12-10-2014 - Minutes TCCITY OF ORANGE
CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION
Minutes of a Regular Meeting: December 10, 2014
I. OPENING
A. Flag Pledge
B. Roll Call
Present - Commissioners: J. Beil, M. Lebeau, C. Vaughan
Absent - Commissioners: E. Glasgow
Present - Staff: A. Farahani, D. Hoard, D. Allenbach, Sgt. J. Bird, P. Then
Audience of 15
C. Approval of Minutes
1. November 19, 2014
ACTION: Not available at this time.
II. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
None this month.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
None this month.
City of
ran .�
Public Works Department E:� November [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] �� Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
IV. CONSIDERATION ITEMS
1. Request for the implementation of "2- Hour" time limit parking on both sides of
Waverly St. from Chapman Ave. to the southerly property lines of the
commercial properties addressed to 942 and 1006 E. Chapman Ave.
Fernando Montelongo, M.D.
932 E. Chapman Ave.
Orange, CA 92866
Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy.
Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
Bertie Chawla, 924 E. Chapman Ave. — (Opposed) I gave you a letter and I'll go
through that. I am essentially opposing the proposed parking restriction being
evaluated by the Commission today. We have vacated the building, we have
had our tenant with a 5 -year lease move out and the building is currently vacant.
The demand is coming from other offices, not from our office. We're trying to
sell the building for the last 3 months and we have had no offer. We have had
one person come in, a dentist, he went to the City and he was denied use by the
City because there is not sufficient parking. However, I would like to point out,
that when we bought the building it was a medical use. My question is if a new
tenant or owner comes and they can't use the building because it was formerly
used for that same purpose what are you going to do? Is the City going to not
allow those uses anymore on other properties which are the same uses up and
down Chapman? That's our concern. We are unable to sell the building or rent
the building at this time. The idea that the limited parking promotes safety is not
really supported by facts. If you have two -hour parking cars are going to move
in and out more frequently rather than a car being parked there, and cars line up
behind you to get into that spot so they will back up into the street. I don't think
having the cars there for 2 hours makes any sense. A car parked there longer is
probably safer than cars moving in and out of that street. Another issue,
previously the street was allowed for public parking, the residents complained
and they have the right to do so and they were correct. 90% of the street is now
restricted for parking, the only available parking is probably 11 spaces are
available. Up and down Chapman, up and down the Circle, and even the street
next door, we have the same issue here. If we allow this restriction to go through
does that mean it will do through all those other streets also? If this issue is
grang cffyf I
e o
wtik worVs DepaMM L� December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] ' Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
approved that will lead to more struggle among the owners for the parking space
which is available on their own lots because they can't park on the street
anymore. The previous parking restriction was approved when it went to the
City Council, I was not there but I was told the City Council; debated that for 1
hour and they very reluctantly approved the request, it was approved for 6
months as conditional approval. I don't think this current restriction helps
anybody. It helps perhaps one person but not the rest of us, I respectfully
oppose this.
Kent Robertson, 942 E. Chapman Ave - (Opposed) I also am an owner of 942 E.
Chapman Ave. I think the thing I would like to communicate to the
Commissioners is this, there was a problem here partly because of the tenants we
had in 942 of using the Villa parking on Waverly. We asked them to leave, it
took quite a bit of negotiating and they ultimately canceled their lease. We have
done everything we can do to mitigate the problem that we created. 1040 E.
Chapman, in that series of buildings, they are the ones currently parking there,
and they are the ones that were also parking further down Waverly, they had a
policy that their employees can't park in their parking lot they have to park on
the street. To the extent that we are trying to sell this building it will be a matter
of who can get to those spaces first during the day. We would like the new
owner of the building to be able to determine if they want to wrestle with the
people of 1040 E. Chapman or whether they would like to have this 2 -Hour
restriction. Somebody might prefer one over the other and we would prefer that
we not have anything currently; we can continue this to maybe another period of
time. The 3 buildings are not having any trouble with their own personal
parking because our building isn't using any of it so there isn't a problem for
those 3 buildings. It's not a problem for the residents; it's a temporary situation.
Vice - Chairman Vaughan - You're saying the problem is coming from the
employees of 1040, wouldn't the 2 -Hour restriction help with that because if the
employees want to park there, and they are working there, they would have to
park somewhere for more than 2 hours so that would free those spaces and make
them find parking somewhere else. Correct?
Kent Robertson, 942 E. Chapman Ave - Ultimately that is what I think Dr.
Montelongo is concerned about. He has patients coming and going to the extent
that he doesn't have enough parking or the 3 of us don't have enough parking
for a medical use in there. He would prefer that street be 2 -Hour parking so his
patients can come and go. That's what is really what is driving this application.
C ay . I
' ag A
wee was ompo,b—A Et7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] W Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
For us we would prefer not to fix that currently, it might be the best solution for
the new buyer but we would prefer if they open at 8 am and the doctor opens at
9 am they would be in a position to be able to part a couple of people on the
street and avoid the issue of the 2 -Hour parking. That's why we would prefer
this not be approved under the current situation where there isn't a problem for
parking within those 3 buildings, and later on when the new owners are there
they can decide what's best for them.
Vice - Chairman Vaughan - But that's unknown at this point yeah?
Kent Robertson, 942 E. Chapman Ave - Yes it's unknown.
Pamela Kaa, 144 S. Waverly St . - (In Favor) I would actually have thought the
whole thing would have been alleviated if it was permit parking the whole way
then the people at 942 building would have permit parking and they would be
able to have access to that which would alleviate the people on Chapman
parking there. I agree with Vice Chairman Vaughan said that if was 2 -Hour
parking then the people causing the problem wouldn't be coming over there.
I'm for permit parking the whole way then only the people who live on the street
would be able to park there. I think it's very dangerous coming around the
corner because it's just so congested there; it's very hard to get around the cars
coming the other way. I'm for the 2 Hour parking or for permit parking the
whole length of Waverly St.
Fernando Montelongo, M.D., 932 E. Chapman Ave - (In Favor) I've been a
tenant here since 1982 -83 and there was never a problem until the tenants at 942
E. Chapman moved in and caused a tremendous parking situation to develop,
they seem to forget that initially their proposal was 2 Hour parking for the whole
street, now they are opposing it. They seem to blame the tenants of 1042 E.
Chapman for the problem; the problem never existed until one of their tenants
had way too many employees for the parking and it caused a commotion to
develop. It's great that the property owners have safe parking in front of their
homes, if you look there now it's clean, its' safe and you can see if a child is
coming across, it's a lot safer. The problem continues though safety at the corner
at the northerly portion of Waverly when you turn from Chapman it's still being
utilized all day long by employees down the street. As you can see there are 4 -6
cars parked there all day, it's a problem that has been addressed. At the present
time it's just that portion that's being impacted. 2 Hour parking I think is
reasonable; I do not use it exclusively as Mr. Robertson mentioned. My
C-" of I
`lrang A.
E�7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] W Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
neighbor, Larry Caplin has employees and business associates there. They come
and go all day long. Whether this problem will develop on other side streets I
don't know, that certainly may be a possibility but I don't know if there are any
business buildings on Waverly with a Chapman address.
Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for
further discussion and a motion.
Chairman Beil - I loathe taking away parking but it's such a unique situation
given the fact that there are so many competing under parked businesses in the
area. I myself vacillate back and forth on.
Commissioner Lebeau - I too have been vacillating it seems as though each side
has weaknesses to their argument. I'm looking at a photograph posted and I see
about 4 -5 cars in the area that looks like it could hold 10 -12. Dr Montelongo just
a moment ago said there are 5 -6 cars that are problems that would seem to
comport with what the photograph is showing here. It's not looking like it's me.
Vice Chairman Vaughan - I remember when we went over this the first time and
I think the doctors were very cordial and well spoken and I think they came a
long way to come to a middle ground with the residents, and I liked what I
heard about everybody working together to the gentlemen who owned the other
business, I think they found that we're very amiable and capable of new things
that come up but I don't think the unknown right now to me is a concern because
they don't know who's going to be coming in or what the employee ratio will be
and whatever business, I don't think that should supersede what was previously
worked out with the doctors and I feel with the constant parking situation there I
think that the proposal is a good one and I'd like to support them. I'd like to
make a motion to support the 2 Hour Parking.
Chairman Beil - I do feel the proposal to implement 2 Hour Parking has merit
and it's really from the fact of all the competing under - parked businesses in the
area, particularly the businesses as the doctor mentioned. They aren't on
Waverly but front Chapman but seem to be under - parked as far as availability
for both the tenants, employees and any customers or visitors that have to come
in or out. I think the 2 Hour parking may be a good solution to open it up for all
the businesses in the area and not focus it on one business whose address is
Chapman but are fronting Waverly. I did hear the requests for parking permits; I
think we did a good job with what we recommended previously as far as the
Crtyof I
rang A.
wnbe works Depart—u L� December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] W Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
permits, just covering the residential area. We really don't want residential
parking permit areas into the business areas, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't
even think the businesses would be eligible for parking permits.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst — That is correct; businesses are not
eligible for parking permits, so if you are to continue that to Chapman none of
them would be able to park there legally.
ACTION: Approved the request to implement 2 -Hour parking on Waverly St.
from Chapman Ave. to the southerly property lines of the
commercial properties addressed to 942 and 1006 E. Chapman Ave.
MOTION:
Vaughan
SECOND:
Beil
AYES:
Unanimous
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
`g cit y of
rang A
NWw Works ne, t Et7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutest W Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
2. Request for installation of an "All -Way" STOP control at the intersection of
Palmyra Ave. and Kathleen Ln.
Phil Bystry
3022 E. Palmyra Ave.
Orange, CA 92866
Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy.
Chairman Beil opened the public hearing for the following discussion.
John Olsen, 3005 E. Palmyra Ave — (In Favor) There were 3 accidents in that
time period, the day after the December accident across the street, I suffered
significant property damage when a vehicle ran through my side fence on
Kathleen. My neighbor told me that you were unaware of that and I'm not sure
why because there were a couple of police officers there that night. That was a
hit & run accident. I'm in favor of the STOP sign because I don't know what else
to be in favor for because over the past 14 years and specifically after a time
period when traffic was diverted onto Palmyra as a alternative route when the
freeway interchange was being worked on I've seen a significant increase in
traffic and there is a lot of traffic going to the magnet school, sometimes it very
difficult to leave my driveway during certain time periods. The main concern
that I find is that it appears to be a segment of the people traveling through the
neighborhood that are on intent on Chapman and are using Palmyra as an
alternative route to Chapman and the impression I get is that the mind -set of
these drivers is they are trying to get someplace in a hurry and they are all
driving very fast. One of the things a STOP sign could address there, there are
STOP signs on either side there but the Kathleen is the access to Chapman and so
we have a lot of vehicles traveling east on Palmyra and making very quick turns
cutting into the oncoming traffic lane basically cutting off that whole corner
cutting up Kathleen so they can get up to Chapman. I see a lot of dangerous
behavior and dangerous driving in that area and if a STOP sign is not the answer
I would like to hear from the Traffic Commission on what the long term goals are
here because development is going to going to go further out on Chapman, there
are no major routes available to funnel that traffic there and I'm the next street
down and people are bailing on my street more and more.
Richard Hess, 308 S. Craig Dr . — (In Favor) I completely disagree with the traffic
count. I have called the police once or twice about the speeding and they came
out the next day and gave out a couple tickets to people going to the school and
rang A
PuWi, W.*. aw,Ut 2�7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] 'L O Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
then they haven't been back because they have other things to do. My concern is
not the STOP signs but fighting to get the STOP signs on Violet and Craig and
goind to City Council, it is now a throughway. I think when Mr. Allenbach did
the traffic count the magnet school wasn't in session at that time, probably.
Because his counts are completely wrong. People I've talked with are very
concerned with the speed and people are absolutely running the STOP sign. I
had a guy in a one -ton pickup with a welder in the back of his truck just sail
through Craig Dr., and I waved him toward the STOP sign and he gave me the
finger, people don't care. I want you to put in a deeper cross -gutter there that
would slow them down. I wanted to put in speed humps but the Fire Dept. oh
no this is a throughway, well it wasn't when I moved there and when I back out
of my driveway there have been times I've almost been hit by people turning
right. I've watched my neighbors on Palmyra wait, and wait and wait to get out
of their driveways because the traffic on Palmyra and I don't think it's fair that
the City has allowed and our traffic department Palmyra to be a primary
highway. It wasn't designed that way, when I moved there it wasn't that way
and when the Traffic Commission approved all those streets it wasn't designed
that way. It's just not right that the people that live in that neighborhood to have
traffic that we have on that street and the speeds that they go. I suggest that we
have get someone out there and clock the cars and date it and bring it to the City
Council but I don't want to get the City of Orange Police in trouble because they
don't have enough officers and I don't know what to do. I also disagree with Mr.
Allenbach because the line of sight at that corner coming east there is no line of
sight to the traffic going to the west, the line of sight is wrong.
Fred Smith, 277 S. Violet Ln . - (Opposed) While I agree with Mr. Allenbach to
not put another STOP sign up, I have to agree with my neighbors that we have a
very dangerous situation in the neighborhood. I remember years ago when
Mayor Coontz was Mayor, we had a lot of discussions about what we were
going to do with Palmyra, are we going to put up speed humps, STOP signs,
right turn only, I think we covered everything. We chose STOP signs and
frankly I was not really in favor of it, I've come to realize that we do have a very
dangerous traffic situation. The reason I cam tonight was to apprise Council
members of what I have already apprised Orange Police Dept. I've made a
couple of phone calls, maybe 3 this past year. I have two teenagers, one has
going off to college and one is a senior at El Modena HS, I have taken my kids to
school in the morning, I come back down Almond which is the short street
leading to Violet and my house is the last house on the left. I drive what I think
is an appropriate speed in that neighborhood We have kids that walk to school,
grang Gcyaf I
e A
wckvo*sDe dmeO 2�7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] 'L O Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
we have handicapped people who are out walking the streets and 3 times in the
past year, Mr. Allenbach called Palmyra a corridor, I'm not a traffic engineer, I
don't' know what corridor is, I could guess. I would tend to want to call it a
freeway because it's that dangerous but Violet, the reason I came here as I said,
was to tell Council members that on Violet after taking my kid to school at El
Modena I was actually passed. If you know Violet this is not a wide street it
actually has quite a curve in it which forces you to slow down somewhat as it is,
can you imagine being passes because people are in such a hurry to get to work
or wherever? I was passed by a car who when up over the curb and then came
back down. If a kid or an elderly person had been out walking we would have
had a tragic accident. I agree with my neighbors that Palmyra is a real serious
problem and so is Violet. I highly respect our Police Dept. I wish they would
give out a few more tickets and I think people might recognize that is not a place
to shortcut Chapman which is really what is happening everybody knows it
nobody wants to drive down Chapman because there is too much traffic so they
cut the corners and that's why we have a problem.
Phil Bey, 3022 E. Palmyra Ave - I was accident number three, the worst of all
of them. We had somebody going down Kathleen and if you don't make the
turn there and go straight you go right into my driveway and that is exactly what
the guy did. He hit all 3 of my cars parked in my driveway and all were
damaged. My wife's car, the Mercedes, was hit so hard that he knocked it
through our garage door and it went into the garage and took out some of the
drywall leading into my house. I have spent about 56 hours with insurance
companies, police dept. that hasn't been all that helpful in answering my
questions. The main point is even though I suffered all this damage you have
this magnet school a few blocks away and it's my fear that we are going to have
one of these people speeding, whether they are under the influence or not, lose
control of their car and a kid coming home from school will be hit and I think
they are going to get killed. I think everyone here needs to ask themselves if we
have done everything that we could to prevent this type of tragedy from
happening. I think the choice is pretty obvious, he did his little survey the ones
where the numbers don't match, he did that in the summer when the magnet
school was out so the traffic count is a lot higher than what he is proposing to
you although I think it's worse in the morning hours and evening hours when
we have people going to work. I spoke with all the residents in the area and we
have 100% unanimous that we need some type of deterrence to keep speed down
whether the answer is another STOP sign, speed humps, lanes whey turn onto
Kathleen. I'm not sure what the answer is but talking with him City liability,
Gty.f I
rang A .
?77 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] W Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
speed humps you could have somebody hit a speed hump and lose control and
we could have someone cause an accident or kill somebody that way. It seems
like from the liability point -of -view that STOP signs would be the best recourse.
Chairman Beil closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for
further discussion and a motion.
Chairman Beil — We have quite a few STOP sign requests that come through the
Commission, my feeling is that we are doing what we can to prevent accidents
and we also have to be practicable about situations for installation. STOP signs
should meet warrants, STOP signs are for assignment of right -of -way, STOP
signs are not really for speed control. I also feel that given the situation of the
proximity of the adjacent STOP signs it's just too close. I'm going to support
staff's recommendation to deny the STOP sign request. I understand the traffic
issues, the traffic issues are building all over the City, the County and the
Southern California region, particularly in a lot of our residential areas.
Chapman Ave. is a major arterial, are there additional traffic improvements
planned on Chapman, if signals have been synchronized? Palmyra is carrying a
load of overflow from the Chapman and Prospect intersection which is getting a
very low level of service during the peak hours.
Amir Farahani, City Traffic Commissioner — Yes. We installed traffic
synchronization 3 years ago on Chapman but this year for the new call by OCTA
we applied for new synchronization on Chapman to update some of the older
equipment we have, and also revisit timing and synchronization for Chapman
Ave. Hopefully we can also add some traffic carrying capacity and also at a
couple of the intersections on Chapman we do a project for the signal
modifications on Hewes, Prospect, James and Cannon that would provide
additional safety and ease of access which would alleviate some of the problems
in the adjacent areas.
Chairman Beil I just don't see a STOP sign particularly in this case as a solution
for people speeding through the area. Speeds on Kathleen, speeds on Violet are
already controlled with STOP signs at Palmyra. STOP signs control the right -of-
way assignment for movements.
Vice Chairman Vaughan — I lived in that area for quite a while so I'd be
interested, what are the dates you did the traffic study?
C
rang
�l. D".
December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] �� Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst - Initially we did a 24 -hour machine
count during the summer but per his request we did a 2 -hour turn count which
was in December 2014 for the peak hours, which was typical for a request on a
local street like this. In that regard the 24 -hour count was done this summer and
traffic volumes were probably lower than they are during the school year.
Vice Chairman Vaughan - I'm a little conflicted on this having lived in the area
I'm very familiar, I lived on Prospect and we used to get some serious speed on
Prospect going toward Fairhaven. I am familiar with the amount of traffic and I
agree with everyone that spoke who said that it's becoming more and more of an
issue. But I also agree as the Chairman stated that a STOP sign on Palmyra, I
don't know that a STOP sign would have done anything to control the accidents.
Is there more consideration to be done? I agree that there should be something
done I just don't know if putting a STOP sign there is the answer and that we
should look at the overall traffic conditions and maybe doing something on
Kathleen or Roberta in order to minimize that transitory traffic.
Chairman Beil - I'm not sure what else you can do on Kathleen because the
request is actually for STOP signs on Palmyra and the proximity to Violet is just 2
houses away. The speed generation, even to make a turn there it's not going to
be much difference. As far as other ways to control speed additional
enforcement monitoring out there at certain peak hours may be problematic or
higher traffic in the AM or PM peak hours, before school drop -off hours that may
be warranted, the speed hump program, that program has been tightened up,
you really have to hit a pretty high volume on streets to be able to qualify in the
speed hump program for traffic calming.
Commissioner Lebeau - I understand the concerns of Vice Chairman Vaughan,
I'm going to second your motion. A second STOP sign that close to Violet is just
too close and I don't think it's going to have the desired effect. I think some
sustained extra enforcement over a long haul would be an appropriate measure.
Chairman Beil - It's not adjacent to school zones but it is a well traveled route to
a school zone and a bypass to the Prospect /Chapman intersection, its real thick
on the peak hours.
Dave Allenbach, Transportation Analyst - Both Kathleen and Palmyra are posted
as a 25 mph prima facie speed limit.
CAT.(
rang A
Puck Woe" oemmneo 2!7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] 10 Printed On Recycled Paper
Minutes of a Regular Meeting City Traffic Commission December 10, 2014
ACTION: Denied the requested installation of an "All -Way" STOP control
device at the intersection of Palmyra Ave. and Kathleen Ln.
MOTION:
Vaughan
SECOND:
Beil
AYES:
Unanimous
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
End of Consideration Items
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 11, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
Phyllis Then, Recording Secretary
Traffic Engineering Division
pthen @cityoforange.org
CITY OF ORANGE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
300 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE
ORANGE CA 92866
PH: (714) 744 -5536
FAX: (714) 744 -5573
caTot
rang
�w D
ow
E�7 December [N:/Traffic /CTC /2014 Minutes] W Printed On Recycled Paper