Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSafety Commission mins 1990/09/20 . . . MINUTES OF THE SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, September 20, 1990 7:04 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Braden, Commissioners Koester, Militscher, Thomas, Matacia EXCUSED ABSENCES: Commissioner Arnold UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: None. STAFF PRESENT: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer; Zoubir Ouadah, Associate Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera, Assistant Civil Engineer; Matthew Souttere, Assistant I Civil Engineer OTHERS PRESENT: Sergeant Tom Schaefer. Also, see attached attendance list. 1. SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Vice Chair Braden introduced the newly appointed member of the Safety Commission, Mr. Joe Matacia. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION Approve minutes of the July 12, 1990 Safety Commission meeting. MSUC [MilitscherlKoester] 3-0-1, Braden abstained due to absence from last meeting, to approve the Minutes of July 12, 1990. 2. CONTINUED MATTERS: (2A) Election of Chair Vice Chair Braden explained that the Safety Commission's former Chair, Vern Decker, transferred to the Planning Commission. thereby creating the need for the Safety Commission to elect a Chair. , . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Commissioner Militscher nominated Vice Chair Ollie Braden for Chair; Commissioner Koester seconded. MOTION Ollie Braden nominated for Chair. MSUC (Militscher/Koester] 5-0. Chair Braden nominated Bob Thomas as Vice Chair; Militscher seconded. MOTION Bob Thomas nominated for Vice Chair. MSUC (Braden/Militscher] 5-0. 3. NEW BUSINESS (3A) Request for permit parkin!! on 200 block of "D" Street Frank Rivera gave staff's report. Staff has a request for permit parking to be established on the 200 block of "D" Street. Traffic Engineering has received numerous requests from area residents for red curb and time limited parking on the westerly half of 200 "D" Street, the north side of the street, due to improperly parked vehicles. Staff has red tipped the driveways in the area to allow for clearance of the residents in the area to clear out the driveways in front of the residences in that area. The driveways in this area are narrower than what we usually find in the newer subdivisions. It (the narrowness of the driveways) makes coming in and out of those driveways a little bit difficult. So those driveway:; are red tipped and we received a request that the residents want to establish a permit parking system and a time limited parking, thereby allowing them to park in front of their residences and eliminate the vehicles which park too close to their driveways or vehicles which are there all day and the residents do not have a place for visitors or service people to park in front of their houses. We have recommended that these parking stall markings be added on the south side in front of Fredericka Manor so that the parking in the area can be better organized. This would allow the south side to park approximately nine vehicles, then another eight v( hicles on the south side from about half way in the block to the west. On the north side we are recommending that a two hour parking limit be established from 263 "D" Street to 295 "D" Street and that a permit parking area for residents be established in the same area. That concludes staff's report. Chair Braden asked for any Commissioner comL1ents!questions. Commissioner Matacia asked if permit parking i; normal in ChuIa Vista. 2 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Rivera responded that the City has established several permit parking areas in the City. Generally, the City has a few permit parking streets near Chula Vista High School, where the student parking lot is closed off at a certain hour of the morning and it not opened up until later in the day; thereby students who do not want to be locked in the parking lot were parking on the adjacent streets and the residents requested that the permit parking be established to clear off their driveways. We did establish that permit parking around the high school. Chair Braden asked for an explanation as to how permit parking works. Would they carry something on their windshield or dashboard? Mr. Rivera explained that an owner of a residence needs to come to the Engineering Department, show proof of residence--that they live at that address-osuch as a driver's license and a car registration. Staff then takes the number of the license plate of the vehicle and give them one permit. A permit is given for each vehicle; this permit allows them to park in the area for more than the two-hour time limit, which would established. If they have any visitors, visitors would have to park in their driveway should they wish to stay beyond the two-hour time limit as they would not be given a permit sticker. This is a windshield sticker, it is green, and it tapes on to the back side of the window. Commissioner Matacia noted that the request for parking permits be established from 263 "D" Street to 295 "D" Street, does that include 295 or just up to 295? Mr. Rivera noted that initially the request did not include 295 "D" Street, but staff did receive a request from the apartment complex at 295 "D" Street stating that they would like to be included in the permit parking, so staff amended its recommendation and included 295 "D" Street. Commission Thomas stated that in one of the letters, written by Mike Donnelly, that he received, indicated that on weekends the Fredericka Manor parking lot is closed. What would happen if this parking Jot were opened up and people (employees) requested to park there. Mr. Rivera acknowledged that a representative from Fredericka Manor is attending this meeting and desires to speak to the Commission on this item. Also, if the parking lot is closed on weekends, it might be pussible to have them open it. Mr. Rivera stated he did not know why the parking lot would be closed. 3 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes PUBLIC COMMENTS Larry Dease, 295 "D" Street, Chula Vista, 92010, (Casa Verde Association). I also have a few questions that I would like to ask about this. My principal questions would be: What type of vehicles would be permitted? Would they be two- wheel drive vehicles, would they be trailers, RVs, boats and trailers, thing like that. Mr. Rivera responded that it would be vehicles, not trailers--automobiles, pick-up trucks. Mr. Dease asked if this meant standard automotive transportation versus Rvs and things like that. Mr. Rivera stated he was correct. Mr. Dease's next question was: What if a resident were to be there--because you are saying that if he has a sticker in his windshield--hypothetically, what if someone were out of town and were not able to get back to town to move their vehicle, is this permit parking 9 to 5, Monday through Friday or does this include weekends also? I asked about three questions in a row there. Mr. Rivera responded that a City Ordinance allows a person to park a vehicle up to 72 hours without moving it. If a vehicle is parked for longer than 72 hours and if the police have been notified and have marked the vehicle, then it will be cited or towed. Mr. Dease asked if this meant with or without the sticker. Mr. Rivera said that was correct. The time limited parking would be established, and is normally 9 to 6, except on Sundays and holidays. Mr. Dease stated that his next question was to Fredericka (Manor) and he stated that he imagined that they would answer it--I want to know why the parking lot is closed. Why their parking in the facility in front of the private residences is closed off to their employees. The only other thing I might want to suggest is in future you may want to look into a four-way stop light at Third Avenue and "D" Street, for safety. Chair Braden acknowledged that the Safety Commission has debated this item in the past. Jim Floyd, 273 "D Street, Chula Vista 92010 ("D" Street residents). I would like to support the Traffic peoples recommendation for the following reasons. First of all is safety. "D" Street is a 30 mph street, but there are people who travel faster than 30 mph. There is a slight crest to the hill, east of the area that they are 4 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes . talking about the controlled parking. When a van or camper with a shell on it, or a large automobile with a sunshade is parked there, even though these people have allowed us relief with a slight bit of red curb at our driveways, when you get to that point, it is virtually impossible to see the cars coming over the crest of the hill and down toward our residences. I have never had the pleasure of being practically being run into, but one the neighbors I saw them have a very close call and my wife has had a close call. So for this reason I think if we could reduce that to resident parking I think we have a better chance of keeping it a little bit safer. On the weekends, for the most part, the Fredericka (Manor) parking lot is almost empty. There are several parking places during the week--there are times when the Fredericka parking lot is full also, and I have been told by the people that park in front of the house, that they are not allowed to park in that parking lot, they say that it is reserved for the towers, I think is what they told me. And so, they tell me they cannot park. Now I do not know how true that is, but they say they cannot park there so they use the street and they use the closest place to where they are working, which can be either side of the street. There are two shifts at Fredericka, or a shift and one-half or so, so it does not only cut you off from parking during the day when there is somebody there, but if the person in front of your house leaves and the next shift comes there, you're tied until 8:00, so you have evening company--you don't have enough driveway space, they have to go seeking parking also. It is not a problem now, but it was a problem some months ago that we had a lot of debris in the street. People ate lunch in their cars and left their lunch debris in the curb and if their ashtrays were full, they emptied them in the curb and, Jiking to keep a nice clean front yard, I found it slightly annoying. The last thing is very personal, but during construction--I recently had some construction done on my house--the closest place to park was about one- half block away and some of the construction people that were working there, would run over, if they were just going to do a short job, they put their truck in Fredericka's parking lot. Well, Fredericka immediately came to us and told us that if we did not get our vehicles out of their parking lot they were going to tow them away. So, I think that is not a good attitude as far as the neighborhood goes. I support staffs recommendation wholeheartedly. . Scott StaehJing, 183 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 92010 (Administrator, Fredericka Manor). To answer a question that was asked earlier, there is some misunderstanding on the part of some individuals I am sorry to say, in that that parking lot is not closed on weekends. Sometimes what will happen is, employees will come to work early in the morning and there are some employees who come so early they might go home early afternoon and some spaces might be vacated and they (the empty spaces) may sit there because there is not another shift right at that time that would occupy those spaces. So, there are certainly times of the day when you might look out there and see some empty spots. We do, and so that you understand, I represent the residential part of the campus, which is the bulk of the campus. Mr. Genna is here 5 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes . with me, and he is the Administrator at the Conva1escent Hospital on the corner. He has about 150 employees and I do also. What we have asked is that the parking lot over by the towers, which was referred to earlier, the people that work at the Manor, near the towers, we ask that they have pretty much first chance at parking there. Then if we have additional space, we allow the hospital employees to park there as well. The way it is designed is that anyone on the campus fill that lot first before we would go to the street. Now, if an employee has indicated that they don't believe they can ever park there then we have some communication problems and we would certainly do whatever we could to rectify that problem. I would like to make just a couple of comments about the parking situation there. The Bank of America, which is on the corner of, as most of you know I think, "E" Street and Third Avenue. They some time ago asked their emp10yees to park in the street. And so they began to park on Third Avenue. I don't know how many months ago, perhaps a year or longer, a fair amount of that curb was painted red. When that curb was painted red, then of course people from Bank of America as well as other people who parked there, had to find other places to park. I would image that many of those people when around the bend to "D" Street. Now what we are talking about doing is making some changes in the "D" Street area which will limit parking, at least on the north side. One of the concerns and questions I'd have is, what sort of ripple effect will we all get into if we create permit parking. People that normally park in that area are going to have to find another place to park. My guess is that they will go further east down "D" Street to park and perhaps, certainly there are residents that live down there as well, I think, that would have the same kinds of concerns about people parking in front of their house when people haven't parked there in the past. So, that is merely something that I guess I believe we all have to think about. I am not so certain but what, that a lot of the cars parked out there are Manor employees. I think that we can, within our campus, working with our employees, I think we can solve some of this problem. There is a section of our campus over on the southwest corner, near the Bank of America, where we have talked about asking some employees to park right on our campus. I think we can perhaps communicate better with hospital staff when they can use our regular parking lot. Certainly, if the lot is vacant on weekends, people should park there first and we would be glad to try to communicate that to them. A1so, I'd just like you to be aware that I don't believe the congestion problem is due entirely to Fredericka Manor employees. We have for years hosted the Chula Vista Adult School at our hospital there. I understand that we currently have about 30 students from the Chula Vista community who go there and we provide classroom space for that class. So those people are likewise trying to compete for parking in that area. A1so, I went out and walked the area this morning and I happened to notice across the street that there is a boat parked across the street that takes up about two parking spots, there are some vendors that are doing work who are taking up space and so forth. I think it is a little more of a generalized parking problem that is perhaps not as different as maybe other parts of the community and perhaps we can work together and save some money for the City. . 6 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Chair Braden asked if vendors who came to serve Fredericka Manor were not provided with on-site parking. Mr. Staehling responded that was correct. He went on to clarify his prior statement, when I referred to a vendor I was referring to a vendor that was working on the gentlemen's house. He has had work done there for quite some time and I am just trying to point out that there are other vendor vehicles, other types of people parking in that area other than just Manor employees and so they compete for space. Commissioner Militscher asked the number of parking spaces available in Fredericka Manor. How many employees per shift. Mr. Staehling deferred this question to Ray Quinlan, also of Fredericka Manor, as he would have a better idea. The response was, approximately 35 space. At the Manor (not including the hospital) we have about 150 employees, we'd at anyone time, at a peak time during the day, we'd have perhaps about 80 people. Now keep in mind that the 35 spots he (Mr. Quinlan) talked about, that is just the lower parking lot. We have a section up top, near where I park, we have perhaps 25 spots up there. We have streets (on campus) where employees park and so forth. Commissioner Militscher reiterated his request to know how many parking spots are there in Fredericka Manor and how many employees of Fredericka Manor are on at one time. Mr. Staehling stated he would have to "guesstimate" at that. I would say the large majority, understand, of the Manor employees park on our property. When you talk about the convalescent hospital, which has about. Commissioner Militscher interjected that he wants to know how many parking spaces are available in Fredericka Manor and how many employees are on at one particular shift. Mr. Staehling responded that at the Manor there are about 80 employees at a peak time on a shift and as far as parking spaces he does not have that number off the top of his head. He did state that the Manor did have a lot of parking spaces where residents and employees park. Commissioner Militscher asked if this was sufficient to handle the Manor's staff and normal visitors at anyone time. Mr. Staehling said yes, for the Manor. 7 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Chair Braden asked if the Manor's employees then did not have a reason to park on the street. Mr. Staehling stated that normally, no, not Manor employees. But understand that we have two separate businesses there--the convalescent hospital is another issue. Chair Braden noted that it is still in the same general area. What Commissioner Militscher asked was, the total facility, all around. Total, how many parking spaces. Mr. Staehling said he was trying to get an understanding as to what you were referring. In other words, Fredericka Manor is the residential part of the campus that I am responsible for and I am not responsible for the convalescent hospital. Are you interested in both facilities. The convalescent hospital uses any space that the Manor employees do not use, then they fill it up. Commissioner Militscher stated that he wants to know how many spaces are available for people that are normally going to be at work at the organization (both facilities) and are there sufficient spots to handle it. Mr. Staehling said no, there are not. Chair Braden noted that somewhere back in history somebody decided that if the place grew enough, and the employees outgrew the parking spaces, they could just overflow on the street then. Mr. Staehling responded that that was an assumption that could be made. Chair Braden said she was not blaming Mr. Staehling, that she was just saying this seemed to be what has occurred. Commissioner Militscher asked if the Manor has considered increasing the amount of parking spaces that they could make available to their employees. Mr. Staehling responded that he had mentioned earlier that they have talked about extending some area. Commissioner Militscher stated that he realized this, but he wished to know if this would be sufficient to handled the facilities staff. Mr. Staehling responded that it would not. 8 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Commissioner Militscher stated that no matter what the Manor was going to do, you are sti1I going to have the problem of street parking and no consideration of trying to contain it on the Manor. Mr. Staehling responded that that was correct to the first part of the statement. He would not say that (referring to the latter part of the statement), saying that he thought he indicated that we are looking at using existing space more efficiently and making sure that if we have space available and people are not aware that they can use it, that they should. But there wi1I be overflow unless we would pave a very large section of the campus. Commissioner Militscher stated that what he was getting at was that it seemed the Manor was creating part of this problem by not having sufficient parking for their own staff on their own place. Chair Braden asked if a two or three story parking facility was considered. Mr. Staehling responded no. Commissioner Matacia noted that the Manor has an area by the Bank that very few people park in. He stated that he visits there frequently and this area usually is not used by more than one or two cars. He asked if it would not serve a good purpose to encourage more use of this lot. Mr. Staehling noted that was the area he was referring to and yes it would serve a good purpose, you bet. Chair Braden asked if someone could get back to the Commission perhaps by the next meeting (October 11, 1990) and inform the Commission what is the ultimate number of parking spaces that your planners can come up with on your own property so that we can maybe "guesstimate" the overflow. I just think it is an employer's responsibility to some extent, to a great extent, to provide sufficient parking. Mr. Staehling said sure, certainly. Commissioner Matacia asked if they were doing different things at the Manor than you use to. In my visits over there in recent months, the reason why I parked around on that gravel area, was because I could not park on Fredericka Drive. Is it because you are having more programs than you used to have, because that place is packed, not just for employees, for anybody. Mr. Staehling noted that the one area that perhaps employee numbers have grown is in the home care area--private duty help, people that do one-an-one help with 9 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes clients, not our normal staff. But in addition to that, I think the fact that parking has become more scarce in the street along Third Avenue. There is just less space to compete for. As I mentioned, the Chula Vista Adult School, and yes, we do have more programs than we did. I have been there seven years and we have more programs today, in the last three years than we had four or five years ago. Chair Braden asked if these programs were just to benefit the Manor's residents or to benefit the community at large. Mr. Staehling stated both. Chair Braden said that perhaps the adult school could use a school facility for adult classes and it would lessen the impact in your particular neighborhood, if it does not get you anything except traffic problems or whatever. We appreciate your community spirit. . Co Chair Thomas asked if they had been aware in the past of a parking problem and have you been confronted or talked to, or is this the first time you have been aware of a parking problem. Has anybody approached you about a parking problem. Mr. Staehling responded that this is the first time he has personally been aware of it. Nobody has approached me about it. . Vito Genna, 111 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 92010 (Administrator, Fredericka Manor Convalescent Hospital). I just want to reiterate the comments that I made in the letter that all of you received, about why I feel that permit parking should not take place. Again, to reiterate, the Chula Vista community education classes that are going on is for the community. They need those clinical hours at a facility they can practice at. So it would not be so easy to just put them in a high school or some other program. Also, we are forgetting family members and one of the comments from a resident was that at 8:00 it seems people are leaving. Those are family visitors as that is when our visiting ours end. Some of those visitors are well into their 60s and 70s that are visiting parents in my building. One of the reasons why there seems to be more parking by employees is we have pushed our employees out of our parking lot to try to allot more parking for our visitors, because of complaints from that sector. Because, as I said, many of them have their own disabilities and it is very hard for them to walk from a block away to visit their relatives. I think that just the idea of treating any private resident, their front yard as being sacred is a bit much. I have a home on the end of the block and I would love to have that safe guarded, it is utilized by a lot of people because it is at the end of the block. I don't think it is realistic to do that. I think you are opening up the City of Chula Vista for a lot more. Where does it stop. Why not go the whole block, because that is what you 10 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes are going to do--push them down to the next sector, where are we gaining from that. I have been there almost a year as administrator. I have yet to meet any of the residents that signed the petition to complain to me about a problem. Maybe I should assume that there would be a problem, but none of them have come over to talk about this thing. And there are, I think, solutions without spending a lot of money for the City; we may have to spend some money for the facility, but we have that responsibility too. We recognize that and I think we have always been, you know, meet our obligations and responsibilities. If nothing else, maybe we should at least delay any decision and see if we cannot work out something in trying to voluntarily work something out with our staff and maybe even trying to get our resident families not to park in those areas. It certainly has not been tried as far as I am aware. Them trying to tell one of our staff members of whatever it is not getting back to us. It is just a matter, well, we've got to park somewhere. And it is easy to park at the nearest place to the building which is toward the front of the block. I think that with some encouragement they can turn that around. Again, I think to look at this option--what the City is suggesting, or the team is suggesting at this point--is premature. I think that there are other options to look at here. . Commissioner Matacia stated that he believed they had thought a lot about this. Mr. Genna interjected that since the petition, actually I had not seen the petition until a week ago, it never came to my building, it went to the Manor and they sent it over. We saw this (the petition) a week before this meeting today. Commissioner Matacia continued, asking that if one of the residents had come to you and complained, what would you have done. Mr. Genna replied that he would have looked at some solutions and I think there are. I respect them (the neighbors), because if I were living there I would want the same thing and I really feel strongly about that and I have not heard of any of my employees hanging around or throwing trash out, certainly that would have been looked at immediately. We would have tried to work out something, and better utilization of the parking spots. As administrators, we have talked and we can do more to better utilize that parking lot. It will never be enough and it will get worse because the patients that we are getting are getting more visitors. We have a double- edged problem. Years ago we did not think we would need all that parking because a lot of the employees that we have had are on the lower end of the scale, as far as economically, and many of them do not have cars and to this day do not have cars. But that is not necessarily continuing. We are seeing more and more employees with cars even though our wage scale is not that high. . Commissioner Militscher asked if he were unaware that there was a parking problem in that area. 11 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Genna stated that he was not aware that the residents felt so strong, because many times I have seen the construction firm doing work on the house for six months or more and there has been a boat there and certainly not one of my employees' boat. It seems like there are many times where they are getting their own parking spots. Commissioner Militscher asked if Mr. Genna was also saying he would like time to study and maybe present a solution to some parts of the problem. Mr. Genna responded that yes, he thought so. Commissioner Militscher asked if, in that, you are thinking of adding parking to your area. Mr. Genna stated that he was thinking of a section that Scott (Staehling) talked about, the section toward the Bank (of America) end where we can utilize that section. But, of course, as a visitor, you may not find as many parking spots, but there are more spots on the campus that we can better utilize. Commissioner Militscher requested if Mr. Genna, off the top of his head, had any idea as to approximately how many spaces that might be. Mr. Genna noted that even if they found eight spots, because I do not think we are really looking at very many spots, with all the red markings and everything, I don't know that we are looking at that many spots that this is going to help. Commissioner Militscher asked if he were thinking of approximately eight spots. Mr. Genna responded that he thought they could go for even more than that. That one area (the bank) and better utilization of the Manor parking lot and if it is not being used on the weekends effectively, we need to look at that. Commissioner Militscher pressed the point, asking if Mr. Genna did say only an additional eight spots could be considered. Mr. Genna responded that he could not give a number right now. This is has been presented to us within the last couple of days. Commissioner Militscher asked if it would be 100. He is just trying to get a feel for how many additional spots you are able to put into this program to aid the situation. If you are talking 100, talking 50, talking 25, talking 10, or you're talking 5. Now, certainly you can give me a number as to what you are thinking about. 12 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Genna stated that he was talking maybe 15 to 20 spots. Commissioner Thomas stated that finding the parking is one issues. Trying to enforce all the employees to use it is another issue. Mr. Genna responded that they do have mechanisms to encourage and discipline if necessary . Commissioner Thomas noted that he had not heard Mr. Genna make that suggestion and that was why he brought the issue up. You have to define it and strongly encourage all of your employees to park on site. Mr. Rivera commented that staff was not prohibiting parking along the north curb line in front of these residences. We are just limiting it to two hours. There is parking available further east on "D" Street, along the south curb line and lastly, the area affected by this proposed permit parking area affects approximately 10 parking spaces. He pointed to a viewgraph showing the area in question. Commissioner Militscher asked if this were the area he spoke about. Mr. Rivera responded he was correct, 263 to 295 "D" Street. Commissioner Militscher asked if this would be eliminating any parking spaces or just defining where the cars could park. Mr. Rivera stated that it would define the parking spaces as to two hour parking limit for anyone, if you are a resident you can park there longer than two hours, as long as you have that permit shown on your vehicle. Commissioner Militscher asked if this would decrease parking availability. Mr. Rivera responded no, we are not making more spaces on the north side, we just redefining it. Chair Braden asked if these residences had their own driveways where they could park their own cars. Mr. Rivera acknowledged that yes, they do, and most of these driveways are narrower and so they accommodate one vehicle, possibly two but it is awkward for the backing out maneuver onto the street. Chair Braden informed Mr. Genna that she liked his idea of wanting to get together with the neighbors and it is perhaps unfortunate that they did not beat on your door 13 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes rather than circulate a petition, or maybe they shouid have done both. But, we will be having a meeting on October 11, so do you think that by that time, between now and then, since there are so few residences involved, would you be willing to contact these people and perhaps call a conference and have a brainstorming session and just see what you can do and then come back and let us know what you have decided, if anything. Mr. Genna stated that he was willing to set up the conference and call the people together and talk to them and see what kind of solutions they can come up with. MOTION Accept plan the way Chair Braden described it. That is specifically, that Mr. Genna will contact the neighbors involved, set up a time--most likely in your conference room if you have such a place, and discuss this and get back to the Safety Commission on October 11, 1990. MSUC, [Militscher/Koester] 5-0, approved. (3B) Request for parkin!! prohibition at .Tames Court . Frank Rivera gave staffs report. Staff received a request from a resident of James Court for parking prohibition along the south curb line in the vicinity of the unimproved lots where the street is 18 feet wide instead of 36 feet, to allow for two- way traffic and to provide clearance for driveways. James Court is a residential street which, as you can see from the aerial photo (shown as a viewgraph), the roadway is paved 18 feet wide and then the improvements start at 36 feet wide. This lot here is (pointing to viewgraph) unimproved on the north side. Presently, we have parking prohibited for these two homes here on the south curb line to allow for easier access off of Fourth Avenue to allow for two-way traffic in that 18 foot section. To the west of there, we have parking allowed along the south side and there is no parking restrictions on the north side. That lot is unimproved and vehicles at times will park in that area. The rest of James Court, parking is allowed on both sides of the street. We are recommending that to facilitate travel movement in and out of James Court to prohibit parking for a distance of 200 feet along the unimproved Jot. Two hundred feet would start at this corner (again pointing to viewgraph) at the west end and go east. The 200 foot would then overlap with the parking prohibition on the south side, which would allow two vehicles, if they had to drive side by side while retaining the parking in this area. If residents are having a difficult time backing out of their driveways, we could also implement some sort of red curb driveway tipping to facilitate those movements. That is our recommendation and that concludes my report. . Chair Braden asked why is that section (pointing to the viewgraph) unimproved and just sits there. 14 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Rivera responded that this was part of James Court that has not been built on. When the owner of that parcel decides to improve the lot to build a house, then they would be required to dedicate that portion of the roadway to the City and complete all the improvements. That is private property--everywhere where it is not paved. The other house, which is addressed off Fourth Avenue, does not have the improvements on there. The City could set up an assessment district to complete those improvements. Chair Braden stated that one would think the City would have the power to widen that street. Mr. Rivera acknowledged that, generally, projects have been where they are mostly needed--on streets that handle larger pedestrian volumes, vehicle volumes; like right now there is a project to put sidewalks in on Second Avenue and "H" Street, on the southwest corner. There is no sidewalks there and so the City is working to improve areas where it is needed. Commissioner Matacia asked staff if they had addressed the question about the south side. Mr. Rivera stated that yes, we did and if that area is restricted, or prohibited parking on the south side, the vehicles then would be parking further to the west in the cuI de sac area and we would be moving the problem to the west end of the cuI de sac. Commissioner Matacia asked if staff had any recommendation to change the south side. Mr. Rivera said no. Paul S. McQueen, Jr., 438 James Court, Chula Vista, CA 92010. My friends call me Sam and that is what I would rather go by. Looking at the map up there (the viewgraph), you see that James Court is a cuI de sac and when people go up and down Fourth Avenue, they very often go right by James Court and don't even know it is there. Now, if people could see that--every once in a while we have a few people come down (James Court) and whip around the cuI de sac and go right back out again because they thought it was a through street. The gentleman who lives at the end of the cuI de sac made sure that he got lots of shrubbery out there so they will see it and not go through his house trying to get over to the next street. I am happy that that other half of the street is not developed, because people do not see the street, they go right on by instead of trying to use it to get through his garage to the next street. Mr. Radcliffe(sp.) and I have been residents since those houses were first built in 1960, I have been there 30 years and I think in that 30 years I have seen about 10 times when there was some problem because of cars parked along the 15 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes street--there was a difficulty of access of sorts for the people who live there. Having a one lane entry and exit with cars parked along the side restrains a lot of traffic and it slows traffic down that does come down that way. We are a slow moving, friendly neighborhood and I would like to see it remain friendly. I think there is a little dissention between neighbors here that I hate to see in the neighborhood. Like your planner over there said, if you put that red curb half way down the block, allow no parking in that upper end of the street, what is going to happen--many of those people own two and even three vehicles--is that that is going to force those people either to move out around the cuI de sac and there is very limited parking down there because the driveways cut off any parking, either that or up on Fourth Avenue. If you travel Fourth Avenue since they shut off Fifth there at Sears, Fourth Avenue is a very busy street and you are going to have people park up around the corner and walk down into James Court. So I would oppose red curbing, I think we should leave what parking is now available there. I think we should leave it there. . Gary C. Hunter, 420 James Court, Chula Vista, 92010. I live in front of where they have planned the red curb. In 1986 we moved to 420 James Court, we noticed the vacant lot across from our residence and the limited parking space that was available. At that time our front parking area was mostly vacant and allowed traffic to flow through the street without any problem. Several months after moving to James Court we were approached by the City Engineering Department and asked if we wanted our curb painted red. At that time we did not see any problem with the parking there with the width of the street, so we decided to turn down the offer. A year ago our next door neighbors at 416 James Court sold and moved out of their house. New neighbors moved in. Since our new neighbors at 416 James Court have moved in, we have noticed a dramatic increase in traffic through our street. Since they have moved there, it is not possible to park in front of our own residence because the other side, when you drive down it is impossible to have two cars go up and down the street at the same time. We spoke to our neighbors about the problem, but they obviously do not care about it. We did call the police one time about the illegally parked vehicles along side the vacant lot, which they did move their cars. We noticed that if an emergency vehicle had to come down that street, it would be a big problem because it is not wide enough. The street has grown and Fourth Avenue has grown and there has been quite an amount of traffic coming through there lately. I have some video (tape) too, if you would like to see it. [At this point, Mr. Hunter played back a video that he had taken of the street showing the park cars, the unimproved lot, and the general parking conditions on James Court.] . Mr. Rosenberg informed the Commission that that section was 18 feet wide and when cars do park on that dirt area, then it does create a further restriction. People can park on that dirt section. 16 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Commission Koester noted that some people have dug out parking areas over in the dirt and noted that that was bound to add to the confusion. Mr. Hunter informed the Commission that there is a no parking sign further up the street. Commissioner Militscher asked if the no parking sign were on the same side of the street as the vacant lot. Mr. Hunter responded that it was not. Mr. Rivera pointed out (using the video) the view of the no parking area along the sidewalk on the south side, it is closer to the intersection and it is unimproved on the north side, and it is 18 feet wide in this section. Mr. Hunter noted that when the police came to move the cars, they were coming down two cars at the same time and they were trapped--the other one had to back up so that the police could get through. Chair Braden stated that Commissioner Thomas brought up the issue that staffs recommendation is to prohibit parking on the north side of James Court and that staffs report states that the Hunter family has requested that parking be prohibited along the south curb line. Mr. Rivera stated that the north side is private property; that is, it has not been dedicated to the City so they are, in effect, parking on private property. Chair Braden asked Mr. Rivera if the recommendation is to prohibit parking on the north side. Mr. Rivera responded, on the private property. Mr. Hunter stated that, obviously the real solution would be to put curb on the other side. Chair Braden noted that since that is private property the City cannot do that. Mr. Rosenberg informed the Commission that staff has been put on notice of a narrow section of roadway, we feel that we have an obligation from an emergency access point of view to make the recommendation to keep the area clear to provide a minimum width. 17 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Chair Braden stated that the Commission agrees with that, but they are asking for the south side. If staff does the north side and they do the south side there will be no parking at all. Mr. Rosenberg said that would be true. There would be a greater hardship if parking were removed on the south side. Victoria Cortez, 416 James Court, Chula Vista, 92010. Good evening, I am Victoria Cortez, the infamous resident of 416 James Court. I want to thank the Traffic Engineer for recognizing the hardship and the unnecessariness of moving or allowing for prohibition of parking in front of 416 and the adjacent residences. I have a question--how are the counts determined? It said 140 movements a day. Mr. Rivera stated that those were estimated trips, we estimate approximately 10 trips are made for each house. That is a general number. Ms. Cortez said that was about double the actual traffic on James Court, just from experience. The question I had is a hypothetical one, do we need two way traffic on that street? I agree that we definitely need to have room and access for emergency vehicles and that visitors to our residences have been parking on the private property across the street. I would like to know whether this is legal or illegal. At this point in time, it is not red curbed or signed, or anything else. As you can even see from the video, they were not parked on the pavement (the unimproved area), they were up on the dirt and there was actually enough room for them to clear. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the private property owner has not posted any signs giving notice of towing cars away so you are parking on private property at your own risk. Ms. Cortez acknowledged this, oh okay. Chair Braden said, in other words--don't. Mr. Rosenberg said that until we put signs up I don't believe you will get cited. Mr. Cortez continued, stating that one of the points also raised in the recommendation or the discussion concerned driveway clearance. We have never experienced any problems accessing our driveway either incoming or outgoing. I am not sure if any of the other residents have; but we have probably the most parking use of the street and we haven't had a problem there. Basically, I put down I was in support of the staff recommendation because I thought I only had two choices-- either I supported or opposed it. I was led to believe that opposing the north side prohibition met that we were supporting the south side prohibition, so I am opposed 18 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes to actually any prohibition. I think we should all be good neighbors and we do endeavor to be that. Chair Braden asked Ms. Cortez if she agreed that since this was private property and the City has no jurisdiction, you can't park on it, if the owner says you should not. Ms. Cortez agreed, stating that if there were any problem with the owner we would not use his space at all. . Bob Radcliffe, 412 James Court, Chula Vista, 92010. I think I should correct Mr. McQueen's statement, I think he was really in favor of the Safety Engineer's recommendation as am 1. Like Mr. McQueen, my wife and I have lived on James Court since it was originally constructed which is over 30 years, about mid-1960. Through those years we have seen a lot of people come and go on this street, we have seen a lot of children raised on this street, grown up, acquire cars. I venture to say there are probably fewer cars on the street right now than there have been through those 30 years. Through those 30 years we have lived with the traffic situation, realizing that we would all love to have a full blown street. We feel we have been paying the same taxes everybody else has and would love to have the benefits from those taxes. But in any event, since the curb is red lined, I think 402 and 408 James Court, I think that has relieved the turning off of Fourth Avenue routine. To just give you an example of the potential spill over if any goes beyond prohibition on the north side. I now have my neighbor's cars in front of my place and I notice that they are parking more cars on their lawn. You can see that if it goes beyond just prohibiting traffic on the north side by any kind of red lining whatsoever on the south side this problem is just going to be exacerbated right on down the street. I am definitely in favor of proceeding with restrictions on the north side, but nothing beyond that. MOTION That Safety Commission accept staffs recommendation. MSUC, [Thomas/Koester] 5-0, approved. Recess at 8:10; reconvened at 8:20 p.m. (3C) Request for perpendicular parkin!! at 700 block of Riverlawn Avenue . Mr. Rivera gave staffs report. We have received a letter from several residents of the Karen Condominiums to be allowed to park at the north end of Riverlawn Avenue, which is a cuI de sac, to be allowed to park perpendicular to the curb and not parallel. Staff has looked into this issue and has received input from the police department that these vehicles are parked in violation of the California Vehicle Code which states that all vehicles must park within 18 inches of a curb, both right side 19 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes . wheels. Wherever there is a curb, they are to park within 18 inches of the curb. In addition, vehicles are not to park in front of a driveway or on a sidewalk. In this area, this cui de sac is approximately 30.5 feet in radius, which is less than the 40 foot radius standard which is used now in Chula Vista. So the cui de sac turn-around area is smaller than what is typically found in other streets of the City. This compounds the V-turn maneuver and therefore necessitates the need to have the vehicles park parallel to the curb. There are some areas in between driveways where vehicles do park, but the vehicles tend to overhang on the driveways and makes backing out of driveways a little bit difficult. Staff is recommending that some red curb be added on the north end of the cui de sac to clear up this area. We anticipate that this will reduce the parking space for approximately two vehicles, right now about five vehicles park in the turn-around area. Ifwe restrict the parking as we are recommending, you would allow for three vehicles. Right now, one vehicles could park in this area, in front of let 21, we do have a vehicles that is parked in between the driveway of lot 21 to this end (using view graph) and the north extension of the cui de sac, we have one vehicle here. We would prohibit that parking since it is only 16 feet. Over in this area we have about two or three vehicles which park perpendicular to the curb, and in this area we would want them to park paraDel to the curb and therefore one parking space would be lost. In looking at the area, parking generally is somewhat filled along the west side of Riverlawn Avenue. The east side shows that there is some more parking available in the area. The residents have been parking this way (perpendicular) for many years without a problem. The concern that Traffic Engineering has is that just inside the driveway to the Karen Condominiums we have the garbage bin area for the truck and a 9-stall parking lot and at times the large vehicles park perpendicular to the curb, the garbage truck has to maneuver its way around them. At times, driving in the turn-around area could be constricted. Therefore, staff if recommending red curbing on both sides of the driveway to lot 21 and at lot 22, if this resident desires and that parking be made parallel to the curb. [At this point Mr. Rivera showed the Commissioners slides of the area under discussion.] The area we are proposing, the parking that we are going to be requesting be prohibited is the 16 feet from this point (shown on slide) over to this point of the driveway (shown on slide) and approximately 8 feet over on this end of the driveway (shown on slide), cars park perpendicular to the curb, about three cars and the garbage area is behind this fence (shown on slide). There are nine stalls in the Karen Condominium complex and we have looked at the possibility that if it were re-striped there may be more parking spaces available, but nine is the maximum that can be in that area. We looked at additional parking spots in this area (shown on a slide) but that would not allow for sufficient space for other cars to back out of their stalls and exit the driveway. . Chair Braden asked if striping were contemplated in order to delineate the parking spaces. 20 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Rivera responded that in a particular section (using a slide) a vehicle would park parallel to the curb and another vehicle could fit here (behind it) and we could possibly add some red curb to clear out the driveway. That is all we are proposing to do. . Maggie Seitz, 620 J Street, #C, Chula Vista, 92010. Good evening, I live at Karen Condominiums. For several years we have been parking in this area and we see three to four cars park over here (pointing to slide) and a small car like that one (as shown in slide) and up to two cars on the other side (of the cuI de sac) and we had no problems doing that. We had no accidents, we had no problems with the garbage truck coming to pick up the trash, we had no problems with an ambulance coming to the complex, we had no problems with people turning around and at the same time we had to park that way (perpendicular) because there is no extra parking on Madison Avenue and the only area that we can have extra parking is there, for us and for some people that live also on Madison. On Riverlawn Avenue, people that own houses in there, they have a garage and they have a driveway so park their cars inside, so they have no problem for their cars to park. But us at the Karen Condominiums, we all have just one space and we all have up to three cars in each unit, so we really need extra parking spaces. On Madison Avenue we have no extra space, because owners of those houses do not have parking in their houses so they use the street to park their cars, so that gives us no choice than going to Riverlawn. We had no problems before until about a couple of months ago, a man that owns a house on Riverlawn (he does not live on Riverlawn) started to complain about us parking in the cuI de sac. We did not understand why the police never told us that it was illegal to park like that (perpendicular) when we have been doing it for many years. We do not understand why we are the only ones that get a ticket and not the owners that have the motor homes parked all over Riverlawn Avenue. They say that we park (more than) 18 inches away from the curb. In one of the slides you can see a little white car, that is a very small car and that car got a ticket saying that it was parked (more than) 18 inches away from the curb. Well, if the car moved 18 more inches it would be on top of the sidewalk. What do we do? That is something the police should look atnthe size of the car. I could understand if this was a big car or a van or a bigger car, but small cars like that, it is just "funny" that just the same cars have been getting tickets on Riverlawn Avenue. Why are we getting so many problems now by just one person that is doing that according to the neighbors (referring to the person who does not live on Riverlawn Avenue but owns a home there and is the one who seems to be complaining). I understand what the engineer say, I do understand what he says about the red curbing, but if for several years we have no problems parking perpendicular, how come we cannot continue to park this way? That would give us more parking spaces. The engineer said he was only taking two parking spaces; actually, he will be taking more than two parking spaces. [Ms. Seitz, pointing to the slide, indicating a motor home that never moves-- always in that location, we refer to that as a house because it never moves, that is . 21 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes there forever. We park two small cars in that space over there (showing space available in the cui de sac) that fit real good because nobody moves any other cars in that area. We, the residents that live there, park two small cars with no problems. We do that because we need parking spaces. We cannot park on "J" Street because there is no parking on "J" Street. There is no parking on Broadway either, so what do we do. The only street that we can park is Riverlawn Avenue. I know it is a City street but has been kind of private because it is not busy street or a through street. This is not a main road, this is just for the residents in there to park. That is why I am here. Commissioner Koester asked if this would eliminate some parking. Mr. Rivera acknowledged that it would eliminate about two parking spaces. . Ms. Seitz asked Office Schaefer how come, when the officer comes to give us tickets, he doesn't really look at the size of the car. I don't mean to say that the officer wasn't doing his job, I am just saying that the car is very small and the cars that they want to be 18 inches closer to the curb, then if they do that, they will go on top of the sidewalk or lawn. Why the officer doesn't look at that? Officer Schaefer spoke from the audience and his comments were not picked up by the microphone. In future, the police representative will sit when staff when required to answer questions or make reports. Ms. Seitz said she was trying to say that they get tickets because they do not park according to the way that the curb is, they say that it has to be 18 inches to the curb, we cannot do that with that particular car, other cars can park with their wheels next to or beside the curb, but with this particular little car cannot do it. That car, the way it is made, it is so low in the front that you cannot do it that way. How come the officer does not look at the other cars that are parking there for several months and he is just looking at two or three cars all the time. We all feel, the people who are getting tickets, we are Mexicans and so we feel that maybe there is some kind of--you know, I am not saying that that is it, the police, I am not saying that it is them, but they should look at these more carefully, not just on the outside. . Mr. Rivera cited the California Vehicle Code Section 22502, Sub Section A: except as othelWise provided in this Chapter, every vehicle stopped or parked upon a roadway where there are adjacent curbs shall be stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels (the front and back wheels) of such vehicle parallel with and within 18 inches of the right- hand curb except that motorcycles shall be parked with at least one wheel or fender touching the right-hand curb. Where no curbs or barriers bound any roadway, right-hand parallel parking is required unless othelWise indicated. Therefore, if a vehicle is parking perpendicular, the back wheels will be more than 18 inches away from the curb. 22 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Rosenberg stated that what he thought Ms. Seitz was trying to say was that there are other cars that are parked on the cui de sac street that are slightly on an angle, with the back part of the car more than 18 inches from the curb and is not being cited. That there is unequal treatment--that the cars that are parked elsewhere on the street are parked on an angle in such a manner that they are not exactly 18 inches to the curb and you want to know why they are not getting cited too. Ms. Seitz stated that what she was trying to say is that only us and just us are getting all these problems when there is a whole street that has all kinds of violations, according to the laws of the City of Chula Vista and they have no problems at all and everybody sees that. Chair Braden asked how long the camper (shown in one of the slides) had been parked at that particular location. Ms. Seitz responded that it has been there for as long as she can remember. Also, the man who has been making the phone calls to the police complaining about the way that we park (perpendicular) he owns different houses on that street and he and his family motor homes that are parking there forever too. Somehow he is the only one who does not get tickets at all and everybody else had to move their motor homes, but not him or his family. Commissioner Militscher asked for clarification about her statements with regard to the small white car and its problem in parking near the curb. Ms. Seitz responded that what she was trying to say about the small car is that it is not possible for that car to park the same way that another (larger) car could park. Commissioner Matacia asked that the slide with the white car be shown again. He asked if he were correct in understanding Ms. Seitz to say that that car parked as it was now (in the photo) was given a ticket. Ms. Seitz stated that that car was given a ticket, but not as it is shown being parked there. It was given a ticket on the other side (of the cuI de sac) behind another car. Nobody parks like that any more (perpendicular) since we started getting tickets. They have been coming to this street and mark just the same cars, even if they are parked legally. So that is something I do not understand and I did go to the police office and I talked to the officer and asked if there were some kind of discrimination or what, because it is just funny that just the cars that belong to the Mexican people that live there are the ones getting the tickets and how come the officer who comes over there to mark the same cars cannot look at the motor homes that have been parked there for a long time. 23 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Officer Schaefer responded at this point. He was too far from a microphone for his voice to be picked up. Ms. Seitz asked how come when they (the police) went back to Riverlawn Avenue and they gave tickets to different motor homes except for the one that is supposed to, according to the neighbors, I cannot really say that myself for sure because I do not know, but according to the neighbors that live in those houses that we have been parking out in front of, they have no problem if we park there, they don't mind for us to park in there (the cuI de sac). But, this man that owns a house about two blocks away from our area, that is the one who is complaining, he doesn't get any tickets at aIL That is my question to the police. Again, Officer Schafer responded at this point. He was too far from a microphone for his voice to be picked up. Ms. Seitz said yes he did, according to the police department that says that we cannot store a car for over 72 hours at a time. They marked all the cars and that was the only motor home that wasn't move, didn't change anything at all, everybody else moved their trucks and motor homes, everybody else got tickets except for that motor home. I am not trying to get rid of the campers, we have been doing pretty good, real peaceful, in that street until this person decided to give us problems and we just want to keep the parking. Chair Braden told Ms. Seitz that if she saw other vehicles that are parked illegally, then she should call the police and that she may call them about that camper. Mr. Rivera interjected that staff would like to see if maybe we can see with the police marking the vehicles that we see if the problem ceases or diminishes and that we take no action on this item unless the problem comes back. MOTION Chair Braden thought this an excellent suggestion and that somebody should look into that camper being parked there. MSUC, [Braden/Koester] 5-0, approved. (SC) Report on Rutgers Avenue concerns addressed bv Mr. and Mrs. Harral V. Grant Mr. Rivera gave staffs report. At the July 12, 1990, Safety Commission Dlc:c:ting, Mr. and Mrs. Grant attended that meeting and requested that the Traffic Engineering staff look into some requests that they had on Rutgers Avenue in the vicinity of the Canyon View homes and also in the vicinity of the intersection with Otay Lakes 24 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes . Road. At that time staff was to address those issues and come back to this meeting with our recommendation. I would like to add that the first request that Mr. and Mrs. Grant made, requesting that 25 mph signs be reinstalled in the area between Gotham Street and East "H" Street have been addressed. The 25 mph speed limit signs have been added. In addition, no parking signs and bike lane signs have been added also in this newly constructed area. We also have two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes between Gotham Street and East "H" Street and a center two- way turn lane and two bike lanes. The third request which was made by Mr. and Mrs. Grant was to relocate the northbound 25 mph speed limit sign from its present location near the intersection of Citadel Court, to have that 25 mph speed limit sign relocated from the street light it is on to a point approximately 300 to the south on the previous street light which this sign was mounted on. Staff did not recommend that the sign be relocated to its previous location since we had received numerous requests over the years to have the sign relocated from its original location to where it is presently located. I would like to add that where the sign was originally located, further to the south is a typical location where speed limit signs would be added. The City Council had decided that since people are making the turning movements from Otay Lakes Road onto Rutgers Avenue, that they were probably concentrating more on their turning maneuvers and not looking up and seeing the 25 mph speed limit sign on the street light near that intersection. Consequently, they recommended that we relocate the 25 mph speed limit sign further north where vehicles would have a clear view of the sign and therefore will obey the 25 mph speed limit on Rutgers Avenue. That concludes my report. Chair Braden noted there were no staff recommendations. Mr. Rivera responded that staff has taken all the actions that were requested. Mr. Rivera mentioned that the report was not sent to the Grants until today and he apologizes for the late delivery of the report to Mr. and Mrs. Grant. Mr. Harral Grant, 912 Rutgers Avenue, Chula Vista, 92013. I have to make congratulatory comment to Safety Commission for doing such an expedient job on my request. Now I have found that the people that travel on that road cannot read any signs you put up on them posts. I would like to see you stencil that road 25 mph, at both ends, on the pavement. Maybe they can see it then because it seems to be bigger. Chair Braden noted that staff says they can do that. . Sally Grant, 912 Rutgers Avenue, Chula Vista, 92013. I too would like to express appreciation for the posting of the 25 mph signs between East "H" Street and Gotham Street. The letter that we wrote to the (Safety) Commission back in July did address the two lanes that are in existence now on 25 . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes . Rutgers Avenue, that lead from East "H" Street up to Gotham Street, and then beyond Gotham Rutgers Avenue then becomes a one-lane street. The explanation for the two lanes leading from East "H" Street to Gotham Street is that the far right lane is intended to be and is a right-hand lane onto Gotham Street. The problem is that people who enter Rutgers Avenue going up the hill towards Gotham Street, perhaps don't understand, initially, that that is going to turn into a only right turn lane because you don't see any indication of that until you are perhaps within 20 to 25 feet of that intersection. So therefore you have two lanes of traffic approaching Gotham Street and suddenly the one lane of traffic is made aware that if they are in that lane they have to turn right and they don't want to turn right. So now they are faced with the problem of how do I get from this lane that is going to turn right into this left lane that is going to go straight. And we have a situation where either the individuals have to stop or slow down drastically to wait for traffic to clear so that they can get into that left lane or they just move over immediately and the people who are already in the left lane have got to put on their brakes in order to avoid hitting them. So what I would like to recommend is that, at the bottom of that right hand lane as you enter it to go up the street on Rutgers Avenue towards Gotham Street, that it also be indicated that that is a right turn lane only. Therefore, people who are going into that lane know immediately that they are going to have to move to the left in order to proceed through and therefore they'll have a little bit more time to negotiate getting into the left hand lane. I also would like to say that I appreciate the staff members apology to us for the late notification of this meeting. It does create a hardship on the public. I left for work at 5:30 this morning, I didn't return home until 5:00 this afternoon and that was early for today, normally I wouldn't be home until 6:00 p.m. and I am faced with the invitation to attend the meeting tonight that this agenda item will appear on and, while I appreciate the opportunity to be here and for his apology for the late notice, it does seem to me that there can be some consideration to getting these notifications of meetings into the hands of the people prior to the day of the meeting. Thank You. Chair Braden stated that they don't do that very often. Once in awhile it happens. Mr. Rosenberg interjected, stating that he thought staff could make some changes on Rutgers Avenue to reduce the confusion. We can't tell you exactly, verbally how that will look, but we think we can drop the lane, merge the traffic in the southbound direction in one lane before they approach Gotham Street, and then at Gotham Street we can designate the through lane and a right turn lane and I think that will clarify the problem and paint 25 mph on the pavement. . Chair Braden said that the Commission will let staff work at their own speed as they are pretty diligent. No motion on this item. 26 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes 6. COMMUNICATIONS (6A) Public Remarks Mr. Harral Grant, 912 Rutgers Avenue, Chula Vista, 92013. I have to thank the police department for this one, in spite of what they think. They gave me a ticket for going through a red light, I am not arguing the point. But when I got to (went back to where he ran the red light) Otay Lakes Road and "H" Street to find out how come I went through on a green light and they said I went through on a red light, I found something that disturbed me. In the southeast traffic light, you can see if you are in the two right-hand lanes to go straight ahead, you can see the light that is for both streets. One is an arrow light and the other is the through light for "H" Street and you can visually see that very clearly--that green light for "H" Street if you are on Otay Lakes Road. I would like to see baffles put on that light to preclude that. Mr. Rivera responded, stating that staff can look into that request. He asked Mr. Grant if he were traveling northbound on Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Grant said he was going southbound. Mr. Rivera then asked if he were in the fast lane or slow lane. Mr. Grant said he was in the far right-hand lane, I do not consider one lane any faster than the other, the speed limit is a certain speed. Mr. Rivera restated that Mr. Grant was in the number two, southbound lane and you saw on the southeast corner, on the traffic signal the red light for the left-turn lane to go southbound to East "H" Street. Mr. Grant responded that there was a red arrow for the left turn and there was a green light and apparently it is for "H" Street and not for Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Rivera asked if he were correct in that Mr. Grant saw the green light for eastbound East "H" Street. Mr. Grant said yes. You can see the whole round light, not just part of it, but the whole round light. Mr. Rivera invited Mr. Grant to meet him out there at that intersection to take a look at that intersection, maybe the head has been rotated or we can look at the possibility of changing out the heads. It was agreed to meet at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, October 15 at the southeast corner of that intersection. 27 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes 4. TRIAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS: (4A) 35 MPH speed limit on Anita Street (to be made permanent) Mr. Rivera informed the Safety Commissioners that staff has posted the 35 mph speed limit approximately seven months ago and it is time that we take this issue to the City Council to make this 35 mph speed limit permanent. The signs are 35 mph, whereas before we had various speed limits on that street. Traffic has been operating smoothly in that area and staff recommends that this trial traffic regulation be made permanent. It was agreed that a motion was not required on this item; that the Safety Commissioners were only required to make a statement of concurrence. They do concur. 5. STAFF REPORTS (SA) C.I.P. Status Report FY 1989-90. (SB) Chula Vista Police Department Traffic Summary for June (revised), Julv 1990 No discussion held on these reports. Mr. Rosenberg wished, as Commission is on staff reports, to take this opportunity to introduce Matthew Souttere. He is new to my staff and a recent graduate of United States International University. Matthew is an Assistant I Civil Engineer and we are training him to be a clone of Frank (Rivera), which will be a difficult thing to do (Mr. Rosenberg's oblique manner of praising the quality of Frank's work). Mr. Souttere may be at the next meeting to assist since Frank is celebrating his first year of marriage by going off to Europe. Mr. Rivera informed the Commission that he was going to Europe in November that he would be at the October Safety Commission meeting but not at the November meeting. I am celebrating my Professional Engineer exam, I will taking it on a Saturday, the last Saturday in October and so that Monday I will be gone for three weeks to forget about engineering for awhile. Chair Braden, with the other Commissioners assenting, wished Frank Good Luck! with his exam, they'll be pulling for him. 28 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes 7. WRITIEN CORRESPONDENCE: 17A) Chairman Decker. letter of resi!!llation 17B) Commissioner Waller. letter of resi!!nation Resignations acknowledged. G. COMMUNICATIONS 1GB) Commissioner Remarks Chair Braden asked if Council Policy 110-03 (regarding attendances and absences) had been handed out by the Recording Secretary. It was explained to the Commission members that the policy had been sent over by the City Clerk and staff just wanted to let everybody know what the policy is, for the record. 8. RECESS TO REGULAR MONTHLY WORKSHOP SESSION: Chair Braden pointed out that the Shell Oil Company item for discussion was not on the Agenda. She asked if everybody has read the communication (about Shell Oil Company), she asked for comments and what will be the Commission pleasure. Commissioner Thomas noted that because of the Brown Act no formal action, i.e., motions can be offered as it was not on the Agenda. He went on to say that what he would like to do was to discuss this and see if there is interest to put together a workshop so that we do not have to carry this forward until the next meeting--discuss what the next mode should be between the Safety Commissioners and City staff. If you read this letter that went out from staff to Shell you will see that it was addressed to a Mr. Terry Runnells. Basically, he is a new player into the field. All the negotiating with John Lippitt, the Safety Commission and staff has been with a certain set of people for a year and one-half. Well, all of a sudden there is a new player involved. The purpose, in my opinion, of a new player is stall tactics, to start over again, to lose data, and push the baby down a year and one-half down the road. My recommendation would be to check with the Safety Commission to see if you would like to have a workshop, with just the Safety Commission, to check through staff and John Lippitt to see if this would be appropriate. My recommendation would be to request at the workshop--my recommendation at the workshop if it is appropriate, would be to ask staff to formulate a package to go to City Council based upon a lot of good data to close off the driveway to Shell and force them to make a move. Commissioner Militscher asked what are the Commissioners options in this case. He stated that the road is in a constant state of deterioration. 29 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Commissioner Thomas responded that one option would be what we did about one and one-half years ago, would be to put a surface layer on it, send Shell the bill for $4,000 (or whatever current cost would be), wait until it happens again, pave it again, send them another bill, that would be it. Commissioner Militscher stated that that was just like your saying it would be a temporary measure, because it will happen again. Why can't we concrete that and send Shell the bill for their portion. He said he was not saying to do that, he was saying why can't we do that. Commissioner Thomas responded, saying if that were to happen that would have to happen from a motion from the City Council. Commissioner Militscher said that if anything happens it is going to happen from the City Council, nothing happens from us. Commissioner Thomas stated his agreement. That (paving in concrete) could be part of our recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Militscher reiterated the Commission's options: one is, you are saying, to close down one of the driveways; the other is, to make the temporary repair; and I think I have given you a third, let us concrete it and charge them for their half. What are other options that we might consider. Chair Braden asked why should the City even pay for half of the concrete. If it weren't for them messing it up, we could do fine with asphalt. Why should the City stand the cost for half of that street cemented. Commissioner Thomas asked if the other members are interested in having a workshop so that this item does not have to be put on the agenda and wait 30 days. Commissioner Militscher noted that the Commission has waited this long, why not wait 30 days and put it on the next agenda. That is my opinion, you may have others. Mr. Rosenberg interjected, stating that if the Commission had a workshop, the workshop, I believe, would be intended to brainstorm solutions to a problem. If you had a workshop you may wish to invite representatives from the Shell Oil Company, have them make presentations, and then kick around the thoughts thdt you are talking about now--what the options might be, then seek out from Shell Oil Company what their reaction is to the various options. Of course, the best option would be for them to correct the problem. 30 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Commissioner Militscher stated that he was not interested in Shell's reaction, he was interested in what the City is willing to do in connection with what they can do. Shell has had an ample opportunity to be very cooperative, this has gone on for one and one-half years, and if they wanted to come in and present a program or plan, I think they certainly would have done so. Why now are we going to say, well come in. That seems to me that that is going to slow the whole process down. Mr. Rosenberg responded, stating that if we are talking about extreme measures like closing off the driveway, then we need to hold a hearing and provide them an opportunity to respond to that. We have to give public notice. Commissioner Militscher stated he believed that to be the Council's responsibility-- not the Safety Commission, which is a recommending body. Commissioner Thomas asked the Commissioners not to forget that Shell has already had a brainstorming with three representatives with John Lippitt. Mr. Rosenberg said that if the Safety Commission is going to take an action making a recommendation to the City Council, he believed that it should be "noticed" and it should be discussed--not at this (present) meeting, but at the next meeting so that we can provide opportunity for Shell Oil Company. If you are asking about concreting their roadway or to ask what the City could do, we are limited in our resources. We can resurface, but to reconstruct the roadway and make it concrete is beyond, I believe--we have the capabilities, but the project is more than what we would normally perform under norma] maintenance. It would have to be done under contract, if that is the decision. It too would have to be done through the City Council direction. Actually, in any case we should seek City Council direction even to do anything minor. Commissioner Militscher said he agreed with Mr. Rosenberg, that Shell should come to the next meeting. He also thought it a good idea to invite a City Council member to sit in at our next Safety Commission meeting for advice and consent, on what the Council would be willing to think about. Mr. Rosenberg felt that that might not be appropriate, but that the Safety Commission can take that action. Commission Militscher said the alternative was for the Safety Commission to make a recommendation and send it to Council. Commission Thomas said that was his thought, also. Shell Oil was invited to the June Safety Commission meeting and the Ju]y Safety Commission meeting. My feeling is, having worked on the subcommittee, is that staff and I have a good enough packet 31 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes of supportive documents that we feel we can support the background to the City Council. We have documentation. I would like to put this on the next agenda. The Recording Secretary interrupted the deliberations and reminded the Commissioners that Councilman Leonard Moore was present at the last Safety Commission meeting (the one held in the Council Conference Room at City Hall) so there shouldn't be any problem if you wanted to invite a Councilperson. Chair Braden asked if it might not be better to do this brainstorming informally first to get our ducks in a row. Commissioner Matacia noted that in the June 21 meeting notes it says that Shell wants to replace car wash system at a cost of approximately $40,000. Whatever happened to that. Commissioner Thomas asked if he were talking about the meeting they (Lippitt, Rivera, Thomas) had on-site in the field. Mr. Rivera stated that what had happened was that Bob Thomas, John Lippitt, and I met with representatives of Shell Oil Company in June. At that time we had come to an agreement and John Lippitt had decided that the City would be paving the west half of the roadway in concrete and Shell would be paying for the east half. John Lippitt felt that it was too much to ask Shell to pay for both sides of the roadway since they were making an effort to replace their car wash equipment. We had been told at that time that the new car wash equipment--that they had received bids and this was in June--that Shell had received bids for the equipment, it was approximately $40,000, that they would have the car wash instal1ed late this year. At that time they also told us that if we were going to be repaving the roadway in concrete, that our estimate seemed a little high and they would like to see if they could get some estimates for us to review. We told them we would like for them to obtain their own estimates and submit them to us within a few weeks. This was at the June meeting. At the July Safety Commission meeting we expected to have received some letter with estimates, from Shell. We did not receive those, in fact what we did receive was a letter saying that they were going to be replacing the car wash, but not in 1990 as they had previously told us, but in 1991 and if that car wash equipment did not solve the water problem on Bonita Glen Drive, then they could look into the concrete and by that, Bob (Thomas) and I understood that this would not be until sometime in 1992. Chair Braden asked if the Commissioners got Co copy of Shell's response in their packet. 32 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes Mr. Rivera stated that he thought it was included in the July packet as that was all that staff had received at that time. Commissioner Thomas said he would try to highlight the list. The September 7 letter, the one in the back of your packet: Frank Rivera, John Lippitt and I of the City and Gary Brewer, Brooks Herring and Rich Zanoni of Shell met at the property. We had a field meeting at which the minutes of the meeting were taken by Frank immediately. We felt we were in good shape. Now, we get a letter eight weeks after the fact from a man by the name of Terry Runnels, which is completely opposite the minutes and, basically, it all fell apart. So basically the minutes that Frank took was (written down) approximately 10 minutes after the meeting of these people and they (the minutes) are accurate. Commission Militscher stated that he believes the Commission should resolve this at their next meeting and consider closing off that driveway and resurfacing the street. Commissioner Thomas said he believed the Safety Commission needs to force their hand to the City Council. Obviously, a year and one-half, through staff and everything, they are not going. Put it on the agenda. The Commission concurred to place this item on the October 11, 1990 meeting. Mr. Rosenberg asked for clarification on the Shell Oil station as to what staff is to do. The Recording Secretary responded that the pleasure of the Commission is to put the Shell item on the agenda for the October 11, 1990 meeting and invite Shell Oil Company to attend that meeting as well as inviting John Lippitt and a Councilperson to also attend. Commissioner Thomas requested that everybody knows who the others are that are invited. STAFF ACTION ITEM: Invite Shell Oil Company representative(s), a Council person and John Lippitt to attend the October 11, 1990 Safety Commission meeting. Chair Braden commented that those vehicles on Jefferson are still sitting there. Would the police please check this. Also, there is an abandoned white pickup truck on "J" Street and Oaklawn Avenue. 33 . . . Safety Commission Meeting September 20, 1990 Minutes 9. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 MOTION That we adjourn this meeting. MSUC, [Koesterffhomas] 5-0, approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. r//, ,,?( , /-JLu:!-:~ ~. ~.{/-H~- Berlin D. Bosworth, Recording Secretary [SC4\A:SEPT-90.MIN] 34