The URL can be used to link to this page

04-14-1999 - Minutes TC :.�. _ C�TY OF �■V ,/ _GE ' t ,r:r_�_ CITY TRAFFIC C4MMISSION ��=-� "`�� Minutes of a Regular Meeting: April 14, 1999 , ��s��s�� 1. OPENING � A. Flag Pledge B. Roll Call: Present-Commissioners: D. Yarger,). Fortier, F. Petroneila, F. Sciarra ' Absent: �IV. Poutsma,W. Winthers Present-Staff: H. Bahadori, D: AIlenbach, M. Binning, C. Gtass, Sgt. B. Green, P. Then C. Approval of Minutes: March 10, 1999-Approve as published by fhe Recording Secretary. IvIOTI�N: J. Fortier SECOND: F. Sciarra I�YESe Unanimous � D. Items To Be Continued or�thdrawn t�lone this meeting. 1t. CONSENT CALENDAR � 1. Request for the installation of 10 ft.of red curb markings in front of 1414-1425 E. Lael Dr. Fred Monte 1414 E. tael Dr. Orange CA 92866 Oral presentation is based on the writ�en staff report, please refer to your copy. There was n�discussion of this request. � ACTION: Approve the insta!lation of i0 ft. of red curb markings on both sides of the driveway at 1414 & 1425 E. Lael Dr. MOTION: D. Yarger , SECON D: ). Fortier AYES: U nan i mous - � Tape#CTG99.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the Recording 5ecre�ary at(714) 744-553b in this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. �Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting-City Traffic Commission-Apri) 14, 1999 Pa�e 2 B. Request for the installation of red curb markings on the east side of the driveway servicing 1801 E. LaVeta Ave. �h uck DeMarco 1801 E. LaVeta Ave. �ange CA 92869 C�ral presentation is based on the written staff r�port, please refer to your copy. There was no discussion of this request. ACTIONe Approve the installation of 20 ft. of red curb markings on both sides of the driveway at 1801 E. LaVe�a Ave. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: F. Petronella �AYES: Unanimous 111.CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. Req�est to prohibit turns from Kennymead St. onto Santiago Canyon Rd. Traffic Engineering Division � CITY OF ORANGE � Oral presentation is based on the writ�en s�ff�eport, please refer to your copya Chairman � Yarger opened the public hearing for tt�e following discussion: There were seven (7) speakers,their preferred Alternatives were: Alt#1 -Full closure with cul�le-sa.c Ill Alt#2-No exit from Kennymead li Alt#3-Right turn only into Kennymead � 1 � Ait#4-Signage prohibiting exit from Kennymead 0 ° I�o Preference bu#do something I � The speakers were: . Bob��Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Dr.-Favor�Alternative#2 Cheryl Gwartz, 1537 Kennymead-Favors Altemative#1 � Laura Thomas, 7211 Clydesdale-Favors Alternative#1 Diane Siebert, 1388 Kennymead-Favors Alternative#3 Sharon Gordon, 1489 & 1463 Kennymead -Favor Alternative#1 � . lackie Pamplona, 1277 Kennymead-Favor�Al�ernative#2 - Martin Calderwood, 742�Santiago Canyon Rd.-No preference but do something. Chairman Yarger closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for final discussion and a motion. � Tape#C.TC 99.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is availabie#or your review. Please contact the Recording Secretary at(714) 744-5536 in this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. �Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting-City Traffic Commission-April 14, 1999 Pa�e 3 Chairman Yarger - If we were to ciose the street and make it a cul-de-sac and one of the Kennymead residents close to Santiago Canyon Rd. had a family emergency, and it took more response time to get an emergency vehicle to that residence, and a death resulted from it, is the Cii�c liable because we closed the street and emergency vehicles couid not access the street as quickly as they could have if the street had been open? � Mary Binning, Asst. City Attorney- In making a cul-de-sac you would be making a finding that for safety reasons you are closing the street and part of the consideration in making any kind of a determination like that woufd be weighing response time and �the recommendation of the Fire and Police Dept. vs. traffic safety.. So long as a determination is made based on safety factors and you make reasonable findings then your decision is Iiability proof. Chairman Yarger - Even if the Police and Fire Dept. have indicated that they do not want the cu I-de-sac? tvtary Binning-They had preferences but you wouid have to examine that for yourselves. ACTION: 1. Approve restriction of both left and righ# turn movements from Kennymead St. or�to Santiago.Canyon Road while mai�taining both left and right turn movements from Santiago Canyon Rd. onto 1Cennymead St. 2. Recommend that the City Council approve the same and allocate funds in the amount af$25,000 for the implementation of these restrictions. � 3. Request OPD put this location on their "special enforcement" list for speed control during afternoon peak hours utilizing the speed trailer as an aid. 4. If the City Council approves this recommendation, we wiif lengthen the !eft turn � pocket for westbound Santiago Canyon Rd. to provide adequate space for reducing speed before turning into Kennymead St. MOTlON. ). Fortier " SECON D: F. Petronella AYES: U nan i mous � Tape#CTC 99.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the � � Recording Secretary at(714) 744-5536 in this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. . ��Printed on Recycled Paper fvlinutes of a Regular Meeting-City Traffic Commission-April 14, 1999 Page 4 11/.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS � A. Update on the NCenterline" (formerly known as the Urban Rail) Project. Traffic Engineering Division � - � CLTY OF ORANGE � This is,going to come to you officially for a recommendation to the City Councif both from you and the Planning Commission. This project has been around at least 10 years, my initial involvement was in )988. This project is what used to be referred to as the "'Central Orange County Fixed Guideway Agency", then it evolved to the "'Urban Rail" then it evolved to �'Light Rail" and now we call it "'CenterLine". It's a rail transit system connecting the Irvine Transportation Center to the �ullerton Transportation Center. The � handout 1 gave yo� goes through the whole system. Last year Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board approued a Major Investment Study (M1S) approving rail transit as the preferred alternative. Ther� is also $340 million dollars in the Measure M Transi#Component tha# is allocated for this project. Today the project is being studied by OCTA, they have a $4.5 million contract, they are also giving $i.5 million to the cities, our City received $100,000 for additional consultant services. We have two consultants, one for traffic and one for land use working on this project supporting the City. �The alignment shown in green comes up Broadway St. in Santa Ana, that is not wfiat Orange or the City of Santa Ana is supporting, however,they are looking at it. 1t comes up Br�adway, gfles behind MainPlace between the MainPlace Mall and I-5 Fwy. it goes back . _ and then through 6edford St., the 1� signal west of Main St. at LaVeta Ave., makes a left � and goes LaVeta Ave. south of the SR-22 connecting with The City Drive, goes north on City Drive to Chapman Ave., and then there are other variations either through Anaheim or Garden Grove. This is at street level, another street level is the one that comes up Main St. all the way to LaVeta, goes west at LaVeta and pretty much follows the old pattern. The other alternative at street levei they are looking at comes up tvlain St. all the way to Chapman Ave., goes west under the SR-57 over the Santa Ana River,'under the I-5 and connects to�fiapman Ave. at The City Drive. The circles you see are the proposed station locations. The City Council has formerly taken the position that they don't want Chapman Ave. even to be studied, and the Mayor attended the �CTA Board meeting when they were making a decision on this issue and indicated that the City doesn't want Chapman cr�nsidered as an altemative, and OCTA Board said they have to look at Chapman just so they have alternatives to compare wi�h each other but we hear your concerns and we're not going to seriously look at Chapman, but it is still being censidered. The elevatecl alternative is what was cleared in the MIS process, however, the elevated alternative�nri11 cost approximately$i.8 b�llion and OCTA doesn't think they can afford i�. They are looking at a street Ievel alternative to save costs, however, in doing so they are assuming that the existing street is going to accommodate this system without �ny additional widening. When ! say additional widening, for example, City of Orange has a proposed widening for both Main St. and Chapman Ave. so they are not looking at fioday's configuration, rather they are looking at when we go to 6 lanes on Chapman between Main and the SR-57, that they �take one iane from each direction making it a 4 lane street, and putting in this thing at the street level. Cities have made serious objections to that, they � Tape#CTC 99.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Please contact the � Recording Secretary at(714)744-5536 in this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. ` �P P�inted on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meetin�-City Traffic Commission-April 14, i 999 Pa�e 5 say we need all 6 lanes, and there is stil! studies going on. The technical studies are being reviewed right now, every day they send more informat�on, Doug Keys of our staff reviews this stuff and shares it with Meyer, Mohaddes who is our traffic Consultant. So we will hav�some kind of final document to be made public by ear(y September. At that time we will retum this item to you and officially ask for your input, at that time we will show you .— tl� impact on the street operation, the impact on the intersection operations, #he final ' location of the stations. � In doing that we are also working on the SR-2?1The City Drive project that you are probably aware of, that is a pretty nasty location for exiting the freeway on Ciiy Drive. The proposed alternative, the one high-lighted in different colors, the darker color are proposed bridge structures, and the yellow color is the proposed pavement. This is going to realign lvletropolitan, reconfigure the whole loop ramp putting two new hook ramps in and connect the SR 57 and I-5 as the so called bridge structure, going over the river and 1�aving a bridge structure flying over that area and coming down pretty much they have to have an overcrossing and there is going to be a new connector from the SR-57 south co.nnecting to th�extension of Metropolitan. This is a $35 rr�illion project, we have so far spent $180,000 designing and studying it and getting approval from OCTA and Caltrans. We have those approvals, the next phase is the Project Report, preliminary design and environmental work. We are probably going to chip in another $60,400 from City funds toward that also. The whole project is $35 miilion, we have only $3 miliion identified so far from City and regional funds, the ofher $32 million is going to be Caltrans responsibility. Caltrans has put this as their number one priority in t7range County for their freeway improvement project. However, the funding still is not very optimistic because I � think in this cycle they had only $680 million for the whole State to do projects and they - had over$4 billion of projects submitted for consideration. Target date f4r this can be phased so we can do the ramps, the bridge, and last we can do � , the connector from SR-5� and Metropolitan. V1/e are hoping that at least the 7�` phase, which is the ramp reconfiguration, �ve will do it in �002 2003. The target date for that is construction flf the first phase of rai! system in �008. Its.a 28 mile system but I don't think OC�A can afford to build �4-15 miles but since we are all at a strategic location in the middle of xhe County, no matter what they build, the section in the City of Orange is going to be part of�he fist phase and the OCTA Board is going to make a decision on that one in �ecember. By December OCTA will have spent about $10 million studying that system and considering the scope of the work that is a sma11 amount. If they approve this system to go forv�ard in Decernber the next phase is going to cost betvyeen $80-$100 million, so the decision they make in December is critical and that's why we wanted to give you th'rs briefing because come September-October we will bring this to the CTC and the Planning Commissiun, and then it�nrill go to the Cit�c Council. Please think about the project and if you have any serious considerations or if you want more information, things you think they are not looking at we have to look at, let us know and we will make sure that when we bring this to you again we wiN have al1 the information for you. � T'ape#CTC 99.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available#or your review. Please contact the Recording S�cretary at(714) 7445536 in this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. � �Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular MeetinR-City Traffic Commission-April 14, 1999 Page 6 At this time they are not looking at any right of way acquisition, as I said they are looking at maybe.some very local�zed uvidening at certain intersections where we cannot fit the left tum pockets with xhe e�cisting system. The City already has an approved plan to widen Chapman to 6 lanes, so they are assuming they can take the 2 middle lanes without any additiona! right of way acquisition. That's th�assumpfiion today and that is what has raised . — se�-ious concerns on part of many cities, including ours. These assumptions are not correct � and they have to include the right of way acquisition. My guess, and 1 don't have �nformation on this it wil! probably be available in mid)uly, that if you start adding the cost of the right of way acquisition or the cost of the through traffic mitigation of the street level system you're going to be pushed back again to $1.8 to $2 billion neighborhood. There is not really a cost saving on the street level, however, if you go to the street level the speed � of the system comes down to about 20 �vtPH, which m+eans it wil! take you about an hour to go from Irvine to Fullerton so what is the incentive? The projection for the beginning and the opening days they are going to h�ve 50-60,000 riders per day, but all the transit projections for ali the transit systems have been welt over estimated. If you have any questions or directions please 1et me know. If you eliminate some of the stations the problem is that the system is only attractive if the stations are within a quart�r- mile walking distance so meaning that the stations have to be about '/� to 3/ mile, if you go any longer than that then you lose ridership. We in the City don't do this kind of transit planning so we do not have our own independent da#a, we can do research in the academic and oth+er cities but for a lot of o�r information we are at the mercy of OCTA, who actually develops the project. W� are looking at a location for a potential station . around St.)oseph's Hospi#a1 at Main and LaVeta; �and we are aiso talking with both the Mills Corp. and the Spieker Corp. to do a joint szudy with them, and OCTA for a parking � structure on The City Drive. The reason OCTA is pushing this other than the fact that there is big federal money that can be brought to the localities because the transit portion of the federal program is n�w much more than it used to be. The other issue OCTA is proposing is that #here is going tc� be an additional 8�0,000-875,000 jobs in Orange County and an additional 600,000 people Iiving in Orange County in the next 15 yearsa AC7'IOt�I: Receive&�ile report. h�IOT�ON: D.Yarger SECOND: j. Fortier AYES: Unanimous , • � Tape#CTC 99A2 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is availabte for your review. Please contact the . Recording Secretary at(7)4) 7445536 in this regard,some advance notice woulrl be appreciated. � �Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting-City Traffic Commission-April 14, 1999 Pa�e 7 V. ORAL PRESENTATION Vice-Chairman Fortier stated that maybe we need to look at that left turn on Katella Ave. west to get on the SR-55 Fwy. and the new configuration, it's a mess right now and it's goi�g to get worse with increased tra#fic and 1 don't know if Caltrans has looked at that because it's still g�n�.to be a ieft turn going south. Y Hamid Bahadori said that it is still going to be a left turn going south, the configuration of that interchange, it's interesting that you bring it up today because last week there was a resident on Sacramento north of Katella that brought up the issue of why are we blocki�g the access from the ramp to Sacramento because when the interchange is reconstructed today if you take the northbound off-ramp you can keep going straight to Sacramento; that is going to be blocked off and there wil� be a new ramp. V1/e just did a little research to make sure that we came to the CTC and the City Council. The new interchange reconfiguration has been approved by both the CTC and the City Cfluncil back in 1995, it's before my time,but since�ou brought it up I'm going to pull out the old plans and look at it an see what it's go�ng to do with the new interchange, if #here is anything we can do to help. It has already been acknowledged that that interchange is already congested and its going to get extremely more congested when it goes under construction. 1 don't know if its going to be any better when it's done. However, we have a dilemma also that is probably going to bring you another controversial item, that � many years ago when they were putting the Traffic Management Program for this freeway construc�ion together our�ity asked for $50,000 to put in a prote+cted left turn signal at Handy and Katella, meaning we have already acknowledged that we are going to put additional traffic onto Handy St., we ha�e asked for that and it is part o# our CIP and we are going to start designing it. That is going to be another problem, and we already know what the issues are on Handy St. so this is going to be another problem for the Handy residents. I'm gang to pull out those plans and look a�them and I'm going to send you a copy of wha# it is going to look like wher� it's completely done and if you want we can get together and talk about it a little more and see if we can come up with any suggestions to help. Vice Chairman Yarger said he already had a suggestion. When you are soUthbound and exit.at � Katella somehow have that come around and get a right turn iike you're doing for the northbound. No 1eft turn gefiting on and going southbound from westbound Katella, it has to � be a right turn coming up around. City Traffic Engineer Bahadori stated that would require a complete re-design of the interchange. Your idea of a loop ramp always works better than a slip ramp with a protected left iurn, no ques#ion, but that requires a re{lesign of that�whole interchange. 1 don't want to be pessimistic bu# I think the boat might have already !eft on this, we might have had th� opportunity in. 1991-92 when Caltrans was working with the City to redesign the Katella interchange but now the design is pretty much final and I think that section has already been advertised and they have received bids for the construction of that segment of the freeway work. �° Tape�C:TC 99.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is available for your review. Ptease contact the Recording Secretary at(714) 7445536 i�this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. �Printed on Recycled Paper Minutes of a Regular Meeting-City Traffic Commission-April 14; 1999 Pa�e 8 V1.ADJOURNMENT After discussion of today's Agenda items of the City Traffic Commission was concluded, and as there wrere no further requests for action under Oral Presentations, the Chairman adjourned this ses5ion of the City Traffic Commission at 5:15 p.m. Thje next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Traffic Commission will be Wednesday - May 12, 1999.� fZespectfully submitted, . CITY OF ORANGE Phyllis Then Recording Secretary Traffic Engineering Division CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION 300 Ea CHAPMAN AVE. ORANGE CA 928b6 PH. (714) 744-553b � fAXe (714) 744-6961 �'C7 MINUTES- [D1SK#20/THENP] $ „ , � T`ape#�'C�9.02 of this City Traffic Commission meeting is avaitable for your review. Please co�tact the � Recordin�Secretary at(714) 744-5536 in this regard,some advance notice would be appreciated. `�h�Printed on Recycled Paper