HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 TRAFF EVAL STDY 10-21-91Avia **6*-`* A -)I_,r)\
ATE: OCTOBER 4, 1991
TO:
F HO«!:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
NEW BUSINESS N0. 1
10-21-91
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC EVALUATION STUDY - IMPACT OF CONVERTING THREE EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS IN EAST TUSTIN TO GATED COMMUNITIES (ALMERIA,
MONTEREY, MARICOPA)
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting on
October 21, 1991:
1. Provide the Almeria, Monterey, and Maricopa neighborhoods with
a public forum explaining the traffic and financial
implications of the proposed conversion of their neighborhoods
to gated communities.
2. Deny the request to gate Parkcenter Lane, which serves as a
public collector street.
BACKGROUND
The residents of the three neighborhoods (Almeria, Monterey, and
Maricopa) have proposed various alternatives for the installation
of unattended gates at locations within their neighborhoods, and
the conversion of the streets in the neighborhoods to private
streets. These proposals include installation of gates on
Parkcenter Lane and conversion of Parkcenter Lane to a Private
Street. The City of Tustin staff evaluated the proposals and,
based on their initial assessment, developed conceptual designs for
retrofitting the entrance streets to accommodate the installation
of gates at the identified locations.
In addition, City Staff directed the City's Traffic Engineering
Consultant, BSI Consultants, Inc. to a) study the traffic issues
associated with the concept of installing the proposed gates and
the conversion of the streets to private streets; b) identify the
traffic operations characteristics, and; c) prepare a report on
their findings including appropriate recommendations. A copy of
BSI's report is attached.
DISCUSSION
The traffic distribution under existing conditions is such that
approximately 9% of the trips generated are considered internal to
the three neighborhoods. The remaining 91% has the following
historical patterns; 11-14% northbound, 28% eastbound, 22%
southbound, and 30% westbound. The existing traffic operations
characteristics and level of services are summarized in the
Appendix of BSI's report under ICU calculations for individual
critical intersections. In general, all the critical intersections
analyzed are currently operating at acceptable level of services
"C" or better.
The community proposed improvements include gating individual
neighborhoods or multiple neighborhoods in order to accomplish a
residential gated community. The alternative solutions have been
grouped as: Alternative 1 - No gates; Alternative 2A through 2D -
Selective gating of individual neighborhoods and combined gating of
multiple neighborhoods and; Alternative 3 - Gating of Parkcenter
Lane. The traffic analysis of existing traffic operations and
future traffic operations, considering development of a synagogue
at the northwestern corner of Bryan Avenue and Parkcenter Lane as
well as area -wide traffic increases, revealed that there was
minimal. or insignificant traffic impact from Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2. solutions, but that there was significant
redistribution of traffic and traffic impacts with Alternate 3.
Traffic impacts associated with the gating of Parkcenter Lane under
cumulative conditions, including the synagogue, would reroute all
traffic directed to the synagogue to the Bryan Avenue entrance,
possibly necessitating a signal at that intersection, and would
sever the General Plan concept of a collector street for the
broader community.
The gates as proposed for the individual neighborhoods do not meet
the City of Tustin's minimum standards or those prescribed by the
Orange County Environmental Management Agency for several geometric
constraints. These are the following:
Throat length/stacking length for ingress/egress vehicles
Turning radii for the circular portions of the gate entrances
Minimum width for the lanes to permit passing vehicles at the
entrance
From a Traffic Evaluation Study, individual gating of neighborhoods
or the combined gating of individual neighborhoods poses no
significant impact to the City of Tustin's transportation
capabilities for the future. The gating of Parkcenter Lane,
however, would significantly redistribute traffic and decrease
future traffic capabilities in the East Tustin Ranch area.
There are also significant costs and implications to the residents
of the communities in terms of future maintenance and the
inconveniences of unmanned gates to emergency and delivery
vehicles, as well as visitors, that should be presented to the
neighborhood for their consideration through a public forum on the
gated community issue. Right-of-way acquisition and variance to
minimum City design standards should also be discussed. Should the
public forum result in continued support by neighborhood
communities, it will be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Associations to acquire finalized gate designs and locations. The
Maricopa Tract would require finalizing gate design and final
location as well as obtaining a variance from the City Council for
deviation to City Design Standards for Gated Communities. The
Almeria and Monterey Tracts would also have to go through a
Vacation process as outlined in the State of California Streets and
Highway Code to convert public streets into private streets as well
as obtaining a variance from the City Council for deviation to City
Design Standards for gated communities. Part of the Vacation
process includes Public Hearings. Included within these
considerations will be the issue of acquisition of additional
right-of-way and reconstruction of the various streets to provide
new gated entrances. It should also be noted that any variance in
minimum design standards would require each affected Homeowner's
Association to indemnify the city for any potential liabilities.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the attached report, it is recommended
that the City: 1) provide the Almeria, Monterey, and Maricopa
neighborhoods with a public forum explaining the traffic and
financial implications of the proposed conversion of their
neighborhoods to gated communities; 2) deny the request to gate
Parkcenter Lane, which serves as a public collector street.
Robert S. Ledendecker Sandra L. Doubleday
Director of Public Works/ Traffic Engineering Consultant
City Engineer
GCAGENDA.REP/DT TUS
attachments