Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-2007 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: June 13, 2007 Tape #CTC-27.05 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, L. Dick, W. King, N. Lall, J. Pyne Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, Sgt. J. Gray, P. Then Absent - Sgt. D. Adams, OPD C. Approval of Minutes Š April 11, 2007 ACTION: Approve as published by the Recording Secretary. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: N. Lall ABSTAIN: J. Beil, J. Pyne AYES: L. Dick, W. King, N. Lall Š May 9, 2007 ACTION: Approve as published by the Recording Secretary. MOTION: J. Pyne SECOND: J. Beil ABSTAIN: L. Dick, N. Lall AYES: J. Beil, W. King, J. Pyne II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS None this meeting.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request for the installation of a “20-Minute” time limit parking zone in front of the Children’s Village Preschool, located at 254 S. Esplanade St. Tammy De La Garza 254 S. Esplanade St. Orange, CA 92869 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this item. ACTION: Approved the request to install a “20-Minute” time limit parking zone in front of the Children’s Village Preschool, located at 254 S. Esplanade St. MOTION: J. Pyne SECOND: N. Lall AYES: Unanimous 77777777777777777 End of Consent Items 777777777777777777 IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Request for the installation of “NO OVERNIGHT PARKING” restrictions on both sides of Southern Ave. between Batavia St. and Pacific St. Christine Ramirez 746 W. Southern Ave. Orange, CA 92865 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: Christine Ramirez, 746 W. Southern Ave. – In favor of the parking restrictions. Another problem we’re having with these gardeners who are parking there, they are using the bushes as a restroom and we have girls in our office who are afraid, they’ve gone to their cars and these guys are coming out of the bushes. Karen Wilkerson, 746 W. Southern Ave. – In favor of the parking restrictions. Trying to get parking around there is a problem all the time. Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 3 Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. ACTION: Approved the installation of “NO PARKING 7 PM to 7 AM” restrictions. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous 2. Request for the installation of “NO PARKING ANYTIME” restrictions on both sides of Palm Ave. starting at the railroad right-of-way then west 310 feet. Traffic Engineering CITY OF ORANGE Chairman Beil – There is quite a bit of traffic traversing through the City portion of the parking lot, and the existing driveway right now. If you punch a hole into the University controlled lot, and that agreement has been reached, all that traffic will move through that lot onto Palm Ave. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – We’ve looked at several configurations and we’ve come up with a draft of one that we think will move traffic well through there, and end up with approximately the same number of spaces. Relocating our driveway further away from the railroad crossing would provide the space needed to build a 100 ft. long median, this helps that crossing qualify for Quiet Zone status in terms of the train horns. That’s a fairly valuable item to the City, so we appreciate Chapman University’s cooperation in doing this. Chairman Beil – In the agreements with the University as far as traffic traversing through that University controlled lot, is that going to be a University controlled lot? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – This parcel is owned and controlled by Chapman University. As part of the process we’ll have some type of reciprocal access easement between the two parcels, the details have yet to be worked out. We don’t anticipate any issues with that. Right now this access is lightly used, the Depot lot has access off Maple Ave. down here and access on Chapman Ave. We expect the usage of this part of the lot to pick up in about a year when the pedestrian undercrossing is installed, and in this location that will make this lot more desirable. We also anticipate perhaps some kind of a reciprocal parking use so Chapman students could use some of the Depot spaces and we could use some of Chapman’s spaces. There are discussions of perhaps a Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 4 joint parking structure that might be shared between Chapman University and the City, using OCTA funds, in support of the rail service expansion that’s coming up within the next two years. Chairman Beil – Along with the completion of the Depot Walk development. Do we have jurisdiction over some of the decisions concerning City parking lots? I think we’ve considered those before. Wayne King, Asst. City Attorney – As far as time restrictions and that type of thing, yes. The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no public discussion of this item. ACTION: Approved the installation of “NO PARKING ANYTIME” restrictions on both sides of Palm Ave. starting at the railroad right-of-way then west 310 feet. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous 3. Request for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut Ave. and Shaffer St. Traffic Engineering Division CITY OF ORANGE Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – This is another Chapman University related issue although it comes from a slightly different direction. In 2005 when Chapman University received approval to construct the underground parking structure under their stadium, in reviewing their traffic study the City had some concerns on several intersections, Shaffer St. and Walnut Ave. being one of them. As part of the Conditions of Approval, the City received a deposit from Chapman University for $175,000 to perhaps install a traffic signal at this intersection, if it was warranted and if it had the support of the community. One of the constraints was that we had to have the signal under way by the end of December 2007, otherwise we have to return the money to Chapman. We think it’s time to explore the possibility and today’s meeting is the first airing of that concept. The intersection itself meets traffic signal warrants; it’s controlled right now by an “All-Way” STOP. If you’ve been through there in the morning when the high school is in session you know it’s pretty crazy. Safety wise it hasn’t been a big issue, we’ve had very few accidents, in the last three years we’ve had 2 accidents and that is a pretty good safety record. We do have Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 5 congestion and a lot of confusion. It’s similar to what had been going on at the intersection of Center St. and Walnut Ave. prior to that traffic signal. That’s worked quite a bit to smooth out and slow down the traffic flow on Walnut Ave. The idea is to start the public hearing process and solicit input from the Traffic Commission, and if you deem it worthwhile we’ll move ahead with the preparation of plans and specifications and ultimately for the construction of a traffic signal. It would be constructed per Old Towne traffic signal standards; the only one we have to date is the traffic signal at Walnut Ave. and Center St. so it would look very much like that with the ornamental fluting on the poles. Commissioner King – Can you put that signal in for $175,000. What’s the total cost of doing it? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – At the time we made the estimate in 2005 we thought that was a really high number. We think we can, we’re usually pretty thrifty when it comes to putting in traffic signals. We acquire a lot of the hardware ourselves; we buy it directly from the manufacturers. In general there has been a big escalation in traffic signal costs and the fact that this is an ornamental style signal drives the cost up considerably. Typically we’re not using an ornamental signal we could probably pull it off in the neighborhood of $140,000 because it’s a fairly simple signal, not many poles involved. We would be concerned that we have enough money, and if it exceeds $175,000 the City would have to make the decision to put in additional funds. Commissioner King – But that decision is sometime off in the future? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – The timeline is to engage in the preparation of plans and specifications between now and the end of the year and to solicit bids. If the bids exceed $175,000 we have the option of either rejecting the bids or looking at our funding sources to see if there is other money available. Chapman University is not on the hook to provide any additional funds other than what they have provided. Commissioner Pyne - Have we solicited and received any input from Orange High School or Orange Unified School District regarding the flow of traffic around their campus? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – I don’t believe we have. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No, they were notified of the Traffic Commission meeting but we have not received any inquiries or contact with them as far as traffic flow. Our field observations show that a student while crossing this particular intersection serves both OHS and Cambridge Elementary School. There very well may be some college students crossing here as well. All four legs are crossed, particularly during the AM peak hour and early afternoon when the Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 6 school session ends. Typically the pedestrians tend to just walk right out into the intersection without stopping or looking and with the volume of cars this slows traffic, motorists are confused as to what move they can make and when they can make it. So for those times of day in particular it is rather tedious to get through this intersection. Commissioner Pyne – I would think it would be quite positive for pedestrian safety to have a signal. I’ve driven that intersection many, many times and you’re right, they step out any time and that could cause a problem. I would think the school would have a positive comment, and I would sure love to hear something from them since they are involved in this intersection. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – As I mentioned, this is the first public hearing of this item and we would probably also solicit input from Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA) as well as perhaps have a public outreach before we go to the City Council with it. Chairman Beil – Do you foresee any issues with the short intersection distance between Center St. and Shaffer St., when coming westbound on Walnut Ave. it almost looks like you’re pulling up to the Center St. signal? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – We have some concerns with that, when the Walnut Ave. and Center St. signal was installed we did have signal conduit placed running to the Shaffer St. and Walnut Ave. intersection in anticipation of a signal, so there would be some synchronization and operation between the two. In terms of visibility and confusion we might have to replace some of the signal heads that you would see at the existing Center St. & Walnut Ave. signal when traveling westbound with what we call programmed visibility heads, so if you’re looking at them as you approach the Shaffer St. intersection they would be black, and as you pass Shaffer St. the lensing effect then creates a visibility where you can start seeing the signal head, so you don’t confuse the far signals. It’s a fairly common engineering technique that we use but it’s probably something that we would consider as part of the design process. Chairman Beil – Do we have any cross-gutter issues? When motorist have a green phase and they’re coming through there with speed I can’t remember if there’s cross-gutters there or not. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – No, there are no cross-gutters there. In terms of a green light, that is one concern when you have a traffic signal in a residential area, if the signal is resting in green and you’re coming down the street and you see the signal up ahead you might be inclined to gun it go get through the signal. There are some techniques we can use to mitigate that and one would be a “rest in red”. So if there are no vehicles coming it shows a red indication all the way around so anybody approaching from a distance would see Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 7 a red signal, as they approach the signal the loops in the street pick up the car and turns the signal green, but all the drivers know is that it is a red signal, and they start slowing down instead of accelerating. That’s something we would probably use in a residential area to keep people from speeding up to get through the green. Chairman Beil – I’m concerned about the cross-gutters there and even if you’re doing 25 or 30 MPH and approaching the intersection, right now you have to stop because there is a STOP sign. If you don’t have to stop and there are cross- gutters you can create a lot of noise and danger. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Actually Walnut Ave. had a fairly good crown and there was a cross-gutter on the south side. About 2 years ago the City lowered the crown on Walnut Ave. and repaired the cross-gutter and actually put in modern curb returns, before we had about 2-4 ft. curb returns rather severe so these are 32 ft. curb returns and they repaired the cross-gutter here on the south leg of Shaffer St. and another cross-gutter at Sycamore Ave. that has also been smoothed out. If a signal were here that should not have a detrimental effect on traffic flow. 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: Karen Higgins, 456 N. Shaffer St. (6th house east side, south of intersection.) – Opposes signal. My home is directly below where the signal would be placed. People already speed at that intersection and putting a light will make them speed even more to catch the light and I think having a STOP sign people at least have to slow down for the STOP sign even though they don’t always stop. I suggest putting in speed bumps as have been successfully done in other cities not to the detriment of the Fire Dept. and also I suggest the Police patrol the area more, ticketing people who speed and run STOP signs. I also suggest another STOP sign be added at Sycamore Ave. and Shaffer St. that would help slow the traffic on Shaffer St. and since I’ve lived there 10 years there’s already been several accidents on Shaffer St. in that area and some of them are reported if its vehicle-to-vehicle collision, but there have been several occasions where parked cars have been hit and animals killed and those aren’t reported because the Police don’t take reports so you may not have all the facts about how dangerous that intersection is and how people speed. I was surprised that I was not informed of this meeting because I live so close and I noticed you just put the people on half the block, I think more people should have been notified about this. I believe if Chapman is interested in donating a traffic light I think that is just serving their own interests and it won’t help the neighborhood and I don’t think the City Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 8 should accept donations from Chapman for something that will be against the neighborhood, and I think it will lower the property values around that area. If you have a street light right near your house I don’t think that’s going to help the students at the high school having a light there. Mark Kreider, 461 N. Shaffer St (5th house east side south of intersection) – Opposes signal. The foremost reason would be safety. A traffic light encourages a faster flow of traffic in a residential neighborhood. I was surprised when I was going around to remind my neighbors about the meeting how many of them have little kids, and encouraging faster traffic through a residential area in the historic district seems improper to me. There are 3 schools within a 2-block area, and I think we should encourage traffic to go more slowly. There have been a lot of 1- car involved accidents where they lose control because they’re going excessively fast. One neighbor had a truck crash through her fence and stopped about 1 ft. short of her porch because he was hauling down Shaffer St. We’re the first through street east of Glassell St. so if you can put up with the STOP signs it’s a way of getting around the traffic. More people go up to Cambridge St. because that’s more of a major street. I’d like to see Shaffer St. not become a major thoroughfare. I’d like the protection of the historic district be extended to our block even though we are almost outside of it I feel we are technically inside the district and deserve that protection. I would love to see the City encourage the high school to take responsibility for the traffic problems they are causing at 8 am and 3 pm, and I think that with half an ounce of effort those traffic problems could be solved. I think the high school has been oblivious to it but as our community is growing and we’re dealing with urbanization issues I’d like to see the City encourage the high school to recognize their responsibilities. James Welch, 496 N. Shaffer St. (southwest corner of the intersection) – Opposes signal. Neighbors have covered everything I was going to say. I would like to highlight the high school aspect. The problems in the morning with people crossing the streets, these kids are not walking to school, they’re dropped off directly across the street from school and they have to cross the street. I think it would be great to see a solution to this that didn’t impact the neighborhood and we’ve got 3 schools on that street and it doesn’t seem very safe to encourage more traffic flow, we’d like to see less, speed bumps are a great idea. Trevor Colón – 485 N. Shaffer St. (2nd house east side south of intersection) – Opposes signal. I personally haven’t seen any accidents there for a long time, but about 10 years ago two of my roommate’s cars were totaled by cars going down the street, one was a drunk driver and the other one just lost control. What is it you said about doing something with the red lights so that people coming up would see the red light and that would tend to act like a STOP sign, could you explain that? Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 9 Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – It’s a technique called “rest in red”. Our traffic signals are all automated and they don’t run on fixed time, there are detectors in the pavement that detect vehicles, and in the absence of any vehicles the light shows red all the way around. Trevor Colón – At what point does it turn green? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – The detection in the street when it picks up a vehicle coming, it could be within 100 ft., so the vehicle is slowing down because they see a red light, then they hit our loops, which basically are loops of wire in the street, and it then trips the signal as long as there isn’t anything causing the signal to go to some other direction. Trevor Colón – So it would be the distance of about 2 houses? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – It depends on the specific design parameters. We could actually design it so the loops are right there in front of the signal so you’re almost at the intersection, so in essence you’re coming to a stop and then it goes green. Now if there’s a vehicle behind them they’ll be able to continue on through but it prevents cars from traveling at high speeds seeing a green light a block ahead and gunning it to 50 MPH to get through. Trevor Colón – I think that’s the concern here that people are going to accelerate to higher speeds. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – There are some good traffic engineering techniques to deal with that because we understand the sensitivity of traffic signals in residential areas and they are kind of unusual. This location is unusual that you have a university and a high school in a residential area. That’s why we’re looking at that. Trevor Colón – So is that something that would happen for sure if this were installed or is it a possibility, what’s the situation with that? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – It’s up to us to exercise good engineering judgment to do so and I’ll tell you that as the City Traffic Engineer that it’s probably a real good idea to do it there. There may be mitigating circumstances to keep from doing that, but that would probably be our intent. I won’t say we will, but I will say we probably would. Trevor Colón – That sounds like a good solution to this issue of speed. My other concern is the volume of traffic this might encourage on Shaffer St. just because of public perception that it’s more of a thoroughfare. Have you done any research on that; is there any kind of consensus about this? Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 10 Chairman Beil – We’ve all got our opinions about that, I don’t know if we have research. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – Generally we have found the absence of or the presence of a traffic signal doesn’t attract traffic, you’re not going to come from Tustin St. to drive this street because there’s a traffic signal. It provides a sense of urbanization, and if anything, in a residential area that’s probably the biggest knock that folks have, because folks feel that they are moving into the big city if you have a traffic signal, and this is a bad thing. It does provide orderly flow, it doesn’t necessarily speed it up and we’re not trying to speed it up, we’re trying to smooth it out and eliminate some of the congestion that occurs particularly during the morning peak when all the kids are crossing. Trevor Colón – Sometimes 10-15 cars are backed up at the intersection. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – If you’ll recall what Center St. and Walnut Ave. was like before the traffic signal was installed, it was a steady stream of Chapman students in the crosswalk and they were impeding traffic flow. The signal was really put in to control the students and to a great extent that is what’s here now. If we didn’t have a high school there with a huge student and pedestrian load we probably wouldn’t need the signal. If the residents are opposed to it we can back off of it, we’re trying to improve your part of the community but if it’s something you really don’t want we’re okay with that. By our records we’re not seeing a serious safety issue, we want support from the community and if it’s not there we’re okay with that. Trevor Colón – I can see how the one signal at Center and Walnut has improved traffic. I remember going to the SR-57 Fwy. from my house, now the traffic flows much more smoothly so I guess I could see some benefit from this traffic signal. After hearing you talk I’m much more positive about the traffic signal than I was before. Korie Young, 496 N. Shaffer St. (southwest corner of the intersection). – Opposes signal. The reason for this congestion is the high school, and it’s literally a drop-off area for all those kids. If the high school would take some responsibility and have some method where the kids could be dropped off beyond that point it would be fine. It’s just that I have this vision of the light being in and the cars stopping up because they literally pull over to the side to drop off their kids, and now the light is going to be red people are going to be blocked in and they’re going to be dropping their kids off while they’re sitting in the road, as opposed to crossing when the light is green and then dropping off their kids there. I believe it’s because of easy freeway access. If you turn left or right on Walnut Ave. if you’re coming up Shaffer St. towards the high school and so they don’t want to cross, they want to turn left or right, so they drop off their kids right there which happens to be right in front of our house. In the afternoon when I’m Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 11 coming home it’s the same thing just the opposite direction. Either they’re coming from the freeway or they want to go towards the homes away from the high school. In either case I just feel that the light is going to be there and there’s not going to be enough room to park and have folks drive on that street as it is. My neighbor gets the mirror knocked off his car about once a year or so, and I just see it as an issue because people won’t pull over to the side quick enough, there is going to be people honking, and it will be chaos because these people want to drop their kids off before they actually turn, they don’t want to cross that street. We moved from Mission Viejo to Orange just because we wanted a more pedestrian lifestyle, and I’m sure the signal will help slow traffic, but I honestly don’t see that with this. I take the train, he commutes by bike, we ride our bikes everywhere and we feel like the City is encroaching on us and I’m not comfortable with it. Commissioner Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion: Chairman Beil – I heard some comments about the high school drop off issue, I went to Orange HS back when they used to have a lot of bike racks and they were always filled, nobody rides bikes to school anymore, and drop off is an issue. I don’t know what control the City has over the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) in dealing with traffic control ideas on the drop off issues. They operate under an elected board, you should try to go to those board meetings before their elected members and voice opinions on that. I’m not sure of the authority the City has in really demanding mitigation for changing patterns at public schools. Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – I don’t believe the City has any actual authority to require the school to do anything but what could be done in mitigation would be parking restrictions in the area, “NO STOPPING” and things like that. That could affect anyone whether they were dropping somebody off for school or for any other reason but we couldn’t require the OUSD to do something different within their school just because we don’t want their kids stopping on our streets. Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – If I could second what our Asst. City Attorney has said, we don’t really have any authority in terms of traffic operations over schools, we do over private schools because they have to come to the City for permits, but they don’t for public schools. It’s a source of endless frustration to us because most of our schools were designed back when people walked or rode their bikes, and now most people drive. It’s a fundamental design from 30-50 years ago that we have in Orange and it doesn’t lend itself to our present lifestyle. We see some of the most dangerous driving in proximity to schools today because of that. It is a source of frustration to us and if we could find a way we could work better with OUSD to improve this we would, the problem is that it usually requires a big capital expense and the school is not in a Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 12 position, and neither are we, to fund that. If we can do fixes at low cost we do, and we’re pretty much tapped out in terms of easy ideas. This is the next step where we’d be looking at a traffic signal. Chairman Beil – In certain times of the day I can see where a signal would be very beneficial to help the flow through there. I don’t really see it as enticing traffic to come into that area but helping the flow through the intersection, particularly as you mention all the pedestrian control, assigning some right-of-way for pedestrians just like the Center St. signal. Actually since the Center St. signal went in I’m not as likely to go down Walnut Ave. any more. Commissioner Dick – I also went to Orange HS, we didn’t ride horses, I drove a ’35 Ford. You guys go to the school board meetings and petition them to do something about the traffic. I know it’s a problem, it was a problem in 1957 but the City, as we’ve heard here, we don’t have any control over that, the school board does and if you get some petitions from people who live in that general area maybe you can do something with that. Otherwise I hate to see a traffic signal there because it spoils my thinking about how it used to look, but I think traffic has grown and I’ll take staff’s word that they have explored all options. I don’t think a signal is going to attract more traffic and I’m going have to go with a traffic light. As far as letting the kids off, petition the school board to do something about that. Vice Chairman Lall – In general I’m opposed to traffic signals in a residential area and as our Traffic Engineer said it’s not really something they feel strongly about one way or the other, we’ll let the neighborhood decide. I’m kind of disappointed there’s not more of the neighborhood here to give us a better sampling but the majority of the people who came weren’t in favor of this, so I would have to lean toward that direction that maybe the signal isn’t the appropriate solution. I also encourage you to go to the school board meeting and make some noise there and see about getting some solutions to the pedestrian traffic. There’s a lot of things I like about the signal there’s a lot of good that could come from it but again the neighbors have to have their say on this. Chairman Beil – What type of environmental review does this have to go through? You mentioned community meetings, is this project categorically exempt or how does the City process this environmentally? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – Not being a Planner I can’t officially say it’s categorically exempt, typically traffic signals have been categorically exempt because it’s a traffic control device. In this case, given the sensitivity of this I think we would be soliciting, on our own, more input from the community. Normally we just put in traffic signals because we’re here to save lives and in this case there is an element of sensitivity to the community and we’re concerned about that. It has not gone through an environmental process, it Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 13 will prior to acquisition of a consultant to do the traffic signal design, which is the next step. No money has been expended on this project as of yet, the timeline would be to solicit more input from the public, based upon that we have either a go or no go situation internally from the staff and we would then request approval from the City Council to retain a consulting firm to do the signal design. Upon completion of that we would return to the City Council asking permission to solicit bids on the project and see how they come in. Then we’ll see if we have enough money or if we’re able to build it from the funds available, we would then return to the City Council and ask for final approval of construction. There are a number of opportunities for public input and given this particular location, we’ll probably go out of our way to make as many as possible. Chairman Beil – Aren’t Shaffer St. and Walnut Ave. on the emergency response route? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – Shaffer St. is designated as a Secondary Emergency Response route, Walnut Ave. is presently classified as an Secondary Arterial highway, and because of those designations both streets are not eligible for speed humps. They would impede the emergency vehicles to the extent that we would not put them in. We can use them on some streets but not those streets in that particular area. Chairman Beil – Does the County move forward on a uniform signal override system or emergency response, would a signal actually help facilitate movement of emergency vehicles through this? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – I believe what you’re referring to would be emergency vehicle pre-emption whereby an approaching emergency vehicle would be able to trigger the signal to green. Generally yes because right now if an emergency vehicle is passing through that intersection, even with the siren going, they have to slow down almost to a stop just on the chance that somebody might not stop on the cross-street. If they have a traffic signal it’s a much more positive control, if they see they’re getting a green light they can go through at the speed limit rather than coming to a stop. So actually it allows them to move through a little quicker and the City of Orange Fire Dept. has a master plan for it, and they have included emergency vehicle preemption for traffic signals within their master plan. Commissioner King – How many parking places do we lose on Walnut Ave.? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We would lose on Walnut Ave. westerly of Shaffer St. probably about 5 or 6 spaces on each side of the street; and about 7 or 8 spaces on the south side of Walnut Ave. easterly of Shaffer St. In this particular case we would have shorter left-turn pockets than we would normally put in, partly because of the distance between the intersections and partly Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 14 because of the actual left-turn demand, and also to try to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner King – Do you have any editorial comment on whether 12 spaces would have a significant impact there? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst –The houses on the northwest corner has access to parking along Shaffer St., and they have their driveways. The house at 496 and also 491 also would have parking on Shaffer St. even though they would lose the parking along the Walnut Ave. frontage. Both of those addresses front onto Shaffer St. and they side on Walnut Ave. Motorists would typically park in front of their house and not the side yard. At the times we have looked at this area parking has been, with the exception of when we have morning arrival and afternoon release times, the demand for on-street parking has been fairly light in these areas. The resident at 524 E. Walnut Ave. would most likely lose all his on-street parking so that may be of great impact, but they were notified prior to the meeting today. Chairman Beil – Is the angled parking in front of Orange High School City or school parking? If it’s school control is it open for use by the residents after school hours? I see a lot of the people who live there park across the street. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – This angled parking is actually on private property, it is the school’s property. Also the parallel parking along Shaffer St. is also private property, that’s why we shaded it gray on our exhibit to try to indicate some private parking. The school controls the parking, if residents are parking over there they are doing it on someone else’s property, but I don’t think anyone is monitoring that. Commissioner Dick –I understand this is the first step to gather public input, our approval or denial of this first phase of this process, what exactly does that do along the line? Do we have any authority at this point? Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – The Commission is considered the technical arm of the City Council when it comes to matters of traffic, and your review and approval or denial of this would constitute a technical recommendation, it’s not final. Your approval would be an endorsement of the feasibility and sound engineering judgment for the usage of a traffic signal at this location. The final approval is by the City Council. Commissioner Pyne - It is my feeling that we don’t have enough information, I don’t think we have received enough information from the school district or specific issues from the area, we only have a few neighbors and they said that only people half way down the block were notified, which is normal. I think for a problem that revolves around everything from Chapman University east to Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 15 Cambridge St. and north and south a block 0r so, there is quite a bit of impact and I think Orange HS greatly impacts this. I think we should invite a representative from Orange HS and Orange Unified School District to be here, and I’d like to see if we could table this for a later date until we can get more specific information on what we’re looking at. Chairman Beil – There is a motion to table this until such time as we can include the school district in the discussion, and additional notification in the neighborhood. Commissioner King – I’m loathe to take away parking. I know it’s only a dozen spots but at the same time as I read the report the part that really caught my attention was the fact that there was a sense of an enhanced safety factor with the implementation of the signal. While I am sympathetic to the neighbors that don’t want the intrusion by the City into their area I think the primary responsibility of the City is to provide for the safety of it’s residents. As I read this the conclusion reached by the engineering staff that this would be a safety factor, to me that is the compelling factor toward a continued effort to go ahead and put this signal in place. At the end of the day I think safety is the paramount responsibility of government at all levels, and I would be prepared to accept staff’s recommendation. Chairman Beil – Does that work Wayne, do we have to take a vote on the staff recommendation and then look at the substitute motion? Wayne Winthers – I’m not sure, there was a motion to continue by Commissioner Pyne and I think it should be called for a Second; and if there is no second it dies, and we can go on to the next motion. ACTION: Continue this for a minimum of 30 days. MOTION: J. Pyne SECOND: L. Dick Tom Mahood, Mgr. Transportation Services – Before you vote I would like to note that we are dark in July so our next meeting will be in August. I don’t think staff opposes continuation until August but we’ll have to move smartly because of the December 31st, 2007 deadline. I think that would still give us enough time if the consensus is to proceed with the signal that we could have it under way by that time. If it’s not the consensus then it doesn’t really matter, just be aware of the deadline looming at the end of the year and we will not be able to convene again until August. Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Did you want to include in part of your motion if you want to increase noticing and also to something specific that the Tape #CTC-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –June 13, 2007 Pg. 16 Orange Unified School District be specifically invited, as our normal notice that would have gone to them, so it wouldn’t get lost in the shuffle. AYES: L. Dick, N. Lall, J. Pyne NOES: J. Beil, W. King Motion passes. 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 - August 8, 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-27.05 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.  June ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper