6.1. Consideration of an appeal of the City Traffic Commission's decision to deny removal of on-street parking on the south side of Katella Avenue between Sacramento and Handy Streets, Appeal No. CTC 0001-23.
It will negatively impact property values, parking for residents guests, food/package delivery, cause more disruptive traffic noise, increase the risk of death destruction to pedestrians on the sidewalk and to the homes lining the road, and will also negatively impact the parking in the neighborhood behind this stretch of road as residents, guests, etc may reroute there if forced. Gardening services for the front yards will also have nowhere to park and can’t always be granted access to the front from the alley. Removing the street parking from Katella is not necessary or logical. It solves nothing, as there is no traffic issue on the eastbound side during peak hours or any other time of day. I live on this stretch. I see the traffic flow during all hours of the day, ever single day. There are no issues with back up traffic heading that direction. This idea would only cause more problems, while solving none at the same time.
The west bound side has a big sturdy wall running along the road and protecting the backyards of the homes on that side of the road. The east bound side on the other hand has the front of homes, bedrooms where families/children sleep, lined along the road just feet from where you are proposing to add a third lane that would remove the on street parking. I see nothing in your plan the indicates how you intend to keep those families and their homes safe from the added risk that allowing more cars to flow through that area at one time would certainly pose.
Accidents that do occur on the eastbound side are not from peak hour traffic, but rather are due to drunks flying up the road coming back from the bars down Katella or from people literally racing each other up the long straight stretch of road. This silly plan only further accommodates that recklessness AND takes away the one thing that the people who live along this stretch can do to protect their homes and families - park along the street IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES to protect themselves from careless, reckless drivers plowing through their bedrooms while they sleep. This is not a hypothetical scenario, this very situation happened in early June of 2022 when a huge truck driven by an inebriated individual barreled through the front bedroom of one of the homes, and also took out the gas meter. By sheer luck alone, no one happened to be in the room at the time, but that careless driver demolished that house. Had someone been sleeping in there at the time, they would not have survived. Even before this terrifying event happened, and certainly ever since, we have parked our cars in front of the house FOR PROTECTION and so that we can sleep without fear. And now you want to take away the one tiny shred of comfort and planning that we can do for ourselves to protect our lives?
How about when it rains? Now instead of having cars parked along the sidewalk that floods out about 4 ft from the curb any time there is water, you want to make a lane for people to drive along and potentially hydroplane through? It takes one-twelfth on an inch of water for a car to hydroplane and lose control. Again, the only course of action these homes have to protect themselves from a potentially devastating situation is to park their cars in front of their homes and block any vehicles that have lost control from plowing through what should be their safe space.
Unfortunately, I see no mention from Mayor Dan Slater or those proposing this idea for how they would address protecting the homes and lives of those of us who live here from the added substantial risk of their grand plan. If anything it appears that they don't care at all, since they are trying to appeal the decision after we already voiced our concerns loudly back in June this year when this proposal was denied. To try and push it through anyway shows they care more about their own agenda and not about the community members who live here, and that would not be forgotten.
None of you, if you owned one the properties that will be impacted by adding an additional lane from the 55 to Handy would be happy with it. These property owners will be losing parking and property values. It's time for the City Council to do what's right for the Citizens of Orange. Prior councils failed us with the acceptance of STR's. You certainly would not like one next door!
Please don't fail the citizens of Orange again.
Having read and considered the mayor's plan, I propose a reasonable compromise.
Since Katella Ave is considered to be one artery of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, one can easily observe that the obvious eastern terminus of that artery should be the 55fwy, not Wanda Road.
Our neighborhood east of the fwy can best be described as a transition zone. It is a residential zone while everything west of the fwy overpass toward Tustin Ave is commercial zone. Driving east from the overpass there are now two lanes. The proposal to widen that road at Sacramento Street would do little to increase traffic flow through our residential neighborhood. The traffic already flows well above the posted speed limit throughout the day. At peak commute hours between 4:30pm and 6:00pm, there is eastbound congestion that begins at the intersection of Katella Ave and Wanda Road, which is a permanent bottleneck with only two eastbound lanes beyond Wanda. This intersection typically backs up traffic from Wanda Rd to Handy Street during peak traffic hours.
I propose that the city test its theory of traffic flow by adding a third lane beginning at the intersection of Katella Ave and Handy St. extending toward Wanda Rd. This would not impose any hardship on the commuting public or on our households.
I also propose that the northbound exit off the 55fwy be adjusted as well. Currently, there are 3 lanes on that exit. The left and center lanes are designated for left turns only. If the center lane was changed to allow for both left and right turns onto Katella Ave, the backup on the fwy exit would be lessened. Chapman Ave southbound exit off the 55fwy serves as an example for this proposal.
This compromise seems reasonable considering the negative impact of the loss of available parking in front of our homes.
The extra 10 feet of roadway provides protection against cars careening off the road, over the sidewalk and ramming into our homes.
We have had 2 major accidents requiring ambulance service between the 55fwy and Handy St within the last month. It was a parked car on Katella Ave that prevented one of those vehicles from jumping the curb and possibly running into a house, which has already recently happened in this neighborhood.
The parking strip is also necessary for receiving visitors and for receiving services such as ambulance, gardening, plumbing and for receiving deliveries from FedEx and Amazon.
This is a reasonable expectation for homeowners in this community.
The last study of the parking conditions on Katella Ave was taken on July 14, 2023 at 4:30am
This is not nearly relevant a point of measurement considering the effect of your decision for all the 12 households whose front doors face onto Katella Ave.
Visitors, service providers like plumbers and gardeners as well as delivery services do not need to park near or infront of our residences at 4:30am. They need access to the front of our homes during daylight working hours. They cannot park in the alley and cannot be expected to access our properties through the fenced backyards of our houses. Before you decide to so drastically affect our lives, please consider recalibration of the traffic light signal time intervals at the intersection of Katella and Wanda Rd. during peak commute times and test whether a third lane between Handy and Wanda would increase flow and help relieve the bottleneck
The master plan logic is stating that Katella is unbalanced with three lanes on the west bound side and only two lanes on the east bound side. This is so flawed because the west bound side doesn't have homes facing the street. The front doors of the houses on the east bound side face the street so it is only logical that you can park in front of your home and use your front door.
I am against removing the parking on the south side of Katella. I live off of Handy and Katella and I don't understand how adding a third lane here would benefit anything or anyone. I exit the 55N onto Katella everyday on my way home from work during rush hour traffic and the traffic between the freeway exit and Handy is NEVER backed up all the way to the freeway off ramp. I never have the issue where I cannot turn right because Katella is never backed up. Right before the freeway exit heading east on Katella towards Handy from Tustin Ave there are only two lanes and right after Handy, between Handy and Wanda the road is only two lanes wide. So will everyone have to merge after crossing Handy after an unnecessary third lane is added on the south side of Katella? Even if a third lane between Handy and Wanda was added as well, it would still turn into a right hand only lane onto Wanda. It doesn't make sense! It takes away the parking for the residents whose homes are on Katella. The alley cannot accommodate all those cars and would create more cars parking on Garfield, the next street. The outcome of adding a third lane would not benefit the residents or the drivers on east bound Katella.
Removing on street parking from this portion of Katella will negatively impact my neighborhood in the following ways:
1. Encourages cars to drive faster on that portion of Katella, creating an unsafe situation for pedestrians, especially children headed to school
2. Increases traffic congestion on Katella when there are several other streets with freeway access
3. Forces all people who visit the district offices i.e. weekend youth sports, district meetings, etc ... to park in the surrounding neighborhood, creating more unsafe pedestrian movements in the area
There is a lot of pedestrians on this corridor, it puts citizens at safety risk to do anything that would allow more fast moving vehicles in this area, especially children! There are hundreds of students every day that walk this exact path, please consider their safety. The traffic commission has already denied this request for good reason. - Colleen Jendreas, homeowner, 10+ years resident, 3 children with OUSD
Opposed - this plan makes no sense.
It will negatively impact property values, parking for residents guests, food/package delivery, cause more disruptive traffic noise, increase the risk of death destruction to pedestrians on the sidewalk and to the homes lining the road, and will also negatively impact the parking in the neighborhood behind this stretch of road as residents, guests, etc may reroute there if forced. Gardening services for the front yards will also have nowhere to park and can’t always be granted access to the front from the alley. Removing the street parking from Katella is not necessary or logical. It solves nothing, as there is no traffic issue on the eastbound side during peak hours or any other time of day. I live on this stretch. I see the traffic flow during all hours of the day, ever single day. There are no issues with back up traffic heading that direction. This idea would only cause more problems, while solving none at the same time.
The west bound side has a big sturdy wall running along the road and protecting the backyards of the homes on that side of the road. The east bound side on the other hand has the front of homes, bedrooms where families/children sleep, lined along the road just feet from where you are proposing to add a third lane that would remove the on street parking. I see nothing in your plan the indicates how you intend to keep those families and their homes safe from the added risk that allowing more cars to flow through that area at one time would certainly pose.
Accidents that do occur on the eastbound side are not from peak hour traffic, but rather are due to drunks flying up the road coming back from the bars down Katella or from people literally racing each other up the long straight stretch of road. This silly plan only further accommodates that recklessness AND takes away the one thing that the people who live along this stretch can do to protect their homes and families - park along the street IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES to protect themselves from careless, reckless drivers plowing through their bedrooms while they sleep. This is not a hypothetical scenario, this very situation happened in early June of 2022 when a huge truck driven by an inebriated individual barreled through the front bedroom of one of the homes, and also took out the gas meter. By sheer luck alone, no one happened to be in the room at the time, but that careless driver demolished that house. Had someone been sleeping in there at the time, they would not have survived. Even before this terrifying event happened, and certainly ever since, we have parked our cars in front of the house FOR PROTECTION and so that we can sleep without fear. And now you want to take away the one tiny shred of comfort and planning that we can do for ourselves to protect our lives?
How about when it rains? Now instead of having cars parked along the sidewalk that floods out about 4 ft from the curb any time there is water, you want to make a lane for people to drive along and potentially hydroplane through? It takes one-twelfth on an inch of water for a car to hydroplane and lose control. Again, the only course of action these homes have to protect themselves from a potentially devastating situation is to park their cars in front of their homes and block any vehicles that have lost control from plowing through what should be their safe space.
Unfortunately, I see no mention from Mayor Dan Slater or those proposing this idea for how they would address protecting the homes and lives of those of us who live here from the added substantial risk of their grand plan. If anything it appears that they don't care at all, since they are trying to appeal the decision after we already voiced our concerns loudly back in June this year when this proposal was denied. To try and push it through anyway shows they care more about their own agenda and not about the community members who live here, and that would not be forgotten.
None of you, if you owned one the properties that will be impacted by adding an additional lane from the 55 to Handy would be happy with it. These property owners will be losing parking and property values. It's time for the City Council to do what's right for the Citizens of Orange. Prior councils failed us with the acceptance of STR's. You certainly would not like one next door!
Please don't fail the citizens of Orange again.
Having read and considered the mayor's plan, I propose a reasonable compromise.
Since Katella Ave is considered to be one artery of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, one can easily observe that the obvious eastern terminus of that artery should be the 55fwy, not Wanda Road.
Our neighborhood east of the fwy can best be described as a transition zone. It is a residential zone while everything west of the fwy overpass toward Tustin Ave is commercial zone. Driving east from the overpass there are now two lanes. The proposal to widen that road at Sacramento Street would do little to increase traffic flow through our residential neighborhood. The traffic already flows well above the posted speed limit throughout the day. At peak commute hours between 4:30pm and 6:00pm, there is eastbound congestion that begins at the intersection of Katella Ave and Wanda Road, which is a permanent bottleneck with only two eastbound lanes beyond Wanda. This intersection typically backs up traffic from Wanda Rd to Handy Street during peak traffic hours.
I propose that the city test its theory of traffic flow by adding a third lane beginning at the intersection of Katella Ave and Handy St. extending toward Wanda Rd. This would not impose any hardship on the commuting public or on our households.
I also propose that the northbound exit off the 55fwy be adjusted as well. Currently, there are 3 lanes on that exit. The left and center lanes are designated for left turns only. If the center lane was changed to allow for both left and right turns onto Katella Ave, the backup on the fwy exit would be lessened. Chapman Ave southbound exit off the 55fwy serves as an example for this proposal.
This compromise seems reasonable considering the negative impact of the loss of available parking in front of our homes.
The extra 10 feet of roadway provides protection against cars careening off the road, over the sidewalk and ramming into our homes.
We have had 2 major accidents requiring ambulance service between the 55fwy and Handy St within the last month. It was a parked car on Katella Ave that prevented one of those vehicles from jumping the curb and possibly running into a house, which has already recently happened in this neighborhood.
The parking strip is also necessary for receiving visitors and for receiving services such as ambulance, gardening, plumbing and for receiving deliveries from FedEx and Amazon.
This is a reasonable expectation for homeowners in this community.
The last study of the parking conditions on Katella Ave was taken on July 14, 2023 at 4:30am
This is not nearly relevant a point of measurement considering the effect of your decision for all the 12 households whose front doors face onto Katella Ave.
Visitors, service providers like plumbers and gardeners as well as delivery services do not need to park near or infront of our residences at 4:30am. They need access to the front of our homes during daylight working hours. They cannot park in the alley and cannot be expected to access our properties through the fenced backyards of our houses. Before you decide to so drastically affect our lives, please consider recalibration of the traffic light signal time intervals at the intersection of Katella and Wanda Rd. during peak commute times and test whether a third lane between Handy and Wanda would increase flow and help relieve the bottleneck
The master plan logic is stating that Katella is unbalanced with three lanes on the west bound side and only two lanes on the east bound side. This is so flawed because the west bound side doesn't have homes facing the street. The front doors of the houses on the east bound side face the street so it is only logical that you can park in front of your home and use your front door.
I am against removing the parking on the south side of Katella. I live off of Handy and Katella and I don't understand how adding a third lane here would benefit anything or anyone. I exit the 55N onto Katella everyday on my way home from work during rush hour traffic and the traffic between the freeway exit and Handy is NEVER backed up all the way to the freeway off ramp. I never have the issue where I cannot turn right because Katella is never backed up. Right before the freeway exit heading east on Katella towards Handy from Tustin Ave there are only two lanes and right after Handy, between Handy and Wanda the road is only two lanes wide. So will everyone have to merge after crossing Handy after an unnecessary third lane is added on the south side of Katella? Even if a third lane between Handy and Wanda was added as well, it would still turn into a right hand only lane onto Wanda. It doesn't make sense! It takes away the parking for the residents whose homes are on Katella. The alley cannot accommodate all those cars and would create more cars parking on Garfield, the next street. The outcome of adding a third lane would not benefit the residents or the drivers on east bound Katella.
Parking on the south side of the street helps to slow traffic and keep the speed to a residential speed limit, safe for everyone.
Removing on street parking from this portion of Katella will negatively impact my neighborhood in the following ways:
1. Encourages cars to drive faster on that portion of Katella, creating an unsafe situation for pedestrians, especially children headed to school
2. Increases traffic congestion on Katella when there are several other streets with freeway access
3. Forces all people who visit the district offices i.e. weekend youth sports, district meetings, etc ... to park in the surrounding neighborhood, creating more unsafe pedestrian movements in the area
There is a lot of pedestrians on this corridor, it puts citizens at safety risk to do anything that would allow more fast moving vehicles in this area, especially children! There are hundreds of students every day that walk this exact path, please consider their safety. The traffic commission has already denied this request for good reason. - Colleen Jendreas, homeowner, 10+ years resident, 3 children with OUSD