The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-08-2004 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: December 8, 2004 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper I. OPENING A. Flag Pledge B. Roll Call Present – Commissioners: J. Fortier, F. Sciarra, F. Petronella, J. Beil Absent - Commissioner: N. Lall Present – Staff: T. Mahood, D. Allenbach, P. Then, W. Winthers, Sgt. R. Walker D. Approval of Minutes  November 10, 2004 ACTION: Approved as published by the Recording Secretary. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS None III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request for the installation of red curb markings on both sides of the street at 700 W. Grove Ave. Rick McCoid Coca-Cola Company 700 W. Grove Ave. Orange CA 92865 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 65 feet of red curb on the north side of Grove Ave. across from the driveway serving 700 W. Grove Ave. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 2 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper B. Request for the installation of red curb markings on the west side of the driveway serving the Fletcher Avenue Condominiums. Gina DeLuna 835 W. Fletcher Ave. Orange CA 92865 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this request. ACTION: Approved the installation of 20 ft. of red curb markings on the west side of the subject driveway. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous C. Request for an intersection vision zone on Heim Ave. at Bortz St. Tom Smith 2552 N. Bortz St. Orange CA 92865 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this request. ACTION: Approved the request. MOTION: J. Beil SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous  End of Consent Calendar  IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Request to eliminate on-street parking from both sides of the 2900 block of E. Walnut Ave. Fire Prevention Bureau Orange Fire Department City of Orange The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Wendy Saunders, Fire Safety Specialist – We received a complaint concerning parking on the 2900 block of E. Walnut Ave. and upon investigation of that complaint we found the width of the street with parking does not allow the necessary emergency access allowing our equipment to perform in either a medical or fire situation. We have requested the elimination of the parking so we can have the minimum required width of 20 ft. of paved roadway. Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – Could we have staff review the dimensions of the roadway to recap what we covered last month? Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 3 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – This particular area is at the east end of Walnut Ave. adjacent to the west side of Santiago Creek. On the south side of the street we have a half cul-de-sac and fully developed road. On the north side of the street we’ve got a short stub-out that serves 4 residences, the pavement width in this area is 20 ft. wide. There is a 6 ft. wide dirt shoulder on the north side of the street. The residents have been parking in this area but as the road width is so narrow if someone is parked on the street, especially in front of the homes creating an 8 ft. parking lane you really wouldn’t have enough room for an emergency vehicle to get down the street. Chairman Fortier – Is there anything we can do to mitigate the problem of not having enough access? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – The residents along this section of road use this area and they need some on-street parking. To remove the parking completely from both sides of the street would create a hardship for them. The lot on the south side of the street is owned by the City Parks Dept. and is the site of a future park. That is going to be connected with Grijalva Park on the east side of the street. We have been in communication with them and asked if it would be possible to move the existing fence back 5 ft. which would accommodate a good size parking lane. Normally we wouldn’t like to see parking on the opposite side of the street to a residence but in this particular case the only people who drive in this area are the residents and their guests, or people who actually have business in this area. We don’t think this would compromise anyone’s safety. This would allow us to provide parking on the south side of the street for the residents; we could sign it accordingly with signs saying, “PARKING OFF PAVEMENT ONLY”. The north side of the street would be posted for “NO PARKING ANY TIME” and the pavement is 25 ft. wide and that should be amble room for the fire department people to get down the street should there be an emergency. Vice Chairman Sciarra – If there are cars parked on the north side as well what is the distance between the two cars, approximately? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We allow 8 ft. for a parking lane, there is 20 ft. here, so it works out to be a 12 ft. lane with parking which is considered pretty narrow considering the size of the fire engine. Keep in mind that if the Fire Dept. is responding to an emergency we don’t know exactly what type of vehicle they will need at the site. It could be an ambulance, a larger fire truck; it all depends on the nature of the emergency. Chairman Fortier opened the public hearing for the following discussion: Gail Blansett, 2905 E. Walnut Ave. – Her parents provide daycare for her two children and one has significant medical problems necessitating constant care. There are visiting nurses and other health care workers who come out to the house 3 times a week to provide health care to her daughter, by law if they are to perform work at you house there has to be adequate parking available to them. Lupe Phillips, 2847 E. Walnut Ave. – I live where the cul-de-sac is wide. I’ve been there 36 years and I’ve never had any problems with the Fire Dept. or anyone else. It wasn’t that long ago that one of the neighbors needed medical attention and the ambulance Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 4 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper had no problem getting in to take him away. I have my car in the gar age but I have family that visits occasionally it would cause a hardship if the there were no parking on the holiday’s. B.A. Skipper, 2905 E. Walnut Ave. – We’ve had Police and Fire down here many times and have never had any problems with access. If they’re going to move the fence if they put the pavement on that side and leave the parking on the residential side, then that won’t affect our property values like putting “No Parking” signs on the curb. I run a business from my house, I repair saddles, which are heavy, so people have to carry those from their cars. That cul-de-sac has a big wide curve in it and for some reason it has a red curb, I don’t know why, it’s a 110 ft. + wide and you could probably park 6 cars without blocking the gate that goes into that little diamond shaped area. Removing that red curb and putting the asphalt on the other side of the street would relieve the problem, because we’ve never had a full street width. Chairman Fortier – You have a business where people bring their wares to you for repair, is that how it works? So if we provide parking on the other side of the street would that alleviate your problem? B.A. Skipper – Mostly repair of saddles and leather goods. I service the canine department of the Police Dept of their leather stuff. It would solve my problem but it would be better if we could have the parking on the north side and widen the south side. Chairman Fortier – We probably wouldn’t pave it we would compact it but not pave it, so therefore it could not be part of the ingress/egress. B.A. Skipper – Why couldn’t it be paved? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – We don’t have the money for that kind of work. Basically the oleanders would have to come out and the ground in that area ground is raised a little bit, so we would have to make it level. We would move the fence, clearing and grubbing the plant material and grading we’re looking at $2,000- $3,000 and that is money we don’t have in our budget to begin with. Installing pavement to the standards of the street section would cost us quite a bit more money. We’re looking for an interim fix until the Parks Department develops that site and at that time the street may be fully improved. Right now we’re trying to reach a compromise that would satisfy both the Police and Fire Department access to the area and still provide some measure of parking available to the residents. B.A. Skipper – Would it be possible to have the Fire Dept. drive on half dirt and half pavement and allow the parking to remain on the north side of the street? We would have the width they need but keep the signs off our houses. Commissioner Beil – As far as the amount of cars to the number of driveways is it true you can fit more cars on the south side than on the north side? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – You would get at least 4 additional parking spaces on the south side simply because there are no drive approaches. There are 4 houses in this area and since you can’t legally park in front of a driveway that’s a parking Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 5 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper space. They end up with a net addition of at least 4 parking spaces, possibly 5 if you park up to the end of the existing guardrail. Chairman Fortier closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion and a motion. Commissioner Beil – Is there any known schedule of the development by the Parks Dept of that parcel? When and if they ever do that would it include improvements to the street at that time? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – There are actually 2 issues, one is the development as a park, and the extension of Walnut to the east over the creek, as you know it lines up with Walnut on the other side. It won’t go straight across as there is a large well site in the way, so right-of-way has been reserved to swing Walnut a little bit to the south so it will actually pull away from this and will use some of that area that Parks now owns behind the fence. I think we’re looking at a period of at least 5 years before this park is developed, it’s not in our current CIP but it could be added. It depends on what kind of demand manifests itself once Grijalva Park is improved in the next couple of years. Vice Chairman Sciarra – Is this street is going to be extended eventually? Tom Mahood, City Traffic Engineer – I think we’re looking at something that is at least 5- 7years out. I think the alignment will probably swing to the south and probably leave quite a bit of space available in front of these homes. Whether we end up designing that as a little frontage road is not known at this point, we don’t have any precise alignments done. At the very least there will be a vast amount of parking at that time in front of the homes, so we could view any restriction now as temporary until the road gets realigned and continued across the creek. Chairman Fortier – There is a problem if there was an emergency in getting the vehicles in. I hear from some citizens that yes that is true, but they need some parking. I think for a temporary solution I think what the Engineer’s have come up with will solve both problems for the next 3-5 years, they will have parking on the other side of the street, this lady can get her daughter to her father’s home and everybody else may have guests come, and I think it may work out pretty well. Vice Chairman Sciarra – I just want to mention first that red curb area in the cul-de-sac, is it possible for that to be changed to allow cars to park at the end of the cul-de-sac? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I believe that red curb around the cul-de-sac was probably initially installed when the condominium development on the south side was built and it was probably a condition of development imposed by the Planning Commission, to try and keep the residents of that complex inside their complex so they don’t use this area for additional parking. At this point, since it’s at the end of a cul-de- sac we do have a small drive approach providing access to that plot of land and we would probably keep some red curb on both sides, but I suppose we could probably reduce the length of it somewhat. Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 6 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper Commissioner Beil – Are there any fire issues with allowing parking for this portion of the cul-de-sac that you’re aware of? Ian McDonald, Deputy Fire Marshal – The Fire Dept. hasn’t evaluated that cul-de-sac for the width and radius and the access issues there but in concept with what little we know I don’t see any problem with it. We’d have to probably report back to you with that information. Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – I would think that any change to that existing red curb out there would be like any other request, we would want to bring that to you and have you take an action on that before we removed it. Commissioner Petronella – I know how the Fire Dept. feels about the emergency equipment and that’s a nice picture but there’s no cars parked on this side where the houses are, but you know for a fact that it happens. If they’re parked on both sides then they couldn’t get through no matter what. I know they want to stay on a paved surface, the equipment is getting bigger and heavier and I have to sympathize with them. ACTION: Move the fence on the south side of Walnut to allow parking while providing enough room to get the safety equipment down the street. Eliminate parking on the north side of Walnut and look at the guardrail and the end of curb to make sure the best possible situation is left out there. MOTION: F. Petronella SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous 2. Request to install speed humps on Lincoln Street between Walnut Ave. and Collins Ave. Jennifer Anderson 1505 E. Rose Ave. Orange, CA 92867 Commissioner Beil reported a financial interest at 1410 E. Mayfair Ave. so he will recuse himself from participating in this item. (Leaves the dais.) The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. Chairman Fortier opened the public hearing for the following discussion: Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Initially we had a request for speed humps along Lincoln St. between Walnut and Collins Ave. We did our study, the area met the minimum criteria, the street is less than 40 ft. wide, it’s not on our list of Master Plan of Arterial Highways, it’s not on the city’s list of secondary emergency response routes. It’s a flat street and the 85th percentile or critical speed measured 34.2 MPH and the minimum critical speed is 33 MPH. With that in mind we sent the proponent a petition that when returned initially had a 75% majority of residents in favor of the proposed speed humps. The area map indicates the areas initially that were signed, the areas in Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 7 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper blue were in favor and the areas in red were opposed and the areas that are blank were unsigned. After we had distributed our packets to you we received several letters from area residents, and a number of residents had changed their mind. There is another example showing the area in red that indicates that there is still a clear majority of residents in favor of trying the speed humps, however, we’re looking at a 64.3% majority in favor as opposed to the minimum requirement of 75%. In light of this new information we had initially recommended that you proceed to approve the installation of the speed humps for a 3-month trial. However, in light of this new information and the fact that there is no longer a minimum 75% majority of residents in favor of trying the speed humps for 3 months, we would like to amend our recommendation and we now recommend the request be denied. Chairman Fortier – So basically we don’t have enough valid signatures to go ahead with this project, is that right? Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst – Yes. It was a very minimal majority, they had the minimum at 75% so if anyone had changed their mind and quite a few people actually rescinded their original approval, so they no longer meet that minimum requirement. If this had happened initially this request would not be on the Traffic Commission agenda because they did not reach the 75% majority. Since this information came to light after this item had been agendized and notification letters sent and you had also received your reports, we had to continue with the item, but we are changing our recommendation that this request be denied. Jim Beam, 787 N. Lincoln St. – In light of staff’s recommendation I have nothing to say. Vice Chairman Sciarra – Since it doesn’t meet the minimum criteria it looks like we must deny the request. ACTION: Denied the installation of speed humps on Lincoln St. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: F. Petronella AYES: Unanimous ABSTAIN: J. Beil Commissioner Beil returned to the dais. 3. Request for time limit parking restrictions (15 Minutes) in front of the ATM machine at CalNational Bank, located at 216 E. Chapman Ave. Kelly Bungert CalNational Bank 216 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA 92866 The oral presentation is based on the written staff report; please refer to your copy. There was no discussion on this item. Minutes of a Regular Meeting – City Traffic Commission – December 8, 2004 Pg. 8 Tape #CTC-24.11 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.  December [N:/Traffic/CTC/2004 Minutes] Printed on Recycled Paper ACTION: Denied the installation of a “15 MINUTE PARKING THIS STALL ONLY” sign at 216 E. Chapman Ave. MOTION: J. Fortier SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous  End of Consideration Calendar  V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None this month. 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 – February 9, 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