Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2007 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: August 8, 2007 Tape #CTC-27.06 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. D. Adams, P. Then   C. Approval of Minutes   Š June 13, 2007   Commissioner King – There is an error listing me as Asst. City Attorney. ACTION: Approve minutes as amended. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS   None this meeting. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request for the installation of a “CARGO” loading zone in front of 746 W. Southern Ave. Christine Ramirez 746 W. Southern Ave. 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 installation of 30 ft. of yellow curb in front of 746 W. Southern Ave. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous 77777777777777777 End of Consent Items 777777777777777777  August‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 2 IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Request for the installation of “One Hour” time limit parking in front of 1739 N. Case St. Rick Rambo 1739 N. Case St. Orange CA 92865 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this item. ACTION: Denied the request. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous 2. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Grand St. and LaVeta Ave. Julie Avanto 344 E. LaVeta Ave. Orange CA 92866 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: Brad Beyer, 528 S. Grand St. – Certainly for those of us who live on Grand St. we know the only way out is crossing LaVeta, I don’t totally agree with the fact that there are no sight distance issues because when I’m trying to turn left onto LaVeta from Grand St. if there are cars parked there, which often times there are, there is some difficulty seeing that way. I have noticed there have been accidents in that area. Being that it is a secondary access to Hart Park we do get more traffic than I would imagine Orange St. does. On a regular day you probably wouldn’t see a lot of traffic but certainly in the morning when traffic is heavy and in the afternoon between 5 and 6’ o’clock people have a lot of near misses in that area trying either to cross LaVeta on Grand St. or taking a left from LaVeta to Grand St. In my opinion if a 4-Way STOP isn’t the direction we want to go maybe we have to address the sight distance issues, and propose some red curb in some directions. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 3 Vice Chairman Lall – It seems the intersection doesn’t have the warrants to meet the 4-Way STOP requirement but I think the line-of-sight issue has some merit. I think we should consider the red curb or other vision enhancements at that intersection. Chairman Beil –I noticed the same thing as Mr. Beyer as coming northbound off Grand St. and trying to look left along LaVeta Ave. the sight distance is pretty hard, even without cars parked there. LaVeta is only 33 ft. wide and I usually don’t see a lot cars parked on LaVeta, but I know some do. In the morning I’ve seen a few there but its not heavily parked because it is so tight people probably don’t want to get their cars hit. Commissioner Dick – As a point of information, did I hear Commissioner Lall suggest we should move to deny the request for an “All-Way” STOP, but we should apply vision enhancement activities by way of red curb? Vice Chairman Lall – Yes. ACTION: Denied the requested “All-Way” STOP but to add vision zone enhancements for standard red curb at an intersection. MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: L. Dick AYES: Unanimous 2. Request for the implementation of “NO PARKING BETWEEN 8 PM & 6 AM” restrictions on both sides of Barkley Avenue between Main Street and Batavia Street. Brent Loughran 1145 W. Barkley Ave. Orange CA 92868 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: Jason Mather, 1014 W. Barkley Ave. – I have 4 parking spaces off-street, often times I come to work before 6 AM and leave after 7 PM, and if you were to impose those restrictions I would have nowhere to park, along with a lot of other employees that work on that street. There are a lot of commercial buildings that have 30-40 employees in that area so if you were to limit the parking it would make it difficult for everyone on the street. Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 4 Chuck Bennington, 1016 W. Barkley Ave. – I know we get heavily parked on this street. I think the problem I would foresee if you say no overnight parking, I am oftentimes down there very late at night and just the fact that I can’t park on the street is just almost ridiculous. I could see maybe one side of the street being limited to parking and that might correct the problem, and see if that works. I would say you would have to keep one side of the street open for evening parking. I am in the automobile business and I know I put a little bit of pressure on the street, when I have overflow, I have a place where I park down the street that I pay for. Occasionally I will have cars dropped off in the evening, and I have told them to park on the street and I will move them in the morning. So I’m aware I’m part of the problem but I think the way to correct the problem is to allow parking on just one side of the street. 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: Vice Chairman Lall – Can staff give us their input on making this on 1 side of the street and what their take on that would be? Dave Allenbach, Asst. Transportation Analyst – I don’t know that we have a real concern; I think that becomes more of an enforcement concern. I think that if you limit the parking on one side of the street and the other side is unrestricted, there will be no available parking on the unrestricted side. Right now you can use both sides of the street, if you limit that then whatever is on one side is going to more to the other, basically you’ll have neighbor fighting neighbor for on-street parking. Chairman Beil – Looking at the business on the street it’s heavily populated with a lot of automotive repair businesses. You heard the speaker and he said he probably contributes to that. It’s my opinion there are a lot of vehicles parked on that street waiting for service or something other on that street. We don’t know how long those vehicles are there. We do have a request from a business further west that the speaker’s on the opposite side of the speaker that is complaining about the loss of on-street parking due to the overflow from the businesses on the street. Commissioner Pyne – Although we’re trained to keep consistency in our signage and I certainly agree with that the comment was made that you can drop your car off in the evening and if it’s past 7 pm, or before 7 pm and the business is closed your car has the possibility of getting cited between 7 pm and 7 am. I agree with your comments in regard to one side of the street so I think we might be making things easier for one business and making it more difficult for the rest of the businesses in the area. I would be looking to recommend that we not approve the item. Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 5 Commissioner Dick – I join Commissioner Pyne, I am loath to take parking away from the City of Orange. We have had one request for this, the applicant as well as the businesses that were notified are listed here and we’ve had 2 people come and speak against it. I am going to support Commissioner Pyne. ACTION: Denied the requested installation of “NO PARKING 7 PM to 7 AM” parking restrictions on both sides of Barkley Ave. between Main St. and Batavia St. MOTION: J. Pyne SECOND: L. Dick Chairman Beil – What I’m seeing here is that this is a little bit different from the cases where we have approved no overnight parking and in the other cases it was situations where the street was getting filled early in the morning by people who are working not even in businesses on that street. Their parking was so impacted they were actually overflowing onto another street and so the businesses on that street absolutely were not creating the problem or they were just being impacted. Here we have it kind of both ways so I think I’ll be supportive of that motion because it is an issue that is driven strictly by the businesses on that street unlike other instances where it is driven by an outside entity. AYES: Unanimous 4. Request for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Shaffer St. and Walnut Ave. 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: Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – This came to us as a result of Chapman University’s construction of an underground parking structure under the athletic field. They were conditioned to present the City of Orange with a deposit of $175,000 for a possible traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut Ave. and Shaffer St. If we didn’t implement construction of this signal by the end of this calendar year we’re obligated to return the deposit to Chapman University. Part of the rationale is that we were uncertain at the time the structure was constructed whether it would really deem a signal necessary at this intersection, and we wanted to see how it functioned. Since that time we did some measurements and we found that the location met our minimum requirements for traffic signals. It has a fairly good accident Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 6 record, we’re not having much of a safety problem. This was last heard at the June 13th, 2007 meeting where we continued it after considerable discussion. At that time we had presented to you that there had been two accidents in the last 3- year measurement period, since that time our records have caught up, we use a floating 3-year window and there is a third accident but it would still, by most standards, be a very good safety record for an All-Way STOP control. At the June 13th meeting there was a lot of discussion and they basically focused on four areas. There was concern about an increase in the volume of traffic on Walnut Ave. and through the intersection in general, an increase in speeds, perhaps increased accidents, and a diminishment of residential character of the neighborhood. There is often the thought that streets with traffic signals attract traffic and maybe that comes from the sense that we usually see traffic signals on arterial highways, which by their nature draws more traffic, they are designed to flow better. We’ve never seen an instance of putting in a traffic signal on a non- arterial where the traffic volumes generally go up, it’s not like drivers go out of their way to drive on streets with signals. A street such as Walnut Ave. is by its nature a collector street for the community and essentially all the traffic through the Walnut Ave./Shaffer St. intersection is either originating or has a destination in the neighborhood, and by our definition neighborhood might be a 20-30 block area, it’s not exactly a 1 or 2 block area. We wouldn’t anticipate traffic volumes to go up at that location if a signal were put in. There was concern about speeds and that is a valid concern because drivers who might be traveling down a street seeing a green light ahead of them might be tempted to speed up to make the green. There are tricks Traffic Engineers can play to deal with that, there is a timing technique called “rest on red” where in absence of any cars approaching a signalized intersection the signal shows a red indication all the way around. As a car approaches the actual intersection the loops sense the vehicle and would turn the approach to that vehicle green. Anybody approaching the intersection would see a red, they would think they would have to stop and they would slow down they would get a green just as they approach the intersection and proceed, it kind of acts as a de facto STOP sign. Now if there is a second car behind them they wouldn’t necessarily slow down but it’s a technique we could use to mitigate that to a great extent. The concern about increased accidents is maybe a wash; a lot of folks view STOP signs as an improvement over no control, and signals as an improvement over STOP sign control. The problem is that you still have accidents; you have a different kind of accident. STOP signs oftentimes have a broadside component where somebody will not see the STOP sign, and somebody will run a STOP sign and hit somebody at a right angle, which tend to be a rather serious accident. Traffic signals usually result in rear-end accidents where somebody will suddenly Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 7 slam on the brakes to make the stop because the light has changed on them and they get rear-ended. You usually trade off accidents and then in the sense that we don’t have much of an accident situation and I would imagine with a traffic signal going in it would be a similar very low-level kind of accident scenario. The diminishment of the residential character of a residential neighborhood, there is some validity to that. Traffic signals are seen as somewhat intrusive and maybe a sign of big city encroachment, particularly in Old Towne, so there is some concern with that. We try to make it a little more palatable our new installations are all the Old Towne style traffic signals similar to Walnut Ave. and Center St., kind of a historical look. All that said we did hear a lot of opposition last time from the residents and we’re not seeing much of a traffic safety issue here, the intersection continues to work well with the controls that are in place. One of the other items that we were looking at in case of a traffic signal, was left turn pockets on Walnut Ave. which would require an elimination of some parking to accommodate the left turns, which is a bit of an impact on the residents. All this would still suggest that a traffic signal is still the most prudent thing to do, however, given the overall breath of all the input we’ve had since then, the safety situation, staff really has no objection if the signal were not put in and we retain an All-Way STOP. For that reason we have changed our recommendation to deny the signal. It is our estimation that ultimately at some point in time we will end up with a traffic signal there, be it 5-10-15-20 years from now, it looks like a likely candidate but certainly for the foreseeable future within the next multiple years I think we could probably live with our All-Way STOP. Commissioner King – Inasmuch as I have such high regard for the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation do you suppose we might ask for those who would be opposed to the recommendation to speak, and those who favor the light? Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Everybody should have their opportunity speak who wishes to, however, there is no problem in you inquiring as to numbers, or who’s here on which side or if you’d like to have them speak in any order, it may be helpful if there is a spokesman for either for or against, if there is someone already out there who might speak first and put all the issues into one speaker and then others might be able to join, but if there is anyone who wishes to speak they should absolutely have the opportunity to do so. Chairman Beil – Every card I have is essentially opposed which means in favor of the staff recommendation to deny the signal. I have one card unmarked and also did Orange High School turn in one card, and they also have given a Power Point presentation to all of the Commissioners that essentially shows that the school does not support the signal at this time. Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 8 Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Obviously at this point no decision has been made so even though there is a staff recommendation the vote is still out there and we don’t know what the vote will be at this point so therefore the public should have the opportunity speak if they so desire. Chairman Beil – I’m going to call you up here and what we’re really interested in is if you have some other specific that we haven’t already heard that you think we need to know let us know and state your position. James Welch, 496 N. Shaffer St. – One of the things I heard at the last meeting from the Commissioners was they wanted to hear a little more feedback from the community which I think you’ve probably heard by now. We also did a petition. A lot of the reasons have already been discussed but we did talk to a lot of the neighborhood and of the people we talked to about 94% were opposed to the light going in. Chairman Beil – Staff put together a map for us very similar to what you have showing residents opposed to the signal. Fred Peters, 706 E. Walnut Ave. – If it ain’t broke don’t fix it and obviously from all the information you have indicates it isn’t broken. I can’t see an overwhelming positive justification for putting it in. Walnut Ave. all the way along there from further down where Chapman Univ. is, this whole area is only 33 ft. wide and the cross-streets are only 33 ft. wide. To put a third lane in there would certainly impact traffic. I live on Walnut exactly between Shaffer and Cambridge, and every car that goes down there doesn’t crash, it’s the percentage that do that gives us a lot of traffic. There have been a lot of sideswiped vehicles and lots of side-mirrors knocked off parked cars. The few cars that have a tendency to speed are going very fast, at 40-60 MPH regularly, every evening and if you give them a green light head start then that’s going to be starting further on down and they will be already at speed when they go through Shaffer St. Chairman Beil – For clarification can you talk about the geometry particularly in front of the Orange High School parking on Walnut Ave.? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Where we took our measurements were basically at the edge. Orange High has an indent for angled parking, that would not be affected by the installation of a traffic signal. The measurement was taken between the curbs and our measurements are right around, keep in mind this is a sketch and we do not have a survey crew out there, but our measurements are between 34-36 ft. wide. I think where the confusion may come in is currently on both sides of the street, it doesn’t show up well on this drawing but there is a 5 ft. edge line on both sides of the street that we use as a bike lane. If it were dedicated as a bike lane nobody could park there at all, but Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 9 we call it an edge line and therefore we can limit the parking during the peak hours when the kids are riding their bikes to and from school. If we were to put in a left-turn lane in this area we would have enough room for two 12 ft. travel lanes, and one 10 ft. left turn lane, but we would have to terminate the edge line at the beginning of the reverse curve. Mark Kreider, 461 N. Shaffer St. – People were overwhelmingly of the opinion that the traffic light would reduce the safety of the intersection and people were primarily focused on safety. I would like to encourage the Commission in the future to look for opportunities to help shelter Old Towne from through traffic. There’s a lot of neighborhoods in the country similar to ours that are protected by the city government because it’s creating a nice neighborhood to raise families and its building property value and we’re trying to do that, and we appreciate your help with that. Karen Higgins, 456 N. Shaffer St. – I disapprove of the light because of the bright lights that it will bring in that area, its already bright enough and I think it will waste more energy with the light and the additional lighting that will be needed. In the neighborhood of Old Towne there are a lot places that need to be repainted, at some of the places you can hardly see the STOP sign or the 25 MPH pavement legends and I think that’s one of the reasons people speed so much in that area because maybe they’re not aware that there are speed limits, that might improve some of the situations with the speeding if that could be looked into. Chairman Beil – Thank you. The paint crews are running all over the city right now under contract they are refreshing all the striping and legends, so it looks good out there now on some of those streets. Peter Grossenbacher, 482 N. Shaffer St. – I agree with the previous speaker that it will be like a football stadium out there, with all the lighting that will be attracted there. I know the Design Review Board once told me that 1929 Orange was an agricultural community and so the residents were unable to afford those types of beautifications, so my request was denied. Debra Martini, 638 E. Walnut Ave. – I’m a night person so I get to hear all the speeders and the skid marks and watch the craziness that goes on at night. I feel if you put in a green light they’re goanna go for it more so than they do now. Tom Loughrey, 259 N. Orange St. – Speaking on behalf of the OTPA our concern is on the impact on the community, and concerns that were raised at the previous meeting. We see this as certainly affecting the immediate neighbors there, and has the potential down the road depending on what happens in 5-10-20 years, as to whether there are more lights in Old Towne which we’re not in favor of. We think there is a light 50 ft. away that adequately controls things coming down Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 10 Walnut Ave. so we think that is sufficient to this as opposed to a light being put in there. Korie Young, 496 N. Shaffer St. – For the same reasons we are opposed to the light. The most frustrating thing for me is in understanding that you would probably re-look at this because of increased traffic later on in the years. It seems there would be a better way to divert traffic away from Old Towne as opposed to make it encompass Old Towne. We know Shaffer and Walnut are very busy as it is but I feel you have the resources to figure out a way to make it go around, away from the front of my house really. The elimination of the bike lane is a concern; I don’t want to see the bike lane go away. I also want to speak on behalf of Evelyn who lives at 516 N. Shaffer, she can’t make it because she’s old and she wanted to make sure her voice is heard, she’s against the light also. Janet Crewnshaw, 280 N. Cleveland St. – I’m old and I made it. I used to live on Shaffer St. and moved 2 blocks away. Shaffer is a very busy street we don’t need to make that a more convenient way to go through. I’m really speaking for the ambience of Old Towne, I love walking around. S. K. Johnson, Orange High School Principal, 525 N. Shaffer St. – I’ve been there sine 1981 but for the last 12 years I’ve been in Administration so I’m out there supervising before and after school. My concern is for OHS, I do not represent Orange Unified School District. The student safety concern is my primary responsibility and my staff’s safety. The removal of the edge line near the bike lane is going to mean bicyclists will now be riding on the sidewalk along with the skateboarders and pedestrians so that’s going to create a safety hazard for kids and pedestrians in general. Parents dropping off their students, you’re going to create an intersection has a 4-Way STOP where everybody is going to stop and slowing traffic which is good for us. You’re going to change from that to a traffic signal where there’s going to be continuous traffic east west or north south. Cars are going to be less likely to slow down and stop, that’s going to create some issues. Students crossing the street at mid-block happens, we supervise out there but we can’t write them tickets and we can’t stop them from crossing, and I’m afraid that traffic not having to stop at that intersection they’ll be going faster and less likely to stop for pedestrians who may be crossing at mid-block. Buses exiting from Harwood St., on the east side of the campus, where there is no traffic signal, or STOP sign. With a traffic signal cars are less likely to stop to permit those buses egress onto Walnut to return kids to their homes. With the angled parking there on Walnut Ave. our cars are getting bigger and longer and they’re going to stick out into traffic. We measured the length of a conventional sedan, a pick-up truck, an extended pick-up truck, which many of our teachers drive, and they stick out awfully far into the travel lane. My concern is we’re going to get a lot of accidents there. Our staff parking is limited so we have to assign teachers to those parking spaces out there on Walnut Ave. I’m also Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 11 concerned about the ability to have teachers back up to leave their parking spaces when you have a traffic signal that’s green there’s going to be less congeniality to permit drivers to back out of those sparking spaces. I would like to recommend that you dismiss this idea of putting a traffic signal at that intersection, or at least do another traffic survey at that intersection during school hours when we’re most congested about 7 am or 3 pm. Trevor Colon, 485 N. Shaffer St. – I took my tape measure and I measured the dimensions that were shown on the map that was given out at the last meeting. With the angled parking you will have to enter into the opposing travel lane to get around vehicles parked in this area. Chairman Beil – We’re aware of the measurements out there and the issues involved with them and the fact that as you approach the intersection what’s really in the proposal is to essentially remove the bike lanes and use that width as part of the lanes. Trevor Colon, 485 N. Shaffer St. – I think you can see from the pictures that cars are going to stick out, and you’re not going to have much visibility when you’re trying to pull out. I’m opposed to the traffic signal. ACTION: Approved the staff recommendation to deny the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Shaffer St. and Walnut Ave. MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous 777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 7777777777777777 V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None this meeting. Tape #CTC-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission –August 8, 2007 Pg. 12 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 - September 12, 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-27.06 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.  August ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper