The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-08-2006 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: November 8, 2006 Tape #CTC-26.09 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, J. Pyne Absent - Commissioners: L. Dick Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, Sgt. S. O’Toole, P. Then C. Approval of Minutes October 11, 2006 ACTION: Approved as published by the Recording Secretary. MOTION: J. Pyne SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS None this meeting. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A single motion enacts all Consent Items unless requested to be heard separately. A. Request for the installation of red curb markings in front of 404 S. Devon Rd. Maria Bustos 404 S. Devon Rd. Orange CA 92868 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There were no speakers from the audience and no discussion of this request. ACTION: Approved the installation of 10 feet of red curb on the east side of the driveway, and 20 feet of red curb on the west side. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 2 MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous NOES: None 77777777777777777 End of Consent Items 777777777777777777 IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Results of the three-month trial installation of speed humps 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: Marie Terry, 1219 E. Adams Ave. – In favor of keeping the speed humps. The speed humps have really helped slow down some of the traffic. The problem still is people going through STOP signs. On 6-11-06 a young man northbound on Cambridge turned east onto Adams and he totaled the next door neighbor’s SUV and took off. They are coming from the school and going through the STOP signs the second speed hump between California and Lincoln, people are speeding up they are going through the lights and then they take off after that. We thought there was going to be 5 speed humps on the street which would slow them down even more. Steve Frey, 1033 E. Adams Ave. – In support of speed humps. I was curious to hear the data and it’s good data. I did a lot of observation on the speed hump and what I noticed happening is that people are coming down and they’re going to hit this thing and you’re going to hear the rubber screeching and the metal crashing and pretty much that is what happens a lot. I noticed a lot of people slowing down, the hump is right in front of my house and all weekend long you see the heads come up and almost hit the headliners and they look around surprised. The CTC had a big concern with the buses and the buses are awesome, they glide over that hump, their wheel base is so long it’s smooth. If there was some continuity there between the other blocks as they have 2 & 3 speed humps and we have 1 between Cambridge and California. Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 3 James A. Hayes, 1333 E. Adams Ave. – In favor of keeping the speed humps. We have noticed a decrease in traffic flow as well as a decrease in vehicular speed. We live on the north side of Adams between California and Lincoln, I would like to echo the previous speaker’s comments, I think another speed hump would be very effective between California and Cambridge. It seems to be a longer distance, and where we have 2 humps between Lincoln and California they only have one between California and Cambridge. I believe another one in that block would be much more effective than the 3 they have already installed. In general they are effective in reducing the speed and it makes it a lot safer for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the topic for the following discussion among the Commissioner’s: Vice Chairman Lall – If staff would reiterate the reason the City would be opposed to two speed humps on the west side, where there is currently one, for those unable to attend the last meeting when this was discussed. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Basically at the time this is actually the first street that we have put these on where we have an actual school bus route that is delivering children to California Elementary School. As you may be aware, they are not required to have seat belts in a bus and having buses driving over these speed humps, our concern was having children remain in their seats. Because of this concern, during the follow-up studies we broke the street into two segments so we could compare data. Based on our findings the speed is slightly higher on the westerly portion of the study area, basically 1.2 MPH. If we add another speed hump the results would be rather negligible compared to the rest of the street. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Commission – In general speed humps are not necessarily a good thing, they are an impediment to traffic flow and we try to use them very sparingly. Given the data measured here we have a drop of almost 8-9 MPH through the use of one speed hump, so it proves one hump is adequate at this location. There is an argument to be made that we really could have gotten by with a single hump on the other segment and perhaps we didn’t need two humps in order to reduce speed as speeds of 26-27 MPH are an outstanding speed in a residential community today, typically we get speeds of 31-33 MPH. We try to use them sparingly because they do cause some problems while they also fix some problems. I think the data shows that we are getting by quite well with a single hump. Chairman Beil – Since this was a trial installation period, I know this isn’t the primary emergency services route but did we have any feedback or comments from any emergency services on these installations? Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 4 Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst– No, I have not received any inquiries or comments from either the Police or Fire Department at this point. ACTION: Approved the permanent installation of speed humps on Adams Ave. and forward to the City Council for final action. This will also have the same opportunity for public participation at the City Council meeting for approvals? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – Yes, it will be a public hearing and notifications will be out to everybody on the street and if you wish to speak before the City Council that opportunity is there. Commissioner Pyne - I appreciate staff extending the study and taking a look at both the east and west side, to me it is quite relevant that speed was only a mile or a mile and a half different with 1 or 2 speed humps and so there really isn’t a big difference in putting the second speed hump in on the west side. Vice Chairman Lall – I think staff did a good job and the residents ought to be very pleased with the results, I wish I had speeds like that on my street. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: None 2. Request for the installation of “NO PARKING ANYTIME” signs on the north side of Riverdale Ave. from the east City limits to Orange-Olive Rd. Ron Purdy 649 Riverview Ave. Orange CA 92865 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion of this request. Chairman Beil – I would like to get some clarification regarding the entrance to the river trail there, is that an additional entrance signed and regulated entrance to the County facility or not? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – For years this area was actually closed, with a full chain link fence. We believe residents in the area who usually use the area, the bike trail, did not want to access it at Orange-Olive Rd. and they were cutting openings in the fence and at some point the County decided to go ahead and make it an actual opening. In this area between these two metal posts the gate is open, it is a full ending of the fence here, and the County actually did put inn A/C walkway leading straightway up to the bike trail. In our opinion this is an official entry into the bike trail area. Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 5 Ron Purdy, 649 Riverview Ave. – In favor of the parking restrictions. We live in close proximity to this area. I’m concerned about the area because it seems like we’re forgotten, not much is maintained. The only way we can get anything taken care like sweeping the streets, pull weeds is to call and complain. This is just another factor that adds to it. I think it depreciates our property values. This whole area along Riverdale looks like a cesspool, it’s just a mud and dirt area that isn’t maintained and people are using it for storage of their junk motor homes, cars, trailers with their sea-doo’s on it that are for sale and they will set there for 2-3 months and it really bothers me a whole lot. I just wish Orange would take a little bit more pride in it’s City and start cleaning the whole place up. It just looks terrible. I’m hoping they can post some type of sign even if it’s limiting it to overnight parking to discourage this. If you can afford a motor home park it in a storage lot, that’s what storage lots are for, don’t park them on the street or along this area. Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Chairman Beil – If you go back one picture, the one showing the inlets, I would like some clarification, is it master planned for future widening through this area? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I would say the ultimate right-of-way, where the storm drain culvert is, in this area which I think would bring the street out to 64 feet curb-to-curb and that would go along with the area to the west right about to Orange-Olive Rd. The curb line there at Riverdale Ave. is about 64 feet wide Secondary arterial highway. At some point the street will be widened to a full 64 ft. wide, but generally the traffic volume in the area has been well below the capacity of a wider street, so at this time there are no problems to do any widening in this area, or full improvements on this side of the street. Probably some time in the future they will. ACTION: Denied the request for “NO PARKING ANYTIME” signs, and approve the installation of “NO PARKING 10:00 PM TO 6:00 AM” restrictions. Commissioner Beil - I think the proponent has indicated in his testimony that he would be willing to accept that as an opportunity to deter, and particularly the overnight parking an long term parking and it would be incumbent, I don’t know about regular patrolling at night hours, if we see things there we could make stop’s and issue citations. Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 6 Sgt. Sean O’Toole, OPD Traffic Bureau – We have received some comments from the Water District regarding security with vehicles being parked in this area. It ‘s something that once we get the word out about the vehicles parking there we should be able to effect enforcement. MOTION: N. Lall SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 3. Request to remove the pedestrian crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection of Town & Country Road and Lawson Way. Steve Kinaly Area Traffic Engineer CA Department of Transportation 3447 Michelson Ave., Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612-1692 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There were no speakers from the audience on this item, Chairman Beil opened discussion for the Commissioner’s comments and a motion. Chairman Beil - It almost looks like the eastern crosswalk is a chalk line right now. Vice Chairman Lall – You stated right now that it is the City of Orange’s property and responsibility and shortly it will be turned over to Caltrans and it will become their responsibility, am I correct on that? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – That is correct, once the intersection is signalized Caltrans will have jurisdiction over the signal operation. Vice Chairman Lall – If the City of Orange takes action tonight does that put us in a position of liability or would we better serve waiting on this and letting Caltrans take this action so all liability would be on them? Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 7 Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – Actually we still have to take action as it is our roadway, Caltrans just takes over the signal operation in terms of signal timing and that type of thing, the road is still our road and we still have a say on what happens with the road and we’re still liable for what happens on the road, etc. I don’t know if there has been any maintenance agreements of the pavement itself but we’re still on the hook for what happens on the road and we still have the say of what happens with the roadway as far as these types of items go. ACTION: Approved the request. MOTION: J. Pyne SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous NOES: ABSTAIN: 777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 7777777777777777 V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Report to the Commission on access configuration of Santiago Boulevard, near Brookside Avenue. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – At the May CTC meeting you asked us to take a look at the access configuration on Santiago Blvd. near Brookside Ave. adjacent to the Ralph’s Shopping Center, it’s an area we share with the City of Villa Park, they have the easterly 10 ft. of the roadway and we have the westerly large hunk of it although the property line kind of queues diagonally across the road. This has had a long and colorful history stemming from the mid-1990’s when there was a great “back and forth” between the Cities of Orange and Villa Park in terms of who would have access. Brookside provides access to about 50- 80 homes in the City of Orange, and the shopping center is the lifeblood of the City of Villa Park as their only commercial development. The configuration put in place at the end of 1995 as a compromise between Orange and Villa Park, by any modern traffic engineering standard it would appear very sub-standard. The turn pocket lengths are quite small, one is 30 ft. and the other is 50 ft., barely room for one car in one pocket and two vehicles in the other. Normally traffic engineers take a very dim view of anything that small. With that said we took a look at the accident pattern over the last 4 years and we really found only one accident that could remotely be associated with that configuration and that was a side-swipe accident in 2003. By the hard data it’s not showing us a problem even though the pocket lengths are sub-standard. Normally you would expect to see Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 8 an accident pattern but we’re not, so that would tell us that for whatever reason the thing is working even though it doesn’t look like it should. We met with the City of Villa Park in August, and had some discussions with their City Manager and they were of the position that they would like to see the existing configuration be maintained and not do anything to compromise access into their center. I believe we have a letter in from them reiterating their preferences. We spoke with Villa Park about looking toward the future of their interest to redevelop the center somewhat and to improve their access because they’re not really happy with the way it’s flowing into the center and they would like to move that main driveway a little to the south. Should that happen we would have a much better access configuration for both cities, but we don’t see that happening for the next year or two, but it is in the horizon. Vice Chairman Lall – Looking through the materials dating from the mid-1990’s it’s very clear everybody sees there is a hazard here. I saw a quote I found very telling from the City of Villa Park that suggested we all take a lesson on how to make left turns. Apparently that must have been successful because there’s not too many accidents there despite the risk I see on almost a daily basis. Every aspect of this I see everybody acknowledge there is a hazard here from police agencies, City Manager’s and what have you. There is a letter from June 13, 1994 where it doesn’t look like Ralph’s has a big problem with whatever we do to solve the problem so at least there is a willingness on part of some of the merchants there. But lacking any substantial hard data of accidents I guess we have a side- swipe and potentially a broad swipe with a bicyclist, I would reluctantly agree to shelve this until we do have more hard data which ultimately mean somebody got into an accident so I hope it never comes about but should it occur I think I would be inclined to bring this to the Council or the Commission’s attention. Chairman Beil – Everybody knows it’s a scary place to drive through particularly if you have to make turning movements but I think the accident history bears out that we don’t have much there, a lot of concern but I think people are very cautious when they go through there. If there is redevelopment on that plaza that would be a good opportunity for the City of Orange to work with the City of Villa Park in any environmental process or traffic circulation plan they have for redevelopment that goes on there that would effectively make some improvements that would benefit both cities. Vice Chairman Lall – I think it’s wonderful we took a cooperative approach with the City of Villa Park and brought this to their attention, and let them know our concerns and openly wanted to understand their concerns to make sure we didn’t take actions that would harm the interest of Villa Park and their residents. Tape #CTC-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – November 8, 2006 Pg. 9 Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – I was surprised at the reception we received at Villa Park, I expected to be chased out of the building but they were very considerate of our request and they did not make any snap judgments, they were receptive to considering it. We worked very well with them and their willingness to consider this was a very positive sign. ACTION: Receive and file report. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: J. Pyne AYES: Unanimous 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 - December 13, 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-26.09 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. Nov 2006 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2006 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper