Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1a PKG CONCERNS 08-02-82 No. 1 JULY 27, 1982 %~~j Inter-Com NEW BUSINESS - 7:30 PM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER HEATHERFIELD DRIVE PARKING CONCERNS RECOMMENDATION: That theTustin City Council, at their meeting of August 2, 1982, approve the following: 1.· Posting of Heatherfield Drive between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place for "No Parking During Street Sweeping Operations" between the hours of 6:00 AM and Noon on Mondays 2. Installation of designated parking space markings on the street surface of Heatherfield Drive between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place. BACKGROUND: Staff has received various complaints from residents of Heatherfield Drive between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place as follows: Improper street sweeping due to long-term parked vehicles. Blockage of driveways by non-Heatherfield resident vehicles. Long-term parking of non-Heatherfield resident vehicles resulting in fewer spaces for Heatherfield residents and guests. Repair of vehicles within the street on a long-term basis and the discarding of debris. As a result of these complaints, staff has sent a survey letter (copy attached) to seventeen residences as shown on the attached map. The results of this survey are as follows: 1. Twelve (12) residences in favor of and two (2) residences against restricted on-street parking during the hours of street sweeping operations. 2. Ten (10) residences in favor of, three (31 residences against, and (1) no answer for the installation of designated parking spaces on street surface. o In addition to the survey questions, four (4) residences requested that the City implement preferential parking privileges to the residents of. Heatherfield Drive per Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code (C.V.C.). HEATHERFIELD DRIVE PARKING CONCERNS JULY 27, 1982 PAGE TWO Staff has reviewed the on-street parking situation on Heatherfield Drive periodically over the past month during both daytime and evening hours, and on weekdays as well as weekends and found numerous vehicles parked on the street as indicated by the residents. Also attached are copies of two letters sent to residents in answer to some of their specific questions/complaints. DISCUSSION: The Community Development Department has completed a parking space review of the condominium complex at 1777 Mitchell Avenue where, allegedly, most of the individuals reside that are utilizing Heatherfield Drive for on-street parking. This condominium complex ~t 1777 Mitchell Ave. was originally built/converted under County of Orange guidelines prior to being annexed to the City of Tustin. This complex consists of 134 residential units and the following parking spaces: 134 - Carport spaces 88 - Enclosed garage spaces 118 - Open spaces ~ TOTAL SPACES resulting in a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Some of the carport spaces were observed being utilized for uses other than vehicle parking; however, it appears that, even with this use, the minimum City requirements of 2 spaces per dwelling unit are being met. The parking problem appears to stem from the possibility that either a multiple number of families or exceptionally large families are occupying some of these condominium units, which results in the overflow of parking on the streets. Four of the resident's responses have requested that the City initiate preferential parking privileges as provided for in Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code (C.V.C.). Section 22507 reads as follows: LOCAL REGULATIONS 22507. Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the parking or standing of vehicles on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. Such ordinance or resolution may include a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges shall be given to residents and merchants adjacent to such streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which such residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits which exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of such ordinance or resolution. With the exception of alleys, no such ordinance or resolution shall apply until signs or markingsgiving adequate notice thereof have been placed. A Tocal ordinance or resolution HEATHERFIELD DRIVE PARKING CONCERNS JULY 27, 1982 PAGE THREE adopted pursuant to this section may contain provisions which are reasonable and necessary to insure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program. The preferential parking concept is employed by some other cities within the County. As of the writing of this report, these cities have not been contacted as to how the concept has worked within their communities. The Tustin Police Department will be providing a separate report (copy attached) on this concept and will most likely cover the pros and cons of how the concept has worked in other communities. A preferential parking privilege'concept would impact the City operation in the following areas: 1. Cost of initiating and operating a permit system such as decals or signing to be placed in a highly visible location on the vehicle. e Cost and practibility of enforcement of such a permit system. To be effective, enforcement would be required over a 14-15 hour time span per day. This would require additional parking enforcement personnel or the use of patrol personnel for parking enforcement, which would not be cost effective. If this type of program was initiated on Heatherfield Drive, it would most likely be requested for other areas within the City, which would amplify the cost and enforcement problems previously mentioned. Due to the above mentioned reasons, it is recommended that the preferential .parking privilege concept not be initiated. An additional request of the Heatherfield residents was to restore some of the parking back on Mitchell Avenue which had been recently red zoned. The red zoning was placed as a means of providing adequate visibility with respect to motorists exiting the driveways of the various complexes along Mitchell Ave. due to the extensive and increasing number of right angle accidents prior to the red zoning. The removal of any red zoning could result in increased liability to the City. Consequently, it is recommended that all red zoning along Mitchell Ave. remain as it presently exists. As a resul~ of the previously mentioned survey, it is suggested that the following items be implemented: Posting of Heatherfield Drive for "No Parking During Street SWeeping Operations" between the hours of 6:00 AM and Noon on Mondays, between Mitchell Ave. and Sandwood Place. 2. Installation of designated parking space markings on the street surface of Heatherfield Drive between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place. HEATHERFIELD DRIVE PARKING CONCERNS JULY 27, 1982 PAGE FOUR Item No. I was desired by 70% of the residents and Item No. 2 was desired by 59% of the residents. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CITY ENGINEER db Attachments July 7, 1982 Resident ~ustin, CA 92680 Dear Resident: The City has received several complaints with respect to the non-resident parking on Heatherfield Drive southerly of Mitchell Avenue. This additional non-resident parking has resulted in some of the following specific complaints: Improper street sweeping due to long-term parked vehicles. Blockage of driveways by non-resident (Heatherfield) vehicles. Long-term parking of non-resident (Heatherfield) vehicles resulting in fewer spaces for Heatherfield residents and guests. Two of the three complaints could be minimized by the following actions: 1. Post Heatherfield Drive for "No Parking During Street Sweeping Operations" between the hours of 6:00 AM and Noon on Mondays. Installation of designated parking space markings on the street surface. This will provide for a vehicle to be parked only within the limits of that designated space and hopefully eliminate encroachment into the driveways. These actions would not adversely impact the residents of Heatherfield Drive and could help eliminate some of the problems. The third complaint, the long-term non-resident (Heatherfield) parking along the street, is more difficult to solve. Restricted parking, such as I hour, 2 hour, etc., at any time would most likely discourage the non-resident (Heatherfield) parking, but it would greatly impact the residents of Heatherfield and prohibit them from utilizing the street for any long-term parking. Consequently, staff would not recommend any action with respect to time restrictions other than during hours of street sweeping. Due to the impact of the above mentioned actions to the residents of Heatherfield Drive, the City is soliciting input from the residents of Heatherfield Drive prior to implementing any action. Seventeen questionnaires will be sent to the residents of Heatherfield Drive and Sandwood Place. Please respond to the questions below and return one copy of this letter in the self-ad, dressed, stamped envelope by no later than July 19, 1982. Thank you for your cooperation. BOB LEDENDECKER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CITY ENGINEER db I do desire I do not desire The posting of Heatherfield Drive (both sides) between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place for "No Parking During Street Sweeping Operations" between the hours of 6:00 AM and Noon on Mondays. I do desire [~ I do not desire [~ The installation of designated parking space markings on the street surface of Heatherfield Drive (both sides) between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place. DATE: July 27, 1982 Inter - C om TO: FROH: SUBJECT: Robert Ledendecker, City Engineer J. D. Smith, Sergeant, Police Traffic Section Preferred Parking for Residents The following are objections to the request for preferential parking for Mitchell Street residents east of Red Hill. The heavy transient population would create excessive enforcement effort by existing department personnel to the detriment of the remainder of the city's parking control needs. 4 o To attempt proper control a permit sticker program would need to be effected. The time and man-power to properly administrate such a program would be extensive. Due to improper registration of vehicles and/or improper permit sticker issuance or lack there of, the incidence of post vehicle storage hearings would increase greatly. The time and man-power needs for the hearings would also increase, thereby decreasing man-power in other areas of responsibility. To allow one group private and preferred access to public domain would establish a pre~.xient which the city could ill afford. As the Tustin City Ordinance #6~2 (Private Property Parking Enforcement) has diverted much needed man-power from more necessary areas of responsibility so would this proposal. From the standpoint of current control the parking is well in hand. Even though congested, we enforce only those most hazardous or blatant violations and ignore those minor indiscretions. I would recommend against such preferred treatment. Jerry D Smztn, Sergean Traffic Section JDS:mdh Y,.,~.>' '.9, ~982 Mr. a~J Mrs. 80ne 14312 Hea~erfield Drive '?~s%in, CA 92680 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bone: In response to your recent letter regarding parking problems along Heatherfield ~rive, ! am enclosing a copy of a letter sent to your neighbors in res~onse to their sJanilar type concerns. This letter will hopefully cover the street ~eeping Currently, Section 5331i of the Tustin City Code (Traffic Regulations) prohibits parking of any vehicle on any street for a pe_riod of time longer ~nan thirty minutes bet~en the hours of 2:00 AM and 4:00 kM of any day, e×cep~ any vehicle belonging to any regularly licensed physician w~en actually engaged in professional house calls. ~is regulation bans overnight parking, but does not solve your problem of vehicles being parked all day on weekends. The institution of time_ iLmit parking, sudn as 2 bouts, 4 hours, etc. co_u].d oe utilized on Heatherfield Drive. This would be '~ery restrictive to the residents of Heatherfield and their ~uests and should have consent of all of the resideqts of ~ne street prior to Lmplementation. The idea of collecuing a fee for overnight parking privileges would certainly be a source of revenue to the City, but may prove to be_ .more costly to enfocce tom a city-wide basis. if you desire to pursue either of the following: 1. Restricted parking along Heatherfield Dr. during street sweeping operations and 2. Initiate restri~ed parking along Heatherfield Dr. for ?eriods su¢~ as 2 hours or 4 hours or if you have any additional questions, please contact ,we at 'four earliest convenience. ¥'e~z t~aly yours, BOB LEDENDECKER DIREC/OR OF PUBLIC v~IDRKS/ CITY ~3INEER !3, 1982 Mr. Warren B. Ett!eman 14262 Heatherfiled Drive ~ustin, CA 92680 Oear Mr. Ettleman: We are in receipt of your recent letter regarding parking and car repair problems within the general vicinity of Mitchell Avenue and Heatherfield Drive. Hopefully, this letter will address ~ of your concerns: Sc~ cf the fei curbing, along Mitchell Ave. as it exists today has been installed3 by various association owners; hc~ever, these are areas that the City had previously designated for red zoning in the overall plan for Mitchell Avenue. ~y red zoning other than ~hat designated by the City has been :emoved. The mat~er of ~he residents of 1777 Mitchell Avenue utilizing the streets for parking has been referred to our C~,,~unityDevelopment Depart~en~ by ~py of ~nis letter. They will be requested to review the utilization of on-site ~rkinq garages/spaces to vehicle useage. With respect to the repairing of vehicles on public streets, the Tustin City Code Sec~ion 5330g states the following: ">b ~e_rson shall construct or cause to be constructed, repair Dr cause to be_ repaired, grease or cause to be greased-, dismantle or cause to ~ dismantled any vehicle or part of thereof upon any p~blic street in this city. Temporary ~pergency repairs ,~ay be made u~on a public street." It is suggested that if long term repairs other than tem~3rary e~ergency reoairs are .be_] ng ~nade, that the Tustin Police Departraent be nctified .~nd that reference ~e. made to Section 5330g of the Tustin City Code. it ~s also possible to ~cost Heatherfield Drive/Sandwcod P1./Cloverbrcck Dr. wihh ?arking restrictions during street s'~eping o~erations between the h~]rs of 6:00 ~ and 12:00 Noon on Mondays. This type of action would have to i~ requested ~h¥ ~b~ ~jority of the residents on these streets and ultimately .approved. by the City Mr. Warren B. Ettleman 'May '3, 1982 P~ge Two The partial blocking of driveways is an enforcement problem whidn will be for~arded to the Police Departn~nt for their review. Section 22500e of the California Vehicle Code indicates the following: "No person shall stop, park or leave standing any. vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in c~mplianc~ with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the follcwing places: In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus engaged as a u~,'u~un carrier, school bus, or a taxi cab may stop to load or unload passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant to ordinance." Again, if you experience a blockage of the driveway, the Tustin Police De.~artment should be notified and reference made to Section 22500e of the California Vehicle Code. In addition, 5~u may r~uest that parkin~ space markings be installed on t~he pavera~nt adjacent to your residence. The Tustin City Code Section 53319 then provides that no vehicle shall ,be stq0ped or left standing or parked other than within a single space ~nd any vehicle violatin~ t_his code may be ticketed. Parking on Heatherf~ezd Dr. at the southeasterly corner of Mitc~hell and Heat~herfield will be revi~ed by staff. Perhaps, some type of red zoning, can be utilized to prevent this type of parking. The parking of the camper/trailer in the driveway has been ?eferred to the C~,mmunity Developr~nt Department for their review. This acticn is not c~3vered under the Tustin City Traffic Code or the California Vehicle C~e. In t. he event you desire to pursue any of the following actions: ~. Restricted parking along Heatherfield Or., etc during street sweepin~ operations, and 2. Installation of designated parking space markinqs on the street surface or if you have a~f additional questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, BOB LEDENDECKER DIRECTOR OF Pt~L!C 9IDP~KS/ CITY ~G INEER ~b City of Tustin Department of Public Works/Engineering 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention~ Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Dear Mr. Ledendecker, 30 July 1982 TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 1. Due to a business trip, I am unable to attend the Tustin City Council meeting of August 2, 1982. 2. We certainly are appreciative of the efforts being made by the City Council and our neighbors. 3. We do have a problem of transient parking on our street. Our chief concern is the increased possibility of crime, due to the number of strangers parking and hence the increased pedestrian traffic. 4. Before I express my views on the solutions that have been proposed. I'd like to mention that if Section 5331i of the Tustin City Code (Traffic Regulations), would be enforced, then the alternate solutions may not be necessary. I've never seen a car ticketed for this infraction, and I believe it could get the transients to more effectively utilize their own off- street parking. 5. The solution I prefer, if Section 5331I wlll not be enforced, is a reductbn in the length of the red painted curbs on Mitchell. Surely the accident rate has decreased since the stop signs were installed on Heatherfield and Mitchell. And it seems that the red curb area is excessive. Why do we need more than l½ car lengths of red curb on each side of a drive- way? Make space for 12 more cars, and the Heatherfield parking situation will be alleviated. 6. I am opposed to white lines being painted on the street in front of my house. Visual pollution. At least, a transients car is not pen,~anent. Ann my second objection is that most likely, each house will have two spaces painted, and if the owner wants to park in the center of his property,'he could be ticketed for not parking within the designated lines: If white lines do have to be painted, make it optional for each home owner. And if the parking problem disappears in six months, then lets get rid of the white lines. 7. I am not quite as opposed to the Monday morning no parking signs. I think enforcement will be a major problem. ' You can leave a ticket on the car, but the car is still there. How many signs do you intend to post? One in front of every house? (Extreme example,~of course). Visual pollution again. And if the signs do have to be installed, lets remove them if the parking problem disappears. Sincerely yours, Robert &Gail Weidner 14321 Heatherfield Tustin, CA 92680