Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-2006 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: May 10, 2006 Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated. I. OPENING A. Flag Pledge B. Roll Call Present – Commissioners: J. Beil, N. Lall, F. Petronella, Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, G. Sheatz, C. Perez Absent – Commissioners: J. Pyne, L. Dick, Sgt. S. O’Toole Absent – Staff: Sgt. S. O’Toole C. Approval of Minutes Š April 12, 2006 ACTION: Approved MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: J. Beil, N. Lall, F. Petronella ABSTAIN: II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS None this meeting. III. CONSENT CALENDAR None this meeting. May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 2 IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Request for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Compton Ave. and Manchester Pl. Traffic Engineering 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 of this request: There being no speakers from the audience the Chairman closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Commissioner Lall - This intersection has a lot of problems geometrically. With the growth of the Best Buy and the condominiums, I think it’s timely that we attempt to improve this intersection now. Commissioner Beil – I think volumes are going to continue to grow particularly on that south movement coming down Manchester. I know the City of Anaheim is rapidly moving forward with their extension of Gene Autry Way over the freeway, further up Manchester, so volumes and patterns are going to change drastically in this area. We also have to take into consideration all the St. Joseph development and the Block of Orange development that will be happening soon. In his report, Dave mentioned the eastbound Compton to southbound Manchester movement where the people have to stop and twist their head around to look behind them to see if cars are coming. If the signal does go in and when the design for that signal is done perhaps a closer look can be taken at that movement and figure out if there is something that can be done to correct that angle of instance. I want to make sure that’s looked at. It’s important to note that the funding for the work would be provided by the Redevelopment Agency Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 3 Commissioner Petronella - I’m glad we are being proactive in this regard. There is obviously going to be a lot of foot traffic in this area and sooner or later this issue will come before the Commission. I’m glad to see the request actually. ACTION: Approved the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Compton Ave. and Manchester Pl. with a note for the staff to pay particular attention to the geometry of the intersection and any additional improvements to facilitate safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles thru that intersection. MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 2. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Chestnut Ave. and Maplewood St. Shana Martin 1044 E. Chestnut 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: Janice Martin, 1602 N. Silverwood St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. The problem is Chestnut’s speed and traffic. I’m not sure how the counting was conducted but I’ve lived here since August 1995 and there is certainly a lot of traffic that goes thru here. The problem I have on Silverwood is that I have to back out of my driveway blindly. My driveway runs along Silverwood so when I back out to Chestnut, I can’t see cars that are speeding by. A STOP sign would make it worse. I don’t know what the answer is but we need to do something about the speed situation on Chestnut. I think it’s lucky an accident hasn’t occurred. Thank You. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 4 Ennis Teske, 1022 E. Chestnut – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I’m essentially opposed to putting the STOP signs there. I think the reason they were requested in the first place is because of the excessive speed on this street. I’ve noticed in the years I’ve lived there that the traffic going faster and faster. I think what the street really needs is some police enforcement. The red striping would eat up a lot of parking in the neighborhood. We’re in pretty good shape for parking now but as peoples families grow and people get more people living in their houses I think there is going to be a shortage of street parking. I don’t really think the STOP signs are going to control speeds as much as people think they will. Shana Martin, 1044 E. Chestnut Ave. – In favor of “All-Way” STOP. I am the one who requested this very unpopular thing. But in my defense, the genesis of this came out of a request I made last July in writing to implement speed humps. When I moved here in February 2004 my husband and I immediately noticed that people speed. I’ve been in contact with David and he alerted me to the alternative of a STOP sign. Since my request, I’ve done a lot of research and realized that it actually is not a very good tool for speed reduction. I have done research on other alternatives. The average daily speed is over 10 MPH more than the speed limit. We were 24 cars shy of the criteria to qualify for speed humps. I understand from my conversation with Dave that even if your one car shy it’s denied. When I learned my request would have been approved had I made it six months earlier before the average daily volume was doubled I was quite upset. I understand you hear a litany of these types of complaints from residents and that you need to focus your energy on other intersections. I have a 21 month old child and I’m very concerned about this. What we really need is law enforcement. We have had no police ticketing our area. Since we have a through street people on Katella will use our street to bypass traffic. I’m very frustrated that there seems to be no alternatives except a denial for a speed hump and obviously the STOP sign denial which really wasn’t a good request to begin with. Thank You. Bill Vickes, 1612 N. Maplewood St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. Withdrew request to address the commission. Leroy Andersen, 1121 Chestnut Ave. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I’m retired but I’m at my computer in the afternoon. I don’t think that cars are speeding that bad. Once in a while you get one coming down there pretty good. About eight years ago I invited on of your officers to park his motorcycle in my driveway to Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 5 get the cars. The majority of them were below 35 MPH. In any neighborhood you’re going to have a couple cars come down quick but they’re not going to slow the traffic down by putting STOP signs in. It would take all the parking away from my house. Thank You. Commissioner Beil – After arguments from the audience, Commissioner Beil asked for clarification from Dave Allenbach regarding the 85th percentile. Dave Allenbach - The 85th percentile is currently 35.8 MPH. Ms. Martin is correct that the posted speed limit for a residential street is 25 MPH. However, the median speed is 27.9 MPH and the 10 MPH pace is between 22.7 and 32.7 miles per hour (MPH). Now this is based on approximately 2 ½ weeks worth of count data that we obtained during the course of the initial study. Five years ago we did a speed survey. The 85th percentile was slightly lower at 33.8 MPH. However, the median speed was almost the same in the 27.7 MPH and the pace speed was between 24 and 33 MPH. So while the 85th has gone up slightly, overall the speed on Chestnut has remained pretty much the same over five years. Lawrance Honikel, 1600 N. Maplewood – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. Chestnut is sort of an unusual street. Between Chapman Ave. and Meats there are only four streets where there is a continuous street from Tustin Ave. to Cambridge. And we’re the only street where there is, there is no way to slow down the traffic. All the other streets seem to have a way of slowing down traffic. There is a STOP sign at California. Walnut is another example even though it’s sort of a busier street. People can speed very easily on Chestnut. And that is sort of a problem. Even if you get 10 cars in a day going too fast that may create a problem in the future. There should be some way to control the speed on Chestnut. I noticed that Adams Ave. has three speed humps between Cambridge and Shaffer. I don’t understand why they have three speed humps when we aren’t even allowed to have one. On the other side of Chestnut, between Cambridge and Shaffer there is a STOP on the corner of Shaffer and Chestnut. This baffles me because they have the exact same situation we have. Thank You. Wayne Millard, 1138 E. Chestnut Ave. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. Thanks for the letter. I appreciate it. I am one house east of Maplewood on the south side of Chestnut. I’ve been there almost seven years. I back out of my driveway onto Chestnut to leave the house. I drive Maplewood frequently both north and southbound. When I’m on Maplewood approaching Chestnut I stop, look both Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 6 ways to make sure traffic is clear and then I pull onto Chestnut. Then I make quick left and a quick right into my driveway. I can sympathize with the young lady with the 21-month old child. Other than the fact that some people do exceed the speed limit I personally don’t have a problem with either of those intersections Silverwood or Maplewood. I’ve never heard any screeching tires. It’s a rather very quiet neighborhood actually. Thanks very much. Anne Luce, 1032 E. Chestnut – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I live right at the intersection of Silverwood. I am also an auto insurance investigator so I see car accidents all day. I’m not sure what the solution is here regarding the STOP signs. Obviously I’m opposed to a STOP sign where there’d be red curb in front of my house for thirty feet. I’ve seen speed humps on Hoover and Adams, why we’re not allowed to have them, I don’t know. I work out of my home part of the day so I observe traffic speed at all hours of the day and evening. I’m not sure where it is that people are positioned when they are measuring the speed because going eastbound on Chestnut about 2/3 of the way down the block, the street curves so people are forced to slow down. Being only eight houses east of the intersection by the time they reach my house they are going at a good clip. There are specific cars I’ve observed on more than one occasion that drag race. As you’ve heard from the other people this is a straight shot street that people use to avoid the Katella and Taft traffic. Possibly law enforcement presence out there, which I’ve only seen once in the 3 ½ years I’ve lived here, would send a message to somebody. There is a nifty little spot right around the corner on Silverwood that they can hide and the traffic coming westbound will never see them. We can promote lots of economy for the city if we write lots of tickets out there. Thank You. Chairman Beil - I never see much traffic on Taft, maybe at the intersections of Tustin and Taft. You can go pretty fast on Taft because it’s a big wide-open street. I just want to mention that I did grow up on a street that goes through from Tustin to Cambridge. Over time, as I was growing up, there were STOP signs added because there were four legged intersections that had fairly high volumes of traffic going through the intersections both ways. I have a parent who still lives there and those cars get up to 35 MPH in that short distance. I think it’s important to note that STOP signs are not speed reduction devices; they are right-of-way assignment devices. We have to look very carefully at the warrants; there are some instances where they can be considered. As you heard Dave mention, the one-legged STOP on the southbound movements from Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 7 Maplewood and Silverwood would be a possibility. In answer to a question from the audience, the point of the STOP sign on the one-legged intersection is essentially to assign right-of-way. It essentially does stop that vehicle so they can get a good view of cross traffic coming either direction and make a decision to pull out. I’ve heard a lot of discussion and it’s really a speed issue. I think we have the speed survey data that really shows what’s happening out there. Dave or Tom maybe you can explain how residential speed zones versus other types of speed limits are set based on 85th percentile plus. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer: The state has established 25 MPH as the speed limit for residential streets, there is no arguing about it. The reality is few people drive 25 MPH. That 25 mile and hour speed limit came from the days in the late 1940’s early 1950’s, that’s when it was actually placed in the Vehicle Code. It was based on the types of vehicle that people drove in the 40’s and 50’s. What’s happened is that that speed limit, prima facia, is still in place even though people are now more comfortable driving at faster speeds. On other streets like arterial highways we take radar measurements and we have to set our speed limits based upon what we measure. That’s not true with residential. It strictly comes down to a matter of enforcement. If we want to put the resources in terms of police personnel out there, we can write tickets all day. This would be a good area for enhanced enforcement. In terms of the speed humps, it just doesn’t make the cut off threshold. Dave takes his measurements based upon, not just one day but multiple days. If you can’t make it on multiple days, then we’re sorry we have to draw the line somewhere. This is why we have the 25 MPH limit. Typically, we find on our residential streets about a 31 MPH, 85th percentile. We’re throwing out the term 85th percentile, because that’s the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers travel at or less. That means we have 15 percent of the drivers exceeding that speed. So the bulk of the folks are law-abiding drivers and they are driving closer to the speed limit. The median speed is basically your average speed and we’re measuring somewhere around 27.7 to 27.9 MPH. So this particular street is probably a little faster than most streets we see in Orange and that’s why I would suggest that some enhanced police enforcement would be in order here. That could easily be a recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Beil – The other option would be to look at a southbound STOP control, which really should be formalized by a request from a resident and brought back to another meeting so people have a chance to comment on that specific item, if the residents still want to go that way. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 8 Commissioner Lall - I can understand the frustration of the residents. There are people going faster than they’d like especially with kids in the household. Unfortunately the remedies we have available to us don’t work. The speed humps miss the threshold for being put in. STOP signs aren’t for speed control. They don’t work for speed control, so it doesn’t apply here. But I understand the concern, I have a straight through street in my neighborhood and we have some people think it’s a racetrack and that upsets me greatly. What I’ve done is ask for a traffic officer to come out and try to control the speed. That seems to me to be the best and perhaps at this time the only solution to this problem. So I’m sure any motion we make will include increased patrol activity out there and hope that takes care of the problem. You’ll also find it’s mostly your neighbors who will be getting the tickets. Be aware of that fallout coming your way. Unidentified speaker - To determine the average speed on streets is that over a 24-hour period or just during daylight hours? Dave Allenbach - I have a set of counters that can actually measure speed and traffic volumes. In this case because the street was very close to meeting the threshold I actually counted more than I normally would. Normally I leave the counters out for a week. In this case we had about 2 ½ weeks worth of data. I went out three separate times and counted the street. I placed the counters mid- block, in this particular case the first count I did was between Silverwood and Maplewood. The other two counts I did were to the east past the curve in the road. Where, we like to call it, the street was in the flat where people would be more likely to speed. So this is based over a 24-hour period, times seven days times two and a half weeks. I feel pretty comfortable that the data we have is pretty accurate for the speed and volume. As a side benefit, because we leave the counters out for so long I know the times that the speeding happens to be the worst. If it’s decided to direct the police to have a concentrated enforcement, we’ll be able to inform them as to what times most violations occur. Unidentified speaker: - The speed counter was right where you have to turn. You have to slow down to even make that turn. I’m not trying to disrespect what you said; I’m just saying that it wasn’t a true count. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 9 The chairman closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. ACTION: Denied the installation of an “All-Way” STOP at the intersection of Chestnut Ave. and Maplewood St. with a side bar of letting the Police Department know that there is a potential enforcement problem. Dave can let them know the days and times they need to be there. MOTION: F. Petronella SECOND: J. Beil AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 3. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Cypress St. and Palm Ave. Joe Foust 2223 Wellington Ave., Ste. 300 Santa Ana, Ca 92701-3161 The oral presentation is based on the written report of Joe Foust, Austin Foust and Associates representing Chapman University; please refer to your copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion Kris Olsen; Chapman University – In favor of “All-Way” STOP. I am the Associate Vice President of Campus Planning for Chapman University. I just want to again thank you for considering this request. 219 parking spaces are provided for the film school and the majority of it is at the southern part of that block. The University also has a commuter lot which is on the west side of the railroad tracks from Palm in fact it’s adjacent to the Metrolink lot and holds, about 200 spaces. We’ve also just introduced in the west Palm industrial park, which is located on the other side of the railroad tracks. We’ve introduced 200 employee parking spaces in this lot to free up more of the campus for academic uses. A good majority of our staff, including myself, traverses that intersection Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 10 everyday two or three times on our way back and forth to activities in different areas of the campus. So you combine the Palm lot, the newly relocated employees at the west Palm industrial park, and the 950 to 1,000 students at the film school and that equals a lot of pedestrian traffic. You have high school students who use that connector to get to the other side of the railroad tracks on a daily basis. And just down Cypress and Maple at that intersection is our dance center, which we opened up two to three years ago which is another eighty students. What you’re talking about is a lot of activity and from my own observance you have a very interesting mix in that intersection. You have commuters that go east/west on Palm with some frequency and there are some commuters that are going north/south on Cypress also. On Cypress you have a lot of big-rig trucks. You have the ones that are frequenting the packing plant located on the northwest corner. You have the various leasehold units on the south of Palm that are industrial oriented. You have commuters, big-rigs, students on skateboards and girls on pink beach cruisers, and that makes for a lot of breath taking events that you watch with your fingers crossed hoping nobody gets hurt. So our concern from the University’s standpoint is the safety of the pedestrians that use this intersection and will use this intersection in the future. Commissioner Beil: - Dave does this proposal include additional crosswalks at this intersection or do we want to keep that controlled as one protected crosswalk? Dave Allenbach – I would probably prefer to put crosswalks at all four legs. That’s what we typically do. While the east leg may be the primary crossing, as mentioned we do have the dance school that’s in proximity on the south side of Palm. Those students would be, if they were going to the main campus, crossing on the south leg. The employees from the office complexes may be crossing on the north side. To cover all our bases I would prefer to put crosswalks at all four legs. Commissioner Beil – Kind of related to that crosswalk, there are four new handicapped accessible ramps on those corners. Three of them are very evident on those pictures you handed out. However, the one I have questions on is not. For some reason that brand new ramp is not built to standard. Unidentified Speaker – Are you referring to the one that’s on the film school side? It’s not finished yet. We still have to put the truncated domes on it. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 11 The chairman closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. ACTION: Approved the installation of an “All-Way” STOP at the intersection of Cypress St. and Palm Ave. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 4. Request for the installation of a “Handicapped” parking space in front of 149 N. Fir St. Julio Ortiz 153 N. Fir St. 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: Julio Ortiz, 153 N. Fir St. – In favor. I have a problem with the neighborhood because people don’t move their cars all week. I have to park on Maple St. that’s why I’m asking for a handicapped parking. Commissioner Beil – Mr. Ortiz just be aware that in approving this, the landlord would be required to do some of the work as indicated. It’s a very heavily impacted parking area; parking is really tough around there. I’ve seen it. You may have other people who live close to you that may have handicapped placards. So it’s still going to be a first-come, first-serve basis. When you say people park there and stay there all the time that may still be the case. Chairman Lall: I can truly understand how difficult it must be living on an heavy parked street like that, having a handicap and having to walk a considerable distance. I support this as a solution. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 12 Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. ACTION: Approved the installation of a “Handicapped” parking space in front of 153 N. Fir St. MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 5. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Adams Ave. and Grand St. Chris Ornelas 202 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 of this request: Dorothy Stewart, 1126 N. Grand St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I live at the corner of Adams and Grand. I am opposed to this. I don’t think it’s necessary. In the 18 years I’ve lived here I’ve never seen an accident. I thought this was going to be a speed issue. I was going to point out that the next street north is Wilson and there is a STOP sign there. At the second most southern part of Quincy there is a drainage ditch that’s really deep. It acts as a speed bump so people do not speed there. Adams, as you can see, dead-ends at Grand and so people have to slow down there to go either left or right. It’s not a right-of-way problem because you’re not at a four-way intersection. The people coming up Grand have to slow down to go either left or right. They have to yield the right of way to Grand. It’s the same with people coming up Quincy, if they are coming from east to west, Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 13 they have to slow down, stop and look. Everybody has to slow down and at least look. All four corners have clear views except for Adams/Grand as you’re approaching from the west. There is a wall on the Adams street side. Once you get up to the corner and since Quincy is offset you have a very clear view to your left up Grand and then to your right at Quincy. We get a lot of traffic from the apartments now that the signal is there. I would say almost always a parent accompanies the children that are of the younger age. I live there, I look out the window and I walk in the morning. There is usually a parent with any given group. So I think that from a safety standpoint it’s not necessary. I think if you put a STOP sign at Quincy and Adams and let Grand come through that’s going to make it even harder for the kids to cross. As it is now, cars just slow down and then cross. Or if they see kids there, they stop. I don’t know, I just couldn’t understand how that would help. The sight lines are good. The cars do have to slow down. I don’t think a red painted curb belongs in a residential area. I can see them on a busy major street. Not only are they are aesthetically unappealing but we have small houses on small lots. That’s a good parking space. And since I live on a corner you’d be taking a parking space away on both sides of my house. Thank you. Margit Ischoritsch, 1136 N. Grand St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I’ve lived in my house since 1967 and I do not ever remember an accident in that area. People don’t have their children out on the street anymore. I couldn’t see a safety issue there. I’ve seen a slight increase in traffic over the years. Primarily the people driving there either live there, are visiting or are servicing the area. The red curb is something that I oppose also. If you do put a red curb on Adams it will squeeze my neighbor over to my side. I only have about 56 feet of frontage. I’m between Wilson and Adams and between the two corner houses. Part of those 56 feet is a driveway. I have about 31 feet of frontage then comes my driveway and then a very short little piece where you cannot park a big car. Those are my concerns: less parking, no accidents, no increase in housing or traffic, decrease in children. Thank You Christina Johnson, 315 E. Quincy Ave. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I’ve lived there since 1973 so I do know the area fairly well. I have to agree with the ladies, I don’t see the point of all these STOP signs. I don’t think they are going to be very effective. We don’t have that big a need for them. There is a STOP sign at Wilson/Grand. Three houses down we’re going to have another one. Two houses Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 14 Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated. another STOP sign then two houses down another STOP sign. That’s getting to be a high population of STOP signs for the number of people. Commissioner Beil – Is everybody aware that the staff recommendation is to deny the installation of the “All-Way” STOP and approve installation of “One- Way” STOP controls at eastbound Adams Ave. at Grand St. and east and westerly westbound Quincy Ave. at Grand? Christina Johnson – I don’t think we need all those STOP signs. We loose partial or all the parking for seven houses in that area because of the placement of those signs. That’s a pretty high price to pay for I’m not sure what reward. Since they put the stoplight in at Adams and Glassell traffic has gone down significantly on Adams. I don’t go down Adams anymore because you can’t turn on red. It takes too long to wait for that light. I think it’s way too much inconvenience for the residents living there. It’s not going to help whatever problem it’s trying to resolve. Commissioner Beil – To answer one question, the proponent lives in the mid- block area between Grand and Glassell. The letter we have attached is really basing it on speed. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – The staff is generally conservative and when we do have a STOP request for a “T” intersection it’s typically an “All- Way” request. We usually recommend a STOP sign at the stem of the “T”. The Vehicle Code already requires drivers entering a “T” intersection from the stem to yield the right-of-way. The STOP merely increases the rigor from a yield situation to a STOP situation. Certainly our recommendation would be to do that. It’s what we listed in the report. However, given the fact that these streets have been in existence for so long there certainly isn’t a demonstrated accident problem. It’s certainly within the purview of the commission to invoke a no project alternative and leave it as is. That would require no implementation of parking restrictions. I think what some folks are not realizing is that for visibility reasons we are required to add at least 30 feet of red curb whenever we have a STOP sign. If a STOP sign goes in, you have to have the red curb, but if we don’t have the STOP signs then we don’t have to put in the red curbs. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 15 ACTION: 1. Denied the request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Adams Ave. and Grand St. 2. Denied the installation of a “One-Way” STOP control for eastbound Adams Ave. at Grand St. and “One-Way” STOPS for both legs of Quincy Ave. at Grand St. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 6. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Palm Ave. and Lime St. Joe Pagani 1114 W. Palm 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 of this request: Jim Lynch, 293 N. Lime St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I’m on the southeast corner of Lime and Palm. My wife and I have lived there about twenty years and I mostly work from home too. I’m here to agree with your number one action that we don’t need “All-Way” STOP’s. It’s unnecessary and clumsy. I don’t think we need the “One- Way” STOP’s either. The traffic flow is low on our streets. On the southern part of N. Lime we only have ten houses. It’s mainly the people who live on Lime that go up and down the street. There is a lot of traffic on Palm because of the school at the end of the block. It’s gotten faster like everywhere else. I think civility with people or courteousness in the way people drive has completely gone down the tubes in the last ten years. Everybody drives fast and only think of themselves. Piggybacking on your comments Nick about speed and what David said, I’d like for you guys to consider something like you did on the other ones, more police enforcement. Between 11 p.m. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 16 and 2 a.m. in the morning there is an unusual amount of speeding down the street late at night. If you tested at those times you’d find speeds of 50-60 MPH. Robert Rowell, 303 N. Fairmont St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I agree with Jim that the STOP really isn’t needed. As people have said earlier this evening, thirty feet of red curb really isn’t necessary in a residential area. I would urge no vote on that. Thank You. Berdell Rowell, 303 N. Fairmont St. – Opposed to “All-Way” STOP. I back out of the driveway onto Palm St. I have no problem because if anybody is coming down line I always stop to look both ways. Having the STOP signs on Palm and Lime won’t make the traffic any better on Palm. There is a sign at each end of the street that says 25 MPH. You can’t always see those signs because of the trees. If you could paint it on the pavement it might be more noticeable. A STOP will just put a hardship on the residents of Palm and Lime. If you take away the Lime parking they’re going to end up parking in front of our house. So to me if it’s just left it the way it is maybe a little more cops once in a while to check on the speeders. Thank You. Unidentified speaker – I heard something about a threshold that has to be met for speed humps can you explain that briefly? Dave Allenbach – In this case Palm Ave. would not even be considered a candidate street. It is on the list of prohibited streets because it is a secondary response route. We have a fire station at the corner of Maple and Main. Depending on the time of day that an emergency call came in, Palm Ave. would be a better alternative than trying to get down Chapman. When we adopted this Neighborhood Traffic Management Program we elected in addition to not put speed humps on arterials or streets like Maple, Palm, Almond; streets that run parallel to arterials that have fire stations on them or in proximity to them. If it weren’t for that fact, the street probably would meet the criteria for speed humps. As I mentioned earlier, the 85th is well over 35 MPH. Commissioner N. Lall - Looks like we’re trying to deal with the speed issue again with the proponent requesting an inappropriate remedy. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer –Commissioner Lall if you make the recommendation to just deny the installation of the “All-Way” STOP and are silent to that point it will just leave the street as it is today. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 17 Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. ACTION: 1. Denied the request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of Palm Ave. and Lime St. 2. Denied the installation of a “One-Way” STOP control for southbound Fairmont St. at Palm Ave. and “One-Way” STOP controls for both north and southbound Lime St. at Palm Ave. MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 7777777777777777 V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Commissioner Lall – I would like to ask staff to study a dangerous situation that I’ve noted over the past several months. At Wanda Rd. between Taft and Santiago Blvd. I’ve notice the difficulty of those very tight left turn lanes into the shopping center as well as the very tight turn lane onto a public street. This could be big liability issue. I’d like to see a report presented to commission. Commissioner Beil – We’re going to have staff review that subject location and bring back any recommendations for improvements or their analysis of what’s going on out there as far as safety and operational conditions. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – We’ll try to have something back to you for the next meeting. Tape #CTC-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – May 10, 2006 Pg. 18 VI. ADJOURNMENT After discussion of today’s Agenda the City Traffic Commission meeting was concluded, and as there were no further requests for action under Oral Presentations, the Chairman adjourned this session of the City Traffic Commission. The next meeting of the City Traffic Commission is scheduled: 5:30 P.M. Wednesday – June 14, 2006 Respectfully submitted, CITY OF ORANGE Corina Perez, for 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-26.04 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at (714) 744-5536 in this regard, advance notice is appreciated.  May ‘06 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper