The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1978/01/10 Item 10Aiii i vi unu~r9 vi~in COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. loa For meeting of 1/10/78 ITEM TITLE Report on Traffic Conditions for Precise Plan of Office Building at 287 "L" Street p,~ SUBMITTED BY Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~~~~ ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES- NO x ) At the meeting of 1/3/78, Council directed Staff to re-evaluate the Precise Plan in regard to traffic conditions. This report will analyze the traffic conditions and discuss the impact of the proposed develop- ment upon "L" Street. Traffic Analysis Our Traffic Analysis considers the following elements: A. Adequate sight distance. B. Impact of the Development on the street (number of times an exiting vehicle will require an entering vehicle to block traffic due to the narrow driveway). C. Driveway width at the entrance. The curb in front of Mr. Green's property is presently painted red and thus it is our opinion that the sight distance at this driveway will not be a problem. It is our intention to let the red curb remain to protect the present condition of adequate sight distance. The expected land use (office) would typically generate 25 to 30 vehicle trips per day. Thus, vehicles will seldom be entering and exiting simul- taneously. Therefore, in our opinion, the impact of the narrow drive upon "L" Street will be very minimal. The developer is proposing to extend the double-box culvert under "L" Street further easterly in order to be able to install his driveway. JPL/rl /EY001 EXHIBITScontinuea on supplemental page two. Agreement Resolution- Ordinance- Plat x Notification List_ Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached- Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the Precise Plan for the office building at "L" Street, and add the conditon that the entrance to the driveway be widened to provide for two-way traffic and that the plans be approved by the City Engineer. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ~~~p (,~i4 ~~y~~Piwo"r' A P P R O U E D~ by the COUNCIL ACTION City Council of Chu,_w _,':.s';z„ California Dated ....~.~.....~~~..~.~........_........ AGENDA ITEM N0. l0a Supplemental Page January 10, 1978 Two A wider driveway at the street could be provided for the length of one car; so that a vehicle could enter without waiting on the street should he meet another vehicle exiting the site at the same time. This design would further reduce the impact of the development on "L" Street traffic. Beyond the one-car length (20 feet ±), we believe it would be appropriate to let the driveway remain at 16 feet because there would be no need for two-way traffic beyond the 20 feet. Staff believes that with the proposed changes the project will have very little impact upon "L" Street and in fact this use will have less traffic than an R-3 development. The developer attempted to obtain an easement across the Shell property in order to reduce necessary box culvert exten- sion and eliminate one driveway onto "L" Street, however Shell was adamant in not allowing any access across their property. It might be noted that a driveway to the Shell station is immediately to the west of Mr. Green's property. A transparency is available for Council viewing I`~ Imo Itnj,.i y.. P I W m le~Z I I m I ' I I I I I I I I oa~ v O r O m n` v- ~m 0 ?b ww`` _A Iv < W ~D r .~ ea.soJ ~ 1 \ \\ \~` j /_ \~ -~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ,~ ' 21~8hON~ O/N 89.2) EXTEND EX/5T-DBL. 77'y 4" Q. c.t3. AS 5HO/v.v. PER 0-77 S/? A,e E4 56J 9~.8 .QED. sro. owG. - - -.~ . \~zo'' ~~0 4?7.b ?r - A ~"T _b _ "- ~ I 45' 4\~ I I I\ y ~ ~ av. /N5'lA3c r yP~~ ~ ~ r OgE4 SET W/NGW4 OEIL • B~.B R 79 of~O. ARE \ .~ ~ /5° Ftr~. sro. owls. \ (H ~6.i4R L=fS.o~ ~ T/r~/NGtc \ ~ - ,.o `\ b v '~ REMOYE ~~ \\~~ ~ /P/~/L/NG /S'T \ .P/!/f1P L/1N0/NG \ SEE ,B U/LO/,c/G 8 ~ ~\ \ `` PL4.VS FoR `_~ :~ QEy/9E0 I ,± i ~89.86~ \ ~2 \ /B9. a/) _ _ TC 5/ EX/ST 5' RC.C. S/OE(4/gLK y\ f~~ ~9~ ~ /~ MEET EX/ST/tiG .i '.Z i 3G. // T , ~~ ~/ h a ~\\l' Off. b ~ ~ ~ /~- - 4 ~c- ~ \ ~~ ~ `~' p rB 91 6~ / / `. 6. , ~ ~ ,, ,~ r ~,, } 1r 20' II ~/ N /9° 02,35'"!4Q ~ !O°J:52,'~`-.~`- ?`B1~eJ ~ SEE cT/ov A-A FO~ -, 792.1/L -- OETqCpbF AB.M. C/JAN EL \'9:x_____11_ _ 11 ,~ E° ~I - . _.EUC ~ I I /O I ~~- EU~ (9/ 9) (92 - ., A C City Council Neetirtg -6- January ID, 1978 Discussion Councilman Scott discussed the process being proposed (re- zoning on an in team basis) which he felt was an ex[raord inary way of doing business -bypassing the public hearing and public input. At a later dale, as required by law this , will be done. Councilman Scott added Chat the staff should bear the burden of putting the Council in this position. Ordinance placed on fi [ d It was moved by Mayor Hyde that this ordinance Se placed rs rea ing d on its first reading and adopted and that rile readin f Lan adopted g o the text be waived by unanimous consent. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Scott, Egdahl, Hobel Coz , Noes: None Absent: None CON'TIYUED h1ATTE RS A.YD SECOND READING OF ORD L\tiNCE !Oa. REPORT ON TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FO In a written report, the Director of Public IYOrks Robens R PRECISE PLAY AT stated that the staff re-evaluated the precise plan in 287 "L" STREET regard to the traffic conditions. They .-eco~ended that ', (OFFICE BUILDING) the entrance to the driveway be widened to provide for t t wo-way traffic and that oLans be approved by the Ci[y i r Engineer. , 4 Motion to accept report I[ was moved by Councilman Hobel and seconded by Mayor Hyde -~ that the staff's reconmendation be accepted. Discus s-ion of motion Councilman Scott said he stilt had reservations about the traffic problems which are inherent in the "L" Street area , and he would be concerned with any development goins in here. hbtion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Hobel, Hyde, Coz, Egdahl Noes: Councilman Scott Absent: None lOb. R~~(~fZjQ~, per' ~ The applicant requested approval of a precise plan to place APPROtl INC, PRECISE an existing 960 square foot structure on a 9000 square toot FOR OFFICE BUILDING AT parcel located on the north side of "L" Street and 150 feet ?8' "L" STREET IV C-0-P east of Third Avenue. The structure will be used as an ZONE (Continued from office building, The applicant is alsd seeking approval of meeting of 1/+/79) a I6-Foot wide combination ingress and egress driveway instead of the required width of 2J feet in a commercial zone and a waiver of the zoning wall along the eastern property lip e. Parking requirements Councilman Egdahl discussed the City's parkins requirements which he felt should 6e reconsidered. Motion to consider [t was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl parking requirements and upon imously carried that [he staff be duetted to at Council Conference schedule the matter of [he parking calculations for com- mercial anJ multiple family zones for a Council Conference to be scheduled by the City Manager in the pat too distant future. Re so lu[ion offered ~ ~~~~ Offered by Councilman Hobel~ the reading of the text uas waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following voce, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Hobel, Cox, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: Councilman Scott ' Absent: None j u t S January 24, 1978 :~~r. i;en Cretin ::,rreetl:eart Construction Comt?any 36:i fairway Court f:hula t'1sta, CA 92011 You ~~ill find enclosed a corrected co,,y of :esolution ;a. 8963 adoptee~ ,~y the City Cou*rcil approvinn ~:rr~cise plan for your office L~ildin;; at 287 "L" >treet~in C-(?-1' zone. Please rerlace t',.e earlier copy ?~;it;l t?ifs revised copy. Copies of t3ce report, excerpt from the ;nir:utes and staff report on the above ite;:t aro enclosed for your infar~7ation. The ('ty Council of t1;e City of C;~ula iTista a,7proved and adopted the at7ove resolution at its re;;ular ~nt:etin~; a,:ld on January 17, 1973. .Jennie :P. ?~alasz, Ca~'.C City Clem: fro ~nclosuros cc: siirc;ctor of i'lannin