HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-2005 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE
CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Minutes of a Regular Meeting: September 14, 2005
Tape #CTC-25.07 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, N. Lall, J. Pyne
Absent - Commissioners: F. Petronella
Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, W. Winthers, Sgt. S. O’Toole, P. Then
C. Approval of Minutes
August 10, 2005
ACTION: Approved as published by the Recording Secretary.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: N. Lall
AYES: Unanimous
II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
None
September ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 2
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Request for the installation of red curb markings in front of the Ferrara Family
Mortuary at 351 N. Hewes St.
Leonard Ferrara
351 N. Hewes St.
Orange CA 92869
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There
was no discussion of this item.
ACTION: Approved the installation of “NO PARKING ANYTIME” signs to
match existing parking restrictions in the area.
B. Request for the installation of red curb markings on both sides of the Lemon St.
gate of the Carriage Estates Mobile Home Park, located at 201 W. Collins Ave.
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There
was no discussion of this item.
Karen Stubbs
201 W. Collins Ave.
Orange CA 92867
ACTION: Approved the installation of 40 ft. of red curb on the north side of
the subject driveway and 30 ft. on the south.
C. Request for the installation of red curb markings in front of 724 E. Walnut Ave.
Betsy Wentworth
724 E. Walnut Ave.
Orange CA 92867
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There
was no discussion of this item.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 3
ACTION: Approved the installation of 10 feet of red curb on both sides of
the driveway at 724 E. Walnut Ave.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: N. Lall
AYES: Unanimous
777777777777777 End of Consent Calendar 777777777777777777
IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS
1. Request to add both sides of Sycamore Ave. between Cambridge St. and
Harwood St., and both sides of Pine St. between Sycamore Ave. and Walnut
Ave. to the Chapman University Permit Parking Area (Area “A”).
Martha Moyers, MSN. RN
803 E. Sycamore Ave.
Orange, CA 92866-1155
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Vice-
Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
William Bryant, 713 E. Sycamore Ave. – During the daytime hours there are so
many cars on the street that service people can find no place to park. It appears
to be mostly from Chapman University, as we see them park and then get out
and walk to the campus.
Martha Moyers, 803 E. Sycamore Ave. – We can’t find any place to put out our
garbage containers, can’t get deliveries, can’t find a place for service personnel.
Diane Fishel, 739 E. Sycamore Ave. – I support the implementation of permit
parking here. I’m concerned with the constant volume of cars that are parked in
front of my house on Sycamore Ave. and the east side of my house on Pine St.
(submitted photos of 9/7 and 9/14). These photos illustrate my point about
putting out garbage containers where the trucks can get to them, and we fight for
space. Also, there are times when the street sweeper cannot sweep the street
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 4
because of cars parked here. People going to the store will park in the street
from the driveway so it’s partly in the driveway and the street.
Vice-Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission
for further discussion and a motion.
ACTION: Approved the request for permit parking in the designated area.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: J. Beil
Vice-Chairman Beil – I think it’s appropriate if the neighborhood really wants to
enter into the parking permit program, I believe it’s not just Chapman University
you are being impacted by, but also Cambridge Elementary where a lot of people
drop off and pick-up their children.
Commissioner Lall – I support it also, I think the pictures presented to us provide
a very graphic example of the need and I support the motion.
AYES: Unanimous
2. Request to prohibit east-west through traffic on Briardale Ave. west of Tustin
St. during the peak traffic hours of (6:00-8:00 A.M.) and (5:00-7:00 P.M.).
Rene Berger, KRB Properties, Inc.
PO Box 50518
Irvine, CA 92619-0518
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy.
Vice-Chairman Beil – The recent Home Depot approval, that whole traffic study
was predicated on the existing condition, is that not true?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I have not seen that study that I
believe it would have been predicated on existing conditions.
Vice-Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 5
Kayla Lawrence, 1112 S. Bedford Dr. #102 – I own the property known as the
Clocktower Center located at the northwest corner of Briardale and Tustin for the
past 16 years. At the time we purchased it the property was on a prime, 4-Way
signal, and it was very valuable as a commercial investment. Unfortunately the
traffic changing 10 years ago changed all that. I realize the homeowner’s living
on Briardale had a problem with people using the street as a shortcut to Taft
Ave., but I believed then and I believe now the City could have used other means
of solving the problem without hurting the businesses in that area. I would like
to ask if you tried looking into speed humps and lowering the speed along
Briardale 10 years ago.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – At that time we did not have a
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in place, and speed humps were
not part of the situation. Speed humps are not intended to divert traffic; they
merely are intended to slow traffic. The resident’s main problem was twofold,
one was speed, but the other was the traffic volume that was cutting through the
neighborhood on a regular basis.
Kayla Lawrence – I would like to recommend that the City Council again
consider my manager’s recommendation, Rene Berger, that morning and
afternoon closure to through traffic on Tustin on weekdays. I don’t think I have
to remind you that not only do my tenants pay property taxes, as do the
residents, but they also generate sales tax revenue, which benefits the City of
Orange.
Rene Berger, KRB Properties, PO Box 50518, Irvine, CA 92619 – I’ve been the
property manager for the Clocktower Center since 1992, so I’ve seen both ends
where we had plenty of access and convenience for people using the shopping
center, to after the change was made. I feel for the residents, we are not trying to
increase traffic volumes into the residential neighborhood; we’re trying to get
easier access for customers through the center. The timeframes that I put
together may not coincide with what you have. No other cities are implementing
this type of procedure for street closures. If you say no I will certainly go out and
investigate and I know there are streets in L.A. when at certain times of the day
you can’t cross, or you can only go one-way. I think it could be a benefit to the
community with limited time access. I’ve been through the neighborhood many
times through the day when there isn’t anyone home, I mean there are relatively
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 6
few people home so the impact would be minimal through these hours. I would
like you to take a second look at it.
Pamela Hunt, 1795 N. Lincoln St. – (Corner of Briardale and Lincoln) Since the
change has been implemented several years ago we now have a street that we
can actually live on. When our kids were growing up we couldn’t allow them to
play in the front yard at all. We built a fence around our house because we had
cars cutting the corner, going to and from school, it was like a thoroughfare. I
think the traffic was so unbelievable that you didn’t want them outside. Now I
have grandchildren in the same situation. We have finally been able to live
comfortably in our neighborhood and not have the 3,600 cars going by every
morning and night, cutting the corner, driving over the grass.
Bob Akahoshi, 1815 N. Lincoln St. – Pass.
Paul Srigley, 1820 N. Lincoln St. – We heard all of these economic arguments
from these people 10 years ago, and how they were going to go out of business.
The guy who made the best argument 10 years ago is still there 10 years later, so
I don’t think he’s been hurt too bad. Now there’s a Home Depot going in and
this whole situation is going to get worse. You don’t have people stopping at the
STOP sign right there at the end of Briardale now, but at least now there aren’t so
many of them.
Bill Chavez, 1602 E. Briardale Ave. – I have lived here since these restrictions
were first enacted and I agree with everything your staff has suggested. The
business parking lots must be full otherwise they wouldn’t use the area in front
of my house and immediately across the street on Shattuck, and Briardale would
have 100% impact of whatever traffic increase would result of this. I’m against
the change.
Kathy Madore, 1119 E. Buckeyewood Ave. – I didn’t get a notice. Before the
changes were enacted 10 years ago, my sister’s car was totaled while parked in
front of my house. My dog was hit, and a drunken driver damaged the house on
Lincoln. People are using Cambridge as a thoroughfare. They come down
Cambridge, cut over onto Buckeyewood, around Greengrove, which is a very
dangerous curve, and if someone is going the other way around Greengrove then
they use that as a racetrack. I think this situation may get worse as they want to
go to the Home Depot, people will come down Cambridge, go around
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 7
Greengrove, around Briardale and now that will take you right into Home
Depot, it won’t deter that traffic at all. If you open it up it will be worse for Villa
Park High School students because they really race through there. I think this is
supposed to be a neighborhood, and that they should really close that off
completely at Glendale and Lincoln, or Briardale, somewhere. Just dead-end it
and keep the traffic from coming through there.
Janelle Cavenee, 1891 N. Lincoln St. – I also take care of the property at 1711 N.
Lincoln St., so I’ve got both corners. The situation now is much better than 10
years ago, the only problem is that if it changes I believe the 6-8 a.m. is when a
lot of kids are going to school, and there are a lot of kids crossing Tustin, Taft,
going straight to the back of the school. You open that up to traffic and they are
never going to get across the street and I can guarantee you there will be many
“near misses”. With traffic at the regular speed people would have to wait 10-15
minutes in order to back out of their driveway. The woman who suggested
speed humps, if you install speed humps all you are doing is making the traffic
slower, they will crawl along and never get out of our driveways or turn onto the
street. 6-8 a.m., what businesses are open in that shopping center that’s going to
have a drive-by motorist stop in to get something other than the liquor store for
coffee or soda? I believe the gym opened after the traffic restriction, I’m
assuming everybody who goes there has made their schedule around the time
they are open. They may be open earlier but not get drive by traffic, but people
go to the gym to work out, they don’t go drive by a 6:00 a.m. and say oh let’s
stop and work out. 5-7 p.m. – most people are driving home; they don’t want to
go shopping because it’s a zoo. I think a large amount of people going to the
Home Depot will be contractors and they will be driving really big trucks, I don’t
want a lot of cars on my street, let alone a 2-3 ton truck. The traffic would be
terrible and it would be vehicles that really aren’t suitable to that neighborhood.
John Doles, 1534 E. Glendale Ave. – Doesn’t want to speak, but he is registered as
being opposed to this change.
Jeff Pine, 1880 N. Lincoln St. – We have a quality of life issue with all the children
in this neighborhood. The majority of these streets have curves and if there are
cars parked along the street it becomes very difficult to see oncoming traffic
coming around those curves.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 8
Marissa Cantu, 1789 N. Nordic Pl. – Opposed to the change for kids safety. Even
after the changes from 1996 the traffic is still too heavy for a residential
neighborhood, I can’t imagine what it was like prior to the changes being made.
There are a lot of senior citizens in the neighborhood, several stay-at-home moms
and several people who work out of their homes, so there are cars parked on the
street during the day. In the old days, prior to the traffic changes, only 6% of the
traffic going through the neighborhood was going to the Clocktower Center, that
means 94% of the vehicles were cutting through the neighborhood, and that kind
of traffic makes it difficult to enjoy a good quality of life. I would like to see
Briardale closed off either at the end of the alley or at Greengrove and make it a
cul-de-sac.
Vera Mater, 1774 N. Lincoln St. – I would expect a lot of this traffic if I lived on
Meats, Collins or Cambridge, but we live on Buckeyewood, Briardale and
Lincoln. We aren’t going to go back to the days of 14 cars lined up at
Briardale/Lincoln or at Lincoln, westbound Taft. We had to stand in the street to
allow a car to be backed out of the driveway. In June 1996 a study shows that
4,224 cars a day came through the neighborhood. It was unacceptable then and it
will be unacceptable today. My own study showed 1,000 cars in 5 hours with 90
cars belonging to the community, and that was counted during the rush hour.
Page 19 of the same study says, “westbound on Briardale, southbound Lincoln
reflected a dominant through movement from Taft east of Tustin.” The Traffic
Engineering memo dated January 1997 did a study throughout the day and the
results concluded that 6% of all the through traffic went to the business center.
Harry Thomas from Public Works, and Hamid Bahadori of Traffic Engineering,
in memos dated July 1996 and March 1997, both advised that “based on the
before and after studies and field observations, that minimal if any at all adverse
impact would result for the business center. The traffic restriction and the
benefits to the community far outweighs any potential minor inconvenience to a
few motorists since the business centers have an ingress and egress alternative.
Shortly after the “NO THROUGH TRAFFIC” was implemented, 435 signatures were
gathered within 2 weeks from the Clocktower merchants. The signatures were
from Anaheim Hills, Chino Hills, Villa Park, Brea, Newport Beach and Fresno
and the few from Orange were from another part of Orange and they shouldn’t
have been on our street. We’ve been working on this traffic problem since the
mid 1970’s.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 9
Limited hours of non-through traffic across Tustin St. will put the neighborhood
right back where we were in a high volume situation, then add the extra traffic
from Home Depot and we’re back into a nightmare. I talked to a policeman who
told me it was virtually impossible to enforce a partial restriction.
Edwin Burns, 1786 N. Shattuck Pl. – Opposed to traffic changes. I’ve lived at the
corner of Shattuck and Briardale for 40 years. I understand the business has a
problem, but most of them are specialty type businesses. I don’t think people
going to Super Cuts worry about if there is a special way to get there by coming
in from Villa Park. If they want to get there they can either turn left from
northbound Tustin and then access the center driveway via the “continuous left
turn lane” or they can turn onto Briardale from Tustin and then access the
driveway. You’re telling me that it’s necessary they have flow through traffic but
not in the off-peak hours. I went up to Super Cuts yesterday at 11 a.m. to get a
hair cut and there were 6 people waiting ahead of me and I don’t think they’re
hurting. A recent accident occurred where a motorist came down Briardale, took
out some of my trees, drove over my lawn and hit my concrete wall, and then
took off. The Police were able to track the motorist down; but if it had been 15-30
minutes earlier he would have crashed into the children walking down Briardale
on my side of the sidewalk, as that is their route to and from school.
Jan Jaswell, 1874 N. Shattuck Pl. – Opposed to changes. The first peace we have
know has occurred after you installed the “NO THROUGH TRAFFIC” signs. The
strip center at Sunny Smith and Super Cuts have an access driveway from Tustin
St. and there should be absolutely no reason why people coming from north and
south cannot turn into that center, or from Briardale into their center. The only
people who might have a little problem accessing the center are just coming from
Villa Park and they are still able to access it. There has been a lot of talk about
the car driving down Briardale in June and smacking into the house on Lincoln,
they were drunk teenagers coming from Villa Park, they must have gone
through the light, and nobody has mentioned that there is a downhill slope on
Taft to Briardale and when people used to come down Taft they would see the
green light, step on the gas and barrel through Tustin St. and down Briardale and
you go so fast they have a hard time making that stop, and that’s what happened
with this crash. I am home 90% of the time, I work out of my home and it’s very
difficult when you’re coming out of Shattuck Pl. to make a left turn onto
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 10
Briardale because of the angle of the street it’s very difficult to see people
barreling through there.
Dan Shortall, 1747 N. Lincoln St. – Opposed to change. I also work out of my
home, and at the end of my day I want to be able to play in the front yard with
my kids. I feel changing the traffic pattern through the neighborhood would
diminish the quality of life I currently enjoy, and it could possibly put my family
at risk.
Dr. Alexia L. Deligianni, 1514 E. Glendale Ave. – Opposed to changes. Please do
not allow traffic to cut through Briardale at Tustin. Doing so will endanger,
children, pedestrians and pets. Please keep in mind that Briardale leads to Taft
Elementary School, you have kids walking back and forth every hour of the day
and even after school going to sports, etc. I think this partial through traffic will
be confusing to traffic on Tustin St., and I think it will be a bigger problem once
Home Depot opens.
Curtis Cook, 1918 N. Ebonywood St. – Opposed to changes. Buckeyewood St.
goes through to Cambridge and they go much faster on Buckeyewood than they
do on the much shorter streets. I support maintaining this restriction 100%. The
amount of children at sports at the corner of Glendale and Greengrove between
5-7 p.m. is unreal. You can barely drive through there now because cars are
parked on both sides of the street for about 1-2 blocks in every direction. I’m in
support of keeping things as they are right now.
Darlene Mennes, 1233 E. Buckeyewood Ave. – Opposed to changes. I’m on the
receiving end of the curve; I like things as they are right now. There have been
several accidents by and near my house, in front of my house and on my lawn.
Commissioner Pyne has been on my street several times investigating accidents.
Paul & Jean Hackmann, 1502 E. Briardale Ave. – Opposed to changes. Nothing
new to add.
Mike Cohen, 1722 N. Lincoln St. – Opposed to changes. I’m the officer Vera was
talking about, I’ve been an officer for 16 years. From a fiscal and Police angle, if
you change these restrictions people are going to start complaining, they will
have to assign either a motor officer or a patrol car just to do directed control at
that intersection and enforce that time period, write those tickets for people
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 11
failing to obey those signs. If you put an officer there you are taking an officer
away from another part of the City.
Evan Carolyn, 1870 N. Nordic Pl. – Opposed to changes. I’m very concerned that
the changes to the traffic flow at the intersection of Tustin and Briardale will
impede the response of emergency medical, fire and police to our neighborhood.
We’ve got a Home Depot coming in, we’re going to have contractor traffic which
is going to transit through our neighborhood, it’s going to coming off Briardale
and making a left turn going northbound onto Tustin St. and making a left turn
into the Home Depot parking lot. We’re going to turn into the migrant worker
haven.
Ruthe Shafer, 1787 N. Greengrove St. – Opposed to changes. I’ve lived here less
than 5 years. I didn’t really know the history of how that street had been blocked
off but I will tell you that when we looked for property in the area that was a big
plus for us, because we could see the problems if Taft went through to Briardale.
I am a Sunny Smith and Super Cuts customer. When my son attended Villa Park
schools we would come down Taft after school and have no problem getting into
Sunny Smith and Super Cut parking lot for after school shopping and
appointments. That parking lot is almost always full and I think their problem
is parking, not traffic flow.
John Cantu, 1789 N. Nordic Pl. – Opposed to changes. We’re mostly concerned
about safety and the quality of our lives. I want to mention that on crossing
Tustin St. the city has a crossing guard because there are so many kids crossing
here, they come home during the noon hour, and 2:30 – 3:00 and that’s at a
different time than what is being proposed to stop that traffic so there would be
no stopping traffic during the middle of the day. I have respect for the owners
and storekeepers of the Clocktower Center, most of us use those businesses all
the time, of course we don’t speed through their driveways and we don’t crash
into their businesses as their customers do to us. To make everyone happy we
would really like to block off Briardale altogether at the alley behind where the
business stop, then you could let them cross over all they want.
Lois Oliver, 1832 N. Lincoln St. – Opposed to changes. Our street would be a
main thoroughfare because Home Depot will draw a lot of traffic so it would be
a nice little cut-off to go through our neighborhood once again. I think that every
property owner in the area should have been notified that this was going on, you
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 12
know how to find us when the tax bill is due, it’s not like we were hiding
anywhere. Fletcher Ave. has been closed at Orange-Olive Rd. and has been for
years, there is a big corporate office there and they have managed to survive and
they don’t seem to be worried about the safety of fires and police getting
through. At Bedford and LaVeta and Parker and LaVeta you cannot go through
as well, and I haven’t seen that St. Joseph and Batavia Woods and the
convalescent home have been hurting for patients there. The restriction at
Bedford and LaVeta hasn’t impacted MainPlace. Drive down Tustin St. and
count the business whose only access is off Tustin St., there are hundreds of
them. If I want to go shopping you can blow the street up in front of the joint
and I’m going to get in there somehow. Also, excessive traffic and noise must be
disclosed on appraisals when re-financing and buying a house, and this deducts
from the property value and is a negative impact.
Dr. Emmanuel Deligiannis, 1514 E. Glendale Ave. – Opposed to changes. I know
how it used to be and how this Commission has changed that bad situation into
something that is pretty good. Why change a good thing? I hope you consider
all involved, the children, residents, and businesses.
Matthew Ttoehfr, 1879 N. Greengove St. – Opposed to changes. This is a quality
of life issue as well as a safety issue. As late as 7:30 last night with kids from
soccer practice.
Susan Hurley, 1907 N. Greengrove St. – Opposed to changes. There have been 3
times someone has missed the curve and gone up into my property. It happened
many more time when my parents owned the home, about 10-15 times in total.
The last 10 years it has happened one single time. I know these are Villa Park
High School students because of the time of day these occur. The elementary
school ends at the same time the Villa Park High School does, so they are coming
around the corner in their cars at the same time kids are coming out of the back
gate at Taft Elementary School and cross that street.
Jennette Badiford, 1612 E. Briardale Ave. – Opposed to changes. I can’t tell you
the number of times I’ve had to stop on Briardale because a child is walking
down the middle of the street. I am a very conscientious driver because I know
how the kids walk home, I wonder how many students from Villa Park High
School are going to be as conscientious. They’re going to come straight through
there barreling down the same time and these kids don’t stay on the sidewalk
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 13
and that’s a huge impact. Also, I can’t tell you how many times people have
used my driveway to turn around because they didn’t want to go down
Briardale, they wanted to go down the lower leg of Taft Ave. How many trucks
coming out of Home Depot are going to go westbound through Tustin onto
Briardale because they thought they were going to lower Taft? They get lost and
they’re turning around going back out to Tustin and trying to go back to Taft.
This turn restriction has really been a benefit to help people go where they really
wanted to go in the first place. If that is opened up to straight through traffic
except for these specified times then how many more people coming out of
Home Depot are are going to go straight on to Taft and end up on Briardale.
How many construction trucks and vehicles are going to go down there that
don’t belong on a residential street that are now going to be driving illegally on a
street they are not allowed to be on because they are over weight. They’re going
to have to get out somehow either all the way down to the end or they’re going
to try to make U-turns and get out of there. That’s not acceptable in a residential
area, and it’s completely innocent because it looks like that is Taft.
Vice-Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission
for further discussion and a motion.
Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – We had a lot of technical issues raised
during the discussions and I would like to touch on those. A number of cities
around us have part-time turn restrictions at certain times of the day, and they
work to a certain extent. Typically they are used with very simple turn
movements, “NO RIGHT TURN 6 A.M. TO 9 A.M.”, that kind of thing. Sometimes
“NO LEFT TURNS”, they work when accompanied with fairly rigorous
enforcement. You really need a heavy police presence. Where you will not see
them, and I’m not aware of any, is at signalized intersection. That is not a simple
turning movement; it’s rather complex, particularly in this case because it’s a
through movement. I’m not saying it would be impossible to do this at a
signalized intersection but to my mind it would be very difficult and I don’t see
an obvious answer because you’re prohibiting a through movement part of the
day. As mentioned as part of Dave’s presentation, it’s really an all or nothing
kind of thing. If you open a through movement you’re going to negatively
impact the capacity of that intersection because right now we’re not allowing
signal time for that move. It’s a fairly complicated phasing because it’s also tied
into the southern Taft intersection. By modifying that timing you’re going to
throw the other one out of balance also. Some cities do have turn restrictions I’m
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 14
not aware of any at a signalized intersection and certainly one like this would be
highly unusual.
Speed humps came up and the City has used speed humps in a lot of areas and
we’ve had a lot of experience with them. In our experience they work very well
for reducing speed but they work rather poorly when diverting traffic. People
don’t go out of the way, they just go slower. There was some discussion about
closing off Briardale completely and there are a lot of problems associated with
that and we’ve looked at it in the past. The community really counting Briardale
has only 4 access points, once you start getting below a certain level of access you
start creating overloads on other access points. I’d have to say in my opinion
right now the community is kind of in a sweet spot, you have it balanced real
nicely, you’ve minimized trickle traffic, there’s still access provided by Briardale.
To close it off completely starts throwing additional traffic onto the other 3 access
points. You also have problem with emergency vehicle access. You normally
want a cul-de-sac at any kind of closure, so it would have to come either from the
businesses or the homes where we would block it off. I think the ideal of closing
it off completely and abandoning it to the shopping center has some possibilities
however, you would still have to supply emergency access and you would still
have problems with a lot of the community having quite a long way from their
primary access point and our emergency service providers are usually not too
thrilled with that.
My impression from a technical standpoint is that we have the access to that
community balanced really well and I don’t see a good way to change it from
what it is today.
Commissioner Lall – I see the time restrictions as being extremely difficult to
enforce. It will take police officers away from other areas of the community, or
high priorities. I would rather see them closer to the schools than worrying
about that particular intersection. As a business owner myself I understand the
impacts this has on a business and that is not lost on me but I do see plenty of
access to these shopping centers and if you throw Home Depot into the mix
we’re not really certain how that’s going to impact. The city had some studies
done and its based on current conditions and not removing that. I agree with the
Traffic Engineer in the fact that making that a dead-end poses a barricade to
emergency services. A lot of people said that the notification process could be a
little broader, I’ve always marveled that staff has always gone beyond what is
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 15
normally required, they do a good job of notifying the public. I think we solved
the problem 10 years ago, we might have caused a small problem for the
businesses but I don’t see removing the restrictions and changing them to a
timed situation as being a benefit to the City, the homeowner’s or the businesses
as they do have a lot of access.
Commissioner Pyne – I think the City did a good thing back in 1996, and I don’t
see any reason to overturn something that is actually working in government, or
why change something that works well. I understand the businesses concerns; I
think the concerns of the residents, in this case, outweigh the concerns of the
businesses owners.
Vice-Chairman Beil – I agree with the other Commissioner’s comments. When
you look at the whole circulation pattern for this neighborhood it is pretty much
a balanced situation. Consider when you think about closing off a street you’re
going to probably severely increasing traffic on one of those other outlets, either
Lincoln or Buckeyewood. I see no reason to change, there was an extensive
study done in 1996 and right now it is viewed as successful.
ACTION: Denied the request for time restricted turning movements on
Tustin Ave.
MOTION: J. Pyne
SECOND: N. Lall
AYES: Unanimous
3. Request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP control at the intersection of
Spring St. and Swidler St.
Zoytne Almond
396 N. Swidler St.
Orange, CA 92869
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Vice-
Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 16
Elsie Palmer, 3701 E. Spring St. – Opposed to request. I am opposed to the loss of
on-street parking in advance of the STOP sign. In addition to this you’re going
to have the overflow of parking from Fred Kelly stadium, which parks on the
street as well. I don’t think it will help anything. It’s not going to help the
speeding.
Vice-Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission
for further discussion and a motion.
Vice-Chairman Beil – STOP controls are made for the assignment of right-of-way
and not for speed control. It’s pointed out in the staff point and I really believe
the issue we are looking at is pedestrian related. The issue as stands appears to
be a speed issue.
ACTION: Denied the request for the installation of an “All-Way” STOP
control at the intersection of Spring St. and Swidler St.
MOTION: Vice-Chairman Beil
SECOND: J. Pyne
AYES Unanimous
3. Request the installation of a “handicapped” parking space in front of 282 S.
Cypress St.
Francis Buttacavoli
282 S. Cypress St., Apt. #2
Orange, CA 92866
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Vice-
Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
Vice-Chairman Beil – Is it true that this spot will not be restricted to just the
applicant?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No, this handicap parking space and
anyone with a handicap designation on their vehicle may use the space.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 17
Technically it still public parking, and on a first come, first serve. The only
restriction is that you have to be handicapped to use it.
Vice-Chariman Beil – Have we had any input from the home-based upholstery
shop next door?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We have not received anything from
them as yet.
They’re being no input from the Public, Vice-Chairman Beil closed the public hearing
and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion.
ACTION: Approved the request and install a “handicapped parking space
in front of 282 S. Cypress St.
MOTION: J. Beil
AYES: N. Lall
NOES Unanimous
5. Request for the installation of a STOP control at the intersection of Crown
Parkway and Parkhurst Dr.
Jim Gross
2272 N. Parkhurst Dr.
Orange, CA 92867
The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Vice-
Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
James Gross, 2272 N. Parkhurst Dr. – I live in the corner house. The reason I am
petitioning for this STOP sign was also for the flow of traffic. There are residents
and non-residents that go through because they don’t know it’s an exit street.
Crown is very long and there is a small park here. There is a lot of traffic here for
only being two years old. My driveway is 25 ft. from that corner. The side
frontage of my home is very close to the street. There are a lot of small children
living on this street. For 8 months there was a traffic officer parked there before
you had a traffic signal on Serrano because people were going so fast and
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 18
running the STOP sign. The officer parked in front of my driveway, he couldn’t
park back far enough because it was a blind section and he had to move up. All
the residents agree with it because people do go fast down Crown Parkway and
its not an entry issue, it’s more of an exit issue. In the whole neighborhood every
street has a STOP sign for an exit. I find it ironic that on Santa Isabella Court has
3 houses and it also has a STOP sign. All these cul-de-sacs have STOP signs.
Parkhurst is the only exit street that has driveway-facing residents. I’m more
worried of the safety issue if someone comes around the corner. Anaheim Hills
Elementary School is north of us so during the morning hours the majority of
those residents are up there and there are no STOP signs in this area for 99
residents. When residents enter this intersection they usually stop because I’m
usually outside.
Vice-Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission
for further discussion and a motion.
Vice-Chairman Beil – It is interesting that there are STOP signs on all those other
legs, and this is the one that doesn’t.
Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – As that development was built in different
phases and there were different periods of review of the Tract Map and I think in
some of the phases we probably caught it, we usually like to put STOP signs at
“T” intersections, we don’t have to, but generally it makes things operate better.
We don’t like to have 4-leg intersections without STOP’s because people around
here are fairly spoiled and they’re not used to it. “T” intersections by their very
nature assign right-of-way automatically, so it’s not something we have to do,
but we like to do it because it’s generally expected because we have a lot of them
in the area. In our report we offer that if you were so inclined we would have no
objection to installing a STOP at the stem of the “T” because that’s consistent
with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Lall – I’m not overly opposed to it, normally I would be but you
have given us some compelling information. One concern I would have is that
STOP signs often give us more confidence that people are going to stop than we
should have.
Vice-Chairman Beil – We get quite a few requests for STOP controls and pretty
regularly they get denied. This happens to be one instance though where it
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 19
seems a little different than the others. The “T” intersection there is legal means
to enforce the right-of-way at this intersection without STOP control, but the
STOP sign added to the intersection will help enhance that. I think it’s
supportable to put the STOP sign in.
The way this is written we are actually denying your request and approving the
installation of a “One-Way” STOP control for northbound Parkhurst Dr. at
Crown Parkway.
ACTION: Deny the request and approve the installation of a “One-Way”
STOP control for northbound Parkhurst Dr. at Crown Parkway.
MOTION: J. Beil
James Gross, 2272 N. Parkhurst Dr. – I’m asking for a STOP sign for eastbound
traffic, not northbound on Parkhurst.
Commissioner Pyne – I think we’re talking about two different things. You want
a STOP sign to halt traffic on Crown Parkway.
Vice-Chairman Beil – We’re taking about denying the request for the eastbound
Crown Parkway STOP and just having a single STOP sign for northbound
Parkhurst Dr. to make sure traffic stops at that intersection. This does not
necessarily solve that particular problem (referring to comments concerning
photos of black tire marks at the intersection).
Commissioner Pyne – Are there any other STOP signs on Crown Parkway?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No. Crown Parkway runs free-flow.
The only STOP would be at Apache Creek where westbound traffic gets a “One-
Way” STOP.
Vice-Chairman Beil – The motion has been made to deny the request for the
eastbound STOP and the approval of the “One-Way” STOP on Parkhurst Dr.
SECOND: N. Lall
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 20
Commissioner Pyne – My concern is that it doesn’t really fix the problem that has
been brought before us and that’s already assigned by Vehicle Code the
requirement to yield, and if it’s not fixing the problem I don’t see why we would
put a STOP sign in. I would be opposed to that.
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – There may be some concern with the
motion you made and the fact that putting in a STOP sign there was not noticed
and if residents who would be backing up to that STOP sign probably should be
noticed about that proposal, and give them the opportunity to speak if they so
desire. Right now the notice is of a request for a STOP sign on Crown Parkway
so we have the right to deny that request if you so desire, or approve the request
if you so desire. To move the sign to a different leg of the intersection should
require some notice to those residents most affected, you would now have cars
stopping right behind somebody’s house and the noise and fumes that people
should have the right to speak about. I don’t believe there are any homes whose
frontage is on that side I think it’s the back of their homes, if I understand the
map correctly. They should be noticed of what action is being considered.
Vice-Chairman Beil – Since the staff recommended amended the original request.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – All addresses were notified; all the
people on the petition were notified as well as special notification that went out
of homes within a two-house radius around the intersection. It’s somewhat
generic in that it says we have received a request for the installation of a STOP
control, so depending on what would be decided here while the proponent was
requesting a “One-Way” STOP on the eastbound direction, this being a public
forum anything could happen, assuming a “3-Way” STOP would have been put
in, we were trying to cover all the bases that way, so the residents around the
intersection were notified prior to the meeting.
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – As long as they were notified that you
were considering STOP controls at that intersection in general then I would agree
that you could go ahead with your motion as you put forward, as long as it
wasn’t specific to eastbound Crown Parkway. As long as it was generic to the
intersection then I think that would be covered, and I withdraw my concern if
that is the case.
Vice-Chairman Beil – Were they aware of the amended proposal?
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 21
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No they weren’t. At the time the
notifications are mailed generally the reports haven’t been written. The studies
have been barely concluded and the notification is typically fairly generic so it
indicates we are considering the installation of a STOP unless we have a specific
request saying they want an “All-Way” STOP, then of course we will put that
verbiage in the notification letter but since we are considering a STOP at this
location we left it as consideration of a STOP control.
Vice-Chairman Beil – We have a copy of the letter sent to the residents. I think
we should postpone this to our next meeting, as this notice is not so specific as to
what the STOP control location is.
Wayne Winthers – I think the fact that it so generic makes it fine as far as
notification goes, it would be telling residents that at that intersection you are
going to consider STOP control devices so that notifies anyone that is concerned
about a STOP control at that intersection they can come to the meeting.
Vice-Chairman Beil – I’m a little worried that the petitioner had a petition that
was very specific and this may be what the residents believe is the only thing
being considered, it’s very specific to eastbound traffic.
Wayne Winthers, Asst. City Attorney – That is something you can certainly be
concerned about, from a legal standpoint I think the notice covers it.
ACTION: Continue this request to our next meeting and if we can get
notification to the same people that received it before. I want
them to know that it is a very specific change. I’ve got a feeling
they’re not really aware and I think they need to know we are
proposing something a little bit different.
MOTION: J. Beil
SECOND: N. Lall
Commissioner Lall – The issue we are batting around is that what the petitioner
wants and what we are dealing with are two separate things. I think we’re going
through semantics that we are sending out letters again asking for a STOP sign
the petitioner doesn’t want anyway.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 22
Vice-Chairman Beil – I remember he made the statement that a lot of the people
want STOP signs both 3-Way at all sides of the intersection, although the item he
specifically brought forward is just for the one because he thought it would be
easier. I just want everyone to be aware.
Commissioner Lall – At that meeting we can make any motion we want whether
it’s a specific STOP sign or anything else.
Jim Gross, 2272 N. Parkhurst Dr. – Asked a question that was unintelligible
because he was speaking from the audience and not at the speaker’s podium.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – No, the notification is a one-page
letter similar to the last one, but more specific.
Commissioner Lall – But the Agendas are available to the public correct?
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes, Agendas are posted at the Police
station, the Public Works counter, the Information Kiosk in the breezeway of the
Civic Center, and it’s also available on the City’s web page.
AYES: Unanimous
777777777777777 End of Consideration Items 77777777777777777
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A presentation on behalf of the Orange County Water District on the GWR
System for water reclamation and recycling project.
Dan Jacobs & Porter Novelli
4 Studebaker Rd., 1st Floor
Irvine, CA 92618
Lisa Sanchez
OC Water District – Public Affairs Dept.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 23
I’m here to talk about our new groundwater replenishment project. It’s an
innovative program we are working on with the Orange County Sanitation
District. In Orange County we are lucky to live over the ground water basin
where we receive half our water supply. The other half is from imported water.
Our ground water costs about $200 per acre-foot and the imported water is about
$500 per acre-foot. We are facing a looming global water crisis because we don’t
have enough water so we need to look at other options as Orange County
continues to grow we need to have a reliable source of water. We’re also facing a
future of imported water supply challenge. California gets most of its water
from the Colorado River, and other states are coming to the point where they
want their fair share and they want to take that water back. We need to have a
locally controlled supply of water and the groundwater replenishment system
will actually provide enough water for 144,000 families living in Orange County.
It will also protect our seawater intrusion barrier from the ocean coming in and
contaminating our groundwater basis. Groundwater replenishment system will
inject water into the ground, which will create like a water wall so the ocean
water is not able to come in and contaminate our fresh groundwater supply. It
will also improve our water quality. You may notice the water you have right
now, a lot of it is from the Santa Ana River, the Colorado River and it tends to be
hard on your appliances, you can tell there are a lot of minerals in it from looking
at the mineral composites accumulating on your shower heads. The water we
are getting from the groundwater replenishment system is actually so pure we
have to add minerals back into it, so you’re getting a really good quality of water.
We’ll also help with drought protection, we live in an arid region, and we’ve had
a drought for the last 5-6 years and we will continue to be a drought for another
3-4 years, unless we have enough water. We need at least 3-4 years of good
heavy rain to help us. The groundwater replenishment is just one option,
basically one piece of the puzzle. There are other thing we can do also such as
conservation, however, that is not enough. That is why we are looking at other
alternatives. We are looking at seawater desalination, which tends to be a little
more expensive, but the groundwater replenishment system is a cost effective
and reliable solution.
So what is it? Basically, it’s a high membrane type water purification system
which takes highly treated sewer water from the Sanitation District and purifies
it to near distilled water quality. It uses the same technology as bottled water
companies through a 3-step process. The first step is micro filtration, the water is
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 24
pushed through straws, they are really small with tiny holes they are 1/300 size
of human hair so you can’t see it (give one to look at). So the water is pushed
through, the clean water is able to push out the center of the straw while the
wastewater is collected on the outside. This is a similar process used by the
pharmaceutical companies, baby food manufacturing companies, and also
medicines.
The next step is reverse osmosis; this is basically the heart of the purification
process. Water from the micorfiltration is pushed through thin plastic light
membranes (passes out a sample). The water molecules are able to push through
and the small pollutants are trapped. You can see the water molecules shown
the relative size of a tennis ball and all the pollutants that are left out are shown
the size of soccer ball, this gives you a really pure quality of water.
From here the next step is ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide. This is
similar to what’s used in hospitals and dental offices to sterilize their
instruments. Here we are disinfecting the water and remove any emerging
contaminants. This is an extra safety barrier. From here it goes through a 13
mile pipeline which goes to our peculation lakes in Anaheim where it will take
the path of natural rain water and naturally peculate into the ground where it
next has to go through a water intrusion barrier.
We have more than 7 years in testing and over 25 years experience in purifying
water. The system is watched 24 hours at the end of each shift and the end of the
day. We have already received support from different health and medical
experts. Some benefits will provide local reliability, help with drought-proofing
our arid region barrier so and allow us to expand our seawater intrusion barrier
as I mentioned so the ocean can’t get it. It will also reuse a valuable water
resource and save us what we would. The project is funded jointly with OCTA
at a cost of $487,000 million dollars. We will receive $92.5 million State and
federal grants and the Metropolitan Water District is going to be paying 3.7
million per year for operating costs. It is expected to go online in 2007 and will
produce 70 million gallons of water a day. This isn’t the first project of its kind
but it is the largest and we will be producing 70 million gallons of water a day.
You can see as compared to the other programs through the world. This system
will be at our facility in Fountain Valley.
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – September 14, 2005 Pg. 25
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 12, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF ORANGE
Phyllis Then, Recording Secretary
Traffic Engineering Division
pthen@cityoforange.org
CITY OF ORANGE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
300 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE
ORANGE CA 92866
PH: (714) 744-5536
FAX: (714) 744-5573
Tape #CTC-25.07 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 ‘05 [N:/Traffic/CTC/2005 Minutes]
Printed on Recycled Paper