05-12-1993 - Minutes TC � ':;
';:�.
,;-rr;,. ; ...�,..�;
CITY OF ORANGE
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: Mav 12, 1993
ROLL CALL-PRESENT-C011�II�fISSIONERS: D.YARGER,J.FORTIER,B.LEMING,F. SCIARRA
-ABSENT -COMNIISSIONERS: N.HOWER
-PRESENT-STAFF: B.DENNIS, S. SOO HOO,LT.E.TUNSTALL,C. GLASS,
D.ALLENBACH,P.'THEN
-ABSENT -STAFF: B.HERRICK
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 14, 1993 - APPROVE as published by the Recording Secretary.
. MOTION: J. Fortier
SECOND: F. Sciarra
AYES: Unanimous
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items on the May 12, 1993, Agenda of the CTC meeting.
III. CONSIDERATION ITEMS
Today's Corrsideration Items were not presented to the CTC in their usual order, due to audience
interest and participation, we heard the various requests in the following sequence.
A. Request for the 'removal of crossing guards' at various school crosswalks, city-wide.
Lt. Ed Tunstall
Traffic Bureau
Orange Police Department
City of Orange
Lt. Ed Tunstall. OPD -The Police Dept. recently completed a survey of crossing guard locations
to determine if any of the sites no longer require the physical presence of a crossing guard. Over
the years school boundaries have changed,traffic signals have been added and traffic patterns have
shifted, minimizing or negating the need for crossing guards at certain locations. The crossing
guazd survey reviewed the characteristics of the intersections, the traffic patterns and the number
of student crossings and compared this data to the crossing guard warrant requirements contained
in the City of Orange Administrative Manual. Based on the results of this study, the Police Dept.
is recommending the removal of 17 of the crossing guard locations.
" We first reviewed the current elementary school boundaries to determine if past changes ha.ve
eliminated the need for any of the crossing guards, in so doing we found three intersections on
Chapman Ave. that should have no elementa,ry school chilriren crossing the street, in these cases
Chapman serves as the boundary between elementary schools and the children living north of
Chapman attend either Prospect of Esplanade Elementary Schools, and those living south of
Chapman attend Jordan Elementary School. These 3 intersection crassing guard locations are: -
1. Chapman Ave. at Esplana.de St.
2. Cha.pman Ave. at Hewes St.
3. Cha.pman Ave. at Rancho Santiago Blvd.
Next, Police Tra�ffic Bu�ea.0 personnel and crossing guards conducted surveys to determine the
number of elementary school age children that aze crossed by the guards at these locations and the
number of vehicles making turning movements through the crosswalks at controlled intersections.
We also reviewed the average daily traffic figures supplied by the Traffic Engineering Division.
The results of this survey are included an the charC which is a part of Qur report. On the chart the
characteristics of the intersection that do not meet the crossing guard criteria are highlighte�d in
italics. We now have guards at 26 locations that do not meet the criteria established in the
warrants for crossing guards, however, in the interest of the children's safety we feel that some of
these intersections should retain their crossing guards,� we are recommending that guards at
loca,tions #1-17 be eliminated because very few elementary age children cross at the intersections
and the characteristics of the intersections do not pose a serious threat to those children.
On locations #18-26, even though they do not meet the warrants for a crossing guard, we're
recommending retaining these locations because of th� chara.cteristics of the intersection or other
factors.
Locations#26-43,we are recommending retaining crossing guards at these locations.
Included with the report is a implementation plaa should the CTC approve the removal of any
crossing ,guards. This implementation plan inctudes sufficient notification to parents, schaols,
children and that we also have the crossing guards,prior to their removal, have a traini.ng pragram
in place so the guards may instruct children on the proper methods of crc�ssing. We also have
training brochures and pamphlets available from different organizations about school crossings and
safety. We forwarded this report to the schools and the principals involved, and the Traffic
Engineering sta.ff, and we would certa.inly expect and hope that those people involved would also
have input as ta the validity of this recomrnendation.
Chairman Yarger opens the public hearing for the followang discussion of
this item::
Kimberly Bottomely- 1005 W. Arbor Way - #21 Main/Palm and #19 Main/Batavia are the 2
crosswa.lks I'm interested in most. Although these 2 are not on the list for removal I hate to see
any elementary school kids wa,iking to school, and #4-17 has kids crossin� at these locations,
which need guards. We have too many parents that are working two jobs now to raise a family
and they may not be able to come in to work late or leave early to pick up their children to ha.ve
someone to help their kids cross the street safely; we need the crossing guards, that's why we pay
our taxes to make sure our kids are safe going to and from school.
2
� _ Kath�Kessler - Principal (�a, Chapman Hills Elementa.ry School -I'm concerned with crosswalks
#6, 8 & 25. The number of PED's crossing at#6 in the afternoon is 18, I would like you to also
be aware that our school is very new and we anticipate an increased enroliment by another 50-60
students for next year which will increase the number of students crossing at that location. There
aze condo's across the street from here and that has a very high number of transient residency
levels. 2/3'rds of our school population is made up of kindergarten through 3 rd grade age students
who have a greater degree of difficulty in safely crossing the street. That particular intersection,
although there's not alot of turns made, it is an entrance to a tract off Chapman Ave. directly
across from the college so the entrance goes right into the community park so there are alot of turns
into the pazk which is used all day by any differing age groups.
#8 Canyon View/Newport - your numbers of 8/6 are pretty accura.te. Most parents are driving
their kids to school but it will change as they gain more confidence that the kids can get ta and
from school safely. Although i�'s rea.11y a small number the school district worked directly with
City Council members for a crossing guard when we allowed Cowan Hill residents to attend our
school.
#25 is in your list of locations to keep a guard. Canyon View/Handy Creek is used alot not only
by our students but by the whole community. The speed limit is 35 MPH there, but motorists
mainly travel alot faster.
Lisa Pet�rson - 414 N. Clark #F -I'm interested in#19 PalmBata.via and #21 Main/Palm. I'm
one of�the parents involved in the attempt to stop the widening of Main St. because of the
elementary school,and I'm appalled to think that we're on the list of locations you will try to keep a
crossing guard posted, but at a later date the guard could be dismissed. The plan to widen
Main St. is based on the amount of traf�ic that is presently there. We do have a guard at
Main/Palm and even with the guazd and the traf�'ic signal, one of our student's was hit in the
intersection 5 years ago;I think this location should be moved down on the list as a location where
you will keep a crossing guard.
My son is hospita.lized due to an iliness and when visiting him I have seen many kids with varying
degrees of injuries that have been hit by cars, and it really upsets me to think we can put a dollar
value to our kids health and safety, and put them into a potentially dangerous situation by getting
rid of our crossing guards.
Jim McMillan - Principal (a�Sycamore Elementary School - #21 perhaps being reconsidered for
elimination at sometime in the future. You nced to look not only at wha.t is but wha.t will be. One
of the things we asked from you was to install an advance waming sign indicating'SCHOOL XING' -
but still the traffic is not raveling at 30 MPH, I know that's the posted speed but that's not the
speed that's coming down. There is a crosswallc at S,ycamore/Main and there is some talk of
removing that crosswalk beca.use there is no protection which will increase the number of students
going down to PalmlMain to cross the street; I think it's imperative that we look at the kids safety.
I don't know exa.ctly what cost saving measures you're looking at by eliminating crossing guard
positions but I think this really needs to be the last kind of cuts that you make.
Lois Barke-2022 S�ruce St. -#19/21 at Sycamore School are the locations I'm speaking on. The
elimination of the crosswalk from Sycamore/Main will increase the number of students crossing the
street ax Palm/Mai.n, but I also question that there are less than 300 turns thereby making this
location not meeting the criteria for a guard, I would think we have hundreds of more cars turning �
here because of the other 2 schools in the immediate area. The area on Batavia St. is a truck route
. and alot of time those txucks don't ha.ve time to stop for kids crossing the streets, so I think it's
important to keep a crossing guaxd at these two locations. After your decision dces this go to the -
City Council as a 3:00 session Consent Calenda.r item?
3
' - Chairman Yarger - We may not reach a decision today, we may require add.itional review and
study.
Carole Waiters - 534 N. Shaf�er St. - I'm concerned about the Sycamore/Main/Palm locations,
there is a bend in 1Vdain St. here and it limits visibility of kids in the crosswalk by southbound
motorists.
Mary E. Coantz, Principal (g�,W. Ora.nge Elementary -We're at Almond/Bush with 647 students
and many of our kids walk to school in clusters or with a baby-sitter. Location#20 Main/Almond :
and#16 BataviaJAlmond are our concerns. 1"here is a signal at Main/Almond, I feel the number
of crossings observed is low for the number of students crossing in morning (66) and afternoon
(102). Our numbers aze significantly higher ?0/140; and that is a very busy intersection, the
safety issue is a main concern because we have trained. our kids only to cross with a guard, when
we're not strict with this rule kids run across Main St. and have almost been hit. Batavia is a
smaller street and there is a STOP sign at the intersection and in the afternoon sometimes there are
25-30 cars lined up to clear the intersection; and again the training has been for the students not to
cross witho�t a guard.
The other area we want to discuss is how students feel ab�out themselves and each other; and adults
in their lives that h�lp them. Our crossing guars at Main/Almond'Big Al' was the crossing guard
of the year in 1991, and just recently he was hospitalized due to an illness. Our whole school sent
him letters, cards, flowers and our kids remembered him from the first grade all the way through
the sixth grade as being their crossing guard, they have tremendous regard for him as a positive
role model in their lives and I would ask that you look at this concerri when reaching your decision.
Carl Clugston - 573 S. Devon Rd. -I almost a hit a kid at one of these locations once because I
was making a turn and I didn't see him trying to cross the street. At the time the crossing guard
blew his whistle to get my attenticin and it really got me mad until I saw the kid and then I rea:lized
what ha.d almost happened.
Rick De,� - 543 S. Crest Rd. - I pass crosswalk #21 at Main/Palm 4-5 times da.ily and today at
2:50 p.m. I was southbound on Main St. when I noticed a cluster of kids approaching the
crosswalk, there was not a guard there, these kids were about junior high school age and one of
these kids waited for me to get within a dangerously short stopping distance and then he jumped
out into the crosswalk, I was able to jam on the brakes and stop without hitting him and I leaned
out the window and yelled that "you're real lucky I have good brakes or you'd be dead." If there
had been a guard at this intersection I do not believe that boy would have stepped off the curb at -
that time, so we're talking about judgment of elementary school age kids which isn't too good, and
wise-acre junior-high age kids who like to play games with their lives. Junior-high and elementary
school age children don't ha.ve the judgment and/or attitude to use crosswalks correctty without an
adult crossing guard to regulate their activities.
Lisa Peterson-When all these guards were placed at these locations there was a reason, and now if
it wasn't for the guazd there would be alot of problems. Now-a-day's people are so much more
preoccupied when driving than ever before,they're driving with car phones, looking at appointment
books and many times their inattention when driving is only averted by a crossing guard's whistle
keeping them from injuring a child. The numbers on this list do not coincide with these areas and
if you're going to make decisions on this list then I think these locations need to be re-evaluated.
. Stan Smith-592 S. Bedford Rd. -I've crossed at that intersection of Palm/Main quite often myself
and the traffic on Main St. is getting ridiculous, it backs up almost all the way to LaVeta. and
people are rushing to get through the signals and kids could get hurt. -
4
�-- Chairman Yarger closes the �ublic hearing and returns the item to the
Cammission for further discussion and/or a motion.
Lt. Ed Tunstall-I would like to clarify the recommendation contained in the report because I thinlc
there has been some misunderstanding regarding locations #18-26; it is our recommendation that
those locations will k�ep their crossing guards. There is no recommendation that they should be
recansidered at any time in the future. Our report supports the testimony heard today, based on
student safety we recommend retauung the crossing guards.
Commissioner Fortier - Balancing budgets against kids safety . . . I'm not saying all these
crossing guard locations should remain. For exarnple, I know that kids will walk out into the
crosswalk thinking that the paint will protect them. They are so trusting because there is paint
there and the kids think the cars are gaing to stop, well they don't all stop, and it's not because of
bad drivers it's because the drivers are preoccupied. Kids are stepping off the curb before the light
changes and guard has to stop them. Cambridge/Katella has only 17 kids crossing, but I have to
think twice about removing a guard from that location, I wou�dn't cross that intersection on a bet.
I think we need to lool�at several of these locations a little more before we decide to take away a
guard and ensuring that kids are going to be safe when crossing the street.
Commissioner Lemin� -How did the Orange Police Dept. develop the number of students crossing
the street at the locations on this list?
' Lt. Ed Tunstali - We condacted two surveys; one by the crossing guard counting the number of
students crossing at that Iocation, and then approximately one month later we sent out motor
officers to take a similar count. There wer�small variations but this reflects what we believe to be
the most accurate number of students. The turning movements only apply to the warrants at
intersections that are signalized, so we did a count of the number of vehicles turning through the
crosswalk used by the children, which is the criteria on the warrant, and in those cases we sent a
motor officer to talce those counts.
Commissioner Sciarra-We have two uncontrolled intersections that have low numbers of students
crossing,I don't think we want to remove the guard from those locations,due to the safety issue.
Commissioner Lemin�-I think locations#1-3 can have the guards removed. #6, S, 11, 16 need to
keep their guards and there is nothing anyone can say that would make me change my mind, simply
beca.use I'm very familiar with those four intersections. As far as the rest of them, perhaps we
should direct the Traffic Engineering Division to perform additional pedestrian crosswalk warrant
studies to confirrn the Police Dept. findings and bring this item back to us next month.
Chairman Yar�er - Persona.11y I feel it would be okay to remove the guards from locations #1-3,
but that's where I stop, until we have more information on locations #4-17 I don't really want to
make a recommendation on those locations until next month.
RECOMMENDATION: That we remove crossing guards from locations #1, 2 &3. Locations
#4-17 be re-evaluated by tlie Traffic Engineering staff and reviewed again next month.
MOTION: D.Yarger
SECOND: J. Fortier
5
� Commissioner LeminQ-I agree with you on#1-3, and knovwing that we have a time constraint for
staff to perform a study of locations #4-1�, there are a number of these locations that are obvious
to me that need to keep their guard, in my opinion that would be locations #6, 8, 11 and 16.
Instea.d of having stafl�'take time to study these locations, unless the other Commissioners feel
different,I would recommend we exclude those locations alsa
Chairman Yarger-I will amend my Motion as follows: That we remove crossing guards from
locations #1-3, that we retain crossing guards at locations #6, 8, 11 & 16; and that Traffic
Engineering staf�conduct pedestrian crossing studies at locations#4, 5, ?, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 17
and provide that information to us for our re-evaluation at our meeting next month.
1WIOTION: D.Yarger
SECOND: F. Sciarra
AYES: Unanimous
RECOMMENDATION: That we continue this item to the June 1993,meeting.
MOTION: D.Yarge�r
SECOND: J. Fortier
AYES: Unanimous
Bemie Dennis -As I explained,we have some time restraints,we will give it our best efforts but I
� cannot guarantee you will have 13 full and complete studies back in one month.
Commissioner Fortier -I think it would also be appropriate for as many of the Commissioners to
visit the crossing locations contained on the list that we will be re-evaluating ne�month so we may
have first hand knowledge of any dangerous conditions that paper may nat reflect, such as blind
spots, excessive speeds, etc. When we have to make d�cisions affecting kids safety I feel it's
impera.tive we have much information as possible.
C. Request to change the time limit parking �-��trictions on Cambridge St. between
Almond Ave. and Chapman Ave.
Gary Mead
133-135 S. Cambridge St.
Orange,CA 92666
Ora1 presentation is based on the written sta,ff report,please refer to your copy. Chainnan Yarger
opened the public hearing for the following discussion of this request.
Commissianer Lemin�-What would the process be if the situation should change? If we approve
this request and the situation changes would you notify the business owner, and then bring this
back to the CTC,or would you change it through an administrative process?
Dave Allenbach-We would come back to the CTC and we would notify the business owner at at
that time.
Cammissioner Sciarra-What is the traffic volume now?
Dave Altenbach-It's approxima.tely 6,004 vehicles per day.
Gary Mead- 133 S. Cambridge St. -This idea first came to my mind when I was traveling north -
on Cambridge St. south of Palmyra Ave. The alternating sides of the street concept already exists
in that area going south from LaVeta, to Fairhaven. I'm virtually out of business between
7:30-9:00 a.m. and from 2:30-4:00 p.m.
6
�-- Chairman Yarger closed the public hearing and returned the item to the
Commission for their comments and/or a motion.
RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC,by motion, APPROVE the request.
MOTIQN: B. Leming
SECOND: J.Fortier
AYES: Unanimous
D. Request to reduce the posted speed limit on Meats Ave. from 45 MPH to 35 MPH
between Featherhill Dr. and the north city limits.
Larry P. Clark
3626 Shallow Brook Ln.
Orange, CA 92667
� Ora1 presentation is based on the written sta.ff report, please refer to your copy. Chairman Yarger
opened the public hearing for the following discussion of this request.
Commissioner Sciarra-What were the number af accidents on this section of roadway?
Chuck Glass-The accident history for the last 6 years is as follows:
YEAR #ACCIDENTS YEAR #ACCIDENTS
1988 5 199I 4
1989 1 1992 1
1990 1 1993-present 2
Larry Clark - 3626 Shallow Brook Ln. - I live at the corner of MarywoodlShallow Brook/Meats
and I think perhaps what we're trying to say is we want to reduce the speed to 40 MPH because
realistically cars seem to be�oing 50 MPH and/or some kind of warning signs should be put up.
The concern is that the speed seems excessive and usually near Marywood on the southbound
traf�ic lanes there are skid marks o£near-collisions from people coming down the hill.
Chairman Yarger-What is the feasibility of installing'INTERSECTION AHEAD' warning signs for
those southbound lanes?
Bernie Dennis - The sign Mr. Clark is referring to on Lincoln Ave. is actually in the City of _
Anaheim; however, in this particular case we wouldn't have any serious objection to making a
sinular installation on the Orange side of Meats Ave. Everyone has to understand that this is an
"advisory"type sign only, there is no enforcement value whatscever, and it tends to be applicable
only to first time users,people that use this street frequently tend to ignore it and do as they will.
Chairrnan Yar�er - Lt. Tunstall, have you assigned any radar out there recently or is there any
feasibility to ha.ving a unit out there to issue citations?
Lt. Tunstall -We can certainly take a look at it and put some motor's out there as a deterrent,
however, in looking at the speed survey it dces not appea.r that there are that many cars exceeding
that speed limit to a citeable degree.
Chainnan Yar�er-If you have an 85th percentile at 50 MPH and it's posted at 40 MPH and you
cite a person going 45 MPH,and they go to court,the judge is going to dismiss the citation because
of the 85th percentile. With the State code of the 85th percentile being 50 MPH our
recommenda.tion is to post the street for 5 MPH under that(45 MPI�that's why I'm going to make
a motion that we deny the request and leave the speed limit at 45 MPH; and ask the Orange Police
to go out with ra,dar and see if we can slow some of the motorists down.
7
RECOMMENDATION: Tha.t the CTC, by motion, DENY the reduction in the 45 MPH
speed zone; install'INTERSECTION AHEAD'warning signs and assign police to enforce the speed
limit with ra.da.r units.
MOTION: D.Yarger
SECOND: F. Sciarra
AYES: Unanimous
B. Request for traffic control on Atchison St., Maple Ave. and Cypress Ave. relative to
the new rail d�pot site.
Transportation Engineering Division
City of Orange
Dou,�Keys Transportation En�ineer-In December 1992, our City Council passed a resolution in
support of the establishment af a commuter rail station at the location of the old Santa Fe Depot
site. On April 27, 1993, the City Council tentatively approved the conceptual site plan for the
commuter rail sta.tion as well as the financing package, we were then directed to come to the CTC
for your input relat�ve to any traffic amenities that would help make the station function properly.
The station itself is expected to open on December 6, 1993,that da.te coincides with the addition of
2 more trains to the rail lines that extends to�ceanside to the south, and up the Los Angeles in the
north. In the morning you will have 3 trains at different intervals going to L.A.; then in the
afternoon they will rnake the return trip south. In January 1995, additional service will come on-
line from the Riverside/San Bernardino axea through Orange down to Irvine in the morning and
then the reverse commut�in the evening.
Wc have a finance package of $2.7 million. We received $1.9 million from the Sta.te Bond
Measure 116, we received $400,000 through a State Grant called TCI (Transit Capital
Improvement),that grant necessitates a 50%ma.tch so the other$400,000 is being provided by our
Redevelopment Agency for a total budget of$2.7 million.
At the northern end of the depot site vcre will be providing a bus "turn around." We cunently have
a bus layover area for four lines at the corner of Almond/Glassell, we will be moving those 4 bus
lanes so they do their layover's and time-checks as well as meeting other potential passengers up in
the depot area. Through this project we will also be providing parking enhancement for that area
directly behind the depot site. We are presently looking at approximately 58 spaces. This project
will also assist in providing city park improvements to the$outh of the project, and this project will
also be providing restrooms and a newssta�nd for transit patrons adjacent to the existing depat
building.
� 1"his project will be making improvements to Atchison St. from Chapman up to Maple which will
include curb, gutters and sidewalks. There will also be street improvements on Maple Ave.
between Cypress and the depot site (or Atchison St.) Some of the larger employers of this region
will have van-pools operating aut of the depot site so when the trains come into the station the vans
will be waiting to pick them up and take them to their place of business. Currently we have �
interest from a variety of larger employer groups within the community such as CHOC,
St. Joseph's, MainPlace, Union Bank building, TRW, Tishman and the Orange Unified School
District,so there has been alot of positive results from the private community based on this plan.
We will be providing additional enhancement and security to the area through an increased amount
of lighting for both the platform and the parking areas.
8
We hope to award the cantract for construction in June 1993, and are hoping to begin construction
in September 1993,with service to begin on Dec�mber 6, 1993.
We aze requesting the conversion of Atchison St. to a 'ONE-WAY' northbound from a point
approximately I40 ft. north of the intersection of Atchison/Chapman up to its ternunus at Maple.
This is needed for parking enhancement for the future development of a restaurant at the depot site.
This also creates a circulation pattern withia the depot lot that allows for a far more efficient
vehicular movement.
Additionally we are requesting the elimination of on-street parking on Atchison from Cypress to
Maple,this request comes from the need to provide ample street width for emergency vehicles.
We axe also requesting you designate the fiype of parking that will be allowed within the 5 8 stall
pazking lot within the depot as the following:
DESIGNATION # STALLS DESIGNATION # STALLS
HANDICAPPED 6 VAN POOL 2
SHORT TERM or 15 MiNUTE 6 2 HOUR Remaining Stalls
We are requesting the installation of a mid-blocl� crosswalk to channel pedestrian traf Fic across
Atchison to the transit opportunities we have provided. Accompanying the aforementioned
crosswalk we are also requesting that you approve the insta.11ation of a mid-block STOP sign, which
will protect pedestrians while using the crosswalk as well as facilitating the movement of busses
and vehicles through the site.
As part of the bus "turn around" area we are requesting you designate westbound Maple Ave.
between Atchison and Cypress for 'BUS ACCESS ONLY', the eastbound egress will not be
restricted for that move. 'That will prevent private vehiclzs from entering into the bus "turn
around"area via Maple Ave.
We are also requesting the rernoval of on street parking fram Maple Ave. between Atchison and
Cypress to allow the busses ample street width to safely maneuver.
Also at the bus "tum around" area we are requesting that it be posted for BUS PA�ING ONLY'
within the loop itself.
As part of this project we are looking at moving four bus routes that currently meet at
GlasselUAlmond and we are requestirig tha,t they be moved up to the depot site at Atchison and
Maple. -
1) Route 53 cunenily goes along LaVeta turning up Glassell proceeds up through the plaza and
continues north. We are requesting that the S3 stay on Glassell through the he plaza and it make a
left turn on Maple and access the new depot "tum around" come back out Maple and tum
northbound again on Glassell and continue it's original route. Obviously the southbound commute
it south on Glassell, right turn on Maple through the "turn around"back out Maple to Glassell and
again continue southerly. In conjunction with this route change we are asking for the removal of
the bus stops at the northeast and southwest comers of AlmoncUGlassell, it is our belief that these
stop's are no longer necessary given the reloca.tion of the bus route.
9
�_ 2) Route 54 travel in an eas#-west direction. It goes south on Main St. and then easterly on Almond
where it turns north on Grand and back east on Chapman to continue it easterly route. We are
requesting that it be moved from Almond between Main and Grand up to Chapman, this would
require the elimination of the bus stop's at GlasselUAlmond and Almond/Lemon. We will be
adding bus stops at the corner of Main/Chapman and also in the proximity of Bata.via/Chapman,
a11 four of these bus stops cunentiy have bus turn-outs available to them so there is no requirement
for removing any parking. As a bus comes east on Chapman it would turn north at the signal on
Lemon and make a left turn on Maple, go through the depot area and come back, then turn south
again on Lemon and continue back easterly through the plaza and back to its existing route.
For the return westbound trip again they would be coming down Chapman, turn north on Glassell
to Maple and make a left tum going through the depot loop around, down Lemon and back out to
the west. ,
Chairman Yarger-With Route 53 you suggested to remove the bus stop at AlmondlGlassell, and
you anticipating those people will move all the way up to the depot site to get the bus?
Doug,Keys-We have anticipated,,through studies we have reviewed that the bulk of the traffic and
the people that ride the buses that access Almond/Glassell are coming from the Chapman area,that
stop is a transfer location for four different routes so it's riot just one route that changes.
3) Route 59 cunently goes to Santa Ana via Grand St., into Orange via Glassell St. and similar to
Route 53 it goes tha�ough the plaza and continues north,this route serves the Mall of Orange. We
� would like to bring this route up to Almond where it turns left to go westerly to Lemon then
northerly into the depot site via Lemon where it will turn on Maple, go through the loop back
arourrd on Maple where it turns northbound anto Glassell to get back to its existing route.
The southbound trip on Glassell the bus would make a right turn on Maple going through the depot
area coming down Lemon then left on Almond and then south again on Glassell. The reason we
wanted to keep this route on Almond is that we wanted to make sure that our seniar citizens are
provided with as much opporlunity to access public transit as possible, as we have the senior
center adjacent to Almond/Olive. This would elimina.te the bus stop at the northeast corner of
GlasselUAlmond and the southwest corner. We ha.ve added bus stops 60 ft. to the west of Olive
and Glassell and there is an existing stop at Almond/Lemon which will remain as it is.
4) Route 69 goes up Glassell and turns to go east on Chapman where it turns north again at Tustin �
and continues on to the Mall of Orange. We are proposing the bus go north on Glassell through
the plaza coming out at Maple,malce a left turn through the depot parking area around and back ta _
Lemon then down to Chapman left back through the plaza and continuing on it's route. The
reverse westbound trip is west on Chapman north on Glassell west on Maple back through.
Commissioner Sciarra-Would all these busses be converging on the depot at one time?
Doug Keys - No sir. These busses are currently time-checked and coordinated at
Almond/Glassell. Through the help of the transit division at OCTA, there will be new schedules
revised to meet the run times to, hopefully, maintain the same sort of time-check and schedule as
possible. �bviously with them going out of their way there might be a minute or two delay. In
our plan we have provided a queuing area in the even� �at more busses arrive than we had
anticipated, within the 'turn around' area we provide an a�rea for 4 busses to layover, and also on
the north side of Maple there is room available for 2 additiona.l busses if that should occur. If by
some chance the train were late by 10 minutes, the fixed route busses would not layover and wait
for the train. We have two market development busses assigned to us by OCTA(dial-a-ride bus)
which will used to serve one specific employment center, specifically one bus would take . -
commuters from the train depot site down to the City Shopping Center area while another would
take commuters into the Town&Country area serving Nexus and those employers.
10
Chairmarr Yarger opened the public hearing for the following discussion of
this request.
John Aschieris -401 W. Chapman Ave. -I had the benefit of ineeting with Jere Murphy about a
month or so ago and he presented the plans, as they existed at �hat time, for the traf�ic
configuration. The plan was to retain some on-street parking along Atchison. There have been
changes since then and now you are requesting to remove that parking, I have concerns for my
tenants that occupy my property. I think my property is the only one on the block between Maple
&Chapman that does not have parking available anywhere except along Atchison. What might be
good for traffic flow apparently is not good for my property in terms of parking so I would hope
for the ability to retain some of the parking alc�ng Atchason, if that not being the case I'm curious if
there is some possibility to encourage my tenants to use the parking lot between Lemon and
Cypress,which as I understand is restricted to 2 Hour parking only.
Bernie Dennis - The Lemon St. parking lot is currently designated into 2 types of parking
restrictions. Although there are 1�5 stalls available, roughly about 1/2 of that is allocated to
'PERMIT'parking which allows them to park in excess of the posted time limit and it was set up
specifically for employees of adjacent businesses. Simplisticatl� stated, the 2 Hour limit is set up
in the municipal lots For the shoppers and those people doing business in the area, the parking
pernut program with unlimited parking is set up for employees.
� John Aschieris-Do you have to purchase these permits?
Bernie Dennis-Yes, currently they cost$120 per year.
Chairman Yarger-You are at 401 W. Chapman Ave. where the Custom Rod shop is located?
John Aschieris-That is cortect.
Chairman Yarger-What is the southwest corner used for, isn't that parking for the business? Isn't
there on-site parking provided for the business?
John Aschieris -The southwest corner of the site is a car lot, it doesn't beiong to the Custom Rod
shop. It is a separate tenant.
Chairrnan Yarger-Can they utilize any of that space for parking?
John Aschieris-I'm not familiar with Cheir operation of that business.
Chairman Yar�er-I used to have a business across the street years ago and I remember that part
of the property as being used for parking. �
Bernie Dennis - I tlaink your statement is absolutely correct. It is unlikely in my estimation that
given the type of business that exists on the comer that you would get clients to do that. Again it
would seem to me that tlie real opening up of the area would be to try and get the employees to go
up to the Lemon St. lot which is not really an inconvenience for them, the customers remain
another type of problem.
John Aschieris -I did discuss that with one of my teriants and he indicated that he was not eager to
buy parking permits for his employees on a regula.t� basis, although if that's what you had to do
then that's what you have to do.
Bernie Dennis - Without being flippant, he dces have the opportunity to provide parking on his
own site which we require of any business in the city. --
11
��. John Aschieris - Historically, it wasn't too long ago that those businesses enjoyed parking on
Chapman which was taken away from them. That created a small problem because customers
that were used to entering of.Chapman were no longer able to do so but they w�re allowed to park
on Atchison and Cypress and now apparently that parking is also being threatened and it just seems
that little by little their businesses are being made more dif�'icult to operate successfully.
Rand�Ema- 142 N. Cypress St. -Staff has done a very good job of keeping me aware of what is
going oa with this project. My only concern right now, since this is the first time I've heard of
moving the existing bus stop from Maple/Glassell to the new depot, is has anyone done relative to
the Police Department,a review of what the potential harm might be by the increase of transients in
that area?
Doug Keys - Mr. Ema introduces a valid point. Through our dealings with the MetroLink
organization one of the things that will be occurring here at our commuter rail site is that besides
the securifiy provided by the presence of the OPD on a ragular patrol, we will also have the benefit
of additional security provided through a contractual arrangement with the MetroLink organization
provided by the Los .Angeles County Sheriffs Dept. There is a forthcoming MOU that will be
passed along to our Police Dept.so they can coordinate their activities.
Relative to transients and their preponderance with bus stops. We do not have any information
that woutd give us a handle on exactly how many people are transients versus how many bus riders
you have. In staffs opinion while observing the bus stops, we find the bulk of people waiting for
busses certainly are not transients. However,there seems to be a misconception, for instance, and
I'm talking about the time-check in the bus layover area at AlmondlGlassell; if somebody sees
another person waiting for a bus in excess o�15 minutes they assume "they're not waiting for a bus
they're just a transient,"that's not always the case,often they do have to wait 15-20 minutes for the
transfer, so we do not see the people sitting on these benches as being transients. Certainly at
night when busses aren't rurming'you have a problem where transients are looking for shelter and a
bus stop provides as much shelter as some of the other amenities that are out there; but throu,gh our
increased lighting, the presence of the OPD and with the additional security provided by the L.A.
County Sherif�s Dept.we think we are adequately covered.
Suzanne Ramani representin�,Mr David Visconi-403 W. Chanman Ave. -Like the previous man
said that particular business is different from any other businesses directly impacted by this depot
in that the only access to their lot is from Atchison, they don't have pass-thxough access onto
Cypress as mast of the ather businesses do. 1"he situation the dealership is now having is that they
utilize 5-6 parking spaces along Atchison St. for customer parking when they come to look at
different vehicles that are for sale. That is one of the major coneerns that they have right now,the
ability for the customers to get in and out of the area to view the vehicles, and the plan for the
depot seems to impact that greatly. It-seems to-take-into-account-alot-of the traffc problems that _
the depot will have,but all the businesses along Atchison are going to be extremely impacted if this
becomes a one-way street and they are forced to ga around the bus depot area to get out.
#2 - When Chapman was recently widened they eliminated alot of parking along Chapman and
they also took some of the sidewalk area that the car lot utilized for vehicles within the lot. So
they have lost space not only there but now they are forced to have 4-5 employee parking spots as
well as custpmers they will lose about half of their car lot just to parking. While I understand
there is a responsibilifiy on the part of the employer to provide parking I think the nature of the
businesses in the Ora.�ge circle,the majorifiy of them,�utilize on-street parking for the most part.
12
-. #3 - The blockage of the street during this construction which they previously experienced when
Chapman was worked on. Atchison was blacked aff for a time or there was just one-way access
on Atchison to the dealerships and they could get through there and then pass out through Maple or
Cypress,but there is a great concem now with the depot construction because this is a much larger
project that the ability to pass through will be severely impacted, and it may be blocked off
altogeiher during the constructian. While they certa.inly understand that redevelopment of the
depot site is in the best interest of the city there are alot of small businesses right in that area that
don't seem to be taken into consideration because they may not utilize the train for transportation to
and from work as the larger businesses in the area would. It just seems that maybe there should
be a little more study as far as tra�ff'ic problems with the sma.11er businesses in the area, in addition
to the traffic control problem with the depot. All these businesses still have lease payments to
make to their landlords while this construction is going on, and by impacting the parking and
traffic control in that area they will.be extremely impacted to continue business.
Chcrirman Yarger closed the public hearing and returned the item to the
Conamission for their closing discussion andlor a motion.
Commissioner Lemin�-What's wrong with the Cha.irman's concept of making Atchison a one-way
street and leaving the parking in the area that ha.d been an extra lane? Why do you want the cars
coming back out the Chapman along Atchison, is it because you want all that traffic going up with
• the buses?
Bernie Dennis-This was done strictly in deference to the businesses on the street. As you can see
Atchison is a pretty minimal width street anyway at 32 ft. Legally there shouldn't be any parking
on the street right now, it's 2 ft. below standard.
Chairman Yarger-How many buses do you anticipate will be utilizing the turnaround area within
a 24-hour period?
Bernie Dennis-223 total vehicles within a 24-hour period. .
Jere Mumhv, Planning Dept. -One of fihe bene�its of reta.ining the two-way use of Atchison would
be the substantial amount of traffic coming from the west on Chapman turning left onto Atchison
and wanting to return westbound on Chapman. If they were required to go north on Atchisan after
making a stop in the parking lot that would talce them all the way up to Maple and then they would
have to go around the block down the Cypress and then right on Chapman again.
Chairman Yarger-That's only a block,it's nat that long of a�rip.
Bemie Dennis - One of the things the Commission may want to consider and this certainly is not
traffic related, would be for the ultimate viability of the depot site for commercial us.e sitting on a
shart one-way street. .
Chairman Yarner •You mean the future possibility of a restaurant? That's in the future, these
people have been in business here for some years,we don't even know if a restaurant is going in. I
ha.ve problems jeopardizing these people's parking and business for a potential restaurant coming in
and either being a success or a failure,I think we should be fair to the people alrea.dy there.
13
Bernie Dennis -I think the sta.ff in their own way recognize that. Our first speaker indicated that
our original proposal showed parking on Atchison and as you will remernber from various
presentations we have always shown that. As far as the Traffic Engineering Dept. is concerned.
we felt that would be the best of all situations. The difficulty arises with the Fire Dept. who say in
this kind of a condition they have to have 20 ft. of unobstructed clearance, we can get it within the
street section; an 18 ft. roadway which would be typical of any residential street in the city, i.e., a
10 f�. travel lane and an 8 ft. parking lane,but there is no way that we can generate 28 ft., that's
our problem.
Chainnan Yar�,er -The lane that is shovcm here between the existing park and where some of the
parking is at the south end of the depot parking lot, can any of the parking be moved further west
to pick up more parking for the depot to help widea that street? Going west, take some of the
parking and move it straight westerly, what's the feasibility of moving it that way to give more
width in the street where they could pick-up some more on-street parking? '
Bernie Dennis -That could only happen to this point because here you're involved with an existing
building and the parking can't move. During the course of our preliminary design we considered
the impact of moving into the park area,which we can get, but we're trying to also accomplish the
restoration of the park. I know perha.ps that is not the trade off for a park, for e�mple, if you
went with a parking bay in this area the maximum width we could generate is another 3 ft., and if
we go any further than that we are involved with some very large trees that would require full
� removals,which is another situation you may wish to review.
Chairman Yarger -I hate to see green belt's go, but years ago before I moved my business down
the street, that park was never used with the exception of some unfortunate homeless people. If
we could use any of the park to pick-up some additional parking to assist some of the businesses if
we could shift some of that parking to widen that area to accommodate the Fire Dept. requirements
and leave some on-street parking,or maybe work out a deal where we could put some parking over
there strictly for some of these businesses.
Bernie Dennis -If we close the half street up our gain is 16 ft., now with parallel parking that will
get you probably 5 stalls. The concept of any kind of angle parking won't be achieved, the most
we can get into the park reasonably, without arousing the tree preservationists, is 3 ft. so we could
end up with 19 ft. on that side of the street. Now you can have parallel parking, again on a first-
come-first-served basis,we cannot use angle parking,we cannot physically make it work.
Dou�Keys - One of the concerns relative to designating the southerly end one-way northbound
only,is that there is then only one way out, at the north end; and that's also where we have this bus
tum-around. W�were just told that there are about 223 operations during a 24-hour period, not
only commuter rail patrons but also the business employees and their patrons would have to stop
mid-block and wait for buses, which will not stop,they will have to wait for the buses so actually
we are forcing more vehicles into fihe conflict position.
Bernie Dennis-The CTC may wish to consider,and I assume you have no groblems with the other
suggestions proposed; you may wish to pass along a recommendation to the City Council that
might inctude 3 options,in any manner you desire:
1) Parking be retained,in the most part,on the east side of Atchison.
2) Atchison becomes one-way northbound with the residuai 16 ft. southbound lane
becoming some type of paxking;and.
3) Install a parking bay on the west side of Atchison north of Chapman adjacent to the park.
14 •
� RECOMMENDATTON: That the CTC,by motion APPR�VE the other suggestions made
by staf�r�gardirig the crosswalks,bus route relocation's,etc. a,r�d that w�forward these 3 option on
parking to the Council. Further we recommend that staff talk with these two business owners and
attempt to assist them in keeping as much of their on-street parking as possible.
MOTION: J. Fortier
SECOND: B. Leming
AYES: Unanimous
E. Request to close Bronson Ave. at Bedford Rd.
Carl Clugston
573 S. Devon Rd.
Orange, CA 9266�
Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Chairman
Yarger ope�ed the public hear�ing for the following discussion of this request
Chairman Yarger-The new curb, gutter and sidewa.lks, if the street were to be closed , would be
the responsibility of the residents, is that correct?
Chuck Giass-That is correct,that would be a condition of the abandonment.
; Stan Smith • 592 S. Bedford Rd. -I don't understand what he's saying about me having to re-cut
my driveway. I believe this closure is a necessary change for the improvement of the
neighborhood because people will turn into the residential neighborhood rather than at the signal,
or going 4n down LaVeta to Main St. and then on to MainPlace. We're already encountering alot
of traffic problems from the Mall; closing the street here will keep people from getting into this
residential neighborhood.
Bernie Dennis -I don't doubt there are people getting to MainPlace via the neighborhood streets,
but the question I have are they there by accident or are they there on purpose?
Stan Smith-They're there to a�oid that light.
Chuck Glass - If this were abandoned we would want to have the curb and the extension of the
sidewalk moved. We would want easements through here which could not built upon. Another
thing to consider is how access would be served to these two existing garages now that this curb is
put in. Either a new driveway would have to be installed or maybe access from both properties
would be from Crest Rd., in which case there would have to be recripocal easements between the
property own�rs in order to gain access in this manner. A closure using the abandonment process
would have to be initiated by either of these two properiy owners and not by the petition you have
received,this petition says "let's put a barricade across the street somewhere,"that we are opposed
to.
Stan Smith - I never knew they would close Crest, I was under the impression they would close
Bronson and that would a11ow access to both these properties via Bronson which are accessible if
you don't close Crest. If you close Bronson you don't have any problem with access or driveways
that have to be changed or relocated.
15
Bernie Dennis - If we abandon either or both ends of Bronson, and we would only abandon it
between Crest and Bedford that whole section, it's going to stop loolEing like a street. It becomes
the responsibility and in a sense the property of the adjacent residents. In your case what is now
Bronson would become the access or driveway to your garage, but you would not be able to
continue on through to Crest. The resident on Crest would have exactly the mirror image of that,
.. Bronson would become his driveway going back to his garage.
Stan Smith-That's the only way you could do it,you can't just close off Bronson at Bedford?
Bernie Dennis - Were you to do something like that I wauld first suggest that you contact an
attorney, that would be #1 because wha.t you're going to end up doing is giving each other
recripocal access rights. Let's say the street was closed at Crest, you now have control of this
street ea.sement, what would have to happen is that the resident an Crest would have to have the
"right"to cross your property to get to his garage. If you clased it off at Bedford then he would
have to grant you that same right.
Stan Smith-I don't think there would be any problem with us granting each other that right;I think
I understand the access rights issue as I have a Califomia Real Estate license.
Bernie Dennis - That's why I suggest that you talk to your attorney first because there is more
involved than just this,that runs with the land forever. It is a very strong possibility at some point
in time that Bedford Rd. will be widened as will be the bridge crossing the SR-22 Freeway. When
this happens the properties on the west side of Bedford will be impacted, I don't know to what
extent yet,they could be severed, severely severed or they could be full takes.
Stan Smith-I don't have a problem with maintaining that property if it were deeded to me since I'm
already out sweeping the streets and trimming the hedges at the bridge as it is. I would make sure
it looked nice and I would make sure the other awner/tenant did the same.
Crai�Wetzer-533 S. Crest Rd. =1"he people at 591 S. Crest don't use their garage, it's converted
into another room so to close Bronson at Crest is not a good idea because on the side they use that
as their driveway, and there is no reason to clase off the street at Crest. If you close off the street
could you install a 'KEEP CLEAR' pavement legend/sign at CrestlLaVeta so we can make a left
tum from LaVeta onto Crest because when Bedford/LaVeta traffic is backed up nobody is going to
let us through to make that left turn. And maybe install a'NOT A TI-�U STREET" sign at LaVeta
and Crest also.
Chairman Yarger - Before we go to the expense of a street closure I would suggest we install
directional signs for MainPlace shopgers along LaVeta Ave. d.irected eastbound having them make
a right tum on�edford and also putting in the 'NOT A THIZU STREET signs as well. Would we
have any legal problem putting in'NQT A TF�tU STREET'signs on Crest and Devon at LaVeta?
Bernie Dennis •That's not something we do as a common practice. Maybe you should consider
that there is going to be an enormous amount of traffic on LaVeta, if you are successful in getting
Bronson closed you are going to ha.ve serious difficulty getting out onto La.Veta from your two
cross-streets. I can install two white lines on the street that say 'KEEP CLEAR' and may it will
work and maybe it won`t,we're talking about an increase in traf'�ic volume on that street of almost
twice what is out there now. It would seem that one approach to this would be to Iet us go ahead
and install directional signs for MainPlace,which will take care of the shoppers;I think if you have
a problem it's really with the Mall's employees. As to the rest maybe we should wait to see what
ha.ppens when we re-open LaVeta and shut down Main St.
Carl Clus�ston- 573 S. Devon Rd. -Why don't we wait 3U days until after the Main St. bridge is
down and see how the traffic is,and also after the MainPlace directional signs get installed. -
lb
--; Commissioner Lemin�-I'm not inclined to leave this as a hanging item, I agree with Bernie, if you
close this off you may not be able to get out onto LaVeta. I think the best thing to do is to follow
staffs recommendation and deny the closure at this time, however, the MainFlace directional sign
installation may benefit.
RECOMMEI�DATION: That the CTC,by motion DENY the request to close Bronson Ave.
at Bedford Rd. and install MainPlace direction signs eastbound along LaVeta Ave.
MOTION: B. Leming
SECOND: D.Yarger
AYES: Unanimous
IV. QRAL PRESENTATICINS
At the conclusion of the meeting of itetns listed on this agenda,members of the public may address
the City Tra�c Commission regarding items of interest to the public that are within the subject
jurisdiction of the CTC.
1) Chairman Yarger-I would like to agendize for next month's meeting, an exploration into parking
removai from Colims Ave. east of Wanda Rd. Right now, at that sign�al, there are two lanes then
it drops down to one lane and then re-opens to two lanes. Perhaps we could remove parking and
� make it two lanes all the way through for safety purposes.
Bernie Dennis - That parti�ular section of roadway is within the City of Villa Park's jurisdiction,I
will contact them and discuss that subject.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Discussion of all of today's agenda items before the City Tra�ffic Commission being complete, and
there being no further requests for action under Oral Presentations, Chairman Yarger adjourned
this session of the CTC to it's next regular meeting, scheduled for June 9, 1993.
Time of adjournment-6:15 p.m.
RespectfuUy bmitted,
� 1��� i �. .
Phyl i en
Recording Secretary
Tra�c Engineering Division
File Name: MAY.CTC
17