTEMS
(Continued)
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
Consulting:financial sys upgrade Munis
4,717.50
4,717.50
SERVICE AWARDS: HR
211.17
211.17
GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES:
4,980.00
4,980.00
THEATER
ASSET MGMT OF SFTWRE: INFO TECH
1,725.00
MANAGE & IMPLEMENT SFTWRE: INFO"
1,548.14
3,273.14
Grand total for EFT UNION BANK:
165,351.20
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
04/05/2022 2:51:52PM CITY OF TEMECULA
32 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks: 165,351.20
Page:4
apChkLst
04/07/2022
2:52:58PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 1
Bank:
union UNION BANK
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
13027
3/9/2022
006887
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
007102
RENAISSANCE
REFRSHMNTS: CCMF BOARD MTG
35.25 017444
PINPROSPLUS
PINS FOR STATE OF THE CITY AA
1,748.70
001060
HYATT
LODGING: LOCC CONF: 2/1-4/22
860.70
007102
RENAISSANCE
LODGING: CCMF BOARD MTG
247.54
001060
HYATT
REFRSHMNTS: LOCC CONF
19.30 2,911.49
2/1-4/22
13028
3/9/2022
006887
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
022042
SEEK THERMAL
REPAIR TICS: FIRE DEPT
254.00
013338
APPLE STORE
ADD'L PHONE STORAGE
0.99 001264
COSTCO TEMECULA 491
FLOWERS: FIRE DEPT
49.60 003129
ALBERTOS
REFRSHMNTS: STATE OF THE CITY
94.83 003198
HOME DEPOT
ICE MACHINE: STA 84
2,579.51
2,978.93
CALIF DEPT OF CHILD
SUPPORT PAYMENT
448.82
448.82
13056
3/17/2022
010349
SUPPORT
1 C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN
13057
3/17/2022
021301
ICMA- 401(A) RETIREMENT PLAN
384.62
384.62
106474
PAYMENT
1 C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN
13058
3/17/2022
000194
303355
ICMA-RC RETIREMENT TRUST 457
14,862.06
14,862.06
PAYMENT
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT
13061
3/17/2022
001065
SOLUTION
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT
12,776.85
12,776.85
PERS (EMPLOYEES'
13064
3/17/2022
000246
RETIREMENT)
PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT
120,937.53
120,937.53
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
04/07/2022 2:52:58PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
13068
3/9/2022
006887
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
019592
URBAN CAFE
RFRSHMNTS: PLNG COMMISSION MTG
01/19
000278
SAN DIEGO UNION -TRIBUNE
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL: COM DEV
000278
SAN DIEGO UNION -TRIBUNE
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL: PLANNING
021060
LOS ANGELES TIMES, DBA
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL: COM DEV
LATIMES.COM
020537
INLAND VALLEY MOUNTAIN
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: PLANNING
BIKE, ASSOCIATION
000747
AMERICAN PLANNING
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION:
ASSOCIATION
PLANNING
008793
PICK UP STIX
RFRSHMNTS: PLNG COMMISSION MTG
02/02
13128
3/31/2022
010349
CALIF DEPT OF CHILD
SUPPORT PAYMENT
SUPPORT
13129
3/31/2022
021301
1 C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN
ICMA- 401(A) RETIREMENT PLAN
106474
PAYMENT
13130
3/31/2022
000194
1 C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN
ICMA-RC RETIREMENT TRUST 457
303355
PAYMENT
13131
3/31/2022
000444
INSTATAX (EDD)
STATE TAX PAYMENT
13132
3/31/2022
000283
INSTATAX (IRS)
FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT
13133
3/31/2022
001065
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT
SOLUTION
13136
3/31/2022
000246
PERS (EMPLOYEES'
PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT
RETIREMENT)
208546
4/5/2022
019438
DISPEKER ARTISTS INT'L INC
Theater Performance: APR 2, 2022
208547
4/7/2022
013387
ADAME LANDSCAPE INC, DBA
WEEKLY SWEEPING: PARKING
SWEEPING UNLIMITED
GARAGE
208548
4/7/2022
009787
ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC
VEHICLE & EQUIP REPAIRS: STREETS:
PW
208549
4/7/2022
007282
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES
MISC EQUIPMENT. BC/CHIEF
INC
Amount Paid Check Total
249.24
142.02
76.96 76.96
50.00 400.00
289.48 1,284.66
398.62 398.62
384.62 384.62
14,648.26 14,648.26
26,786.42
26,786.42
86,577.14
86,577.14
12,776.85
12,776.85
121.114.19 121.114.19
5,790.00 5,790.00
540.00 540.00
17.47 17.47
83.68 83.68
Paget
apChkLst
04/07/2022
2:52:58PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 3
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208550
4/7/2022
022703
ATOM ENGINEERING
CONST. CONTRACT SVCS: FLOOD
100,861.50
100,861.50
CONSTRUCTION
CONTROL REPA
208551
4/7/2022
007065
B&H PHOTO & ELECTRONICS
MISC AV EQUIPMENT: PEG SUPPLIES
48.94 48.94
CORP
208552
4/7/2022
011954
BAKER AND TAYLOR INC
BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD
46.57 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD
231.02
BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD
17.20 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRPTL: TCSD
41.98 336.77
208553
4/7/2022
022719
BAKER ELECTRIC INC
CONST CONTRACT SVC: PEDESTRIAN
467,443.98
467,443.98
SIGNAL EQ
208554
4/7/2022
006254
BALLET FOLKLORICO, AKA
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
873.60
873.60
LORENA HANCOCK
208555
4/7/2022
003138
CAL MAT, DBA VULCAN
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT:
993.01
MATERIALS CO
PW
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PVA
273.78
1,266.79
208556
4/7/2022
001054
CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS,
JOB ADVERTISEMENT: BLDG
360.00
360.00
(CALBO)
INSPECTOR
208557
4/7/2022
000413
CALIF DEPT OF FISH &
PERMITAPP FEE: PW17
35,711.25
35,711.25
WILDLIFE
208558
4/7/2022
004971
CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MAR COPIER LEASE: LIBRARY
671.56
671.56
INC
208559
4/7/2022
021054
CANTRELL, TINA J
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
280.00
280.00
208560
4/7/2022
018828
CASC ENGINEERING AND,
FEB COMMERCIAL/IND'L
1,510.00
CONSULTING INC
INSPECTIONS: NPDES
MISC ENG SVS: MRC IMPROV REVIEW 1
382.50
FEB ADD'L ENG SVCS: SOMMER'S BEND
40.00 1,932.50
208561
4/7/2022
004462
CDW LLC, DBA CDW
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO
558.29
GOVERNMENT LLC
TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI
556.21
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI
517.69
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECI
153.77
1,785.96
208562
4/7/2022
009640
CERTIFION CORP DBA
MAR ONLINE DATABASE SUBSCR:
200.00
200.00
ENTERSECT
POLICE
208563
4/7/2022
016446
CHRISTIAN STITCH ERY INC,
SPORTS UNIFORMS: SPORTS: TCSD
3,715.77
3,715.77
DBA SO CAL IMPRESSIONS
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
04/07/2022 2:52:58PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
208564
4/7/2022
012627
CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES
WINDOW CLEANING: CIVIC CTR
INC, DBA:CLEAR IMAGE
WINDOW CL
208565
4/7/2022
004329
COSTCO TEMECULA 491
MISC SUPPLIES: SPECIAL EVENTS:
TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD
208566
4/7/2022
012600
DAVID EVANS AND
FEB DSGN SVCS: DIAZ RD EXP:
ASSOCIATES INC
PW17-25
208567
4/7/2022
020360
DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
CONSULTING SVCS:HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE
208568
4/7/2022
022798
DS SERVICES OF AMERICA
WATER DELIVERY: CMO
INC, SPARKLETTS
208569
4/7/2022
004658
EASTWOOD, GREGORY
REIMB: COPIES OF KEYS: PD
208570
4/7/2022
000165
FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
EXP MAIL SVCS: FIRE DEPT
EXP MAIL SVCS: LAND ACQUISTION: CIF
EXP MAIL SVCS: CODE ENFORCEMENT
EXP MAIL SVCS: COM DEV
208571
4/7/2022
000165
FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
EXP MAIL SVCS: TCSD
EXP MAIL SVC: FVP / 1-15 PHASE II
208572
4/7/2022
003747
FINE ARTS NETWORK AKA
STTLMNT: CINDERELLA3/11-27
THEATRE, CO AND BALLET
THEATER
208573
4/7/2022
022482
FLUID, DAN, DBA LIGHTNING
PERIMETER FENCE: SAM HICKS PRK :
FENCE CO
CIP PW
208574
4/7/2022
022865
EMPLOYEE #00527
REIMB: TEAM PACE SUPPLIES
208575
4/7/2022
010452
GAYLORD BROS INC
MISC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD
208576
4/7/2022
021527
GIANT DESIGN
GRAPHIC DSGN, GOODS & SVCS:
SPEC EVENTS
208577
4/7/2022
009608
GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC
STTLMNT: CLASSICS AT THE MERC:
SOCIETY, DBA CA CHAMBER
3/13 & 27
ORCHESTRA
208578
4/7/2022
019177
GOSCH FORD TEMECULA
MISC SVC/REPAIR: MPSC BUS: TCSD
Amount Paid Check Total
448.00 448.00
2,372.91
169.82
137.12
2,679.85
45,741.54
45,741.54
33,526.00
33,526.00
49.90 49.90
193.75
193.75
22.95 30.51
7.54 8.06
69.06 7.54
7.54 15.08
28,130.30
28,130.30
33,739.25
33,739.25
177.29
177.29
270.48
270.48
10,291.45
10,291.45
707.00
707.00
187.75 187.75
Page:4
apChkLst
04/07/2022
2:52:58PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 5
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208579
4/7/2022
000186
HANKS HARDWARE INC
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW
60.82 60.82
208580
4/7/2022
001013
HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS &
JAN-MAR'22 MEASURE S SALES TAX
300.00
300.00
ASSOC
AUDIT
208581
4/7/2022
003198
HOME DEPOT
MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: TCC
43.43 MISC HRDWR SUPPLIES: TCC
66.25 109.68
208582
4/7/2022
018352
JAMES ELLIOTT
STTLMNT: QUEEN NATION 3/31
5,945.99
ENTERTAINMENT
STTLMNT: LAST TRAIN TO MEMPHIS 4/1
5,662.05
11,608.04
208583
4/7/2022
019884
LEONIDA BUILDERS INC
SANTA GERTRUDIS CRK PEDESTRIAN
276,632.87
276,632.87
EXT
208584
4/7/2022
003782
MAIN STREET SIGNS, DBA
CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET
1,076.53
ATHACO INC
MAINT: PW
SQUARE POSTS: TRAFFIC SIGNS: PW
430.78
STREET SIGN NAME: HR DEPT
53.82 1,561.13
208585
4/7/2022
015959
MEHEULA MUSIC
3RD FINAL INSTALLMENT: THEATER
5,000.00
5,000.00
PRODUCTIONS, AKA JAMES L.
FY21/22
MARABOTTO
208586
4/7/2022
006140
NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS
APR-JUN'22ASSN DUES 3561 #19: FV
681.01
681.01
PARK
208587
4/7/2022
003964
OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PW: CIP
191.01
DIV
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PW: CIP
67.40 258.41
208588
4/7/2022
022872
ORTIZ, JAIME
REIMB: MOTOR TRAINING CLASS
369.14
3/1-3/11
REIMB: MOTOR TRAINING CLASS 3/1-3/1
209.03
578.17
208589
4/7/2022
015931
PAST PERFECT SOFTWARE
SOFTWARE SUPPORT & MAINT: TVM:
1,260.00
1,260.00
INC
TCSD
208590
4/7/2022
005075
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL
UNIFORM SVCS: PARKS MAINT: PW
189.99
SUPPLY
1112 UNIFORM RENTAL: STREETS: PW
101.87
1/4 UNIFORM RENTAL: STREETS: PW
42.64 334.50
208591
4/7/2022
022837
QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC
POSTAGE: TEM SHERIFF
349.95
349.95
208592
4/7/2022
020127
QUINN COMPANY
PREVENTATIVE MAINT: CITY
1,287.18
GENERATORS
GENERATOR MAINT: CRC: PW
1,087.53
2,374.71
208593
4/7/2022
019510
REALITY RALLY INC.
FY 21/22 DISCRETIONARY GRANT
1,000.00
1,000.00
FUNDS
Page:5
apChkLst
04/07/2022
2:52:58PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 6
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208594
4/7/2022
019712
RED HELMET TRAINING
FIRE INSPECTOR COURSE: FIRE DEPT
360.00
360.00
208595
4/7/2022
000267
RIVERSIDE CO FIRE
FPARC-TM, INV 234724, 21/22, Q2
2,172,236.37
2,172,236.37
DEPARTMENT
208596
4/7/2022
000411
RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD
1/22 CHANGES: MURRIETACRK
250.97
250.97
CONTROLAND, WATER
CHANNEL
CONSERVATION DIST
208597
4/7/2022
000406
RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS
01/13-02/09 LAW ENFORCEMENT
2,439,981.40
2,439,981.40
DEPT
208598
4/7/2022
004822
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
FEB TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP
1,736.22
1,736.22
208599
4/7/2022
001097
ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC
TRAFFIC ROAD PAINT: STREET
4,000.00
4,000.00
MAINTENANCE
208600
4/7/2022
009980
SANBORN GWYNETH A, CO
COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 4/2
866.25
866.25
TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY
208601
4/7/2022
017699
SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: TVM: TCSD
170.00
PRESTON
CAPTAIN PHOTO: BC: FIRE DEPT
120.00
290.00
208602
4/7/2022
020545
SOCIAL WORK ACTION GROUP
FEB HOMELESSOUTREACH SVCS:
30,055.60
30,055.60
TCSD
208603
4/7/2022
000519
SOUTH COUNTY PEST
PEST CONTROL SVCS: HARVESTON
95.00 CONTROL INC
PARK
PEST CONTROL SVCS: WEST WING
40.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: TVM
32.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: TVM
42.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: CRC
90.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW
95.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: TVE2
56.00 450.00
208604
4/7/2022
012652
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
APR GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979
737.70
737.70
TELEPHONE COMPANY
208605
4/7/2022
015373
SPECTRASYSTEMS INC, DBA
SAFETY SURFACING: WOLF CREEK
27,464.00
27,464.00
SPECTRATURF
TRLPARK
208606
4/7/2022
008337
STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES:ADMIN: TCSD
48.89 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROP
102.48
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: LAND DEV: PW
151.52
302.89
208607
4/7/2022
003000
STATE WATER RESOURCE
401 PERMITAPP FEE: PW17-25: CIP
2,417.00
2,417.00
CONTROL, BOARD
Page.-6
apChkLst
04/07/2022
2:52:58PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 7
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208608
4/7/2022
017814
STC TRAFFIC INC
INTERSECTION CONTROL & OPS
5,780.00
EVAL: CIP
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SVCS: FIBEF
17,875.00
23,655.00
208609
4/7/2022
009061
STURDIVANT, ANGELA P
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
269.50
269.50
208610
4/7/2022
003599
T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL
CONSULTANT SRVCS FOR FRENCH
106,817.26
106,817.26
VALLEY PKWY
208611
4/7/2022
022778
TELSCO INDUSTRIES INC, DBA
IRRIG CONTROLLER COMMUNICATION
27,573.00
27,573.00
WEATHERMATIC
RENEWAL
208612
4/7/2022
022783
THOMAS, ELLIOTT J
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
774.20
774.20
208613
4/7/2022
019291
TLK ICE, INC., DBA:KONA ICE
RFRSHMNTS: TEEN SUMMER CAMP:
3,725.00
3,725.00
TEMECULA VAL
TCSD
208614
4/7/2022
000161
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION:
1,099.00
1,099.00
PREVENTION:
208615
4/7/2022
020275
WALLACE & ASSOC
FEB CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS:
8,840.00
CONSULTING LLC, ANSER
PW18-05
ADVISORY MNGMT LLC
FEB INSPECTION SVCS: LAND DEV/NPD
16,422.00
25,262.00
208616
4/7/2022
001342
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES: CITY FACS
2,028.47
CLEANING SUPPLIES: CITY FACS
1,932.38
CLEANING SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW
897.19
4,858.04
208617
4/7/2022
008668
WES FLOWERS
SUNSHINE FUND
101.99
SUNSHINE FUND
101.99
203.98
208618
4/7/2022
000621
WESTERN RIVERSIDE
FY21/22AB 939 DUES/SOLID WASTE
7,947.15
COUNCIL OF, GOVERNMENTS
(WRCOG)
FY21/22 CLEAN CITIES COALITION DUE
10,000.00
17,947.15
208619
4/7/2022
022861
WOLF CREEK MAINTENANCE
CONVERSION SVC: ELECTRICAL TO
2,250.00
2,250.00
CORP
SOLAR:PW
208620
4/7/2022
018871
WONDER SCIENCE
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
6,591.38
6,591.38
208621
4/7/2022
003776
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION,
PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES: MEDICS
1,182.88
1,182.88
GPO
Grand total for UNION BANK: 6,402,883.61
Page-7
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
04/07/2022 2:52:58PM CITY OF TEMECULA
91 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks: 6,402,883.61
Page:8
Item No. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Appoint Council Member Edwards as Alternate to Animal Friends of the Valleys PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint Council Member Edwards as the alternate to the Animal Friends of the Valleys.
BACKGROUND: Animals Friends of the Valleys offers animals for adoptions and provides animal services to the cities of Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Wildomar, Menifee, Murrieta, and Temecula as a non-profit 501(c)(3). Mayor Pro Tempore Schwank currently serves as the primary liaison, through the annual appointment process, without an alternate. He also serves as the liaison for the Southwest Communities Financing Authority which was created to finance the construction of the new regional animal shelter. From time to time the need for an alternate has arisen. Given Council Member Edwards prior service as a liaison to this organization, it is recommended that the City Council appoint Council Member Edwards to serve as an alternate through 2022. New appointments may be made in January 2023 through the annual appointment process for the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: None
Item No. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve Three -Year Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for Animal Control Services
PREPARED BY: Brandon Rabidou, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $126,000 for fiscal year 2022-2023, $129,150 for fiscal year 2023-2024, and $132,378.72 for fiscal year 2024-2025, for a total three-year agreement amount of $387,528.72 for Animal Control Services.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has contracted with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. (AFV), a non-profit organization, since 1995 for animal control services provided within Temecula City limits. In 2004 the Council approved Temecula's participation in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) referred to as the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (SCFA) with other member agencies for the construction of an animal shelter and subsequent shelter services. The SCFA contracts with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for animal shelter operations where citizens can adopt and license pets.
The agreement with AFV for animal control services provide to the City a complete program, which includes, but it not limited to, Animal Control Officers who conduct field and other services, shelter of lost or abandoned dogs and cats, impounding of stray animals, quarantine of rabid animals, removal of deceased animals from the public right-of-way, dog licensing, vaccination clinics, animal complaints, investigation and resolution to Temecula residents and emergency response to the City of Temecula Code Enforcement Division, Fire Department, and law enforcement agencies, as requested.
AFV has provided services and animal care to the City of Temecula for 27 years. Over the past several years AFV has requested minimal or no increases to annual contract amounts. AFV is requesting a consumer price index (CPI-W) adjustment (at a maximum of 2.5%) in the annual contract amounts for Fiscal Years 2023-2024, and 2024-2025. The justification for these increases includes historic inflationary pressure and a highly completive labor market. If CPI-W were to be less than 2.5%, the AFV agreement would only be increased by the amount of the CPI-W increase
(not to exceed 2.5%). If the CPI-W amount was negative, there would be no increase or decrease in the Fiscal Year contract amount.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are anticipated for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 operating budget for the annual payment. Funds will be programmed into the operating budget accordingly for Fiscal Years 2023-2024, and 2024-2025.
ATTACHMENTS: Agreement
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS, INC.
FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of April 26, 2022, between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Animals Friends of the Valleys, Inc., a Non-profit (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2022 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2025, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES
Contractor shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE
Contractor shall faithfully and competently exercise the ordinary skill and competence of members of their profession. Contractor shall employ all generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. PAYMENT
a. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void.
1. For Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Contractor shall be paid a fee of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($10,500.00) monthly. This amount shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty -Six Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($126,000.00) for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
2. For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the amount that City shall pay to Contractor monthly shall be calculated as follows: the monthly amount listed for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 plus the percentage change in the Annual Consumer Price Index for Urban and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for all items in Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA for the prior calendar year as compared to the Annual CPI-W of two calendar years prior. In no event can this annualized amount exceed 2.5% over the amount City pays to Contractor for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (i.e., One Hundred Twenty -Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars and Zero Cents ($129,150.00)).
If the percentage change in the CPI-W is less than 0%, the fee shall remain the same as Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
3. For Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the amount that City shall pay to Contractor monthly shall be calculated as follows: the monthly amount listed for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 plus the percentage change in the Annual Consumer Price Index for Urban and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for all items in Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA for the prior calendar year as compared to the Annual CPI-W of two calendar years prior. In no event can this annualized amount exceed 2.5% over the amount City pays to Contractor for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 (i.e., One Hundred Thirty -Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy -Eight Dollars and Seventy -Two Cents ($132,378.72)). If the percentage change in the CPI-W is less than 0%, the fee shall remain the same as Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
4. The total amount of this Agreement shall not exceed Three Hundred Eighty -Seven Thousand Five Hundred Twenty -Eight Dollars and Seventy -Two Cents ($387,528.72) unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Contractor shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager .
Contractor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Contractor at the time City's written authorization is given to Contractor for the performance of said services.
C. Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees.
d. If the City disputes any of Contractor's fees, it shall give written notice to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Contractor shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance.
5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein.
6. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR
a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written
notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Contractor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Contractor shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
8. INDEMNIFICATION
The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non- performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency.
9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1) General Liability: One Million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2) Automobile Liability: One Million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.
C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
2) For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date.
6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Contractor shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
a. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Contractor shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and
employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION
a. All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written authorization. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
13. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
Mailing Address: City of Temecula
Attn: City Manager
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
To Contractor: Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc.
Attn: Tammi Boyd
33751 Mission Trail
Wildomar, CA 92592
14. ASSIGNMENT
The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up
to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Contractor.
15. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted.
17. PROHIBITED INTEREST
No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement.
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rand! Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS, INC. A
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
(Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.)
By:
Tammi Boyd, Pre ' ent
By:
Monique Middleton, Executive Director &
Chief Animal Control Officer
CONTRACTOR
Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc.
Attn: Kristine Anderson
33751 Mission Trail
Wildomar, CA 92695
Phone: 961-674-0618
Email: [email protected] _
Email: [email protected]
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initials ap4 t D e:
8 C:lUserslbrandon.rabidou%AppDatalLocaMAicrosoftlWindowsliNetCache\Content 0ut1ook%QLBLVJ4L12022-2025 Animal Friends of the Valley Agreement - DRAFT 02.11.2022 Version2 docx 08/09/2021
41112 [ =
Tasks to be Performed/Scope of Work
The specific elements (scope of work) of this service include:
Contractor shall operate and provide an animal control program for the City of Temecula consisting of, but not limited to, field services and licensing. Animal Friends of the Valleys will provide 1 '/Z full time Animal Control Officers, a fully equipped vehicle, and shelter for the City of Temecula animals. The Animal Control Officers will be serving the City of Temecula 12 hours per day, 5 days per week, as well as, after hours, weekends and emergency calls.
Within this program, Contractor shall perform the following specific functions:
a. Enforcement: Enforce all applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code (Animal Control) and the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (SCFA) Memorandum of Understanding as it applies to sheltering requirements, as it exists during the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to: issuing of warning notices or citations as necessary for violations of such Ordinances. In the event, the City Municipal Code is amended, and such amendments would substantially alter the duties and responsibilities of Contractor under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to meet and in good faith re- negotiate those terms and conditions of this Agreement affected by such amendments. b. Sheltering: Animals are to be sheltered exclusively at the Southwest Animal Shelter in accordance with Southwest Communities Financing Authority (SCFA) standards. c. Impound: Impound all animals caught at large and collect all impound fees assessed on behalf of the City; accept stray animals brought in by private citizens; provided, however, that identified, vaccinated, spayed, or neutered cats shall be released as required by the Temecula Municipal Code.
d. Quarantine: Quarantine as prescribed by law all animals suspected to be rabid. e. Complaint Investigation & Resolution: Investigate and pursue action on complaints and/or reports of potential violations of Municipal Code relating to animals, including unnecessary noise, in accordance with such procedures adopted by the City; respond to requests from the City Code Enforcement Department, County Fire Department, and contract law enforcement provider for assistance with animal related situations. f. Dead Animals: Remove dead animals from the public right-of-way within City of Temecula limits and from other areas upon request.
g. Potentially ❑an erousNicious Animals: In accordance with the City of Temecula Municipal Code, identify potentially dangerous and/or vicious animals and initiate the administrative or legal process for their control.
h. Trapping & Removal: As limited by subsection (b), "Sheltering", respond to requests for assistance in the trapping and removal of domestic or wild animals, including coyotes, skunks, and possums, from public or private property. Contractor will offer advice in setting a trap in any enclosed space and will remove belongings or will maintain on -premises surveillance unless in the Officer's or his or her Supervisor's opinion there is a direct, clear and present danger to human life or injury. Identified cats will be released as required by City of Temecula Municipal Code. Contractor will provide traps but will not be required to provide vector control. Contractor shall charge a fee for traps as set out in the City's Animal Control Fee Schedule as approved by Council action.
m
Dog Licensing Contractor shall implement a comprehensive licensing program including conducting dog license inspections. Area -wide canvassing will be conducted as part of the field service activity. Contractor shall administer the current licensing provision of the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
1. Dog licenses shall be issued by mail, at the Animal Shelter, at vaccination clinics and by Animal Control Officers in the field. Contractor shall send renewal notices by mail to owners of currently licensed dogs and shall send an application for licensing when requested by owners.
2. Contractor shall, at Contractor's expense, provide the forms and tags for such licenses and shall affix a professionally prepared sign at the Animal Shelter stating applicable fees for licensing for the City of Temecula.
3. Contractor shall collect all license fees and penalties on behalf of the City of Temecula, issue receipts for all such fees collected and keep copies thereof.
The remaining license revenue collected will be applied to the budget for City services under this Agreement. Revenue shortfalls, below the estimate, will be the responsibility of Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc.
4. All Administrative citation revenue will be remitted to Animal Friends of the Valleys on a quarterly basis.
5. Contractor shall pursue collection and/or prosecution, if appropriate, to recover any fraudulent, delinquent, or worthless payment received as payment for dog licenses issued, including penalties.
6. Contractor shall cancel any dog license issued for which invalid payment was received and give notice of such cancellation to the license.
7. Contractor shall maintain such records in such form as required by the City's Finance Director to provide for proper cash management and for review and audit of the monies collected. Contractor shall furnish the City a monthly report detailing the licensing activities.
8. Contractor shall ensure microchipping in compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code once an anticipated City Ordinance is adopted relating to microchipping.
Animal Bites: Investigate reported animal bites. Contractor may initially receive animal bite reports by telephone, but also shall respond in person to all reported bites by dogs or other suspected rabid or wild animals. Contractor shall take appropriate steps consistent with the circumstances of each separate incident to locate and quarantine the suspected animal(s) and/or assist the complained and/or injured party or parties to trap the suspected animal(s).
Disposition of Unclaimed Animals: After notice and hearing as required, provide euthanasia service in a humane manner in accordance with procedures approved by the City Manager for unlicensed animals held for five (5) days and licensed animals held ten (10) days or more, if these animals are not reclaimed by their owner and are deemed unsuitable by the Officer for adoption.
Clinics Make all necessary arrangements and conduct at least two (2) one -day clinics for at costs rabies vaccinations. At cost rabies vaccination shall be six dollars and no cents ($6.00). The clinic must be open to Temecula residents.
Field Services: Assign one and one half (1 %2) service Officers appointed as Animal Control Officer. Routine field services will be provided as necessary within the hours limitation of this Agreement. The number of hours per week include, but are not limited to, routine mobile patrols, investigative and rescue time, court appearances and impoundment of dangerous, wild, injured, or loose animals. Contractor shall always assign a sufficient number of field services employees to duty to meet the needs of this Agreement.
Contractor shall provide service of twelve (12) hours per day during such hours as W
approved by the City Manager. Telephone service for members of the public shall be not less than eight (8) hours per day on a schedule approved by the City Manager. Emergency response shall be available twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven days per week as described in subparagraph (n). Contractor shall advise fire and law enforcement authorities serving the City of Temecula of the telephone numbers to access its services and shall cooperate with such authorities in developing the procedures necessary to provide after hour services.
n. After -Hours: Provide a field service person either on duty or on call after regular hours as necessary to respond to emergency calls. The City and Contractor agree that any incident reported to Contractor or City staff, through the fire or law enforcement provider involving a dangerous, wild, or stray injured animal, constitutes an emergency and requires immediate action by Contractor. When the City Manager or his/her designee has reason to believe that an animal control emergency exists, the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify Contractor and request a prompt response. If Contractor fails to respond to such request within a reasonable time or fails to respond at all, the City shall request, in writing, that Contractor send to the City a written explanation giving the reason(s) for the delay in responding or the failure to respond. Contractors written explanation shall be submitted to the City Manager within two (2) working days from the date of the request for emergency service. This Agreement and the provisions herein shall not be construed to limit the interpretation of what constitutes an emergency and/or the need for a priority response. The following examples are illustrative of the need for an immediate response from the Contractor:
1. Request to remove a wild, dangerous or injured animal or animal(s) from an inhabited place or vehicle;
2. Reported animal bites involving loose animals; and,
3. Livestock, fowl, or game birds being attacked or killed by dogs, other animals or humans.
o. Public Relations: Provide service to the public on matters covered in this Agreement consistent with established policies and procedures that promote courteous and efficient service and good public relations. Other policies and procedures not withstanding, Contractor in processing any type of complaint or request for service will indicate to the caller when a response can be expected from Contractor and how Contractor will respond.
In the event an in -person response is appropriate to the specific situation, Contractor shall make such response by the end of the following business day. This provision shall be subordinate to shorter time limits specified elsewhere in this Agreement. p. Complaints Regarding Service: Cooperate with the City of Temecula to resolve any and all complaints filed with Contractor and/or the City pertaining to services provided under this Agreement. The City shall submit to Contractor, in writing, all complaints filed with the City concerning services provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor shall report monthly, in writing, to the City the number of complaints received by Contractor directly or indirectly through the City pertaining to quality of service(s) under this Agreement.
q. Legal: Coordinate with the City and City Attorney any inspection warrant, impounds, or potential dangerous/vicious animal hearings or court actions. r. Records: Maintain and keep timely, complete, and accurate records of the receipt and disposition of all animals delivered into its custody. Contractor will file a report with the law enforcement provider within twenty-four (24) hours if an impound animal is missing or suspected to have been stolen. Contractor shall indicate on the Police report the circumstances of the animal's disappearance and make available to the City Manager the designated report or file number.
m
s. Communications Equipment: Contractor agrees to provide radio equipment and frequency as necessary for effective performance of its obligations hereunder and in order to provide law enforcement back-up for its field personnel.
t. Other Equipment: Contractor shall provide and pay for all vehicle(s) and equipment necessary for the performance of this Agreement and shall be responsible for maintenance of such vehicle(s) and equipment, including the installation and removal of the paging or radio equipment described in Paragraph (s) of this section. Contractor shall be responsible for all costs relating to theft, vandalism, or destruction of said equipment by fire, accident, or intentional acts.
u. Personnel & Supplies: Contractor shall provide all personnel, supplies and equipment necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the Animal Shelter and animal control services and programs provided for herein, including, but not limited to Animal Control Officers, clerical staff, license tags and forms, citation forms, notices, and all necessary stationery, envelopes, and postage. Animal Control Officers will complete the required training in accordance with Penal Code 832 or its equivalent, and such other training as may be required by law, before being issued a badge and given the authority to perform Animal Control duties. Humane Officers will complete the required training in accordance with Corporations Code 14502.
v. Attendance At Meetings: Provide input and coordination on amendment of City animal control fees and ordinances and shall attend City Council and other City meetings as required or requested to do so.
1. Contractor's Executive Director and the City Manager and/or his designee shall meet not less than quarterly to discuss Agreement performance. w. Reportinc1 Contractor shall provide and maintain on file or within records all reporting regarding statistics and services related to services provided per this Agreement and provide any reports requested by the City as outlined below, but not limited to:
1. Contractor shall furnish the City monthly reports detailing shelter, field, licensing, and identification activities, including a summary of the utilization of field service employees' hours as required and outlined in the Scope of Services and any legal notifications and requirements as outlined in Section (q).
2. Contractor shall maintain and keep records of all expenditures and obligations incurred pursuant to this Agreement and all income and fees received according to generally recognized accounting principles. Such records shall be maintained by Contractor for a minimum of four (4) years following the termination of this Agreement unless a lesser period is approved, in writing, by the City Manager. The records and/or animal control operations of Contractor shall be open to inspection and audit by the City or its authorized representative as is deemed necessary by the City upon reasonable notice to Contractor.
Contractor shall provide the City a copy of Contractors full Annual Financial Statement immediately upon completion thereof, but in no case later than six (6) months after the close of each fiscal year.
x. Continuing Programs: Contractor shall implement and maintain the following programs on a continual basis during the term of this Agreement:
1. Public School presentations
2. Spay/Neuter/Microchip subsidy programs for low-income City of Temecula citizens when funds are available.
3. Cable television, website and social media announcements, information, and educational messages.
4. Ordinance review and changes aimed at ending pet overpopulation.
5. Animal Rescue Plan for domestic animals during a disaster. 12 6. Animal Control Officer services.
7. A future microchipping program, once adopted by the Temecula City Council.
Y. Policy & Procedure Consultation: Contractor shall consult with the City and on any policy/procedure that affects Temecula animals, which shall be approved by the City Manager prior to implementation.
z. License Fees: Contractor shall charge License Fees for doss within the Citv as follows:
1. Altered dogs $15.00 for 1 year.
2. Altered dogs $20.00 for 2 years.
3. Altered dogs $25.00 for 3 years.
4. Unaltered dogs $35.00 for 1 year.
5. Unaltered dogs $70.00 for 2 years.
6. Unaltered dogs $105.00 for 3 years
Late Payment Penalty Fee: $20.00 per license
Special rates for Senior citizens of Temecula:
1. All dogs $5.00 for 1 year.
2. All dogs $10.00 for 2 years.
3. All dogs $12.00 for 3 years.
Late Payment Penalty Fee:
Unaltered Dog: $20.00 per license
Altered Doq: $15.00 per license
13 FISCAL YEAR
EXHIBIT B
Payment Rates and Schedule
CPI ADJUSTMENT (NOT MONTHLY AMOUNT
TO EXCEED 2.5%)' (NOT TO EXCEED)
2022-2023 NOT APPLICABLE
2023-2024 NOT TO EXCEED 2.5%
2024-2025 1 NOT TO EXCEED 2.5%.
$10, 500.00
CALCULATED WITH CPI
ADJUSTMENT NOT TO
EXCEED $10,762.50
CALCULATED WITH CPI
ADJUSTMENT, NOT TO
EXCEED $11,031.56
ANNUAL
AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED
$126, 000.00
$129,150.00
$132, 378.72
TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT SHALL NOT EXCEED $387,528.72
The CPI adjustment shall be calculated as the percentage change in the Annual Consumer Price Index for Urban and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for all items in Riverside -San Bernardino - Ontario, CA for the prior calendar year as compared to the Annual CPI-W of two calendar years prior not exceed 2.5%. If the CPI adjustment is negative, the monthly/annual amount shall not be reduced from the previous Fiscal Year.
14 Item No. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report
PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II
Nick Minicilli, Senior Traffic Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report.
BACKGROUND: The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan to reduce fatal and severe collisions on City roadways. The LRSP document is required for eligibility on future state and federal grant programs. The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend prioritized safety improvements through collision analysis and collaborative input. The City received grant funding to develop the LRSP document and staff utilized a consultant (STC Traffic) to complete the report. City staff worked with various stakeholders include Public/Traffic Safety Commissioners, Temecula Police Department, and several City Departments in development of the LRSP document. The culmination of accident reviews and coordination with the stakeholders has resulted in a document that summarizes a prioritized list of issues, risk, actions and improvements that can be used to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Temecula roadways.
At the meeting of February 24, 2022, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission considered the Local Road Safety Plan and approved (4-0) the staff recommendation that the Commission approve the full report for presentation to Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: City of Temecula Local Road Safety Plan
LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLAN
February 2022 Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Temecula Team
Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer
Erick Escobedo, Assistant Engineer II
Safety Partners
emecula rublic/Traffic Safety Commission (PTSC)
Robert Carter, Commissioner
James J. Richardson, Commissioner
Bradley Sullivan, Commissioner
David Matics, Commissioner
(emecula Police Department/ Riverside County Sheriff's Department Consultant Team
STC Traffic
Jason Stack, Principal Manager
Stephen Manganiello, Project Manager
Ashley Adamos, Project Engineer
Myles Baidy, Project Engineer
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Temecula at a Glance.................................................................................................................... 2 1.2
City Initiatives................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Local Road Safety Plan Process..................................................................................................... 5 1.4
Local Road Safety Plan Vision, Mission, and Goals.......................................................................5
1.5 Safety Partners.............................................................................................................................. 6 2 Collision
Analysis.............................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Crash Data and Methodology.......................................................................................................9
2.2 Annual Trends...............................................................................................................................9
2.3 Equivalent Property Damage Only Scoring(EPDO).....................................................................35
2.4 Key Findings................................................................................................................................ 50 3 Countermeasure
Toolbox............................................................................................... 51 3.1
Engineering................................................................................................................................. 52 3.2
Education.................................................................................................................................... 57 3.3
Enforcement............................................................................................................................... 61 3.4
Emergency Response.................................................................................................................. 64 3.5
Emerging Technology.................................................................................................................. 65 3.6
2020-2024 California SHSP Implementation Plan....................................................................... 66 4 Priority Projects.............................................................................................................. 68 4.1
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades............................................................ 68 4.2
Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades................................................................................ 68 4.3
Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems......................................................... 68 4.4
Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades.............................................................................68 5 Implementation
and Evaluation..................................................................................... 70 5.1
Implementation..........................................................................................................................70
5.2 Evaluation...................................................................................................................................71
5.3 Future LRSP Updates...................................................................................................................71 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN I ii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A................................................................................................... Stakeholder Packet Responses Appendix 6........................................................................California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings Appendix C....................................................................................... Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Appendix D......................................................................................................... Priority Project Summaries
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1-1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure1-2 Study Area.................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-1 Annual Crash Trend(2016-2020)...............................................................................................10 Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020)....................................................................13 Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity(2016-2020)....................................................................14 Figure 2-4. Citywide Fatal and Severe Collisions(2016-2020)....................................................................15 Figure 2-5. Citywide Collisions by Crash Type(2016-2020)........................................................................17 Figure 2-6. Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category (2016-2020) ..................... 20 Figure 2-7. Unsafe Speed Related Collisions by Roadway User Involvement and Severity (2016-2020) ... 25 Figure 2-8. Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020).............................................26 Figure 2-9 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020)...............................................................28 Figure 2-10 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020) ...................... 29 Figure 2-11. Motorcycle Collisions by Severity (2016-2020)...................................................................... 32 Figure 2-12 Crash Severity by Time Period (2016-2020)............................................................................. 33 Figure 2-13. Citywide Nighttime Crashes(2016-2020)...............................................................................34 Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring............................................................................................................ 36 Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring....................................................................................40 Figure 2-16 Priority Signalized Intersections..............................................................................................41 Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring................................................................................43 Figure 2-18 Priority Unsignalized Intersections..........................................................................................44 Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring...........................................................................................48 Figure 2-20 Priority Roadway Segments.....................................................................................................49 Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2016-2020)....................................................63 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN I iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 City of Temecula OTS Crash Rankings (2016-2018)....................................................................11 Table 2-2 OTS Crash Rankings (2018).........................................................................................................11 Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020).....................................................................12 Table 2-4. Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity(2016-2020)....................................................................13 Table 2-5. Citywide Crash Severity by Location (2016-2020).....................................................................16 Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020)..........................................................................16 Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2016-2020)............................................................................17 Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location(2016-2020)............................................................................18 Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category(2016-2020).......................19 Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity(2016-2020)...................................... 21 Table 2-11 Citywide Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2016-2020) ...................... 22 Table 2-12 Unsafe Speed Crash Type by Location (2016-2020)................................................................. 23 Table 2-13 Unsafe Speed Roadway User Involvement by Severity(2016-2020)........................................24 Table 2-14 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement(2016-2020)..............................................26 Table 2-15 Roadway User Involvement by Severity(2016-2020)...............................................................27 Table 2-16 Motorcycle Crash Severity (2016-2020)................................................................................... 30 Table 2-17 Motorcycle Crash Location(2016-2020)................................................................................... 30 Table 2-18 Motorcycle Crash Type(2016-2020)......................................................................................... 30 Table 2-19 Motorcycle Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity(2016-2020)...................31 Table 2-20 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location(2016-2020)...............................................33 Table 2-21 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type.......................................................................... 37 Table 2-22 Top Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score...............................................................38 Table 2-23 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score...........................................................42 Table 2-24 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score...........................................................45 Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures.................................................................................. 53 Table 3-2 Non -signalized Intersection Countermeasures........................................................................... 54 Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures........................................................................................................55 Table4-1 Priority Projects........................................................................................................................... 69 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN I iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADA..............................................................................
ARIDE....................................................................
BCR.......................................................................
CA......................................................................... ............................... Americans with Disabilities Act Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
................................................... Benefit Cost Ratio ................................................................. California CaISTA............................................................................................. California State Transportation Agency Caltrans.........................................................................................California Department of Transportation
CHP.......................................................................................................................
California Highway Patrol
CMF.....................................................................................................................
Crash Modification Factor
CRF...........................................................................................................................
Crash Reduction Factor
DRE..................................................................................................................
Drug Recognition Evaluation
DUI.....................................................................................................................
Driving Under the Influence
DUITT...................................................................................
Driving Under the Influence Terminator Team
DVMT..............................................................................................................
Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled
EPDO.......................................................................................................
Equivalent Property Damage Only
EVPE..........................................................................................................
Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption
FHWA........................................................................................................
Federal Highway Administration
GIS...............................................................................................................
Geographic Information System
GPS......................................................................................................................
Global Positioning System
HAWK.......................................................................................
High -Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon
HOA.....................................................................................................................
Home Owners Association
HSIP................................................................................................
Highway Safety Improvement Program
IISNS...............................................................................................
Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign
IR......................................................................................................................................................
Infrared
LED...............................................................................................................................
Light Emitting Diode
LPI......................................................................................................................
Leading Pedestrian Interval
LRSM.............................................................................................................
Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP...........................................................................................................................
Local Road Safety Plan
NACE............................................................................................
National Association of County Engineers
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN I v
NHTSA............................................................................... National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NCSR........................................................................................................ National Coalition for Safer Roads OTS.............................................................................................................. Office of Transportation Safety PCF......................................................................................................................... Primary Collission Factor PDO........................................................................................................................... Property Damage Only PSC............................................................................................................... Proven Safety Countermeasure PTSC........................................................................................................ Public / Traffic Safety Commission RCSD................................................................................................ Riverside County Sheriff's Department RRFB...................................................................................................... Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon RSO......................................................................................................................... Riverside Sheriff's Office SCAG................................................................................ Southern California Association of Governments SHSP.............................................................................................................. Strategic Highway Safety Plan SIC......................................................................................................................... Signal Interconnect Cable SWITRS.................................................................................. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System TIMS................................................................................................ Transportation Injury Mapping System TNC......................................................................................................... Transportation Network Company TPD.................................................................................................................. Temecula Police Department TRIP.............................................................................................................. Traffic Restrictions In Progress TSM........................................................................................................................ Traffic Safety Marketing USDOT................................................................................... United States Department of Transportation V21......................................................................................................................... Vehicle -to -Infrastructure V2P............................................................................................................................. Vehicle -to -Pedestrian V2V................................................................................................................................... Vehicle -to -Vehicle LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN I vi
The Temecula Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was prepared within the governance of United States Code Title 23, Section 148 — Highway Safety Improvement Program (h) (4): "DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION.- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data." [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)]
United States Code Title 23, Section 409 — Discovery and Admission of Evidence of Certain Reports and Surveys: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway -highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal -aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data." [23 U.S.C. §409] LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN I vii
1 INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) program in 2019 to provide funding to local agencies for developing a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements. The LRSP program was developed to contribute to the success of the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which provides a statewide, comprehensive, data -driven effort to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads, while addressing the unique safety needs in their jurisdictions. The California SHSP includes strategies based on the "5E's" of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies) and addresses 16 challenge areas:
• Aggressive Driving 0 Emergency Response
• Aging Drivers (>65) 0 Emerging Technologies
• Bicyclists 0 Impaired Driving
• Commercial Vehicles • Intersections
• Distracted Driving 0 Lane Departures
• Driver Licensing • Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrians
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15-20)
The City of Temecula was selected as one of 273 local agencies statewide to receive LRSP funding, as of October 2021. Development of the Temecula LRSP will qualify the City to meet Caltrans eligibility requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding, which will be required for Cycle 11 and is anticipated in April 2022. The City has been pursuing HSIP grant funding for roadway safety infrastructure improvements since 2015 during Cycle 7 and has been successful in obtaining over $2.6 million in HSIP grant awards.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 1
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map
Perris
15 Canyon Menifee
Lake Lake
Elsinore
74 Goo Wildomar
D�a
Murrieta
15 Fallbrook
Winchester
76 Hemet
79 Riverside County
San Diego County
Aguanga
Palomar
Pauma Mountain
Valley
371
Pacific
Ocean Oceanside Hidden
Meadows Valley
Vista Center
1.1 Temecula at a Glance
Temecula is a City located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County and is bounded by the City of Murrieta, unincorporated San Diego County, and unincorporated Riverside County lands, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The City encompasses 37.3 square miles and is traversed north -south by Interstate 15 (1-15) in the western part of the City and California State Route 79 (SR-79) / Temecula Parkway in the southern part of the City. Temecula operates and maintains 127 signalized intersections and 395 paved lane miles of public streets. Figure 1-2 illustrates the project study area. Temecula has a population of approximately of 110,000 according to 2020 Census estimates and is the fifth largest City in the Riverside County.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 2
Figure 1-2 Study Area
it City Hall Freeways School
Traffic Signals Major Roads Parks
All Roads r-1 Temecula Boundary
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 3
1.2 City Initiatives
The City has been proactive in establishing plans, programs, and policies that support prioritizing roadway decongestion and safety. The City's commitment has been documented in the City's General Plan, Quality of Life Master Plan 2030, and Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The development of the Temecula LRSP supports the existing documentation and the overarching vision to create a safer and more efficient community. The following are descriptions of current plans and policies that demonstrate the City's commitment to improving their roadway system and safety for all users that co -align with the vision and goals of this LRSP.
General Plan
The City's General Plan was initially created in 1993 and most recently updated in 2005. The General Plan identifies reducing traffic congestion and striving for efficient traffic circulation and transportation as one of the City's primary goals. Additionally, the plan recognizes the need to promote safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City which is shown through policies such as:
Installing traffic calming measures on residential streets. • Establishing public education and enforcement programs to promote safe driving on the community.
• Requiring vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic be separated to the maximum extent feasible.
Quality of Life Master Plan
The Quality of Life Master Plan reflects the vision, long-term goals, and strategic priorities of Temecula's residents, leaders, and partners of the City of Temecula. The plan is a crucial part of not only maintaining the City's quality of life, but also in taking a proactive approach to identify specific community needs, goals, and possible improvements. The Plan identifies transportation as a focus area for improvement in order to provide equitable, safe mode choices for all, including vulnerable roadway users.
Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
The City adopted the Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan in 2016 to promote a safe, convenient, and efficient environment for bicycle and pedestrian travel that encourages the use of public streets and off-street facilities. The Plan provides a comprehensive implementation strategy for the City of Temecula that identifies connecting urban trails / sidewalks between high -priority neighborhoods and key community destinations such as parks and recreation, hospitals, and local retail in Temecula.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 4
1.3 Local Road Safety Plan Process
Development of the Temecula LRSP follows Caltrans guidelines, which are based on the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway administration (FHWA)'s cyclical six -step process:
1. ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP:
• Establish local partnerships with representatives from the 5E's of traffic safety:
engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies • Define Temecula LRSP vision, mission, and goals
2. ANALYZE SAFETY DATA:
• Crash and Roadway Data Collection
• Crash Data Analysis
• Roadway Network Screening
3. DETERMINE EMPHASIS AREAS:
• Identify priority areas based on crash data analysis and roadway network screening
4. IDENTIFY STRATEGIES:
• Identify safety countermeasures and strategies
• Develop countermeasure toolbox
5. PRIORITIZE AND INCORPORATE STRATEGIES:
• Apply countermeasures and strategies to develop safety projects • Evaluate and prioritize safety projects by benefit cost ratio • Implement roadway safety improvement projects and programs
6. EVALUATE AND UPDATE:
• Monitor progress of roadway safety improvement projects and programs • Evaluate success of countermeasure toolbox, projects, and programs • Review LRSP and update to reflect local changing needs and priorities
1.4 Local Road Safety Plan Vision, Mission, and Goals
The Temecula Local Road Safety Plan was developed based on alignment with the California SHSP, Caltrans LRSP and HSIP programs, feedback from safety partners from the 5E's of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies), and the City's existing safety plans, policies, and efforts. The Plan is guided by the core principles that strive to alleviate traffic LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 5
congestion, reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries, and provide a safe roadway system for all roadway users including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The following sub -section identifies the key Vision, Mission, and Goals set forth in the Temecula LRSP.
Provide a safe roadway system for all Temecula roadway users including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists
Systemically implement proven safety countermeasures based on the 5E's of traffic safety (engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies) to improve safety and reduce crashes on Temecula roadways • Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes towards zero
• Reduce collision severity by reducing crashes that involve pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or alcohol or drug impairment
• Reduce collisions that involve rear end, broadside, and hit object • Reduce collisions that are primarily caused by unsafe speed, improper turning, and automobile right-of-way violations
• Engage with Safety Partners from the 5E's of traffic safety to create a culture within the City of Temecula that plans, designs, and implements roadway safety strategies identified in the Temecula LRSP
1.5 Safety Partners
Local safety partners representing the 5E's of traffic safety (engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies) were engaged to collaboratively address roadway safety in Temecula. Participants included representatives from:
• Temecula Public / Traffic Safety Commission (PTSC)
• Temecula Public Works Department
• Temecula Traffic Engineering Division
• Temecula Police Department
Three safety partner meetings were conducted and the crash data analysis, further discussed in Section 2 of the LRSP, was reviewed for annual citywide trends for cash location, severity, type, primary collision factor, and roadway user involvement. Priority locations for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments were presented. Outreach packets were distributed to the safety partners which included LRSP program background information, citywide crash analysis and network screening results, identified priority locations, and requests for feedback.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 6
WHAT IS A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN [LRSP!?
Comprehensive plan to reduce fatal and severe collisions and is required for eligibility of state and federal grant programs ❖ Creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend prioritized safety improvements through collision analysis and collaborative input Addresses 5E's of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies. •:• Supports the City's Quality of Life Master Plan 2030, Circulation Element, Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, Capital Improvement Program, Drive Safe Temecula initiative, Public Works Department Traffic Safety Brochure, and the Traffic Engineering Division's Traffic Information and Public Safety explanatory brochures Feedback was obtained on the priority areas identified through collision data analysis and areas with safety issues that did not have a history of reported collisions but are known by the safety partners to have frequent observance of "near -misses" or observance of high -risk behaviors such as vehicular speeding or pedestrian jaywalking, particularly around Temecula schools. AppendixA provides a summary of the stakeholder packet feedback responses from the safety partners which generally included:
• Desire for pedestrian safety improvements including pedestrian countdown heads; ADA enhancements citywide; pedestrian crossing enhancements especially near schools; intersection lighting; safe routes to schools and parks; and new sidewalks, multi -use paths, and trails. • Desire for bicycle safety improvements including conducting bicycle rodeos and community bicycle safety training; completing bikeway and trail gaps, colored pavement for bike lanes to highlight bikeways, bollards to change buffered bikes lanes into protected bike lanes, ensuring sensor -loops detect bicycles at signalized lights, implementation of bicycle signal heads along major bicycling corridors.
• Desire for enforcement of speeding; DUI enforcement programs; improving sight distance at intersections; emergency vehicle pre-emption systems; road diets on residential roadways; LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 7
addressing U-turn conflicts and near misses; and improving areas where speeding/distracted vehicles interact with pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Consensus with priority signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments with additional feedback provided for the roadway safety issues attributed with specific intersection locations and / or roadway corridors.
As seen above, engagement with stakeholders provided a copious amount of useful feedback. Through this process, it was identified that several of the priority locations and safety improvements from the safety partners feedback align with the priority projects presented in the LRSP. Additionally, many of the locations identified by the safety partners aligned with the priority locations presented in the LRSP based on crash analysis and severity. Locations that were identified as experiencing high levels of complaints but had a history of low crash incidence and / or severity will be analyzed in future LRSP updates for inclusion in systemic projects. The Temecula LRSP is considered a living document and will be updated to meet compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements. Future updates to the LRSP will utilize the feedback received from the safety partners to refine future LRSP processes, the countermeasure toolbox, and priority project development.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 8
2 COLLISION ANALYSIS
2.1 Crash Data and Methodology
Crash data was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, the University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database, and the City of Temecula's local Crossroads crash database. The most recent five (5) years of crash data were obtained from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Crashes were cross-referenced and geolocated to the local street network in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to create a comprehensive data set.
There were 3,813 total collisions during the study period, which includes 1,917 fatal and injury collisions and 1,896 Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. The crash data were analyzed to identify citywide crash patterns and trends based on the following crash characteristics:
• Annual Trends
• California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Citywide Traffic Rankings • Location Type
• Severity
• Crash Type
• Primary Collision Factor
• Roadway User Involvement
• Nighttime Crashes
2.2 Annual Trends
Figure 2-1 shows the total number of crashes per year in the City of Temecula from 2016 to 2020 for fatal and severe injury collisions, non -severe injury collisions, and property damage only (PDO) collisions. The trendline shows the total number of crashes in Riverside County by year. The City's annual crash trends follow a similar pattern to the County's crash trends, which show a slight decline in overall crashes between the years 2016 and 2019. In the year 2020, total crashes decreased significantly in the County (41%) as compared to a less significant decrease in the City (18%) as compared to the previous year. The City of Temecula has shown a steady decline in severe injury collisions, non -severe injury collision, and PDO collisions year -over year.
In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic significantly affected travel patterns throughout the region and country due to emergency stay-at-home orders, resulting in a significant decrease of average daily traffic. While less drivers were reported on the roadway, the US reported a significant increase in fatalities during this LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 9
time'. According to the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an analysis showed that the main reasons that drove this increase included more risky behaviors such as: impaired driving, speeding and failure to wear a seat belt. Similar trends could be seen taking place in the City of Temecula which also experienced an increase in fatalities in 2020. Further analysis of crash trends and primary collision factors are examined in the following sections.
Figure 2-1 Annual Crash Trend (2016-2020)
1,400
10,748 10,794 10,556
L I 10,359
1,200 \
1,000
§ 4
N 800 r 1
u
600 378
E
w
400
200
0 4
5 21 3
13 399
367
0 2016 2017 2018
Year
PDO Non -Severe Injury Severe Injury
3 2019
12,000
10,000
8,000
6✓,160
S
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 2020
Fatal Riverside County
2.2.1 California Office of Traffic Safety Citywide Traffic Rankings The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) maintains a ranking system to compare traffic safety statistics among similarly sized California cities. Citywide rankings are based on population, daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT), crash records, and crash trends from data collected by SWITRS, Caltrans, the California Department of Justice, and the Department of Finance. A ranking of one (1) in a category indicates the lowest possible traffic safety performance in relation to other similarly -sized cities. A comparison of California OTS rankings allows cities to identify local trends relative to their peers.
The City of Temecula is in "Group B" which consists of cities with populations between 100,001 and 250,000 people. Table 2-1 summarizes how Temecula compares to other Group B peer cities from 2016 to 2018. Due to fluctuations in populations, Temecula was one of 58 Group B cities in 2016 and 2017, and one of 59 Group B cities in 2018.
' N. H. T. S. A. (2021, June 3). 2020 fatality data show increased traffic fatalities during pandemic. NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 10
Table 2-1 City of Temecula OTS Crash Rankings (2016-2018)
CATEGORYOTS
Total Fatal and Injury 26/58 1 33/58 31/59
Alcohol Involved
49/58
48/58
32/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
54/58
41/58
39/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21— 34
53/58
39/58
35/59
Motorcycles
5/58
6/58
1/59
Pedestrians
40/58
42/58
41/59
Pedestrians < 15
42/58
32/58
28/59
Pedestrians 65+
53/58
41/58
7/59
Bicyclists
52/58
34/58
41/59
Bicyclists < 15
30/58
23/58
8/59
Composite
48/58
39/58
38/59
Speed Related
7/58
7/58
5/59
Nighttime (9:00pm — 2:59am)
50/58
48/58
52/59
Hit and Run
48/58
48/58
49/59
DUI Arrests
20/58
30/58
N/A*
Bold = Temecula's Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories *2018 DUI Arrest Ranking Data not available on CA Office of Traffic Safety website Based on the most recent available OTS rankings from 2018, Table 2-2 summarizes how Temecula compares to Moreno Valley and Murrieta, other local Group B peer cities in Riverside County. Data tables for the OTS rankings are provided in Appendix B.
Table 2-2 OTS Crash Rankings (2018)
CATEGORY2018 OTS
Total Fatal and Injury
OTS RANKING
31/59
.•
OTS RANKING
54/59
OTS RANKING
55/59
Alcohol Involved
32/59
55/59
50/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
39/59
43/59
28/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21— 34
35/59
52/59
42/59
Motorcycles
1/59
56/59
35/59
Pedestrians
41/59
56/59
58/59
Pedestrians < 15
28/59
41/59
59/59
Pedestrians 65+
7/59
58/59
47/59
Bicyclists
41/59
54/59
53/59
Bicyclists < 15
8/59
46/59
28/59
Composite
38/59
56/59
52/59
Speed Related
5/59
44/59
47/59
Nighttime (9:00pm — 2:59am)
52/59
55/59
58/59
Hit and Run
49/59
51/59
55/59
DUI Arrests*
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bold = Temecula's Too 3 Lowest Crash Rankine OTS Categories *2018 DUI Arrest Ranking Data not available on CA Office of Traffic Safety website LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 11
Key OTS Crash Ranking findings include:
Top 3 lowest 2016 OTS rankings for Temecula were: collisions where motorcycles were involved, collisions where speed was the primary factor, and driving under the influence (DUI) arrests.
• Top 3 lowest 2017 OTS rankings for Temecula were: collisions where motorcycles were involved, collisions where speed was the primary factor, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved.
• Top 3 lowest 2018 OTS rankings for Temecula were: collisions where motorcycles were involved, collisions where speed was the primary factor, and collisions where a pedestrian over the age of 65 was involved.
• OTS categories for collisions where a motorcycle was involved and collisions where speed was the primary factor were in the top 3 lowest rankings for Temecula for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018.
• Temecula performed worse than Murrieta in 2018 OTS rankings except for collisions where the driver had been drinking and under the age of 21.
Temecula performed worse than Moreno Valley in all 2018 OTS ranking categories.
2.2.2 Location Type
Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by location type, which includes signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Unsignalized intersections included any at -grade junction of two or more public roads that are not controlled by a traffic signal, including uncontrolled, yield -control, and stop -controlled intersections. For signalized and unsignalized intersections, a sphere of influence of 250 feet was used when considering if an accident would be attributed to an intersection. If a crash occurred outside of the 250-foot sphere of influence of an intersection, then the crash would be considered part of a segment. Most crashes occurred at intersections (77%) which includes signalized intersections (52%) and unsignalized intersections (25%).
Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020) Signalized Intersection 1980 (52%)
Unsignalized Intersection 970 (25%)
Roadway Segment 863 (23%)
Total Crashes 3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 12
Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020) ■ Signalized Intersection
41 ■ Unsignalized Intersection
■ Roadway Segment
25 %
2.2.3 Severity
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by severity for fatal, severe injury, and non -severe injury collisions including other visible injury and complaint of pain. Most collisions resulted in property damage only (50%) followed by non -severe injuries (48%), severe injuries (2%), and fatalities (<1%).
Table 2-4. Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2016-2020) Fatal
20 (<1%)
Severe Injury
83 (2%)
Other Visible Injury
1398 (37%)
Complaint of Pain
416 (11%)
roperty Damage Only
1896 (50%)
3813
Total Crashes
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 13
Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2016-2020) <1
50 ■ Fatal
■ Severe Injury
■ Other Visible Injury
■ Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Table 2-5 summarizes the proportion of crash severity by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Intersection collisions resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries including signalized intersections (<1% fatal and 2% severe injury of total collisions) and unsignalized intersections (<1% fatal and 2% severe injury of total collisions). Roadway segment collisions included 1% fatal and 3% severe injury of total collisions. Figure 2-4 illustrates where these fatal and severe collisions have occurred.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 14
J
11 'S�
■I
■ Lr�
• •
_
�m�_
.9111
■ �� In.
= Fatal
EMSevere Injury
Other Visible Injury
n
;❑ °
■J
W-Q;�rE
S
■ Vehicle Collisions Bike Collisions Pedestrian Collisions A Motorcycle Collisions t�tt City Hall — Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways O City Boundary
TTFigure 2-4
O�'� Citywide Fatal and Injury Related Crashes (2016-2020)
While the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occurred at each location type is a smaller percentage in comparison with the number of overall collisions, intersections were also over -represented in the number of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Signalized intersections represented 35%fatal and 52% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Unsignalized intersections represented 15% fatal and 18% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Roadway segments represented 50% fatal and 30% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions.
Table 2-5. Citywide Crash Severity by Location (2016-2020)
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
3 (<I%/15%*)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
10 (1%/50%*)
TOTAL
20 (<1%)
Fatal 7 (<l%/35%*)
Severe Injury
43 (2%/52%*)
15 (2%/18%*)
25 (3%/30%*)
83 (2%)
Other Visible Injury
210 (11%)
105 (11%)
101 (12%)
416 (11%)
Complaint of Pain
766 (38%)
315 (33%)
317 (37%)
1398 (37%)
Property Damage Only
971 (49%)
515 (54%)
10 (48%)
1896 (50%)
Total Crashes
1997 (52%/49%*)
953 (25%/17%*)
863 (231%/34%*)
3813
Note: *Percentage of total Fatal
and Severe Iniury collisions
Onlv by Location
2.2.4 Crash Type
Table 2-6 and Figure 2-5 summarize the proportion of all crashes by crash type, which include head-on, sideswipe, rear end, broadside, hit object, overturned, vehicle / pedestrian, other, and not stated collisions. The three most common crash types that occurred are rear end (35%), broadside (28%), and hit object (14%). These account for 77% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020) IL •'
Mead-un
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
ilu (s�P'0)
469 (12%)
1334 (35%)
1087 (28%)
Hit Object
539 (14%)
Overturned
34 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian
121 (3%)
Other / Not Stated
109 (3%)
Total Crashes
3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 16
Figure 2-5. Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020) Rear End -
Broadside -
Hit Object -
Sideswipe -
Vehicle / Pedestrian -
Head -On
Other / Not Stated -
Overturned
0 600 1200
Table 2-7 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by severity. The crash types that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries are listed below:
Broadside (35% fatal and 31% severe injury).
+ Hit object (30% fatal and 14% severe injury).
+ Vehicle/pedestrian collisions (15% fatal and 17% severe injury).
Rear -end (0% fatal and 22% severe injury).
Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE
Head -On
FATAL
3 (15%)
SEVERE
5 (6%)
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
19 (5%)
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
51 (4%)
PROPERTY
DAMAGEINJURY
ONLY
42 (3%)
TOTAL
120 (3%)
Sideswipe
1 (5%)
2 (2%)
26 (6%)
75 (5%)
366 (26%)
469 (12%)
Rear End
-
18 (22%)
84 (20%)
613 (44%)
619 (44%)
1334 (35%)
Broadside
7 (35%)
26 (31%)
160 (38%)
504 (36%)
390 (28%)
1087 (28%)
Hit Object
6 (30%)
12 (14%)
48 (12%)
63 (5%)
410 (29%)
539 (14%)
Overturned
-
2 (2%)
17 (4%)
7 (1%)
8 (1%)
34 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian
3 (15%)
14 (17%)
30 (7%)
59 (4%)
15 (1%)
121 (3%)
Other / Not Stated
-
4 (5%)
32 (8%)
27 (2%)
46 (3%)
109 (3%)
Total Crashes
20 (<i%)
83 (2%)
416 (11%)
1398 (37%)
1896 (50%)
3813
Table 2-8 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. A summary of the results is provided below:
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 17
• Most crashes occurred at intersections, accounting for 77% of total crashes including 52% at signalized intersections and 25% at unsignalized intersections. • The most common crash types at signalized intersections were rear end (39%), broadside (31%), and sideswipe (12%).
• The most common crash types at unsignalized intersections were broadside (31%), hit object (24%), and rear end (21%).
• The most common crash types at roadway segments were rear end (42%), broadside (21%), and hit object (15%).
• The most common crash types observed across all three location types were typically consistent with the most common crash types overall: rear end (35%), broadside (29%), and hit object (14%).
Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2016-2020)
CRASHROADWAY
Head -On
INTERSECTION
55 (3%)
INTERSECTION
46 (5%)
SEGMENT
19 (2%)
TOTAL
120 (3%)
Sideswipe
233(12%)
114 (12%)
122 (14%)
469 (12%)
Rear End
770 (39%)
204 (21%)
360 (42%)
1334 (35%)
Broadside
620 (31%)
285 (30%)
182 (21%)
1087 (29%)
Hit Object
188 (9%)
227 (24%)
124 (15%)
539 (14%)
Overturned
11 (1%)
8 (1%)
15 (2%)
34 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian
72 (4%)
27 (3%)
22 (3%)
121 (3%)
Other / Not Stated
48 (2%)
42 (4%)
19 (2%)
109 (3%)
Total Crashes
1997 (52%)
953 (25%)
863 (23%)
3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 18
2.2.5 Primary Collision Factor
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-6 summarize the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) of crashes by the California vehicle code violation categories. PCF violation categories that represented less than 3% of citywide collisions were graphically combined into a single category on Figure 2-5. A summary of the results is provided below:
The top primary collision factors were:
o Unsafe speed (32%)
o Improper turning (12%)
o Automobile right-of-way (11%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (10%).
The top primary collision factors listed above account for 65% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category (2016- 2020)
N FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY TOTAL (%)
Unsafe Speed 1231(32%)
Improper Turning 460 (12%)
Automobile Right of Way
410 (11%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 363 (10%)
Traffic Signals and Signs
306 (8%)
Pedestrian Violation
219 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
104 (3%)
Unsafe Lane Change*
63 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road*
60 (2%)
Pedestrian Right of Way*
46 (1%)
Following Too Closely*
24 (1%)
Improper Passing*
16 (<1%)
Hazardous Parking*
5 (<I%)
Lights*
2 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic*
1 (<1%)
Unknown / Not Stated
277 (7%)
Other
226 (6%)
Total
3813
Note: * PCF category representing less than 3% of total crashes LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 19
Figure 2-6. Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category (2016-2020)
■ Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
■Automobile ROW
■ DUI
■ Traffic Signals and Signs
■ Unknown / Not Stated
Other
Pedestrian Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Less than 3%
Table 2-10 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor by severity. The primary collision factors that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries are listed below:
• Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (45% fatal and 31% severe injury).
• Unsafe speed (20% fatal and 13% severe injury).
• Automobile right-of-way (S%fatal and 8% Severe injury). • Improper turning (14% severe injury).
• Combined, these primary collision factors account for 65% of total crashes reported.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 20
Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2016-2020)
COLLISION FATAL
FACTOR VIOLATION
CATEGORY
Driving or Bicycling Under 9 (45%)
the Influence of Alcohol or
Drugs
SEVERE
INJURY
26 (31%)
OTHER
VISIBLE
39 (39%)
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
74 (5%)
PROPERTYPRIMARY
DAMAGE
215 (11%)
363 (10%)
Unsafe Speed
4 (20%)
11 (13%)
100 (24%)
554 (40%)
562 (30%)
1231(32%)
Following Too Closely
-
-
14 (<1%)
8 (1%)
15 (1%)
24 (1%)
Wrong Side of Road
1 (5%)
-
20 (5%)
29 (2%)
11 (1%)
60 (2%)
Improper Passing
-
3 (4%)
2 (<1%)
5 (<1%)
6 (0%)
16 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change
-
-
14 (3%)
25 (2%)
24 (1%)
63 (2%)
Improper Turning
-
12 (14%)
38 (9%)
95 (7%)
317 (17%)
460 (12%)
Automobile ROW
1 (5%)
7 (8%)
69 (17%)
202 (14%)
131 (7%)
410 (11%)
Pedestrian ROW
-
3 (4%)
15 (4%)
27 (2%)
1(<1%)
46 (1%)
Pedestrian Violation
1 (5%)
8 (10%)
19 (5%)
51 (4%)
140 (7%)
219 (6%)
Traffic Signals and Signs
-
6 (7%)
58 (14%)
202 (14%)
40 (2%)
306 (8%)
Lights
-
-
1 (<1%)
-
1 (<1%)
2 (<1%)
Hazardous Parking
-
-
1 (<1%)
1(<1%)
3 (<1%)
5 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic
-
-
1 (<1%)
-
-
1 (<1%)
Other
2 (10%)
4 (5%)
19 (5%)
45 (3%)
156 (8%)
226 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
-
-
2 (<1%)
37 (3%)
65 (3%)
104 (3%)
Unknown / Not Stated
2 (10%)
4 (5%)
17 (4%)
45 (3%)d6l
209 (11%)
277 (7%)
Total Crashes
20 (<1%)
83 (2%)
416 (11%)
1398 (37%)
1 1896 (50%)
3813
Table 2-11 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor violation categories by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. A summary of the results is provided below:
Top three primary collision factor violation categories at signalized intersections were:
o Unsafe speed (32%)
o Traffic signals and signs (13%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (10%). • Top three at unsignalized intersections were:
o Automobile right-of-way (20%)
o Unsafe speed (15%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (11%). • Top three at roadway segments were:
o Unsafe speed (41%)
o Automobile right-of-way (9%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (7%). • Most common primary collision factor violation categories observed across all three location types were consistent with the most common crash types overall:
o Unsafe speed (35%)
o Automobile right-of-way (15%)
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 21
o Traffic signal and signs (14%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (8%). o Combined, these primary collision factors account for 72% of total reported crashes.
Table 2-11 Citywide Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2016- 2020)
FACTORPRIMARY COLLISION
VIOLATION.•
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs
SIGNALIZED UNSIGNLIZED ROADWAY
192 (10%) 107 (11%) 64 (7%)
363 (10%)
Unsafe Speed
632 (32%)
244 (15%)
355 (41%)
1231(32%)
Following Too Closely
16 (1%)
5 (1%)
3 (<1%)
24 (1%)
Wrong Side of Road
19 (1%)
25 (3%)
16 (2%)
60 (2%)
Improper Passing
8 (<1%)
5 (1%)
3 (<1%)
16 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change
35 (2%)
4 (<1%)
24 (3%)
63 (2%)
Improper Turning
182 (9%)
144 (15%)
134 (16%)
460 (12%)
Automobile ROW
141 (7%)
190 (20%)
79 (9%)
410 (11%)
Pedestrian ROW
27 (1%)
13 (1%)
6 (1%)
46 (1%)
Pedestrian Violation
155 (8%)
13 (1%)
51 (6%)
219 (6%)
Traffic Signals and Signs
260 (13%)
24 (3%)
14 (2%)
306 (8%)
Hazardous Parking
-
5 (1%)
-
5 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic
1(<1%)
-
-
1 (<1%)
Lights
-
2 (<1%)
-
2 (<1%)
Other
122 (6%)
46 (5%)
58 (7%)
226 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
57 (3%)
31 (3%)
16 (2%)
104 (3%)
Unknown / Not Stated
141 (7%)
95 (10%)
40 (5%)
277 (7%)
Total Crashes
1997 (52%)
953 (25%)
863 (23%)
3813
2.2.6 Collisions Involving Unsafe Speed
The City of Temecula's top three lowest OTS categories from 2016 to 2018 consistently included speed - related crashes. In 2018, Temecula the fifth lowest of all 59 cities included in Group B. This section presents additional analysis related specifically to crashes involving unsafe speed.
Table 2-12 summarizes the proportion of crashes involving unsafe speeds by crash type and location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. A summary of the results is provided below:
MUZIL ou, ashes occurred at intersections, accounting for 71% of total crashes, including 51% at signalized intersections and 20% at unsignalized intersections. • Most common crash types at signalized intersections were rear end (85%) and hit object (7%).
• Most common crash types at unsignalized intersections were rear end (59%) and hit object (29%).
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 22
• Most common crash types at roadway segments were rear end (81%) and hit object (11%).
• Most common crash types observed across all three location types were typically consistent with the most common crash types overall: rear end (79%) and hit object (13%).
Table 2-12 Unsafe Speed Crash Type by Location (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE
Head -On
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
4 (1%)
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
5 (2%)
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
2 (1%)
TOTAL
11(1%)
Sideswipe
14 (2%)
12 (5%)
7 (2%)
33 (3%)
Rear End
540 (85%)
142 (59%)
287 (81%)
969 (79%)
Broadside
14 (2%)
5 (2%)
11 (3%)
30 (2%)
Hit Object
46 (7%)
71 (29%)
40 (11%)
157 (13%)
Overturned
3 (<1%)
2 (1%)
4 (1%)
9 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian
3 (<1%)
2 (1%)
1 (<1%)
6 (<1%)
Other / Not Stated
8 (1%)
5 (2%)
3 (1%)
16 (1%)
Total Crashes
632 (51%)
244 (20%)
355 (29%)
1231
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 23
Table 2-13 summarizes the proportion of crashes involving unsafe speeds by severity and roadway user type involved which includes automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Figure 2-7 illustrates where the speed related collisions occurred by severity and roadway user type. A summary of the results is provided below:
Of the total collisions where unsafe speed was the primary collision factor, 96% involved automobiles only, the majority of which resulted in complaint of pain or property damage only.
• Automobile collisions represented 50% of total fatal and 45% of total severe injury collisions.
• Approximately 1% of the automobile collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. • The majority of collisions involving motorcycles resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries.
• Motorcycle collisions represented 50% of total fatal and 55% of total severe injury collisions.
• Approximately 23% of all motorcycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
Most collisions involving bicycles or pedestrians resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries.
Bicycle and pedestrian collisions represented 0% of total fatal and severe injury crashes.
Table 2-13 Unsafe Speed Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020) •..D
Automobiles
2 (50%)
INJURY
5 (45%)
VISIBLE
INJURY
81 (67%)
OF PAIN
531 (96%)
DAMAGE
ONLY
561 (99%)
OTAL
1180 (96%)
Motorcycles
2 (50%)
6 (55%)
13 (12%)
14 (3%)
0 (0%)
35 (3%)
Bicycles
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
5 (7%)
1 (<1%)
1 (<1%)
7(<1%)
Pedestrians
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (14%)
8 (1%)
0 (0%)
9(<1%)
Total Crashes
4 (<1%)
11(1%)
100 (8%)
554 (45%)
562 (46%)
1231
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 24
COLLISION SEVERITY
:AllOIL Severe Injury
rFatal
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
MI-
i■l fin, L-■�, ■7■ ■ -11 1�
■11� ��
.■. ■■r,
MEIIIIIIII
owl
. L ■ ram= ■1 ■ti
15 W—E
N
W+L
S
■ Vehicle Collisions Bike Collisions Pedestrian Collisions A Motorcycle Collisions City Hall Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways O City Boundary
T Figure 2-7
O��G Unsafe Speed Related Crashes (2016-2020)
2.2.7 Roadway User Involvement
Table 2-14 and Figure 2-8 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by roadway user type involved which includes automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Most collisions involved motorized roadway users including automobiles (90%) and motorcycles (4%). Non -motorized roadway users were involved in 6% of collisions including bicycles (3%) and pedestrians (3%) Table 2-14 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020) Automobiles 3442 (90%)
Motorcycles 129 (4%)
Bicycles 114 (3%)
Pedestrians 128 (3%)
Total Crashes 3813
Figure 2-8. Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020) 4%3% 3%
■ Automobiles
�•7 ■ Motorcycles
■ Bicycles
Pedestrians
90 %
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 26
Table 2-15 and Figure 2-9 summarize the proportion of roadway user type by severity. A summary of the results is provided below:
Of the total collisions, 90% involved automobiles only, the majority of which resulted in property damage only (50%).
• Automobile collisions represented 35% of total fatal and 54% of total severe injury collisions.
• Approximately 2% of all automobile collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. • The majority of collisions involving motorcycles resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries.
• Motorcycle collisions represented 35% of total fatal and 24% of total severe injury collisions.
• Approximately 21% of all motorcycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. • The majority of collisions involving bicycles resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries.
• Bicycle collisions represented 10% of total fatal and 6% of total severe injury crashes. • Approximately 6% of all bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. • The majority of pedestrian collisions resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries.
• Pedestrian collisions represented 20% of total fatal and 17% of total severe injury collisions.
Approximately 15% of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
Table 2-15 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020) •..DWAY USIR]JIlIrMIMW-SIVIRE
Automobiles
7 (35%)
—
INJURY
45 (54%)
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
277 (67%)
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
1237 (88%)
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
1876 (99%)
3442 (90%)
Motorcycles
7 (35%)
19 (24%)
51(12%)
52 (4%)
0 (0%)
129 (4%)
Bicycles
2 (10%)
5 (6%)
57 (14%)
43 (3%)
7 (1%)
114 (3%)
Pedestrians
4 (20%)
14 17%)
31 (7%)
66 (5%)
13 (<1%)
128 (3%)
Total Crashes
20 (<1%)
83 (2%)
416 (11%)
1398 (37%)
1896 (50%)
3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 27
Figure 2-9 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020) V)
c
0 N
U
O
a1
tin
M
c
a)
U
L
a)
a
Fatal
6% 1%
W140/ 5%
24% 12%
7%
17%
88%
7°
54% 1,
Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Crash Severity
■ Automobiles ■ Pedestrians ■ Motorcycles ■ Bicycles
Figure 2-10 summarizes the proportion of roadway user types for fatal and severe injury collisions. A summary of the results is provided below:
Although motorcycles and pedestrians make up a small percentage of total crashes (7% and 6%, respectively), they are over -represented in the number of fatal and severe injury collisions (26% and 17%, respectively), which indicates that they are vulnerable roadway users.
• Bicycles were involved in 7% of total fatal and severe injury collisions, which was representative of the 6% of total collisions that bicycles were involved in.
Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle users are more prone to high -risk injury due to the lack of external protective devices that could absorb the impact of a roadway crash. Additionally, the smaller profiles of pedestrians, motorcycles and cyclists make it more difficult for these groups to be seen by vehicular operators.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 28
Figure 2-10 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020)
k
50 2.2.8 Motorcycle Crashes
17%
7%
00 ■Pedestrians
r Bicycles
0 ■ Motorcycles
we
■ Automobiles
26%
The City of Temecula's top three lowest OTS categories from 2016 to 2018 consistently included crashes involving motorcycles. In 2018, Temecula scored the lowest of all 59 cities included in Group B. This section presents additional analysis related specifically to motorcycle -involved crashes.
Table 2-16 through Table 2-19 summarize the proportion of crashes involving motorcycles by severity, location, crash type, and primary collision factor, respectively. Figure 2-11 illustrates where the motorcycle crashes occurred and the severity of each collision. A summary of the results is provided below:
Fatal and severe crashes accounted for 5% and 15% of all collisions involving a motorcycle, while the remaining 80% of crashes resulted in other visible injuries or complaint of pain.
• 65% of collisions involving a motorcycle occurred at an intersection (39% at signalized intersections and 26% at unsignalized intersections).
• The most common crash types observed in motorcycle collisions were:
o Broadside (39%), rear -end (20%), and hit object (13%). o Combined, these crash types account for 72% of total crashes reported. • The primary collision factors that occurred the most in motorcycle collisions were:
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 29
o Unsafe speeds (27%), automobile right of way (26%), and improper turning (13%).
o Combined, these primary collision factors account for 66% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-16 Motorcycle Crash Severity (2016-2020)
Fatal
Severe
Other Visible Injury
Complain of Pain
PDO
Total
Table 2-17 Motorcycle Crash Location (2016-2020)
W
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Roadway Segment
Total Crashes
Table 2-18 Motorcycle Crash Type (2016-2020)
7 (5%)
19 (15%)
51 (40%)
52 (40%)
0 (0%)
129
51 (39%)
34 (26%)
44 (35%)
129
Head -On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
5 (4%)
13 (10%)
26 (20%)
51 (39%)
Hit Object
16 (13%)
Overturned
10 (8%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian
-
Other / Not Stated
8 (6%)
Total Crashes
129
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 30
Table 2-19 Motorcycle Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2016-2020)
PRIMARY COLLISION .• VIOLATION CATEGORY
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 11(8%) Unsafe Speed
35 (27%)
Following Too Closely
-
Wrong Side of Road
-
Improper Passing
3 (2%)
Unsafe Lane Change
12 (9%)
Improper Turning
16 (13%)
Automobile ROW
34 (26%)
Pedestrian ROW
-
Pedestrian Violation
-
Traffic Signals and Signs
5 (4%)
Lights
-
Other
8 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
2 (2%)
Unknown / Not Stated
3 (2%)
Total Crashes
129
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 31
2.2.9 Nighttime Crashes
Crashes were evaluated from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM to identify nighttime crash patterns. There were 884 collisions that occurred during the study period and Figure 2-12 shows a summary of total crashes and severity by time of day. Nighttime crash frequency for all severity types was generally higher from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The most severe crashes (fatal and severe injury) generally occurred from 9:00 PM to 1:00 AM. The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM. Figure 2-13 illustrates where the nighttime crashes occurred by severity and roadway user type. Table 2-20 summarizes nighttime crashes by severity and location.
Figure 2-12 Crash Severity by Time Period (2016-2020)
N111J,
180
160
Ln 140
v —
t
a 120
L
U
0 100
L
c E 80
Z 60
40 20
0 .61 O� 61 61 o1 o� 61 61 .o1 .off 61 o1
o''. o° . o`'. yC.°. �ti. �ti. ��. .
of o° o° o° .6 o°
� titi�
Time Period
Property Damage Only ■ Complaint of Pain ■ Other Visible Injury ■ Severe Injury ■ Fatal Table 2-20 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2016-2020) LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 33
t_'E
07 ❑■
�■ ■ it
Fatal
■ ■■�Severe Injury
■I _ ■ Other
1 In - Complaint of Pain
■
N
W+L
S
■ Nighttime Vehicle Collisions 1 Nighttime Bike Collisions Nighttime Pedestrian Collisions City Hall — Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways O City Boundary
TFigure 2-13
Citywide Nighttime Crashes (2016-2020)
2.3 Equivalent Property Damage Only Scoring (EPDO)
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scoring per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) was utilized to analyze crash data and evaluate roadway network performance. Crashes were assigned weighting factors relative to property damage only collisions based on crash costs from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners v1.5. The weighting factor generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe injury collisions versus non -severe injury collisions. EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:
EPDO Score = (Fatal Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes) + (Severe Injury Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes) + (Other Visible Injury Weight x Number of Other Visible Injury Crashes) + (Complaint of Pain Injury Weightx Number of Complaint of Pain Injury Crashes) + Property Damage Only Crashes
EPDO scoring was conducted for signalized intersections, non -signalized intersections, and roadway segments. EPDO scores were organized by quintile and displayed graphically by heat maps. The top quintiles identified priority locations with the highest EPDO scores and corresponds with the highest crash frequency and severity. Table 2-21 summarizes the crash cost and EPDO score associated with an individual collision by location type and severity. Figure 2-14 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections, non -signalized intersections, and roadway segments.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 35
\
1 0
Ra
E3
4 - 80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
= 0- 20th Percentile
Signalized Intersections A Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Segments O City Boundary Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways
N
W+L
S
IFigure 2-14
0�°
Citywide EPDO Scoring
Table 2-21 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
Signalized 123.7 $1.46m
Intersection
Unsignalized 195.8 $2.31m 10.7 $126,500 6.1 $71,900 1 $11,800 Intersection
Roadway 169.5 $1.46m
2.3.1 Signalized Intersections
Figure 2-15 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
80 —100th Percentile: 195.7 to 558.3
60 — 80th Percentile: 87.9 to 195.6
• 40 — 60th Percentile: 46.4 to 87.8
• 20 — 40th Percentile: 26.5 to 46.3
0 — 2011 Percentile: 0.0 to 26.4
The top quintile signalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores included 23 signalized locations which are shown on Table 2-22 and graphically on Figure 2-16. Based on roadway classifications in City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, most of the top quintile signalized intersection locations are along arterial and major highway corridors with fewer intersections on lower -order roadways.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 37
Table 2-22 Top Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
1 63
ROAD & YNEZ ROAD
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
MARGARITA
2 ROAD/REDHAWK
65 PARKWAY
TEMECULA PARKWAY & LA
3 51
PAZ ROAD
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
4 26
JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD & JEFFERSON
46 AVENUE/OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
PECHANGA PARKWAY
MARGARITA ROAD &
RUSTIC GLEN
DRIVE/HARVESTON
SCHOOLROAD
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
WINCHESTER ROAD &
YNEZ ROAD
*BUTTERFIELD STAGE
ROAD & CALLE CHAPOS
MEADOWS PARKWAY & DE
PORTOLA ROAD
MARGARITA ROAD &
SOLANA WAY
MARGARITA ROAD &
DARTOLO ROAD/LUCKY
CENTER
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
MEADOWS PARKWAY/APIS
ROAD
WINCHESTER ROAD &
JEFFERSON AVENUE
JEFFERSON AVENUE & VIA
MONTEZUMA
46 11
38 99
17 17
17 16
49 81
10 558.3
497.9
463.5
452.4
421.3
407
381.8
374.5
329.6
324.9
314.7
313.7
298.9
283.3
281.5
272
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 38
RANCHO VISTA RD &
17 10
272
MEADOWS PARKWAY
MARGARITA ROAD & DATE
18 5
252.2
STREET
WINCHESTER ROAD &
19 33
252
RORIPAUGH ROAD
PECHANGA PARKWAY &
20 WOLF VALLEY ROAD/VIA
31 249.5
EDUARDO
YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA
21 NORTH/PROMENADE
29 223.5
MALL NORTH
YNEZ ROAD & OVERLAND
22 35
213.7
DRIVE
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
AVENIDA DE
23 18
206.9
M ISSION ES/RANCHO
PUEBLO ROAD
*Butterfield Stage Rd & Calle Chapos recently became a signal in 2020. All crash data is representative of an unsignalized intersection.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 39
iV
Ra
= 80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
- 0- 20th Percentile
u
Rancho V\spa
0 � Y
dgd'0 /
A
eO6
d,
9"'A
II - ,7 ,
7-,,
0 9� w
Signalized Intersections Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways = City Boundary N
W+E
S
Figure 2-15
���� Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring
7,a7
Murrieta Hotgpopercene
Minor Roads
8 Major Roads
10 Freeways
O City Boundary
�a
aye
1 a
Nf
a9
o' 6 /
Rancho California Rd
accho V\spa Rd
R
paub\aR
9a�fa
'Qa
0-
8 a
a. Ao 3
0 2
4 .o a
C acha �a��a
I ��y
a
a
m
7�o N
9I-
u � W E
II 5
Top Quintile Signalized Intersections
1. Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd 13. Margarita Rd & Dartolo Rd / Lucky Center
2. Temecula Pkwy & Margarita Rd / Redhawk Pkwy 14. Temecula Pkwy & Meadows Pkwy / Apis Rd
3. Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Rd 15. Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
4. Temecula Pkwy & Jedediah Smith Rd 16. Jefferson Ave & Via Montezuma
5. Rancho California Rd & Jefferson Ave / Old Town Front St 17. Rancho Vista Rd & Meadows Pkwy
6. Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Rd 18. Margarita Rd & Date St
7. Margarita Rd & Rustic Glen Dr / Harveston School Rd 19. Winchester Rd & Roripaugh Rd
8. Temecula Pkwy & Butterfield Stage Rd 20. Pechanga Pkwy & Wolf Valley Rd
9. Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 21. Ynez Rd & Palm Plaza North / Promenade Mall North
10. Butterfield Stage Rd & Calle Chapos 22. Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
11. Meadows Pkwy & De Portola Rd 23. Temecula Parkway & Avenida De Missiones / Rancho Pueblo Rd
12. Margarita Rd & Solana Way
Figure 2-16
O�PPriority Signalized Intersections
2.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 2-17 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for unsignalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
80 —100th Percentile: 21.4 to 415.5
• 60 — 80th Percentile: 11.1 to 21.3
• 40 — 60t" Percentile: 6.1 to 11.0
20 — 401" Percentile: 1.0 to 6.0
0 — 201" Percentile: 0.0 to 0.c'
The top quintile unsignalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores included 55 unsignalized locations. For the purposes of this Local Roadway Safety Plan the top 20 unsignalized locations are shown on Table 2-23 and graphically on Figure 2-18 in order to focus on the most severe locations. Based on roadway classifications in the Temecula's General Plan Circulation Element, the majority priority unsignalized intersections are primarily located on arterial and major corridors with fewer top quintile intersections located on lower -order secondary, collector, and local roadways.
Table 2-23 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score
IIIIIIIIIIIIVRANK
1 ���LOCATION TOTA01%_
COLLINS
MARGARITA RD & PASEO BRILLANTE 7 •
JEFFERSON AVE & LAS HACIENDAS ST 4
EPDO SCORE
415.5
2 382.4
3 CALLE PINA COLADA & LA SERENA WAY
12 250.7
4 NICOLAS RD & RORIPAUGH RD
9 227.8
5 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD & MARGARITA RD
9 208.4
6 TEMECULA PKWY & TEMECULA CREEK RD
5 204.4
7 CAMINO BROZAS & REDHAWK PKWY
3 197.3
8 MORENO RD & OLD TOWN FRONT ST S
3 192.2
9 LEENA WAY & MONTELEGRO WAY
2 191.2
10 ANGELO DR & DODARO DR
1 190.2
11 ASHBURY PL & VIA RIO TEMECULA
1 190.2
12 BUECKING DR & JEFFERSON AVE
1 190.2
13 JEREZ LN & SUNNY MEADOWS DR
1 190.2
14 LIEFER RD & PALA VISTA DR
1 190.2
15 MARIAN RD & TISCHA DR
1 190.2
16 RAMSEY CT & SELBY CIR
1 190.2
17 MARGARITA RD & VIA LA VIDA
24 143.9
18 JEFFERSON AVE & WINCHESTER CENTER DRWY
15 65.5
19 WEST CAMPANULA WAY & DE PORTOLA RD
10 55.4
20 MORENO RD & OLD TOWN FRONT ST N
15 54.8
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 42
A J °
° A 4
.. .0
eytiet�° �.
A
Mu meta Hot Sprlr9sRC/ ° -
°
- 80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
= 0- 20th Percentile
°,�
Unsignalized Intersections Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways = City Boundary N
W+E
S
�O Figure 2-17
0����` Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring
12 1
1 T)
0 _ Rancho Califora�aRa�
Pa�b\a
Ra
Rq
## Priority Ranking
City Hall
Top 20th Percentile
Minor Roads
Major Roads
Freeways
City Boundary
N
W+E
S
Top 20 Unsignalized Intersections
1. Margarita Rd & Paseo Brillante
2. Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
3. Calle Pina Colada & La Serena Way
4. Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
5. Jedediah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd
6. Temecula Pkwy & Temecula Creek Rd
7. Camino Brozas & Redhawk Pkwy
8. Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St
9. Leena Way & Montelegro Way
10.Angelo Dr & Dodarado Dr
11. Ashbury PI & Via Rio Temecula
12. Buecking Dr & Jefferson Ave
13. Jerez Ln & Sunny Meadows Dr
14. Liefer Rd & Pala Vista Dr
15. Marian Rd & Tischa Dr
16. Ramsey Ct & Selby Cir
17. Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
18. Jefferson Ave & Winchester Center Drwy
19. West Campanula Way & De Portola Rd
20. Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North
Figure 2-18
Priority Unsignalized Intersections
2.3.3 Roadway Segments
Figure 2-19 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for roadway segments. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
80 —100th Percentile: 83.3 to 720.0
• 60 — 80th Percentile: 14.2 to 83.2
• 40 — 60t" Percentile: 7.1 to 14.1
20 — 401" Percentile: 1.0 to 7.0
0 — 201" Percentile: 0.0 to 0.9
The top quintile roadway segment locations based on EPDO scores included 32 roadway segments. For the purposes of this Local Roadway Safety Plan the top 20 roadway segments are shown on Table 2-24 and graphically on Figure 2-20 in order to focus on the most severe locations. Based on roadway classifications in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, the majority of the priority roadway segments are arterial, major, and secondary corridors with fewer located on lower -order roadways.
Table 2-24 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score
OLD TOWN
TEMECULA
FRONT ST TO
1 PKWY/HWY
111
720
LA PAZ RD/LA
79 PAZ ST
JEFFERSON
RANCHO
AVE/OLD
2 CALIFORNIA
61 539.4
TOWN FRONT
RD
ST TO YNEZ RD
JEFFERSON
WINCHESTER
3 AVE TO YNEZ
108
445.2
RD
RD
VIA
JEFFERSON
4 MONTEZUMA
13 399.6
AVE
TO DEL RIO RD
1ST
ST/SANTIAGO
OLD TOWN
5 RD TO
14 390.9
FRONT ST
TEMECULA
PKWY/HWY 79
PECHANGA
RAINBOW
PKWYTO
6 15
377.1
CANYON RD
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT
MEADOWS
LA SERENA
7 3
340.1
PKWY
WAY TO
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 45
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
RD
TIERRA VISTA
RD TO
8 YNEZ RD
RANCHO VIS7
RD
SANBORN AV
JEFFERSON
TO
9 AVE
WINCHESTER
AVE/HWY 79
MEADOWS
RANCHO
PKWYTO
10 CALIFORNIA
BUTTERFIELD
RD
STAGE RD
RANCHO VIS7
MARGARITA
IL,
RD TO PAUBi
RD
RD
IPAUGH
WINCHESTER
12 RD
RD
NICOLAS RD
LA PAZ RD/L�
TEMECULA
PAZ ST TO
13 PKWY/HWY
PECHANGA
79 PKWY
SOLANA WA)
MARGARITA
TO
14 RD
STONEWOOE
RD
MARGARITA
RD TO VIA
15 PAUBA RD
RAMI/LINFIEI
WAY
MOTOR CAR
16 YNEZ RD
PKWYTO
SOLANA WA)
AVENIDA
MARGARITA
17 BARCA TO LA
RD
SERENA WAY
MARGARITA
RANCHO
RD TO
18 VISTA RD
MEADOWS
PKWY
OVERLAND D
TO
19 NICOLE LN
MARGARITA
RD
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 46
RIO NEDO VIA INDUSTRIA
20 3 171.8
RD TO DIAZ RD
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 47
9 Rancho Gab��C
ancho V�s�a 18
Top 20 Roadway Segments
1. Temecula Pkwy (Old Town Front St to La Paz Rd / La Paz St)
2. Rancho California Rd (Jefferson Ave / Old Town Front St to Ynez Rd)
3. Winchester Rd (Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd)
4. Jefferson Ave (Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd)
5. Old Town Front St (1 st St / Santiago Rd to Temecula Pkwy)
6. Rainbow Valley Rd (Pechanga Pkwy to South City Limit)
7. Meadows Pkwy (La Serena Way to Rancho California Rd)
8. Ynez Rd (Tierra Vista Rd to Rancho Vista Rd)
9. Jefferson Ave (Sanborn Ave to Winchester Ave)
10. Rancho California Rd (Meadows Pkw to Butterfield Stage Rd) Rd
## Priority Ranking
l� City Hall
• Signalized Intersections
Top 20th Percentile
Minor Roads
Major Roads
Freeways
City Boundary
N
W+E
S
11. Margarita Rd (Rancho Vista Rd to Pauba Rd)
12. Winchester Rd (Roripaugh Rd to Nicolas Rd)
13. Temecula Pkwy (La Paz Rd to Pechanga Pkwy)
14. Margarita Rd (Solana Way to Stonewood Rd)
15. Pauba Rd (Margarita Rd to Via Rami / Linfield Way)
16. Ynez Rd (Motor Car Pkwy to Solana Way)
17. Margarita Rd (Avenida Barca to La Serena Way)
18. Rancho Vista Rd (Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy)
19. Nicole Ln (Overland Dr to Margarita Rd)
20. Rio Nedo Rd (Via Industria to Diaz Rd)
TTFigure 2-20
O�` Priority Roadway Segments
2.4 Key Findings
Trends based on the crash data analysis include:
• Majority of crashes occurred at intersections including signalized (52%) and unsignalized (25%). • Majority of injury related crashes resulted in non -severe injury (95%). • Top three crash types include rear end (35%), broadside (28%), and hit object (14%). • Top three primary collision factors include unsafe speed (32%), improper turning (12%), automobile right-of-way (11%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (10%). • Majority of crashes stemming from unsafe travel speeds resulted in rear -end collisions (79%). • Approximately 1% of collisions, in which unsafe speeds was the primary factor, resulted in fatal and severe injuries.
• Majority of crashes involved automobiles only (90%).
• Fatal and severe injury collisions showed an over -representation for crashes involving motorcycles (17%), pedestrians (26%), and bicycles (7%). • The most common crash types for collisions involving motorcycles were broadside (39%), rear end (20%) and hit object (17%).
• The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 50
3 COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
This section establishes the foundation for determining countermeasures that can be applied to address crashes that occur on the Temecula roadway network. A countermeasure toolbox was developed based on the results of the citywide collision analysis, roadway network screening, and guidance provided by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for countermeasure effectiveness including:
USDOT FHWA Safe System Approach
• USDOT FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• USDOT FHWA Crash Modification Factors (CMF Clearinghouse) • USDOT NHTSA Countermeasures that Work
• California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Implementation Plan Caltrans Local Rnadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Rnad Owners Countermeasures are organized based on the 5E's of traffic safety from the CA SHSP which include the following key overarching strategies to improve traffic safety in California:
Apply effective and/or innovative infrastructure -oriented safety treatments
Enforce actions that reduce high -risk behavior
Educate all road users on safe behaviors
Improve emergency response times and actions
Apply emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles
and/or roadway users
With Caltrans requiring local LRSP adoption for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding eligibility in the upcoming Cycle 11 call -for -projects, this toolbox was developed with a focus on engineering countermeasures and improvements that are eligible HSIP funding. The Temecula LRSP is a living document that will be updated based on Caltrans standards, which is currently required at least every five (5) years. Future LRSP updates to the countermeasure toolbox will include additional development of non -engineering countermeasures and strategies that can be locally funded or are eligible for other roadway safety grant programs.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 51
3.1 Engineering
Engineering countermeasures for infrastructure -oriented safety treatments were selected from the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.5) based on the A Manual for California's Local Road Owners Versi an ,J l ` , results of the crash analysis, roadway network screening, and City "°`°202D roadway infrastructure priorities. The countermeasures can be applied to signalized intersections (S), non -signalized intersections (NS), and i a
roadways (R) to prepare grant funding applications through the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Countermeasures are t. summarized based on the countermeasure numbers identified in the LRSM, countermeasure type, crash types that the countermeasure Q
addresses, the crash reduction factor (CRF) or multiplicative factor that indicates the proportion of crashes expected after implementing the �� countermeasure, the percentage of HSIP funding eligibility, and the - - SaFeTREC opportunity for systemic approach based on the ability to apply the countermeasure to multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the countermeasures for signalized intersections, Table 3-2 provides a summary of the countermeasures for non -signalized intersections, and Table 3-3 provides a summary of countermeasures for roadways. Appendix C contains detailed information for each engineering countermeasure including:
0 Caltrans LRSM countermeasure reference
HSIP funding eligibility
• Crash types addressed
• Crash reduction factor (CRF)
• Expected design life
• Planning -level approximate cost
• Example countermeasure image
• Description of the countermeasure
• Caltrans LRSM description of where to use the countermeasure • Caltrans LRSM description of why the countermeasure works LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 52
Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
CRASH
HSIP SYSTEMIC
IRSM
TYPE COUNTERMEASURE AME
NCMJ
CRASHAPPROACH
FACTOR4t
ELIGIBILITY OPPORTUNITY
S1
Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.)
Night
40%
100% Medium
Improve signal hardware:
S2
Signal
lenses, back -plates with
All
°
15/
°
100/
Very High
Mod
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing
S3
Signal
(coordination, phases, red,
All
a
15%
°
50% Very High
Mod
yellow, or operation)
Signal
Install emergency vehicle pre-
Emergency
S5
Mod
emption systems
Vehicle
°
70/
°
100/
High
Install left -turn lane and add
S6
Signal
turn phase (signal has no left-
All
55%
90%
Low
Mod
turn lane or phase before)
SModl
Provide protected left turn
S7
phase (left turn lane already
All
30%
100% High
exists)
Operation/
Install flashing beacons as
S10
All
30% 100% Medium
Warning
advance warning (S.I.)
Operation/
Improve pavement friction
S11
(High Friction Surface
All
55% 100% Medium
Warning
Treatments)
Operation/
Install raised median on
S12
Warning
approaches (S.I.)
All
25% 90% Medium
Geometric
Install pedestrian median
Ped & Bike
S13PB
35% 90% Low
Mod
fencing on approaches
Varies 100% Low
S16
Geometric
Convert intersection to
All
Mod
roundabout (from signal)
Ped and
Install pedestrian countdown
S17PB
Bike
signal heads
Ped & Bike
25%
100%
Very High
518PB
Ped and
Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
Ped & Bike
25%
100%
High
Bike
Ped and
Modify signal phasing to
S21PB
Bike
implement a Leading
Ped & Bike
60% 100% Very High
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 53
Table 3-2 Non -signalized Intersection Countermeasures
CRASH
HSIP SYSTEMIC
COUNTERMEASURELRSM
TYPE
APPROACH
CM # TYPE
FACTOR
ELIGIBILITY OPPORTUNITY
Add intersection lighting
NS1 Lighting Night 40%
100% Medium
(NS.I.)
100%
Low
NS3 Control Install signals All 30%
Convert intersection to
NS4 Control roundabout (from all way
All
Varies
100%
Low
stop)
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
NS5 Control
All Varies
100%
Low
yield control on minor
road)
Install/upgrade larger or
Operation/ additional stop signs or
NS6
All 15%
100%
Very High
Warning other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
Operation/
Upgrade intersection
NS7
All
25%
100%
Very High
Warning
pavement markings (NS.I.)
Operation/
Install Flashing Beacons at
NS8
Stop -Controlled
All
15%
100%
High
Warning
Intersections
Operation/
Install flashing beacons as
NS9 Warning
advance warning (NS.I.)
All
°
30/
°
100/
High
Operation/
Improve pavement friction
NS12
(High Friction Surface
All
55%
100%
Medium
Warning
Treatments)
Geometric
Install raised median on
NS14
All
25%
90%
Medium
Mod
approaches (NS.I.)
Geometric
Install right -turn lane
NS17
All
20%
90% °
Low
Mod
(NS.I.)
Geometric
Install left -turn lane (where
NS18
Mod
no left -turn lane exists)
All
35%
90%
Low
Ped and
Install raised medians /
NS19PB
Ped & Bike
45%
90%
Medium
Bike
refuge islands (NS.I.)
Install pedestrian crossing
Ped and
at uncontrolled locations
NS20PB
Ped &Bike 25%
100%
High
Bike
(new signs and markings
only)
Install/upgrade pedestrian
Ped and
crossing at uncontrolled
NS21PB
Bike
°
locations (with enhanced Ped &Bike 35/
°
100%
Medium
safety features)
Ped and
Install Rectangular Rapid
NS22PB
Ped & Bike
35%
100%
Medium
Bike
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Install Pedestrian Signal
Ped and
NS23PB
(including Pedestrian
Ped & Bike
55%
100% Low
Bike
Hybrid Beacon (HAWK))
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 54
Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures
CRASH
HSIP SYSTEMIC
LRSM
TYPE
COUNTERMEASURE AME
NCM
CTRYAPJSEHREDUCTION
FUNDING APPROACH
#
FACTOR
ELIGIBILITY OPPORTUNITY
R1 Lighting
Add segment lighting
Night 35%
100% Medium
Remove/
R3 Shield
Install Median Barrier
All
25%
100%
Medium
Obstacles
Remove/
R4
Shield
Install Guardrail
All
25%
100%
High
Obstacles
R8
Geomoedtric
Install raised median
All
25%
90/
Medium
Geometric
Install pedestrian median
Ped &
R10PB
Mod
fencing on approaches
Bike
o
35/0
0 90%
Low
Geometric
Install acceleration/
R11
All
25%
90%
Low
Mod
deceleration lanes
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes
R14
Geometric
from 4 to 3 and add a two way
All
30%
90%
Medium
Mod
left -turn and bike lanes)
R15
Geomoedtric
Widen shoulder
All
30%
90%
Medium
Geometric
Improve horizontal alignment
R17
All
50%
90% °
Low
Mod
(flatten curves)
R18
Geomoedtric
Flatten crest vertical curve
All
25%
90%
Low
Improve pavement friction
R21
Geometric
(High Friction Surface
All
55%
100%
High
Mod
Treatments)
Install/Upgrade signs with new
Operation/
R22
fluorescent sheeting
All
15%
100% Very High
Warning
(regulatory or warning)
Operation/
Install curve advance warning
R25
All
30%
100%
High
Warning
signs (flashing beacon)
Operation/
Install dynamic/variable speed
R26
All
°
30/
100°
/
High
Warning
warning signs
Operation/
Install edge -lines and
R28
All
25%
100%
Very High
Warning
centerlines
Operation/
Install centerline rumble
R30
Warning
strips/stripes
All
20%
100%
High
Operation/
Install edgeline rumble strips/
R31
All
15/°
100%
High
Warning
stripes
Ped and
Ped &
R32PB
Install bike lanes
35%
90%
High
Bike
Bike
Ped and
Ped &
R33PB
Install Separated Bike Lanes
45%
90%
High
Bike
Bike
Ped and
Install sidewalk/pathway (to
Ped &
R34PB
80%
90%
Medium
Bike
avoid walking along roadway)
Bike
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 55
CRASH
HSIP
SYSTEMIC
LRSM TYPE
CO
FCM
CRASH REDUCTION.R•
#
TYPE
OPPORTUNITY
Install/upgrade pedestrian
Ped and
Ped &
R35PB
crossing (with enhanced safety
35%
90%
Medium
Bike
Bike
features)
Ped and
Install raised pedestrian
Ped &
R36PB
35%
90%
Medium
Bike
crossing
Bike
Ped and
Install Rectangular Rapid
Ped &
R37PB
o
35/
0 100/
Medium
Bike
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Bike
3.1.1 Temecula Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
The City has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program which seeks to mitigate speed control issues on neighborhood throughfares through establishing procedures and techniques that promote safe conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The City's Traffic Calming Toolbox includes engineering strategies for the following roadway features:
Pavement Markings / Striping: Narrow the travel way by striping a centerline and an edge line or bike lane along a roadway segment to promote a reduction in speed and increase pedestrian and bicycle safety
• Residential Multi-Wav Stop Controls- Install multi -way stop control signs to establish right-of- way and reduce vehicle conflicts at residential street intersections. Note that this is strategy is not used to implement control of vehicular speeds or volumes • hairl-Block Merlinr Install raised on painted medians along the centerline of the roadway at mid -block locations to narrow the travel lanes at strategic locations. This provides a barrier between travel lanes and may be landscaped to provide visual amenity and neighborhood identity • c.nicane. Roadway feature that alternates the path of travel by using curves and twists. Chicanes can be created by striping the roadway or reconstructing the curb and gutter with a series of extensions. Chicanes provide a greater visual obstruction, reduce vehicular speeds, are easily negotiable by emergency response vehicles, and provide minimal impacts to local traffic • Bulb-OLII Roadway feature that narrows the roadway at intersections by extending the curb and providing a shorter path of travel for pedestrian crossings. Bulb -outs can be created by striping the roadway or reconstructing the curb and gutter with an extension of the curb radius. Bulb -outs provide a greater visual obstruction, reduce vehicle speeds, are easily negotiable by emergency response vehicles, provide minimal impacts to local traffic, and provide a shorter path of travel for pedestrians crossing the street
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 56
3.2 Education
The City is committed to providing roadway safety education and has conducted several public outreach campaigns through the Drive Safe Temecula program. With funding from state and regional grants, T�✓Ivii campaigns for raising awareness for safe driving choices have included:
Driving Under the Influence Terminator Team (DUITT)
• Riverside County Sherrif's Takeover Racing Enforcement Team (S.T.R.E.E.T) •
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Go Human
California Highway Patrol (CHP)-Temecula Distracted Driver Awareness
3.2.1 Temecula Police Department
The Temecula Police Department (TPD) has partnered with state and regional law enforcement in the previously stated public outreach campaigns to provide traffic education presentations to the public, businesses, and local schools. The Temecula Police Department recently participated in City outreach efforts centered on specific topics including:
'listractP,4 ►)rivinpr- The City conducted a month -long educational r
campaign centered on the prevention of distracted driving, particularly texting and driving. Messages such as "don't be ■ distracted" and "don't text and drive" were displayed throughout ow,. the City and TPD participated in providing education around` California handheld cell phone laws and how local police enforce the laws against distracted driving through the national "U Drive. U Text. U Pay." high -visibility enforcement campaign. A crashed vehicle that demonstrated the consequences of texting and driving was on display at the Promenade Temecula near the theater.
DrunK and Drug-Impairea uriving: The City conducted a month- long educational campaign to raise awareness for preventing drunk and / or drug -
impaired driving. TPD participated in providing
education around impairment related to alcohol,
marijuana, opioids, methamphetamines, or any
potentially impairing
otentiall m drug -prescribed rescribed or over -the-
�, •• - T g g-p
counter, regardless of whether the substance is
legal or illegal. TPD also provided traffic education
and awareness of driving under the influence (DUI)
i" safety checkpoints. Messages such as "Don't drive
drunk or drugged", "No Alcohol", "No Marijuana or
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 57
other drugs" were displayed throughout the City
and a separate crashed vehicle was displayed in
front of City Hall to demonstrate the consequences
of driving under the influence.
• Red Light Running. The City conducted a month-
long educational "STOP at a Red Light!" campaign
to raise awareness that red light running happens
frequently and is often deadly. TPD participated in
providing information on the dangers of red light
running based on the National Coalition for Safer
Roads (NCSR)'s "Stop on Red" program.
• Speedinfi The City conducted a month -long
campaign to raise awareness for the dangers of
speeding. TPD participated by providing education
about what factors contribute to speeding, tips for
dealing with speeding and aggressive drivers,
providing education about the 25 MPH residential
speed limits, and promoting awareness for public
requests for TPD to place City variable display
radar trailers that inform motorists of speeding on residential streets.
TIN REASONS TO 014
E1, RED-LIGHT RUNNING CAN BE FATAL.
2. One In three Americans know someone who has been Injured or killed in a red-light running crash.
3. Between 2004-2016. an estimated 10,125 people were killed In red-light running related crashes.
4. On average, two people died each day In red-light running crashes in the united states in 200.
S. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens.
6. In 2017, 132,000 people were injured in crashes Involving red-light running-
7 Over half of the deaths in red-light running crashes are pedestrians, bicyclists and occupants in vehicles other than the vehicle running the red light,
S. Nearly 93% of drivers say It is unacceptable to go through red -lights, yet nearly 43% admitted to doing so in the past 30 days.
9. The most common type of urban crashes Involve drivers who run red lights. stop signs and other traffic controls.
lo. Red-light running is often a result of aggressive or distracted driving and Is completely preventable,
• Bicycline• The City conducted a month -long campaign to encourage safe cycling. TPD participated by providing education on choosing bike routes based on rider experience and comfort, selecting the right bike size, wearing a helmet, and obeying the rules of the road based on the California Vehicle Code.
• pedestri- ^rnsswalk Safety- The City conducted a month -long campaign to promote pedestrian and crosswalk safety. TPD participated by providing education using sidewalks, crossing at intersections, marked vs. unmarked crosswalks, using the pedestrian push buttons at traffic signals, and the meanings of the walk / man symbol, flashing don't walk / hand symbol, and steady don't walk / hand symbol.
• Reckless Drivinl As part of the Drive Safe Temecula program, the City has encouraged residents to report reckless driving activity. Through the program, awareness is being raised that reckless driving is considered an emergency and immediate reporting could save a life. TPD has participated in providing education about what information needs to be reported and how to report safely and legally from a vehicle — either parked or utilizing an installed hands -free system.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 58
3.2.2 Temecula Traffic Engineering Division
The Temecula Traffic Engineering Division is responsible for day-to-day traffic operations, addressing safety issues within the City, and planning for CURB future transportation needs. The Division has created an extensive library FARM USE
of educational traffic information brochures including: PEDESTRIAN ''rn«ivalks• Brochure that details State policies and California SIGN' vehicle code guidelines, marked vs. unmarked crosswalks, how STOP SIGNS Ell
I
AND
crosswalks are used, typical causes of pedestrian crashes at crosswalks, crosswalk markings, and school crosswalks TRAFFIC
SIGNALS
• Curb rarking Uses. Brochure that details City municipal code and �`—��l�I ��►►,, California vehicle code guidelines, curb color meanings, signs for no parking / no stopping, time limited parking and disabled parking, and on -street parking for parallel parking and cul-de-sacs ,Omni
• Pedestrian Signals Brochure that details City policy on where pedestrian signals are installed, the replacement of "walk" and "don't walk" indications with symbols, flashing upraised hand meaning, pedestrian push button use, and safety suggestions for crossing
• Speed Zones Brochure that details speed zone misconceptions, speed laws, engineering and traffic surveys for prevailing speeds, accident records, and inventories of highway, traffic, and roadside conditions
• Stop Signs and Traffic Signal Brochure that details City policies on intersection traffic controls, installation policies, and the correct use of stop signs and traffic signals • Traffic Restrictions in Progress (TRIP) RepoN Report published by the City to advise citizens of conditions that affect traffic flow within Temecula. Generally, it includes major construction zones, construction fact sheets by project, and an interactive map — • Traffic Safety: Brochure that details how neighborhood streets can TRAFFIC reduce vehicular speeding and be made safer as a driver, as a parent, as a SAFETY
bicyclist, as a pedestrian, as a resident, and as a volunteer on a school or c_
neighborhood traffic safety committee
Nnme Owner Avvocletbn
3ffic signal System! Brochure that details why traffic signals are TRAFFIC needed, the advantages and disadvantages, and costs. The brochure also SIGNAL
SYSTEMS includes descriptions of special functions for traffic signal preemption, "EI6 flashing
red flashing yellow, dark signals, signal timing, traffic signal coordination, and the City's future traffic signal coordination goals city • Home Owner Association (HOA) Traffic Calming: Brochure that --Old
"pn,0 details the neighborhood speed watch program, which encourages citizens to take in active role in changing driver behavior on neighborhood streets.
Information is provided on a variety of topics including: electing community volunteers to participate in a neighborhood traffic safety LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 59
committee, recommendations for gaining community support, recommendations for children at play cones, street parking during hours of speeding concern, how to report information to the Temecula Police Department and request targeted enforcement during hours of speeding concern, how to request a radar speed display unit from the Temecula Police Department, how the City supports traffic calming, and how speed limit postings alone don't change driver behavior
3.2.3 Temecula Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
The City has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program which seeks to mitigate speed control issues on neighborhood throughfares through establishing procedures and techniques that promote safe conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The City's Traffic Calming Toolbox includes educational strategies for:
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program: Activities that inform and seek to modify driver behavior such as printed information, meetings, workshops between City staff and residents, signing campaigns, school programs, and parent outreach • Radar Speed Trailer Deployment Use portable radar speed monitoring devices that are capable of measuring and displaying vehicular speeds as an educational and public relations tool • LED Speed Limit Advisory Sign• Signs that are similar to the radar trailer but are mounted on poles and can be deployed for an extended period of time, or as required. These may also be used as an educational and public outreach tool
Future Temecula LRSP updates shall include consideration of additional educational strategies including:
3.2.4 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF administered through the California State Transportation 0", TRAFFIC SAFETY Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to education include:
Motorcycle Safety Hands-on skill -building trainings, promotion of wearing protective gear, and educating the public on how to interact with motorcycles • Occupant Protection: Education of parents and guardians on child safety seat laws, proper use and installation of car seats, child safety seat check-ups, promoting teens and adult seat belt use, and providing child safety seats to families in need
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: Education on traffic rules, rights, responsibilities of drivers, pedestrians and bikes, education for high -risk populations (youth and elderly), bicycle and walking youth trainings, and promotion of safer driving, bicycling, and walking behaviors • Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Programs: Monthly and year-round education campaigns that focus on youth, teens, and young adults for impaired driving, distracted driving, and pedestrian safety through the "Go Safely, California" campaign LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 60
3.2.5 Traffic Safety Marketing
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of x ' Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. As part of the Drive TSM Markating Safe Temecula Program, the City has utilized several of the NHTSA campaigns to provide education for distracted driving, texting and driving, drunk driving, drug -impaired driving, speeding, bicycle safety, and pedestrian safety. Future Temecula LRSP updates should include consideration of additional NHTSA TSM education -related campaigns for child safety, motorcycle safety, older drivers, seat belts, school bus safety, teen safety, and vehicle safety.
3.3 Enforcement
The City utilizes a variety of enforcement strategies to reduce high -risk behaviors associated with increased risk for crash occurrence and severity. This section summarizes feedback received from the Temecula Police Department (TPD) and recommendations for additional enforcement strategies that can be considered in future LRSP updates. The TPD has a
specialized Traffic Unit police team comprised of
ten (10) motorcycle enforcement officers and seven (7) traffic accident investigators. The TPD Traffic Unit's goal is to reduce traffic collisions within the City and improve traffic safety for Temecula citizens. This is accomplished through daily traffic enforcement efforts by officers, communication with community partners, partnerships with state and regional law enforcement, and working closely with City departments to provide traffic education and awareness programs.
As part of the previously discussed Drive Safe Temecula program, the City has deployed additional TPD traffic deputies to perform enforcement at key locations known for speeding such as the Redhawk Parkway/ Vail Ranch Parkway "loop", conduct drinking under the influence (DUI) and safety check points, and enforce seat belt and cell phone operations. TPD also conducts targeted speeding enforcement in response to resident reports as part of the City's Neighborhood Speed Watch Program.
3.3.1 Temecula Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
The City has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program which seeks to mitigate speed control issues on neighborhood throughfares through establishing procedures and techniques that promote safe conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The City's Traffic Calming Toolbox includes enforcement strategies for:
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 61
• Traditional Enforcement: Periodic m on itoring of speeding and other violations by the Temecula Police Department. This modifies driver behavior by informing the public that speeding is unacceptable behavior with consequences and also serves as a temporary public relations tool • Speed Limit Signs: Provide posted speed limit signs on residential streets as an educational tool to reinforce prima facie speed limits
Future Temecula LRSP updates shall include consideration of additional enforcement strategies including:
3.3.2 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF administered through the California State Transportation on, TRAFFIC SAFETY Agency (CaISTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The OTS grant program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement include:
Alcohol Impaired Driving Enforcement: Enforcement program for operations dedicated to stopping and arresting suspected impaired drivers; purchasing equipment such as breath testing devices; monitoring and treatment of high -risk DUI offenders • uistractea uriving. Dedicated enforcement of California's hands -free cell phone law • Drug -Impaired Drivi% Officer training for identifying and detecting drug impairment in drivers through the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) programs
• Police Traffic Services Officer resources for targeting specific traffic safety issues including distracted driving, seat belt use, impaired driving, speeding, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and other traffic violations that increase crash risk; officer training on holding DUI / Driver's license checkpoints and identifying suspected impaired drivers
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records Purchase hardware and software tools to build and improve data collection systems, modernize manual databases, and digitize physical reports and / or print collections
3.3.3 Traffic Safety Marketing
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. As part of the Drive TSM Markating Safe Temecula Program, the City has utilized several of the NHTSA campaigns to provide enforcement for distracted driving, texting and driving, drunk driving, drug -impaired driving, speeding, bicycle safety, and pedestrian safety. Future Temecula LRSP updates should include consideration of additional NHTSA TSM enforcement -related campaigns for law enforcement appreciation and seat belts.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 62
3.3.4 Targeted Enforcement Strategies
The primary collision factors (PCF) for citywide crashes that occurred during the study period is displayed in Figure 3-1. The most common PCFs were unsafe speed (32%), improperturning (12%), automobile right- of-way violations (11%), driving under the influence (10%), and traffic signals and signs (8%). Target hot spot enforcement of these PCFs by the Temecula Police Department is recommended.
Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2016-2020) Unsafe Speed h
Improper Turning 460
Automobile ROW � i 410
DUI 363
Traffic Signals and Signs 306
Unknown / Not Stated 277
Other 226
Pedestrian Violation 219
Unsafe Starting or Backing 104
Less than 3% � 217
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Unsafe speed is the top PCF in Temecula and, as previously discussed, was one of the City's top 3 lowest California OTS traffic ranking for the last 3 years. Speeding is a critical PCF to provide enforcement for as studies by the USDOT, FHWA, and NHTSA indicate that the consequences extend beyond breaking the law. Speeding has been linked to an increased degree of crash severity leading to more fatal and severe injuries, a greater potential for loss of vehicle control, reduced effectiveness of occupant protection equipment, and a reduction in driver field of vision. The graphic to the right is from the USDOT study titled "The Effects of Higher Speed Limits on Traffic Fatalities on In the United States" which demonstrated that speed can quickly reduce a driver's field of vision, which impacts their ability to see pedestrians and reduces their ability to react / avoid crashes. Speeding also intensifies the severity of crashes and studies have found an exponential link between vehicle speeds and the chances of pedestrian fatality or survival.
1231
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 63
The figure below is from the USDOT "Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries" study which demonstrated the chances of a pedestrian surviving a crash with a motor vehicle in relation to speed. A pedestrian struck by an automobile traveling at 20 MPH has a 90% chance of surviving whereas a pedestrian struck by an automobile traveling at 40 MPH only has a 20% chance of surviving. Enforcement of speeding for road safety must be balanced with the use of speed as a key mobility performance metric. 40 If hit by a person driving at: 0 Person Survives the Collision 0 Results in a Fatality 20 MPH 9096 tia�
30 MPH � s°�— ........................... '°�
A
40 MPH sow
•
3.4 Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies that support the Temecula LRSP include actions that improve emergency response times to reduce fatalities, prevent secondary crashes from occurring, and reflect feedback received by the Temecula Fire Department. The department works in cooperation with other community organizations to conduct public safety education campaigns and hands-on safety skills trainings. Future Temecula LRSP updates shall include consideration of additional emergency response strategies including:
3.4.1 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.2) Countermeasure SS: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems The Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) includes a countermeasure that is eligible for 100% funding for installing and / or upgrading existing emergency vehicle preemption (EVPE) systems at signalized intersections to address crashes that have involved emergency vehicles. This countermeasure includes utilization for both traditional infrared (IR) transmitter systems that rely on line -of -sight between the emergency response vehicle and traffic signals, as well as for the latest global position system (GPS) preemption systems. The GPS-based EVPE systems transmit the emergency vehicle's speed, direction, and turn signal status which provides more efficient clearance of intersections along the route and improves emergency response times. Additionally, GPS-based EVPE systems eliminate disruptions to traffic signal operations, including traffic signal coordination, by eliminating the use of illegal emitters.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 64
3.4.2 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF administered through the California State Transportation on TRAFFIC SAFETY Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The OTS grant program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement include:
�rmmracnrw naorl„-ni corxAres• Upgrading extrication equipment and replacing outdated equipment that is critical for reaching victims quickly and increasing their survivability • Occupant rrutectiun. Education of parents and guardians on child safety seat laws, proper use and installation of car seats, child safety seat check-ups, promoting teens and adult seat belt use, and providing child safety seats to families in need
3.4.3 Traffic Safety Marking (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of x ' Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Future Temecula TSM Marketing LRSP updates should include consideration of NHTSA TSM emergency response -related campaigns for first responder safety, vehicle safety, child safety, and seat belts.
3.5 Emerging Technology
Strategies for integrating emerging technology are from the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) challenge area which focuses on the use of technology to prevent, identify, and respond to crashes as well as reduce the frequency or severity of crashes. Emerging technologies includes roadway, vehicle, and driver applications. Examples include autonomous of connected vehicles, vehicle -to -vehicle (V2V) and vehicle -to -infrastructure (V21) communications which aim to eliminate human error, the use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) for cars, bikes, or scooters, advancements in safety devices in vehicles, mobile applications, and improvements to emergency response from drones or roadway videos.
The CA SHSP identifies six (6) general categories for emerging technology within transportation safety:
1. Alerting Drivers nt Ris. Technology that alerts drivers to the risk of being involved in a collision, reduces crash risk by monitoring speed and blind spots, and alerts drivers to the situation with visual and / or audible alerts so the driver can act accordingly
2. Assisting Drivers at Risk: Technology that can assist a driver when a collision is imminent. For example, lane keeping assist technology helps drivers stay in their designated lane and alerts the driver through visual, audible, and / or tactile warnings when lane departure begins
3. Protecting Vehicle Occupants Vehicle manufacturer technology that protects vehicle occupants through safety features for seat belts, air bags, and vehicle structure features.
4. Communication with Drivers and the Environment. Technology that communicates between the drivers and their environment to support alerting drivers to risk and then providing LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 65
assistance. Example categories and applications include, but are not limited to, vehicle -to -vehicle (V2V) for blind spot detection, vehicle -to -infrastructure (V2) for roadway condition warning alerts, and vehicle -to -pedestrian (V2P) for forward collision warning alerts that a pedestrian is in the crosswalk ahead
5. Vehicle Performing as Designatea Once vehicles enter the roadway, it is essential that they perform as designated for their full lifespan. This can be accomplished through vehicle upkeep, maintenance, and record keeping. An example of a supporting technology is the vehicle oil change indicator light, which alerts drivers to a potential need for an oil change
6. Mobile Technology and Applications There are a variety of mobile phone technology and applications that enhance roadway safety. Examples include applications which restrict texting and / or mobile application use while driving, which can reduce distracted driving, and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) mobile applications for ride share such as Uber and Lyft, which can reduce DUI crash risk
3.6 2020-2024 California SHSP Implementation Plan
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is the State's comprehensive, data -driven plan to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads in California. Following the adoption of the 2020-2024 CA SHSP, state transportation leaders recognized that a bolder and more focused approach to combatting roadway safety and a March 2021 revision, referred to as "The Pivot", was adopted. The revision includes new guiding principles for:
• Integrating Fauit, Everyone has the right to travel safely on California public roads regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender, age, and ability. Implementation should integrate equity, which considers historical, present-day, and systemic biases that impact roadway safety for all groups, particularly the most vulnerable and traditionally underserved populations. Equity must be integrated in all aspects of the 5E's of traffic safety • Doubling Down on What Works: Identify and utilize the strategies and actions that are the most effective in reducing fatalities and serious injuries, implementing proven countermeasures, and encouraging innovative solutions
• Accelerating Advanced Technology Encouraging advanced technology in and on our roadways by forming new partnerships with technology providers, health and safety groups, manufacturers, and government partners to prioritize roadway safety LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 66
• Implementing a Safe System Approach: The
FHWA's recently adopted Safe System Approach aims to
eliminate fatal and serious injuries of all roadway users by embracing a more holistic view of the roadway
system that places additional responsibility on agencies to account for human error with the design and
operation of roadways. The principles include:
o Death and serious injury is unacceptable
o Humans make mistakes
o Humans are vulnerable
o Responsibility is shared
o Redundancy is crucial
o Safety is proactive, not reactive
yuwFr 1#4N�.� �!
The revision also included the first -ever SHSP Implementation Plan, which identifies and summarizes detailed actions for each challenge area. The countermeasures included in the Temecula LRSP Countermeasure Toolbox have been developed to comply with the revised CA SHSP and corresponding Implementation Plan but it is noted that actions for several challenge areas / focus areas that are relevant to the LRSP, such as motorcycles, emergency response, emerging technologies, are still be developed. The 2020-2024 SHSP Implementation Plan is a living document and will be updated bi-annually or annually as new actions are developed and approved. Future updates to the Temecula LRSP shall include any new countermeasures and strategies for the 5E's of traffic from future SHSP Implementation Plan and FHWA Safe System Approach updates.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 67
4 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Potential safety projects were evaluated based on the City of Temecula's roadway needs, the crash data analysis, roadway network screening, and countermeasure toolbox. Four (4) priority projects were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis utilizing the most recent Cycle 11 HSIP Analyzer. In order to supplement local funds while proactively implementing roadway safety, the priority projects were developed based on eligibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding.
4.1 Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades
Existing signalized pedestrian crossings with walk / don't walk indicators will be upgraded to pedestrian countdown signal indicators. The pedestrian countdown signal contains a countdown timer display which informs the crossing pedestrian of seconds left to finish crossing the street. This allows pedestrians to decide if they have enough time to safely cross the road.
4.2 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades
Existing safety lighting at traffic signals throughout the City of Temecula will be upgraded to light -emitting diode (LED) and street name signs will be upgraded to LED internally illuminated street name signs (IISNS).
Intersection lighting improves visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts between all roadway users, including pedestrians and bicyclists who have a smaller intersection footprint. Internally illuminated street name signs improve the visibility of the signs, which makes them more visible in nighttime conditions.
4.3 Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems Existing roadways with relatively sharp curves will be furnished with dynamic speed warning signs. The dynamic speed warning signs are intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. The dynamic speed warning signs will be installed in both travel directions at various locations throughout the city.
4.4 Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades
Existing traffic signal operations and communications will be improved by implementing new network switches and providing either fiber optic cable or wireless radio communications at traffic signals throughout the city. Fiber optic cable will be installed in existing conduit where copper signal interconnect cable (SIC) currently exists. In locations where existing conduit does not exist, wireless radio communications will be installed. Signal timings and signal programs will also be updated to allow the City to deploy operations that enhance roadway safety such as traffic signal coordination.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 68
Table 4-1 provides a summary of the priority projects by HSIP LRSM (v1.5) countermeasures and BCR ranking. Appendix D provides more detailed priority project summaries which include:
• LRSM Countermeasure Description
• Project Description
• Map and Table of Project Locations
• Crash Analysis Summary by Severity, Collision Type, and Primary Collision Factor • Cost Estimate for Construction Items
• Cost Estimate for Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right -of -Way (ROW), and Construction (CON) project phases
• Total Expected Benefit
• Total Project Cost
0 Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 4-1 Priority Projects
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades
A total of 55 signalized intersections will be upgraded S17PB: Install
1 to equip countdown signal heads in place of the
pedestrian countdown
8.88 existing walk / don't walk indicators. Additional
signal heads.
upgrades include new pedestrian APS Push buttons and
new controllers.
Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades
S2: Improve signal
hardware: lenses, back -
A total of 116 signalized intersections will be upgraded plates with
2 to equip new LED safety lighting and LED internally
retroreflective borders,
30.06 illuminated street name signs.
mounting, size, and
number
Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems
R26: Install
3 A total of 8 segments will have dynamic speed warning dynamic/variable
20.56 signs installed at various locations along relatively sharp speed warning signs
curves.
Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades
S3: Improve signal
4 A total of 89 intersections will receive traffic operation timing: coordination,
red, or
15.29 and communication upgrades such as network switches phases, yellow,
and fiber optic cable or wireless radio communications. operation
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 69
5 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The process for implementing the Temecula LRSP, evaluating the application of the countermeasure toolbox and priority projects, and recommendations for future LRSP report updates based on the USDOT FHWA's Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan (July 2020) and the Caltrans LRSM v1.5 (April 2020) are described in the following section.
5.1 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP demonstrates the City of Temecula's commitment to proactively addressing roadway network safety needs for all users. The USDOT FHWA's Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan outlines six steps for successful LRSP implementation which includes:
Maintain Buy -In and Suppo. LRSP implementation is strengthened by the support of key City officials and safety partners from the 5E's of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies).
• Identify Funding Mechanism Funding for LRSP projects will be identified through local capital improvement projects and public/private development projects, regional MPO grant opportunities, State grant opportunities, and Federal grant opportunities. • Identify and Prioritize Projects- Projects will be prioritized based on a combination of benefit - cost ratio analyses, crash histories, and roadway risk factors. Priority projects will be implemented based on City needs, local resources, and available grant funding opportunities through the HSIP and other roadway safety infrastructure/non-infrastructure programs. Where appropriate, private development will be leveraged to strategically implement safety countermeasures and/or components of priority projects.
• Determine Project Delivery Method, Project delivery will be determined following security of project funding and prior to design. Where appropriate, projects will be bundled to decrease the City's financial and management burdens.
• Evaluate Effectivenec LRSP countermeasure and project implementation effectiveness will be evaluated based on reductions in severity, for fatalities and severe injuries, and in overall crash frequency. See LRSP Section 5.2 for further details.
• Lonunue 1-ommunication and Coordination. Active communications and coordination between key City officials, safety partners from the 5E's of traffic safety, and the public will ensure that there is synergy in overall LRSP implementation.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 70
5.2 Evaluation
Following the implementation of priority projects and application of countermeasures, the City will evaluate the success of LRSP strategies based on Section 7 of the Caltrans LRSM Version 1.5 for Evaluation of Improvements. A database will be developed to track countermeasure installations, crash history, and field assessments on an annual basis. Feedback from the public, safety partners and City maintenance crews should be included to provide a comprehensive evaluation.
Effective monitoring of the success of a project should take place after a project has been implemented for 3 to 5 years to ensure sufficient crash data for before / after studies and to reduce the effect of the random nature of roadway crashes. The before / after studies should compare crash data and community feedback on the safety countermeasure being evaluated. The Caltrans LRSM provides an example countermeasure deployment history database that the City should refer to when conducting this assessment. The database will provide the City of Temecula with the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether countermeasures from the toolbox contribute to an increase in safety, whether they should be installed at other locations through the City, and which factors may have contributed to the countermeasure's success.
The evaluation should also track whether the City's LRSP goals are being met and if they continue to align with the 5E's of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies). As the City grows and further develops, the LRSP goals should conform to any new or modified safety plans, policies, and efforts set forth by the City.
5.3 Future LRSP Updates
The Temecula LRSP is considered a living document and must be updated at a minimum every five (5) years for the City to maintain compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements. It is recommended that the City update the LRSP every two (2) years to maintain alignment with the standard Caltrans HSIP call -for -projects and LRSM updates. This will ensure the most competitive benefit cost ratios (BCRs) for any HSIP grant applications that the City may pursue. This will also allow the City to ensure the LRSP continually reflects the most recent crash data, crash trends, countermeasures, and BCR calculations.
Between LRSP updates, City staff should annually monitor crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the strategies identified in the countermeasure toolbox, and implement projects in coordination with the City's current CIP and development opportunities.
Future updates should revisit the LRSP's Vision, Mission, and Goals based on evaluation of safety projects and programs that were implemented and evaluated during the current LRSP. Additionally, future updates to the LRSP will include expansion of the City of Temecula's Countermeasure Toolbox in relation to the other traffic safety E's for Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. To maximize City resources, the toolbox in this LRSP was primarily developed for HSIP-eligible engineering infrastructure improvements that could be applied to priority locations identified through the collision analysis EPDO scoring and roadway characteristics screening.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 71
Guidelines for developing and implementing Local Road Safety Plans are continually being updated by the FHWA and Caltrans. For example, FHWA recently conducted a webinar on November 22, 2021, that featured an update on FHWA's proven safety countermeasure initiative. The webinar featured nine new proven safety countermeasures (PSC) which included speed safety cameras, variable speed limits, appropriate speed limits for all road users, wider edge lines, crosswalk visibility enhancements, bicycle lanes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pavement friction management, and lighting. While these countermeasures were not included in this version of the LRSP, they should be evaluated and incorporated into future countermeasure toolbox and LRSP updates. It is anticipated that future Caltrans updates to the LRSM and HSIP programs will reflect the FHWA's updated PSCs. Additionally, future updates to the LRSP should include reviewing the following resources to ensure the latest best -practices are followed:
FHWA Local Road Safety Plan Do -It -Yourself Website
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures List
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Program
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets
• FHWA Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local and Rural Roads • FHWA Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan
• National Association of County Engineers (NACE) — A Template for Local Road Safety Plans
• California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Caltrans LRSP and HSIP Programs
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM)
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 1 72
APPENDIX A
STAKEHOLDER PACKET RESPONSES
I lie Peark of Sou.hern California
Wine Countfy
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
STAKEHOLDER PACKET RESPONSE SUMMARY
1 Enrique Nunez, Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Temecula Police Department Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Rd
is
c
4 91
6 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy
Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Temecula Pkwy & Margarita Rd/Redhawk Pkwy
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Jefferson Ave & Gia Montezuma
Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Margarita Rd & Date St
Pechanga Pkwy & Wolf Valley Rd / Via Eduardo
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd: Frequently used as a rally / protest gathering site; the Duck Pond corner and sidewalk is not fully conducive to this use
Temecula Pkwv & Pechanga Pkwv: Speed difference between vehicles and ped/bike. Drivers focused on lane changes have limited attention for ped/bike
Temecula Pkwy & Butterfield Stage Rd: Collisions of all types (ped/bike/car) are concentrated at this intersection
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy: Collisions of all types (ped/bike/car) are concentrated at this intersection
Rancho Vista Rd & Meadows Pkwy: Ped route school (VHES and TMS) J.R. Richardson, Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Public Traffic Safety Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Rd
Commission Margarita Rd & Solana Wy
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-1
7 Erick Escobedo, Meadows Pkwv & Rancho Vista Rd: Intersection lighting and line of Temecula Traffic Engineering sight issues
8 Anthony Hamilton, Winchester Rd & Margarita Rd
Temecula Police Department Margarita Rd & Rancho California Rd 9 Anonymous 1, Rancho California Rd & Town Center
Temecula Police Department
10 Anonymous 2, Winchester Rd & Margarita Rd
Temecula Police Department
11 David Matics, Meadows Pkwv & Pauba Rd: School route to TMS, VHES, PES; 50mph Public Traffic Safety speed limit with vehicles approaching downhill in three directions Commission Redhawk Pkwv & Vail Ranch Pkwv: Yield lane vehicles have near misses due to speed
J.R. Richardson, Ynez Rd & Solana WV
12 Public Traffic Safety
Commission
13 Enrique Nunez, Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Temecula Police Department Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South Margarit Rd & Via La Vida
West Campanula Wy & De Portola Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North
14 Anthony Hamilton, Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
Temecula Police Department Jedidah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North
Anonymous 1, Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
Temecula Police Department Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
Jefferson Ave & Winchester Center Drwy
Anonymous 3,
Temecula Police Department
Anonymous 2,
Margaira Rd & Via La Vida: Numerous collisions. Southbound should not be able to turn left
Jefferson Ave & Las Hacienda St
Temecula Police Department
Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Buecking Dr & Jefferson Ave
Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
Margarita Rd & Paseo Brillante: Ped xing and near misses as vehicles David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
exit the Mike Naggar Park parking lot
Commission
Calle Pina Colada & La Serena Wv: Near misses with left -turning vehicles and bikes; used as a route to Rancho Elementary School TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-2
Jedidah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd: Drivers exceed speed limit southbound on Margarita Rd, down the hill
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South: Highly trafficked intersection; many low -severity collisions
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North: Highly trafficked intersection; many low -severity collisions
19 J.R. Richardson, Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
Public Traffic Safety Calle Pina Colada & La Serena Wy
Commission Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Jedidiah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd
Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
20 Erick Escobedo,
Butterfield Stage Rd & Rancho Vista Rd: Possible traffic signal Temecula Traffic Engineering
21 Anthony Hamilton,
Rancho California Rd & Tee Dr
Temecula Police Department
22 Anonymous 1,
Rancho California Rd & Tee Dr
Temecula Police Department
Margarita Rd & Avenida Sonoma
23 Anonymous 3,
Red Hawk Pkwv & Via Cordoba and Red Hawk Pkwy & Via Salito:
Temecula Police Department
Should be right turn only as you enter eastbound
24 David Matics,
Nicolas Rd & Calle Girasol: Right-of-way control needed for eastbound Public Traffic Safety
traffic on Nicolas Rd, continuing across Calle Girasol onto Nicolas; Commission
especially dangerous for bicycles
Redhawk Pkwy & Via Saltio / Camino Carmargo: Near misses, vehicles and bicycles turning left; vertical curvature limits visibility Ynez Rd / De Portola Rd & Jedidiah Smith Rd: High traffic volume at this intersection; no bike lane. Candidate for roundabout. 25 J.R. Richardson,
Rancho California Rd & Tee Dr
Public Traffic Safety
Rancho California Rd & US Post Office
Commission
26 Erick Escobedo, Rainbow Canyon Rd: Curved roadway signing and improvements. Line Temecula Traffic Engineering of sight issues
De Portola Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd. Intersection lighting and line of sight issues
27 Enrique Nunez, Temecula Pkwy/Hwy 79: Old Town Front St to La Paz Rd/La Paz St Temecula Police Department Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd Rainbow Canyon Rd: Pechanga Pkwy to South City Limit
Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd Winchester Rd: Roripaugh Rd to Nicolas Rd
28 Anthony Hamilton, Jefferson Ave: Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-3
PU
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 Temecula Police Department Margarita Rd: Rancho Vista Rd to Pauba Rd Margarita Rd: Solana Wy to Stonewood Rd
Anonymous 1, Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Temecula Police Department Jefferson Ave: Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd Margarita Rd: Rancho Vista Rd to Pauba Rd
Margarita Rd: Avenida Barca to La Serena Wy
Anonymous 2, Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Temecula Police Department Jefferson Ave: Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd Jefferson Ave: Sanborn Ae to Winchester Ave / Hwy 79
Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd Winchester Rd: Roripaugh Rd to Nicolas Rd
David Matics, Ynez Rd: Rancho Vista Rd extending past the Duck Pond and to the Public Traffic Safety Auto Mall: missing sidewalk, missing bike lane Commission Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd:
Near misses as vehicles turn from Vintage Hills Dr, left on to Rancho California Rd
Margarita Rd: Solana Wy to Stonewood Rd: High number of severe bicycle injuries
Pauba Rd: Margarita Rd to Via Rami / Linfield Wy: Student crossing on segment adjoining Temecula Valley High School. Missing sidewalk along portions of the north side
Rancho Vista Rd: Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy: Student crossing on segment adjoining Temecula Valley High School. Missing sidewalk along portions of the south side
J.R. Richardson, Temecula Pkwy / Hwy 79: Old Town Front St to La Paz Rd / La Paz St Public Traffic Safety Rancho California Rd: Jefferson Ave / Old Town Front St to Ynez Rd Commission Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Margarita Rd: Solana Wy to Stonewood Rd
Rancho Vista Rd: Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy
Anthony Hamilton, Winchester Rd: Yenz Rd to Margarita Rd Temecula Police Department Rancho California Rd: Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy Margarita Rd: Overland Dr to Winchester Rd
Anonymous 1, Margarita Rd: Rancho California Rd to Rancho Vista Rd Temecula Police Department
Anonymous 3, Temecula Pkwy Northbound 1-15 On -Ramp: Should have two Temecula Police Department dedicated lanes. Remove center island. Many collisions here.
David Matics, Old Town Front St: 1ST St to Temecula Pkwy and Public Traffic Safety Temecula Pkwy: Old Town Front St to Pechanga Pkwy: Temecula Commission Pkwy speed difference is dangerous for ped/bike traffic. There is a safer crossing on Santiago, but segments of Ynez have no sidewalk and missing portions of bike lane
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-4
37 Anonymous 4, Temecula Valley High School: Afternoon has a large amount of Temecula Police Department students entering the crosswalk on the south side of Margarita Rd & Pauba Rd after the crosswalk signals are solid red. Pedestrians disrupt traffic flow for those that have a green signal.
38 Enrique Nunez, Abbey Reinke Elementary School: School stopped traffic on Sunny Temecula Police Department Meadows Drive northbound for vehicles making left turn into the school parking lot
Temecula Valley High School: Jaywalking on Margarita Rd 39 Anthony Hamilton,
Margarita Middle School: Speeding
Temecula Police Department
Temecula Elementary School: Speeding
40 Anonymous 1,
Margarita Middle School: Speeding eastbound and westbound in front Temecula Police Department
of the school over the hill
Vail Ranch Middle School: Speeding on Camino Piedra Rojo 41 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Valley High School
Temecula Police Department
Great Oak High School
Margarita Middle School
Chaparral High School
42 David Matics,
Temecula Valley High School: lack of adequate student parking space; Public Traffic Safety
ped xing across Rancho California Rd; public safety incidents at RRSP; Commission
parents using Plaza Del Sol commercial center for student pickup at Margarita Rd / Pauba Rd
James Day Middle School: ped xing to/from Long Canyon Creek Park Temecula Middle School: ped xing to/from Meadows Park
43 J.R. Richardson,
Temecula Valley High School: Rancho Vista Rd east of TVHS Public Traffic Safety
Springs Charter School: Margarita Rd & Pauba Rd
Commission
Temecula Valley Middle School: Meadows Pkwy
44 Enrique Nunez, Ronald Reagan Sports Park: High 50 MPH speed limit Temecula Police Department
45 David Matics, Mike Naggar Park: ped xing across Margarita Rd; underdeveloped trail Public Traffic Safety connecting to Temecula Town Center Commission Meadows Park: ped xing to/from Temecula Middle School Long Canyon Creek Park: ped xing to/from James Day Middle School SkyView Park: unmarked speed limit on Murrieta Hot Springs Road; vehicles traveling 55mph adjacent to park
Harveston Community Park: ped xing to/from the inner residential circle, across Harveston Dr
46 J.R. Richardson, Meadows Park: Entry / exit vs. speeding Public Traffic Safety Ronald Reagan Sports Park: Left turn entry conflicts since lane Commission reduction on Rancho Vista Rd
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-5
47 48
�Xl
51 53
54 David Matics,
Temecula Pkwy from Pechanga Pkwy to Jedidiah Smith Rd: Limited Public Traffic Safety
access to commercial centers for residents south of Temecula Creek.
Commission
Ped traffic is concentrated onto Pechanga Pkwy and Temecula Pkwy, where there is a narrow bridge (lane is right up against the sidewalk with no bike lane), and driver attention is focused on lane changes / merging. The high speed difference produces greater risk of more severe collisions. Separated pedestrian / bicycle crossing across the creek from Jedediah Smith Rd to Friendship Park is one possible solution
J.R. Richardson,
Costco parking overflow pedestrians crossing the mall at Ring Rd. A Public Traffic Safety
crosswalk and/or signal is needed
Commission
Vicinity of Chaparral High School along Winchester Rd
Enrique Nunez, Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Temecula Police Department Pedestrian crosswalk enhancements Intersection safety lighting
Anonymous 2,
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Temecula Police Department
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
Volunteer safety patrol programs
David Matics,
Pedestrian countdown signal heads: Include ADA enhancements Public Traffic Safety
citywide and prioritize major corridors first
Commission
New sidewalks, multi -use paths, and trails: More trails separating ped/bike traffic from vehicular traffic, to reduce collisions with high speed difference
Other: RRFB and PHB crossing along school routes where multi -way stop control isn't viable
J.R. Richardson,
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
Public Traffic Safety
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Commission
New sidewalks, multi -use paths, and trails
i
Enrique Nunez, Margarita Rd & Temecula Pkwy: Northbound Margaria Rd from Temecula Police Department Temecula Parkway has no room for bicyclists David Matics, Rancho California Rd between 1-15 Ramps: Difficult crossing; bicyclists Public Traffic Safety must merge across freeway on -ramps. Driver attention is on lane - Commission changing; not looking for bike traffic
Rancho California Rd / Trail between Diaz Rd and Jefferson Rd:
Bicyclists must currently ride on sidewalk / wrong side of road to make this trail connection
Temecula Pkwy & Old Town Front St: Bicyclists must contend with freeway on -ramps and vehicle merging into left -turn lane for Front St.
Doesn't fully connect to Murrieta Creek Trail
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-6
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy: Difficult intersection. No connection between Great Oak Trail and Jedediah Smith Rd 55 J.R. Richardson, Bicycle ingress / egress to Wine Country on Rancho California Rd is Public Traffic Safety scary on all 3 approach legs. Eastbound Rancho California Rd loss into Commission Wine Country distracts drivers who must merge from the presence of bicyclists
56 Enrique Nunez,
Bike lanes
Temecula Police Department
Bicycle rodeos / safety training
Volunteer safety patrol programs
57 Anonymous 2,
Bike lanes
Temecula Police Department
Bicycle rodeos / safety training
Volunteer safety patrol programs
58 David Matics,
Bike lanes: Bike lanes with buffer, paired with road diet where Public Traffic Safety
appropriate. Bollards would be a plus
Commission
Other: Colored pavement for bike lanes and/or "Street Art" program to highlight bikeways, sharrows, intersections; bollards to change buffered bikes lanes into protected bike lanes; ensure sensor -loops detect bicycles at signalized lights; implement bicycle signal heads along major bicycling corridors
59 J.R. Richardson,
Other: Green sharrow markings where bike lanes won't fit Public Traffic Safety
Commission
60 Anonymous 4, Traffic collisions are common at Margarita Rd & Pauba Rd.
Temecula Police Department Recommend installing traffic camera. 61 Anonymous 3,
Northbound Butterfield Stage Rd from Temecula Pkwy: Goes from Temecula Police Department
2-lanes to 1-lane for only 100 years then back to 2-lanes. This roadway is very busy and traffic always bottlenecks here. It should be 2-lanes continuous.
62 David Matics,
Freeway crossing remains a challenge for pedestrians and bicyclists, Public Traffic Safety
including Old Town residents looking for safe access to schools, Commission
libraries, parks and services east 1-15, as well as west -side residents crossing to work in the industrial zone and patronize businesses in Old Town
Multi -use trail and bikeway users have difficulty crossing major corridors (e.g. Rancho California and Temecula Pkwy)
In some neighborhoods, it is challenging to provide adequate ingress/egress for residents without encouraging cut -through traffic (e.g. Meadowview, Los Ranchitos)
63 J.R. Richardson, U-turn conflicts and "near misses" continue to be a top concern of Public Traffic Safety mine. Most notable examples in Temecula is Overland Dr westbound Commission u-turn at Ynez Rd to return eastbound (between Costco and BJ's). I TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-7
have previously proposed signage for this. PTSC has requested a u-turn conflict study in the past, but never addressed
64 Erick Escobedo, Intersection / street Lighting
Temecula Traffic Engineering Improve sight distance at intersections Safe Routes to School Programs
65 Anonymous 4, Road diet at Redhawk Pkwy east of Vail Ranch Pkwy Temecula Police Department
66 Enrique Nunez, Intersection / street Lighting
Temecula Police Department
67 Anthony Hamilton, Other: Motorcycle detection at intersections Temecula Police Department
68 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
69 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Improve sight distance at intersections
Safe Routes to School Programs
DUI Enforcement Programs
Emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Intersection / street lighting
Improve sight distance at intersections
Guardrails
Safe Routes to School Programs
70 David Matics,
Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems: Work with commercial Public Traffic Safety
center owners to eliminate vertical displacement elements on private Commission
roads (e.g. Wolf Store Rd)
Road Diet: The preferred countermeasure on residential roads, wherever possible
Alcohol -Drug Awareness Programs: Every 1S Minutes program Safe Routes to School Programs: Multi -way stop control and / or
RRFP / PHB
Other: Visual friction techniques
71 J.R. Richardson,
Emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Public Traffic Safety
Intersection / street lighting
Commission
Roundabout
Improve sight distance at intersections
Edgelines and centerlines
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - A-8
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
(OTS) RANKINGS
Agency Year County Group Population (Avg) DVMT
Temecula 2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY B 112040 1249165
TYPE OF CRASH VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury = 26/58
Alcohol Involved 4 49/58
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 54/58
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34 _ 53/58
Motorcycles 6 _? 5/58
Pedestrians 27 40/58
Pedestrians < 15
Pedestrians 65+
Bicyclists
Bicyclists < 15
Composite
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
2 42/58
0 53/58
12 52/58
3 t 30/58
418 48/58
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
302
20 ARRESTS
OTS RANKING
7/58
50/58
48/58
OTS RANKING*
20/58
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-1
Agency
Year
Temecula
2017
County
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TYPE OF CRASH
Total Fatal and Injury
Alcohol Involved
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
Motorcycles
Pedestrians
Pedestrians < 15
Pedestrians 65+
Bicyclists
Bicyclists < 15
Composite
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
Group Population (Avg)
B 113248
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED
505
30 1
13 41
24 3
2 20
3 221
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
137
27 13
DVMT
1261602
OTS RANKING
33/58
48/58
41/58
39/58
6/58
42/58
32/58
41/58
34/58
23/58
39/58
OTS RANKING
7/58
48/58
48/58
TYPE OF ARRESTS ARRESTS OTS RANKING*
DUI Arrests 267 30/58
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-2
Agency
Year
County Group
Temecula
2018
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
B
TYPE OF CRASH
Total Fatal and Injury
Alcohol Involved
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
Motorcycles
Pedestrians
Pedestrians < 15
Pedestrians 65+
Bicyclists
Bicyclists < 15
Composite
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
Population (Avg)
111879
DVMT
1175543
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED
OTS RANKING
536
31/59
48 32/59
1 39/59
14 35/59
50 1 /59
22 41/59
4 28/59
9 7/59
18 41 /59
6 8/59
251
38/59
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
OTS RANKING
147
5/59
25 52/59
16 49/59
ARRESTS
OTS RANKING*
NA
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-3
Agency
Year
2018
County Group Population (Avg)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY B 207181
DVMT
1633834
Moreno Valley
TYPE OF CRASH
VICTIMS KILLER & INJURED
OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury
580
54/59
Alcohol Involved
40 55/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
2 43/59
r
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
15 52/59
Motorcycles
20 56/59
Pedestrians
33 56/59
Pedestrians < 15
7 41 /59
Pedestrians 65+
2 58/59
Bicyclists
20 54/59
Bicyclists < 15
3 46/59
Composite
254
56/59
TYPE OF CRASH
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
OTS RANKING
Speed Related
110
44/59
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
45 55/59
Hit and Run
42 51 /59
TYPE OF ARRESTS ARRESTS OTS RANKING`
DUI Arrests NA
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-4
Agency Year
Murrieta 2018
County
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Group Population (Avg)
B. 114193
TYPE OF CRASH
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED
Total Fatal and Injury
Alcohol Involved
- :+
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
11 Motorcycles
18 Pedestrians
9 Pedestrians < 15
0 Pedestrians 65+
3 Bicyclists
11 Bicyclists < 15
3 Composite
121
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
FATAL& INJURY CRASHES
54 14
11 ARRESTS
DVMT
796978
OTS RANKING
55159
50159
28159
42159
35159
58159
59159
47159
53159
28159
52I59
OTS RANKING
47/59
58/59
55159
OTS RANKING*
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-5
Agency
Year
County
Group Population (Avg)
DVMT
Moreno Valley
2018
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
B
207181
I 1633834
I
TYPE OF CRASH
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury
580
54/59
Alcohol Involved
40 55/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
2 43/59
r
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
15 52/59
Motorcycles
20 56/59
Pedestrians
33 56/59
Pedestrians < 15
7 41 /59
Pedestrians 65+
2 58/59
Bicyclists
20 54/59
Bicyclists < 15
3 46/59
Composite
254
56/59
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
110
45 42
ARRESTS
OTS RANKING
44/59
55/59
51/59
OTS RANKING*
NA
Agency Year
Murrieta 2018
County
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Group Population (Avg)
B. 114193
TYPE OF CRASH
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED
Total Fatal and Injury
Alcohol Involved
- :+
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
11 Motorcycles
18 Pedestrians
9 Pedestrians < 15
0 Pedestrians 65+
3 Bicyclists
11 Bicyclists < 15
3 Composite
121
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
FATAL& INJURY CRASHES
54 14
11 ARRESTS
DVMT
796978
OTS RANKING
55159
50159
28159
42159
35159
58159
59159
47159
53159
28159
52I59
OTS RANKING
47/59
58/59
55159
OTS RANKING*
NA
Agency Year County Group Population (Avg) DVMT
Temecula 2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY B 112040 1249165
TYPE OF CRASH VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury = 26/58
Alcohol Involved 4 49/58
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 54/58
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34 _ 53/58
Motorcycles 6 _? 5/58
Pedestrians 27 40/58
Pedestrians < 15
Pedestrians 65+
Bicyclists
Bicyclists < 15
Composite
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
2 42/58
0 53/58
12 52/58
3 t 30/58
418 48/58
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
302
ARRESTS
20 OTS RANKING
7/58
50/58
48/58
OTS RANKING*
20/58
Agency
Year
Temecula
2017
County
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TYPE OF CRASH
Total Fatal and Injury
Alcohol Involved
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
Motorcycles
Pedestrians
Pedestrians < 15
Pedestrians 65+
Bicyclists
Bicyclists < 15
Composite
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
TYPE OF ARRESTS
DUI Arrests
Group Population (Avg)
B 113248
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED
505
30 1
13 41
24 3
2 20
3 221
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
137
27 13
DVMT
1261602
OTS RANKING
33/58
48/58
41/58
39/58
6/58
42/58
32158
41/58
34/58
23158
39/58
OTS RANKING
7/58
48/58
48/58
ARRESTS OTS RANNUNG*
267 30/58
Agency
Year
County
Group
Temecula
2018
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
B
TYPE OF CRASH
Total Fatal and Injury
Alcohol Involved
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34
Motorcycles
Pedestrians
Pedestrians < 15
Pedestrians 65+
Bicyclists
Bicyclists < 15
Composite
TYPE OF CRASH
Speed Related
Nighttime (9:OOpm - 2:59am)
Hit and Run
Population (Avg)
111879
VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED
536
48 1
14 50
22 4
9 18
6 251.
FATAL & INJURY CRASHES
147
25 16
DVMT
1175543
OTS RANKING
31/59
32/59
39/59
35/59
1 /59
41/59
28/59
7/59
41/59
I
8/59
38/59
OTS RANKING
5/59
52/59
49/59
TYPE OF ARRESTS ARRESTS OTS RANKING*
DUI Arrests NA
APPENDIX C
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
11•e Heart of Sou.hern California
Wine Coun_ry
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signalized Intersection Countermeasures............................................................................................3 S01: Add Intersection Lighting(S.I.).........................................................................................................3 S02: Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back -Plates with Retroreflective Borders, Mounting, Size, and Number.................................................................................................................................................... 4 S03: Improve Signal Timing (Coordination, Phases, Red, Yellow, or Operation).....................................5 S05: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems.............................................................................6 S06: Install left -turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn lane or phase before)................7 S07: Provide Protected Left Turn Phase (Left Turn Lane Already Exists) ................................................ 8 S10: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (S.I.).........................................................................9 S11: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)...................................................10 S12: Install Raised Median on Approaches (S.I.)...................................................................................11 S13PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches...................................................................12 S16: Covert Intersection to Roundabout (From Signal).........................................................................13 S17PB: Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads..............................................................................14 S18PB: Install Pedestrian Crossing(S.I.).................................................................................................15 S21PB: Modifying Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) ............................16 Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures....................................................................................17 NS01: Add Intersection Lighting(NS.I.)..................................................................................................17 NS03: Install Signals...............................................................................................................................18 NSO4: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From All Way Stop) and NS05: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From Stop or Yield Control on Minor Road)....................................................................19 NS06: Install / Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning / Regulatory Signs....................................................................................................................................................... 20 NS07: Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings(NS.1)........................................................................21 NS08: Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections..........................................................22 NS09: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning(NS.1)...................................................................23 NS12: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)................................................24 NS14: Install Raised Median on Approaches (NS.I.)..............................................................................25 NS17: Install Right -Turn Lane(NS.I.)......................................................................................................26 NS18: Install Left -Turn Lane (Where No Left -Turn Lane Exists)............................................................27 NS19PB: Install Raised Medians / Refuge Islands (NS.I.).......................................................................28 TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-1
NS20B: Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (New Signs and Markings Only) ..........29 NS21PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (With Enhanced Safety Features)................................................................................................................................................ 30 NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon(RRFB)..................................................................31 NS23PB: Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK).................................32 Roadway Countermeasures.................................................................................................................. 33 R01: Add Segment Lighting....................................................................................................................33 R03: Install Median Barrier....................................................................................................................34 R04: Install Guardrail.............................................................................................................................35 R08: Install Raised Median....................................................................................................................36 R10PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches...................................................................37 R11: Install Acceleration / Deceleration Lanes......................................................................................38 R14: Road Diet (Reduce Travel Lanes From 4 to 3 and Add a Two Way Left -Turn and Bike Lanes) .....39 R15: Widen Shoulder.............................................................................................................................40 R17: Improve Horizontal Alignment (Flatten Curves)............................................................................41 R18: Flatten crest vertical curve............................................................................................................42 R21: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)...................................................43 R22: Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (Regulatory or Warning) .........................44 R25: Install Curve Advance Warning Signs (Flashing Beacon)...............................................................45 R26: Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs.............................................................................46 R28: Install Edge -Lines and Centerlines.................................................................................................47 R30: Install Centerline Rumble Strips / Stripes......................................................................................48 R31: Install Edgeline Rumble Strips / Stripes.........................................................................................49 R32PB: Install Bike Lanes.......................................................................................................................50 R33PB: Install Separated Bike Lanes......................................................................................................51 R34PB: Install Sidewalk/Pathway (To Avoid Walking Along Roadway).................................................52 R35PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (With Enhanced Safety Features)...................................53 R36PB: Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing.............................................................................................54 R37PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon................................................................................55 TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-2
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
S01: Add Intersection Lighting (S.I.)
S1 100% Night
40% 20 years 1 $1,000 per light
Countermeasure Description:
Adding intersection lighting to signalized intersections helps improve visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting. This strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night. This countermeasure can only be applied to night crashes that occur within the limits of the proposed lighting area.
Why It Works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non -motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non -motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-3
SO2: Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back -Plates with Retroreflective Borders, Mounting, Size, and Number
100% All
15% 10 years 1 $1,500 per signal head
Countermeasure Description:
Improving signal hardware enhances the visibility of the signalized intersection to allow drivers proper reaction time to maneuver accordingly and/or avoid conflicts. This countermeasure does not apply to improvements like battery backup systems.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear -end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro- reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.
Why It Works:
Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-4
S03: Improve Signal Timing (Coordination, Phases, Red, Yellow, or Operation)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED 15% 10 years $4,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
Optimizing traffic signal timing helps improve mobility at an intersection for vehicles and pedestrians.
Through proper coordination, corridors can reduce overall delay time at an intersection and provide better progression of traffic flow.
Where to Use:
Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher -risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.
Why It Works:
Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement.
Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-5
SOS: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
S5 100% Emergency Vehicle - only
L 70% 10 years $10,000-$20,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of emergency vehicle pre-emption systems allows emergency vehicles to disrupt a normal signal cycle to proceed through the intersection in a more quick and safer manner. Signal pre-emption systems can help reduce driver confusion through the sudden appearance of an emergency vehicle and help lower overall emergency response times.
Where to Use:
Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles.
Why It Works:
Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash. When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre- emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-6
SO6: Install left -turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn lane or phase before)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED SS% 20 years $200,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of protected left -turn phasing eliminates conflicts between left -turning vehicles and opposing through vehicles and pedestrians that are present under permissive phasing. Providing a dedicated left -turn turn lane physically separates vehicles from the through and right turn movements and prevents signal queuing and delay.
Where to Use:
Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left -turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left -turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left -turning vehicles (angle, rear -end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left -turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high - volume and high-speed major -road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left -turn phases.
Why It Works:
Left -turn lanes allow separation of left -turn and through -traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for rear -end collisions. Left -turn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left -turn. The combination of left -turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between left -turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non -motorized road users.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-7
SO7: Provide Protected Left Turn Phase (Left Turn Lane Already Exists) EW
S7 100% All
30% 20 years $100,000 per intersection
Description:
The installation of protected left -turn phasing eliminates conflicts between left -turning vehicles and opposing through vehicles and pedestrians that are present under permissive phasing.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left -turn or no left -turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non -motorized road users. A properly timed protected left -turn phase can also help reduce rear -end and sideswipe crashes between left -turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left -turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non -motorized road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left -turn phases.
Why It Works:
Left turns are widely recognized as the highest -risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left -turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left -turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles.
Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non -motorized road users.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-8
S1O: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (S.I.) All
30% 10 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasures Description:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call a driver's attention to intersection control signs. This treatment involves installing flashing beacons, mounted on a post, or mounted on a mast arm, in advance of the intersection. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to a power source.
Where to Use:
At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.
Why It Works:
Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-9
S11: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) S11 ' 100% All
55% 10 years $50 per square yd
Countermeasure Description:
High friction surface treatment (HFST) involves the application of high -quality aggregate to the pavement using a polymer binder to restore pavement friction at intersections that have less friction than is needed for the roadway approach speeds and/or geometry. HFST aids motorists in maintaining better control in dry and wet driving conditions.
Where to Use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why It Works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet -road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet -road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes.
Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-10
S12: Install Raised Median on Approaches (S.I.)
S12 90% All
REDUCTIONCRASH 1• EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE
25% 20 years $30 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Raised medians help prevent accidents caused by crossover traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction and separate left -turning traffic from through lanes when combined with left -turn lanes. This treatment involves installing raised median at intersection approaches directly over existing pavement. This method does not require excavation of the existing pavement.
Where to Use:
Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient access control. Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement.
Why It Works:
Raised medians next to left -turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-11
S13PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches
S13 90% 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle
35% 20 years $50-$75 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of pedestrian median fencing along approaches helps direct pedestrians to a preferred formal crossing point and discourages pedestrians from making dangerous crossing movements where visibility may be limited.
Where to Use:
Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian -generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid -block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk -phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-12
S16: Covert Intersection to Roundabout (From Signal)
S16 100% All
$400,000 - $800,000 (for traffic
Varies 20 years signal removal and construction of
roundabout). Cost for roadway
widening may be higher/vary
Countermeasure Description:
A roundabout reduces the number and severity of conflict points making it a significantly safer type of intersection. This treatment involves converting a signalized intersection to a roundabout and does not include application of mini -roundabouts.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left -turn movements.
Why It Works:
The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left -turn movements are not present in a roundabout.
The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection.
This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-13
S17PB: Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
S17PB 1100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
25% 20 years $300 - $1,000 per ped head
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing new or upgrading the pedestrian signal head to a countdown signal head. The countdown signal head has a timer that shows the amount of time left in the pedestrian phase.
Where to Use:
Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why It Works:
A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON'T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-14
S18PB: Install Pedestrian Crossing (S.I.)
S18PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
25% 20 years $5,000 per approach
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves reducing the risk for pedestrians attempting to cross the road by providing a clearly defined point where pedestrians are 'expected' to cross.
Where to Use:
Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left -turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double -right or double -left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection -related crashes occur because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-15
S21PB: Modifying Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
60% 10 years $2,500 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment provides pedestrians a 3-7 second "head start" to start crossing a signalized intersection before the vehicles are given a green phase to proceed through the intersection. This head start increases the visibility of pedestrians and helps to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.
Where to Use:
Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why It Works:
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-16
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
NS01: Add Intersection Lighting (NS.I.)
NS1 100% 1 Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
40, 000 per light
Countermeasure Description:
Adding intersection lighting to unsignalized intersections helps improve visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Non -signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why It Works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non -motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non -motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-17
NSO3: Install Signals
NS3 100% All
30% 20 years $400,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves removing existing control at an unsignalized intersection (stop, yield or uncontrolled) and installing a traffic signal. Installation may require modification to lane geometry to facilitate more efficient and safer intersection operations. Application of this countermeasure for HSIP funding requires that all new traffic signals meet MUTCD "safety" warrants 4, 5 and/or 7.
Where to Use:
Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left -turn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear -end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met.
Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.
Why It Works:
Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear -end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-18
NS04: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From All Way Stop) and NSOS: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From Stop or Yield Control on Minor Road) NS4 & NS5 100% All
$400,000 - $800,000
Varies 20 years Cost for roadway widening
may be higher/vary
Countermeasure Description:
Roundabouts provide an alternative to signalization. This treatment involves removing stop and yield control on major and/or minor roads and constructing a roundabout with yield control on all approaches.
Where to Use:
Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left -turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization.
The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate -volume unsignalized intersections.
Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.
Why It Works:
Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections.
Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all -way stop -controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left -turn and right-angle movements.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-19
NS06: Install / Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning / Regulatory Signs
All
15% 10 years $500 per sign
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves replacing the existing stop sign with larger sign and/or installing additional stop sign at other location and/or installing warning/regulatory signs at the intersection or in advance of the intersection approach.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
Why It Works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-20
NSO7: Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings (NS.I)
NS7 100% All
10 years $3,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
Pavement markings can communicate information to road user related to roadway alignment, vehicle positioning, and other important driving -related tasks. This treatment involves installing advance warning pavement markings such as "Stop Ahead". The upgrade of pavement markings also involves installing centerlines and stop bars.
Where to Use:
Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.
Why It Works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make safer decisions as they approach the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-21
NSO8: Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections `•9
NS8 100%
All
15% 1 10 years 1 $2,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing flashing beacon at the intersection which can be either mounted on a post or mounted on a mast arm. The flashing beacon supplements the stop signs at the intersection to call the attention of the driver.
Where to Use:
Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non -Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post -mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop -controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs.
Why It Works:
Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night- time visibility of intersections is an issue.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-22
NSO9: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (NS.I) 100 % All
30% 10 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call a driver's attention to intersection control signs. This treatment involves installing flashing beacons, mounted on a post, or mounted on a mast arm, in advance of the intersection. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to a power source.
Where to Use:
Non -Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.
Why It Works:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-23
NS12: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) NS12 ' 100% All
55% 10 years $50 per square yard
Countermeasure Description:
High friction surface treatment (HFST) involves the application of high -quality aggregate to the pavement using a polymer binder to restore pavement friction at intersections that have less friction than is needed for the roadway approach speeds and/or geometry. HFST aids motorists in maintaining better control in dry and wet driving conditions.
Where to Use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Non - signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why It Works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet -road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet -road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes.
Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-24
NS14: Install Raised Median on Approaches (NS.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED 25% 120 years $30 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Raised medians help prevent accidents caused by crossover traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction and separate left -turning traffic from through lanes when combined with left -turn lanes. This treatment involves installing raised median at intersection approaches directly over existing pavement. This method does not require excavation of the existing pavement.
Where to Use:
Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable.
Why It Works:
Raised medians with left -turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-25
NS17: Install Right -Turn Lane (NS.I.)
NS17 1 90%
20% 20 years ' $30,000 - $70,000
Countermeasure Description:
At intersections with substantial right -turn movements, a dedicated right -turn lane segregates these cars from through traffic and increases the capacity of the road. This treatment provides a right -turn lane that allows for vehicles to decelerate and a make a right -turn movement.
Where to Use:
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right -turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right -turn lanes, particularly on high -volume and high- speed major -road approaches. When considering new right -turn lanes, potential impacts to non - motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why It Works:
The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear -end collisions resulting from conflicts between vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from the left on the cross street. Right -turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right from the through -traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear -end collisions. Right -turn lanes can increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non - motorized users.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-26
NS18: Install Left -Turn Lane (Where No Left -Turn Lane Exists) NS18 90% All
35% 20 years $30,000 - $70,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment provides greater safety for drivers making a left -turn movement by eliminating conflicts between through vehicles and vehicles slowing to make a left -turn through the addition of a left -turn lane.
Where to Use:
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left -turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left -turn lanes, particularly on high -volume and high- speed major -road approaches. When considering new left -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why It Works:
Adding left -turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through -traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear -end collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a gap in opposing traffic, left -turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to complete the left -turn maneuver. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left -turn and opposing through vehicles.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-27
NS19PB: Install Raised Medians / Refuge Islands (NS.I.) NS19PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
45% 1 20 years $40,000 per location
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment can be applied to intersections that have long pedestrian crossing distances. The raised medians/refuge islands reduce the conflict between the non -motorized user and motorized users. This treatment also allows pedestrians to focus on one direction of traffic at a time because the refuge island provides a protected space between the two directions of travel.
Where to Use:
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
Why It Works:
Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-28
NS2013: Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (New Signs and Markings Only)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED 25% 10 years $7,000
Description:
This treatment involves the installation of a pedestrian crossing with new pavement markings and signs at unsignalized intersections to address pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
Where to Use:
Non -signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs.
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.
Why It Works:
Pedestrian crossings enhance pedestrian safety through pavement markings and signs that delineate a designated portion of the roadway for pedestrians to cross. The use of enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can also increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or "yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can reduce the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including: continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but costs over standard crosswalk markings must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-29
NS21PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (With Enhanced Safety Features)
NS21PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
35% 20 years 1 $50,000 - $100,000 per location
Description:
This treatment involves installing pedestrian crossings with enhanced features such curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, flashing beacons, and other safety features that complement the standard pedestrian crossing elements.
Where to Use:
Non -signalized intersections with or without a marked crossing, where pedestrians cross intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-30
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
35% 20 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) including pedestrian - activated flashing lights and additional signage at a pedestrian crossing.
Where to Use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian -activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings.
Why It Works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-31
NS23PB: Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) NS23PB ' 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
55% 20 years $250,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing a pedestrian signal or a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) which is also known as a high -intensity activated crosswalk beacon (HAWK) with associated signs and markings at a pedestrian crossing.
Where to Use:
Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non -motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High -Intensity Activated crosswalk beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.
Why It Works:
Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-32
ROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES
R01: Add Segment Lighting
A
R1 100% Night
35% 20 years $10,000 per street light
Countermeasure Description:
Adding intersection lighting to roadway segments helps improve visibility throughout the roadway and helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear -end, right- angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.
Why It Works:
Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non -motorist's visibility and navigation.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-33
R03: Install Median Barrier
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
..
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment installs a median barrier between vehicles traveling in opposite directions to reduce cross median crashes by redirecting vehicles that strike either side of the barrier. Costs vary based on barrier used including cable barriers, guardrail, and concrete barriers. Concrete median barriers are most commonly used.
Where to Use:
Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross-overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non -severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers.
Why It Works:
This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site -specific solution. The main advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-34
RO4: Install Guardrail
R4 1100%
All
25% 20 years $50-$250 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of guardrail is an effective method for protecting drivers from drop-offs or colliding with fixed objects on the median or roadside. Guardrails can be installed very quickly and in a fast manner.
Where to Use:
Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run -off -the -road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end -treatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.
Why It Works:
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-35
RO8: Install Raised Median
R8 90% All
25% 20 years $30 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Raised medians help prevent accidents caused by crossover traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction and separate left -turning traffic from through lanes when combined with left -turn lanes. This treatment involves installing raised median within roadway segments directly over existing pavement. This method does not require excavation of the existing pavement.
Where to Use:
Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. Application of raised medians on roadways with higher speeds is not advised -instead a median barrier should be considered. Including landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals and should only be done in ways that do not increase drivers' exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight distance needs throughout the life of the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document impacts of additional turning movements at nearby intersections.
Why It Works:
Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-36
R10PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches
R10PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
35% 20 years $50-$75 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of pedestrian median fencing along approaches helps direct pedestrians to a preferred formal crossing point and discourages pedestrians from making dangerous crossing movements where visibility may be limited.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments with high pedestrian -generators and pedestrian -destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid -block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid -block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside designated pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-37
R11: Install Acceleration / Deceleration Lanes
R11 90% All
25% 20 years $30,000 - $70,000
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of acceleration/deceleration lanes helps reduce conflict between slow speed and higher speed vehicles. Acceleration/deceleration lanes allow drivers to speed up or slow down in a space not used by high-speed through traffic.
Where to Use:
Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve the safety of merging vehicles at a lane -drop location.
Why It Works:
A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear -end and sideswipe crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed -change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the through -traffic lanes of a highway.
Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through -traffic and cause rear -end and sideswipe collisions.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-38
R14: Road Diet (Reduce Travel Lanes From 4 to 3 and Add a Two Way Left -Turn and Bike Lanes)
R14 90% All
30% 20 years 1 $50,000 - $150,000 per mile
Countermeasure Description:
A road diet reconfiguration involves the conversion of an undivided four lane roadway to a three -lane undivided roadway made up of two through lanes, a center two-way left -turn lane, and bike lanes. The reduction of lanes allows the roadway cross section to be reallocated for other uses such as bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, transit uses, and/or parking.
Where to Use:
Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left -turn, and rear -end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four -lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.
Why It Works:
The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes.
In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on -street parking.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-39
R15: Widen Shoulder
R15 90% All
30% 20 years $30,000-$70,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves the addition/widening of a shoulder lane to provide space that allows drivers to get out of the travel lane and avoid crashes. By widening the shoulders or providing a shoulder where one previously did not exist, drivers have more recovery area to regain control in the event of a roadway departure. A minimum of 2 feet width must be added and the new/resulting shoulders must be a minimum of 4 feet wide.
Where to Use:
Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery.
Why It Works:
Based on the best available research, adding shoulder or widening an existing shoulder provides a greater area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles. They may also provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly, provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway, and in some cases reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The likely safety benefits for adding or widening an existing shoulder generally increase as the widening width increases -practitioners should refer to NCHRP Report 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse or other references for more details.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-40
R17: Improve Horizontal Alignment (Flatten Curves)
S17 90% All
50% 20 years Varies by Project Scope
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment is used to reduce roadway departure crashes and usually involves total reconstruction of the roadway. It also may require acquisition of additional right-of-way and an environmental review. This countermeasure is not eligible unless done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Where to Use:
Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
Why It Works:
Increasing the radius of a horizontal curve can be very effective in improving the safety performance of the curve. Curve modification reduces the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its lane, crossing the roadway centerline, or leaving the roadway at a horizontal curve; and minimizes the adverse consequences of leaving the roadway. Horizontal alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-41
R18: Flatten crest vertical curve
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED .0, All
L 25% 20 years Varies by Project Scope
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment is used to change the horizontal and / or vertical alignment to provide additional sight distance. This countermeasure only applies to crashes that occur within the limits of the improved alignment. This countermeasure is not eligible unless done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Projects that utilize this countermeasure are typically quite extensive, expensive, and take several years to accomplish — particularly if additional right-of-way is required or environmental impacts are expected.
The key to creating a cost effective project with a competitive benefit cost ratio (BCR) for the HSIP program is to target using the countermeasure at higher -hazard locations.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
Why It Works:
Adequate sight distance for drivers at stopped approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall intersection safety. Vertical alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-42
R21: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) R21 100% All
55% 10 years $50 per square yd
Countermeasure Description:
High friction surface treatment (HFST) involves the application of high -quality aggregate to the pavement using a polymer binder to restore pavement friction at intersections that have less friction than is needed for the roadway approach speeds and/or geometry. HFST aids motorists in maintaining better control in dry and wet driving conditions.
Where to Use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why It Works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet -road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in a reduction of 50 percent for wet -road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes.
Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-43
R22: Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (Regulatory or Warning)
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
00 per sign
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing new or upgrading existing regulatory or warning signs with new florescent sheeting to increase visibility. This countermeasure is not eligible unless it is done as part of a larger sign audit project.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non - intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material).
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-44
R25: Install Curve Advance Warning Signs (Flashing Beacon) R25 100% All
30% 10 years $500 per sign
Countermeasure Description:
Curve advance warning signs provide a visual cue to drivers that they are approaching a horizontal curve.
This treatment is appropriate for locations where relatively sharp curves have resulted in crashes. This treatment should be installed in combination with additional treatments such as chevron signs, delineators, and pavement markers to provide increased awareness of the curved roadway alignment.
Where to Use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness.
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an enhanced advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed. Flashing beacons are an added indication that a curve may be particularly challenging.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-45
R26: Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs
Countermeasure Description:
Dynamic/variable speed warning signs can be implemented on roadways with a high frequency of unsafe speed crashes or run off road crashes on curvilinear segments. The speed warning signs alert drivers to their current travel speed and give a visual warning once drivers exceed the recommended speed for a segment or curve. Dynamic/variable speed warning signs can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to a power source. This countermeasure does not apply to dynamic regulatory speed warning signs.
Where to Use:
Curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves.
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness.
R26 100% All
30% 10 years $8,000 per sign
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-46
R28: Install Edge -Lines and Centerlines
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment helps drivers to better understand the limits of roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be most appropriate.
Where to Use:
Any road with a history of run -off -road right, head-on, opposite -direction -sideswipe, or run -off -road -left crashes is a candidate for this treatment -install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge -lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.
Why It Works:
Installing edge -lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or crossover the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are all-weather, more visible, and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings.
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED 00% All
25% 1 10 years $4 per linear foot
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-47
R3O: Install Centerline Rumble Strips / Stripes
R30 100% All
10 years $1-$3 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Centerline rumble strips/stipes are installed at or near the center line of an undivided roadway, and may be comprised of either a single or double line of rumbles. This treatment is intended to alert inattentive drivers through vibration and sound that their vehicles have left the travel lane.
Where to Use:
Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on virtually any roadway— especially those with a history of head-on crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.
Why It Works:
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-48
R31: Install Edgeline Rumble Strips / Stripes
R31 100% All
15% 10 years $1-$3 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Edge line rumble strips are placed at the edge of the travel lane in line with the edge line pavement marking. This treatment is intended to alert inattentive drivers through vibration and sound that their vehicles have left the travel lane. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations.
Where to Use:
Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Special requirements may apply and care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.
Why It Works:
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-49
R32PB: Install Bike Lanes
R32PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
35% 20 years $4 per linear foot of striping
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing Class II bicycle lanes to address crashes between bicycles and vehicles.
Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.
Why It Works:
Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists' chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong -way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-50
R33PB: Install Separated Bike Lanes
R33PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
45% 20 years $8 per linear foot of striping
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing separated bike paths or bike lanes on streets with high volumes of bicycle traffic and/or high bicycle -vehicle collisions in urban or suburban areas. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes.
Where to Use:
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike - vehicle collisions in urban or suburban areas. Separation types range from painted buffers and flexible delineators to more substantial separation with raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. Additional space may also be provided where pedestrian and bicyclists interact, such as the parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another. Options will range due to roadway characteristics, space, and cost.
Why It Works:
Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, "protected" or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate left -turns for bicyclists from the primary corridor to cross street. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non - motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-51
R34PB: Install Sidewalk/Pathway (To Avoid Walking Along Roadway) R34PB 1 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
:0..
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing new sidewalks or pathways to address pedestrian crashes related to people walking along the roadway. This countermeasure cannot be used to replace an existing sidewalk with a wider one unless prior Caltrans approval is included. A walkway is any type of defined space or pathway for use by a person travelling on foot or using a wheelchair.
Where to Use:
Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.
Why It Works:
Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the "walking along roadway" pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-52
R35PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (With Enhanced Safety Features) R35PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
0 35/0 20 years 1 $50,000 - $100,000 per location
Countermeasure Description:
At many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non -motorized users. This treatment involves the installation of flashing beacons, curb extensions and other safety features in order to complement the standard crossing elements.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high -use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on a Zegeer study, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non -motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features can greatly enhance pedestrian safety.
Enhanced safety elements may include curb extensions, pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting.
Combined with pavement markings, this delineates the portion of the roadway designated for pedestrian crossing. Care must be taken to warn drivers of pedestrians crossing the roadway. Guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but costs over standard crosswalk markings must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-53
R36PB: Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
20 years $25,000 - $50,000
Countermeasure Description:
Raised pedestrian crossings enhanced marked crossing locations by providing a raised crossing that vehicles must navigate over. This treatment should be used in lower -speed roadways and emergency vehicle access should be considered as part of any evaluation of the treatment.
Where to Use:
On lower -speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone, may not be sufficient to adequately protect non -motorized users. In these cases, raised crossings can be added to complement the standard crossing elements. Special requirements may apply and extra care should be taken when considering installing raised crossings to ensure unintended safety issues are not created, such as: emergency vehicle access or truck route issues.
Why It Works:
Adding a raised pedestrian crossing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The raised crossing encourages motorists to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-54
R37PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
AM
R37PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
35% 20 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) including pedestrian - activated flashing lights and additional signage at mid -block pedestrian crossings.
Where to Use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian -activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings.
Why It Works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-55
APPENDIX D
PRIORITY PROJECT SUMMARIES
I*.2 1-ea --i c f .Sc t :hr f ,,al farm;a
Y ir,e Cou f1=fV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades.....................................................................2 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades..........................................................................................8 Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems..............................................................15 Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades.....................................................................................19 TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-1
CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL
HEAD UPGRADES
LSRM Countermeasure:
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads.
Project Description:
Install countdown pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian APS Push buttons, and new controllers at traffic signals citywide.
Project Location:
55 Traffic Signals Citywide.
a lu
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-2
1 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
CountdownController
SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION Ped Heads APS Upgrades
Butterfield Stage Rd & La Serena Wy 8 8 1
2 Butterfield Stage Rd & Pauba Rd
8 8
1 3
Butterfield Stage Rd. & Royal Crest PI.
8 8
1 4
Butterfield Stage Rd. & Welton Wy./Channel St.
8 8
1 5
Date St. & Kingwood Rd.
4 4
1 6
De Portola Rd. & Campanula Wy.
Deer Hollow Wy. & Peach Tree Wy.
Jefferson Ave. & Sanborn Ave.
Margarita Rd. & Abbott Vascular Dr./Solana Ridge
Margarita Rd. & Avenida Barca
Margarita Rd. & Date St.
8 8
1 7
8 8
4 1
1 8
4 9
6 6
6 1
1 10
11 6
6 6
1 12
Margarita Rd. & Harveston Wy.
4 4
1 13
Margarita Rd. & La Serena Wy.
4 4
1 14
Margarita Rd. & Moraga Rd.
4 4
1 15
Margarita Rd. & N General Kearny Rd.
8 8
1 16
Margarita Rd. & Overland Dr.
4 4
1 17
Margarita Rd. & Pauba Rd.
8 8
1 18
Margarita Rd. & Pio Pico Rd.
8 8
1 19
Margarita Rd. & Harveston School Rd./Rustic Glen Dr.
6 6
1 20
Margarita Rd. & Stonewood Rd.
8 8
1 21
Meadows Pkwy. & Leena Wy.
8 8
1 22
Meadows Pkwy. & De Portola Rd.
8 8
1 23
Meadows Pkwy. & Campanula Wy.
8 8
1 24
La Serena Wy. & Meadows Pkwy.
4 4
1 25
Meadows Pkwy. & McCabe Dr./Sunny Meadows Pkwy.
8 8
1 26
Pauba Rd. & Meadows Pkwy.
8 8
1 27
Rancho Vista Rd. & Meadows Pkwy.
8 8
1 28
Nicolas Rd. & N General Kearny Rd.
8 8
1 29
Nicolas Rd. & Rancho Temecula Town Center
6 6
1 30
N General Kearny Rd. & Camino Campos Verdes
4 4
1 31
Overland Dr. & Promenade Wy./Nicole Ln.
8 8
1 32
Pauba Rd. & Via Rami
6 6
1 33
Pechanga Pkwy. & Deer Hollow Wy.
4 4
1 34
Pechanga Pkwy. & Loma Linda Rd.
6 6
1 35
Pechanga Pkwy. & Muirfield Dr.
6 6
1 36
Pechanga Pkwy. & Pechanga Resort Dr.
4 4
1 37
Pechanga Pkwy. & Wolf Creek Dr. N
6 6
1 38
Pechanga Pkwy. & Wolf Creek Dr. S
8 8
1 39
Pechanga Pkwy. & Wolf Valley Rd./Via Eduardo
6 6
1 TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-3
P47Ring
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
CountdownController
SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION Ped Heads APS Upgrades
Rd. & Promenade Mall North 4 4 1
41 Ring Rd. & Promenade Mall West
4 4
1 42
Ring Rd. & Promenade Mall South
4 4
1 43
Rancho Vista Rd. & Mira Loma Dr.
Wolf Valley Rd. & Redhawk Pkwy.
Vail Ranch Pkwy. & Tehachapi Pass
Winchester Rd. & Winchester Creek Ave./Willows Ave.
Wolf Valley Rd. & Wolf Creek Rd. S
Ynez Rd. & County Center Dr.
Ynez Rd. & Date St.
Ynez Rd. & DLR Dr.
8 8
1 44
4 4
1 45
46 47
48 49
8 8
1 6
6 1
8 8
1 4
4 1
8 8
1 50
8 8
1 51
Ynez Rd. & Motor Car Pkwy.
8 8
1 52
Ynez Rd. & Overland Dr.
8 8
1 53
Ynez Rd. & Promenade Mall North
6 6
1 54
Ynez Rd. & Promenade Mall South
6 6
1 55
Ynez Rd. & Solana Wy.
.
4 350
4 350
1 55
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-4
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing pedestrian signal head on northbound traffic signal pole at Ynez Rd & North Promenade Mall.
Figure 2: Existing pedestrian signal head on eastbound traffic signal pole at La Serena Wy & Meadows Pkwy.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-5
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
HEAD-ON
OVERTURNED
SIDESWIPE
VEHICLE/PED
COLLISION TYPE
REAR END
1 OTHER
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
BROADSIDE
NOT STATED
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
HIT OBJECT
FOLLOWING TOO
WRONG SIDE OF
DUI
IMPEDING TRAFFIC
UNSAFE SPEED
CLOSELY
ROAD
1 1
1 IMPROPER
UNSAFE LANE
IMPROPER
AUTO ROW
PED ROW
PASSING
CHANGE
TURNING
VIOLATION
VIOLATION
1 1
1 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
HAZARDOUS
PED VIOLATION
LIGHTS
BRAKES
AND SIGNS
PARKING
1 1
I
UNSAFE STARTING
PED OR
UNKNOWN OR
OTHER
FELL ASLEEP
OR BACKING
OTHER DUI
NOT STATED
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
FOR
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
'
TOTAL
CM#J
FOR
FOR
.o
1 Mobilization
LS
1 $25,000
$25,000
o.
100%
0%
0 0/
2 Traffic Control
LS
1 $10,000
$10,000
100%
0%
0%
Remove Existing Traffic Signal
3 Equipment (controller, ped heads,
LS
1 $15,000
$15,000
100%
0%
0%
push buttons)
New Type 2070 Traffic Signal
4 EA
55 $4,500
$247,000
100%
0%
0%
Controller
5 New LED Countdown Timer
EA
350
$400
$140,000
100%
0%
0%
Pedestrian Head Module
6 New APS Pedestrian Push Button
EA
350
$1200
$420,00
100%
0%
0%
AVERAGEWEIGHTED
TOTAL$857,500
*Cost % for Other Safety -Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety -Related components
CONTINGENCIES,OF • •
•
OF
10%
$85,750
CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL•
•COST
$943,300
L
(ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST
HUNDREDS)
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
LOCALHSIP / HSIP
DESCRIPTION TOTALCOSTTOTAL
N FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental
$3,000
100%
$3,000
$0
PS&E
$70,000
100%
$70,000
$0
Subtotal — PE
$73,000
100%
$73,000
$0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering
$0
100%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities
$0
100%
$0
$0
Subtotal — Right of Way (ROW)
$0
100%
$0
$0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE)
$90,000
100%
$90,000
$0
Construction Items
$943,300
(Read only —from Section 1)
100%
$943,300
$0
Subtotal - Construction
$1,033,300
100%
$1,033,300
$0
• • • •
$1,106,300
100%
$1,106,300
$0
Priority Project Summary:
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-7
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL HARDWARE UPGRADES
LSRM Countermeasure:
S2: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number.
Project Description:
Upgrade existing safety lighting to LED lighting and street name signs to LED internally illuminated street name signs (IISNS) at traffic signals Citywide.
Project Location:
116 Signalized Intersections Citywide.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-8
1 LOCATION
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CROWNE HILL DRIVE
LUMINAIRE
4 2
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & DE PORTOLA ROAD
4 3
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & LA SERENA WAY
4 4
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & NIGHTHAWK PASS
4 5
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & PAUBA ROAD
4 6
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & ROYAL CREST PLACE
4 7
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WELTON WAY/CHANNEL STREET
4 8
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WOLF STORE ROAD
4 9
DATE STREET & LAKEVIEW ROAD
4 10
DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEACH TREE STREET/VIA LA COLORADA
5 11
DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE/JON WILLIAM WAY/ANZA ROAD 4 12
DIAZ ROAD & RANCHO WAY
4 13
JEFFERSON AVENUE & DEL RIO ROAD
4 14
JEFFERSON AVENUE & OVERLAND DRIVE
4 15
JEFFERSON AVENUE & SANBORN AVENUE
4 16
JEFFERSON AVENUE & VIA MONTEZUMA
4 17
MARGARITA ROAD & AVENIDA BARCA
4 18
MARGARITA ROAD & DARTOLO ROAD/LUCKY CENTER
4 19
MARGARITA ROAD & DATE STREET
4 20
MARGARITA ROAD & DE PORTOLA ROAD
4 21
MARGARITA ROAD & HARVESTON WAY
4 22
MARGARITA ROAD & LA SERENA WAY
4 23
MARGARITA ROAD & MORAGA ROAD
4 24
MARGARITA ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
4 25
MARGARITA ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE
4 26
MARGARITA ROAD & PAUBA ROAD
4 27
MARGARITA ROAD & PIO PICO ROAD
4 28
MARGARITA ROAD & WINCO DRIVEWAY
2 29
MARGARITA ROAD & RANCHO VISTA ROAD
4 30
MARGARITA ROAD & RUSTIC GLEN DRIVE/HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD 4 31
MARGARITA ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD
4 32
MARGARITA ROAD & SOLANA WAY
4 33
MARGARITA ROAD & STONEWOOD ROAD
4 34
MARGARITA ROAD & VERDES LANE
4 35
MARGARITA ROAD & WINCHESTER ROAD
4 36
MARGARITA ROAD & YUKON ROAD/HONORS DRIVE
4 37
MEADOWS PARKWAY & LEENA WAY
4 38
MEADOWS PARKWAY & DE PORTOLA ROAD
4 39
MEADOWS PARKWAY & CAMPANULA WAY
4 TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-9
#
40 LOCATION
LA SERENA WAY & MEADOWS PARKWAY
# LED
LIUMINAIRE
4 41
MEADOWS PARKWAY & MCCABE DRIVE/SUNNY MEADOWS DRIVE
4 42
MEADOWS PARKWAY & PAUBA ROAD
4 43
RANCHO VISTA RD & MEADOWS PARKWAY
4 44
NICOLAS ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
4 45
NICOLAS ROAD & RANCHO TEMECULA TOWN CENTER
4 46
NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD & CAMINO CAMPOS VERDE
4 47
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET & SANTIAGO ROAD/FIRST STREET
4 48
OVERLAND DRIVE & PROMENADE WAY/NICOLE LANE
4 49
PAUBA RD & VIA RAMI/LINFIELD SCHOOL
4 50
PECHANGA PARKWAY & DEER HOLLOW WAY
4 51
PECHANGA PARKWAY & LOMA LINDA ROAD
4 52
PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE
4 53
PECHANGA PARKWAY & NORTH CASINO DRIVE
3 54
PECHANGA PARKWAY & SOUTH CASINO DRIVE
4 55
PECHANGA PARKWAY & PECHANGA RESORT DRIVE/MINIMART
4 56
PECHANGA PARKWAY & RAINBOW CANYON ROAD
4 57
PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH
4 58
PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH
4 59
PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD
4 60
RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL WEST
4 61
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RIDGE PARK DRIVE 4 62
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
4 63
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & DIAZ ROAD/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE 4 64
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & HUMBER DRIVE/COSMIC DRIVE
4 65
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & JEFFERSON AVENUE/ OLD TOWN FRONT STREET 4 66
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & LYNDIE LANE
4 67
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & MARGARITA ROAD
4 68
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & MEADOWS PARKWAY
4 69
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & MORAGA ROAD
4 70
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & TOWN CENTER/HOPE WAY
4 71
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & VIA LAS COLINAS
4 72
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & YNEZ RD
4 73
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & YUKON ROAD/ASTEROID WAY
4 74
REDHAWK PARKWAY & OVERLAND TRAIL/PASEO PARALLON
4 75
REDHAWK PARKWAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE
4 76
REDHAWK PARKWAY & VAIL RANCH PARKWAY
4 77
REDHAWK PARKWAY & VIA RIO TEMECULA/WOLF STORE ROAD
4 78
REDHAWK PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD
4 TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-10
#
79 LOCATION
TEMECULA PARKWAY & AVENIDA DE MISSION ES/RANCHO PUEBLO ROAD # LED
LUMINAIRE
4 80
TEMECULA PARKWAY & BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
4 81
TEMECULA PARKWAY & CAMINO DEL SOL
4 82
TEMECULA PARKWAY & COUNTRY GLEN WAY
4 83
TEMECULA PARKWAY & 1EDEDIAH SMITH ROAD
4 84
TEMECULA PARKWAY & KEVIN PLACE/RANCHO COMMUNITY WAY
4 85
TEMECULA PARKWAY & LA PAZ ROAD
4 86
TEMECULA PARKWAY & MAHLON VAIL ROAD
4 87
TEMECULA PARKWAY & MARGARITA ROAD/REDHAWK PARKWAY
4 88
TEMECULA PARKWAY & MEADOWS PARKWAY/APIS ROAD
4 89
TEMECULA PARKWAY & OLD TOWN FRONT STREET/WESTERN BYPASS 4 90
TEMECULA PARKWAY & PECHANGA PARKWAY
4 91
VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & NIGHTHAWK PASS
4 92
VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & TEHACHAPI PASS/EL CHIMISAL ROAD
4 93
WINCHESTER ROAD & DIAZ ROAD
4 94
WINCHESTER ROAD & ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH/SOUTH
4 95
WINCHESTER ROAD & JEFFERSON AVENUE
4 96
WINCHESTER ROAD & PROMENADE MALL EAST/MARGARITA MEADOWS 4 97
WINCHESTER ROAD & NICOLAS ROAD
4 98
WINCHESTER ROAD & PROMENADE MALL WEST
4 99
WINCHESTER ROAD & RORIPAUGH ROAD
4 100
WINCHESTER ROAD & YNEZ ROAD
4 101
WOLF VALLEY ROAD & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH/WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH 4 102
YNEZ ROAD & COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
4 103
YNEZ ROAD & DATE STREET
4 104
YNEZ ROAD & DLR DRIVE
4 105
YNEZ ROAD & EQUITY DRIVE
4 106
YNEZ ROAD & MOTOR CAR PARKWAY
4 107
YNEZ ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE
4 108
YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA NORTH/PROMENADE MALL NORTH
4 109
YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA SOUTH/PROMENADE MALL SOUTH
4 110
YNEZ ROAD & PAUBA ROAD
4 111
YNEZ ROAD & RANCHO VISTA ROAD
4 112
YNEZ ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD
4 113
YNEZ ROAD & SOLANA WAY
4 114
YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER NORTH/TOWER PLAZA NORTH
4 115
YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER SOUTH/TOWER PLAZA SOUTH
4 116
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CALLE CHAPOS
•
4 462
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-11
Existing Conditions Photos:
w
Figure 1: Existing 250W high pressure sodium (HPS) safety lighting luminaire and street name sign on the southbound traffic signal pole on the southwest corner of Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-12
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
HEAD-ON
OVERTURNED
SIDESWIPE
1•
VEHICLE/PED
COLLISION TYPE
REAR END
OTHER
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
BROADSIDE
NOT STATED
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
HIT OBJECT
FOLLOWING TOO
WRONG SIDE OF
DUI
IMPEDING TRAFFIC
UNSAFE SPEED
CLOSELY
ROAD
11 1
IMPROPER
UNSAFE LANE
IMPROPER
AUTO ROW
PED ROW
PASSING
CHANGE
TURNING
VIOLATION
VIOLATION
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
HAZARDOUS
PED VIOLATION
LIGHTS
BRAKES
AND SIGNS
PARKING
1 1
/
UNSAFE STARTING
PED OR
UNKNOWN OR
OTHER
FELL ASLEEP
OR BACKING
OTHER DUI
NOT STATED
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
LOCALHSIP / HSIP
DESCRIPTION TOTALCOST TOTAL FUNDS OTHER
N FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental
$3,000
100%
$3,000
$0
PS&E
$50,000
100%
$50,000
$0
Subtotal — PE
$53,000
100%
$53,000
$0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering
$0
100%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities
$0
100%
$0
$0
Subtotal — Right of Way (ROW)
$0
100%
$0
$0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE)
$104,000
100%
$104,000
$0
Construction Items
$745,200
(Read only —from Section 1)
100%
$745,200
$0
Subtotal - Construction
$849,200
100%
$849,200
$0
• • . •
$902,200
100%
$902,200
$0
Priority Project Summary:
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-14
INSTALLATION OF DYNAMIC VARIABLE SPEED
WARNING SYSTEMS
LSRM Countermeasure:
R26: Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Project Description:
Implement dynamic speed warning signage on curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves.
Project Location:
8 Roadway Segment Locations Citywide.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-15
1 CORRIDOR LOCATION
Rainbow Valley Rd (2 Locations)
SIGNS
4 Z
Vail Ranch Pkwy
2 3
De Portola Rd
2 4
Butterfield Stage Rd
2 5
Jefferson Ave (2 Locations)
4 6
Margarita Rd
2 7
Meadows Pkwy
2 8
Cantrell Rd
.
2 20
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing curve in roadway looking south on Rainbow Valley Rd.
Figure 2: Existing curve in roadway looking west on Cantrell Rd.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-16
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
HEAD-ON
OVERTURNED
SIDESWIPE
VEHICLE/PED
COLLISION TYPE
REAR END
OTHER
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
BROADSIDE
NOT STATED
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
HIT OBJECT
FOLLOWING TOO
WRONG SIDE OF
DUI
IMPEDING TRAFFIC
UNSAFE SPEED
CLOSELY
ROAD
IMPROPER
UNSAFE LANE
IMPROPER
AUTO ROW
PED ROW
PASSING
CHANGE
TURNING
VIOLATION
VIOLATION
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
HAZARDOUS
PED VIOLATION
LIGHTS
BRAKES
AND SIGNS
PARKING
UNSAFE STARTING
PED OR
UNKNOWN OR
OTHER
FELL ASLEEP
OR BACKING
OTHER DUI
NOT STATED
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
DESCRIPTION TOTALCOST TOTAL(%) FUNDS OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental
$4,000
100%
$4,000
$0
PS&E
$75,000
100%
$75,000
$0
Subtotal — PE
$79,000
100%
$79,000
$0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering
$0
100%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities
$0
100%
$0
$0
Subtotal — Right of Way (ROW)
$0
100%
$0
$0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE)
$62,000
100%
$62,000
$0
Construction Items
$419,800
(Read only —from Section 1)
100%
$419,800
$0
Subtotal - Construction
$481,800
100%
$481,800
$0
PROJECT T•
$560,800
100%
$560,800
$0
Priority Project Summary:
$11,530,243 1 $560,800 1 20.56
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-18
SIGNAL TIMING AND COMMUNICATION
UPGRADES
LSRM Countermeasure:
S03: Improve signal timing: coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation Project Description:
Improve signal operations by implementing new network switches and providing either fiber optic or wireless radio communications.
Project Location:
89 Signalized Intersections Citywide.
�• •Switch
1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CROWNE HILL DRIVE 1
... -.
Network
1 Communication
Equipment?
(Fiber/Wireless)
Fiber
2 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & DE PORTOLA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
3 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & LA SERENA WAY
1 1
Fiber
4 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & NIGHTHAWK PASS
1 1
Wireless
5 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & PAUBA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
6 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & ROYAL CREST PLACE
1 1
Fiber
7 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WELTON WAY/CHANNEL STREET
1 1
Wireless
8 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WOLF STORE ROAD
1 1
Fiber
9 CAMPANULA WAY & CAMINO DEL SOL
1 1
Fiber
10 DATE STREET & KINGWOOD ROAD
1 1
Fiber
11 DATE STREET & LAKEVIEW ROAD
1 1
Fiber
12 DE PORTOLA ROAD & CAMPANULA WAY EAST
1 1
Fiber
13 DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEACH TREE STREET/VIA LA COLORADA
1 1
Fiber
14 DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE/JON WILLIAM
WAY/ANZA ROAD
DIAZ ROAD & RANCHO WAY
JEFFERSON AVENUE & DEL RIO ROAD
1 1
Fiber
15 1
1 Fiber
16 1
1 Fiber
17 JEFFERSON AVENUE & OVERLAND DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
18 JEFFERSON AVENUE & SANBORN AVENUE
1 1
Fiber
19 JEFFERSON AVENUE & VIA MONTEZUMA
1 1
Fiber
20 MARGARITA ROAD & ABBOTT VASCULAR DRIVE/SOLANA RIDGE
1 1
Fiber
21 MARGARITA ROAD & AVENIDA BARCA
1 1
Fiber
22 MARGARITA ROAD & DATE STREET
1 1
Fiber
23 MARGARITA ROAD & HARVESTON WAY
1 1
Fiber
24 MARGARITA ROAD & LA SERENA WAY
1 1
Fiber
25 MARGARITA ROAD & MORAGA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-19
INT
26 Proposed
New Network
SIGNALIZED PROJECT •
MARGARITA ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD 1 1
Communication
Equipment?
Fiber
27 MARGARITA ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
28 MARGARITA ROAD & PAUBA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
29 MARGARITA ROAD & PIO PICO ROAD
1 1
Fiber
30 MARGARITA ROAD & WINCO DRIVEWAY
1 1
Fiber
31 MARGARITA ROAD & RUSTIC GLEN DRIVE/HARVESTON SCHOOL
ROAD
1 1
Fiber
32 MARGARITA ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD
1 1
Fiber
33 MARGARITA ROAD & SOLANA WAY
1 1
Fiber
34 MARGARITA ROAD & STONEWOOD ROAD
1 1
Fiber
35 MARGARITA ROAD & VERDES LANE
1 1
Fiber
36 MARGARITA ROAD & YUKON ROAD/HONORS DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
37 MEADOWS PARKWAY & LEENA WAY
1 1
Fiber
38 MEADOWS PARKWAY & DE PORTOLA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
39 MEADOWS PARKWAY & CAMPANULA WAY
1 1
Fiber
40 LA SERENA WAY & MEADOWS PARKWAY
1 1
Wireless
41 MEADOWS PARKWAY & MCCABE DRIVE/SUNNY MEADOWS DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
42 MEADOWS PARKWAY & PAUBA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
43 RANCHO VISTA RD & MEADOWS PARKWAY
1 1
Wireless
44 NICOLAS ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
1 1
Fiber
45 NICOLAS ROAD & RANCHO TEMECULA TOWN CENTER
1 1
Fiber
46 NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD & CAMINO CAMPOS VERDE
1 1
Wireless
47 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET & SANTIAGO ROAD/FIRST STREET
1 1
Wireless
48 OVERLAND DRIVE & PROMENADE WAY/NICOLE LANE
1 1
Fiber
49 PAUBA ROAD & FIRE STATION 84/CALLE VENTURA
1 1
Fiber
50 PAUBA RD & VIA RAMI/LINFIELD SCHOOL
1 1
Wireless
51 PECHANGA PARKWAY & DEER HOLLOW WAY
PECHANGA PARKWAY & LOMA LINDA ROAD
PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE
PECHANGA PARKWAY & NORTH CASINO DRIVE
PECHANGA PARKWAY & SOUTH CASINO DRIVE
PECHANGA PARKWAY & PECHANGA RESORT DRIVE/MINIMART
PECHANGA PARKWAY & RAINBOW CANYON ROAD
1 1
Fiber
52 1
1 Fiber
53 1
1 Fiber
54 1
1 Fiber
55 1
1 Fiber
56 1
1 Fiber
57 1
1 1
1 Fiber
Fiber
58 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH
59 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH
1 1
Fiber
60 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD
1 1
Fiber
61 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL NORTH
1 1
Wireless
62 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL WEST
1 1
Wireless
63 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL SOUTH
1 1
Wireless
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-20
INT
64 Proposed
New Network
SIGNALIZED PROJECT •
RANCHO VISTA ROAD & MIRA LOMA DRIVE 1 1
Communication
Equipment?
Wireless
65 REDHAWK PARKWAY & OVERLAND TRAIL/PASEO PARALLON
1 1
Wireless
66 REDHAWK PARKWAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE
1 1
Wireless
67 REDHAWK PARKWAY & VAIL RANCH PARKWAY
1 1
Wireless
68 REDHAWK PARKWAY & VIA RIO TEMECULA/WOLF STORE ROAD
1 1
Wireless
69 REDHAWK PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD
1 1
Wireless
70 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & NIGHTHAWK PASS
1 1
Wireless
71 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & TEHACHAPI PASS/EL CHIMISAL ROAD 1 1
Wireless
72 WOLF VALLEY ROAD & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH/WOLF CREEK
DRIVE SOUTH
1 1
Fiber
73 YNEZ ROAD & COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
74 YNEZ ROAD & DATE STREET
1 1
Fiber
75 YNEZ ROAD & DLR DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
76 YNEZ ROAD & EQUITY DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
77 YNEZ ROAD & MOTOR CAR PARKWAY
1 1
Fiber
78 YNEZ ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE
1 1
Fiber
79 YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA NORTH/PROMENADE MALL NORTH
1 1
Fiber
80 YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA SOUTH/PROMENADE MALL SOUTH
1 1
Fiber
81 YNEZ ROAD & PAUBA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
82 YNEZ ROAD & RANCHO VISTA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
83 YNEZ ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD
1 1
Fiber
84 YNEZ ROAD & SOLANA WAY
1 1
Fiber
85 YNEZ ROAD & TIERRA VISTA ROAD
1 1
Fiber
86 YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER NORTH/TOWER PLAZA NORTH
1 1
Fiber
87 YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER SOUTH/TOWER PLAZA SOUTH
1 1
Fiber
88 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CALLE CHAPOS
1 1
Fiber
89 TEMECULA PARKWAY & OLD TOWN FRONT STREET/WESTERN
BYPASS
M
1 1
Fiber
89 89
—
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-21
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing traffic signal cabinet with Model 170E Controller located at the intersection of Rancho Vista Rd & Meadows Parkway.
Crash Analysis:
883 Total Collisions at Signalized Intersections (2016-2020).
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-22
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
FOLLOWING TOO
WRONG SIDE OF
DUI
IMPEDING TRAFFIC
UNSAFE SPEED
CLOSELY
ROAD
IMPROPER
UNSAFE LANE
IMPROPER
AUTO ROW
PED ROW
PASSING
CHANGE
TURNING
VIOLATION
VIOLATION
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
HAZARDOUS
PED VIOLATION
LIGHTS
BRAKES
AND SIGNS
PARKING
UNSAFE STARTING
PED OR
UNKNOWN OR
OTHER
FELL ASLEEP
OR BACKING
OTHER DUI
NOT STATED
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
TOTALITEM
.•
FOR
R-ptic
Cable Upgrades
LS
1 $670,000
$670,000
100%
0%
0%
2 Wireless Radio Communication
1 $130,000
$130,000
100%
0%
0%
LS
System
3 Layer 2 Managed Ethernet Switch
EA
89 $4,000
$356,000
100%
0%
0%
in Traffic Signal Cabinet.
4 Remove Existing Equipment
LS
1 $8,000
$8,000
100%
0%
0%
5 Mobilization
LS
1 $70,000
$70,000
100%
0%
0%
6 Traffic Control
LS
1 $70,000
$70,000
100%
0%
0%
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
(%)
100%
0%
0%
•
$1,304,000
*Cost % for Other Safety -Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety -Related components
• • • •
•7,11
•NEI
10%
$130,400
TOTAL•
•COST
$1,434,400
(ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST
HUNDREDS)
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
LOCAL
DESCRIPTION TOTALCOST TOTAL(%) FUNDS OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental
$5,000
50%
$2,500
$2,500
PS&E
$145,000
50%
$72,500
$72,500
Subtotal - PE
$150,000
50%
$75,000
$75,000
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering
$0
50%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities
$0
50%
$0
$0
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW)
$0
50%
$0
$0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE)
$215,000
50%
$107,500
$107,500
Construction Items
$1,434,400
(Read only - from Section 1)
50%
$717,200
$717,200
Subtotal - Construction
$1,649,400
50%
$824,700
$824,700
PROJECT T•
$1,799,400
50%
$899,700
$899,700
Priority Project Summary:
$27,506,418 1 $1,799,400 15.29
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-24
Item No. 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Architectural Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024
PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Jenny McConville, Administrative Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Architectural Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows:
Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc,
Architectural Services
$1,000,000 total term
Miller Architectural Corporation
Architectural Services
$1,000,000 total term
TR Design Group, Architecture
Architectural Services
$1,000,000 total term
BACKGROUND: On August 13, 2019, the City Council approved professional services Agreements for Architectural Services with Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc., Miller Architectural Corporation, and TR Design Group, Architecture. Each Agreement covers a period of five years, Fiscal Years 2020-2024, for an amount not to exceed $200,000 each fiscal year, for a total agreement amount of $1,000,000.
Each firm is currently providing architectural services on a variety of CIP projects for the Public Works Department, and as a result we have nearly exceeded the current fiscal year 2021/22 allowance of $200,000. As such, staff needs to amend each agreement to exclude the annual fixed amount of $200,000 per fiscal year to avoid delays to ongoing projects. The First Amendments will amend the Payment Terms to allow for a total Agreement value, removing the annual allowance that is currently limited to $200,000 per fiscal year. The original term of the Agreements will remain unchanged and will be in effect through June 30, 2024, unless otherwise amended in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are made available in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2022-2026, and annual services are funded by the various funding sources approved for each project.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. First Amendment — Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc.
2. First Amendment — Miller Architectural Corporation
3. First Amendment — TR Design Group, Architecture
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND GILLIS + PANICHAPAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 26, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Gillis + Panichapan Architects, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On August 13, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Architectural Services," in the amount of $200,000.00 each fiscal year, for a total Agreement amount of $1,000,000.00.
The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this _ IM :11I-�
2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
GILLIS + PANICHAPAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
(Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.)
By: F
Jack Pa chapan, AIA, LEED AP,
President/CEO
By:
Linda Panichapan, Secretary
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT
Gillis + Panicha an Architects Inc.
Attn: Jack Panicha an
2900 Bristol Street Suite G-205
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714 668-4260
[email protected]
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initials and
Date:
08/09/2021
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND MILLER ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 26, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Miller Architectural Corporation, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On August 13, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Architectural Services," in the amount of $200,000.00 each fiscal year, for a total Agreement amount of $1,000,000.00.
The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this
2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA MILLER ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION
{Two Sign alures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement an behalf of the corporation.
By: y
Mike Naggar, Mayor :
GayI er O Principal i Cha
rge
M
ATTEST:
By: __
Randi Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Roberta L. Wile, Office Manager
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT
Miller Architectural Corooration
Attn: Gary Miller
1177 Idaho Street, Ste. 200
Redlands, CA 92374
(909) 335-7400 x. 111
[email protected]
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initial
Date: d j(; j'v-
08/09/2021
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND TR DESIGN GROUP, ARCHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 26, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and TR Design Group, Architecture, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On August 13, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Architectural Services," in the amount of $200,000.00 each fiscal year, for a total Agreement amount of $1,000,000.00.
The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rand! Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By.
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
TR DESIGN GROUP, ARCHITECTURE
(Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.)
By: 4/7/22
Thomas Riggle, President
By: 77 ��4 7 22
Thomas Riggle, Secretary
CONSULTANT
TR Design Group, Architecture
Attn: Thomas Riggle
2900 Adams Street, Suite A-400
Riverside, CA 92504
951 742-7179
[email protected]
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initials ar� d
Date: VY I&&I,
O8/09/2021
7179 MAGN01IAAVFNIJF N RIVFRSID17 CA 92504 ■ (951) 797-7179
CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT TO ACTION WITHOUT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Certificate of written consent to action without meeting of the Board of Directors of Thomas Riggle (the "Corporation") dated this 1 Oth day of July, 2019.
The Secretary of the Corporation Certifies that the Corporation is a corporation duly organized and operating under the laws of the State of California.
IT WAS RESOLVED THAT:
1. The officers and directors are authorized to enter into the following contract(s) (the "Contra ct(s)"):
a. Contracts as they pertain to the City of Temecula
Any officer or director of the Corporation is authorized to sign all documents and perform such acts as may be necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolution(s).
2. The resolution may be executed in counterparts. Facsimile or scanned signatures are binding and are considered to be original signatures.
In witness whereof, I have duly executed this Certificate of Corporate Resolution this I Ofh day of July, 2019.
Thomas Riggle
President
Thomas Riggle
Secretary
w ww.trdesi9ngioup.com
Item No. 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Jenny McConville, Administrative Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows:
CASC Engineering and Consulting,
Engineering, Survey &
First Amendment
Inc.
Environmental Services
$1,000,000 total term
Engineering Resources of Southern
Engineering, Survey &
Second Amendment
California, Inc.
Environmental Services
$1,350,000 total term
SB&O, Inc.
Engineering, Survey &
First Amendment
Environmental Services
$1,000,000 total term
BACKGROUND: On July 23, 2019, the City Council approved professional services Agreements for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services with CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., and SB&O, Inc. Each Agreement covers a period of five years, Fiscal Years 2020-2024, for an amount not to exceed $200,000 each fiscal year, for a total agreement amount of $1,000,000.
Each firm is currently providing engineering services on a variety of CIP projects for the Public Works Department, and as a result we have nearly exceeded the current Fiscal Year 2021-22 allowance of $200,000. As such, staff needs to amend each agreement to exclude the annual fixed amount of $200,000 per fiscal year to avoid delays to ongoing projects. These Amendments will amend the Payment Terms to allow for a total Agreement value, removing the annual allowance that is currently limited to $200,000 per fiscal year. The original term of the Agreements will
remain unchanged and will be in effect through June 30, 2024, unless otherwise amended in the future. All firms have provided updated Schedule of Hourly Billing Rates for the forthcoming FY2022-23, included as Attachment "1" to each Amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are made available in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2022-2026, and annual services are funded by the various funding sources approved for each project.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. First Amendment — CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
2. Second Amendment — Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
3. First Amendment — SB&O, Inc.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND CASC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC.
ENGINEERING, SURVEY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 26, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and CASC Engineering & Consulting, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On July 23, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services, in the amount of $200,000.00 each fiscal year, for a total Agreement amount of $1,000,000.00. b. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement.
3. The "CASC Engineering and Consulting Rate Schedule" as set forth in Exhibit B of the Agreement shall be amended to include the revised "CASC Engineering and Consulting Rate Schedule", as more fully described in Attachment 1", attached to this First Amendment and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CASC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
(Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.)
By: YY
r, P.E., President/CF0
Michelle E. Furlong, Seceoyffreasurer
By:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT
CASC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. _
Attn: Jeff Endicott, Engineering Manager
1470 E. Cooley Drive
Colton, CA 92324-3933
(855) 383-0101 x. 5380 (toll free)
909 835-7537 cell
[email protected]
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initials and
Date: &
08/09/2021
Engineering and Cons lting
CASC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING RATE SCHEDULE
Civil and Environmental Engineering/Consulting
President/Principal Engineer
Sr. Director
Director
Program Manager/ Technical Specialist
Senior Project Manager/ Senior Engineer IV/Senior Scientist IV Project Manager III/Senior Engineer III/ Senior Scientist III Project Manager II/Senior Engineer II/ Senior Scientist II Project Manager I/Senior Engineer I/ Senior Scientist I Assistant Project Manager/ Senior Environmental Analyst Project Engineer/ Environmental Analyst III/ Scientist III Senior Designer II/ Environmental Analyst II/ Scientist II Senior Designer I /Environmental Analyst I/ Scientist I Design Engineer II
Design Engineer I
Designer II/ Staff Analyst II
Designer I/ Staff Analyst I
CADD Drafter/Project Analyst III
Staff Assistant II/Project Analyst II
Staff Assistant I/Project Analyst I
Planning and Environmental
Planning Director
Senior Project Manager
Senior Biologist
Project Manager II
Project Manager I
Senior Planner II/Biologist II
Senior Planner I/Biologist I
Associate Planner II/GIS Specialist II
Associate Planner I/GIS Specialist I
Construction Monitor
Clerical
Project Coordinator/Clerical III
Project Coordinator/Clerical II
Project Coordinator/Clerical I
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES:
The following expenses will be billed at cost plus 15% unless otherwise noted:
27710 Jefferson Street, Suite 105
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 216-2456
Landscape Architectures
$265
Licensed Landscape Architect
$175
$235
Senior Landscape Designer
$150
$220
Associate Landscape Designer
$125
$210
Assistant Landscape Designer
$105
$195
$180
Construction Management
$170
Resident Engineer
$165
$165
Field Inspector III
$140
$160
Field Inspector II
$125
$155
Field Inspector 1
$113
$150
$145
Surveying and Mapping
$135
Licensed Surveyor/ Director
$210
$125
Senior Survey Project Manager
$175
$120
Senior Survey Analyst
$150
$115
Senior Calculator
$145
$102
Calculator II
$127
$96
Calculator
$116
$90
Survey Analyst 11
$106
Survey Analyst 1
$96
Technical Aide
$91
$210
$182
Field Survey Crews
$175
Three Person Survey/GPS Crew
$265
$170
Two Person Survey/GPS Crew
$226
$165
One Person Survey/GPS Crew
$210
$140
$127
Unmanned Aerial Services
$116
Director
$235
$106
Licensed UAS Pilot
$195
$94-116
Project Manager
$165
Video Editor
$155
Visual Observer
$113
$95
Flight Coordinator
$113
$90
$85
Outside Services: Includes fees paid to sub -consultants, consultants, analytical laboratories, and other providers of services required for execution of the project.
Permits, Applications, and Fees: Includes fees for Notices of Intent (NOI), Notices of Termination (NOT), application fees, submittal fees, permit fees, and other fees required as part of the project and not paid directly by Client.
Reproduction Services: Includes blueprinting, copying, printing, and plotting. In-house plots will be billed at $6.00 per sheet for each client set and for a final in-house review set. B&W / Color copies: $0.08 / $0.90 for 8.5 X 11 and $0.20 / $1.20 for 11 X 17.
Rental Fees: Includes rental fees paid by the firm, including required vehicles, equipment, and tools required to complete the work.
Commercial Delivery Services: Including Express Mail, Federal Express, UPS and independent courier services.
In -House Pick -Up and Delivery Services: When provided by the firm, these services will be billed at $50.00 per hour plus current IRS mileage reimbursement rates per mile round trip, with no additional markup.
Travel Expenses: Includes travel expenses incidental to performance of the work, including airfare, parking, tolls, taxi, lodging, etc. Vehicle mileage will be billed at a rate of current IRS mileage reimbursement rate per mile with no additional markup. Travel time for professional and administrative staff will be billed per the hourly fee rate schedule with no additional markup and survey crews will be billed at $60 Perhour, pert -man crew.
Per Diem: Per diem for meals for overnight stays will be billed at Caltrans current state rates.
NOTES:
Prevailing Wage: Projects and/or portions thereof designated by Client to be subject to Prevailing Wage shall be billed at the regular staff rate or the Prevailing Wage rate, whichever is higher plus a multiplier of approximately 2.3 to 2.8 for overhead and profit. The Prevailing Wage rate shall be based upon the Wage Rate Determination issued by California's Director of Industrial Relations for the locality and employee classification at the time the work is performed. Please contact CASC for specific project prevailing wage rates.
Waiver of Subrogation: When a Waiver of Subrogation for Workman's Compensation Insurance is required by the Client, the Client will be required to pay the additional insurance premium.
The approximate amount for the waiver is $250 per year.
Litigation Support and Expert Witness shall beat 2.0 times the above noted hourly rates.
Annual Increase in rate: CASC will increase their rates annually, usually at the beginning of a calendar year. A new fee rate schedule will be provided.
Client Initial
Revised 11/22/21
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ENGINEERING, SURVEY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 26, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). Inconsideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On July 23, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services, in the amount of $200,000.00 each fiscal year, for a total Agreement amount of $1,000,000.00. b. On August 10, 2021, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to the Agreement to increase the payment in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($350,000.00).
C. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents
($1,350,000.00) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement.
3. The "Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. Schedule of Rates" as set forth in Exhibit B of the Agreement shall be amended to include the revised "Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. Schedule of Rates", as more fully described in Attachment 1", attached to this First Amendment and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written,
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC,
(Two S1gne[ure3 olcorporato olrlcersrequiredunless corporate documents aulhorlxe only one person to sign (heegreomant on behalf of (lie corporation)
By:
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rands Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
John Brud n, President
By:
Moe Ahmadl, Vice Pros ldent/Treasurer
By: _
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc._
Attn: John Brudin
1861 W. Redlands Blvd.
Redlands, CA 82373
809 890.1266
[email protected]
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initials a d
Date:'! VL
0810912021
Professional Staff
Vice President..
Sr. Principal Engineer .............
Principal Engineer..,..,....,.. ....
Assistant Principal Engineer..
Engineer V .............................
Engineer IV ............................
Engineer III ............................
Engineer II .............................
EngineerI ..............................
Engineering Staff
................ $265.00
................ $225,00
................ $220,00
................ $200,00
................ $185,00
............ $170.00
................ $155,00
................ $140,00
................ $120,00
................ $105,00
Principal Engineering Associate,,,
$190.00
Senior Engineering Associate ............................................ $165,00
Engineering Associate V.................................................... $145,00
Engineering Associate IV ................................................... $125.00
Engineering Associate III .................................................... $115.00
Engineering Associate II ..................................................... $104.00
Engineering Associate I ...................................................... $100,00
Engineering Aide II.............................................................. $55.00
.. Engineering Aide 1....................................0........................ $50.00
Survey Staff and Services
Principal Surveyor., 1111IM11m,
$190.00
Senior Surveyor................................................................. $155.00
Surveyor III........................................................................ $120100
Surveyor II......................................................................... $100,00
.. Surveyor I.......................................................................... $90.00
2-Man Survey Crew
(Std Equipment/Truck)...................................................... $290,00
1-Man Survey Crew
(Std Equipment/Truck)...................................................... $220,00
3rd Man on Survey Crew ................................................... $120,00
Construction Support Staff
Construction Manager...."..,,,,.,.. $185.00
Chief Construction Inspector ............................................. $145.00 Sr. Construction Inspector................................................1$135,00 Construction Inspector. .................................................0... $125,00 Inspector Overtime (Hours 8-12/Saturdays) ..................... $175,00 Inspector Overtime (Hours 12+/Sundays)......................... $205,00 Administrative Staff
OperationsSpecialist........................................................... $90.OD Administrative Assistant II ................................................... $80.OD Administrative Assistant I .................................................... $71.00 Other Direct Expenses
Vehicle Mileage ................................................ $0.70/Mile Subconsultant................................................... Cost +20% Reimbursable Expenses/Charges ..................... Cost+ 15% Forensic Analysis ................................. Standard Rate X 2 Expert Witness .................................... Standard Rate X 3 NOTE: All rates hereon are subject to automatic increase upon July 1st of each year. Rates will be adjusted by the percent Increase in California Consumer Price Index -All Urban Consumers for the twelve-month period ending February as calculated by the California Department of Industrial Relations (CADIR) California Consumer Price Index Calculator. Prevailing Wage Rates are dictated by the CADIR. All classifications which are subject to Prevailing Wages will be adjusted when revised determinations are published by the CADIR.
Unless otherwise established by contractual agreement,
payment is due and payable upon receipt. Payment is considered delinquent if not paid within 30 days of invoice date. If payment is not completed within agreed terms, Client agrees to pay a service charge on the amount past due at the rate of 1.5% per month (18% per annum).
January 1, 2022
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND SB&O, INC.
ENGINEERING, SURVEY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 26, 2022 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and SB&O, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On July 23, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services, in the amount of $200,000.00 each fiscal year, for a total Agreement amount of $1,000,000.00.
The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows:
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Million Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000,000.00) for the total term of this agreement, unless additional payment is approved as provided in this agreement.
3. The "Fee Schedule — November 2021" as set forth in Exhibit B of the Agreement shall be amended to include the revised "Fee Schedule — November 2021 ", as more fully described in Attachment 1", attached to this First Amendment and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 08/09/2021
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
SB&O, Inc.
(Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.)
By: �.
Don Brooks, P.E., President
1 By: �v
Daniel O'Rourke, Vice President
CONSULTANT
SB&O Inc.
Attn: Daniel O'Rourke Vice President
41689 Enterprise Circle North Suite 126
Temecula CA 92590
^(951) 695-8900
951 695-8901 fax
danoCdsboinc.com
City Purchasing Mgr.
Initials a
Date:
08/09/2021
V
BB&OZ
PLANNING ENGINEEHING SLJRVEYING
FEE SCHEDULE - November 2021
Hourly Rates
Expert Witness (Depo/Court Appearance) ..........
$360.00/hr
Professional Consultation .................................... $250.00/hr
Principal............................................................... $240.00/hr
Project Manager ................................................... $208.00/hr
Project Engineer .................................................. $174.00/hr
Assistant Project Engineer ................................... $160.00/hr
Design Engineer .................................................. $144.00/hr
Staff Engineer...................................................... $130.00/hr
Senior Designer ................................................... $138.00/hr
Senior Design Drafter .......................................... $132.00/hr
Design Drafter ..................................................... $122.00/hr
Drafter.................................................................. $108.00/hr
Delineator.............................................................. $88.00/hr
Associate Planner ................................................ $124.00/hr
Senior Land Surveyor .......................................... $204.00/hr
Survey Supervisor ................................................ $172.00/hr
Assistant Land Surveyor ...................................... $160.00/hr
1-Man Survey Crew ............................................. $204.00/hr
2-Man Survey Crew ............................................. $300.00/hr
3-Man Survey Crew ............................................. $424.00/hr
2-Man Survey Crew (Overtime) .......................... $404.00/hr
1-Man Survey Crew (Double time) .....................
$300.00/hr
2-Man Survey Crew (Double time) .....................
$500.00/hr
1-Man Survey Crew(GPS).................................. $244.00/hr
2-Man Survey Crew(GPS).................................. $340.00/hr
Computer Technician/Survey Notes ......................... $140.00/hr
Project Coordinator .............................................. $136.00/hr
Contract Coordinator ................................................ $108.00/hr
Administrative Technician..........................................$88.00/hr Delivery Service .................................................... $56.00/hr
QSD $195.00/hr
QSP........................................................................... $114.00/hr Storm Water Sampling
Sample Collection $111.00/sample
Sample Testing .................................................. $111.00/test Laboratory Testing ...............................................Cost+15% Attachment "1"
In-house Reimbursables Charges
Copying/Printing
Copies/Prints, 81/2" X I I" ...................... $0.15/page Copies/Prints, 11" X 17" ................... $0.25/page Copies/Prints, 81/2" X 11 ", Color ........... $0.75/page Copies/Prints, I I" X 17", Color ............ $1.20/page Slip Sheets (Color) ................................ $0.10/page Printing - Drawings/Plans
Bond: .......................................................... $0.25/sf Mylar:......................................................... $4.50/sf Plotting
Bond........................................................... $1.80/sf Mylar.......................................................... $3.90/sf Bond, Color ................................................ $3.30/sf High Gloss, Color ....................................... $6.60/sf Technical Reports
.5" Binder ................................................... $4.25/ea
1" Binder .................................................... $4.25/ea
1.5" Binder ................................................. $6.40/ea
2" Binder .................................................... $8.00/ea
3" Binder .................................................... $9.00/ea
4" Binder .................................................. $22.70/ea 5-Tab Label Dividers .................................
$6.25/ea
8-Tab Label Dividers .................................
$8.05/ea
Comb Binding w/covers ............................
$4.70/ea
Map Pockets .............................................. $0.30/ea
Scanning ..................................................... $1.65/sf CD: ....................................................... $18.00/each Fax (10 page minimum) :....................... $1.20/page Mileage Reimbursement .......................$0.575/mile Travel/Per Diem................................$150.00/night Notary Services ............................ $15.00/signature EFT & Third Party EFT Fees/Charges .............Cost
Outside Reimbursable Charges .............. Cost+10%
In the event of any increase of costs due to the granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits due to the terms of any new labor agreement during the lifetime of this agreement, such increases shall be adjusted to all fees.
Client hereby agrees that the balance as stated on the invoice from Engineer to Client is correct, conclusive, binding on the Client, and due within 30 days from date of invoice, unless Client, within 10 days from the date of the invoice, notifies Engineer in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be incorrect. Client hereby agrees that costs for subsequent requests of billing and/or exhibit copies will be borne by Client, and billed on a time and materials basis (T&M) under Client reimbursable job number specified in Contract. Time is of the essence regarding the provisions of this paragraph.
NOTE: Under the terms and conditions of this contract, a late payment FINANCE CHARGE will be computed at the periodic rate of 1.00% per month, which is an ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE of 12% and will be applied to any unpaid balance commencing 30 days after the date on which payment of the balance, pursuant to this contract, is required to be made.
SB&O Initials: Client Initials:
WXontract InfoTee Schedule\541-2111 Exh A Logo.docx Revised: 11/5/2021
Compensation and Fee Schedule
HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC.
HELIX
nning
Staff Title
Billing Rate ($)
HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
CEQA/NEPA Compliance/Air Qua lity/Noise/GHG/Other Technical Specialties Principal Environmental Planner
250
Sr. Project Manager/Sr. Specialist IV
220
Sr. Project Manager/Sr. Specialist III
210
Sr. Project Manager/Sr. Specialist II
185
Sr. Project Manager/Sr. Specialist 1
175
Project Manager/Specialist III
160
Project Manager/Specialist II
150
Project Manager/Specialist 1
140
Environmental Planner III
125
Environmental Planner II
120
Environmental Planner 1
105
Biological Resources Studies/Habitat Management/Permitting Principal Biologist/Principal Regulatory Specialist
250
Sr. Biology Project Manager/Sr. Regulatory Specialist III 215
Sr. Biology Project Manager/Sr. Regulatory Specialist II 205
Sr. Biology Project Manager/Sr. Regulatory Specialist 1 195
Sr. Scientist III
185
Sr. Scientist II
175
Sr. Scientist 1
160
Biology Project Manager III
190
Biology Project Manager II
170
Biology Project Manager 1
150
Operations Manager
140
Biologist V
145
Biologist IV
140
Biologist III
130
Biologist II
115
Biologist 1
100
Cultural Resources Management
Principal Cultural Resources Specialist
185
Senior Cultural Resources Project Manager
180
Cultural Resources Project Manager II
145
Cultural Resources Project Manager 1
135
Assistant Cultural Resources Project Manager
125
Senior Architectural Historian
155
Architectural Historian
140
Senior Archaeologist II
160