Loading...
04-10-1991 - Minutes TC CITY OF ORANGE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING CITY TRAFFIC COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: APRIL 10. 1991 ROLL CALL: PRESENT - COMMISSIONERS: J. FORTIER, F. SCIARRQ, B. LEMING, N. HOWER - PRESENT - STaFF: B. DENNIS, B. HERRICK, C. GLASS, D. ALLENBACH, R. GARDNER, B. WEWSTEIN, P. THEN ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: D. YARGER IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1991 FEBRUARY 13, 1991 MARCH 13, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as published by the Recording Secretary. MOTION: B. LEMING SECOND: F. SCfARRA AYES: UNANIMOUS V. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Request for the instailation of a 'No Parking Anytime - Buses Exempt' zone on the north side of Palm Ave. west of Main St. at Sycamore Elementary School. James McMillen, Principal - Sycamore Elementary School 340 N. Main St. Orange, CA 92668 �: _ _ Orai presentation was based on �he written staff report, please refer to your copy. There was no discussion on this item. RECOMMENDATIOf�: That the CTC, by Motion, APPROVE the request. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND N. Hower AYES Unanimous 2. Request for the installation of a 'Driveway Vision Zone' on the west side of Newport Blvd. south of Chapman Ave. at the Orange Crest Plaza Shopping Center. Verna Mattson 7004 Sundance Circfe Orange, CA 92669 Oral presentation was based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. There was no discussion on this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, aPPROVE the request. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: N. Hower AYES: Unanimous � 3. Request for the installation of a 'Driveway Vision Zone' on the south side of Katella Ave. west of Tustin St. at 1500 E. Katella Ave. Michael D. Berry 1500 E. Katella Ave., Suite D Orange, CA 92667 Oral presentation was based on the written staff report, please refer �to your copy. There was no discussion on this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, APPROVE the request. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: N. Hower AYES: Unanimous 2 4. Review and approvai of OCTD's policy of re-routing requests. Richard B. Edgar, Chairman Board of Direct�rs Orange County Transit District P. 0. Box 3005 Garden Grove, CA 92642-3005 Oral presentation was based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. There was no discussion on this itsm. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, RECEIVE & FILE the �eport. MOTfON: F. Sciarra SECOND: N. Hower AYES: Unanimous VI. CONSIDERATION ITEMS A. Request for a 'Median Break' on Chapman Ave. west of Newport Blvd. for the Orange Crest Plaza Shopping Center. Richard L. Cramer Orange Newport Associates 23046 Avenida Carlota, Suite 520 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Oral presentation was based on the written staff report, please refer to your copy. Chairman Fortier opened the public hearing for discussion: COMMISSIONER LEMING - I have concerns on how this is going to be accomp(ished. Are we going to remove the restriction for a left-turn coming out of the shopping center totally, or are we just going to remove half of it? I think you are going to end up having some left turns going out of that center gaing onto Chapman Ave. DAVE ALLENBACH - We are not recommending that the right turn ingress restriction be removed. We want to leave that in place because of sight distance limitations; we are only recommending that a left-turn in be allowed, and we are only recommending that inasmuch as it does not become a conflict with the opposing left turn moves that are taking place over at the intersection of Chapman/Newport or that this does not create any kind of an accident problem for us. Should either one of these two issues occur we witl remove the left turn ingress. 3 � ;. COMMISSIONER LEMING - When you say remove you would just do that automaticaily or would it have to come back through the CTC and then through the City Councii? DAVE A�.LENBACH - Before we wouid remove it we would come back to CTC and give you a report on it. BER►vtE �ErvrviS - The traffic measure in question, the right-turn ingress/egress imposed on Orange Crest Plaza shopping center, was done as a condition of the development, subsequently the conditions per se can only be amended after public hearing by the City Council. The CTC in this instance is constituting the hearing process, the final action, because it is a condition of approval, woufd need be taken by the Council in any event. If the CTC, for example, approves the staff's recommendation it would of course have to be approved by the City Council. If again the staff after reviewing the circumstances or conditions of this modification felt that additional actions were in order those too, would have to be approved by the City Council. So really staff does not have the latitude per se to make that choice. COMMISSIONER LEMING - My Concern is that the center is not that old and it seems to me they went through a long approval process, going through the necessary steps to develop the property knowing what kind of a use it was going to be, and I have the feeling it was put in for a reason. Now that the tenants are in they are saying, "gee it would make it easier for my customers to get in," what is the distance between this location and the driveway that is just east of this one? BERNIE DENNIS - 't 50 feet maximum. CHAIRMAN FORTIER - If the�e are no further discussions ( WIII entertain 8 motion. It has been recommended ihat we approve the request, would anybody like to make a motion to this end? COMMISSIONER SCIARRA - ( would (ike to say that the tenants moving in do change the circumstances of the area and the possibility of the customers egress and ingress to that area, so I would go ahead and make this motion to approve this request. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, APPROVE the request. MOTION: F. Sciarra SECOND: None received. DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND THIS MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST DIES. 4 RECOMMENDATION: That ths CTC, by Motion, DENY the request. M�T1C�N: B. IEtJfiNG SECOND: None given. DlJE T� A EAC1C OF A SECal��2 THIS MOTION DtES. COMMISSIONER HOWER - I think maybe we shouid talk a little more on this left-turn exit. I think that uniess we physically restrict that left turn exit they are going to do it. Ct�Mt��SS10NER SClARRA - lt�s signed as 'RIGHT TURN ONLY' right now. COMMISS!(�NER HQ'JVER - YeS, it 81S0 h8S 2t1 isiand that feStflCtS them, and unless that island or partial island is retained I'm afraid they will go ahead and make that left turn on an exit. DAVE ALLENBACH - We did recommend that the entire island be removed simply because the size of the island is rather small and removing half of it wouldn't leave enough island to create any great restriction to turning left, the driveway is signed right now for right-turn only sxit and there is of course the physical island, if the CTC would elect to ieave half of the island in that certainly is their prerogative. CHAIRMAtv FORTIER - But you're recommending that we take that island out because it's a dangerous area? DAVE ALLENBACH - We're recommending the removal of the island simply because we d6dn't feel there would be enough of an island left to cause any great deterrent to people exiting there to keep them from making a left turn. We would also like to point out that we are not going to install the left turn ingress until this istand has been adapted; either fully removed or partially removed so the left turn ingress can be safely accommodated. COMMISSIONER HOWER - It appears that there is enaugh room there that the island could be re-designed perhaps to give a better restriction and leave enough room to allow for a left turn ingress. CHAIRMAN FORTIER - You're recommending that we take the entire island out, yet a concern is that people will make a left-turn out and you view that as a problem for accidents? s COMMISSIONER LEM►NG - I have 2 concerns and 1 take staff's recommendation to be warranted in that a left turn into the center would be safe, but my concern would be that once you remove that restriction, peopie in the center would come out and make a left turn out westbound on Chapman; to me that would be very dangerous. Would the speed of traffic that's headed eastbound on Chapman, and the fact that there is a curve just adjacent to this center wouid the cars traveling closest to the curb wouid come around that curve very quickly; and the �enter is only 2 years old and giving time for patterns to be developed I just can't believe there are that many patterns developed that they all want to make left turns into that center already when there is 150 ft. just to the east of it you have the _ ability to make a left turn into the center. CHAIRMAN FORTIER - HOW d0 you respond to this statement of a dangerous nature making a left turn out of the center at this location? CHUCK GLASS - I think the sight distance restriction definitely dictates that we should maintain the right-turn only egress. One of the problems we have on driveways and streets are those litt(e "pork-chop" island designs is that if you want to turn left you can turn around them regardless of what signing you have. As far as the left-turn ingress it's our feeling with the traffic conditions that are out there (volumes} there are hardly any cars out there so we can allow the left-turns in. They have reasonably good sight distance in and a left-turn inbound only has to work with one direction of traffic they only have to watch the on-coming traffic while the outbound have to watch both directions. How you would physically prohibit teft turn out ! really don't know, it's primarily an enforcement thing and maybe the island could be re-designed to further constrict a left turn, we would have to look at it, but we have some around town that get violated all the time. CHAIRMAN FORTIER - SO y0U feel we need to keep a right-turn only coming out because it is a dangerous situation making a ieft-turn out? CHUCK G�aSS - For the sight distance concerns yes, we need to maintain that. For the left-turn ingress i believe we could allow it at this point until some other characteristics or volume changes appear that would dictate otherwise. CHAIRMAN FOTIER - Commissioner LEMING, based on this information would you be witling to go along with the fact that we could try that as is and watch it and see if it is a problem? Staff feels that it is dangerous ta make a left-turn out and wil! post it. � � 6 COMMISSIONER LEMING - But we're stiil going to be in a situation where we're remaving the isiand which prohibits the left-turn egress. c�At�Matv FORTi�� - Does the island actually prohibit the left-turn out? CHUCK GLASS - Lt?t's be sure we°re talking about the same islands. There is a painted island on Chapman. When we talk about removing or putting in a median break we're talking about making turns legal across that painted island. The other island in question is really the pork-chop in the driveway itself. Our initial field review indicated that if we were going to take half of it out w� v�rauldn't have all that much left we may as well take it atl out and _ try the signing fegend �RIGHT TURN ONLY' which is purely an enforcement matter. It isn't self-physically restricting. What I've suggested before is ti�at if someone wants to turn left even with half of that island or the full island they can certainly maneuver around it and turn left, and if we went out there and observed it long enough t'm sure we'd find violations. COMMiSS�ONER LEM�NG - If you have an island that prohibits you from making a left turn I assum� most people will turn right, but if you remove the island then the perception will change so people will disobey any signing that may be out there. It's not a good argument to me that "if we have allot of accidents out there we'll come back and have it replaced", one accident with someone getting severety hurt is one to many so we ought to make sure that whatever we do is done right. There had to be a reason, the development is not that old and I can't imagine patterns being set already. I don't know how long those tenants have been there, they couldn't have been in there fo� more than a year. Once we rer�ove something, and once you get a pattern set of left- turns it will be very difficult to go back to the original restrictions. CHUCK GLASS - We're dealing with two centers here. However, they are integrated, they have cross access, circulation, etc. With the driveways that are available both on Newport and Chapman you can get into the center as a whole from any direction. By prohibiting this {eft turn we aren't limiting access to this particular part of the center. It would be possible to construct, on Chapman Ave., a raised median area that would physically prohibit left turns going out of the cente�. And I suppose we have the room in the median, I don't know of any particular reason why we couldn't do that. � 7 - CHAIRMAN FORTIER - What constitutes the expense and the work to do something like that? {f it's warranted that we need a physical restraint the warrants that expense to put that is�and in because it's dangerous, I would say that we need to do this. CHUCK G�aSS - In this particular case I would suggest that if you were going to go with that route allow left turn ingress but constructing additional island�, that should be at the property owner's expense because it only benefits him. � COMMISSIONER LEMING - I would agr�e with that end this is a very unusual sit�ation where you have a curve that's west of this location and it's very � dangerous for anyone coming out of that center to make a left turn, and if we don't restrict it somehow we will end up having that problem. This resolves the problem and benefits the owner on his liability. Then the only thing we would need would be an addition to the motion to approve would be a condition of a restriction of left turns on Chapman. CHUCK G�ASS - (Looking at the striping plan) We start to run out of pavement width that is available in there. I would suggest that we look at a design that is going to make sure it's feasible before implementation which we could certainly do before this item goes to City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, APPROVE the request, with the added stipulation that a left turn restriction be designed that will prohibit any left turns out of that shopping center, and that these costs shall be borne by the property owner. MOTION: B. l.EMING SECOND: J. Fortier AYES: Unanimous B. Reguest for the installation of '4-Way STOP' controls at Cambridge St. and Maple Ave. James B. Hebin 166 N. Cambridge St. Orange, CA 92666 S .. Oral presentation was based on the written staff report, piease refer to your copy. Chairman Fortier opened the public hearing for discussion. JAMES HEBIN. 166 N. CAMBRIDGE ST - In favor of 4-way STOP. AUCE CLARK, 205 !�, PirvE S7 - in favor of 4-way STOP. KEVIN ALLEN, 202 N. CAMBRIDGE ST - Opposed to 4way STOP. ROY GIBSON, 213 N. CAMBRIDGE ST - Opposed to 4-way STOP. ELMER HOLTUS. 192 N. CAMBRIDGE ST - Opposed to 4-way STOP. �fter fiurther discussio�n it was determined to continue this item for 30 days and request further study to be performed by Traffic Engineering staff. RECOMMENDATION: Continue this item for 30 days and direct staff to perform further study. MOTION: f�. Houver SECOND: B. Leming AYES: Unanimous C. Requ�st far the installation of street lights on the 100 block of N. Jewell PI. Gary L. Hendricks 132 N. Jewell PI. Orange, CA 92668 Oral presentation �nras based crn the v�rritte� staff report, please refer to your copy. There vtras no discussion on this item. RECOMMENDATION: That the CTC, by Motion, APPROVE the request. MOTION: B. Leming SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous D. Draft policy and procedures for the review and approval of 'Neighborhood Parking Permit Program' areas. Traffic Engineering Division City of Orange, Dept. of Public Works There was no oral presentation but the following comments were offered: 9 CHUCtc G�ASS - This is a draft, thoughts I have had prior to the meeting and i'm looking for input from the commission. We could either discuss it now or we could agendize it for the next meeting; I would like to get samething a little more cohesive developed that we could take to the City Council, and in fact in ordinance form change the city code to get this into the ordinance. Something that we can use as a basis for denying some of these requests which are obviously not warranted. COMMlSSIONER LEMING - You're recommending parking permit policy and procedures shown attached7 Are any of these in effect right now? cHucK G�asS - No. Right now all we have is this: !f someone submits a request to Traffic Engineering fo� a parking permit area, in the past we have automatically been putting together a petition for them; which takes staff time and research to develop the area that should be involved, in our opinion, putting together all the addresses, the typed petition, a person gets a letter with instructions for circulation. The only constraint we have at this point is that the commission will not consider the request unless there is at least 55% in favor of the program, that is pretty easy to achieve. Right now it's 55% of tenants or property owners. I have a tendency on all of these to notify both the tenant and property awner who 1 feel should have a voice in determining what is done to his property that cou(d affect it. Presently, if we got that petition, even if it's a ridiculous request it ends up on your agenda, and we end up - in order to be prepared for that item and justifying why we would want to recommend denial, we end up going out and doing afot of field surveys, observations, license plate checks, the police dept. gets involved because we run 28's on the Iicenses, and alot of time is spent on these and we're getting requests to solve social problems or merely because I as a resident wou(d like to have my own private parking. CHAIRMAN FORTIER - When you come up with some criteria that would be an automatic denial if they aren't met. CHUC►c G�ASS - The policy is more or less what would determine what should or should not be considered. The second page is more of a procedure which is different from what we do now inasmuch as if a request didn't obviously meet or come close to the policy that is adopted we would automatically tell them it's denied, unless the commission would like to see each one but basically not go through alot of staff resour�e expenditure. What 1've done on the policy, you'll find 3 statements at the top of the page, one giving the commission an annual review and the other 2 saying what the permit program is not intended to do and what it would not be approved for and that is the social problem or the high parking demand of the neighborhood itself. io " 3 The last part where I have the 6 considerations, first off would require a minimum of 67% property owners and/or residents approval, I've increased that from the 55% to make it a 2/3 percentage. Now that's an arbitrary nurnber and maybe it makes it a little tougher for the petition to get signed. The 2nd of new or additional areas must be contiguaus to an existing approved area or must be an entire neighborhood with logical boundaries. We're getting requests in for a little as 4 residents in an area totally unrelated to any of the existing parking permit areas and they want their own private parking because they don't like the apartment around the corner, and I think these should categarically be denied. They'd always have the ability to appeal but 1 don't believe we should be spending alot of _ time on them. - The 3rd one - right now we absolutely have no guideline as to where the break pawnt should be relative to resident versus the intruder or non- resident. I have just arbitrarily identified 50% as that break point, if most of the parking prob{em that you are describing in your request is your own residents don't bother me with the request. The 4th one - any identified problem must be continual and not occasional. I've got ane request right now for a permit parking area because af speciaf events like Little League which happens a few hours twice a week. I'm not sure that is a proper use of this permit parking. The 5th & 3rd are really where we would sift out requests because it would say - we will go out and do these studies if it appears to be warranted but if there's alot of space available (not high uti�ization of parking) and most of the people that are using the spaces are not outside the area (50%) those two combined would kill alot of requests. The 6th one - the requested area must have some distinct and significant characteristics that you couldn't find all around time. Area by UCI is distinct bec�use it was all the UCI employees that were identified as parking right in the ��eighborhood to avoid paying to park. This one here on the flip side would maybe justify on a temporary basis your MaplelShasta permit parking area because of the condo complex; nothing has improved over there the owner has not and has stated that he is not going to make the repairs to the carports and currently the property is up for sale. Th�re has been at least one developer interested and has presented a preliminary concept plan to demolish the entire area and raise new condos, but I haven't seen any more on that and whether or not it goes through I have no idea. �i CHAIRMAN FORTIER - 1 agree with the statements you are making if it's a neighborhood problem and everyone is parking there then it's their perogative. ! think it should be ascertained what creates the problem; if it's the UCI parking then we shc�uld address it, if it's an institution where people come from out of town and parking because of this type of place then I think that's something that would warrant looking into. But 1 think if we could ascertain that it's not any of these and it meets these types of guidelines then it should be something where you could write the letter and say it doesn't meet the guideline, and these are people from your own community and therefore it's rejected. COMMISSIONER LEMING - I concur these have to be streamlined and only consider those that have actual merit. CHUCK G�.aSS - This doesn't have to be resolved today, I would like to come back at another meeting with a policy that all of us can agree to with whatever modifications you may wish to make. But once we have a consensus that this is the criteria then I would anticipate going to the City Council in the form of a recommendation that we, by ordinance, change the existing section in the city code to include these criteria. COMMISSIONER LEMING - What's the possibility of putting it on the May agenda and having the commissioners review it before the meeting and submit any recommendations or ask any questions. ASST. CITY ATTORNEY BOB HERRICK - I have some comments we can discuss, I think there are a couple of things we can do with these criteria when we put them in the code would make a viable screening process that could be done administratively instead of public hearings all the time. But I do think it belongs in the code and not just in a policy memorandum. BERNIE DENNIS - YOU are going to have to be careful how you time that you don't want to get that one messed up with the street sweeping ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: That this item be agendized for the May 8th CTC meeting. MOTION: B. Leming SECOND: F. Sciarra AYES: Unanimous 12 � Vtl. ORAL PRESENTATIONS There being no members of the public wishing to address the City Traffic Commission, and no further discussion or comments by members of the CTC or staff, Chairman Fortier adjourned the meetin� at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � , 1� ���'�- Phyl ' Then Recording Secretary 13