The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 PEDES. ACCESS 02-22-94AGEN DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 NC. 14 2-'2-94 Inter-Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJEC~ STATUS UPDATE: SYCAMORE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN PEPPERTREE AND TUSTIN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting of February 22, 1994, receive and file this report. FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, there is no fiscal impact to the City for the preparation of this report. BACKGROUND: The noted item was presented for Council consideration at the November 1, 1993 City Council meeting. Following discussion, staff was directed by the Council to meet with the affected Homeowners Associations to explore additional alternatives to address resident's concerns in this area (a copy of the applicable November 1, 1993 Agenda item is attached). DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the Engineering Division staff met with approximately 29 residents in the subject area to discuss this item on Thursday, February 10, 1994, in the West Clubhouse of Tustin Meadows. Mr. Chuck Puckett, City Councilmember, attended the meeting and provided input regarding this item. At the meeting, staff presented an update of this item which included a review of the alternatives previously developed to address residents' concerns, introduction of a "greenbelt" alternative, right-of-way and access information, and a handou% of the November 1, 1993 City Council Agenda item. - Some of the residents' ideas discussed included: Placement of block walls along tract boundaries and entirely closing the area off, making the area a Senior park, opening the road to traffic, installing electronic barriers to close road, relocating pedestrian access to the center of the subject area, removing one of the fences and installing a smaller pavement section, re-evaluating the costs of the previous alternatives and acquiring the vacant property from the Irvine Company and reverting it back to adjacent homeowners. It was concluded at the meeting, that staff would look at these additional ideas and report back to the City Council at a future meeting when alternatives and their associated costs have been more fully developed. The residents that attended this meeting will be kept aware of developments regarding this item. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/ City Engineer RSL: DA: sycamr¢ 1 Allachm~l DougTas R. Anderson Transportation Engineer DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1993 lnter-Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER '- ~ - FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECt 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 during 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 landscaped parkways on each side of the roadway. This alternative 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 asphalt cover of the existing dirt area. This alternative is supported by both Community Associations and by the George Speicher family as indicated in the attached letters. Alternative 2B. This alternative, similar to Alternative 2A, also relocates the pedestrian access to the center of Sycamore 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. Alternative 3. 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. Alternative 4. 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 ~he installation of removable, lockable bollards. This alternative is not supported by the Tustin Police Department due to pessible 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 alternatives 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 of Peppertree. SYCAMORE AVENUE PEDESURIAN ACCESS BETWEEN PEPPERTREE AND TUSTIN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPM~;TS November 1, 1993 Page 3 The aforementioned residents and Community Associ~tionsrep~esentatives have submitted letters supporting some of the alternatives. These letters are attached for your information. CONCLUSION'. 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 manner to resolve concern in this area. Robert S. Ledendecker Doug]~fs R. Anderson Director of Public Works/City Engineer Transportation Engineer RSL: DA :pcdw~y4 Al~chn~ut A IIo II ! NIY~IO IqBOl$ .tg .Y..'03 ~LL~L i I .6[' ; I .OCS ~ / / .6C ~OlS .,Zg ~ '~t .O. JO'l .LN3~i3S¥3 H ~ .... __ .......~ 3 NV--1i ................ l ...... ~ ~ iB3ciqv L._ I i ~L~L / / i(d01S) I.U TIVISNI oz. NIV:I:tO titj0/$ .tg .¥. LO"1 · 13n. J 1.3r \ ~ LL~ L zd <.,~ j ~ 0 I .6~' .Og Z 0 / ,Og '- >i I,... .¥. J. O9 )4'1¥M30~ i .og -. -~ .o. 109 NIV~IO Pt~IOLS -- . .b. 109 ~ .¥. 109 fl__ -- / .... ~3~ .,~ -- o { o 1 N3~13S¥3 30WNI4'~JO , / .0~ .Og ~LL~L !,1 L.LJ '. .....S~::)noo~d '1:0 ~N3,3 'r;;. i i 0 I w / .. ~ i-1 -v [] --.' i :::- 7- i -- :-~ '" . 1;'. ? i: ~ ~.! ~ : I '~ -~ .i I z '-:-..' C.) ) :~i. ~. .. __ . ~ , ~ ~ ~-' .~. .. o :. ~ _. : .; i;_, ~ .: '~ ~ I: ~ : I ~ ./' \ ...... x_..-~...~.~_4 I:' X, ~ II, '1 \'i, LF~ ,i~ ..... .-v..,:..;!: u..,. / >...).)L ...... ~- ............... I~. ............. L~ ..... '- \ :.-"/i:,: ; ; ,~ / o/ . % o i'x~ ~, '---5- :':'~l~ /"l.~F ' " .................. ':'"'":"1:' I -~; . o.~ o,~ ~.. ................ . ~,.:t"~ .............. :. ': ". I ': ..................... ;. - --- ~---,:.~-..~. ....... -::::.:..:.~ -:,,"':\~l'.'-'tl': ' 't ...... tM'" !:-!,. ~ .-,,.,,,~ ',,~,:;.~,, ~ ~-I- [ ~' 1~- _, ...... ~ ............. '-II'-~z"K~., ....... ~ ......... · °' ~,-- 1 ' , ~ o.,t! ,~ ..-:-""I..: I ;:~:;.. I .¢;i h-d " !' i ,, ' '- '--- ~, -: ~ ; I :-:,:c' -- -4 I /.? II ; I · ~' -.. \ .. ~_. ~_ I · ~--..-=---~,-~,-.-i-I· ... - t':,.:, :.;~- ~~-F.,.'q~ ~ ,.,,,,,, ~!~... _.~" i' -' .......... '-.~, s.'../'/J,//" ' '- !"1 . L w w n,- 0 <{ >- 'tYl j ? 7 ? ~ I September 28,1993 Mr. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Dear Bob: ,u'u StP 3 0 I i TLISlIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Mr. Doug Anderson requested that I drop you a no't~confirminq 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 this 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 Tru~l~~ /z/ ~~~~e i ~ _/1471~Ald~r Lane / (7Z~C3070 (Office) ) 669-9877 (~ork) cc' Dou~ hnderson, Transportatien Engineer, Tustin ~r. George Simon ~r. Carl Kaselek, President ~r. & ~rs. Ralph Fellick September 29, 1993 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 .ittn: M~r. Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer. ~ Public Works/Engineering Subject: Proposed change of Traffic Flow, E. Sycamor 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 and Peppertree tracts were discussed~ This change can have an impact on the residents, and 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 impact 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.oThe traffic in reverse (through~ 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 oroblem 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 upon the fences to fence-walk, a dangereu$ practi~e from a residents point of view, as an injury from a fall ~akes the resident liable. 3. Clesing the street to both vehicles and pedestrians also nas oroblems. We would still ~ave motorcycles 'test-training' ~up and ~own 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 of evils. Thank you for letting me state some opinions. Donald H. Wylie 14711 Hyannis Port Rd Tustin, CA 92680 Mr. Robert Ledendecker City Engineer City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 9268q P.O. Box 491, Tustin, California 92680 October 1, 1993 Dear Mr. Ledendecker: · . OgT 1993 · , [TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.t 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 alternatives 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 Kasalek George Simon George Speicher Peppertree Homeowners Association October 3, 1993 Bob Ledendecker City Engineer CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Train, CA 92680 ' TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Dear l~{r'. 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 acce~ 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 make 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 G, ;e SIMON l;~.. ~2 Hyannis Port Rd. Tustin, CA., 92680-~ City Of TUSTIN c/o Bob Ledendecker 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA., 92680 Dear Bob; 18 October ]qq3 001' I ,9 1993 TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. This ltr is in response to the recent meeting with Doug Anderson & staff @ City Hall on Monday, 27thSep93 @ 4Pm. Regarding the matter of the Ped crossing between Tustin Meadows & Peppertree. 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~ advocSe of "completely Closing" the access until recently when his kids reached sch'0ol age an-~ are now utilizing the crosswalk to at- tend school on Redhill 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 ~r-~ends 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 Ole 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...~Q.---~....:.~-,-- -~ 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, MONMEY & MATERIALS for now and the eventual OPENING of sycamore street thr'a to Alder lane in COST EFFECTIVENESS AND FEASIBILITY is the ~ord for no~w & future. -- cc: Rob Quinn Thanks Bob & Staff .... ].._I My , : o . ~Rg S.S,c Zr-<.e c S F ~¢A1"'6