HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2008 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE
CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Minutes of a Regular Meeting: February 13, 2008
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘o8[N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
I. OPENING
A. Flag Pledge
B. Roll Call
Present – Commissioners: J. Beil, L. Dick, W. King
J. Pyne (arrived in time for Consideration Item #2)
Present –Staff: A. Farahani, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, Sgt. B. Meissner, P. Then
C. Approval of Minutes
December 12, 2007
ACTION: Continue to the March 12, 2008 meeting.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: W. King
AYES: J. Beil, W. King
ABSTAIN: L. Dick, N. Lall
ABSENT: J. Pyne
ACTION: Rescind motion to continue Minutes to the next meeting.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: L. King
AYES: Unanimous
ACTION: Approved minutes as published by the Recording Secretary.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: W. King
AYES: J. Beil, L. Dick, W. King
ABSTAIN: N. Lall, J. Pyne
II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
None this meeting.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 2
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Review City Traffic Commission’s Annual Activity Report for 2007.
Traffic Engineering Division
CITY OF ORANGE
ACTION: Received and filed the report.
There was no discussion of this request.
B. Request for the installation of “NO PARKING ANYTIME” restrictions between
the two driveways on Parker St. serving the business complex at 756 W. Town &
Country Rd.
James Beam
10 Plaza Square, #B
Orange CA 92866
ACTION: Approved “NO PARKING ANYTIME” restrictions on the west
side of Parker St. from Town & Country Rd. and the south
City limits.
There was no discussion of this request.
C. Request for the installation of a driveway vision zone in front of
1445 N. Meads Ave.
Marvin Buehler
1445 N. Meads Ave.
Orange CA 928669-1725
ACTION: Approved the installation of 20 ft. of red curb on both
sides of the driveway at 1445 N. Meads Ave.
There was no discussion of this request.
MOTION: L. Dick
SECOND: N. Lall
AYES: Unanimous
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 3
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS
1. Request to remove the “HANDICAPPED” parking space in front of 916 N.
Laurel Dr.
John Marzetti
915 N. Laurel Dr.
Orange CA 92867
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your
copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion of
this request.
Lisa Karnes, 930 N. Laurel Dr. – The biggest thing that surprised me was that
you all had approved this without setting guidelines for the whole county. I’m
here to get information of how this is going to go across the board. Are you
indicating that every street needs to have handicapped parking every so many
feet so that handicapped people will be able to park their cars next to the
sidewalk? Is that what I’m hearing?
Chairman Beil – I don’t think so. We have another item later that talks about
guidelines.
Lisa Karnes, 930 N. Laurel Dr. – So what you’ve decided here about 916 N. Laurel
has to do with the guidelines for the whole county?
Chairman Beil – Our jurisdiction is the City of Orange.
Lisa Karnes, 930 N. Laurel Dr. – So we’re going to talk later about the guidelines
for the whole City of Orange and that is how you came to the decision about 916
Laurel Dr. Then we were going to take a look, there were 12 other residences that
had been approved in the past. In fact there was one that was talked about by
Wayne King where a man was given handicapped parking because he couldn’t
park in the driveway because an RV was there then the RV was removed so
obviously he doesn’t need his handicapped parking any more. What were the
decisions on going back to these 12 people that had been approved before?
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – The comments should be kept to the item
that is before you which is 916 N. Laurel Dr. There may be other conversations
later concerning an overall policy that may be adopted. But these are decided on
a case-by-case basis this is not an issue of anything about every 200 ft. there is
going to be a handicapped parking spot in the City of Orange. So right now you
should address just 916 N. Laurel Dr.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 4
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Lisa Karnes, 930 N. Laurel Dr. – Well these other things were thrown into the
916 N. Laurel Dr. so I though all of those issues were going to help impact your
decision about 916 N. Laurel Dr. I understand that’s not the case.
Debbie Wagner, 916 N. Laurel Dr. – I’m the handicapped person living at 916 N.
Laurel Dr. and who requested the handicapped parking designation space. I had
provided Mr. Allenbach with proof of my disability and my State issued
handicapped placard and I came to let you know I am disabled, I do need the spot
and I use the spot. Not daily but I do use it and need it.
Jean Vona, 916 N. Laurel Dr. – We canvassed some of the residents on our street
on Dec. 11th to get an idea how they felt about the designated handicapped
parking space in front of our house so I could share that information with you.
Not everyone was home or answered the door when I stopped by but I did wind
up talking to ten different people at ten different residences. From them I
learned some information I didn’t know and which could have bearing on this
request to remove the designated handicapped parking space. Mr. Marzetti who
is requesting the removal told several people that my sister had contacted the
City regarding a structure he built in the front of his house and for which the City
subsequently fined him $10,000. This could be the reason Mr. Marzetti has been
harassing us for almost 2 years and why he has asked that the handicapped
parking space be removed. If it is true that someone reported Mr. Marzetti and
he received a fine it was neither my sister nor myself, we knew nothing about the
matter. When I polled the neighbors I took with me a sheet of paper so people
could indicate their opinion and record their name and address. The paper was
divided into two sections, one section was allocated for the signatures of those
who do not object to the parking space, and the other section was for those who
wished to see the parking space removed. Of the 10 people I spoke with six said
they had no objection to the designated space; 2 people simply signed in the area
indicating they would like to see the space removed but said nothing to me about
their reasons. One of those two people is Lisa Karnes so maybe she can explain to
you why she wanted it removed. The remaining 2 individuals told me they did
not want to sign anything because they were afraid this would turn into a
neighborhood conflict and they didn’t want to be involved if that should happen.
They both told me they felt anyone with a provable medical disabil ity was entitled
to specialized parking if needed. Both people stated they would have no problem
should the Traffic Commission decide to allow the handicapped parking space to
remain. Copies of the paper signed by those I spoke with are available if the
Commission would like to have them.
Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the
Commission for further discussion and a motion.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 5
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Chairman Beil – In the staff report you made the comment, “in the case of
denying the request”, which I’m assuming means approving the staff
recommendation. The staff recommends the proponent of the handicapped
parking comply with responsibilities listed under the new guidelines.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – With regard to new guidelines they
will apply to requests we receive in the future. What is out on the ground now
was put in under a different set of guidelines. Those guidelines basically are that
the proponent has proof that they are handicapped, and that once approved the
proponent or property owner put in an all-weather level landing area in the
parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. Because handicap parking is still
considered public parking and the nature of disabilities vary from person to
person, we don’t know if a person may be in a wheelchair or using crutches, a
cane, etc. The reason for the landing is that it allows a person on the passenger
side of a vehicle to exit that vehicle and get to the sidewalk safely without tripping
or falling. Those are the guidelines we have at present and the resident at 916 N.
Laurel Dr. complied with those guidelines. Based on that and the fact that the
demand for on-street parking in the neighborhood is so very light we cannot see
that one handicapped parking space will cause a hardship for the other residents
in the area. That’s why we are recommending the Commission deny the request
to remove the existing handicapped parking, in other words, leave the
handicapped parking in place.
Vice Chairman Lall – When we approved this a few months back I believe all the
information was presented to us in a very concise manner, I think we lacked one
piece of information that was supplied to us later. Based on the photographs and
Dave’s testimony it doesn’t seem like it’s impacting the neighbor hood in any
negative way whatsoever. I’d be inclined to make a motion to approve staff
recommendation and deny the request.
ACTION: Approved staff recommendation and denied the request.
MOTION: N. Lall
SECOND: L. Dick
Commissioner Dick – A point of clarification, as I understand it the only thing
objectionable was the aesthetics?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – The basis was lack of notification and
the aesthetics of the blue curb. With regard to the notification again, at the time
it was our policy with regard to parking restrictions that those immediately
impacted, in this case it would be those adjacent to the existing address, should
the request spill over into another neighbor’s frontage. The proponent happens
to live across the street so his parking in front of his house was not affected by
this at all, so consequently he was not notified at all. With regard to aesthetics,
we’re engineer’s and we put things in to make them function.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 6
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
VOTE:
AYES: J. Beil, L. Dick, N. Lall,
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Make sure the records reflects that
Commissioner Pyne is present and that he will begin his involvement with item
#2.
Chairman Beil – So noted.
2. Request for the installation of “NO STOPPING” and “NO PARKING” areas on
Van Owen Ave. as follows:
1) North side of Van Owen Ave. from Tustin St. to 150 ft. easterly be posted or
otherwise marked for “NO STOPPING”, as defined by C.V.C. Section 587 and
O.M.C. Section 10.38.020.
2) North side of Van Owen Ave. the curb between the eastern edge of the
westernmost driveway to the adjoining commercial property to the western
edge of the easternmost driveway, be marked and posted as “NO PARKING”, as
defined by C.V.C. Section 463 and O.M.C. Section 10.38.010.
3) South side of Van Owen Ave. adjacent to the existing commercial property,
the curb shall be marked and posted for “NO PARKING” 30 ft. in both directions
from the easterly entrance of the commercial property, and 30 ft. east of the
westerly entrance of the commercial property.
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your
copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion of
this request.
Chairman Beil – Could you also give a quick synopsis on the City Attorney’s
request?
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – It is based on a request that came trough
the City Attorney’s office, however, it’s based on the traffic engineering out there
and the sight distance concerns. It will result in the settlement of this lawsuit
which is an added benefit to it, the primary reason it is being brought forward to
this Commission is because of the concerns for the sight distance and the turning
movements. There is no way legally to stop the vehicles being unloaded from the
carrier trucks, they are allowed to do that under the Vehicle Code even when they
are double-parked, they are allowed to do that.
Chairman Beil – On a residential width street?
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 7
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Yes. There is no way for us to prevent
that. There are definitely concerns, when that is going on, of the safety of the
turning movements. We think the best way to address that issue but it’s based
upon the traffic engineering aspects of it as opposed to the settlement of any
lawsuit. If this body does not find that it meets the requirements we would
normally do for these types of sight issues then you should deny it. We don’t
want you to make this decision based upon the lawsuit aspect, but it was brought
forward because these issues were raised through this lawsu it and brought to our
attention, and we feel we would be somewhat remiss if we didn’t bring it to the
attention of this body once it had been brought to our attention of a possible
dangerous condition.
Vice Chairman Lall – Obviously there is a tremendous amount of on-street
parking and we’re going to eliminate quite a bit of that, do we have any way of
determining where those vehicles are coming from? Are they Toyota of Orange
employees? Where would they go?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – During the day we would assume most
of the vehicles parked in this area are related to Toyota of Orange, since the
Ralph’s Market is not occupied right now. Because Van Owen easterly of the
subject area and also Highland St., which terminates at Van Owen Ave. are
developed as residential apartment complexes some of this demand may be from
some of those residences. It may be spill-over from the apartments even though
during the day we would expect most of those people to be at work. The reason
we notified them is two-fold; ideally when Toyota does fully occupy the new
service center on the north side of the street, they should be providing off -street
parking for their employees and customers that are dropping off their cars. They
should also have adequate parking for their employees on the main lot on the
west side of Tustin St. Now whether they use that or not, whether Toyota can
compel their employees to use it or not, we’re not sure. If they don’t use the lot
and the parking is removed then we can anticipate that over-flow will go into the
residential community. Conversely, if any of the residents from the apartments
are using this area for their own ancillary parking if the parking is removed it will
also increase the demand for parking on Highland and the rest of Van Owen.
That’s why they have all been notified so they can understand that there are going
to be consequences with this request.
Vice Chairman Lall – You said Toyota of Orange should be putting in some type
of parking for their employees. Is it a should be, or is there a development
agreement requiring that? Or is there anything of that nature that we’re aware of
at this point, I’m not sure if they have filed for building permits.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 8
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I’ve seen a site plan for this site and
there is parking for their employees, but I can’t tell you offhand how many
employees they intend to have at the Service Center, and how many parking stalls
they will have, so if a representative is here from Toyota they could better answer
that question than I, that is more a Planning issue than an Engineering one.
Casey Griffin, Wilson Automotive Group – 1400 N. Tustin St. – It is part of the
redevelopment plan approved by Council and the Planning Commission. It
includes on-site parking, which we have put into the employee manual that on-
site parking is a requirement of the employee; we do the best we can. We don’t
monitor that but we have put it in to the employee manual that on -site parking is
provided and they need to utilize it.
Vice Chairman Lall – Do you have any idea, off the top of your head, how many
employee parking spots are included in this project?
Casey Griffin, Wilson Automotive Group – 1400 N. Tustin St. – No I don’t.
Kurt Sofra, 1845 E. Van Owen Ave. – I’m concerned the way it was explained
because all those cars are Toyota of Orange. If they go through with this and
make it “NO PARKING” that’s all fine, but I think in respect for the residents to
make it evening parking where it’s okay 6-8 a.m. or something. I know you get a
lot of tax revenue from Toyota of Orange, I know that plays a big part in this deal,
but I think for respect for the residents they take up a lot of parking. They have
plenty of room now for their employees to park on-site, they’re not selling near
the cars they used to, the lot is empty a lot of the times and they can start doing it
now. There are quite a few cars, I’ve never counted, but there are a lot and many
times they park into the residential and they stay there until 10 pm. Fo r me I
actually purchased a car just to park in front of my house so I know there is a spot
when I get there and I’m fortunate enough to do that but to add a red curb means
I’ve got to buy another car and I’m not ready to do that. Some of the residents
showed their concern but they didn’t want to come down because they didn’t
want to speak, so there are a few people here who are going to talk about it as well
but the concern is that if you could at least put a time that we could park in the
evenings say 6 pm-8 am or 6 pm-9 am or whatever, I would ask that if you’re
going to do that, and if they follow along with the red curb to police Toyota of
Orange employees to park on-site if it’s in their handbook. Since he doesn’t know
how many are going to be available I doubt they are going to give you a number,
it says yeah there are 4 spots and it’s 45 employees more than that.
Yvette Bender, 1928 E. Van Owen Ave. #C – I agree with my neighbor, a good
majority of those cars belong to Toyota of Orange. I work evenings most nights
and when I come in at 10 pm that street is empty with the exception of that
Mission Tortilla truck which is parked on the south side of the street next to the
Ralph’s building. Toyota of Orange also owns an empty fenced lot that stands
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 9
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
behind that Ralph’s parking lot that they have not used in quite a while, they
could be using that for employee parking. It does become a hardship for the
residents of that neighborhood if that parking is marked off as a tow zone because
we are allotted one garage per apartment building with the exception of the 3 -
bedroom townhomes, which have two. Most of us in the neighborhood have 2
cars or more, not to mention guest parking. We would need that space mostly in
the evening.
Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the
Commission for further discussion and a motion.
Vice Chairman Lall – I used to shop at the Ralph’s Market and getting in and out
of the parking lot on Van Owen was quite difficult because of the parking, half the
time I felt I was rolling the dice and doing a whole lot of praying. I certainly agree
with the red curb for sight distance. I have concerns taking away that much
parking. I don’t know how much the parking is going to help the residents since
it looks, by the testimony, that it’s mainly Toyota of Orange, people parking there,
so I don’t see how that’s available to them except at night. I would be interested
in asking staff if we can restrict it and if it will meet the safety goals that we’re
trying to meet by restricting it on a time basis.
Chairman Beil – When you try to answer that I guess one of the big issues is the
delivery trucks that was explained to us, the vehicle carriers and I guess what will
be important is if there is a regular time those d elivery trucks come because I
know Selman at Chapman & Tustin, those trucks come all the time, mostly in the
early evening between 6-8 pm and park right in the middle of Tustin St. and start
unloading. Is there a regular time frame that those delivery tru cks normally
come?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I really don’t know what the delivery
times are for Toyota of Orange. I would believe in this case, however, that most
of their deliveries take place during the day because you do have a residential
community just to the east of their facility. Selman is pretty much in a
commercial area there’s nobody really living around there, so if they have to get a
delivery at 8 or 9 pm it shouldn’t affect anyone’s sleep or quality of life, because
there is nobody living near there. I suppose if their operation deliveries are
primarily during the day then the Commission could consider prohibiting
parking in this area during the day and leaving it open at night. I do want to
stress that this is only for the area that would be posted for “NO PARKING”, the area
that we recommend for “NO STOPPING AT ANY TIME” that is a 24 hours a day
restriction. That is adjacent to the traffic signal to free the right -turn lane at
Tustin St.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 10
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – If you would allow me to ask Mr. Griffin if
he knows the answer to that question, because my understanding is that I think
they come at different times. One of the problems is that Toyota doesn’t
necessarily control what they do and that’s part of the problem with these drivers
is that nobody can really tell them what to do. We can try to work something out
with Toyota where they make delivery at certain times and certain places but
these guys kind of do what they want, and as the Vehicle Code allow s them to do
certain things, they pretty much tell you “I’m going to do it the way I want to do
it, whenever I want to do it”.
Casey Griffin, Wilson Automotive Group – 1400 N. Tustin St. – We don’t control
the drivers. On the new car deliveries they are contracted with Toyota Corporate
directly, on pre-0wned vehicles nobody has control over those guys.
Chairman Beil – Is that lot chained off at night? The old bowling alley lot?
Casey Griffin, Wilson Automotive Group – 1400 N. Tustin St. – Yeah, but there is
a key these guys are given. They can come at any time.
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – That’s what I had understood to be the
problem as well, it’s a problem that could occur at any time day or night, and the
same problem would be there obviously no matter what time of day or night it is.
Chairman Beil – The discussions that happened on the GVD lawsuit against the
City regarding the approval of the Toyota thing, and discussion saying this
assemblage was there any expiration of time limitations, rather than complete no
parking?
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Not that I’m aware of. The information I
heard was that the timing could not be worked out because they come any time
day or night, that was the problem. I think that had been dis cussed at one time
but that just wouldn’t solve the concerns because they could come any time day
or night so anytime we could end up having a truck in the middle of the street
and have concerns about sight problems, and those things would be there no
matter if it were 3 p.m. or 9 p.m. or 3 a.m.
ACTION: Approved the request.
MOTION: W. King
SECOND: J. Pyne
AYES: Unanimous
Vice Chairman Lall – I understand that the truck drivers have the protection of
the Vehicle Code, its very frustrating in this situation because I see them creating
a lot of trouble. I understand that Toyota of Orange has probably done all they
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 11
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
can to work with the neighbors so I share their frustration. Reluctantly I would
have to agree with this proposal but it’s very unfortunate the truck drivers have
the ability to affect the quality of life in Orange, and I would urge the Police Dept.
to influence the quality of life of these truck drivers as best as we legally can.
Commissioner King – It seems to me that Toyota could refine their operation to
receive deliveries from point to point, and we don’t receive deliveries between 6
pm and 6 am or such time limit, other businesses does that, I really don’t
understand why Toyota doesn’t. I guess that’s really besides the point here, I
would suggest that Toyota could do that.
Chairman Beil – Is that Mission Tortilla truck legally parked?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes, he is legally parked. Generally
there are two cube vans, there is a Mission truck and then there is anothe r one
just like it. They typically tend to park at either of the two driveways on the
Ralph’s side, I believe what they are attempting to do here, the visibility for a
driver on one of those vehicles is not very good, especially to the rear. So if they
park near the driveway they can either just back-up a little bit and then pull out of
their parking space, or in the case of the guy who parks at the westerly driveway
he can just pull forward, and that way he avoids hitting anyone parked right
behind him.
Chairman Beil – Is this classified as a residential or commercial area street?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I would say from about Tustin St. to
just about Highland St. would be a commercial area and then the residential
areas begins easterly of the Regal Lanes property line; I guess Ralph’s has a high -
bay in the back so easterly of the property is where the residential community
begins.
Chairman Beil – I get a lot of people asking me about commercial vehicles
parking in residential areas all the times. I know there are certain size limitations
and everything and axles and vehicle types.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 12
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
3. Request for a policy for consideration and processing requests for curb-
side handicapped parking stalls.
Traffic Engineering Division
CITY OF ORANGE
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your
copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion of
this request.
Commissioner Dick – As I understand it if we were to grant such a parking spot
today there would be no fee? Is that accurate?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes, for any of our shades of curb
painting we do not charge.
Commissioner Dick – Do we charge for signage?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No.
Commissioner Dick – I understand the need for a more formalized set of
guidelines and I applaud the effort. But I would have to submit that if someone
actually meets the criteria as outlined they’ve got enough troubles without us
asking for $500.00. I would urge my fellow Commissioners to consider that this
is a community that has shown respect for the elderly and shown respect for
those who are perhaps less fortunate in many ways, and if you are requiring a
handicap parking slot I see no reason to add insult to injury by requesting a $500
fee if we could possibly squeeze it out of our budget. As I understand it we have
less than 2 dozen of these in the community today?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We have about 15 and about 500 ft. of
blue curb in the entire city.
Commissioner Dick – I would be in support of the guidelines but I would like to
excise, exclude or preclude the $500 fee.
Chairman Beil – Amir or Dave perhaps you comment on have you calculated that
fee.
Amir Farahani, Acting City Traffic Engineer – The way we calculated the cost was
to calculate the cost of the paint and also installing the signs and maintaining it
every few years. I need to add one point since you asked me last time to look into
this matter in other cities. I checked with a couple of other cities in Orange
County, Santa Ana and Garden Grove. In Santa Ana I didn’t see any fees in their
applications and the City of Garden Grove only charges $75.00.
Chairman Beil – I guess legally we’re not required to provide these spaces on
public right-of-way, and my feeling is that it would be reasonable recovered costs
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 13
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
when the City is not legally required to provide any type of handicapped parking
on the street.
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – I would suggest if any fee is put in there at
all make sure there is a clause that says “can be waived upon a showing of need”,
something along that line. It can either be done at staff level or if you want to put
in there, “can appeal fee to the Commission”, and the Commission has the power
to waive it upon proof of need, or something along those lines. I think
Commissioner Dick has a good point, that many of the people who are in this
situation quite often are not that well off to begin with, and they are going to have
to go through the expense of getting the concrete pad put down. Remember once
that is there it’s a benefit for any handicapped person in the general public, it’s
not just for that one person. We don’t charge for other things that are open to the
public on the street such as 30-Minute or 2-Hour parking, or anything else, so
there’s no way that this person can restrict this just for their use since they paid
for it. At the very least it’s up to the Commission to decide anything about fees. I
think some clause should be in there allowing either at staff level, or at the very
least, allow an appeal to the Commission to waive that fee based upon a show of
need or a lack of ability to pay.
Chairman Beil – Have these guidelines been reviewed by the City Attorney’s
office?
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – No.
Chairman Beil – I see some issues with just the language that’s used in the
guidelines from a legal standpoint. For instance, item #3 where it says
handicapped parking permit shall be expired after 5 years; wel l we’re not really
issuing a handicapped parking permit. In fact the first bullet up there says they
have to possess a valid handicapped parking permit to get it in the first place.
There are some inconsistencies and it really needs to have the City Attorney’s
office take a quick look through for the legalities of what we’re saying here and
also the consistency check of what we’re calling a permit. The Commission of
what I see in the guidelines is not really issuing a permit, so I don’t know if there
is a better term for it or what, I don’t know.
Commissioner Dick – Based upon the wisdom of the remarks provided by the
Chair might we hold this over until next month and allow the City Attorney’s
office to give us the benefit of their thinking thereof?
ACTION: Continued 30 days for more work and development.
MOTION: L. Dick
SECOND: J. Pyne
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 14
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Chairman Beil – Yes I think we need to talk about it a little bit more. The
paragraph that starts right beneath #4 where it says, “It should be noted that if
approved, these guidelines shall apply only to future requests and not to those
requests already approved by the Traffic Commission”. I hearken back to the
item that went before the Commission earlier where it said should we deny the
request, which we did, they have to follow this policy, and hence another
inconsistency.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Basically it’s just a matter of fairness.
If you’re going to change the rules you change them for the next guy. You don’t
change them for the guy that has complied with existing guidelines and in one
respect these are two separate issues; should we have removed a handicapped
parking space that had been approved and was put in to the existing guidelines
that are in force today? The other is if we receive a request at some future date,
should we use the same guidelines that we have today, or should we use these
newer ones, which would further restrict their use of the handicapped on -street
parking throughout the City.
Chairman Beil – Looking at other installations we could not require other
installations to come back in 5-years for review?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Should this particular proposal be
approved and our policy is made more formal we could go ahead, as least as far as
the review point goes, is contact those older areas that have been installed for a
number of years and we have a log of all the handicapped parking that has been
installed by the City, and we could contact those property owners and see if they
still have need of their handicap parking space. As far as having them go back
and pay for something that was put in that was not charged prior to that, I don’t
know if that would technically be fair. It’s been pretty loose in the past, in the 22
years I’ve been here I’ve had only 1 person call us and say they didn’t need their
handicapped space anymore. We assume the rest of them still have need.
Chairman Beil – The more we talk about this the more questions are raised in my
mind. Although we may have one applicant request the installation of a
handicapped parking space on a public street open to any handicapped person,
and if somebody else starts utilizing that regularly, why should the only check be
from the person who applied for it?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Historically these types of requests
have been on residential streets, and while we do inform the applicant that it is
still a public parking space, and it is still available to anyone with a handicapped
placard, the reality is that it is the person who is requesting that handicapped
space who is going to be using it. So in that particular instance we don’t feel it to
be unfair to charge some fee for maintenance of those spaces because it does
primarily benefit the person who is requesting it as opposed to say, a section of
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 15
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
red curb that may be providing sight distance for a motorists to avoid accidents.
That benefits the general motoring public, but something like this is really more
specific to the person requesting it.
Chairman Beil – So we had a motion to continue this to the next CTC meeting
and a Second, considering that motion are there things that we want staff to
consider in that continuation?
Vice Chairman Lall – I think we should definitely review that for $500 I definitely
want my name stenciled to the curb, and not that just anybody can park there.
Chairman Beil – One thing I did mention last meeting for those of you who
weren’t here was that because this is nothing the City is really required to
implement that the staff look at the possibility of making the applicant do a
survey of the surrounding neighbors to find out if there is any way we could get a
neighborhood survey very similar to permit parking areas and see if there is a
way we can avoid neighborhood conflicts. Did you think through that at all?
Dave Allenbach – Actually recently we have changed our general notification on
our items and whereas these types of requests for parking restrictions where
notification areas were specific to those directly affected by that particular
request. Now we are adopting a similar notification that the Planning
Commission uses, that we are going 300 ft. from the subject area. That should
cover pretty much an entire area. In the event of something we would get a
request on a street similar to Laurel Dr. which is a cul-de-sac, in that particular
case we would most likely notify everyone on the cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Dick – I would appreciate it if we could be the beneficiaries of
research by the Traffic office regarding the sunset of these issues. I’m of the
opinion, perhaps erroneously, that we don’t have sunsets on red curbs or maybe
you’ll tell me that there are.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No typically we do not. We have in the
past on rare occasions on a specific request f rom an individual we may have
shortened the length of red curb where we saw that it was excessive. Typically
red curb is considered by our office as a safety issue and those problems don’t do
away. With regard to red curb once it’s in, and this is someth ing we tell everyone
that makes a request, if the request is approved once it is installed it’s in and
won’t be removed.
Commissioner Dick – I could understand if the property transfers or something
of that nature as we point out earlier you had only 1 re quest for handicapped
parking restrictions, we probably should keep an eye on it.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 16
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Amir Farahani, Acting City Traffic Engineer – As I mentioned before of the two
cities we took surveys and we found none of them have any sunsets. The sunset 5
years we have is pretty loose, all they have to do is reapply and we just take a look
at the documents they have, and it’s at no cost to the applicants so its something
relatively easy to do for the applicants.
Commissioner Dick – If the applicant fails to do so what do we do? Go out and
take the sign down?
Amir Farahani, Acting City Traffic Engineer – We’re planning to remove the signs
and the paint, but we would advise them first.
Commissioner King – I think we’re going round and round, I’d like to get a good
reading on what’s going to happen, what is the staff or it’s legal experts going to
bring back to us next time?
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – I’m not sure if you need extensive
guidelines as you’re talking about. To be honest with you, the biggest issue is
going to be the permit fee. Whether there is going to be a fee for this type of
application. After that it’s going to be just like you’ve always done it, you need to
examine on a case-by-case basis and determine whether if the person asking for it
has an appropriate need. Is there something about their property that makes
them unable to utilize their driveway or garage, because of some physical
obstacles on their own property related to their physical condition? I believe the
one we had tonight had something to do with being unable to look properly
coming out of the driveway or something along those lines. That is what has to
be looked at in every case, which is what you are already doing. The fact that we
only have these once in a great while s eems like much ado about nothing. I think
staff in the past has done the appropriate reviews, I don’t think anyone has had
any criticisms of one that was granted that was inappropriate. The biggest
problem with the last one was with notification. We hav e taken care of the
notification process and I think the biggest issue should be if there is going to be
a fee charged. You have to put the concrete pad down there and that’s not even
an issue for our discussion. After that the most important thing is to make sure
that the proponent provide the appropriate back up to show their need. They
have to prove that and it may require some staff investigation to verify that, it
should be more than a handicap placard, it has to be a reason that shows why
they can’t use their property. I think any guidelines are going to be so loose that
I’m not sure they’re going to be beneficial in the end.
Chairman Beil – My suspicion is that they will be very loose and I’m questioning
the benefit of them but I still think we need to have a consistency check on the
language, and I don’t know if want to make a recommendation on the fees.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 17
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – I’ll sit down with Traffic Engineering and
we’ll go over concerns they have, I’ll address some concerns y ou obviously have,
and that I have in my own mind and we’ll give you something next month that
may gear more toward the fee issue, and that type of thing, and maybe some basic
guidelines.
Chairman Beil – I think the requests in the past have stood on their own merit
the one question I have on these past approvals is the sunset issue.
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – We use the term sunset but I think it’s still
an issue of is there still a need.
Lisa Karnes, 930 N. Laurel Dr. – I can understand a need but having a need and
then not using it? That is something I would be concerned about. Just someone
coming in and saying they need the handicapped parking then when they get it
they still park in their driveway.
Chairman Beil – That’s the reality we have to make a judgment on the need
unfortunately, we do turn down requests for people wanting red curb in front of
their house to keep their neighbors from parking there. This happens to be blue
curb.
Chairman Beil – The motion is to continue so staff can develop it and do a
consistency check.
VOTE
AYES: Unanimous
4. Request for a “PASSENGER” loading zone on Orange St. adjacent to the
First Presbyterian Church of Orange Pre-School.
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your
copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion of
this request.
Chairman Beil – We had a request for red curb for safety reasons due to the big
tree that used to be there?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – That’s correct.
Chairman Beil – I’m trying to remember the exact location, was that on Orange?
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 13, 2008 Pg. 18
Tape #CTC-28.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘08 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2008 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes, it was on Orange. I happened to
notice that when I mapping the area. I think that will probably be one of ou r rare
times we would bring a request to you to have some red curb removed because
the tree is no longer there, and it would free one more parking space on the street
and still provide some sight distance at that driveway. Most likely that will be a
staff generated request we will bring to you next month.
There being no further discussion Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and
returned the item to the Commission for final deliberations and a motion.
ACTION: Denied the request.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: W. King
AYES: J. Beil, W. King, N. Lall, J. Pyne
ABSTAIN: L. Dick
End of Consideration Items
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
After discussion of today’s Agenda the City Traffic Commission meeting was
concluded, and as there were no further requests for action under Oral
Presentations, the Chairman adjourned this session of the City Traffic
Commission.
The next meeting of the City Traffic Commission is scheduled:
5:30 P.M.
Wednesday - March 12, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF ORANGE
Phyllis Then, Recording Secretary
Traffic Engineering Division
pthen@cityoforange.org
CITY OF ORANGE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
300 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE
ORANGE CA 92866
PH: (714) 744-5536
FAX: (714) 744-5573