HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 COMMENTS RCVD ON PARKING MATTER 02-03-09
From: HENRY A SPEGON [mailto:hspegon@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:03 AM
To: Davert, Doug
Cc: Amante, Jerry; Palmer, Jim; Gavello, Deborah; jneill1225@aol.com
Subject: TAX PAYERS OPINION
REPEAL THE PARKING BAN
Henry Spegon
Resident of Palmwood Condominiums
17964 Irvine Blvd.
From: Liora Cohen [mailto:liora1953@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:36 AM
To: Davert, Doug; Amante, Jerry
Cc: Palmer, Jim; Gavello, Deborah; jneill225@aol.com
Subject: Palmwood residents - ban on parking on Irvine Blvd.
Dear Mr. Amante and Mr. Davert,
Your unreasonable and sad decision to ban parking of Irvine Blvd. is causing the
Palmwood residents unnecessary problems and heartache.
I’m a teacher in 3 schools and some of my students have to come to my house for
lessons. Since they no longer will be able to be dropped off in front of the complex,
the parents are very concerned and me as well, as the wellbeing of the safety arrival
and departure of the kids from my house is being affected by this cruel and
unnecessary act.
This part of Irvine Blvd. does not need this parking ban. There is no problem with the
flow of traffic here (it’s already too fast).
I’m afraid you didn’t really check thoroughly into the matter so you fail to see the
absurd action in the right light.
Please remove the ban. You’re damaging our lives and not adding any values to it.
Thank you,
Liora Cohen
17900 Irvine Blvd.
Tustin, Ca 92780
(714-731-4489)
From: Palmer, Jim
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:20 PM
To: Deborah Gavello ; Doug Davert; Jerry Amante; Jim Palmer; John Nielsen
Cc: Huston, William; Jordan, Scott; Serlet, Tim
Subject: FW: parking
From: jodygrrr@aol.com [mailto:jodygrrr@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:15 PM
To: Davert, Doug; Amante, Jerry; Palmer, Jim; Gavello, Deborah; john.nielsen@kodak.com
Subject: parking
Dear City Council Members,
Alas, today the parking ban on Irvine Boulevard took effect. I still vehemently disagree with
the ban and don't understand why it was implemented. After all, it only extends the three
lane section for approximately another half mile before it returns to two lanes. For this half
mile, our 98 condominiums are left without street parking. That means our delivery people,
guests, and caregivers have no place to park. It also leaves us with dangerous spots at our
entrance and exit gates. I see that some of the right turn lanes have also been eliminated,
creating more chances for rear-end collisions. I'm a bit curious to know just how many
drivers exiting their vehicles have been struck by passing cars in this area along Irvine,
since that possibility was brought up. I know that this is partly an effort to force residents to
clean out their garages and use the space to park their vehicles. Those of you who have
visited Palmwood have noted that some garages have padlocks on them. I know of some
residents who have padlocks on their garages, not because they're using them for storage,
but because they do not have garage door openers. So they lock their garages, even though
it's not very convenient to open the lock each time they use their garage.
I am also concerned about increased speed along this part of Irvine since the traffic flow is
to be increased. Certainly the safety of school children is of concern as Columbus Tustin is
partially bordered by Irvine and students cross there each school day.
Ten years ago I was thrilled to find an affordable condominium here after living in Santa
Ana. I liked Tustin's small-town atmosphere and Palmwood provided an ideal spot close to
many things as well as a quiet, well-maintained common area. As I was getting older, a
single story home with no stairs meant a great living situation. I have since retired from
Tustin Unified School District after teaching here for 31 years. I had no desire to live in the
city of Irvine and its planned communities, but I'm afraid that Tustin's city council prefers
the sterility of that design. It seems that our empty streets signal a move in that direction.
In spite of heartfelt and eloquent pleas by residents to reconsider this parking ban, the city
council has turned a deaf ear to those of us who oppose it. You have scoffed at constructive
suggestions such as flex time for parking or improved timing of traffic lights to improve
traffic flow. Crass comments by council members referring to "bang for your buck" on just
the cost of paint while residents are losing parking privileges show us how much the council
cares about its constituents. Neither Tustin residents nor businesses benefit from the
parking ban. Primarily residents from other communities (especially Irvine) will reap that
benefit.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Grisham
463 East First Street
Tustin
714-731-8642
From: Tammie Bullard [mailto:tbullard@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:10 PM
To: Gavello, Deborah
Subject: Fw: Parking Ban on Irvine Blvd
Hi Deborah,
I had intended to contact you about the parking ban on Irvine Blvd. right after the
holidays but got caught up with work immediately after. I am forwarding you an
email dialog I had with John Nielson regarding the parking ban. Today is the day the
parking ban is being implemented and it just makes no sense. Please read my
original email to John. I think it clearly addresses the concerns of many people in
this area. This ban is turning the lives of homeowners in the Palmwood condo
complex completely upside-down as well as jeopardizing the safety of hundreds of
kids who use the fields at Columbus Tustin Middle School. It is not too late to reverse
what has been done. It should have never been done in the first place. I ask you to
consider the points in my email and agendize this for a discussion since we have two
new council members and one who voted against it the first time it was on the
agenda.
Thanks so much for your time and consideration.
Tammie Bullard
----- Original Message -----
From: Tammie Bullard
To: jniel1225@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Parking Ban on Irvine Blvd
Hi John,
Thanks so much for your reply and the opportunity to respond the other points of
view contained in your email.
1. There are folks who do use their garages for storage. Our condos are appx. 1,000
square feet . . . very small. The garages have become storage for many common
items that nearly all households store in garages (i.e. bicycles, sports equipment,
bulk storage for items bought at Costco, tools, Christmas decorations, etc.). The
problem with our garages is that they were designed to hold one small compact car
and nothing else. You can't get other commonly stored items and a car in our
garages. My Explorer is too tall to clear the top of the garage door opening. My
husband's Chevy Astro van is too wide to fit in. Lots of other residents have this very
problem. When our units were built, they were apartments without garages. The city
allowed the conversion from apartments to condos and the parking stalls were
converted to garages. Prior to the conversion, there were no garage walls to prevent
car doors from opening. You could just open your door into the space next to your
parking space. Now, there's garage walls that don't allow for doors on wider vehicles
to open after the car is parked. Additionally, when the condo complex applied for the
permit to gate the entrances and exits for the complex, nothing was ever mentioned
to the homeowner's association that the parking was eventually going to be
eliminated along Irvine Blvd. and gating our community could pose parking problems
for visitors and residents. My husband was on the homeowners board at that time.
For those residents that are using their two parking spots (their garage and open
spot in the middle of the complex), what are they supposed to do with the cars of
their teenage drivers that live with them, cars of roommates, visitors, babysitters,
service folks, etc.? There are many 3 bedroom condos and it stand to reason that a
family living in a three bedroom dwelling would have more that two cars.
2. I have lived in my complex for 17 years and have been a tenant in the
office building for nearly 13 years. I have never seen an accident along Irvine Blvd.
where cars are merging from three lanes to two. Traveling westbound on Irvine
Blvd., Holt has a right hand turn lane. There is plenty of room for folks to merge. It
has been this way since the beginning of time. Anyone driving through Tustin knows
this. Irvine Blvd. isn't the only street that transitions from three to two lanes and
back again. Seventeenth St. is the same way. There simply isn't the traffic and back
up on Irvine Blvd. that folks would like to make us think there is.
3. I have no doubt that the city's parking lot is under utilized at times. It's too far
away from where the kids have practice and games. Why would parents park a half a
block away when there's parking right in front of the field their kids are supposed to
be on? Once the adult softball and girls softball begins, the parking lot is significantly
fuller as the fields they use are closer to that parking lot. Between the parking for
the folks using the gym and the all of the softball players that will soon be coming,
there won't be any parking for the smaller kids that are playing soccer, lacrosse, etc.
Those are the kids I worry about walking through and around other games and being
out of the sight of their parents who are dropping them off and picking them up.
When the parking lots are full on the weekends, there will be parents and kids
parking in the business parking lots on the south side of Irvine Blvd. and running
across six lanes of traffic.
4.When was the master plan created that eliminated the parking along Irvine Blvd?
How and when was this communicated to the school district and the impacted
residents? Was there ever anything in the paper that directly addressed the eventual
elimination of the parking along Irvine Blvd? I have never seen any communication
regarding this issue. I can guarantee you that any school board member, no matter
what year the city's master plan was approved, would have been concerned to hear
that parking was being eliminated next to one of our schools knowing it would
directly impact the access to our fields that at the time we were scheduling for
recreational use. Additionally, had the residents and homeowners association been
properly notified at the time the council approved the master plan, you would have
been hearing from the residents all along. I believe it was never intended to be
communicated until it was actually going to happen.
5. Currently, we have the room to nose our cars out to see around any vehicles that
may be parked along Irvine Blvd. With the traffic moving at 45-50 mph, I believe it
will create more of a dangerous situation by trying to pull out into a lane of traffic
moving at that rate. Again, I am not aware of any Palmwood residents being hit as
they've tried to enter Irvine Blvd. Right now there's a lanes width of wiggle room
which provides an extra measure of safety.
John, I understand that this may have been on the city's masterplan for sometime. I
question whether it is the right thing to do. As you well know, things and opinions
can change and plans can be altered. The base is a good example of that. I still don't
understand what's to be gained by widening a very small portion of Irvine Blvd.
that's been this way since the beginning of time. It will have such a negative impact
on those families using the facilities at the school and the homeowners along the
south side of the street. I don't want the convenience of commuters to trump the
safety of the hundreds of kids using our fields or the lifestyle of the homeowners that
live along Irvine Blvd. Many of the commuters aren't even residents of Tustin. We
know the folks that are getting permits to use the fields at the schools have a
majority of Tustin residents playing on their teams. Of course, those living in the
condos are certainly residents.
Thanks again for all of the time you are putting into this issue. I appreciate the fact
that you are getting input from the various stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Tammie Bullard
----- Original Message -----
From: jniel1225@aol.com
To: tbullard@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: Parking Ban on Irvine Blvd
Tammie, I am sorry for the tardy response but just received your E-Mail forwarded
from the City last night. I always appreciate your opinions, they are always well
thought out. As a matter-of-fact I met with the President of your homeowners
Association last week and discussed the situation in depth. I am trying to get input
from all concerned to make as good a decision as I can on this item. Not that I am
thinking this way, but what would your responses be to the arguments I hear on the
other side, such as:
1. That the reason there is a lack of residential parking is that the garages are used
for storage instead of cars.
2. That narrowing from three to two lanes for parking is dangerous along Irvine with
the parking that is there.
3. That the CT parking lot is under utilized.
4. That the City General Plan has had Irvine Blvd. as a major arterial for years and
has not taken parking off which it should have done years ago.
5. That because of parking in front of your comdo complex it is a sight hazard
coming out of your gates.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
John Nielsen
-----Original Message-----
From: Nielsen, John <JNielsen@tustinca.org>
To: jniel1225@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 6:08 pm
Subject: FW: Parking Ban on Irvine Blvd
From: Tammie Bullard [mailto:tbullard@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:18 PM
To: Nielsen, John
Subject: Parking Ban on Irvine Blvd
Hi John,
Happy New Year. I hope you and your family enjoyed the Christmas holiday. As you
know, during the holiday or just after, the city put out the signs on Irvine Blvd
alerting the community that the parking ban will start on Feb. 2nd. I just wanted one
last chance to express my complete displeasure that this is happening and I beg your
indulgence while I vent.
This is going to be a huge public safety issue and this is my biggest concern. My
office window overlooks this entire section of Irvine Blvd and I want to state again
that there is no traffic flow problem that needs to be fixed. I have had nearly all of
the city council members in my office at one time or another in the late
afternoon/early evening when folks are traveling to and from the 55 freeway. Irvine
Blvd. does not backup between Prospect and Holt. What does take place is dozens of
families and coaches park along Irvine Blvd. to have the best and safest access to
the fields that are along Irvine Blvd. I watch every afternoon and early evening as
parents drop off their kids for practices or games, wait for the child to connect with
the other players and/or coach and pull away from the curb. The same process
happens when they pick up their kids. I also see coaches taking multiple bags and
buckets of gear and equipment out of their cars for practice.
It is unreasonable for parents to drop off in the way too small parking lot next to the
city's gym. It is too far from the fields that the kids are playing on and you can't see
the fields from that parking lot. The kids won't be able to see their parents pull up for
pick up. It is a huge inconvenience to have coaches haul all of their gear and
equipment across all of the fields to get to the farthest fields from the parking lot.
Additionally, the gym parking lot is often full in the evenings when the gym is in use
and multiple games/practices are taking place on the fields . . . especially during
adult softball season.
The other safety issue is the safe passage of the kids through and around other
games to get to the fields that they need to be on. Girls and adult softball will be
starting very soon and we will have young students walking through and around
these games to get to the track area and the field at that end of the school for
practice and their own games.
What is likely to happen since adequate parking/drop-off is being eliminated is
parents and student will be parking in the business parking lots on the south side of
Irvine Blvd. and dodging six lanes of traffic to get across the street. Someone is
going to get hit. The speed limit in front of the school is 40 mph when school is not
in session (afternoons and weekends). You know as well as I that traffic usually
moves closer to 45 to 50 mph when the posted speed limit is 40 mph. I believe we'll
also have folks parking in the neighborhoods on the west side of Prospect and
running across 4 lanes of traffic to get to the fields when the parking lot is full.
There is also no reason to ban the on-street parking on the south side of Irvine Blvd.
These are mostly homeowners, not renters whose lives are being completely turned
upside down. The condo complex only has enough parking for two owner's vehicles
inside the gates. There will be no visitor parking for babysitters, family, friends,
service providers, etc. If someone wanted their carpets cleaned, there isn't a
company in the world that has enough hoses to run from a nearby business parking
lot ,down the public sidewalk and into the complex. The overflow condo parking has
never been an issue on Irvine Blvd. What are these people supposed to do? How will
they ever sell their condos when it is found out that folks can't visit them? Does
anyone care? How can any of this be deemed reasonable and necessary?
In my opinion, this is the most unfriendly community related thing this city has ever
done. I don't understand why the city would put the transportation of folks that don't
even live in our city over the safety of the students and adults that use the very
limited recreation space in our city. Again, there is not a traffic flow problem in the
area that is being restriped to three lanes. I extend an invitation to anyone wanting
to get a bird's-eye view from my office. John, you are in a position along with two
other city council members to stop this nonsense. There is no need for all of this
disruption and huge potential for safety issues. You would be a hero for standing
up for the community and for public safety. I ask you to reconsider the decision that
was made prior to you joining the city council.
Thank you again for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Tammie Bullard
From: Sue Christian [mailto:suechristian2@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:59 PM
To: Amante, Jerry
Subject: Irvine Blvd
I am mad as hell over the restripeing of Irvine and the impact on the Palmwood!!!!
I guess you do not know much about the limited parking in a apartment conversion...
Please re think this idea and but you mind to work at something more useful--like our
streets that are a disgrace and our landscale thru out the City..
Sue Christian
From: Sue Christian [mailto:suechristian2@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:53 PM
To: Davert, Doug
Subject: Irvine Blvd . extra lane
Dave Davert-
That was a wonderful article on the cities new venture to control traffic! Are you
kidding? Do you even know about the Palmwood and how it is going to be impacted
or do you care? You must not know much about apartment conversions and the
very limited parking. My parents owned their unit since it was an apartment, their
garage is used by a car and they have one outside parking space. They had round
the clock care and the cargivers many times would have to park on Irvine and walk
in. The Palmwood at best is not the most convenient place to live but it is home to
many people. When you do you stripeing the enterance will be very, very dangerous
but I am sure you do not care just so you can act like you are saving money. Even if
every single person used there garage(which alot do) you still need some place for
guests to come and go. The business are not impacted just the Palmwood and the
School and the revenue from all the games played on that field.
I travel Irvine every day , all hours and the only time it is really busy is early a.m.
and late afternoon when people are going home from work. You will have alot more
problems once your great plan take effect.
It seem to me the City O tustin has alot of bigger problems that this that need to be
taken care of. Our streets are in terrible condition, our common area landscape thru
out the cit and in our parks look awful compared to Orange and Irvine.
Thank You for your time.
Sue Christian