Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30 VEHICLE PARKING 06-06-94AGENDA - - .)ATE: JUNE 6, 1994 NO. 30 6-.6-94 Inter-Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION ' VEHICLE PARKING AT CAMINO REAL AND LAUREL GLEN PARKS IN THE EAST TUSTINAREA RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The following costs estimates include all construction activity costs, utility relocation, mobilization and traffic control, pavement markings and street signing,_and engineering and contract administration costs. The ~nit prices for the costs estimates were based upon the actual estimates for the construction of the existing parking bay on E1 Camino Real at Camino Real Park. Camino Real Park: Alternative A. Alternative B. Alternative C. Alternative D. -_ Alternative E. On-street Parking = $ 1,500.00 On-siteParking Lot = $69,000.00 Angled Parking Bay = $64,000.00 Parallel Parking Bay = $64,000.00 Reinforce Existing Policy = no cost Laurel Glen Park: Alternative A. Alternative B. Alternative C. Alternative D. BACKGROUND: On-street Parking = $ 1,700.00 Angled Parking Bay = $73,000.00 Parallel Parking Bay = $65,000.00 Reinforce Existing Policy = no cost At the May 2, 1994 City Council meeting, Councilmember Worley expressed concern regarding the lack of parking available at Camino Real and Laurel Glen Parks in the East Tustin area. The Engineering Division was subsequently directed by the Council to prepare a report investigating parking alternatives for the noted parks. -1- DISCUSSION= ' -~ -' ".." The attached memorandum (Exhibit A) dated July 17,c~9'~2~ ~rovi~es chronological recap of meetings and actions pertal~l~ ~8' parking at Camino Real Park. The memo indicates that there has been substantial opposition to providing parking at Camino Real Park by the residents living in the immediate area around the park. There has also been support for parking at this park and this conflict has generated substantial discussion by the City Council and the City Parks and Recreation Commission. At the March .18, 1992 City Council meeting, the Council approved an alternative to provide parking at Camino Real Park which included the construction of a recessed parking bay on E1 Camino Real to accommodate five (5).parking spaces. In July and August 1992, the recessed parking bay was constructed on E1 camino Real. Also, with the construction'of Laurel Glen Park, the City Council authorized the designation of three (3) on-street parking spaces with limited parking times on Heritage Way. At this time the City of Tustin does not have a formal parking standard that would apply to neighborhood parks. In. an effort to determine parking demands for typical neighborhood parks, staff has contacted other Orange County .Cities (Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fountain Valley, Orange, Santa Ana, and Westminster) for a comparison of their'parking-requirements for parks of similar size and type. It was found that none of the noted cities have any formal standards for parking at neighborhood parks. However, the cities of Anaheim and Irvine do provide their own interpretations of the "Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines" published by the National Recreation and Park Association for determining parking demand at a neighborhood park. When these'standards are applied to Camino Real and Laurel Glen Parks, it is found .that fifteen (15) parking spaces are required at Camino Real Park', and 'twelve (12) parking spaces are required at Laurel Glen Park to accommodate anticipated park usage. With the approval of the master tract maps in the East Tustin area, one of the conditions of approval required the prohibition of on-street ;parking on all public arterial and collector roadways in the East Tustin area. This was done to facilitate the routine sweeping of streets and to provide for future bike lanes on streets within this area. Currently, both Parkcenter Lane and Heritage Way are designated as Class II (on- street striped lanes) bikeways on the attached City Bikeway Plan (Exhibit D). ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: The following discussion examines each of the two subject parks and presents alternatives that have been prepared for each park to address the parking issue: Camino Real Park Camino Real Park is a 4.25-acre neighborhood park located on the northeast corner of E1 Camino Real and Parkcenter Lane. The park contains restroom facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, and a single basketball court. E1 Camino Real is classified as secondary arterial roadway, is posted for no parking, and currently has a parking bay located adjacent to the park to accommodate five (5) parking spaces. There are no bicycle lanes -2- on E1Camino Real, ~ /there are currently no'~cure plans to install bicycle lanes. Parkcenter is a local collector street that serves to collect traffic from adjacent neighborhoods and distribute it to the arterial roadway system. There are no housing units fronting on Parkcenter Lane. Parkcenter Lane is curvilinear in the area of the .park, so sight distance for vehicular traffic is limited in this area. Parkcenter Lane is identified as a Class II (on-street striped lanes) bike route on the City's Bikeway Plan. However, in the vicinity of the park, bicycle lanes have not been installed as of this date. It is anticipated that they will be inst~lled during FY 94-95. Alternatives Alternative A. On-street Parking. This alternative would provide for time-limited on-street parking on the park-side of Parkcenter Lane adjacent to Camino Real Park. Fifteen (15) spaces would be required to accommodate the anticipated demand. There are currently five (5) spaces available at the existingrecessed parking bay on E1 Camino~Real adjacent to Camino Real Park. On-street parking would require the restriping of the street to accommodate both future bicycle lanes ahd parking within a thirteen (13) foot area. This would reduce through travel lane widths to eleven (11) feet and would result in a bicycle lane width of five (5) feet on the opposite side of Parkcenter Lane. Current City Standards indicate preferred twelve (12) foot through travel lane widths and eight (8) foot bicycle lane widths. Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $1,500.00. Advantaqes: 1. On-street Parking Can be implemented fairly quickly and inexpensively. 2. Time limitations would ensure that automobiles park only_ during designated hours. ~'~. On-street parking would provide park accessibility to' those driving to the park. ~ ' Disadvantaqes: 1. There are-definite safety concerns with mixing bicycle traffic with vehicle parking in essentially the same area. 2. Due to the horizontal curvilinear geometry of Parkcenter Lane, there are sight distance limitations for parked vehicles as well as for the travelling public and pedestrians. 3. The reduced travel lane widths and the combination parking/bicycle lanes are undesirable. 4. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. Alternative B. On-site Parking Lot. This alternative would provide a parking lot on the park site to accommodate an additional ten (10) parking spaces. The parking lot could be located as shown in the attached Exhibit B-1 and would displace approximately 0.18-acre of park area. This alternative would require the relocation of some trees and utilities as well as the installation -3- of an asphalt concr~ parking surface with a~ /opriate signing and striping. Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $69,000.00. Advantages: 1. Provides for parking on-site, thereby eliminating conflicts with on-street parking and bicycles. 2. Time limitations would ensure that vehicles park only during designated hours. 3. Eliminates the sight distance concerns experienced with on-street parked vehicles. 4. This would allow for the implementation of the City Bikeway Plan consistent with preferred City Standards for travel lane widths. 5. Maintains consistency with on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. Disadvantaqes:. 1. Implementation is costly. 2. Usable park space (0.18-acre) for recreation activities would be reduced. 3. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. Alternative C. Angled Parking Bay This alternative would provide for ten (10) parking spaces to be constructed within a recessed parking bay that would provide for angled parking. The parking bay Could be located as shown in attached Exhibit B-2 and would displace approximately 0.13-acre of park area. This alternative would require the relocation of some trees as well as reconfiguration of the curb and~'gUtter'line~and sidewalk iht his area to accommodate the parking bay~ Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $64,000.00. -~. Advantaqes'. 1. 2. · · · · o Provides for off-street parking. Time limitations would ensure that vehicles park only during designated hours. A parking bay would provide for fewer traffic conflicts with other vehicles and bicycles. Parking bays are consistent with previous actions by the City Council to address parking issues at neighborhood parks. This would allow implementation of the City Bikeway Plan consistent with preferred City Standards for travel lane widths. This would maintain consistency with on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. Disadvantaqes: 1. Implementation is costly. 2. Usable park space (0.13-acre) for recreation activities would be reduced. 3. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. 4. Angled parking requires greater roadway space for maneuvering in and out of parking spaces. -4- Se Angl~_ ~a~king reduces adequate %~-ibility for the driver during the back-out maneuver. This is compounded on a curvilinear roadway such as Parkcenter Lane. Alternative D. Parallel Parking Bay. This alternative would provide for ten (10) parking spaces to be constructed within a recessed parking bay that would provide for parallel parking along Parkcenter Drive. The parking bay could be located as shown in Exhibit B-3 and would displace approximately 0.07- acre of park area. This alternative would require the relocation of some trees as well as reconfiguration of the curb and gutter line and sidewalk to accommodate the parking bay. Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $64,000.00. Advantages: 1. Provides for off-street parking. 2. Time limitations would ensure that vehicles park only during designated hours. 3. A parking bay would provide for fewer traffic conflicts with other vehicles and bicycles. 4. Parking bays are consistent with previous actions of the ~ity Council. to address Parking issues at neighborhood parks. 5. This would allow for the implementation of the City Bikeway Plan consistent with preferred City Standards for travel lane widths. 6. Maintains..consistency with the on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. 7. This is preferred over the angled parking bay since it relieves many of the traffic conflicts associated with angled parking and it displaces substantially less comparable park area. -:. Disadvantages: 1. Implementation is costly. 2. Usable park space (0.07-acre) for recreation activities would be reduced. 3. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. Alternative E. Reinforce Existing Policy: no on-street parking. Advantages: 1. Traffic conflict concerns with vehicles and bicycles would continue to be minimized. 2. This would be consistent with the on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. 3. This would allow implementation of the City Bikeway Plan consistent with preferred City Standards for travel lane widths. 4. This alternative requires no additional expense. Disadvantages: 1. Driving to Camino Real Park is discouraged. 2. Park visitors may park on some of the private streets in adjacent neighborhoods. -5- -.--' Laurel Glen Park Laurel Glen park is a 3.01-acre neighborhood park located on the southwest corner of Myford Road and Heritage Way. The park contains restroom facilities, playground equipment, exercise equipment, and picnic facilities. Myford. Road adjacent to the park is classified as a secondary arterial roadway and is posted for no parking. There are no bicycle lanes on Myford Road, and there are currently no future plans to 'install bicycle lanes. Heritage Way is a local collector street in this area that serves to collect traffic from adj.acent neighborhoods and distribute it to the arterial roadway system. There are currently three on-street parking spaces on Heritage Way adjacent to the park. Heritage Way is identified as a Class II (on-street striped lanes) bike route on the City's Bikeway Plan. However, in the vicinity of the park, bicycle lanes have been not installed as of this date. It is anticipated that they will be installed during FY 94-95. Alternatives Alternative A. Qn,street Parking. ThiS alternative would provide for time-limited on-street parking on the park-side of Heritage Way adjacent to Laurel Glen park. Twelve (12) spaces would be required .to accommodate the anticipated demand. On- street parking would require the restriping<of the street to accommodate both bicycle lanes and parking within a thirteen (13) foot area. This' would-reduce through travel lane widths to eleven (11) feet and would result in a bicycle lane width of five (5) feet on the opposite side of Heritage Way. Current City Standards indicate preferred twelve (12) foot through travel lane widths and eight (8) foot bicycle lane widths. 'Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $1,700.00. Advantages: 1. On-street parking can be implemented fairly quickly and inexpensively. 2. Time limitations would ensure that automobiles park only during designated hours. 3. On-street parking would provide park accessibility to those driving to the park. Disadvantages: 1. There are definite safety concerns with mixing bicycle traffic with vehicle parking in essentially the same area. 2. The reduced travel lanes and the combination parking/bicycle lanes are undesirable. 3. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. Alternative B. Angled Parking Bay This alternative would provide for twelve (12) parking spaces to be constructed within a recessed parking bay that would provide for angled parking along Heritage Way. The parking bay could be located as shown -6- in attached Exhibit .-il and would displace approximately 0.14-acre of park area. This alternative would require the relocation of some trees as well as reconfiguration of the curb and gutter line and sidewalk in this area to accommodate the parking bay. Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $73,000.00. Advantaqes: 1. Provides for off-street parking. 2. Time limitations would ensure that vehicles park only during designated hours. 3. A parking bay would provide for fewer traffic conflicts with other vehicles and bicycles. 4. Parking bays are consistent with previous actions bythe City Council to address parking issues at neighborhood parks. 5. This would allow for implementation of the City Bikeway Plan consistent with preferred City Standards for travel lane widths. 6. Maintains consistency with on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. Disadvantages: 1. Implementation is costly. 2. Usable park space (0.14-acre) for recreation activities would be reduced. 3. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. 4. Angled parking requires greater roadway space for maneuvering in and out of parking spaces. 5. Angled parking reduces adequate visibility for the driver during the back-outmaneuver. Alternative C. Parallel Parking Bay. This alternative would provide for twelve (12) parking spaces to constructed within a recessed parking bay that would provide for. _ parallel parking along Heritage Way. The parking bay could be located as shown in Exhibit C-2 and would displace approximately 0.08-acre of park area. This alternative would require the relocation of some trees as well as reconfiguration of the curb and gutter line and sidewalk to accommodate the parking bay. Costs to implement this alternative would be approximately $65,000.00. Advantaqes: 1. Provides for off-street parking. 2. Time limitations would ensure that vehicles park only during designated hours. 3. A parking bay would provide for fewer traffic conflicts with.other vehicles and bicycles. 4. Parking bays are consistent with previous actions of the City Council to address parking issues at neighborhood parks. 5. This would allow for the implementation of the City Bikeway Plan consistent with preferred City Standards for travel lane widths. 6. Maintains consistency with on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. · This _ ~ preferred over the angl~_ parking bay since it relieves many of the traffic conflicts associated with angled parking and it displaces substantially less comparable park area. Disadvantaqes-. 1. Implementation is costly. 2. Usable park space (0.08-acre) for recreation activities would be reduced. 3. Could encourage additional park usage thereby attracting more vehicles to the streets in the area. Alternative D. Reinforce Existing Policy: no on-street parking. There are currently three time-limited parking spaces available on Heritage Way adjacent to the park per the City Council's direction. This street is identified on the City's Bikeway Plan as a Class II bike route, however striping for the bike lanes has not been installed. This alternative would allow for the existing designated spaces to remain but would not add any new spaces. Advantaqes: 1. Traffic conflict concerns with vehicles and bicycles ~' 'would continue to be minimized. · 2. This would be consistent with the on-street parking prohibitions in the East Tustin area. 3. This alternative requires no additional expense. Disadvantaqes: · 1. Driving to Laurel Glen Park is discouraged. 2. Park visitors may park on some of the private streets in adjacent neighb0rhoods~ CONCLUSION: -~. Based upon the findings ofthis report, providing-parking at the subject neighborhood parks appears to be a.sensitive community issue. . - _ As.determined in the analysis of the alternatives, the parallel parking bays at both parks and the parking lot at Camino Real Park provide for the least traffic conflicts, implementation of the City Bikeway plan, consistency with on-streetparking prohibitions in the East Tustin area and consistency with previous City Council actions. However, these alternatives would require substantial construction activity and costs. If the Council desires to proceed with additional parking at the subject parks, it is staff's recommendation 'that this item be continued until the next regular meeting of the. City Council and this staff report be made available to all interested individuals and groups. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer Douglas R. Anderson Transportation Engineer RSL:DA:parkpark A~achm~ -8- EXHIBIT A JULY 17, 1992 Inter-Corn 'FO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ROBERT LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CAMINO REAL PARK The following is a chronological recap of meetings and actions pertaining to .the parking discussion for Camino Real Park: November 15, 1990 meeting of the Tustin Parks and Recreation Commission megting~~. Under Public Concerns Section Alan Deidloff, a Shadowbrook resident, stated that the homeowners did not want parking at Camino Real Park. Under New Business Item No. 1, Victor Bellaschl spoke in opposition tothe parking at Camino Real Park. He wanted to know what steps could betakenbYhomeowners to ensure that there would be no parking at Camino Real Park. He was told that .the CitY' COuncil would make the final decision. Hal Schwemnesen spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park. Bernard Factor spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park. Jim Lucky spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park. Ron Carr spoke in favor of parking at Camino Real Park. Randy Westrick, a City staff member, stated that the City Council requested the parking issue at Camino Real Park be placed on the Commission Agenda. Dana Kasdan, a City staff member, explained the direction received from the City Council regarding bicycle traffic and bike lanes in the Tustin Ranch area. He also indicated that if parking were to .be recommended, that the Engineering Department would recommend a parking bay type facility in lieu of on-street parking. Camino Real Park July 17, 1992 Page 2 The item was continued to the January, 1991 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda. December 20, 1990 meeting of the TuStin Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Under Public Concerns Section Cindy Haulik, a Shadowbrook resident, spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Park. January l7, 1992 meeting of the Tustin Parks and Recreation Commission. Under Old Business Item No. 1, Sandra Doubleday, Traffic Engineering Consultant, provided the departments recommendations for parking with regards to traffic safety and traffic concerns. The first recommendation was to leave the park "as is" with no parking. If the'C~y council requires that parking be provided at this park then the recommendation would be for a parking bay. Herbert I. Rockoff, a Shadowbrook resident, spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park. Douglas Bell, President of sycamore Glen Homeowner's Association spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park. Cheryl Gunderson, Vice President of Sycamore Glen Homeowners's Association, spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park~ Cheryl Bell, a Sycamore Glen resident, spoke in opposition to parking at Camino Real Park. Carol Taylor, Tustin resident spoke in favor of parking at Camino Real Park. Bonnie Perkins, a Tustin resident, spoke in favor of parking at Camino Real Park. .. -' Ronald Carr, a Tustin resident, spoke in favor of parking at Camino Real Park. Commission voted to provide two temporary limited parking spaces with no curb cuts on Park Center adjacent to the park. Motion died with 3 in favor and 3 against with one member absent. February 4, 1992 Tustin City Council Meeting. Camino Real Park July 17, 1992 Page 3 member, reported that staff had identified three alternatives: . . Continue existing policy with no on-street parking. Designate limited on-site parking with no curb cuts/parking bay. Install curb cuts/parking bay along the street for designation of temporary parking. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of on- street parking at Camino Real Park. Lois Cart and Ronald Carr, Tustin residents. The- following members of the audience spoke in opposition to on-street parking at Camino Real Park. Douqlas Bell, President of Sycamore Glen Homeowner's Association and Cheryl Bell, Sycamore Glen residenf. City council action was to continue, th, existing, policy of no on-street parkim~ and designate'an area to accommodate one handicapped parking space and one loading/unloading space. City Engineer to 'return with a recommendation for a safe location. '~ February 19, 1991, Tustin City Council meeting, under Other BuSiness Item No. 5, Councilman Potts indicated that he had received a letter from Gwen Ferquson, a Tustin resident, regarding parking at Camino Real Park and stated that future community parks should have parking available. March 4, 1992, Tustin City Council meeting under Old Business Item No. 1, Bob Ledendecker, a City staff member, indicated staff developed two alternatives as requested:- le Two on-street parking spaces Two parking spaces located in a recessed bay. Both alternatives would be located on Parkcenter Lane, between Pima and Parkview Way and would include one handicapped parking space and one loading/unloading space. Don Bier¥, a Tustin resident spoke in'favor of on,street parking at Camino Real Park. Camino Real Park July 17, 1992 Page 4 City Council action was to approve one handicapped space and one loading/unloading space on the street adjacent to the existing curb on ParkcenterLane and direct staff to submit a cost analysis for additional parking spaces on E1 Camino Real at the March i8, 1992 City Council meeting. March 18, 1992, Tustin City Council meeting. Under Old Business Item No. 1, Bob Ledendecker reported that staff had developed two alternatives for a recessed parking bay on E1 Camino Real as follows: le · 5 spaces consisting of a 4 regular spaces and 1 handicapped space. 3 spaces consisting of 2 regular spaces and 1 handicapped space. Douqlas Bell', President of Sycamore Glen Homeowner's Association spoke in opposition to the proposed parking spaces at Camino Real Park. City Council action was to approve alternative No. 1: 5 spaces consisting of 4 regular parking spaces and one handicapped parking space within a recessed bay on E1 Camino Real. May 6, 1991, Tustin City Council meeting, Under Other Business Item No. 2, Councilman Potts reported on unsuccessful attempts to meet with the Sycamore Glen Homeowner's Association or its President regarding the parking at Camino Real Park. August 5, 1991 ~stin City Council meeting. Under Old Business Item No. 5 the City Council set August 19, 1991 as the date for a public hearing on adoption of the 1991- 92 Budget. The recessed parking bay project on'E1Camino Real adjacent to Camino Real Park was included within the '91-92 Capital Improvement Budget in -the amount of $28,060.00. August 19, 1991 Tustin City Council meeting. Under Public Hearing Section Item No. 1, the 1991-92 City of Tustin Budget was approved. The Capital Improvement portion of the budget included the recessed parking bay project in the amount of $28,060.00. No' one in the audience spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the Camino Park recessed parking bay project. Camino Real Park July 17, 1992 Page 5 March 16, 1992 Tustin City Council meeting. Under Consent Calendar Item Ho. 7, the City Council approved the authorization of bids for the construction of the recessed parking bay on E1 Camino Real adjacent to Camino Real Park. May 4-, 1992, Tustin City Council meeting. Under the consent calendar the City Council authorized the award of the construction contract to the low bidder, in the amount of $27,331.00 for the recessed parking bay on E1 Camino Real adjacent to Camino Real Park. On or about July 6, 1992, construction commenced on the subject project. Robert Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer RL :ccg: crpark EXHIBIT B-1 14° 0 ,-1 r~ ! EXHIBIT B-2 EXHIBIT C-1 / / / / EXHIBIT C-2 /! FOU~ 11'4 ST 4 4, · · ,/ LEGEND Clang I ee.ee City Boundary Class ~ ~ School ~ite County Reg. Trail ~ P~k ~te D~hed ltn~ indicates poten~l EXHIBIT D Figure WI--3 CITY OF TUSTIN BIKEWAY PLAN Tustin, General Plan Traffic Analysis VI-4 Austin-Fousl Associate:s, Inc. IT1007.GP