Loading...
03-09-1994 - Minutes TC � � �, ,.__�.�-- CITY OF ORANGE ':`" ; :�: MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSIUN Date of Meeting: March 9, 1994 ROLL CALL-PRESENT-COMMISSIONERS: D.Yarger, J. Fortier,D. Gibson,B. Leming,F. Sciarra ABSENT -COMMISSIONERS: None PRESENT-STAFF: B. Dennis, C. Glass,D. Allenbach,P. Then ABSENT - STAFF: Lt. E. Tunstall, OPD -represented by Officer Kalvin VanGordor I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 16, 1994 - APPROVE as published by Recording Secretary. MOTION: B. Leming SECOND: F. Sciana AYES: Unanimous II. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Request for 'NO PARKING ANY TIME' restrictions in front of the Orange Seniar Center at 170 S. Olive St. Keith Regan Orange Senior Center 170 S. Olive St. Orange, CA 92666 Staff presentation is based on the written report, please refer to your copy. There was no discussion on this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the request be denied,however, installation of 'PASSENGER LOADING ZONE' sign to augment the existing white curb. MOTION: D.Yarger SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting- March 9, 1994 III. C4NSIDERATION ITEMS A. Request for installation of a 3 Way STOP control device at the intersection of Meredith St. and Regency Ave. Kimberly Onishi, Community Manager Keystone Pacific Property Management,Inc. 4100 Newport Place, Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Chairmcrn Yarger opened the publf�h�ari�ag,f'or th�followfng di�ca�s�ion of thas reqa�est Kim Onishi, Keystone Pacific Propertv Manag,ement - The homeowner"s would like to request the 3-Way STOP as it has been reported that there have been several 'near miss' accidents at this intersection due to cars failing to adhere to the speed limit and also failing to take heed of other vehicular traffic within the intersection, it has proven to be a more dangerous intersection within the area. Chairman Yarger-Had you spoken to any of the homeowner's whose residence would be adjacent to the STOP signs? And found out wha.t their feeling were on this? Kirn Onishi - I've spoken to several homeowners along both streets and they are in concurrence with the installation of the 3 Way STOP? Dave Allenbach-Prior to today's meeting I did receive a phone call from one of the residents who lives on Regency who would be directly adjacent to the STOP nistallation and the 40 ft. of red curb;and he was opposed to the red curb and loss of parking,but not to the STOP sign. Scott Lith�uard-4301 W. RgencX-My residence is going to be the one most ma.terially affected by a STOP sign and the red curb. I don°t disagree with the need for the STOP sign more so to the eastbound traffic than the westbound traffic and Dave and I spoke about perhaps a 2 Way STOP as opposed to the 3 Way STOP. I don't think the westbound traffic is a big concern because they ha.ve full unobstructed view of the intersection and on-coming traffic. Maybe speed bumps to reduce motorists speed, people are running the STOP sign at Meredith and it is a big concern. Maybe enforcement of the e�sting STOP sign could l�elp. Chairrnan Yarger - As a resident is it speed of eastbound motorists on Meredith, or is it sight distance and people coming out on Meredith looking to the west and ca.nnot see the vehicles? Scott Lithguard -I don't live on Meredith and I don't drive that direction enougli to speak to that issue. I just oppose havulg the red curb, big STOP sign, and noise and air pollution in front of my home. I'm not denying that something should be done. Chairman Yarger - I'm wondering if the homeowner's association did any re-landscaping on that slope and cut it down to give more visibility to the west if that would solve some of our problems and eliminate the need to put up STOP signs at all. 2 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Re�ular Meeting-March 9, 1994 Bernie Denrus, Sta.ff-A question was asked about the "off-set" intersection. The real difficulty with that kind of control is people knowing that only one of the two directions of traf�'ic is going to STOP. We have difficulty with 2 Way STOP's I don't know wha,t form or type of supplemental signing you could use, I know there is no standard signing, but some type of advisory signing that says,in essence, 'VEHICLES ON YOUR LEFT WITH STOP,VEHICLES ON YOUR RIGHT WON'T'. Chairman Yarger closed the public hearing and returns the item to the Commission for final comments and/or a Motion. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by motion, DENY the request for a 3 Way STOP at the intersection of Meredith and Regency. However,I think some communication should be ma.de to conta,ct those responsible for the landscaping on tlie soutllwest corner to see if it can be re-graded°°down°°for better vision. Bernie Dennis -You might want to consider,rather than denying the request,that we CONTINUE this for a further report on the modification of the landscaping. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: B. Leming Commissioner Sciarra-I will withdraw my Motion and make a Motion that we CONTINUE this item for 30 days to get a report on the modification of the landscaping to improve sight visibility. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: B. Leming AYES: Unaiumous B. Traf�ic concerns on Collins Ave. at Roberto St. Marcia Scott Farner 3438 E. Collins Ave.,#7 Orange, CA 92667 Oral presentation is based on the written report, please refer to your copy. Chairman Yarger opened the public hearing for the following discussion of this request. Chuck Glass, Sta.ff-We feel that we could make some improvements to traffic safety by doing two things: 1) We could take the existing single left turn pockets that serve Roberto St. and the condo complex, sandblast those and iristall "2 Way left tum" pockets that would serve left turns to both those street and driveway, and on occasion would serve perhaps as a refuge lane for someone turning left out onto Collins. 2) To make northbound motorists traveling around the curve more aware that they are coming up on an intersection. We have an existing'4 Way Intersection' sign on Collins;I would propose that we more this a little more north, and in conjunction with it install a flashing yellow warning light similar to the installation at Cambridge and Carlton for a similar situation. 3 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting-March 9, 1994 Marcia Sott. 3438 E. Collins Ave. #7 -I like tlie suggestions ma,de so far anything they can do to improve the situation would be very beneficial to tlie residents of the area. I have talked to the homeowner"s association about trimming back the hedges and it should be accomplished by tomorrow. Bernie Dennis, Sta.ff-The safest move for that particular site is 'right turn in and right turn out', and this was considered by sta,ff,what do you think about that? Marcia Scott - Personally I don't ha,ve a problem with that but it's a long way down, 2 signals which don't allow a U-turn, it's almost 3/4 mile before you get to a 4 Way STOP where you can make a legallef�tum. Bernie Dennis -The street width is the issue at those two locations,it's wide enough for cars but it wouldn't work for trucks. 1'hat was one of the issues that influenced staff in making the recommendation that vve try this first before we went to the more positive restriction. I ha.ve some serious doubts in regard to future signalization that Villa Park and very probably your homeowner's association would pick up "their share" of a possible signal installation. That normally doesn't work out very well because it is so expensive. You nught mention $20,000 to your homeowner's association as being their financial contribution toward signalizing that location. Chairman Yarger closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commissaon for final discussion and/or a motion. RECOMMENDATION: That we take the current left turn pocket and make it into a 2 Way turn pocket; install on the curb line a single yellow flasher for northbound traffic west of Roberto St.; that 'INTERSECTION AHEAD' warning signs be moved closer to the intersection; and that the landscaping be trimmed by the homeowner's association. MOTION: D.Yarge� SECOND: J.Fortier AYES: Unanimous C. Recommended guidelines for the installation of speed humps on public streets. Traffic Engineering Division City of Orange Chuck Glass, Sta.ff-This has been reviewed by the Commission at an earlier meeting and I believe it's pretty much in order as we have discussed and agreed upon. The one major issue that remains involves funding and funding responsibility; who is going to pay for it? Something new that I have developed is the policy itself which leads into the fact that the objective of the device is to benefit the residents and not the general motoring public, which further leads into wha.t I felt was your direction last time which was that those residents themselves ought to fund the insta,llation as well as the cost of processing the application through the petition process. 4 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Re�ular Meeting-March 9, 1994 The costs involved with this program would be as follows: A) Cost of device - each 'hump° would cost approximately $2,500; and in our guidelines we are recommending an installation would consist of a minimum of 3 humps. B) Removal costs -they are installed and then the residents decide they don't like them and t11ey go through the petition process in order to have them taken out, it would cost approx. $750 per hump. C) Maintenance once installed would be borne by the city and would occur primarily when there is some type of street rehabilita.tion. D) Processing costs -staff costs and material costs for petition processing all tl�e way through City Council is $2,650; which we would consider the Application Fee and this is the fee that we would want up front before we began processing the item. If the residents should change their mind on t11e humps we have 2 separate points for some refund of monies not expended on studies and staff reports. E) Removal fee of either $2170 or $1642 and the difference would be at what point in time we receive a request for removal of the humps. If we approve and have the devices installed and we get a request within 1 year for subsequent removal then the fee would be $2170. T'he dii�erence represents wha.t it costs for staff to conduct"before&after"traffic counts and reports. There is one thing that could be changed which we had agreed upon criteria and cha.racteristics where for the average da.ilg� trai�'ic volumes we decided that they must be greater than 2,000 vehicles and less than 3,000 vehicles. Intent being that we did not want to spend monies where there were real low volume and low benefit, and if the street were carrying more than 3,000 vehicles this was acting more as a commuter/collected route and we did not feel that traffic should be impeded there. If the decision is that the residents were to pay the cost of tl�e installatio�then I would have no problem with deleting the 2,000 threshold if they want to pay for it,fine. Commissioner Lemin� - Can you give me an example of a street that would have 2,000 ADT and an example of a street having a 3,000 ADT? Chuck Glass -Adams Ave. has a little less than 2,000 ADT. A 3,000 ADT vehicle street might be Almond Ave.between Cambridge and Lincoln. Vice Chairman Fortier-I think the fees should be incurred by the applicants. Both the application and the insta.11ation fees. Chuck Glass -These could be 'big ticket' items and frankly the city doesn't have the resources for this program, as far as installation of the humps. For example, Chestnut Ave. between Tustin St. and Cambrige St. were that segment done it would be between $15,000-$20,000 to install the humps, and that would not be available in our normal operating budget. 5 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Re�ular Meeting-March 9, 1994 Commissioner Lemin� -It would be hard to prepare an annual budget without knowing how many requests you would get. Chairman Yarger - In our current economic climate I don't think we should even consider having the city pay. I'm not saying it carved in stone but the city ha.s ha.d lay-off s in the last 2 yeaxs and cut back with the furlough program and if ha.vuig the city pay for a hump installation would put one city employee out of a job then I don't think it's fair to the rest of community. If a group wants one of these speed devices then I think they ought to be prepared to pay for them. Commissioner Sciarra -What experience have other cities had with these devices, have they been favorable? Chuck Glass - There have been instances when they ha.ve been installed and subsequently the residents ha.ve wanted them removed because they didn't like them. Gene Sommers, 1539 E. Candlewood Ave. - What is the purpose of them, to slow us down. I thought we just went through tlus revision of speed limits with the 85th percentile and an accurate posting so cita.tions could be issued without being bounced out of court. So far the streets you have named would be enforced at the prima,facie 25 MPH limit anyway. Chuck Glass - The speed zone and speed limit issue that was recently enacted upon by the City Council all involved arterial highways. One of the criteria on this program is that the street is only eligible to be installed on local residential street with one lane of traffic in each direction. Gene Sommers-Which would hopefully be enforced? Chairman Yarger -We don't have enough motors to enforce the prima. facie on every residential street, and that is why residents might approach the city for this type of'speed hump'installation. Chairman Yarger closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for their final remarks and/or a motion. RECOMMENDATION: a) Accept staff recommenda.tions to set fee schedule for processing applications either to insta.11 or remove the control device;and, b) Actual insta.11ation andlor removal of the device(s)shall be paid by the residents;and c) Condition#7 change to'NOT TO EXCEED 3,000 ADT'. MOTION: B. Leming SECOND: J.Fortier AYES: Unanimous 6 CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting- March 9, 1994 IV. ORA.L PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - At the conclusion to the meeting of items listed on today's Agenda.,members of the public ma address the City Tra,ffic Commission regarding items of interest to the public that are within the subject jurisdiction of the City Traffic Commission. Bemie Dennis -I'm going to hand out the overview of the revised Brown Act and I would suggest that you talce these home and review at your leisure. I'm going to suggest that possibly at our next meeting we will ha.ve someone on our City Attorney°s sta.ff available to respond to any questions you ma.y have. There were no other presenta.tions made. V. ADJOURNMENT Discussion of all items before the CTC being complete, and there being no further requests for action under Ora1 Presentations, Chairman Yarger adjourned this session of the City Traffic Commission to it's next regular meeting,which is scheduled for May 11, 1994. Respectfully submitted, Phyllis Then Recording Secreta.ry Traffic Engineering Division (714)744-5536 File Name: March(Disk#3B) 7