Loading...
04-11-1984 - Minutes TC 9��"' CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Apri1 11, 1984 : AGENDA MOTION MINUTES ROLL CALL FRESENT Commissioners: �. Shaw, M. Baumann, D. Smith, D. Turner Staff: B. Dennis, P. Kelley, Lt. Dawson ABSENT Commissioners : D. Yarger APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION D. Turner SECOND D. Smith Meetin,g of March 14, 1984 AYES Unanimous � ------------------------------------- --��--------------------------------------- C0�ISENT CALENDAR A. 100 S. Glassell Street Request for Loading 7one Carrol C. Johr�son � Vern Osborn Downtown Business Association 100 S. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92666 RECOMMENDATION: Removed and heard separately B. 1312/1322 W. Grove Avenue Request for D.�,iveway Clearance Zone William Cole �� 1312 W. Grove Avenue Orange, CA 92665 � RECOMMENDATION: Approve C, 121 E, Sycamore Avenue Request for Driveway Clearance Zone Residents Jill Edelstein, Dawn Baro 121 E. SyCamore Avenue ` Orange, CA 92666 RECOMMENDATION: Approve CITY TRAFFIC CO�ISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING . a April 11, 1984 Page 2 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES�,. CONSENT CALENDAR CON'T. D. 321 E. Lincoln Request for Driveway Vision Zone Bette Brookshire Mgr. , El Patio Apartments #1 321 E. Lincoln Orange, CA RECOMMENDATZON: Approve MOTION D. Smith SECOND D. Turner AYES A. 100 S. Glassell Street Staff presented the report. Historically, Request for Loadin,g Zone the staff has been supportive in the various Carrol C. Johnson restricted parkin�g requests emanating from Vern Osborn within the downtown plaza area and we have Downtown. Business Association no serious objections to the proposed 100 S. Glassell Street changey However, this particular location Orange, CA 92666 is within the "choice" parking area, and the Council, Commission and particularly RECOMMENDATION: Deny request for the downtown business community should be loading zone at 40 Plaza Square aware that for ever s ecial y p. purpose parking restriction that we impose either in the street or within the municipal parking lots for a particular business � d concern, we are denying the use of that �arking area for potential customers or . clients of other businesses. It is, difficult to understand why freight deliverie� cannot be scheduled during off-peak parking periods or that the c�.emand for the pick-up and delivery of rep:aired. merchandise is so great that one "choiCe" parking stall should be devoted on a full time basis for that purpose. Recommendation: Den;y request for loading � zone at 40 P1aza Square (Clocl�s Americ�na) MOTION D. Smith , SECOND D. Turner . � AYES Unani.mous . ¢ CITY TRAFFIC CO?�IISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING . April ll, 1984 Page 3 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1. 300/400 N. Shattu�k Place Staff presented the report. The City Request for 2-hour parking restric ion removal Traffic Commission received petitions from (Petitions) each of the 300 and 400 blocks of N. Shattuck Thomas Dunn Place requesting removal of the 2-hour 462 N. Shattuck P1.ace - parking restriction. This item was first Orange, CA 92666 heard by. the Traffic Comrnission at its June 8, 1983 meeting in conjunction with George McFarland a similar request by petition for the 344 N. Shattuck Place 1500f1600. bloCks of E. Palm Avenue. Eight Orange, CA 92666 of the original signers requesting the 2-hour parking prohibition are now opposed to the RECOMMENDATION: Approve request restriction. The City of Orange has a policy for 2-hour parking restriction of establ.ishing these types of parking removal restrictions when sufficient citizen interest is expressed. This policy is further amp'lified in that the same type of p,a�rking restriction can also be removed if ther� is sufficient �citizen opposition. The quali- fication to this policy is th�.t the City will establish the restriction once and remove � it once. Thereafter no action will� be . taken. The City staff would have no opposition to removal of the 2-hour parking restriction. City staff also requests that � the Commission make clear to the applicants the .City policy regarding this type of . parking restriction. . Recommendation: Approve request for 2-hour parking restriction removal. MOTION G. Shaw SECOND D. Turner AYES Unanimous 2. Lewis Street - El Ran.cho to Lampso Staff presented the report. Lewis Street Request for Channelization Modific tion � is a four (4) lane secondary arterial street. Dorothy Rose The over crossing of the Garden Grove Fwy Manager, Palm Tree Garden Apartmen s (22) presents a superelevation and a 764 Fondren � ' curvelinear roadway to the motorist. Orange, CA 92668 , Pedestrian�walkway.s areAprovided on either side of the over crossing with protective RECOMMENDATION: Continue to barriers separating the pedestrian walkway May 9th meeting. Staff to from the actual travel lanes. The posted investigate visibility problem. speed limit for Lewis Street is 35 mph with an 85th percentile. speed of 46 mph. . � t - __. . .. - . CITY TRA.FFIC CO?�MISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1984 Page 4 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES CONSIDERA�'ZON ITEMS CON'T. El Rancho is a local residential street and forms a tee interseCtion with Lewis Street from the east and is stop controlled for westbound vehicles. The applicant indicated � five (5) di.fferent areas of request: o Bike lane striping o Right turn lane � o Signalization o Speed bumps o Curb return modification Curb return modification: This item is design related and has been forwarded to the City Design-Section for .review, � Speed bumps: The City has a policy of not placing obstructi�n (speed bumps) within the public right of way as they tend to make any roadway a hazard in several respects. Recommend the denial of placing speed bumps �vith.in th.e alleys in�.icated by the applicant. Signalization; Field review of the inter- section did not reveal excessive use of the a�vailable on-street parking, Accident h%story at this location does not indicate any reported accidents in the past year (1983�to present) . The problem indicated - appe�.rs to be more.of a sight distance v�sability rath�� than right Qf way problems. Rig�it turn lane; Th.�s request appears to h�.ve been p�omp�ed by the inability of the motorist exiting El Rancho to observe north- bound Lewis Street traffic. The establish- ment of a right turn lane n�rthbound Lewis Street at El Rancho would aff�r.d the north- bound motarist wishing to make a right turn at El Rancho the availability to separate from the normal northbound traffic flow, . It would not, however, increase the ability of El Rancho tr�.ffic to detect acceptable gaps in the nor�hbound traffic flow allowing them to complete their intended left turn movement. The addition of this "third" lane would effectively place a vehicle (northbound mal�in� a right turn) directly in the line of sight of the westbound E1 Rancho �notorist. � � f - , CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1984 Page 5 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES _ CONSIDERATION ITEMS C�N'T. Bike lane striping: It should be noted that establishing a bike lane on one side of a street is ineffective because it only allows for bicycl.e use in one_ direction. To be eritirely useful, 'a bike lane would need to be established for both sides of a given street. Lewis Street between El Rancho and . Metropol.itan is si�ty-four (64) feet with the exception of the over crossing of the Garden Grove Freewa� which is only fifty-six (56) feet. Along this reach of Lewis Street the critical area is at the over crossing. The characteristics o.f this over crossing (i.e.__, superelevation and curvelinear alignment) create problems if a bike lane is introduced to the existing channelization. If a bike Yane were established along Lewis Street it would require sixty feet of width. There is in.sufficient width withi,n the over crossing area to accomplish this, The possible reduction �f. travel lanes to permit the required bike l.�.nes would tend to increase potential problems for the motorist because of the curvelinear alignment� of the roadway. The staff recommendation would be to deny the request for a striped bike lane on Lewis Street between El Rancho � and Lampson/Metropolitan. Additionally, Staff � would recommend that the visibility problems indicated by the applicant at the inter- section of El Rancho and Lewis be addressed at the next T�affic Commission meeting. Speaking in favor of the request was: Richard Klunk, Owne� Palm Tree Apartments His concerns were: o Speed of vehicles o Block wall °�ou1d be modified for �better vision Recommendation: Continue to May 9th meeting. Staff_ to inv�stigate visib.ility problem. MOTION D, Turner SECOND M. Baumann AYES Unanimous • CITY TRA.FFIC CONIMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1984. Page 6 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES CONSZDERATION TTEMS CON'T. � 3. Walnut Avenue and Center Street Staff presented the report. Center Street Request for Flashing Warning Signa is a north-south 1oca1 residential street John Farmer with a travelway width �f thirty-four (34) Chapman College feet curb to curb. Walnut Avenue is an 333 N. Glassell east-west local residential street with a Orange, CA 92666 travelway width of thirty-four (34) feet - � curb to curb in the subject area. The RECOMMENDATION: Deny request intersection of Center Street and Walnut for flashing warning signal. Avenue is two-way STOP controlled, cross- Upgrade existin�.crosswalk with intersection (4 legs) . Vehicles northbound reflective ma�kers and markings and southbound on Center Street are required to increase the night visibility, to stop before entering the intersection, The accident history at the-'rntersection of Center Street and Walnut Aventa� indicates one (1.) reported accident at the intersection in the past twelve months. 4-22-83 @ 1944 sideswipe, property damage only. Field observations revealed that crossings occurred at random times throughout the day and night and at random locations along Walnut Avenue between Orange Street and Center Street. This particular request was broached at the Noveznber 9, 1983 meeting of the City Traffic � Commission while consir3ering the request for four-way ST�P controls at the subject location. At that�time the investigation indicated that four-way STQP control was - not warranted .but as an aid to the College a mark.ed Crosswalk on Walnut. Avenue with appropriate signing/snarkings was approved. Since that time, there has been little change in the characteristics for the �ubject locat'ion. City statf is reluc�ant to �. suggest the e.xpenditur� of $11,000 to $18,000 at this location �'or a pedestrian warning flasher with the close proXimity of a four-way STOP controlled intersection one block to the east, The observed randoni street crossing characteristics of the pedestrians seem to indicate an underuse of the existing lighted, marked crosswalk. Recommendation of �staff: The request for a flashing warning signal on Walnut Avenue at Center Street be denied. Additionally, � City crews to upgrade the existing crQsswalk with reflect'ive markers and markings to increase the night visibility. . - , . __. , ._.'. . CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1984 Page 7 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES CONSIDERATION ITEMS CON'T. Those speaking in favor: . Miles Pruitt William Peters from Chapman College � Concerns indicated: o- Poor night visibility o Chapman College wi11 attempt to improve random crossing ��oblem with on-site improvemen�s Recommendation: Deny request for flashing warn.ing signal. Upgrade existing crosswalk with reflective ma�kers and markings_ to increa.se the night visibility MOTZON G. Shaw SECOND D. Turner AYES Unanimous 4. Chapman College (Perimeter resi- Staff presented th� repo�t. The proposal by dential streets) Chapman College is f�r the City to relinquish Request for Permit Parking control of curb parking on �ertain streets Lt. Miles Pr�xitt adjacent to their facilities and through a Chapman College parking pass �rogram relegate these curb- 333 N. Glassell side par_king areas for the exclusive use Orange, CA 92666 of the college ar�d ,through the utilization of their security department, to enforce the RECOMMENDATION: Deny .request for , parking (pass/permit) regulations. It permit parkin,g. Encaurage Chapman cannot :in its proposed format be recommended College to pursue utilization of as: college owned prop.erty for the l. The streets in question are public development of additional parking, facilities. Deleg.atinn of their use for areas for their students, other than public purposes is a direct violation of the �overnment Code and could ' (and would) be construed as .a gift of . public funds. 2. As the streets are public facilities, the ' Chapman College Security Department has absolutely no pc�lice powers on the streets other than as private citizens. 3. Parking permits are sold by the City, on a first come., first served b�.sis, and are applicable ONLY in the Municipa� Parking Lots on Olive and Orange Streets. � There is no rental fee or rental a.rrange- ment with the downtown merchants. CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING page 8 April ll, 1984 AGENDA MOTION MINUTES . CONSIDER.ATZON ITEMS CON'T. , Additional aspects of �he request: l. Implementation of a curb-side permit program of any kind would undoubtedly increase student and visitor parking in the adjacent residential areas. 2. Construction of the parking structure(s) committed to by the College and sub- seguently delayed for nearly ten years � while other facilities were built would undoubtedly alleviate the majority of Chapman's parkinq problems. Recommendation: Deny request for permit � parking. Encourage Chapman College to __ pursue utiliza�ti�n of College owned property for the development of additional parking areas for thei� stu�.ents. MOTION D� Turner SECOND G, Shaw AYE5 Unanimo�as Meeting adjourned 4:45 p.m.