Loading...
09-09-1992 - Minutes TC � � : y :� CITY OF ORANGE CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION Minutes of a Regular Meeting: September 9, 1992 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROLL CALL: Present - Commissioners: D. Yarger, J. Fortier, B. Leming, N. Hower, F. Sciarra Present - Staff: B. Dennis, C. Glass, D. Allenbach, S. Trejo, Sgt. B. Weinstein, R. Herrick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 12, 1992 - APPROVE as published by Recording Secretary. MOTION: D. Yarger SECOND: B. Leming AYES: Unanimous ' � II. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Request for the installation of red curb markings at 509 E. Jeffereson Ave. Mrs. Lillian C. Stimson 509 E. Jefferson Ave. Orange, CA 92666 Oral presentation was based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Dave Allenbach - The requested red curb would take-up approximately 60 ft., if approved, this would also provide a sight distance area to the existing STOP sign. Commissioner Lemine - I believe this property is located adjacent to a Neighborhood Parking Permit Area, my only concern would be doing away with 1 or 2 parking spaces in the area. Whether or not this area really warrants this STOP sign, I don't know. The parking problem seems to be the individual's parking in the area located in front of this woman's resident. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that this is the proper way to solve that problem. - 1 - Commissioner Sciarra - i would have to agree with Commissioner Leming. There are simply not that many parking spaces in the area, and to restrict the parking would be a great injustice to the people in the area. Chairman Yarger- How much red curb do we actually need for sight distance? Dave Allenbach- We generally put in 25 - 30 ft. in advance of the STOP sign. « Chairman Yarger- So, we are talking about red curbing at least 60 ft. Dave Allenbach- That is correct. Chairman Yar�,er - Would we be legal if we red curb 25 ft. and save 35 ft. for open parking? � Dave Allenbach- Yes, we would. Commissioner Hower- Is there an existing '1-Hour' time limit.parking in the area? Dave Allenbach - Yes. However, the proponent has stated that there is a lack of enforcement during the school year. During the summer when school is not in session there is very little need for on-street parking during the day. Evidently, what is happening is that during the school year some students are parking on both sides of the street to have easier access to their vehicles rather than parking in the student parking lot. - Commission Hower- Is the time limit posted only during school hours? Dave Allenbach- Yes. Commissioner Hower - Perhaps the parking problem could be solved if the '1-Hour' time limit was enforced. Dave Allenbach - Yes, we could refer that to the Police Department. Chairman Yarger - If I read the request correctly, it only indicates a request for the installation of red curb markings at 509 E. Jefferson. I would like to make the following recommendation. RECOMIV�NDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, DENY the red curb marking at 509 E. Jefferson, and APPROVE red curb markings of 25 ft. for sight distance of the STOP sign. M4TION: D. Yarger SECOND: B. Leming AYES: Unanimous - 2 - III. CONSIDERATION ITEMS A. Request to reconsider the installation of an 'ALL-WAY STOP' at the intersection of Canyon View Ave. and Notre Dame St./Raven Ct. City of Qrange Traffic Engineering Division Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Chuck Glass - This is a continued item from your last CTC meeting. We have reconsidered the installation of the 4-Way STOP, primarily in relationship to sight distance for Raven Ct. which is on the inside of a curve. You requested staff to take another look in the field at the physical configuration of the intersection and see if there was anything � . we could do relative to moving stop bars or shifting striping for westbound traffic to make vehicles more visible, and to determine what sight distance was actually available. We did determine on our field investigation that we cannot move the striping, that is pretty much fixed with the geometrics of the roadway and the location of the raised median. We o also determined that there was not adequate sight distance due to vegetation along Canyon View Ave. ° What we did find in our research and as a condition of tract approval, in addition to street . right-of-way dedication, were easements that required dedication for safety and sight distance. Basically, what we have now found is that the vegetation in the area is now planted and grown, in fact, it is not serving the purpose for which it was intended. We would recommend at this point in time, staff being aware of the situation, contact the Homeowner's Association and either ask or request them to remove that vegetation within the easement area, which is in their control, and order them to provide the designed sight distance.- Should they not do this, we would then take further action in some manner, possibly removal by the City and bill the Homeowner Association. RECOR�LMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, (A) DENY the request of an . 'ALL-WAY STOP' and (B) APPROVE that staff contact the Homeowner Association for the enforcement of the easement for safety and sight distance purposes, which was part of the approval for the project, and take any action necessary. MQTION: B. Leming SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous � , - 3 - .- . � B. Request to reconsider the installation of a '4-WAY STOP' at the intersection of Canyon View Ave. and Hidden Canyon. Dianne Burns, Property Consultant Equitable Management 12460 Euclid St., Suite 203 Garden Grove, CA 92640 Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Chairman Yarger opened the public hearing for the following discussion of this request. ltilichael F. Dou�hertX,, 168 S. Terrace Rid�e - Provided xerox copies of 4 photographs and a map of the area to be discussed, The map I have handed out shows the area divided into two sections. I am requesting that a 4-Way STOP be placed on the corner of Hidden Canyon. I understand this matter has come before the CTC previously, however, the Association Management who handles the Association failed to notify the members of the association. We have since.replaced that company with another management company. In short, the reason for our request is to protect the children from possible injury when crossing Canyon View to get to the park, and to the school bus which uses the association for laading and unloading childr�n for Panorama Public School. Our development consist of 85 homes located on several dif�erent streets. Sixty homes are located on the west side of Canyon View, and the balance are on the east side of Canyon View. The park is located on the east side, and the bus is located on the west side. When we purchased our home from the developer we were advised the park on the southeast corner of Canyon View at Hidden Canyon was the Association park to be enjoyed by the members of the Association, their families, and friends. I can only assume that the City of Orange was knowledgeable of the park location and may have even required that the park be built as a condition ta developing the track. The main problem with the park is that it is extremely dangerous to have the children cross Canyon View to reach the park. The speed limit is 3 5 MPH and the intersection is on a hill, vehicles frequently exceed the speed, in fact, officer's located at the bottom of the hill on Old Chapman Rd. can't write enough citations. My estimate is that greater than 80 percent of the vehicles using Canyon View, exceed the speed limit. Imagine your 7-year old child trying to cross the road with vehicles moving in excess of 45 MPH. I contacted the Statistics and Investigations Division at Orange Police Department, but they simply do not keep statistics on traffic violations, they did advise that they did not have any traffic accidents on record at Canyon View. However, it is my opinion, that since there is such a high speed limit violation rate, special consideration must be given to putting in a 4-Way STOP in at this intersection. - 4 - Please note, while this is an association park it is not to be treated differently than a public park. Children do not know the dif�erence between a private park and public park, and speeding vehicles make no exception. I would also like to point out that Canyon View is not a main transportation corridor, but was intended to meet the transportation needs of the people living in the development area. In fact, a sign on�Chapman Ave. warns trucks about using Canyon View as a thoroughfare. In summary I feel that a STOP sign on Canyon View at the intersection of Hidden Canyon are necessary for two reasons: • To protect the children going to and from the park from speeding vehicles. . • To protect the children going to and from the bus stop from speeding vehicles. The City of Orange was knowledgeable of the park location from the inception of the . development and should have known that young children would cross the street to get to the park. Also, while the City does not keep records of the tra�c citations for speeding, I am sure that there are several Officer's on the Police force who are very aware of the traf�ic speeding problem on Canyon View. r Chairman Yar�er-Dave, what is�the 85th percentile on Canyon View? Dave Allenbach-Based on our traf�ic study, taken in 1990, the speed limit is 48 MPH. � Chairman Yar�er - In reference to your statement, Mr. Dougherty, Canyon View is setup as a secondary arterial highway, it is designed to move traffic from Chapman Ave. to Jambor.ee Rd. In the beginning, all of the houses located inside Canyon View faced another direction and were walled. The thing about the children crossing the street, my feeling is you have a STOP sign. I know some of the children are smaller, however, you do have a STOP sign 700 feet away which protects them to cross Canyon View. Secondly, putting a STOP sign in the middle of a steep grade gives a lot of people a false security which could possibly cause more accidents, thinking that everybody is going to observe that sign. Comrnissioner Lemin� - Staf�, is that bus currently stopping on Canyon View? Dave Allenbach - Yes, the bus is stopping on Canyon View in proximity to the intersection. However, both sides of Canyon View are posted for'No Parking Any Time', and there is Bus Stop sign there. Chairman Yar�er - So, in other words, the bus at this time is actually making an illegal stop there. a Dave Allenbach- That's correct. _ 5 _ Commissioner Lemin� - STOP signs are not a good mecharusm to slow down traf�ic. People may or may not stop at the sign, especially when they have just stopped at the top of the hili. I think it would give a false security to think there is a STOP sign there and that it is safe for children to cross. I don't think it really warrants a STOP sign at this location. RECONIlV�NDATION: That the CTC, by 1Viotion, (A) DENY the request for installation of a '4-WAY STOP' and, (B) APPROVE that we notify the Orange Unified School District in regard to school busses stopping along Canyon View at an area not designated as a Bus Stop. MOTION: B. Leming SECOND: N. Hower AYES: Unanimous C. Request for the installation of pedestrian warning flashers and additional street lighting at Praspect St. and Maple Ave. Judith 7imenez 755 N. Victoria St. Orange, CA 92667 Chuck Glass - You have a series of suggestions or requests for this area of Prospect St., two of vvhich appear as a forma.l request fo� �lashing flashers, and additional street lighting at the park pedestrian crossing. The other two issues are being taken care of in one respect, the signal at Spring St. and Prospect St., which is, in fact, programmed into our Capital Improvement Program and will be installed at the time Spring St. is realigned at Prospect St. That will take place in conjunction with development in the area. With the suggestion that bicycle lanes be painted on Prospect St. between Spring St. and Prospect St., our field review indicates that the existing striping does not permit suf�icient width to add a bike lane.in addition to the number 2 through lane. Something of that nature would require major expense to sand blast, re-stripe, and �ossii��y provide make-up , pavernent where it is breaking down next to some storm drains. It is our recommendation that the bike lane suggestion be rejected, at this point in time, based on those comments. With regard to the existing crosswalk at Maple Ave. and Prospect St., you may recall this request was before you previously, and at that time we did extensive pedestrian studies where we found pedestrians crossings occurring all up and down Prospect St. between Spring St. and Chapman Ave. The crosswalk was approved at that time in order to try to funnel the majority of those pedestrians into one location rather than to have them cross at random locations all along the street. That crosswalk has been installed and does appear to be doing what we intended, which means that it appears that a majority of the pedestrians do cross at that crosswalk now, even though there is a lot of jay-walking up and down the street. - 6 - The request for the lighting was particularly reviewed at night. We currently have a street light at the crosswalk on the east side of the street. We feel that it would be a good idea � to.recommend an additional light on the west side of the street at the crosswalk, which would balance the lighting at each end of the crosswalk. This would require a budget appropriation which would have to be suggested to the City Council for both the installation of the street light itself and the underground service, etc. With regard to the pedestrian flasher, it is our opinion, that this could be recommended and again this would require a special budget appropriation, and it would be simply one individual warning device in addition to the pavement markings and signing that we have out there now. There have been accident's involving pedestrian's and bicyclist's in this area, alot of which would probably not be susceptible to correction by either the lighting or flashing yellow lights, however, it is our opinion that these devices would enhance the crossing as far as identifying the crossing. Commissioner Sciarra - I can understand putting the standard light there, however, I don't necessarily feel that the flasher would be beneficial. Commissioner Hower- I.agree, there is a need for street lighting at this location. I am not in favor of a flasher. RECOl��NDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, DENY the request for the installation of pedestrian warning flashers and, APPROVE the installation of an additional U street li ht rovidin¢the Cit Council a roves the s ecial bud et a ro riation. g , p � Y PP P g PP P MOTION: D. Yarger SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous D. Request to change the time limits for the existing 'No Parking' restrictions on both sides of Carnbridge St. between Palmyra Ave. and the south city limits. R. E. Bornhop 343 S. Cambridge St. Orange, CA 92666 Dave Allenbach - The street is currently posted 'No Parking between 7-9AM and 2-4PM.' What the proponent is suggesting for the children who do use the striped bike lane to Palmyra Elementary School is that the time be changed so that there is no parking on the east side of Cambridge St. in the morning hours, and no parking on the west side of Cambridge St. for the afternoon only. We have done an evaluation on this, and recommend that the request be approved. - 7 - S Mr. Bornhop - The #raffic flows towards school in the morning and away from school in the afternoon. And as it is now, you have to refrain from parking both morning and afternoon, even though, parking half that time is on the other side of the street. I tried to figure a good way to do this without spending money. And a good tape, if applied right, would do this at almost no expense. A related thing is that you might want to check with whoever handles the crossing guards, because the bicycle time should run with the times that the crossing guards are on duty. RECOMIV�NDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, APPROVE the request. MOTION: D. Yarger SECOND: F..Sciarra AYES: Unanimous E. Request to increase the speed limit on-7amboree Rd. between Canyon View Ave. and the south city limits. City of Orange Traffic Engineering Division Oral presentation is based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Chairman Yar�,er- Sgt. Weinstein, what are motorist out there currently experiencing? Sgt. Weinstein - They are writing tickets for 85 thru 90 MPH. We definitely don't need any higher speed iimits out there. Chairman Yarger- What kind of leeway are you giving them out there? Sgt. Weinstein - We really can't give them leeway pass 55 MPH because its the state law. But there are times depending on how the tra�c is flowing, and how crowded it is, that an Officer will give a break as far as speed, if someone was driving 65 MPH, he might issue the citation at 60 MPH to give somebody a break, that is the orily leeway we would give out there and that is very seldom. We really do have a potential out there for some major fatalities. Chairman Yar�er-Is the traffic volume very heavy out there? Sgt. Weinstein - There are times in the day when it does get heavy, however, it is usually light. Commissioner Hower - I would like to see Staff pursue this with the City of Tustin, � and see if both jurisdictions might consider increasing the speed limit from 50 MPH to 55 MPH. - S - : � - - 0 Commissioner Lemin� - Perhaps we should continue this item and allow Staff to speak with the City of Tustin. RECOMl��NDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, CONTINUE this item to the next meeting. � MOTION: B. Leming SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous F. Overview of the proposed I-5 Freeway improvements. City of Orange Traf�ic Engineering Division Bernie Dennis, City Traffic Engineer, gave a brief overview of Phases A, B, & C of the I-5 Freeway improvements just north of the SR-22 Freeway. This project constitutes nearly $895 million dollars worth of improvements, probably one of the single most expensive freeway retrofits that has ever taken place. � The first part of the overview consisted of a brief description of what was going to happen on the main stem, i.e. the freeway. Mr. Dennis further explained improvements in regards . to ramp connections, street realignments, new over-crossings, etc. that would have direct impact and influence in the City of Orange. R.ECOM1ViENDATION: None rec�uired - Information item only. _ G. City Traffic Engineers (CTE) Workshop for Traffic Commissioners - October 3, 1992. City of Orange Traf�ic Engineering Division � Chuck Glass - This workshop is put on by the City Traffic Engineers Association. Should the Commission be interested in attending, you will find an application and Agenda attached to the flyer. I understand that there are no City funds budgeted for this attendance. However, it is in your package for your information and follow-up. If you are planning on attending, there is a registration deadline of September 18, 1992, which is about one week from now. Chairman Yarger- Is there a registration fee? Chuck Glass - Yes, there is a $30 registration fee, it is a one-day seminar with lunch and refreshments included. � RECONIlV�NDATION: None required - Information item only. 1 - 9 - IV. OR.AL PRESENTATIONS H. Next regular CTC meeting is scheduled for October 14, 1992. V. ADJOURNMENT Discussion of all today's Agenda items before the City Traffic Commission being complete, and there being no further requests for action under Oral Presentations, it has been moved to adjourn this session of the CTC to it's next regular meeting. MOTION: D. Yarger ' SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, `� r � • Sally R. Trejo Recording Secretary . Traf�ic Engineering Division - 10 -