HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2006 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE
CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Minutes of a Regular Meeting: February 8, 2006
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
I. OPENING
A. Flag Pledge
B. Roll Call
Present – Commissioners: J. Beil, F. Petronella, J. Pyne
Absent – Commissioners: N. Lall
Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, Sgt. S. O’Toole, P. Then
C. Approval of Minutes
December 14, 2005
ACTION: Approved as published by the Recording Secretary.
MOTION: F. Petronella
SECOND: J. Pyne
AYES: Unanimous
II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
None
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Review City Traffic Commission’s Annual Activity Report for 2005.
Traffic Engineering Division
CITY OF ORANGE
The staff report is self-explanatory, please refer to your copy. There was no
discussion on this item.
ACTION: Received & filed the report.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: F. Petronella
AYES: Unanimous
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 2
B. Request for the installation of “2-Hour” time limit parking zone in front of
845 W. Grove Ave.
Zoilo Ruiz
845 W. Grove Ave.
Orange CA 92867
Oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your
copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion:
Zoilo Ruiz, 845 W. Grove Ave. – In favor of request. My mailman is concerned
every day he is going to be hit by a car; he has to double-park in order to be able
to bring the mail to the office. The two businesses across the street have turned
their parking structure into warehousing so their employees park in front of my
building.
There being no other speakers, Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and
returned the item to the Commission for additional comments and a motion:
ACTION:
1. Approved the removal of an existing cargo loading zone.
2. Approved the installation of a “2-Hour” parking zone along 171 ft. of curb
in front of 845 W. Grove Ave.
3. Approved the installation of 20 ft. of red curb on both sides of the easterly
driveway to the subject property for sight distance purposes.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: F. Petronella
AYES: Unanimous
..............................................End of Consent Items ..........................................................
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 3
IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS
A. Request to rescind the moratorium on processing requests for the installation
of speed humps in residential neighborhoods, in accordance with the guidelines
established in the Residential Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (RNTMP).
Traffic Engineering Division
CITY OF ORANGE
Chairman Beil did not require a presentation with this request. There being
no comments from the audience, Chairman Beil closed the public hearing
and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a
motion.
Chairman Beil - I will go ahead and move the moratorium be removed, as the
item states, because the City Council has adopted the new RNTMP guidelines.
ACTION: Approved the request and rescinded the moratorium.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: J. Pyne
AYES: Unanimous
B. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of
Palmyra Ave. and Olive St.
Dana Dupleix
2110 S. Yale St.
Santa Ana CA 92704
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:
Dana Dupleix, 206 W. Palmyra Ave – Opposes 4-Way STOP. We have had
accidents here, there was somebody who went through our fence into our front
yard and into our roommate’s car. Viewing all the information you sent us
regarding an increase in traffic, smog and noise; we are very concerned and don’t
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 4
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
think a 4-Way STOP will help control noise. Parking in our neighborhood is
tight and we’re not allowed to build garages on our property, so our parking is
very limited. This STOP would eliminate about 8 parking spaces on the 4
corners and we can’t afford that. In my opinion I think we will need a 4-Way
STOP in the future although I don’t think we need one at this time, especially
since it means losing all the parking on the street.
Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the
Commission for further discussion and a motion.
Chairman Beil – It’s kind of an interesting situation, we have someone who
writes a letter requesting a STOP sign when the City conducts an investigation
we find there is a safety concern identified with sight distance particularly with
the wall behind Calvary Church’s parking lot. Are the actual warrants met?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes. The warrant has been met. The
minimum correctible accident history is 3 in a calendar year, based on our
progress in logging accident information; there are 3 accidents that were noted in
the report. The accidents go back a little beyond a calendar year from one
another and they were all right-angle type accidents, which a 4-Way STOP can
correct. The traffic volume was a little light during the AM peak hour, however,
it was more than enough in the PM peak hour, and it was close enough during
the AM peak hour that I was within 20 cars of our minimum volume warrant.
The primary concern is actually the wall since we can’t move or lower it and that
caused me some concern.
Chairman Beil – From a sight distance perspective, what is staff’s opinion on the
option of enhancing sight distance with the standard curb return painting for
“No Parking”?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – The northbound leg (northbound
Olive St.) where the wall is located is the area that presents some concern. There
is a driveway into this parking lot about 10 ft. away from the corner and from the
corner to the driveway is not a legal parking area, it’s about 10 ft., so you’ve
basically got all the sight distance you’re going to get from any red curb on that
leg. The other approaches to the intersection actually have very good sight
distance. The 3 accidents we recorded were not all from the same direction, they
weren’t all northbound vs. westbound moves, we have:
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 5
Date Time Collision Type Vehicle 1
Travel Direction
Vehicle 2
Travel Direction
PCF
11-18-04 14:41 Broadside Northbound Westbound Auto R/W Violation
5-22-05 20:22 Broadside Southbound Westbound Auto R/W Violation
9-02-05 14:11 Broadside Southbound Eastbound Auto R/W Violation
Both east and westbound directions have fairly good sight distance so it’s
unclear why we had that type of accident. I would like to point out that the
installation of red curb is an in-house policy we have maintained for about 20
years, we could possibly shorten some of the red curb. There is a fire hydrant on
the corner in front of the proponent’s house. This area is about 40 ft. long,
however, putting in the standard 30 ft. would have left them without on-street
parking in front of their house, and that is why we elected to show it all red. If
the Commission wishes they could install a minimal 15 ft. red curb, which covers
the “No Parking” area adjacent to the fire hydrant, and leaves one space in front
of the house.
Tom Mahood, Manager Transportation Services – We have some alternative
treatments we could do. One would be to keep the 2-Way STOP but greatly
enhance the “No Parking” areas which would probably be a more strict parking
provision than what we’re talking about with an “All-Way” STOP. In essence
what we would do is clear out all the parked cars on all the legs back maybe
about 50 ft. That’s probably a lot more severe and impacting than it would be to
have a limited parking restriction with an “All-Way” STOP sign. We wouldn’t
really recommend going down that road but it is an alternative.
Commissioner Petronella – I like the idea of restricting the red curb and utilizing
the fire hydrant with the 15 ft. on Palmyra; at least that would leave some
parking in front of 206 W. Palmyra. I feel a problem has been brought before us
that we need to solve regarding the limited sight distance due to the block wall. I
would like to modify the original request and install an “All-Way” STOP at the
intersection of Palmyra Ave. and Olive St., and also modify the amount of red
curb we install on the south side of the street not to exceed 15 ft. which restricts
parking adjacent to the fire hydrant, but allows some type of parking in front of
206 W. Palmyra Ave.
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 6
Tom Mahood, Manager Transportation Services – It’s the southbound direction
of Olive St. on the west side isn’t it?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No it’s the eastbound direction of
Palmyra Ave.
Commissioner Pyne – It’s westbound Palmyra Ave. from Olive on the south side
of the street.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes, that is correct. It is in front of
206 W. Palmyra, eastbound.
Commissioner Pyne – We’re limiting it going east to west to 15 feet.
Chairman Beil – I am familiar with this intersection as I walk through it quite a
bit and I am aware of the motor home problem that has already been pointed out
to me, that’s always parked somewhere right about there. Many times the motor
home has been parked right about where you took the picture, or up by the red
curb area, which severely restricts sight distance. I think the STOP sign is the best
way to go from a safety perspective, there are not a whole lot of options available
to us about the wall.
ACTION: Approved the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control and red
curb at the appropriate approach legs, except 206 W. Palmyra Ave.
which will not exceed 15 ft. of red curb on Palmyra Ave., and the
regular amount of red curb on all other legs of the intersection.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: F. Petronella
AYES: Unanimous
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 7
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
3. Request to install speed humps on a 3-month trial basis on Adams Ave.
between Cambridge St. and Lincoln St.
Kevin Steckler
1012 E. Adams 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:
Jim McFadden, 1127 E. Adams Ave. – I sit outside in the evening and watch
traffic and I know how a lot of the residents drive down the street. I’m about 150
yards from the STOP sign, in the 2nd house, and I would say by the time they get
to my lot some of them are going about 50 MPH. I’m not disagreeing with the
speed hump, but is this a temporary structure we’ll use to see how well they
work?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – The installation will look permanent,
however, they are temporary. During the course of the 3-month period after the
speed humps are on the ground, we will come out and do some follow-up
studies and measure the traffic volume as well as the speed. Toward the end of
that 3-month period we will send another petition around to the residents with a
description of what the speed was prior to the speed humps going in, and what it
is now, and the residents can decide for themselves if they wish to keep them in
place. The 2nd petition requires a 55% majority to keep the speed humps on a
permanent basis. If, however, the majority of the residents don’t wish to keep
the speed humps we will come back, after going to the Traffic Commission, and
we will just blade them off the pavement and remove the signs and the street will
be pretty much as it was before.
Jim McFadden, 1127 E. Adams Ave. – That pretty much answers my questions.
Steve Frey, 1033 E. Adams Ave. – You answered one of my questions but I’ve
lived here since 1991 and we’ve been here to the Traffic Commission many times
over this issue of speeding. I know there are varying opinions about speed
humps. I noticed they are using the plural of humps vs. just one hump. That is a
big concern to me because I live about mid-span on the block and like Jim
mentioned the speed 2 houses away from the corner of California St. where
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 8
Cambridge coming east or west on Adams is excessive. I think we’re probably
going to see and hear a lot of sparks and tire screeching if we put one hump in
the dead center of that block because by then those vehicles are reaching 40 MPH
+. By the time I look for oncoming traffic in both directions and begin to pull out
of the driveway there is someone right on the tail of my vehicle. Why is it that
we’re looking at just one speed hump versus 2 or 3?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I believe Steve is referring to that
segment between California and Cambridge. You’ll notice there is one speed
hump mid-block, however, between California and Lincoln we have 2 humps.
Speed humps generally work best in a minimum multiple of three but this area is
unique. Normally I would have had 2 speed humps in this section, however, the
school buses for California Elementary School come in on Adams and deliver
their passengers here, I felt in this particular case I would prefer to have the bus
going over 1 speed hump as opposed to multiple ones, and I believe with this
layout we will get the speed attenuation that we’re looking for.
Steve Frey, 1033 E. Adams Ave. – I would disagree. I share your concern with
the kids but I don’t think it’s going to work. There have been 8 accidents on this
one block since I have lived here.
Henry Hillebrecht, 1047 E. Adams Ave. – As Steve said one speed hump isn’t
going to do it. We get a large flow of people cutting across Tustin St., they’re
going to STOP here and then they are going to haul all the way to that speed
hump, jam on their brakes when they see it, and hit it hard. The same thing goes
for the other direction. Traffic averages about 40 MPH on our street. I think we
need a minimum of 2 speed humps on this block and spread them out some, I
understand about the school bus but maybe they can go back around and go
down Lincoln or California.
Chairman Petronella – Am I correct in that you also install advance-warning
signs in addition to the speed humps?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes, there will be advance-warning
signs. It will be the same layout as the section of Adams Ave. westerly of here.
The other thing I would like to point out is that the segment of Adams Ave.
between Shaffer and Cambridge is the same length as the subject area. They have
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 9
3 speed humps, and have been approved for their final installation in December.
Their 85th percentile speed has gone down to about 26-27 MPH.
Marie Terry, 1219 E. Adams Ave. – I’ve been concerned about the heavy traffic
and the speeds they are talking about. We hear the tires squealing at the STOP
signs when they decide to stop, or when they take off into flight. Most of the
time they don’t stop for the STOP signs and go straight through. I have a
problem backing out of my driveway because I’m 2 houses east of California and
by the time I see them turn the corner to come up from Cambridge and I’ve come
out of my driveway they have passed me on the driver’s side and some on the
passenger side and it’s scary when they do that.
James Hayes, 1333 E. Adams Ave. – I think all the previous speakers have
identified that there is a traffic problem on Adams Ave. and I would estimate the
speeds to be 40-50 MPH. As this is residentially developed there are people
pulling in and out of their driveways, pedestrians and there is a high density
apartment complex just east of this location causing a lot of pedestrian traffic and
flow east and west down Adams Ave. There is great potential for a serious
accident and I think there needs to be something done in regard to engineering
and speed humps, the question may be how many, but I think we all agree there
needs to be speed humps on a permanent basis.
Anna Isbell, 1024 E. Adams Ave. – I’m a little curious about the busses. I work
from home and I don’t notice that many buses going down this stretch of Adams
from California to Cambridge. I’m not sure what route they are taking but I
don’t see that many and actually I would guess there is a greater threat to the
number of students walking down that street rather then the number of students
on a bus, if there were additional speed humps there. I also live mid-way down
the block and you can hardly back out of the driveway before you’ve got
somebody on your tail. I don’t think a single speed humps mid-block is
sufficient to address our concerns.
Kevin Steckler, 1012 E. Adams Ave. – I actually went out and measured the other
side of Cambridge, 1200 ft. approximately and 3 speed humps, it made sense.
You go to the east side of California St. and you have 2 humps so I really didn’t
understand why just one speed hump on this segment, and that is what everyone
asked over and over. The east part from California is actually 20 ft. less so they
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 10
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
are identical. I see buses coming from all directions so I’m not sure I would
agree with your observations.
Don Nelson, 1232 E. Adams Ave. – I’ve seen the speed increase over the years. I
agree with installing speed humps, I’m familiar with driving over them and I can
tell you that going at 25 MPH they don’t interfere and if you were in a bus they
wouldn’t bother you. If you’re going 35 MPH you will have some fenders and
bumpers scraping the pavement, and it will jar you quite a bit. I’m in favor of
having multiple speed humps in each segment and I think they will really help
reduce the speeds. The speed humps shouldn’t interfere with the school buses if
the drivers are careful.
Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the
Commission for further discussion and a motion.
Tom Mahood, Manager Transportation Services/City Traffic Engineer – As it was
mentioned nobody really wants speed humps but they do slow traffic and it’s
our goal to not only slow traffic but also to minimize the nuisance. We’ve had
experience now with about 7-8 speed hump installations and we’re pretty
comfortable with what works and what doesn’t. Based upon our best judgment
one speed hump would be sufficient for this reach. Now that being said I’d like
to point out that this is a test period and we will look at this for 3 months, if we
are off in our judgment we’d be happy to come back and recommend additional
hump placements or relocate this. That is the whole point of the test installation,
to see how it works, we’re not expecting failure, but we’re more than happy to
take a close look at it in 3 months and see if it’s doing the job or are we having
problems and if so we will be eager to make it right.
Chairman Petronella – He took the words right out of my mouth basically, this is
a trial and if they need to tighten it up they are pretty good at it.
Jim McFadden, 1127 E. Adams Ave. – I can understand the purpose of only
having one but would it be better to have it further down the road because when
they stop they have already stopped so they haven’t really got enough speed and
they can go over it pretty easily.
Chairman Beil – The hump is right in the middle and there are STOP signs
essentially on each end of the street so it really splits the distance. I agree with
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 Pg. 11
the trial period issue, the intention of putting in a speed hump is to achieve a
result, and if one speed humps achieves that result it does the job.
ACTION: Approved the installation of speed humps for the three-month
trial phase outlined in the Residential Traffic Management
Program and reevaluate it at the end of the three-month trial
period.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: F. Petronella
AYES: Unanimous
Tom Mahood, Manager Transportation Services/City Traffic Engineer – Since it
was not part of the motion we will pay special attention to that segment of
Adams Ave. when we do our review to ensure that its working.
Chairman Beil – I am requesting that the data be very clear regarding the
performance and the speeds in both directions on that block of Adams. I do
understand there is the total length of even the adjacent section to the west is
very similar with 3 humps and seems to work appropriately.
777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 77777777777777777
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None this meeting.
Chairman Beil noted that he hoped the other Commissioners got the information
regarding the City Traffic Engineer’s Association Workshop to be held Saturday,
April 1st. It this is a good event to go to if you can.
Tom Mahood wished to add that the City would pay the attendance fees if any of
the Commissioners wish to attend.
Tape #CTC-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – February 8, 2006 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 – March 8, 2006
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-26.01 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review.
Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.
February ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper