The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 1 PEDES ACCESS 11-01-93AGE N DA, OATE: OLD BUSINESS NO. 1 ' 11-1-93 NOVEMBER 1, 1993 Inter-Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJEC~ SYCAMORE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN PEPPERTREE AND TUSTIN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimates for the various alternatives are presented below. Since this project was not previously identified on the City's list of Capital Improvement Projects, funds are not currently available to implement the project. If the Council wishes to pursue a project ~uring the current fiscal year then it would be requested that the City Council approve a supplemental budget appropriation to fund the desired alternative. The following listing provides cost estimates for funding of each of the alternatives studied: Alternative 1 is~$35,000.00; Alternative 2A is $53,000.00; Alternative.'2B is $35,000.00; Alternative 3 is $2,500.00; Alternative 4 is'$37,000.00. BACKGROUND: At the July 19, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council considered an item entitled "Citizens Concerns - Sycamore Avenue Pedestrian Access Between Peppertree And Tustin Meadows Developments". The City had previously received letters from residents living within the Tustin Meadows and Peppertree residential development areas expressing concern with the pedestrian walkway along Sycamore Avenue between the two developments. Engineering Division staff was directed by the City Council at the July 19, 1993 meeting to investigate the concerns of the residents and work with the two affected Community Associations to recommend acceptable alternatives that address the residents concerns. DISCUSSION: The Engineering Division staff has completed the investigation of the subject location and has developed feasible alternatives to address the residents concerns. Reduced copies of the alternatives are attached for your information. The alternatives are' described as follows: Alternative 1. This opens Sycamore Avenue to through vehicular and pedestrian traffic between Canterbury Avenue and Alder Lane. This alternative includes a striped median, sidewalks, and landscapeQ parkways on each side of the roadway. This a!~ernative was the original plan for this street at the time of development of both Tustin Meadows and Peppertree. As indicated in the attached .letters, this SYCAMORE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN pEPPERTREE AND TUSTIN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS November 1, 1993 Page 2 Alternative 2A. alternative would be a consideration by Mr. George Simon, a resident of Tustin Meadows. This alternative relocates existing pedestrian access to the center of Sycamore Avenue in the subject area. Vehicular access remains restricted and emergency and maintenance access is provided through a locked gate near the center!of the fenced area. This includes the construction of full curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and an asphal~ cover of the existing dirt area. This alternativ~ is supported by both Community Associations and by the George Speicher family as indicated in .the attached letters. / This alternative, similar to Alternative 2A, also relocates the pedestrian access to ~he center of SycamO-re Avenue in the subject area. ~However, this does not include the full curb and gutter construction nor the extensive sidewalk construction shown in Alternative 2A. Vehicular access is restricted and emergency and maintenance access is offset toward the north side of the street through a locked gate. This alternative represents the full closure of any type of access through this area. Construction includes the removal of existing handrails and ramps and the installation of locks on the existing gates. Emergency and maintenance access will remain at existing locations. As indicated in the attached letters, this alternative would be a consideration by Mr. George Simon, a resident of Tustin Meadows. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2B, except that vehicular access is restricted at Sycamore Avenue and Canterbury Avenue and at Sycamore Avenue and Alder Lane by the installation of removable, lockable bollards. This alternative is not supported by the Tustin Police Department due to possible security concerns. The affected Community Associations were notified that the investigation was complete and that feasible alternatives had been developed. A meeting was held on September 27, 1993, to present staff's findings and alternasives to the Community Associations and receive their input. The meeting was attended by Mr. Carl Kasalek representing the Peppertree Homeowners Association, Mr. Robert Quinn representing Tustin Meadows, Mr. George Simon a resident of Tustin Meadows, and Mr. and Mrs. George speicher residents o.f Peppertree. Alternative 2B. Alternative 3. Alternasive 4. SYCAMORE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN PEPPERTREE AND TUSTIN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS November 1, 1993 Page 3 The aforementioned residents and Community Associations representatives have submitted letters supporting some of the alternatives. These letters are attached for your information. CONCLUS ION: With the City Council's approval of one of' the alternatives and approval of a supplementary budget appropriation, this project may now proceed in a timely manne~-to resolve concern in this area. Robert S. Ledendecker Douglas R. Anderson Director of .Public Works/City Enqineer Transportation Engineer RSL:DA:pedway4 Atlachm~nt ~o~,~ ~,~ / // , \\ \ .: ..... ; ......... f- .......... t .... ;: ....... .1_. -- , 3N ~, q ~3GqV_____ ~ . ................ ~ ] ~ , ~ L ...................... I LL/_~L LLI I,I :I ]J.v'O ZS-.: ..m. I~ ~L¥O 'H3A ,g: 33N~1 'I'M ].l,.V~) 'H3,,9 ,gl. /M 3:~N'4~ 'rM 30vO¥]:ll:lVg ._i o; w~IOL$ .LB ~ .O. 109 o J. N31q3S¥3 30VNIVB0 .0( / .6C ,OS 0 n~ 0 / / L LL~ L ~ ~..~ (g~) ~U nnViSNIj ~-. I,I ' 'SigNOO~d 910 NlVl:lO I~IIK)I$ .tg .¥. 1o9 93rt:! 13? -- ~LL'~ L Z .£c I .og Z / .,.. .9. 109 ,- .............. 11" II :>nYM':lalS i :>I"IYMDOIS ,og . .O. iO~ l N31AI3SY3 30YNIY~O L~J i 3NV9 L .... ,~ LL/_~L 2130"I: L ~ ~.~L::)lgOO~d 910 .O >l!,.- ~'--' ' ' '93?t:1 .L3f ~-- i .C~ .6~ ,Og .0~ L I' ~11/ I~.11 / / I / 109 J. N31nlDS¥3 30¥ NIYi:10 -I c~ 0 r..q (b i 0 C) September 28,1993 Mr. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 ; SEP301993 iTUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEP _ Dear Bob' Mr. Doug Anderson requested that I drop you a no't~ confirming our approval of your Option ~2A as outlined by your staff in our meeting this past Monday September 27,1993. This option provides paving the dirt area on Sycamore between Tustin Meadows and Peppertree as well as extending the sidewalks to the middle of a single wrought iron fence. There will be a single pedestrian opening in the fence with an additional opening for emergency and maintenance vehicles. This solution addresses most, if not all, of the concerns outlined by Mr. Simon, my neighbors the ~Fellicks, and myself in prior correspondence and phone calls. This improvement will greatly improve the visual aspects of the area, reduce noise levels adjacent to our homes, reduce vandalism and other negative activities, as well as improving the ability of the Tustin Police Department to patrol the areas in question. Mr. Carl Kaselek, our Peppertree Homeowners President, brought this matter before our Association at tonight's PHOA Board meeting and %his. option ~2A was approved unanimously. Mr. Kaselek will drop you a note to this effect. I trust the Tustin Meadows Board will do the same. Bob, I really do appreciate your support and courtesy in this matter that has been a chronic problem for years and I would urge that you bring this matter before the Tustin City Council at your earliest possible opportunity. Apparently, your staff will address the costs for these changes and pass this a long to you for presentation to the Council. Any help that you or the Council can provide in expediting this work would be greatly appreciated by all of us that are impacted. Please feel free to' contact me if you have any questions" on the above. Thanks again for the help and I look forward to working with you in the future. ~ Very Trtkl~o~ /// ~ /,~~~pe i ch er ~ i47110% Ald%r Lane ./ Tustk~, CJ. 92680 ~ (714~-3070 (Office) ,~) 669-9877 (Work) cc' Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer, Tus%in ~ Mr. George Simon Mr. Carl Kaselek, 'Pregiden% PHOA · Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Fellick September 29, 1993 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attn: Mr. Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer ~ Public Works/Engineering Subject: Proposed change of Traffic Flow, Dear Sir: My neighbor, Mr. George Simon, 14712 Hyannis Port Road, has advised me of the meeting held September 27th, at which changes in the existing traffic flow on East Sycamore, between Tustin Meadows an~ Peppertree tracts were ~iscussed~ This change can have an impact on the residents, anm I am amzed other residents bordering East Sycamore were not advised of the project so they ~Could offer their input. Mr. Simon has showed me the prints of the possible change and the alternates, and I believe not all of these choices consider the im~act o~residents. Please con- sider the following: 1. The opening of East Sycamore to both vehicles and pedestrian traffic will benefit traffic from Peppertree far more than Tustin Meadows, as a shortcut to Redhill, to avoid Walnut traffic. This traffic increase of vehicles through T.M. would probably cause the need of some other traffic controls in T.M, such as the Stop Sign installed a few years ago to 'slow-down' short cutting cars from Walnut, thru Oxford-Roanoke to the Red Hill exit. Thus the opening of E. Sycamore would affect a large part of T.M, not just a dozen homes bordering E. Sycamore, in heavy traffic in a residential area where many children live, and the nuisance of noise created..The traffic in reverse (mhrough~ Peppertree) would be similar, but probably in a lesser amount. 2. Daytime foot traffic is principally children from Peppertree going to or from school. This is also a ~roblem to us. Kids toss their trash over residents fences: I received a dead oppossum on my patio~ recently, soft dri~ cans, and even a couple worn out tires. Kid's occasionally climb uoon the fences to fence-walk, a danger~u~ practi~e from a residents point o£ view, as an injury from a fall makes the resident liable. 3. Closing the street to both vehicles and pedestrians also nas oroblems. We would still have motorcycles 'test-r~ning' up and down the street, kids throwing trash, and tire-changers' throwing tires dn our ya'~°ds. It appears a "Catch 22" situation, there is no solution that will olease everyone, i sincerely hope there are other alternates. So fa~ it appears opening E. Sycamore may b~ the lesser o£ evils. Thank you £or letting me state some opinions. Dona~"'~. Wylie / 14711 Hyannis Port Rd. Tustin, CA 92680 tuotln P.O. Box 491, Tusdn, California 92680 October 1, 1993 Dear Mr. Ledendecker: Mr. Robert Ledendecker City Engineer City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 OgT Zll993 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. J After reviewing the four different alternatives presented by your staff regarding the ~pedestrian walkway on East Sycamore leading from Tustin Meadows to Peppertree, we reccomend Alternative 2A as the best solution. Alternative 2A solves the problem of children passing too closely to any residence and it is also the most asthetically pleasing as well. Alternative 2B would be the only other acceptable plan presented, it is not as nicely completed as 2A therefore it is our second choice. The remaining aiternatives presented are.not acceptable to us for a variety of reasons. Alternative 1 is unacceptable at this time because the majority of our residents do not desire through vehicular traffic on East Sycamore. Alternative 3 does not allow for any access, either pedestrian or vehicular and is also not acceptable. The children do need access to walk to and from school since the residents of Peppertree do not feel that WalnUt is a safe pedestrian way. Alternative 4 is not acceptable because we feel that police and other emergency vehicles need easier access than this alternative would allow. Thanks to you and your staff for your prompt attention to this matter. We hope that a decision can be made soon and this situation be taken care of as quickly as possible. Please keep us informed as the process continues and don't hesitate to call me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Robert Quinn President, Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association cc: Carl Kasaiek George Simon George Speicher Peppertree Homeowners Association October 3, 1993 Bob Ledendecker City Engineer CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 TUSTIN PUBUC INORKS DEPT. Dear Mr. Ledendecker; As president of the Peppertree Homeowners Association, I was in attendance at the City of Tustin's September 27th meeting regarding the Sycamore Avenue pedestrian access between Peppertree and Tustin Meadows. Four alternatives to remedy the problem were presented by your staff with drawings detailing each proposal. : · My recommendation was to accept alternative 2A. It is possibly the most costly alternative, ' but offers all interested parties the maximum satisfaction to their concerns. All alternatives were presented and discussed at our last Peppertree Homeowners meeting on September 28th. The entire Board of Directors, along with all in attendance, unanimously approved alternative 2A. We do want to tnake very clear, that opening Sycamore Avenue for vehicular traffic between Peppertree and Tustin Meadows is NOT acceptable to the Peppertree homeowners and should not be considered in any way. I thank you for all the good work you and your staff has put into this project and would be happy to assist you in any way we can toward its completion. Sincerely, Carl Kasalek President ref:M93PHA05 ~ .rge SIMON 14.7].2 Hyannis Port Rd. Tustin, CA., 92680 ~ City Of TUSTIN c/o Bob Ledendecker 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA., 92680 Dear Bob; 18 Octobe ? Off[ [ 9 1993 IU$11 PLIBI. IO WORI{$ This ltr is in response to the recent meeting with Doug Anderson & staff @ City Hall on Monday, 27ZhSep93 @ 4pmo Regarding the matter of the Ped crossing between Tustin Meadows & Peppertreeo Results of which a near majority approved Alt 2A. I objected.'.' My preference is to completely OPEN or CLOSE the access. Option 2A accepted overwhelmingly by the Peppertree (PT) part- ticpants ~ the meeting is a ~est "Self Serving" for the PT people, for which the Ped Crossing was approved for originally. Example; My neighbor, Mr. George Speicher across the access was a confirme& advo~e of "completely Closing" the access until recently when his kids reached school age and are now utiliziAg the crosswalk to at- tend school on Redhil'l Avenue. Option Alt 2A was his original ideaand if you look closely at his proposal you can readily see WHY he wants it soo badly .' .' At the moment, his kids and many T~-fends use the existing area outide his house as a rollerblade/ hockey arena, etc., his proposal enlarges the existing area quit~ appropriately for his kids &. friends to utilize as a mini-play ground. I am extremely opposed to this enlarged area because I feel this will certainly be a draw for a miniplayground on both sides of the Ped crossing. NOISE is what we're trying to suppress not enhance .' .' Bob, what I'm hoping for is that "Good 01e Common Senee" will pre- vail and all will agree that opening Sycamore street to Alder Lane is the best of any and all proposals· I'm sure the original intent of building the street in the first place was to eventually OPEN it to traffic , pedestrian & wehicular I don't like the idea, but.. '~- · · Please refer to Encl (1) my modified proposal of Alt's 2A/2Bo My proposal will not only minimize the use of the area as mini- playground, better direct Ped traffic away from sensitive areas, but will save TIME, MONEY & MATER'ALS for now and the eventual OPENING of sycamore s~reet thra to Alder lane in PT. COST EFFECTIVENESS AND FEASIBILITY is the word for now & future. cc: Rob Quinn Thanks Bob & Staff. ? . GEo TREE =-