Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Transportation Advisory Commission - 04/26/1993 !,7 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES (for the meeting of April 26, 1993) Meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. Mr.Braselton was absent. Minutes of the March 22, 1993 meeting were approved with the following changes: Blue Angels show to be begin at 11 a.m.instead of 11 p.m. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Mr.Pillinger questioned why Mr.Bosquez'name was still showing on the list of committee members,hasn't that been declared vacant now. David Seiler answered that it is an automatic vacancy,it was an oversight on our part. Mr.Pillinger asked if Mr. Bosquez'was,officially aware of this. Mr. Seiler answered that he had not officially notified him but that the City Secretary's office had that responsibility and he had turned in the letter with all the pertinent records prior to last month's meeting. Mr.Seiler has not heard from Mr.Bosquez and he was only assuming that he has that information.. Mr.Pillinger wanted to be certain that the agenda for the next meeting in May show the election of officers. Apparently,the Pharaoh Valley Neighborhood Association Board of Directors got a briefing from Tom Utter about the right-of-way,the plans,whatever for improving Ennis Joslin, I wondering if we might have a brief report to the Committee about meeting. There must be some facts available that he had enough to talk about. If there could an update about that,together with Nile Drive improvements if in fact that is going to be in conjunction with Fnnis Joslin improvements. TRAFFIC FATALITY REPORT Captain C. H. Byrd presented this report. Since the last meeting on March 22, 1993, there has been one traffic accident involving the death of one pedestrian. This occurred on April 17, 1993 at 1:50 a.m.in the 8800 of Agnes. The pedestrian,a 36-year old male,ran into the path of a vehicle. His blood alcohol content was .24. The Police Department has arrested 354 persons for DWI to date. This is a decrease of 14%from the 412 that we had arrested last year. Captain Byrd did not know what to attribute the decrease in arrests but plans to notify some of the supervisors of some of the officers who have been working DWIs who have not been making arrests on a regular basis,possibly this will give information and improve the stats on arrests. Mr. Pillinger asked if she was trying to not say that it was not being enforced asrigidly as before. Captain Byrd stated that this was a possibility. She stated that reminders need to be made to pick up an officer's productivity. MONTHLY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE REPORT Summarizing Attachment "B", Mr. Seiler reported that during the month of March, there were 800 traffic accidents,47'alcohol, drug-related accidents,287 injury accidents involving 443 total injuries and as Captain Byrd reported,one fatality. Comparing to same time period last year for totals,there have been 2,033 total traffic accidents compared to 2,112, down just under 4%. Our injury accidents are also down by 9.2%, 690 occurring up through March compared to 754 at the same time last year. In terms of alcohol and drug-related traffic accidents,138 during 1993 compared to 80 during the same period last year. There is the same number of traffic fatal accidents through same time period, 93 compared to 92, one less traffic fatality in 1993 as compared to 1992, down 17%. In terms of confirmed alcohol-related statistics,our figures show 4 out of 5 have been alcohol or-'drug-related. 80% compared to the total end of year percentage of 41%. In terms of our high-accident locations, the top 27'"including the Staples and Everhart zones, Staples and the SPID frontage road ramp and main lane zone is at the top of our list with 25 traffic accidents,followed by the Everhart and SPID frontage road. Two areas on your list that need to be corrected is for both of the Staples and SPID zone and the Everhart and SPID zone, the #1 and #3 locations on your listing for the 1992 SCANNED 4 accidents through March,it should read 17 instead of 8, the month of March figure was not added. There were 9 accidents during the month of March,1992. For the Everhart and SPID zone,it should read 20 instead of 12. These corrected figures are reflected on the attachments following this high-accident location listing. The high-accident locations for the month of March were Weber and SPID and Everhart and Saratoga. You can see the statistical breakdown on the bottom portion of the page showing the different accidents that had occurred,both of type and on the frontage road for Weber and SPID and the different type of collisions for the Everhart and Saratoga. Quite a variance as you can see,previous month there had just been one accident at the Everhart and Saratoga intersection, same with Weber and SPID, there had only been twotraffic accidents. The projects at Everhart and Staples have been completed. The Staples zone project was completed late in March and the Everhart Road project was completed over the last two weeks in April. We certainly hope to see some effect of those improvements on the traffic accident experience. Elaborating on those two zones,there are some distinct differences between the two zones. Although most of the accidents occurring during the daylight hours and almost by the same percentage,61%at the SPID and Everhart,location and 60% at the Staples and SPID location. The number of accidents that are occurring during the weekday peak hours,normally when most of the stacking occurs is much less on Everhart and SPID than Staples and SPID. The location with the greater number of accidents on the other hand is actually at the Everhart and SPID where we have 56% of the accidents that have involved injuries as opposed to 32% at the Staples and SPID location. DISCUSSION ITEMS ° Gulf Beach Seawall Mr.Seiler introduced Mr.Brandol Harvey,City Planning,who is attending meeting to provide a brief update of some of the ongoing efforts of the Planning Department. This matter was brought up to the Transportation Advisory Committee and discussed generally with the committee on three to four occasions during the last couple of years in relation to a petition by the Padre Island Business Association to reroute traffic from the portion of the Gulf Beach seawall area to the adjacent roadway system consisting of Gulf Beach Access Road#3A,Windward Drive and Whitecap Boulevard. The city staff had not requested the Transportation Advisory Committee to take any action at that time because of the intention to submit a proposed plan to the General Land Office to determine what rules and regulations the city basically had to live by in order to reroute traffic off the Gulf Beach. The Planning Department has taken the lead role of preparing the document known as the Beach Access Plan which is a requirement of the General Land Office. Mr.Harvey will discuss this with the committee. The requirements were issued by the GLO on February 17, 1993 and it requires the City to submit a Beach Access Plan for the City's jurisdiction over the parts of Padre Island and Mustang Island. Part of that plan also requires the City to provide a Vehicular Control Plan if the local government proposes to make any changes to the vehicular controls in that area. Our purpose in this update is to advise you of the staffs plan to bring a recommendation forward to the committee probably during the month of May Transportation Advisory Committee's meeting for the Planning Department to advise the committee as to what its planning efforts are consisting of. Mr. Brandol Harvey, City Planning Department, discussed the new laws in the State of Texas regarding coastal management but it is implementing a whole new set of considerations and controls, not only on the public beach but on the property behind the public beach,the dunes andup the first public road behind the dunes. Texas was kind of late getting into coastal management but when they did really went'whole hog'in it. A difficult set of requirements have come down,the Legislature has said,more or less,that we would do coastal management to address things like vehicular movement on the beach,public access to the beach, dune protection,construction in the vicinity of the dunes andthey delegated all that responsibility to the General Land Office. Directions were given to the General Land Office to come up with a set of regulations and the GLO will carry the weight of law. In February,1993,the GLO finished their regulations and in essence what they did was tell the cities and counties, not knowing what authority they have, the cities and counties will have to take what tr, - authority they have and control everything. We are working with the two counties that we have to work with and other cities also to come up with a plan that is complimentary. One of the dictates under the GLO regulation is if vehicular movement is limited then somebody must provide parking adjacent to public beach at the rate of one parking space per 15 linear feet of beach,plus they have to provide access from that parking to the beach,presumably pedestrian access only. These access points can be no further than apart than every 1/2-mile. If you are familiar with the development on Padre Island, 12-mile.access way and parking supplies are pretty demanding. It is going to be difficult to restrict vehicular movement. In our discussions with General Land Office staff,that is the deliberate intent,to make it,not necessarily difficult,but to provide in every possible way for public benefit that if you are removing vehicular movement that you are compensating by making it very easy for the public to get to the beach. We have not concluded that we will or will not pursue prohibition of vehicular movement. We are gathering information, we will be asking for suggestions and comments from the various boards and commissions that are involved in it,local parks advisory and transportation advisory regarding safety and the other counties and cities that participate in the public beach system. We are mandated under state law to have a plan submitted to the General Land Office by mid-August. We hope to have a good draft plan by mid-May,and probably between mid-May and mid-August, we will be dealing mostly with lawyers to trying to figure out how our regulations integrate with county regulations and who has authority to do what. At this point,the county is not including the prohibition of vehicular movement in their plan. They have not indicated that they are going to contest the recommendation of the prohibition of vehicular movement. They are not initiating it in their prospective. They agree at this point that it is the City's sole responsibility to control traffic on the beach inside the city limits and outside the city limits it iS the counties' sole responsibility. We are looking at annexation as one of the tools that we have to bring into play as part of this Coastal Management Plan. Whether or not we annex,the beaches a separate issue compared to annexing the dunes and the property behind the dunes. It is a complicated issue,we wanted to look at it comprehensively in the light of the state regulation so that we can integrate parking and access points along with any possible prohibition of vehicular movement. Responding to question regarding the GLO and counties ducking the issue and throwing it back to the localities,Mr.Harvey commented that the counties are going to either have to participate or make their position known eventually. Obviously,if we make a recommendation to the GLO that it stay open or be closed,they are going to have to comment on that. Responding to question of what the actual distance between the two is, distance is less than a mile about 4,300 feet. We are talking about 315 parking spaces. We believe we can provide this sufficient parking to meet that ratio if it allowed under the GLO regulations through on-street parking on Whitecap Boulevard and Windward. We are not sure how much parking is occurring on each end of the beach,but what is occurring on each of the beach would not enter into the factoring for what parking would have to be provided,on-street with acceptable walking distance. Their requirement is that there be access every 12-mile and the parking at the rate of 15 linear feet of beach "be adjacent to the beach." They don't define adjacency. Because it is 4,000 feet of park, there would have to be a supply of parking and an access point somewhere in the middle. As a minimum,only one is required. Question: This doesn't mean that you cannot provide parking at each end with minimal parking in the middle as long as there was access. Mr.Harvey stated that this would meet the'letter of the law' but in talking with the GLO, he believes the intent is that the public parking supply be in line with the pedestrian access. If the parking is at two extremes and the pedestrian access is in the middle, it does not make it very convenient for those pedestrians to park down here and then walk 2,000 feet. rm suggesting that the middle pedestrian access would need to have a public parking supply close to it. The center parking lot should.only have to cover basically 12-mile, the center 1/2-mile and the two ends could cover the 1/4-mile. There are three pedestrian easements that the Padre Island Property Owner's Association actually have two and then one we feel should be able to obtain from one of the landowners that we could use for pedestrian access points. Question: How much actual parking could exist on Whitecap Boulevard? Whitecap is striped such that parking should not be occurring on the street. We are not even looking at the linear portion of Whitecap but we have looked at Windward Drive and the number of spaces that can be provided on- street in the parking lanes on each side of the street would be sufficient to meet the ratio that Mr. Harvey quoted of one space per 15-foot of linear beach space. We will have to get the pedestrian right-of-way under our control. The land between Windward and Leeward has a middle ground that is almost a block that is totally unused except for one location. That land is all private land. Question: To get a public parking supply other than on-street in that length would require some acquisition of property,one way or another,is this right? Statement made that we already own space with parking on the street. If we just take what is on-street,we would exceed what is the minimal requirements. We have to come up with a plan whether you leave it open or you close it. A plan still has to be submitted,even if you don't want to do anything. Question: What is the inclination of the staff at the present time for their recommendation to various committees? We are trying to balance the public cost of providing the parking and the access versus the public increase safety,closing of vehicular movement on the beach and if we can work out the parking supply,I think we would be recommending the closing of vehicular movement on the beach. It seems you already have the parking supply at hand. Again, it is not our call to make, if the General Land Office were to accept on-street parking as replacement parking,I think we would be in a real good position. Mr. Seiler pointed out there are other facets of the vehicular access plan than just the rerouting it. This is one reason why we have not brought a recommendation forward to you today. We want to bring the entire portion of the vehicular access plan to the Transportation Advisory Committee,not just pieces of it. Question: Suppose that 4,000 foot stretch were closed naturally and you had no beach there,you only have the seawall,would you still have to provide pedestrian access to that seawall? The public right- of-way is not a function of the sandy beach as you visually see it,but 200 feet from mean high tide. Theoretically,the property above the seawall would be the public right-of-way such it not be available below the beach. The public could rightful argue that we should provide vehicular movement somehow because it is no longer available below the seawall The state owns the property,owns the public easement. Back when the seawall was built,there was substantial beach which constituted the public easement. The public easement is defined as a distance from mean high tide. Because there was substantial beach out there at the time, the property owner felt he was building it on private property. This changed over time,the easement moves with the high tide. As the beach erodes,the easement moves landward and now, in fact,occupies part of the Holiday Inn. We are under constraints of a state mandated deadline. August 1993 is the date for submitting the plan to the GLO. Question: How many years do you have to put plan into effect? Part of our continuing discussion with Nueces County is thatthere is something in effect today. They have a plan that has been approved by the state and until that plan is amended or companioned by the City plan, it stays in effectand it is in effect now. Their plan does not call for the prohibition of access. On August 17, if we do not have a plan submitted to GLO,then that will be the'adopted'plan with no competition. Things like capital improvements and provision of public parking,pedestrian access ways, etc.,will require some time and capital improvement funding or perhaps even dedication to the platting process. It will be awhile before that can happen. A fundamental question that we have ask the GLO is if it is a mandate that there be pedestrian access and public parking to replace this vehicular movement that was taken away,does the parking and access have to be in place before you can close the beach to vehicular traffic movement. If there answer comes back yes,that it does have to be in place, then how quickly we canacquire property through dedication and fund improvements will dictate how quickly the beach could be closed. We have an existing plan in that there in only one-way traffic in that area. Mr. Seiler stated that there is one-way traffic in the southbound direction and also parking restrictions. Parking is restricted on the Gulf Beach seawall section. There is no restriction against vehicle passing. Does this restriction have to be compensated for immediately? Not immediately. Mr:Seiler confirmed that the latest that this issue will be brought back before the TAC would be the next regularly scheduled meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMM1TFEE APPROVAL ° Amendment to the Code of Ordinances regarding parking in commercial loading zones. Mr. Seiler briefly explained concerns that have been addressed to the staff by business merchants on commercial loading zones and how they can be more effectively used. We have received criticism in some cases as to having too many loading zones, too fewloading zones. Recently when downtown area was changed to angle parking plan, one particular area the commercial loading zone was removed completely. This seems to.be working relatively well because it gave the property owners in that area basically it was encumbered upon them to arrange for commercial loading zones other than those times when parking spaces were heavily used. The end effect being a greater number of parking spaces and greater control over commercial loading zones. Other concerns in other business areas was can we make commercial loading zones more flexible during certain times of the day operating as commercial loading zones, other times of the day operating as parking spaces as a means of increasing the supply of parking. Also, as a means to allow property owners or business merchants to arrange for commercial loading and deliveries at times early in the morning,later in the afternoon when the peak demand for parking spaces was not there. The commercial loading zone ordinance basically allows the use of commercial loading zones by non- commercial vehicles,non-truck licensed vehicles,during the hours of the day that are not applicable like Sundays and holidays. Since commercial loading zones are within areas controlled by parking meters or time limits, this makes it encumbered upon us to clean up our commercial loading zone ordinances to require that at hours of the day specified for signage that passenger vehicle parking, non-commercial vehicles could be using commercial loading zones would have to indicate by signage what the restrictions are. That is the intent here,we are making the recommendation that on a case- by-case basis, we are able to define certain commercial loading zones by time limit as to when commercial loading zones only canoccur in those zones and other times when they are regular passenger vehicle,non-commercial vehicle parking can be taking place. The selection of,those would be based on observations of turnover,discussions with abutting property owners. We feel it is a good idea and would provide for enhanced parking within the central business district. Mr.Seiler further commented that commercial loading restrictions are not applicable on Sunday and they are only applicable between 8 and 6, some have 30-minute time limit, some are designated by signage with no time limit for commercial vehicles. Obviously,the signs will have to be changed to one joint type of sign that would display all the different information. Question: What are we gaining by doing this? There are some commercial loading zones that are necessary but they are not regularly used throughout the course of the day. Merchants have indicated that they are, for the most part, control the times of the day that the commercial loading can be taking place or not. Then at certain times of the day when parking demand is on the increase,we would be able to designate those commercial loading zones for regular passenger vehicles. We would be able to increase the supply of parking in the areas where parking demand is becoming a concern. We are not actually identifying the time and it may vary from one block to the next,it would depend upon the time we would select for that particular location. It could be that commercial loading would be restricted between 8 and 10 and 3 and 6 where non-commercial vehicles would not be able to park • in the commercial loading zones spaces and in between those hours, passenger vehicles would be allowed to park. We need to also specify on the signage what parking controls are there. Are the parking controls by time limit or by parking meter. We need to have that authority to designate the use of that space. In some cases where there are commercial loading zones are outside of the free parking area for two-hour parking, a parking meter would have to be installed at the commercial loading zone that would have clear identification as being applied only by the time a passenger vehicle would be able to park in the marked commercial loading zone. Question: Are the merchants having a problem with commercial vehicles staying too long in those zones? Mr.Seller stated that the merchants are looking for flexible use of commercial loading zones where it is a 'cake and eat it too' type situation. They want a commercial loading zone but does it have to be a commercial loading zone all day long. Can it be opened up to provide for passenger vehicle parking at certain times of the day. Clear signage is the key to letting people know when they would be able to park in commercial loading zones. The better the signage,the clearer it would be to people who would be looking for use of the parking space. This is critical and it would be necessary to provide very clear signage on how that parking space was to be used during different times of the day. Mr.Hecht asked if the proposed changes were the underlined portions on page 2. Mr.Seller stated that the only change to the commercial loading zone ordinance would be the underlined portion on Section 5 of the second page. Mr.Hecht moved that accept the Staff's recommendation for the proposed change. Seconded by Mr. Routh. Motion carried. Question: Who is going to decide on the commercial loading zone, the businesses will make this decision on what they want. Mr.Seiler stated it will be a joint effort,the staff would be in charge of determining whether there is sufficient use—first,for the commercial loading zone to be in existence at all. This is an ongoing effort. Second,where commercial loading zones have sufficient use to be in existence,then what type of utilization is occurring throughout the different hours of the day.Is it being utilization heavily enough to be utilized as a commercial loading zone all day long or is the utilization such percentage that it used as parking spaces for certain times of the day. Then interchange with the business merchants is necessary to determine whether they are in a position to be able to control commercial loading in their particular area. If that agreement is there and we find utilization is not so high thatthere is problems that would be caused in commercial loading activities on that particular street in that area,then we would move forward and designate special uses for that commercial loading zone during non-peak hours. Question: Is it possible for a visitor to come into our city,park in a place that is designated for him to park at that particular hour. Let's say,it goes back to commercial at 4 p.m and the visitor parks there at 3:45 p.m.,goes into an antique store,comes back and his car is gone to the pound. Is this possible? Mr.Seiler stated that it is not possible from the standpoint if we would allow these spaces to be used as parking spaces during any time of the day that the offense of extending time into the time where commercial loading is required,that is the only use that is accepted. It will not be a tow away zone. We would not tow vehicles away from a commercial loading zone. They could be ticketed but not towed away. Whenever a large convention is in the city,the Convention and Tourist Bureau has stickers that are given out to conventioneers that they display in their window and just as a friendly nature and in order to not create a negative perception,if that sticker is placed inside the windshield in terms of a parking violation,wherever it were to occur except in a'no parking'zone or a fire lane,that vehicle would not be issued a citation. So there is more or less,a partial mechanism in place to identify out-of-town conventioneers. Mr. Pillinger questioned Part B as being unrestricted time for commercial vehicles but outside of those times it is still only commercial vehicles that can park there. Is this right? Mr. Seiler stated this is correct. Mr. Pillinger stated thatif this is correct, there shouldn't be a case of a passenger vehicle parking in commercial loading zone where there is going to be time constraint. Where the time is going to run out, and they will be trapped as in the example he gave. He'll be parking in it after hours or before hours. Now in that case, if he parked at 7 in the morning and then at 8 it becomes a commercial zone, then he would be ticketed. Mr. Seiler clarified that it is possible that between 10 and.4 pm we may identify that commercial loading zone as being an unrestricted parking space for non-commercial use and therefore if someone parked at 3 p.m.and stayed until 4:15,that individual would be in violation because of the time limit of time being used as a parking space. Mr.Pillinger questioned commercial vehicles being underlined. Mr.Seiler asked not to be confused with Item B which states that at certain commercial loading zones we can identify the time limit for commercial loading activities that can take place in that commercial loading zone,being restricted to 30 minutes or have no restriction at all. There are some locations in the uptown area where commercial loading in terms of office space movement and things of this nature takes two hours or so for some moving van to come. We recognize that can be the case. It was stated that.the change in the ordinance is on a space by space basis and that the appropriate signage would be put in place. It would not be at every commercial loading zone. Amendment to Code of Ordinances to decrease the speed limit on North Shoreline Boulevard to 20 MPH between Pearl Street and Coastal Avenue. This is North Beach or Corpus Christi Beach as we know it. Mr.Pillinger asked if we had a complaint on this,what was the observation or why is this necessary. Mr.Seiler stated: 1)there is observations of increased conflicts occurring along Shoreline Boulevard. There is also"a desire by the Texas State Aquarium,the operators of the Lady Lex Museum on the Bay to try to make North Shoreline Boulevard on Corpus Christi Beach as safe as possible. To a certain extent,the curb linear alignment of a certain portion of Shoreline near Breakwater is sufficient to keep the speeds low. Speed testing in the area has shown that there are some speeds that are being operated in that area at 30 MPH and above. We would like reduce the speed limit down to 20 MPH to insure that in terms of the random pedestrian crossings that we have as slow as speeds as possible. This is only a circulation area,North Shoreline Boulevard is not a through street per se to where travel time constraints are in need or a problem and to reduce the speed limit down to 20 MPH is something we feel would help to improve the safety of the area,especially given the number of out-to-town visitors that we have in this area. This matter has been discussed with the Texas State Aquarium and the Lady Lex Museum and they are very supportive of this amendment. We do not discuss speed limit revisions with property owners,in terms of the two traffic and pedestrian generated businesses,we have discussed it with them. Mr. Brandrup made motion to accept staff recommendation to Code of Ordinances. Mr. DeVille seconded motion. Any questions? Question:. On Pearl Street,what is the speed limit? Mr.Seiler stated the speed limit on Pearl Street and on any.other streets in that area is also 30 MPH. The fact of the matter is that in the short blocks between East Surfside Boulevard and North Shoreline Boulevard it is almost impossible to build up to a traffic speed beyond 30 MPH. How about the area that would extend from Pearl which would be the old Timon Boulevard on down to where it turns into the parking lots? The area under the bridge. Speed is 30 MPH. Mr.DeVille submitted that all that area be made 20 MPH. We are looking at specific areas where there are random pedestrian crossings and considerable amount of traffic. Mr.DeVille was there last Friday and there was a lot of random pedestrian crossing coming across the parking lots. Mr. Seiler stated the walkway from the parking lots to the Texas State Aquarium is centralized right in the middle of that area. Mr. Seiler would not necessarily disagree, however, that is an area that we should not consider for a speed limit reduction. It has not shown up as a problem area that has attracted our attention as North Shoreline Boulevard has. Mr.DeVille expressed concern when you have 20 MPH, then 30 MPH, then 20 MPH and whatever, if it is all related to the parking,let's make it all one speed. Mr. Pillinger called for another motion asking for all in favor of the original motion to staff recommendation to reduce the speed on North Shoreline Boulevard and Pearl Street to 20 MPH. Vote taken and passed. Mr. PiRinger then asked Mr. DeVille if he would like to make a motion, which Mr.DeVille did. Mr.DeVille's motion was to make Pearl Street and from the intersection of Pearl Street in a southerly direction on Surfside 20 MPH also. Mr. Pillinger ask for a second and second received. Vote taken. Someone clarified if everything surrounding the parking lot was basically the whole area to be 20 MPH. All of those streets are just access to parking,that's all it is. Mr.Pillinger ask for a vote to Mr.DeVille's motion. Five voted for and one against. Motion carried. Mr.Pillinger brought up while they are on that same parking lot discussion about the Texas Highway Department doing sandblasting on the Harbor Bridge during the week but not sandblasting on weekends,yet the whole parking is being restricted from being used on weekends because they have equipment and pallets of sand there and it is crowded over there on weekends. It seems a shame they cannot open that up on weekends. Mr.Seiler offered to inquire with the State Highway Department and find out what the problems are. Mr. Seiler mentioned that the State and the Texas State Aquarium have been working closely together on scheduling that operation. ° Staff recommendation for amendment to Code of Ordinances for establishing one-way school zone traffic pattern at Driscoll Drive between Kenwood Drive and Bluebonnet Drive at Driscoll Middle School Walter.Jarrin stated that the school officials presented a request to look into the traffic problems at this location. On a few occasions,Mr.Jarrin made a trip to that location to observe the traffic situation and took some video tapes. Driscoll Drive is a typical residential street,28-ft.back to back,with 24-ft.of driving surface. During the school hours,traffic is very congested. It becomes a.parking lot. An observation made was that kids cross the street in front of vehicles parked with some of traffic is moving very slow, it is a gridlock. Most of the residents face Longview so there would be no residents affected by this conversion. Mr.Pillinger mentioned that about one conflict on first page that being during school zone hours. Mr.Jarrin confirmed that congestion is only during the school zone hours. A video tape was available to the committee if they wished to view. Mr. Seiler stated that council, because of the back and forth dealings we had with the Luther Jones Elementary School has been quite concerned that we have a very deliberate,critical view of any requests for one-way streets in school areas. We have been very,very particular since that time to be able to demonstrate the congestion that is occurring with the intention that the school zone is made safer for those that are using it, driving within it as well as the school pedestrians themselves. It is one of the reasons why we are videoing the operations so that we can, if requested,show the video to the committee and the City Council who are making decisions on this matter. Question: Do busses use that street? The busses park on Kingwood Drive. It is a wider street. Mr.Pillinger entertained motion to accept the staffs recommendation. Mr.Routh made motion with Mr.DeVille seconded. Motion carries. VIII. RECOGNITION OF AUDIENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None IX. ACTION ON ABSENT MEMBERS FROM MARCH MEETING Mr.PiRinger reviewed prior attendance records: Mr.Braselton had called in;Mr.Bosquez'position declared vacant, Mr. Hecht reminded Mr. PiRinger that he had informed committee at February meeting that he would not be at March meeting,and Mr.DeVille was unexcused. Motion requested to excuse Messrs.Braeslton and Hecht. Motion made and seconded. Motion carries. Mr.Pillinger inquired about his leaving early at February meeting,it was not counted as an absence because he was here for Action and Discussion Items. Absences still showing an unexcused pending review. Those absences were discussed last month. Mr.Pillinger asked for the unexcused absences being reviewed for Len Brandrup, Mike Williams in January. Those were reviewed last month and excused. Mr. Seiler will correct minutes. X. PREVIOUS CONCERNS Mr.Seiler stated that RPF was approved by the City Council last week and we are in the process of getting all the mailouts taken care of. We are moving in that direction and they should be done within two weeks. The staff's recommendation was that at least 50% participation required,that at least 50% of the work could be undertaken by a local consultant. Mr.Pillinger mentioned to be brought up next month about ordinances pending before City Council or at least have been sent to the City Manager requesting that they go on the agenda for the City Council. XI. NEW CONCERNS Mr.DeVille mentioned his experiencing.more and more not being able to turn out of the inside lane. into the inside lane with a right hand turn without running over the curb. The radius is very,very short. It is physically impossible to turn a standard size automobile from the inside lane to the inside lane because the radius is too short,you run over the curb. Is there any study being done over there or anybody concerned about that or is it just me? Mr. Seiler stated that Captain Byrd had to leave early for a meeting but it is my understanding that there is no law that requires you to turn from the inside lane to the inside lane. Mr.DeVille stated if you wanted to turn on a red light you had better turn into that lane. Mr.Seiler stated that State law for right turn on red does not require you to turn from inside lane to inside lane although that is the desirable way of doing it. Mr. DeVille stated if there is not an ordinance or not a State law, there needs to be one because it would expedite traffic considerably. Mr.Seiler stated that the only situation where a right turn does not have right-of-way is right turn on red. Mr.DeVille stated he is talking about on the expressways where the east bound intersection of SPID access and Everhart where they have just done the revamp there. You have two arrows pointing straight,and those two lanes can also turn to the right or left. If you are in that lane, you will almost sideswipe the person turning next to you right. Mr.Seiler agreed that in this situation it is encumbered upon the design process to insure that if a double right turn is permitted that the typical use of motor vehicles would be able to turn from one lane to the nearest lane. Mr.Seiler asked Mr.DeVille for the second location he was concerned about which was on the other side by the Black Eyed Pea Restaurant. Same situation as the one mentioned above. Mr.Pillinger mentioned the same thing will happen when the State takes over the Ennis Joslin project, the driveway access to the sewer plant is designed for pickup trucks but yet you have these huge trucks going into their hauling their buckets and you can see where the cement driveway comes out but on both sides of that is another 10-ft.of gravel where the actual traffic turning in there has to go to make that radius. Mr.Pillinger hoped that they could enlarge that driveway to improve Fnnis Joslin. Mr. Seiler mentioned about bringing the Beach Access issue before the Transportation Advisory Committee,we are making a decision in Traffic Engineering to delay the public meeting on the traffic barrier on Everhart Road until our month of June Transportation Advisory Committee meeting. We see those as being two meetings that will generate potentially a good amount of concern and would • not like to dilute the meeting by having two controversial subjects on the same agenda. As voted on last month by our suggestion that we hold the public meeting in the May meeting,we are going to push that back until the June meeting for the Everhart Road barrier. Question on Williams Drive: Did the Council pass the'No Parking'? You now go straight on Betty Jean. The council has to go through two readings to pass a parking restriction. They have gone through the first reading,second reading will be conducted tomorrow. Mr.Pillinger mentioned about diagonal cutoff for making right turns. At Williams and Airline there is a piece of property there, owned by the school district, could one of these cutoffs be placed there. Mr. Seiler stated that it would require some dedication of that property. It is something that could be considered with improvements to Williams Drive that we hope would have on our next capital improvement bond election. XII. ADJOURN Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.