Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-2007 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: September 12, 2007 Tape #CTC-27.07 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 Absent - Commissioners: J. Pyne Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, P. Then Absent - Staff: Sgt. D. Adams       C. Approval of Minutes   Š August 8, 2007   Commissioner King–There is an error listing me as Asst. City Attorney. Commissioner Dick–There is an error attributing my comments to the Chairman. ACTION: Approve minutes as amended. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: L. Dick AYES: Unanimous II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS   None this meeting.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request for the implementation of a “NO PARKING” zone adjacent to the Orange Industrial Park, at 648 N. Eckhoff Street. Dave Hasan PO Box 19068 Irvine CA 92623-9068 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 a “NO PARKING” zone on Eckhoff St. in front of the Orange Business Park. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous B. Request for the removal of red curb markings in front of 153 N. Center Street. Linda McMillan 143 N. Center St. Orange CA 92866 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 removal of the red curb markings. MOTION: L. Dick SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous 77777777777777777 End of Consent Items 777777777777777777 Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 3 IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Request to remove on-street parking from both sides of Lincoln Ave. for a distance of 500 ft. east and west of Glassell St., and both sides of Glassell St. north of Lincoln Ave. for a distance of 400 ft. Traffic Engineering Division Public Works Department 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: Donald Bell, 145 W. Lincoln Ave. #2 – Opposed to parking removal. I’ve never seen any problems with the traffic on that street, I’ve never seen an accident. Occasionally there is heavy traffic but the main heavy traffic is from the trucks up the street that bring the sand and gravel, that is the main problem, but they’ve been pretty good because they restrict their hours. In my estimation that is a residential roadway, I guess it is a Secondary arterial but it looks like they are making it a Primary roadway. In doing so they haven’t changed the amount of parking, there is still the same area on that street that is suitable for parking for those apartments. Those apartments were built so long ago they depend upon that street parking. The office building across the street uses on-street parking for their clients and patients because all of these buildings were constructed years ago before there was consideration that there was going to be a parking restriction, so I feel the parking is still needed as much as it ever was. The new changes to the road work on the corner and the dividing of the lanes there hasn’t been any reduction in the space, you could still allow parking in the area. We have 3 cars and I have to use street parking. I have to park a quarter of a mile up the street, that isn’t bad, I can walk there and back, but now they have also put “NO U-TURNS” which means I have to go back down and cross over Glassell and go down another half a block where I can make a left turn through all these signals, and then come back to enter my driveway. Amanda Jones, 145 N. Lincoln Ave. – Opposed to parking removal. We have 2 parking spaces per unit, one for the garage and one for the tenant to park outside. Now that red curb runs past 3 apartment complexes down Glassell St., all the U- turns on every corner. If you go up to Glassell St. and Lincoln Ave. and want to get to our apartments you have to go up and make a U-turn to come back because there’s no parking on both sides of Glassell St. (north and southbound sides) and I’ve never seen red lines that long anywhere. The problem is that if I have a tenant come to look at an apartment prior to renting they have to park a quarter of a mile down the road, now who wants to do that? No one wants to park that far away and walk so far to view an apartment. If you owned the apartments you would understand what I’m going through. There are 2 things, they moved the Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 4 bus stop up to the corner at the northwest side of Glassell St. and then they built a gas station there which has diesel fuel, so the trucks go in there and get their diesel which is really not enough room in there for trucks. There is also a bus stop down 2 apartments for westbound and I think if you removed that stop because it was moved to the corner then we could have even more parking down that side. The opposite side of the street is all red too, in front of the trailer park it’s all red. It just seems like none of us have any parking there at all. If I have workers come to work on the apartments there is no place for them to park. Trucks, painters, gardeners, the trash man can’t even get it. It’s a big problem. Breana Gattari, 124 E. Lincoln Ave. (Orange Tree Deli) – Opposed to the parking removal. The piece we’re interested in the most is right next door to our property in front of Orange Motors. We took a picture and we measured from the curb to the painted median and there is 39 ft. from the center of that red curb and 30 ft. from the beginning and right up ahead where parking is allowed the measurement is 35 ft. We propose that if you can cut into that painted median and repaint the lines. We need less than 5 ft. to allow street parking in front of our business and it doesn’t seem to be like that much when it’s just paint. We’re not proposing to cut into the island, right next to us there is red curb and we understand that’s never going to change, you’ve put in a brick median and that’s never going to change. We’re asking for parking up ahead of that. Our property consists of two food establishments and a liquor store, and between the hours of 11:30 am – 1:00 pm parking is a huge issue. Prior to the street improvements, overflow parking was available on Lincoln. Now that this is no longer possible all 3 businesses have suffered a negative impact and we’re asking if it’s reasonable for us to ask for parking in this area? As for the new left-turn lanes making 2 turn lanes to go south on Glassell St. instead of one, we don’t know what the basis for this was, we don’t know what needs to be done. If you could have extended one turn lane instead of adding another that might have been a better idea because in the mornings now traffic backs up so far that they can’t utilize both left turn lanes. The traffic can’t get there; so one turn lane is still being used during traffic hours. As for the “No U-Turns”, people are making U-turns in the new medians that were made it seems really unsafe. Instead of being able to make a U-turn when you have a green arrow now people are making U-turns into on-coming traffic. It seems very unsafe. We’ve been observing this since 1974 and we’d appreciate your attention in this matter. The short strip of parking we’re asking for accommodates 5 cars per day, at 2 people per car, at $10 per person makes a big difference for us financially at the end of the year. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Commissioner King – As I understand it there was a traffic study, a traffic count at that intersection. When was that done? Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 5 Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – There were several studies, the most recent being December 2004. Commissioner King – So there’s been nothing since 2004? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – Not in support of that particular intersection. What we do have though in 2004 there were traffic counts and turning movement counts both in the AM and PM conducted, and projections based to today’s date. Commissioner King – So you took the numbers from 2004 and projected to today’s date of what the traffic might be today? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – The numbers in 2004 were reasonably high. Essentially they factored it up to about 2% annually, that’s fairly customary in traffic engineering circles for short term, if you’re going for more than 5 or 10 years out then you run traffic models. Typically for short term projections you assume some type of annual growth rate and apply it to existing volumes and that project traffic was added on top of that. Commissioner King – The City didn’t do that, you had a contractor, that was farmed out? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – The traffic engineering consultant retained by the Del Rio developer preformed that study, and we reviewed it as staff. Commissioner King – After it was all done in 2004 and projected for today do those numbers support the double left-turn pocket? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – Yes they do. Commissioner King – Is that information available to the public, if the public were to come down to the office here they could look at that? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – They certainly can. It’s generally held in the files of our Planning Dept., I happen to keep copies of all the old traffic studies but all the back up for the approval of that particular project is available to the public, we just have to spend a little time digging it out if anybody wants to see it. Chairman Beil – Just comments that I’ll make. I noticed the double left turns are 10 ft. so you’re already minimal width particularly in trying to do dual left turns when there’s a truck in one of the lanes. My experience tells me that normally you don’t go with two 10 ft. lanes, but these are 10 ft. so I think we’re already squeezing down as much as we can in the left turn lanes. The number one Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 6 through lanes on Lincoln Ave. are already 11 ft., and you really don’t want to go below 11 ft. there. The raised median, I think that’s going to be needed through this area with the geometry the way it is and the amount of driveways through the area, you need to protect that left turn movement from happening so close to the intersection. My feeling is that the 19 ft. outside width, the plan does show and you can see the fade outs where the lane line had shifted based on the implementation of the dual lefts, and the raised median and the outside lane being 19 ft. I really feel that is not safe, just like the staff report says. I’m pointing this out because there is a point where the 19 ft. begins to taper back out to 23 ft. width, and I think that’s what Mr. Mahood mentioned that could possibly be amenable to possibly taking away some of the red in that taper zone, and you mentioned what width that we’re comfortable accommodating parking with truck traffic on the street. You said 20 ft. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – Yes, I think 20 ft. would be something we would be comfortable with there. Chairman Beil – This is just a diagram you’d really have to look at the field conditions if there’s some point on the east side of Lincoln Ave. for the eastbound direction on Lincoln Ave. there’s a point where it begins tapering from 19 ft. to 23 ft. and there’s actually a spot where it says 20 ft. would we be able to add additional parking back in by not taking that right-of-way up to the 20 ft. point? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – I believe we can. Chairman Beil –The westbound direction is also on that east leg, in the westbound direction where the red starts, there’s also possibly one area, maybe two where some of those should be red anyhow because it’s just a little piece of curb between 2 driveways. There is one little piece, perhaps the third red section from the far upper right. I’d like staff to take a look at trying to not put the red in anywhere we can until we get down to 20 feet. On the northerly section of Glassell St., I think we had already restricted some parking in previous actions, primarily on Lincoln I think is the concern. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – If the Commission so pleased you could give us direction to investigate returning or removing the red curb wherever we have 20 ft. or greater on the outside lane, and where there is a reasonable expectation of still fitting in a parking space. Obviously if we have 10 ft. between driveways that’s not worth removing the striping, we’d rather not have people trying to park in something so small. If you’d like us to exercise some flexibility on anything greater than 20 ft. we can work that out. Chairman Beil – That’s what I’d like to propose as kind of an amended motion to modify the recommended action of approving it to include that judgment of where you can fit parking when it’s 20 ft. or greater. I actually see on the Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 7 westbound direction on the west leg of the intersection that very long piece of red there may be chances to add parking in that stretch. I don’t know where the 20 ft. point would exactly hit through there. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – The westbound side of Lincoln westerly of Glassell, this is just east of the mobile home park, the red curb in front of the mobile home park was actually implemented by a prior Traffic Commission action and request about 8 years ago. So that would not be up for consideration here, however, just to the west of that the area would be roughly taking up to about 100 ft., we could remove the red curb and return some parking in those areas. Commissioner King – Do you want to make that a motion to the staff to go back and look at all that red curb and wherever they can they give those folks some relief? Chairman Beil – Wouldn’t we need to have that come back to us, or can we make that in a motion to give them the discretion to add it in anything over 20 ft. or more, in areas that are practical to park such as not enough room for a vehicle or not a bus stop in the way. Commissioner King – I’d like to see the motion that you do what you can within legal parameters and the width that you need, like 20 ft., go do that and come back to us and put that in drawings and let the public take a look at that and see how they like it and if that’s the relief they’re looking for. If it’s helpful then we can go with that. Would that be a fair motion? Chairman Beil – Yes sir. Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – I think there is another way to handle that, and if I understand this correctly, this red curb was put in without any Commission action at this point, is that correct? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – That is correct, under the terms of the Orange Municipal Code. Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – You may want to continue the item with the direction to staff to try to accommodate your thoughts and wishes and then let them go out and do what they can, and then come back and present it to you at the next meeting for final action. Just make this a continued item at this point. I think it would accomplish both and get you where you want to be. Commissioner King – I could go along with that. Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 8 Chairman Beil – The red is out there right now. Our lack of action in doing anything, you can actually go out there with that direction to remove it to the 20 ft. now without our action? Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Since there has been no Commission action putting the red curb in place I think staff could go out there any time they wanted and remove it any time they wanted to at this point. I would suggest staff go out and remove where they can to accommodate the direction they are receiving now, and then come back at the next meeting with the final product as they present it and to see if it is acceptable at that time, and then you may either approve it at that time based upon a continuance or whatever direction the Commission wants to take at that point. Commissioner Dick – Would it be within the realm of reason to ask for some consideration regarding the U-turns that I’ve heard mentioned more than once? If they’re impractical they are impractical, if they aren’t then let’s take a look at it. I don’t know how practical it would be to actually move bus stops but if the movement of a bus stop is something we can suggest to work with I’m willing to consider it. I would like the opportunity to consider those U-turns. Vice Chairman Lall – Have we taken into consideration bicycles and that type of traffic? It seems if we have enough room for a car, but barely enough room for a parking space, we might be squishing a few bicyclists along the way. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – You would be correct in that assessment although this is not a designated bicycle route. Bicyclists on Lincoln Ave. would have the same rights as a motor vehicle and would have to ride in a curb area. It is indeed a very tight squeeze if you have parked vehicles, trucks and bikes. It’s a bad situation. Vice Chairman Lall – One of the speakers mentioned about the traffic backing up so far that people don’t have access to those two left turn lanes. Have we studied that? If not, can we? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – This is to some extent a work in progress. This signal has been under construction for too many months, there have been delays in getting the poles and controller cabinet. The controller cabinet itself was installed approximately a week and a half ago which means the signal is running in a really poor, I will say dumb manner. It’s not traffic responsive right now it just has pre-set timing so they’re are going to be smoothed out in a week or so. We’re about to hook this up to our Traffic Management Center and have it operating in a much more intelligent manner. I will admit the operation has been pretty appalling, mostly because it hasn’t had any intelligence in the last several months. Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 9 Vice Chairman Lall –I can understand if it’s just start up issues. I would like to keep an eye on it. I haven’t seen it here in Orange but I’ve seen it in other cities where it’s an ineffective lane and it’s usually striped with a double yellow where you can’t cut up the side to get to that travel lane conveniently, there’s a motorcycle policeman sitting there having a field day. Commissioner King – There was a horrendous accident out there, someone ran over the center median going westbound, they jumped the median. It probably happens in a lot of instances where traffic patterns change and a new median is put in, but the guy really hit the median hard. Chairman Beil – I guess our motion would be to continue this, yet give direction to staff for modifications to the red markings out there to eliminate where possible down to the 20 ft. mark, in addition to bring a report on the necessity and facts regarding the U-turn restrictions. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – Could I ask for a clarification on that? Is it the Commission’s intent that the staff act immediately to remove some of the red curb, or do you want to wait until we bring it back, which would involve a lengthy amount of time, another month until our next meeting. We could go ahead and act now up to the 20 ft. if that is your wish. Commissioner King – That would give the public time to take a look at it and come back and if they don’t like it they could tell us. Chairman Beil – Take a look at the “No U-Turn” restriction. I know from my experience, looking at the geometry and the way the right turns are set up there may be reasons but you need to report on those when it’s brought back. ACTION: Continue this with amended recommendation and an additional report on the U-turn movements. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – We’ll try to get out quickly on the red curb removal as soon as we can schedule it. Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 10 2. Request to remove the “NO PARKING 11 PM to 7 AM” restrictions from both sides of Wayfield Street between Madison Avenue and 525 N. Wayfield Street. Erlinda 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: David Frizzle, 525 N. Wayfield St. – Opposed to removal of parking restrictions. I’ve been down here 3 times about this and last time we were told don’t come down again unless we come with a check of $956.00 to get this action started. I wasn’t sent a letter this time and it has been on the list all the other times. I have no idea why the people on Orange Grove or Madison are on this petition; I don’t know what the value of their signature on this petition is at all. This pertains to Wayfield St. and we still have the majority of people no overnight parking on that street. These people have come up on the side of the people at 505, 515, 525, 535, 545 and 555 still want the signs up on the east side of the 500 block of N. Wayfield St. There’s only 3 there, 565, 575 & 585 who want that sign removed. The house they have listed at 1841 Orange Grove is vacant, and 1841 I do not believe faces out on Wayfield St. at all. All those numbers pertain to Orange Grove and Madison. We have one house at 1825 E. Walnut that faces out there and I have tried on numerous occasions to get them to voice an opinion and there has never been anyone at home or there to answer the door. No one has ever come up with a petition that came around on Wayfield St. for permit parking; they’ve never done it. They’ve been here 3 times and they were told all 3 times to come up with the money for the permit parking, no one has taken the initiative to contact the other people in the neighborhood to see if we would go along or not, they just continue to waste your time and ours. Anita Greco, 555 N. Wayfield St. – Opposed to removal of parking restrictions. I have noticed a decrease in foot traffic as well as regular traffic. When it comes to the fact that people cannot park on our street overnight I come home at odd hours and it’s nice to be able to look down the street and not have a big SUV parked in front of your house that you can’t see around. I don’t have direct access into my house without going across the front of my house and my garage. Things brought up at the last meeting that nobody has addressed, that I know of, somebody brought up the fact that there is actually a street on the other side of Walnut that has apartments that are overcrowded, has anything been done with that? Did anybody look into that? Is that something this Commission looks into? A good point was made by people who want to park on our street about the fact that no Traffic Commission was brought to put the signs up, so why do we have to pay to take the signs down? Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 11 David Steele, 575 N. Wayfield St. – I am for the removal of the signs totally but from Madison north I would accept. I took some time to do a survey of my own on the street. 12:00 Sunday night I came home and I noticed on Walnut that traffic was parked on Madison there were very few cars on the street between the corner and half way down the block, of course Orange Grove is another situation, but we’re dealing with that. I’d like to inform Mr. Frizzell here that 1831 and 1841 Orange Grove are at the apex of the cul-de-sac street. I did talk to Mr. Frizzle about the parking permits but I did talk to another neighbor down there and their feeling is that they have their no parking and they don’t care about your parking permits. There was also concern about the number of permits issued and people selling them. I talked to Mr. Frizzel and I told him parking permits are for houses only and if somebody is parked there that doesn’t live there their permit will be pulled. I talked to Dave Allenbach quite extensively about this situation. I am for removal, I have several vehicles, I have a lot of friends come to my house and in fact one came when I had guests the parking was all used up and there was a note left on their window that he couldn’t see the tree across the street form him because the car was parked in front of his house. The only way Mr. Frizzel will see the tree in front of his house is to lie on the floor and look out, he’s got his awning over his window. We have not had any problems with parking before. I went down Oak St. one day and there was a police officer having a car removed, I filed a complaint with the police officer about the cars on Oak being parked and their cars were parked across the sidewalk. The officer would not do anything about it. I think we need to address that issue more than we do Wayfield St. Dona Strader, 545 N. Wayfield St. – Opposed to removing parking restrictions. There are 4 of us seniors that live on Wayfield St., we look after each other. If we have all these strange cars parking you don’t know what’s going on. I feel safer at night knowing I can check on my neighbor across the street and see how he’s doing, and if there is a strange car out there I need to call him and check to see what’s going on. Don Strader, 545 N. Wayfield St. – I do not want the parking signs removed. We do have cars from the apartments come over and park around our neighborhood we don’t have no more U-hauls sitting out there 3 days and what was out there over the weekends from the apartments are also gone. It gets me that those people from those apartments on Oak St. park in their driveways, and hang over the sidewalk, then they park in the bike lanes on Walnut Ave. and also coming into our neighborhood. The apartments are overcrowded and that is what is causing these problems. Bill Telkamp, 535 N. Wayfield St. – Opposed to removing parking restrictions. I don’t know what you identify as Madison St. because Madison runs into the front end of my house. If there is no parking from Madison up to Orange Grove my house may fall into that, but if you stay from the center of Madison northward Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 12 I’m safe, but you still take out several of my neighbors who want to maintain the No Parking restrictions because many of the houses on the east side of Wayfield St. want to maintain the No Parking restriction. Prior to us being here the first time we were having cars parked as far north as north of Madison Ave. and they were trucks and cars and since the No Overnight Parking restrictions were put in there has been no traffic, no parking, no stored cars, trucks, commercial vehicles. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Commissioner King – In the presentation there was commercial vehicles, what is the law on parking commercial vehicles overnight? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We have an ordinance prohibiting the parking of commercial vehicles on the street at any time with the exception of loading or unloading freight, and possibly a half-hour to stop and get something to eat if there’s no other place for them to park. However, there are certain definitions the Police use for defining commercial vehicles, one is the weight of the vehicle, diameter of the tire size, typically ¼ ton pick-up truck falls into the heading of a commercial vehicle yet it is legal to park that on the street. Likewise a bobcat, truck cab, box van would be allowed to park on the street. The ordinance is written primarily for the larger tractor-trailer rigs that were being left on our streets for long periods of time. Commissioner Dick – As I read this report I believe it was noted that staff notified the residents on both sides of Wayfield St. between Orange Grove and Walnut and as I look at the guideline it would appear to me that would include Mr. Frizzle’s property, but he didn’t acknowledge receiving anything. Chairman Beil – I think from what I heard from the people who spoke and the way the recommendation is written, staff is recommending to approve the request for removing the No Parking 11 PM to 7 AM restrictions from both sides of Wayfield St. between Madison and Orange Grove. The areas we currently have signed. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Both sides of Wayfield are signed, on the west side of the street that would be from Walnut END in proximity to the intersection north to the curb return at Orange Grove. On the east side of the street again there is a BEGIN sign in proximity to Walnut Ave. and then the END sign I believe is right at the property line between 1841 & 585 Orange Grove. Chairman Beil – The people I heard talking tonight looking at the easterly side of Wayfield St. it appears most of them are supportive of keeping the signing up to the split between 555 & 565 Wayfield St. Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 13 Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – That’s the way I interpreted it as well. Chairman Beil – Right now we don’t have any signing on Madison? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – That’s correct, nor on Orange Grove. Chairman Beil – I would be supportive of removing the restrictions based on the people right here that want that out of that section between Madison and Orange Grove on the westerly side of Wayfield, and essentially putting the “END” parking restriction on the boundary between 555 & 565 N. Wayfield St. Vice Chairman Lall – I think we’ve addressed this way too many times. I think we made a decision several months back to put these No Parking signs up to solve a problem, in hindsight, I don’t think that was the right solution to the problem, I think the problem is there and it does legitimately exist, but I think the neighborhood permit parking program would have been the best solution and I think any tinkering we do is just going to guarantee this is re-visited again and again. Chairman Beil – The only tinkering I’m willing to do is removal. If we can find blocks of people that make sense remove but I will never support putting them back in there. You’ll have to come back with a parking permit program if you want changes beyond that, but I will support the removal. Vice Chairman Lall – I think the best way to get to the neighborhood parking permit is to either leave it as it is or take it all out and not checkerboard it and I hate to see it because I see so much division in that neighborhood that I don’t think was there before, it’s very unfortunate there is a divided neighborhood. I’d like to leave this alone and have them get together and come back for a neighborhood parking permit program which I think is the best solution for everybody, to park in front of your own home but outsiders cannot. Ultimately that’s where I hope we get and I hope we get there quick. Commissioner King – Can you tell us again where you want it removed? Chairman Beil – It’s the pretty much the staff recommendation however the recommendation was not descriptive on the east side of Wayfield and so therefore the red hatched houses are the ones that want it removed and essentially that stops at 565 N. Wayfield St. We had speakers from 555 – 525 indicate they wanted it to stay. I’m saying put the new border right between the yes’ and the noes. Commissioner King – That’s awful confusing I think. You can see the signs up here and it might mean you’re down here at 535 that would apply, people would be a little confused of where the signs stop. Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 14 Chairman Beil – Is that signable? It’s signed right now. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes it is signable and if need be we can place a sign on the east side of the street if needed somewhere in between so that we would basically have a BEGIN, a MIDDLE sign and then an END at 555 if you so desire. Commissioner Dick – How much does it cost for the permit process? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – The initial request we would receive from a resident would include an application fee of $965.00. After that we would generate a petition that would cover the affected area. In this particular case we would want to do the residential area on both sides of Orange Grove between Wayfield and the commercial properties in proximity to Tustin St. The entire reach of Madison as well as both sides of Wayfield from Walnut up to Orange Grove. That would include the entire neighborhood. The proponent would circulate the petition through the neighborhood, the minimum requirement is 55% majority in favor, and at that point it would come back to the Traffic Commission with a report and a recommendation. Until we get an application fee we don’t process a request for permit parking. Commissioner King – For clarification that $965 is a one time fee for the whole magilla, not from each resident? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – It is a one time fee, there is a nominal fee for the parking permits, I believe its $8.00 and I believe the permits are good for 2 years. There is no fee at a future date when a street wishes to be removed from the program, it’s still through a petition but there is no fee to withdraw from the program. Commissioner King – The staff would run the petition, the organization of it, the paperwork after you get the filing fee? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes sir. We generate the petition and we expend every effort to make sure the addresses are correct. There is a space to print the resident’s name and they sign and there is a column for “In Favor”, “Opposed”, and “No Opinion”. Once we get that back then we count the number of checks in the boxes and we’re able to determine the neighborhood consensus from that. Commissioner King – If the consensus is that they want to pursue the permits, it’s a 3 year life of the permit? Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 15 Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I believe it’s actually 2 years. The Police Dept. administers the issuance of the permits and also the enforcement. Traffic Engineering generates the petition, verifies the signatures and the correct majority, and if approved we install the signs. Commissioner King – But the residents get permits they can make available to visitors and people who have work to do at the property? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I believe the way the Police handle that is if a gardener, pool man and they have to park on the street they would place a note on the dashboard of their car, that way if parking control is in the area they know the person is there to do work and they would not be cited. Otherwise the resident would have to give a permit to the gardener or pool man and then they would have to make sure they got that back when the person left to go on their next job. The problem with that is that sometimes the resident may not be home or they may forget to get it back and now they’re down a permit. A single-family residence get 7 permits per household, and I believe they can if they’re going to have function at their house exceeding the 7 permits, they can acquire additional 24-hour permits from the Police Dept. Commissioner King – The $965 application fee does not have to be paid by one person, could it be amassed by those residents in the area who wish to pool their resources. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – That is correct, in fact the only thing we do ask is that we get a single check because it makes it easier for our bookkeeping and to generate the receipt. We’ve had a number of cases in the past where the proponent has passed the hat through the neighborhood and the other residents have contributed to the cost of the application fee. Commissioner Dick – Thank you, I find that very enlightening. ACTION: Approve the staff recommendation with the clarification of putting the END NO PARKING 11 pm to 7 am at the border of 555 & 565 N. Wayfield St. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: L. Dick with the recommendation that if we see our friends back they might think about a permit program. AYES: J. Beil, L. Dick NOES: N. Lall, W. King Motion does not carry. Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 16 ACTION: To disapprove the request and that we leave the signs up. MOTION: W. King SECOND: N. Lall Chairman Beil – I know what will happen on this, there will be appeals to the City Council. AYES: W. King, N. Lall NOES: J. Beil, L. Dick Motion does not carry. Chairman Beil – Does anyone else want to make a motion on this? ACTION: Continue this item to the October 10, 2007 meeting. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: W. King AYES: Unanimous Chairman Beil – Is everyone going to be here for next month’s meeting? Commissioner King – I’ll be out of town. 3. Request for the implementation of a Neighborhood Parking Permit Program on both sides of: a) Morgan St. between Collins & Jackson Avenues b) Mallard St. between Collins & Jackson Avenues c) Juniper Ave., between Morgan & Mallard Streets d) Jacaranda Ave. between Morgan & Mallard Streets e) Locust Ave. between Morgan & Mallard Streets f) Monroe Ave. between Morgan & Mallard Streets g) Jackson Ave. between Morgan & Mallard Streets Robert Cheatum 3214 E. Jacaranda Ave. 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: Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 17 Chairman Beil – The City received a request from the City Manager of the City of Villa Park, requesting a continuation of this item, because their staff was unable to attend this meeting. They’re asking for it to be continued to the next City Traffic Commission meeting in October. We probably have a number of people here to speak on this item. We will, I guess its appropriate since you did come, we will, even though we’re continuing the item I think it’s appropriate to take the testimony. Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – The item will only be continued if the Commission makes a motion to continue it and then votes to continue it. That would be up to the Commission whether you wish to continue the item or not there’s nothing now that requires that it be continued, that would be up to if there was a Commissioner to make the motion and it were seconded, and it passes. ACTION: Continue the item to the October 10, 2007 meeting. MOTION: W. King SECOND: J. Beil AYES: J. Beil, L. Dick, W. King NOES: N. Lall Chairman Beil – I guess the question now is if we should take testimony at this time. Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Well actually since you’ve already voted to continue it anyway, no you should not. You could reconsider that motion at this time and decide to rescind that motion for the time being and listen to testimony, although I know it’s inconvenient for the residents, its usually more appropriate and advisable to take all the testimony at one public hearing rather than to split it up. You run into the problem of perhaps having different Commissioners at the next meeting, things like that. We’ve already heard from one Commissioner who probably will not be here at the next meeting so it would probably not be appropriate to take the public hearing at this time especially since you’ve already voted to continue it. Chairman Beil – I would agree with the fact that we know there will be a switching of seats at the next meeting. 777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 7777777777777777 Tape #CTC-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 12, 2007 Pg. 18 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 - October 10, 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-27.07 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.  September ‘07 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2007 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper