Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2007 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: May 9, 2007 Tape #CTC-27.04 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. I. OPENING A. Flag Pledge B. Roll Call Present – Commissioners: J. Beil, W. King, J. Pyne Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, Sgt. Adams, P. Then Absent - L. Dick, N. Lall C. Approval of Minutes Š April 11, 2007 ACTION: Hold approval until the next Traffic Commission meeting. II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS None this meeting. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request to change the hours of the overnight parking restriction on Lemon St. north of Collins Ave. to begin at 11 PM. Karen Lamb 1030 N. Lemon St. 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: Jim Frize, OUSD Bingo –The only reason we’re here is to try and get a push back. We’ve got some older people and it puts them closer to the door, instead of parking way back in the parking area. It would just help us immensely. Walter Froemke – 419 W. Brenna Ln. – I represent the nine owners on Brenna Lane. Unanimously, we are not for changing our parking. About a year and a half ago we had an immense problem with the carry-over from the multiple housing that’s over on Wilson and that problem has been resolved now that we’ve changed those hours. Two of our businesses on the street work till after 9 o’clock at night and they make sure that parking is enforced. You’ll have some abusers from time to time, and the Police Parking Control goes off at a certain hour of the night, so we have to have a patrolman come by and cite the cars. I went over to  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 2 the bingo parlor and I counted 58 parking spaces within fifty feet of their front door. The industrial part that is owned by Ruby Casey where the bingo park is located has over 201 parking spaces inside the park alone. Being that the bingo is on evenings and on weekends I didn’t see any restrictions at all that they couldn’t park within the confines of their park instead of the streets. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Commissioner Pyne - I understand from the last speaker there is a business on Fairmont Ln. that are still working at 2 o’clock in the morning? Unidentified Speaker – One business is. Commissioner Pyne - My fear is that this may cause a parking issue if they can’t park. Chairman Beil – Currently restrictions start at 8 p.m. on Brenna Ln. Commissioner Pyne – and that would give them till 11 pm. Ok I don’t have any problem with that. Chairman Beil - I think my comment would be that moving it to 11, the overnight restriction is still there it just happens to be a few hours later. I guess I have trouble seeing how that will cause any specific problem for the businesses on Brenna Ln. because if there’s no parking at 8 pm there’s no need for on-street parking for the businesses at that time anyhow. It’s really a matter of pride and enforcement I guess. I guess the point you’re trying to make is having somebody to see there is a vehicle parked out there and calling, since that’s the only opportunity to make a notification for the whole night. But I think that opportunity will still exist at 11 pm. ACTION: Approved the request to change the hours of the overnight parking restriction on Lemon St. north of Collins Ave. to begin at 11 PM and to include Brenna Ln. MOTION: W. King SECOND: J. Beil AYES: Unanimous 77777777777777777 End of Consent Items 777777777777777777 Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 3 IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Request for the implementation of “2-Hour” time limit parking restrictions in front of 1044-1100 W. Katella Ave. Adam Antoyan 1050 W. Katella Ave. #J 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: Adam Antoyan – 1050 W. Katella Ave. –I put in the request for the “2-Hour” parking all the way from 1044 to 1100. We own the two properties. The reason we requested the “2-Hour” parking for the entire distance was due to the neighboring car dealership utilizing the street parking for all their employees on long-term basis, 8+ hours on many occasions, sometimes overnight, and prohibiting our tenants on the 1050 and 1100 W. Katella addresses with the two frontal units with the retail exposure, prohibiting their customers from stopping and being able to visit and drop into those businesses. I also own and operate the carwash next door at 1044 and I would like to see if I could retain the parking in front of that location. One concern is the right turn to Batavia St. I went out there last night and measured it off and it’s approximately 135 ft. from my last driveway at the carwash to the corner. I ask if the Commission would consider retaining those two sections in front of the carwash and allowing us to have “2-Hour” parking there prohibiting anybody from utilizing it for long-term parking but also enabling our business to have the parking that we’ve had, as I mentioned, since we developed the business in 1995. Chairman Beil - Dave do you agree with the comments from the kind of odd shaped curb return at Batavia on that corner back to the “X” on the first driveway, approximately 135 ft.? D. Allenbach –I’d say that’s probably a fairly accurate measurement. What we would like actually is, there is a transition area. And actually what would be very beneficial is mainly that 38 ft. in between the two driveways which is right around that area was definitely serve as a transition and then we could stripe in a right turn lane at the corner. The area, the other 50 ft. to the west, in this area I suppose we could put a little bit of red curb there for sight distance and from there back to the westerly property line at 1100 that could be posted as “2-Hour” parking. I don’t know if that will help the proponent or not, but I know that would help us. Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 4 Adam Antoyan – Can I clarify something please? The second section closer to Batavia is the 50 ft. section, the first section on the west side is the 38 ft. section. Chairman Beil – So the portion from the flood control channel essentially to the first driveway on the east is … Adam Antoyan – Yeah we’ve got about 135 ft. then we’ve got approximately the east driveway and then there is a 50 ft. section and then the center driveway and then there’s the 38 ft. section. So if we could at least be able to park one vehicle within the 38 ft. section and the 50 ft. section allowing me at least park two cars there for short term it would really help our business. Chairman Beil – Would that be workable? Dave Allenbach –If we could have a little sight distance between the driveways, I think we could make that work. Commissioner King – I guess before amending this as such that we can give the gentleman two parking spaces, is that what’s on the table? Chairman Beil - From the property line between 1050 and 1044 I guess what we’re talking about is trying to get one car in there and then to the east of that first driveway at 1044 to get another car in there. Probably as close to that westerly driveway as possible and then the “NO PARKING” beyond that all the way to Batavia. Commissioner Pyne – To clarify, in front of 1044. The westerly most driveway, we’re talking about one parking space from the east side of the west driveway east. Chairman Beil – Yes, and also, enough safe parking to allow for sight distance to still leave some parking on the west side of the west driveway too. Commissioner Pyne – I agree Chairman Beil – So basically two spots there. Commissioner Pyne – And staff is comfortable with that? Tom Mahood – Yes Commissioner King – As I understand this you’ve always had the parking there? There’s never been any restriction? Adam Antoyan – Always. It’s been like that for 35 years since my family owned the property. Wide open the entire distance. Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 5 Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. ACTION: 1. Denied the installation of “2-Hour” time limit parking from 1044 to 1100 W. Katella Ave 2. Approved the installation of a 125 ft. “2-Hour” time limit parking zone in front of 1100 & 1050 W. Katella Ave. 3. Approved the installation of two parking spaces with “2-Hour” time restrictions in front of the property of 1044 W. Katella Ave., and a “NO PARKING ANYTIME” restriction from 20 feet on the west side of the easterly driveway and continue east to Batavia St. MOTION: L. Biel SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous 2. Request and petition from the residents of the 500 block of N. Wayfield St. for the removal of the “NO PARKING 11 PM – 7 AM” restrictions and the implementation of a Neighborhood Parking Permit Program. Linda Biares 560 N. Wayfield St. 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: Commissioner Pyne – Dave, confirm to me that there has been no application for creating a permit parking area there, right? Dave Allenbach – We have not received a letter of request nor an application fee. However, after the last meeting we did get a couple of phone calls from residents inquiring about procedures for obtaining permit parking I outlined the procedures for them but that’s as far as it has gotten so far. Anita Greco – 555 N. Wayfield – I’m in favor of leaving the signs the way they are, it makes for a safer neighborhood. Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 6 Dona Strader – 545 N. Wayfield – I want the signs to stay as is. I don’t want them removed and no parking permits. It’s a safer neighborhood up and down that block. I’d say there are four of us that are seniors and we watch out for each other’s house. If we have strange cars, noise in the middle of the night, I mean I don’t want to be calling in 3 o’clock in the morning you know saying, there’s a strange car out there. This way we can look after each other. Mary Frizzle – 525 E. Wayfield - I want to thank the Traffic Commission for leaving the signs up. Our neighborhood has remained safe, our streets are clean, we don’t have noise at night and I’ve also noticed that we have no drive-by boom boxes that shake our house because they’re so loud. Zenaida Arcos – 1831 E. Orangegrove - I have lived in this area for many years and I’ve never had any problems. Now, the only problem is that we want them to take down the signs. That’s what we want, for them to take down the signs there. Luis Barajas – 570 N. Wayfield- I came because we want you to remove the signs. Today some people came and asked my mom a lot of questions, if we have people living in the garage. We want to know why they came to our house and asked those questions. Chairman Beil – I can’t answer those questions for you. If there is an issue with someone coming at you then you need to contact the Police Department or something. Wayne Winthers – More than likely it’s Code Enforcement, just call Code Enforcement down at city hall tomorrow. I can give you the number after the meeting. Luis Barajas - Ok Erlinda Biares – 560 N. Wayfield- I feel that the petition for the removal of the overnight parking signs is getting way out of hand. It appears that there is retaliation and harassment going on. I say that because Belinda Urtez came from Code Enforcement with different false accusations, and I call it harassment because we are the ones who signed the petition, and it seems that we are singled out. Our three neighbors got letters from the City too with different issues. We cannot park on the street for ten months now, you get tickets if you do, and now false complaints and accusations, what will be next? We feel that our constitutional rights were taken away from us. David Steele – 575 N. Wayfield – I am one of the people that signed the petition. I think the “NO PARKING” sign is a hindrance to us who live on Wayfield. Especially when we have gatherings. Sometimes they run into 11:30, 12 o’clock at night and because of that if a patrol officer were to come down the street everyone attending the gathering would be ticketed. Also I don’t see what the “NO PARKING” Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 7 has to do with safety. If you’re going to have violence in the neighborhood “NO PARKING” signs is not going to stop it. Therefore I request that the signs be removed and let the neighbors talk about permit parking or whatever issue we can to settle the difference between the north end and the south end. It’s gotten too far out of hand and like Linda said it seems like there’s something happened prior to this meeting where the City, Community Development has come out and written up six houses on the street, all of them on the north end of that block. All of them have false accusations against them and we feel that this is in retaliation. Hayley Payan – 565 N. Wayfield – My primary concern is when I have friends and family over past 11, they receive $50 tickets, I have 2 younger sisters and when they come to visit me they can’t spend the night or they can’t stay later than 11 p.m. otherwise they’ll be ticketed. I don’t think its’ fair for families when they have gatherings not to be able to have family over past 11. Douglas Payan – 565 N. Wayfield – The problem is the outside parking, people are coming in from the outside. Well I think it’s Orangewood, that street that’s up there is overcrowded, and also there’s overcrowding on Oak St. If you go down Oak St. there’s probably 2,000 cars down that street. It’s getting to be a big hassle but I think Code Enforcement should leave us alone and go down there and start doing something about what they should be doing. I think the limit is one or two residents per 200 sq ft. or something like that, but there’s more, believe me, there’s more living in these apartments down the street on Oak St. I’ve been down there before and some of the neighbors are afraid to go down Oak St. they used to walk Oak St. but they don’t walk it anymore because there’s prostitution, drugs, overcrowding, and that creates a lot of those problems, there’s drunk guys laying down on the streets. I feel that if we’re going to permit parking each resident should have a sufficient amount of permits. Also I would really appreciate it if you would waive that cost of $900.42 or $942.00 whatever it costs. When you originally went out and put the signs up you didn’t do a report, I think it’s its called an environmental report, but now you want to do one because of the permit parking, and you didn’t ask anybody to pay money to do the original. Chairman Beil - I suggest you contact the City Traffic staff, they have all the information how the program works and they’ve got the documentation from the original request that came in. Douglas Payan – Right, but I’m just asking that if we do go to that if you could waive that fee then I think our problem would be solved. Robin Bleiweiss, 550 N. Wayfield St. – Things have changed in the neighborhood, nobody wants to pay the $965., especially the people who have already got their wish, the ban on overnight parking. They feel the whole thing now falls to the people who want the signs down, and I want to reiterate that we are being harassed. I’ve lived in my house since 1983 and I’ve never had Code Enforcement Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 8 come out, and today when I came home and called them back they said, “Oh because we have a complaint that you have a boarding house.” Everyone on my street knows that I live with one other person in my house, and the same goes with the other families. So now we’ve gone from not speaking to each other to having accusations being made. At this point I don’t believe neighborhood parking permits is going to work because nobody wants to chip in for it. I believe the signs need to be taken down. David Frizzle, 525 N. Wayfield St. – I have a petition here signed by 8 of the homeowners on Wayfield St. These people signed this in good faith, we got the signs put up and everything was working fine with the signs. What that young man said just a minute ago about Oak St. was the reason for this whole problem. Before the last meeting I went over to Oak St. and I did a car count twice and on that last Sunday before our meeting there were 264 cars on a 2-block area, I don’t know how many were in the garages, but those were on the streets and the driveways parking across the sidewalk. The people in favor of the signs was 57% and people against are 43%. On Madison today there were 10 houses on the block and 9 cars were parked in the street at 4 p.m. today, and last night at 11 p.m. there were 19 cars parked on that street. On Orange Grove at 4 p.m. today there were 15 cars parked on that street and last night at 9 p.m. there were 33 cars on Orange Grove. On Wayfield St. there are 14 houses and at 4 p.m. there were 5 cars on the street and at 11 p.m. there were 2 cars there on Sunday night. The signs are working, if the other people would have gotten in with us we could have done the whole thing, but it didn’t work that way. On Wayfield St. it’s working fine. I know that at last night’s Council meeting about some of the boarding houses and I’ll stay off that because its such a touchy subject. Some of the people are renting out their rooms like that and then complain that the people who rent there don’t have a place to park. It’s a shame but they have 2-car garages and 2-car driveways and I figure that’s 4 spaces. The whole thing I was worried about when I started this a few months ago, was that the quality of life had deteriorated on Wayfield St. and it was due to the fact that people on Oak St. have taken up all the parking. Any time after 5 p.m. it’s chaos over there. I was having people park in front of my house all weekend, commercial vehicles would come in on Friday night and park there until Monday morning. That wasn’t the only one, there were 4-5 commercial trucks there all weekend, and some of them still come there to park in the daytime. But it was chaos and frustration and I certainly don’t want my neighbors to hate me, but this is a process that is working and I just can’t see where it’s not a good thing. I’m sorry for some of the people that don’t have room in their garage for at least 1 car; we all have a 2-car garage and a 2-car driveway in front. Commissioner Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion: Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 9 Chairman Beil – I find it interesting that this tracking of where people live that were in favor or opposition. On the westerly side of Wayfield St. between Madison and Orange Grove the 3 houses that front Wayfield that are essentially 2 half of them have sides to their houses and show as opposing the signing in that area. Then everything on the easterly side of 555 N. Wayfield appears to be in favor of also removing the signs. I just wanted to ask Dave if our streets are ever broken up as far as parking restrictions mid-block? Would it be possible to keep parking restrictions on the east side of Wayfield St. essentially from Walnut Ave. up to the northerly side of 555 N. Wayfield St. and end it there? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We certainly can install a sign right there on the property line between 555 & 565 N. Wayfield St. and put an “END” plate on it, and then down at Walnut Ave. put a “BEGIN” plate on that side. The problem would be, and it was a concern we had for the residents of Madison and I believe we stated it last August, and I’ll mention it again here, if you’re on the opposite side of the street where there are no parking restrictions and you are the closest in, that parking intrusion is going to go where it can, it seeks the path of least resistance. We can certainly remove the parking restriction from the east side of the street and only post it up to 555 N. Wayfield St. Chairman Beil – And also leave the parking restrictions on the east side of Wayfield between Walnut and Madison? Dave Allenbach – That’s correct. Chairman Beil – It’s an idea. Commissioner King – I’m really in a hard place. All the ladies and gentlemen in the back of the room it seems to appear that all of you folks want to take the signs out and the contingent in the front of the room want to leave the signs in. The problem is the Commission had the signs installed at the request of the neighborhood, now some of you want to take them down. It’s not clear to me that taking those signs down is going to solve anything, and some of you have talked about the expense of going to permit parking. If I understand this correctly the $965 application fee. My position has to be that we leave the signs in until you folks work out a deal and you get a fee in and a request, and when you bring the statement signed by all of you it should be signed by whoever got the statement, not an anonymous deal. It troubles me that someone dropped it off without saying who they are, it clouds the issue. Vice-Chairman Lall – Being here at the August meeting and subsequent meetings the problem obviously is a traffic problem and is overnight parking from residents who don’t live in the area. A recommendation was made back in August, and subsequent to that, neighborhood parking permits would be the best idea. The issue I have with the agenda item today is that the preparation of it doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Some people haven’t had the opportunity to sign, not a City staff problem, but the way it was presented to the City. I would like to Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 10 recommend that we hold off on any decision because this isn’t appropriate, and see if we can get some adequate feed-back from the involved residents in the area, and verify signatures of who in fact wants to maintain the signs and who doesn’t want to maintain it, because I think the information we have is inadequate. Chairman Beil – I think that supports Commissioner King’s position to essentially to deny the request based on that lack of coordination, and appropriate information be brought to the Commission as far as input from the whole neighborhood. Vice-Chairman Lall – I understand the issue they have and because of the volatility of the two groups it has to be done correctly, so one group can’t come back after the decision is made and say it wasn’t fair. This has to be a fair process and I think the way we’re doing it right now is kind of give and take, and it isn’t solving the problem, we’re just going back to the original issue. I agree with the recommendation to deny the request with the recommendation that the residents get together and make an appropriate request for change, and then have it presented and documented properly. ACTION: Denied the request. MOTION: W. King SECOND: N. Lall AYES: Unanimous 3. Request for the removal of the mid-block pedestrian crosswalk at 3901 W. Metropolitan Dr. and the relocation of the bus stop 400 ft. easterly to the “All-Way” STOP controlled intersection. 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: Chairman Beil – I’m very familiar with the crosswalk as the SR-22 Fwy. project office was right there, and I’ve actually gotten stuck in the middle of the street a few times because the cars from the Lewis side are coming so fast it’ll scare ya. So I’ll really be in favor of this, and I want to make sure the request goes to OCTA to get the bus stop moved closer to the east. Raquel McLaughlin, 1 City Blvd. West – I’m speaking for myself and my associates at Argent Mortgage and at the Brunswick building and those who take public transportation to and from work, I agree that we should replace the bus Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 11 stop signs at that “All-Way” STOP controlled intersection because it would be safer, there is a blind spot where it currently was. People come really fast on Metropolitan Drive and they really can’t see pedestrians walking across until they get right up on them. It’s a safety hazard right now. I still take the Metrolink and the bus and I have to really watch myself to get across the street without being hit, especially in the morning. Chairman Beil – Quite often I see a Garden Grove Fire Dept. engine parked right next to the crosswalk, making it less safe by masking the sight distance. I guess they have a contract with LA Fitness and they go there every morning, the truck is parked there for about an hour as they go and work out. That itself creates a safety sight problem with the crosswalk where it currently is. Commissioner Pyne – They park in the street? Chairman Beil – Yes. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Here is a photograph of the location. As you can see there is a cut-out or turn-out in this area it’s about 200-300 ft. long and it’s an 8 ft. offset from where the curve is over here in the travel lane, so when a pedestrian is crossing south they actually are in the street about 8 ft., for motorists traveling westbound on Metropolitan Drive the pedestrian just pops out there. Chairman Beil – Particularly as the fire truck is parked right where you took the picture. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We did see them when we were out there doing our ped count. Commissioner Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion: ACTION: Approved the request to remove the mid-block crosswalk, modified with the request to the Orange County Transportation Authority for movement of the bus stop easterly to the intersection. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 12 4. Request for the installation of red curb markings between 1409 & 1419 E. Rose Ave. Richard Alvarado 1419 E. Rose Ave. Orange CA 92867 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this request. Chairman Beil – I’m very familiar with the area, I grew up in the neighborhoods of this area and I’m particularly familiar with Mayfair Ave. which has the same configuration of driveways with those little sections between them and it’s always been a problem on Mayfair. However, the big difference I see on Rose Ave. even if there are claims of sight issues and safety there is absolutely no traffic volume on Rose Ave., Mayfair has a huge traffic volume but not Rose Ave. so I’ll support the staff recommendation to deny this request because we don’t want to set precedent on painting red curb all over the City between driveways in residential areas. ACTION: Denied the request. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous 5. Request for the installation of red curb markings between 2572 and 2574 N. Avalon Ave. Elia Kazaz 2574 N. Avalon Ave. Orange CA 92867 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this request. Chairman Beil – Is this a homeowner’s association neighborhood? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – As far as I know there isn’t. There may be a blanket assessment district for the landscaping but I don’t believe there’s anything covering traffic safety issues, these are public streets. Chairman Beil –I support the staff recommendation to deny the request but I’m thinking also because of the aesthetic issue. There are some 80 locations in these Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –May 9, 2007 Pg. 13 neighborhoods and maybe they need to address this as a homeowner’s association type thing and all 80 locations get the same treatment, because this is a rather unique design feature, these multiple close-spaced driveways into 1 residential lot. ACTION: Denied the request. MOTION: W. King SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous 777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 7777777777777777 V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None this meeting. 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 - June 13, 2007 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 Tape #CTC-27.04 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.  May ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper