HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 TRAFF EVAL STUDY 11-18-91NEW BUSINESS N0. 1
11-18-91
AG E N DA 0Y
inter -Conti 1;
.TE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEtRING DIVISION
TRAFFIC EVALUATION STUDY - IMPACT OF CONVERTING THREE EXISTING
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOODS IN EAST TUSTIN TO GATED COMMUNITIES (ALMERIA,
MONTEREY, MARICOPA) (P.W. FILE NO. 1095)
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting on
November 18, 1991:
1. Deny the request to gate Parkoenter Lane, which serves as a
public collector street.
2. Provide the Almeria, Monterey, and Maricopa neighborhoods with
a public forum explaining the traffic and financial
implications of the proposed conversion of'theirneighborhoods
to gated communities if sufficient interest is formally
expressed by the Homeowners Associations of the effected
neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND
The City Council at their meeting of October 21, 1991 began
discussing the above noted topic during the "New Business" section
of their agenda. After some discussion, the Council continued the
item to their meeting of November 18, 1991 in order to provide time
for the Association presidents to discuss the matter and for staff
to obtain further information.
Council members requested cost information associated with initial
capital outlay as well as long term costs for future maintenance of
the converted streets. Another item that members of the Council
had inquired about prior to the meeting involved the procedure that
the City would need to undertake to vacate a system of public
streets within an occupied residential tract of homes, and what
percentage of support would be needed for the property owners
themselves in order to provide justification to the City Council to
actually vacate the streets. The Council also asked staff to
research construction documents to determine if Tax Free funds were
used to construct the public streets within the subject
communities.
In addition, the City Council requested information regarding the
consultant's knowledge of other Cities that have had similar
projects. Staff directed the City's Traffic Engineering
Consultant, BSI Consultants, Inc. to conduct a survey of other
cities to determine if they have ever gone through the vacation
process in order to gate public communities.
As noted in the previous agenda report of October 21, 1991, 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 also included 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. At the direction of City
staff BSI Consultants, Inc. prepared a report 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 was attached to the
previous agenda.
DISCUSSION
The existing traffic operations characteristics and level of
services summarized in the Appendix of BSI' s report showed that all
of 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.
2
The traffic analysis of existing and future traffic operations
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, gating of Parkcenter Lane. Traffic impacts associated
with the gating of Parkcenter Lane under cumulative conditions
would be expected to necessitate installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Bryan Avenue, and would
sever the General Plan concept of a collector street for the
broader community.
From the Traffic Evaluation
neighborhoods or the combined
significant impact to the
capabilities for the future.
however, would significantly
future traffic capabilities in
Study, individual gating of the
gating of neighborhoods poses no
City of Tustin's transportation
The gating of Parkcenter Lane,
redistribute traffic and decrease
the 'East Tustin Ranch area.
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 throat length,
turning radii and minimum .lane widths. The City will require a
variance to retrofit the gates as shown in the conceptual drawings.
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.
There are also significant costs to the residents of the
communities in terms of initial gate installations, and the long
term responsibility of future maintenance. Attached are
preliminary cost estimates for altelrnatives 2C, 2D and 3 generated
by City staff. These estimates are based on the conceptual gate
designs and placements included within the BSI report attached to
the previous agenda. These cost estimates range from approximately
$95,000 for gating the single community of Maricopa (Alternative
2C) which currently has private streets, to approximately $450,000
for combining all three neighborhoods together by gating Parkcenter
Lane (Alternative 3). AnticippLted yearly maintenance costs
associated with the gating proposals have also been developed and
range from $2,000 for the Maricopa neighborhood alone to about
3
$80,000 for the combined gating of the three neighborhoods. It
should be noted that separate cost estimates have not been prepared
for Alternatives 2A (gating of Almoria neighborhood only) and 2B
(gating of Monterey neighborhood only) since the Traffic Evaluation
Study prepared by BSI Consultants concluded that the concept of
installing separate, individual dates on Tiburon Way at the
Monterey Street entrance to either of the two neighborhoods was not
operationally feasible.
There are other implications to the residents of the communities in
terms of 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. Should the public forum result in continued
support by neighborhood communitiesw it will be the responsibility
of the Homeowners Associations to acquire finalized gate designs
and locations.
To convert public streets into private streets the vacation process
as outlined in the State of California Streets and Highway Code
would be required. Part of the Vacation process includes Public
Hearings. Included within these considerations will be the issue
of acquisition of additional right -df -way and reconstruction of the
various streets to provide new gated entrances. The City Attorney
has prepared a brief memorandum (attached) , dated November 8, 1991,
which expands upon .many of the pertinent issues related to the
vacation of public streets and the level of support that should be
required from a community.
The attached Gated Communities Survey conducted by BSI Consultants,
Inc. shows a range of approval rates required by other cities for
the vacation process. These rates range from a simple majority to
1001 approval by the property owners in order to provide
justification to the City Council for vacation of public streets.
Out of the 19 Cities surveyed, only 8 had gated communities, and
only 4 utilized the vacation procedure. Those Cities that did use
the vacation process said it was lengthy. In the City Attorney's
memorandum of November 8,. 1991, Mr. Rourke indicates that a minimum
75% resident support rate within an affected neighborhood was a
standard that at least one other community has utilized before
considering any vacation of public streets.
4
A research of construction documents has revealed that no Tax Free
funds were used in the construction of any of the subject
communities. All three communities were built as conditions of a
development with private developer funds. This includes the
construction of Parkcenter Lane.
As of this writing the City has only received written comments from
the Monterey Homeowners Association. The results of a survey taken
by the Monterey Homeowners Associates were decidedly against access
gates with 59% of the 103 homeowners responding. A copy of their
letter, dated November 8, 1991, has been attached to this report.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the BSI Consultants report, of October
1991, it is recommended that the City: 1) deny the request to gate
Parkcenter Lane, which serves as a public collector street, and 2)
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
if sufficient interest is formally expressed by the Homeowners
Associations of the effected neighborhoods.
AV
Ale
Robert S. Letbl-i
dec r .Sandra L. Doubleday
Director of Works/ Traffic Engineering Consultant
City Engineer
AGENDAL REP/DT TUS
Attachments: -
October 21, 1991 Council Agenda Report
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Gated Communities Survey
City Attorney's Memorandum of November 8, 1991
Monterey Homeowner response letter
5
• ti o
AGENDA
Inter -Com
ATE: OCTOBER 41 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINIEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC EVALUATION STUDY - IMPJkCT OF CONVERTING THREE EXISTING
SUBJECT: 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.
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 pirivate 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.
Traf f is 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
CITY OF TUSTIN
PRELIMINARY
COST ESTIMATES FOR GATINGVARIOUS COMMUNITIES
ALTERNATIVE 2C - MARICOPA NEIGHBORHOOD
Maricopa Gate at Parkcenter Lane
Construction Cost Estimate $65,650
Includes Curb and Gutter Removal and
Replacement, Sidewalk Removal and
Replacement, AC Pavement removal and
Replacement, Relocation of Utilities and
Retaining wall, and Installation of
Automatic Gate and Fence
15% Contingencies
25% Engineering Costs
9,850
$ 75,500
18,875
$ 94,375
Total Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate for Alternative 2CG - SAY: $ 95,000
* NOTE- Legal Document Costs are Unknown
FUTURE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2C
Anticipated Yearly Maintenance Costs
Assumes yearly gate maintenance only, since streets are
already private.
Estimate is based upon today's costs.
1
$ 2,000
ALTERNATIVE 2D - COMBINATION OF ALMERIA AND MONTEREY
NEIGHBORHOODS
Palermo Gate at Tustin Ranch Road .
Construction Cost Estimate
Includes Right -of -Way, Curb and Gutter
Removal and Replacement, Sidewalk Removal
and Replacement, AC Pavement removal and
Replacement, Relocation of Utilities and
Retaining wall, and Automatic Gate and Fence
Burnt Mill Road Gate at Browning Avenue
Construction Cost Estimate
Includes Automatic Gate and Fence
Monterey Street Gate at Parkcenter Lane
Construction Cost Estimate
Includes Right -of -Way, Curb and Gutter
Removal and Replacement, Sidewalk Removal
and Replacement, AC Pavement removal and
Replacement, Relocation of Utilities and
Retaining wall, and Automatic Gate and
Fence
Subtotal Construction Cost Estimate
15% Contingencies
25% Engineering Costs
Total Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate for Alternative 21) - SAY:
* NOTE- Legal Document Costs are Unknown
7
$76,250
$172,250
25 850
$198,100
$49,525
$247,625
$250,000
FUTURE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2D
Anticipated Yearly Maintenance Costs
Assumes once a week street sweeping,
existing street light costs, curb and
gutter reconstruction at 2% per year,
sidewalk reconstruction at 2% per year,
pavement management slurry seal every
5 years and reconstruction every 20 years,
and yearly gate maintenance
Estimate is based upon today's costs.
$ 65,000
ALTERNATIVE 3 - COMBINING ALMERIA, MONTEREY, AND MARICOPA
NEIGHBORHOODS BY GATING PARKCENTER LANE
Two Gates on Parkcenter Lane
Construction Cost Estimate $96,000
Includes Curb and Gutter Removal and
Replacement, Sidewalk Removal and
Replacement, AC Pavement removal and
Replacement, Relocation of Utilities and
Retaining wall, and Automatic Gate and Fence
Palermo Gate at Tustin Ranch Road
Construction Cost Estimate $869000
Includes Right -of -Way, Curb and Gutter
Removal and Replacement, Sidewalk Removal
and Replacement, AC Pavement removal and
Replacement, Relocation of Utilities and
Retaining wall, and Automatic Gate and Fence
Burnt Mill Road Gate at Browning Avenue
Construction Cost Estimate $109000
Includes Automatic Gate and Fence
Subtotal Construction Cost Estimate of Gates $192,000
3
Subtotal Construction Cost Estimate of Gates
Traffic Signal Construction Cost
Subtotal Construction Cost E$timate
15 % Contingencies
25% Engineering Costs
Total Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate for Alternative 3 - SAY:
* NOTE- Legal Document Costs are Unknown
FUTURE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
Anticipated Yearly Maintenance Costs
Assumes once a week street sweeping,
existing street light costs, curb and
gutter reconstruction at 2% per year,
sidewalk reconstruction at 2 % per year,
pavement management slurry seal every
5 years and reconstruction every 20 years,
and yearly gate maintenance
Estimate is based on today's costs.
4
$192,000
$312,000
$ 46,800
$3589800
$ 89,700
$448,500
$450,000
$80,0000
0
um
yu•
Cd 00
0
ri /1
'Cr
p4 N t�
b4 O w
O
y
o
.:.:: ': :.' :' ..
win
.t
•�i
b
• �+ Qr
•� co
O
<<..;...>
O
<;:
a
..
b
:':::... ..........
.........................
.........................
.........................
.....................
........................
.....::::::::::::::::.
................Cd
:.
`8c:.
oo
Z
•
o
o
.
.... :i.r...........
QQ:: ;.; '
.........................
:....::...
0
z
0
Z
0
z
Q%
Cc
C.
CC
C�
Nf
<:
a.1
U
U
Ca
fi,
0
um
yu•
Cd 00
0
ri /1
'Cr
p4 N t�
N
M
.)ATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1991
ECEIUI
'USTIN
11C WORKS DEPT.
Inter -Com
TO: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: GATE GUARDED COMMUNITY PROPOSALS
/'1/1G- / all />
You have requested this office to comment upon your
department's study of proposals to convert certain neighborhoods to
gate guarded communities. You specifically asked for legal input
concerning the procedure to be used to vacate public streets and
the level of support that should be required from acommunity.
We have also reviewed BSI's study of October, 1991 and your
memorandum to Bill Huston dated October 4, 1991.
It is first noted that there ,are no provisions in the state
law or in the city's municipal code which deal specifically with
the overall issue of conversion of a residential neighborhood to a
gate guarded community. As noted in the BSI report, one of the
major considerations arising from such a request relates to traf f is
planning and safety. If the proposal entails a conversion of
public streets to a private street system, state law provides a
formal procedure by which public streets can be vacated to the
respective lot owners free of the public street easement ("Public
Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law", Streets and
Highway Code Sections 8300 et se .). Under that procedure, a.
resolution of intention to vacate may be initiated by the City or
any interested person. (Streets and Highway Code Section 8320)
Public notice requirements are set forth.in 8322 through 8324. A
public street may be vacated if the legislative body finds that the
street is "unnecessary for present or prospective public use."
Conditions may be imposed on the vacation. (Section 8324)
The above -referenced state law, however,: does not deal with
other important questions that may arise with respect to whether a
community should be gate guarded. At least one other community in
Orange County has comprehensively studied this issue. In the case
of San Juan Capistrano, that community isolated a number of other
issues meriting consideration. Those issues included the following
questions:
1. Will the security key system to be used allow ready
access to the community by key public officials, such as fire and
police officials?
2. What type of setback requirement should be required to
insure that ingress and egress to the community will not create
safety hazards?
3. Any proposal should be reviewed by fire district
personnel.
4. Would the proposal block or otherwise inhibit access to
important public or quasi -public facilities, such as parks, school,
hiking, biking, equestrian trails, etc.?
5. Would the proposal have any significant adverse aesthetic
impacts upon the community?
6. Does the proposal entail any conflict with utility
installations?
7. Does the proposal include a financing plan to insure that
the gate guarded facility, including streets, will be maintained on
a permanent basis?
8. What level of homeowner support within the affected
neighborhood should be required? San Juan Capistrano required a
petition process showing at least 15% support.
After reviewing all of these considerations, the City of San
Juan Capistrano concluded that it would be appropriate to enact an
ordinance setting up criteria governing these various issues.
Accordingly, that city enacted an ordinance requiring an
application, a plan review and hearing process before the
conversion might occur.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There is no specific state or local law requiring a
discretionary review or entitlement process for a proposal to
convert a neighborhood to a gate guarded community other than the
street vacation process identified in the Streets and Highways
Code.
2. The Streets and Highways Vacation public hearing
procedure process is focused primalrily on questions relating to
traffic, traffic planning, public easements and utility
coordination.
3. The proposal to convert a neighborhood to a gate guarded
community entails issues other than traffic safety.
4. A minimum 75% showing of resident support within the
affected neighborhood is a standard that at least one other city
has used.
5. The City Council may want to consider, as an option, the
adoption of an ordinance which creates a regulatory framework
establishing standards to govern all of the pertinent
considerations that should be considered in evaluating whether it
is appropriate for a neighborhood to become a private gate guarded
community.
/JrJA4ES G. ROURKE
TY ATTORNEY
J RS: cas: D:11 /08/91(H350)
cc: WH
Dana Kasdan
qzu,-,
JOHIJ R. SHAW
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
1%4ONT_ 2EY AT 'rUS_Jr I N .ANCH
ASSOC I A'' I ON
C/O ASERVCO INC. - DBA ASSOCIATION SERVICES
285 EAST MAIN STREET X13
TUSTIN. CA. 92680 I R
(714) 832-3993
November 8, 1991
Dr. Van Henson, President
Almeria Homeowners Association
2171 Marselina
Tustin, ta. 92680
Dear Dr. Henson:
At the November 6, 1991 Monterey at Tustin Ranch Association Board of Directors
meeting we tallied the results of the attached survey regarding access gates. The
survey results have been presented on this copy for your information. As you can
see, we received responses from 61 of our 103 homes, or 59%, and the results were
decidedly against access gates in any way, shape or form.
Your Association contacted me on October 10th to ask if our Monterey would be
interested in*sharing the cost of preliminary drawings for access gates for Almeria
and Monterey combined. As a result of our recent survey, we will have to decline
participation in this project. Also, based upon results'of this survey, our
Association would be opposed to Almeria gating themselves separately. We realize
that, as adjoining developments, it is important to maintain a positive, neighborly
relationship. However, our members cannot understand how your Association could
install gates across Tiburon without them appearing to be an inappropriate after-
thought.
As a result of our Board's access gate surveys, a number of our homeowners were
out asking questions within our neighborhood and yours. They have communicated
to me that they did not find a thorough understanding of the cost and liabilities
assumed if access gates are installed within your neighborhood. Consequently,
I would propose that your Association perforo a survey similar to ours, if you
haven't already, to confirm that you have homeowner support before you pursue
this costly and time-consuming project any further.
Finally, for your information, I have enclosed a letter written and distributed
to our homeowners by two concerned household$ which offers their perspective on
additional considerations that were not included in our Board's original news-
letter/survey.
If you have any questions on this issue or would like to discuss it further,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
Dougl Wride, President
Board of Directors
Monterey at Tustin Ranch Association
cc: Board of Directors - Monterey at Tustin Ranch Association
Mr. Chuck Puckett - Mayor, City of Tustin
✓ Mr. Bob Ledendecker - Director of Public Works, City of Tustin
MON1r:REY AT TUSTIN RANCH ASSOCIATION
NEWSLETTER
OCTOBER 24, 1991
SECURITY GATES
PURPOSE
Your. Board of Directors is looking to you for directional guidance on the issue. of
security gates and would appreciate you completing this informal questionnaire
and returning it immediately. We must make a decision on the next step for our
Association to take by November 6, 1991. The real issue is should we pursue
security gates, at least far enough to find out what they would cost, or not pursue
them at all. If you have further questions, please attend the November 6, 1991
Board of Directors meeting at the Tustin Ranch Homefinding Center at 7:00 p.m.
BACKGROUND/STATUS
As mentioned in the August 28, 1991 Newsletter, the issue of making our
neighborhood a gated community has again been raised. Our neighbors in
Almeria (J.M. Peters tract) and Maricopa, intend to proceed with gates with us or
without us. City of Tustin Engineering Department has performed a study to
- make certain recommendations. The Engineering Department was not in favor
of gating Parkcenter Drive, however, it is the Board's understanding that this
approach could be fought for with the City Council and probably won if this was
our desire. The gate options at this time really include three possible
configurations:
1) An entrance and exit date at each end of Parkcenter Drive with an
exit onlyate on Bumt Mill Road at Brownie
9 � 9•
2) At entrance exit gate at Monterey Street and an exit only gate at
Burnt Mill Road (this would essentially gate Almeria and Monterey
together),
3) An entrance only gate at Tiburon that would function as an
entrance only to the Almeria project (this would involve a gate and
fence going across the middle of Tiburon)
FUTURE STEPS
1) The next step for Monterey, depending upon the results of this
questionnaire, would be to share the cost equally with Almeria and/or
Maricopa, up to a $1,500 share limit, to have preliminary drawings of the
gates prepared. From these drawings estimated cost figures could be
prepared by the gate company.
2) Once those estimated cost figures are obtained, we would hold a joint
open hearing with the Home Owners from all tracts involved and the City
of Tustin to discuss any and all security gate related issues.
3) After. the Hearing, a vote would be taken of each Association. A majority
vote of Monterey would be necessary for Monterey to participate in any
security gate project.
4) Go to the City Council and get approval for the configuration that we
desire.
5) Assess the members the appropriate amount of money necessary to build
the gates.
6) Have the detailed engineering drawings prepared.
7) Finalize the costs and sign development contracts.
8) Construction begins.
RELATED ISSUES
Your Board does not claim to have the answers to these related issues but
presents them here for your consideration:
1) Almeria fully intends to install security gates with Monterey with or
without Monterey. Therefore, we would have to except their gates
in the middle of the street or balttle against them, with the possibility
of losing the battle.
2) Any gating project involving Monterey should reduce the volume of
traffic through our neighborhood.
3) Security gates could be an inconvenience for guests or household
service providers (yard maintenance, housecleaning, etc.)
4) Some people say that security' gates enhance property values. All
of the developments of Tustin Ranch in Phase 3, on the North side
of Irvine Boulevard, are gated communities.
MSTIONNAIRE
1. FOR AGAINST
1) Proceding with the preliminary drawings _.. 9 42
2) Almeria gated alone ._ 5 46
3) Monterey and Almeria together 1_ 43
4) Parkcenter Drive gated
5) The possibility of gating 8 41
Please indicate with an OV your preference'for all five items above.
It is understood that a Homeowner would only be in favor of gates if the costs
were determined to be reasonable.
Gate Issues Facing The Monterey
At Tustin Ranch Association
October 29, 1991
The Board of Directors for the .14onterey Association distributed a newsletter
questionnaire on October 24, 1991, requesting hcme✓uner guidance on the issue of
security gates. While the newsletter detailed some positive and negative issues, it
did not include all information currently available on this matter, especially in areas
dealing with financial issues. Nor did it include a camlete accounting of the
activities -which have occurred to date. As responsible members of our association, we
cannot make an'inforn-ed decision unless as many of the associated issues as possible
are presented for consideration.
The canbined associations of Monterey, Alrrnria, and Maricopa have already presented to
the city, either independently or in concert, several proposed plans for gating our
communities. As a result of these proposed pl4 s, the • City of Tustin canr.issioned a
traffic evaluation study of our area which was received by the -city on Octa*)er 4th.
This study was presented to the Tustin City Council on Monday, October 21st. At that
meeting, the council moved to delay action on the report until Navember 18th so the
associations could gather hcneowner input. The Association management camany has a
copy of this report.
The following issues were raised in the traffic evaluation study, but not presented in
the newsletter:
o Any gating of Almeria and/or Monterey will have to be done as a combined
effort due to the configuration of Tiburon Way and Monterey Street, arriving
At "...the conclusion that installation of separate gates at this location
is not feasible. (page 37]"
o The conceptual layout for a gate on Monterey Street, if it tries to meet OC
stand,ardsf will require "...additional right-of-way ... to (be] acquired to
implement conceptual. There could be constraints Fran existing structures.
(page 49]" Even with this, all standabds would not be met.
o The parkcenter Lane gating alternative, which removes the requirement for a
gate an Monter-c-7 Street, will "...require significant right -of -w y acm isi-
tion to implement. (page 56]" The maim problem with the Parkcenter gates
are related to potential traffic diversions and the'".. -requ.ired cost of
mitigating the impact of the traffic diversion in the form of a traffic
signal installation at Bryan and Parkcenter Lane. [page 51]"
While delving into the specifics of the report can be enlightening, the items listed
above represent just a few of the types of conclusions the report makes which have a
direct impact on how we make our decision. There are other conclusions reached in the
report which are at odds with some of the representations made in the newsletter.
Another major area of concern for association members is ed succinctly on page
52 of the report:
The following are some of the non -traffic related impacts of the proposed
installation of gates and conversion of the streets to private streets. The
Monterey Association Gats sues Page 2
identified impacts are associated with costs that will be transferred from the
City of Tustin to the residents of the proposed private gated communities:
o Street lighting costs
o Pavement maintenance costs
o Cost for future'pavement rehabilitation
o ..Cost for installation of the traffic signal at Parkcenter Lane and Bryan
Avenue
o Cost of installation and maintenance of the gates
,o Cost of street cleaning
o Cost of traffic control signs and pavement markings
What this sunmary points out, 'and the newsletter fails to do, "is that there ' are
significant initial and ongoing costs in addition to the cost of acquiring and
maintaining the gates. Note that all costs listed here, except for installation and
maintenance of the gates, are currently paid out of our property taxes. By gating our
canninity we will not receive a reduction in our property taxes. We will acquire the
perpetual, ongoing direct costs of providing and maintaining these services ourselves.
•Since the association will own the streets, it also acquires the liability associated
--lith those streets. Any safety or traffic related issues raised as the result of an
;ci.dent will now be directed at the association, not the city. This increased
liability will result in increased insurance costs to the association.
The association has asked your opinion on spending up to $1,500 to have preliminary
drawings of the gates prepared. This represents approximately 5% of the association's
annual budget. These drawings would be used to obtain estimated cost figures by a gate
ccnpany. The traffic evaluation study prepared by the city already contains conceptual
proposed street layouts for each of the gates which meet the OC standards as closely
as possible within the given constraints. The study drawings should be accurate enough
to obtain preliminary, budgetary type cost estimates.
As shown above, these estimates are but one part of the total cost associated with
gating the camunity. Any presentation of costs to the association should include all
of the costs identified in the survey, not just the direct costs of the gate.
Budgetary estimates of these costs can be obtained without experxling association funds .
And these estimates should be presented to the haneowners in a timely runner.
The association questionnaire asks for your input on this issue. You are encouraged
to state your opinion by returning the questionnaire. You should also ask for and
consider all the data available before you do so. Please review the traffic study, if
you are so inclined, and attend the board meeting on Noverber 6th to discuss this
issue. Be aware that the combined associations are moving ahead on this issue in
conjunction with the city, with you or without you.
Chuck Vertrees/Jan Fitcha John b Debbie Bosko
2131 Vallejo Drive 2141 Vallejo Drive