HomeMy WebLinkAbout WORKSHOP - CONGESTION RELIEV-NEWPORT, RED HILL & IRVINE 10-16-07AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2007
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
Agenda Item P
Reviewed:
City Manager ~~
Finance Director
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT: CONGESTION RELIEF FOR NEWPORT AVENUE, RED HILL AVENUE,
AND IRVINE BOULEVARD
SUMMARY
In response to increasing concerns regarding traffic congestion on Newport Avenue, Red Hill
Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, traffic studies have been prepared for each arterial roadway. It
has been determined that areas of congestion along each arterial can be relieved by increasing
roadway capacity with the addition of a third travel lane in certain locations. However, on-street
parking must be removed in order to provide the additional travel lanes. A residential preferential
parking program has also been developed to provide areas impacted by spillover parking a
means to mitigate the spillover parking in those neighborhoods through the use of a permit
system .
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that at the conclusion of the workshop, the City Council consider agendizing
the following actions for a future council meeting:
1. A resolution authorizing removal of on-street parking and striping of a third travel lane in
each direction, where possible, on the following arterial roadways within the limits shown:
• Newport Avenue between Walnut Avenue and First Street
• Red Hill Avenue between Sycamore Avenue and Mitchell Avenue
• Irvine Boulevard between Prospect Avenue and Holt Avenue;
2. Amend the City's current Capital Improvement Program (FY 2007-2008) to provide
$15,000 for design of "Median Modifications on Newport Avenue at Andrews Street and Main
Street" and provide $125,000 for construction of improvements in the FY 2008/2009 Capital
Improvement Program from future Proposition 1 B allocations;
3. Authorize staff to write a letter to the County of Orange requesting that six (6) travel lanes
be striped on Irvine Boulevard from Red Hill Avenue to east of Ranchwood Road within
County unincorporated jurisdiction;
4. Adopt the attached Policy and Procedures for Permit Parking on Public Streets and
authorize City Staff to issue permits accordingly; and
5. Direct preparation of amendments to the Tustin City Code related to Off Street Parking
Regulations as may be necessary.
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost to remove on-street parking and add a third travel lane in each direction on the
three arterials is:
Signing Signal
Stri in Detection
• Newport Avenue from Walnut Av. to First St. $19,000 $16,000
• Red Hill Avenue from Sycamore Av. to Mitchell Av. $6,000 $3,000
• Irvine Boulevard from Prospect Av. to Holt Av_. 5 000 3 000
Total $30,000 $22,000
There are currently adequate funds available in the Public Works Department's operating budget
to perform this work. However, amid-year budget adjustment will be necessary to replace these
funds to provide for annual maintenance.
The project entitled "Median Modifications on Newport Avenue at Andrews Street and Main
Street" with funding provided through future Proposition 1 B allocations is recommended to be
added to the City's Capital Improvement Program:
Task Fiscal Year Appropriation Amount
Design FY 2007/2008 $15,000
Construction FY 2008/2009 $125,000
DISCUSSION
Due to concerns over traffic congestion on three major arterial roadways, studies were conducted
to investigate the possibility of providing additional roadway capacity by adding a third travel lane
in each direction on certain portions of Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard.
Each arterial highway has been evaluated individually and it has been determined that specific
areas can be improved to a level of service (LOS) consistent with the policies of the Circulation
Element of the General Plan by implementing 24 hour "No Parking" zones to provide for
additional travel lanes.
Level of service is an indication of quality of traffic flow and varies from LOS A (free flow with
minimal delays) to LOS F (severe congestion). LOS D (tolerable congestion) is the minimum
acceptable level of service for compliance with the City of Tustin Circulation Element. Striping six
travel lanes and restricting parking only during AM and PM peak hours was considered in lieu of
24 hour parking restrictions. However, this could create an unsafe condition because of the rear
end accident potential with parked cars in the third travel lane during off peak hours.
Twenty-four hour parking restrictions along the following highway segments are recommended in
order to provide a third travel lane in each direction and increase the level of service to
acceptable standards:
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, .Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 3
• Newport Avenue between Walnut Avenue and First Street
• Red Hill Avenue between Sycamore Avenue and Mitchell Avenue
• Irvine Boulevard between Prospect Avenue and Holt Avenue
Existing lane configurations along each of these arterial roadways vary between 4-lanes and 6-
lanes. The 4-lane portions are generally 84 feet wide, measured between curbs, and are wide
enough to provide six travel lanes if on-street parking is prohibited. Existing traffic volumes were
utilized to analyze traffic at critical intersections during peak periods "before" and "after" the
addition of a third travel lane in each direction. Likewise, street segment evaluations were
analyzed for peak hour conditions. Based upon this analysis, an increase in level of service will
occur during peak hours if on-street parking is removed on all three arterial roadways at critical
locations to provide three travel lanes in each direction.
Congestion resulting from inefficient lane utilization occurs when striping varies between 4 lanes
and 6 lanes. This is because the curb lanes are not fully utilized when drivers know the lanes will
terminate ahead. With a consistent 6-lane configuration, traffic flow is improved on a systematic
basis and traffic signal management is improved. In addition, road safety is improved due to the
reduction in weaving.
There are potential impacts on adjacent streets and parking lots as a result of the removal of
parking on certain portions of these arterial highways. A supply/demand analyses was
conducted to determine the effect of the potential relocation of approximately 260 existing
parking spaces from the three arterials to adjacent streets and parking lots. This information was
used to forecast where the parked vehicles might relocate if the arterial parking restrictions are
implemented. The analyses indicate that adjacent streets and parking lots appear to have
adequate capacity to absorb parking that shifts from the arterials. It is noted that with this shift in
parking some apartment managers may need to reassign parking spaces in order to provide
more efficient parking for their tenants.
Preferential Parking Permits
Due to the impact of parking relocations from the three arterial highways to local streets, it is
anticipated that permit parking may be necessary to address spillover parking on some adjacent
residential streets. Spillover parking is the parking of vehicles in a neighborhood where the
vehicle occupants have no destination in that neighborhood. Section 5331 n of the Tustin City
Code presently allows parking by permit only on certain local streets between the hours of 2:00
AM and 6:00 AM. These local streets are specifically identified in the Code. In the past, as new
streets are added to the Code (via ordinance amendments) parking permits have been issued as
requested. A proposed policy and procedures for issuance of residential parking permits that
provides 24 hour permit parking, seven days per week, if requested to mitigate the spillover traffic
is attached for review.
The proposed policy provides for the circulation of petition and fact sheet explaining the permit
process to residents of the area that will be included in a preferential parking zone. The petition
must be returned to the Public Works Department with 67% of the study area households
approving the implementation of permit parking prior to an engineering study being conducted.
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 4
Permit parking will only be studied for single family households adjacent to local streets within a
half-mile of parking generation such as an institutional, commercial, industrial, recreational or
multi-family use.
If approved by the City Council, each household will be issued two permits for a fee as
established by the City Council. Temporary guest permits will be available for a maximum
duration of seven-days for no costs.
Newport Avenue
Newport Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial Highway on the City's Circulation Element from
Valencia Avenue to Sycamore Avenue; a Modified Major from Sycamore Avenue to the I-5
Freeway and an Augmented Primary from the I-5 Freeway to the northern city boundary. These
classifications are consistent with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) which
classifies Newport Avenue as a Major and Primary Arterial Highway within the same limits. The
"Modified Major" classification is able to carry six travel lanes within a restricted right-of-way until
such time as sufficient right-of-way is acquired to accommodate a full Major Arterial Highway
configuration. The "Augmented Primary" classification encourages one or more traffic capacity
enhancement measures within the existing roadway, including such strategies as removal of on-
street parking, additional lanes, preferential traffic signal timing, access consolidation, and other
measures.
Existing traffic volumes on Newport Avenue between Walnut Avenue and the northerly city limit
vary from about 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd), with a high of about 35,000 at the I-5
Freeway. Existing volumes are about 12,000 vpd south of Walnut Avenue. Upon extension of
the roadway to Edinger Avenue (which is anticipated within the next five years, subject to right-of-
way acquisition and funding), Newport Avenue south of Walnut Avenue is estimated to carry
32,500 vpd by Year 2030, as projected by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
A map showing existing and future traffic volumes is attached for reference.
Currently, Newport Avenue has the following lane configurations:
• Cul-de-sac to Sycamore Avenue
• Sycamore Avenue to First Street
• First Street to Old Irvine Boulevard
• Old Irvine Boulevard to City Boundary
2 travel lanes with parking
4 travel lanes with parking
6 travel lanes with no parking
6 travel lanes with parking in the City
transitioning to 4 travel lanes with
parking in the County
Congestion that could be improved with the addition of travel lanes is presently being
experienced on Newport Avenue between Walnut Avenue and First Street. Striping of six travel
lanes on Newport Avenue is possible within the existing street section except at the intersections
with Andrews Street and Main Street, where the road is restricted by a raised median. Under
present conditions, three lanes can be striped for southbound traffic by restricting left turns into
Andrews Street, but only two lanes can be striped for northbound Newport Avenue. The raised
median at Andrews Street and Main Street must be modified in order to provide six travel lanes
on Newport Avenue at this location. An exhibit is attached to illustrate these improvements. This
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 5
modification would restrict left turn ingress and egress at Andrews Street, while simultaneously
extending the existing short left turn lane for northbound Newport Avenue to westbound Main
Street from its present 80 foot length to a 190 foot length.
This construction would eliminate the backup problem at Main Street presently caused by left
turners stacking into the northbound travel lane, creating delays at the traffic signal and a safety
problem. The estimated cost of design, construction, and inspection for this median modification
is $140,000. Exhibits are attached to illustrate these improvements.
The following tables represent existing levels of service as calculated in the study based on
recent surveys of traffic volumes:
NEWPORT AVENUE
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Year 2007 AM Peak Hours
Intersection Existing
Confi oration Proposed
Confi oration
Si nalized Intersectio ns
Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service
New ort Ave/S camore Ave 0.620 B 0.620 B
New ort Ave/Walnut Ave. 0.751 C 0.649 B
New ort Ave/Mitchell Ave. 0.820 D 0.655 B
New ort Ave/EI Camino Real 0.868 D 0.868 D
New ort Ave/6 Street-Walnut Street 0.804 D 0.661 B
New ort Ave/B an Ave. 0.917 E 0.777 C
New ort Ave/First St. 0.913 E 0.705 C
New ort Ave/Irvine Blvd. 0.708 C 0.708 C
Newport Ave/Old Irvine Blvd. 0.465 A 0.465 A
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 6
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Year 2007 PM Peak Hours
Intersection Existing
Confi uration Proposed
Confi uration
Si nalized Intersectio ns
Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service
New ort Ave/S camore Ave 0.598 A 0.598 A
New ort Ave/Walnut Ave. 0.764 C 0.666 B
New ort Ave/Mitchell Ave. 0.692 B 0.657 B
New ort Ave/EI Camino Real 0.976 E 0.792 C
New ort Ave/6 Street-Walnut Street 0.698 B 0.592 A
New ort Ave/B an Ave. 0.961 E 0.853 D
New ort Ave/First St. 0.818 D 0.658 B
New ort Ave/Irvine Blvd. 0.730 C 0.730 C
New ort Ave/Old Irvine Blvd. 0.619 B 0.619 B
Newport Avenue -Existing Volumes
AM and PM Peak Hours -Peak Directions
Street Segment Evaluation
Existing
Lanes Proposed
Through
Lanes Existing
Through
Volume
Directional Capacity
(Veh/Hr Range)
Volume to Capacity
Level of Service
LOS
Street Segment (Two
Wa (Two
Wa Direction (One
Wa Two
Lanes Three
Lanes Two
Lanes Three
Lanes Two
Lanes Three
Lanes
AM Peak Hour
Newport Avenue Between:
Irvine & Wass 6 6 SB 1720 3150 0.55 A
First & Irvine 6 6 SB 1276 3150 0.41 A
San Juan & First 4 6 SB 1514 2100 3150 0.72 0.48 C A
EI Camino & San
Juan 4 6 SB 1686 2100 3150 0.80 0.54 C A
Walnut &Nisson 4 6 SB 1801 2100 3150 0.86 0.57 D A
Sycamore &
Walnut 4 4 SB 444 2100 0.21 A
PM Peak Hour
Newport Avenue Between:
Irvine & Wass 6 6 NB 1756 3150 0.56 A
First & Irvine 6 6 NB 1379 3150 0.44 A
San Juan 8~ First 4 6 NB 1135 2100 3150 0.54 0.36 A A
EI Camino & San
Juan 4 6 NB 1248 2100 3150 0.59 0.40 A A
Walnut &Nisson 4 6 NB 1255 2100 3150 0.60 0.40 A A
Sycamore 8~
Walnut 4 4 NB 471 2100 0.22 A
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 7
As shown in the tables, some of the signalized intersections on Newport Avenue between Walnut
Avenue and First Street operate at levels of service D or E during peak hours. Also, one street
segment operates at LOS D. When laneage is increased from four to six travel lanes, all levels
of service are improved. Within these limits (Walnut Avenue to First Street) a total of
approximately 115 parking spaces would be removed from Newport Avenue in order to stripe six
travel lanes.
Red Hill Avenue
Red Hill Avenue is classified as a six-lane Major Arterial Highway on the City's Circulation
Element from Barranca Parkway to north of Bryan Avenue. It is classified as a four-lane Primary
Arterial Highway from north of Bryan Avenue to Irvine Boulevard. It has the same classifications
on the County's MPAH.
Existing traffic volumes on Red Hill Avenue between Barranca Parkway and Nisson Road are
about 30,000 vpd, with a high of about 37,000 at the I-5 freeway. Existing traffic volumes range
from about 22,000 vpd north of the freeway to about 16,000 vpd just south of Irvine Boulevard.
Currently, Red Hill Avenue has the following lane configurations:
• Barranca Parkway to Sycamore Avenue
• Sycamore Av. to Walnut Avenue
• Walnut Avenue to Mitchell Avenue
• Mitchell Avenue to San Juan Street
• San Juan Street to Irvine Boulevard
6 travel lanes with no parking
3 travel lanes northbound; 2 travel lanes
southbound with parking
4 travel lanes with parking
6 travel lanes with no parking
4 travel lanes with parking
Congestion that could be corrected with the addition of travel lanes is presently occurring on Red
Hill Avenue between Sycamore Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. Striping of six lanes on Red Hill
Avenue~is possible within the existing street section throughout its Major Classification limits.
The existing Levels of Service north of San Juan Street for both the Major and Primary
Classification portions exceed the requirements of the City's General Plan Circulation Element
and no additional travel lanes are recommended. However, if 6 travel lanes were to be striped
between San Juan Street and Bryan Avenue, 10 parking spaces would be removed adjacent to
Pine Tree Park, in addition to 60 spaces adjacent to the existing apartments, condominiums and
residences. A parking bay on Red Hill Avenue adjacent to Pine Tree Park (similar to the one on
Bryan Avenue) could be constructed for approximately $175,000 in order to replace the 10 lost
parking spaces. Three travel lanes cannot be striped on the east side of Red Hill Avenue north
of Melvin Way due to the substandard width of the highway within these limits, which lies within
county unincorporated territory. The County of Orange has no plans to widen Red Hill Avenue at
this location. In fact, its intentions are to construct concrete curb and sidewalk at the present
width.
The following tables represent existing levels of service as calculated in the study based on
recent surveys of traffic volumes:
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 8
RED HILL AVENUE
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Year 2007 AM Peak Hours
Intersection Existing
Confi uration Proposed
Confi uration
Si nalized Intersectio ns
Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service
Red Hill Ave/B an Ave. 0.617 B 0.617 B
Red Hill Ave/San Juan St. 0.769 C 0.769 C
Red Hill Ave/Mitchell Ave. 0.738 C 0.620 B
Red Hill Ave/Walnut Ave. 0.766 C 0.726 C
Red Hill Ave/S camore Ave. 0.979 E 0.842 D
Red Hill Ave/Edin er Ave. 0.771 C 0.771 C
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Year 2007 PM Peak Hours
Intersection Existing
Confi uration Proposed
Confi uration
Si nalized Intersectio ns
Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service
Red Hill Ave/B an Ave. 0.647 B 0.647 B
Red Hill Ave/San Juan St. 0.756 C 0.756 C
Red Hill Ave/Mitchell Ave. 0.854 D 0.701 C
Red Hill Ave/Walnut Ave. 0.779 C 0.779 C
Red Hill Ave/S camore Ave. 0.965 E 0.855 D
Red Hill Ave/Edin er Ave. 0.667 B 0.667 B
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 9
Red Hill Avenue -Existing Volumes
AM and PM Peak Hours -Peak Directions
Street Segment Evaluation
Existing
Lanes Proposed
Through
Lanes Existing
Through
Volume
Directional Capacity
(Veh/Hr Range)
Volume to
Ca aci
Level of Service
LOS
Street Segment (Two
Wa (Two
Wa Direction (One
Wa Two
Lanes Three
Lanes Two
Lanes Three
Lanes Two
Lanes Three
Lanes
AM Peak Hour
Red Hill Avenue Between:
B an & First 4 4 SB 978 2100 0.47 A
San Juan 8~ B an 4 4 SB 1056 2100 0.50 A
Walnut 8~ Mitchell 4 6 SB 1309 2100 3150 0.62 0.42 B A
Sycamore 8~
Walnut 5 6 SB 1938 2100 3150 0.92 0.62 E B
PM Pe ak Hour
Red Hill Avenue Between:
B an 8~ First 4 4 NB 1064 2100 0.51 A
San Juan 8~ B an 4 4 NB 1222 2100 0.58 A
Walnut & Mitchell 4 6 NB 1284 2100 3150 0.61 0.41 B A
Sycamore &
Walnut 5 6 NB 1764 3150 0.56 A
Existing levels of service at intersections during peak hour conditions vary between LOS C and E
on Red Hill Avenue from Sycamore Avenue to Mitchell Avenue, and the peak hour level of
service for one street segment is LOS E. With an increase from two to three travel lanes in each
direction, all levels of service on these segments improve. Within these limits a total of
approximately 62 parking spaces would be removed to stripe six travel lanes.
Irvine Boulevard
Irvine Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial Highway from State Route (SR) 55 to Jamboree
Road on both the City of Tustin General Plan Circulation Element, within City jurisdiction, and the
County MPAH, within both City and County jurisdictions.
Existing traffic volumes on Irvine Boulevard between the SR 55 Freeway and Jamboree Road
are about 30,000 vpd, with a high of about 36,000 at the SR 55 freeway. Year 2030 traffic
volumes are projected by the OCTA to vary from about 38,000 to 56,000 vpd.
Currently, Irvine Boulevard has the following lane configurations:
• SR 55 to Prospect Avenue
• Prospect Avenue to Holt Avenue
• Holt Avenue to Red Hill Avenue
• Red Hill Avenue to Ranchwood Road*
• Ranchwood Road to Jamboree Road
6 travel lanes with no parking
4 travel lanes with parking
6 travel lanes with no parking
4 travel lanes with parking
6 travel lanes with no parking
*County of Orange jurisdiction
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 10
Congestion that could be improved with the addition of travel lanes is being experienced on Irvine
Boulevard between Prospect Avenue and Holt Avenue. Although congestion also occurs from
Red Hill Avenue to east of Ranchwood Road, this portion is within the unincorporated County of
Orange which would be solely responsible for any striping revisions. Striping of six lanes in the
City of Tustin and the County of Orange is possible within the existing street section. Upon
implementation of the recommended striping within the City of Tustin, city staff will request the
County to do the same within its jurisdiction. This will require removal of parking and bike lanes
which are included in the County's Master Bikeway Plan.
The following tables represent existing levels of service as calculated in the study based on
recent surveys of traffic volumes:
IRVINE BOULEVARD
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Year 2007 AM Peak Hours
Intersection Existing
Confi uration Proposed
Confi uration
Si nalized Intersectio ns
Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service
Irvine Blvd/Red Hill Ave. 0.866 D 0.815 D
Irvine Blvd/Pros ect Ave. 0.865 D 0.693 B
Irvine Blvd/Fashion Lane 0.906 E 0.729 C
Irvine Blvd/Holt Ave. 0.702 C .0.702 C
Irvine Blvd/New ort Ave. 0.703 C 0.703 C
Irvine Blvd/Brownin Ave.* 0.980 E 0.786 C
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Year 2007 PM Peak Hours
Intersection Existing
Confi uration Proposed
Confi uration
Si nalized Intersectio ns
Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service Volume/
Ca acit Level of
Service
Irvine/Red Hill Ave. 0.862 D 0.830 D
Irvine Blvd/Pros ect Ave. 0.842 D 0.699 B
Irvine Blvd/Fashion Lane 0.716 C 0.646 B
Irvine Blvd/Holt Ave. 0.846 D 0.723 C
Irvine Blvd/New ort Ave. 0.500 A 0.500 A
Irvine Blvd/Brownin Ave.* 0.882 D 0.745 C
*County of Orange jurisdiction
Traffic Evaluations for Newport Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard
October 16, 2007
Page 11
Irvine Boulevard -Existing Volumes
AM and PM Peak Hours -Peak Directions
Street Segment Evaluation
Proposed Existing
Existing Through Through Directional Capacity
Lanes Lanes Volume (Veh/Hr Range) Volume to Capacity Level of Service
LOS
Street Segment (Two (Two Direction (One Two Three Two Three Two Three
Wa Wa Wa Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes
AM Peak Hour
Irvine Boulevard Between:
Holt & Pros ect 4 6 WB 1674 2100 3150 0.80 0.53 C A
Browning 8~ Red 4 6 WB 1994 2100 3150 0.95 0.63 E B
Hill
Ranchwood Rd & 4 6 WB 1913 2100 3150 0.91 0.61 E B
Brownin
PM Pe ak Hour
Irvine Boulevard Between:
Holt & Pros ect 4 6 WB 1617 2100 3150 0.77 0.51 C A
Browning 8~ Red 4 6 WB 1985 2100 3150 0.95 0.63 E B
Hill
Ranchwood Rd 8~ 4 6 WB 2009 2100 3150 0.96 0.64 E B
Brownin
Existing levels of service at intersections during peak hour conditions vary between LOS C and E
on Irvine Boulevard from Prospect Avenue to Holt Avenue. Also, the existing peak hour level of
service for this street segment is LOS C. With an increase from four to six travel lanes, all levels
of service will improve. Within these limits a total of approximately 83 parking spaces would be
removed to stripe six travel lanes.
By eliminating on-street parking within select segments, the existing levels of service on Newport
Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard can be improved to provide congestion relief. A
specific implementation timetable of one hundred twenty (120) days is recommended to allow for
design and construction of modifications on the arterials, and to provide adjacent property
owners that will lose on-street parking spaces time to make new parking arrangements. A policy
and procedures for implementation of permit parking is recommended for ado tion to address
spillover parking on a citywide basis.
Tim D. Serlet Dana R. Kasdan
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Engineering Services Manager
Attachments: Map of Existing Lane Configurations
Map of Proposed Lane Configurations
Map of Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes
Permit Parking Policy and Procedures
Newport Ave. /Andrews St. Median Modifications
S:\City Council Items\2007 Council Items\Traffic & Parking Analysis -Newport Av, Red Hill Av & Irvine Bl.doc
CITY OF TUSTIN
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
PERMIT PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS
The Tustin City Council may adopt the following Policy and Procedures for the criteria,
application, evaluation, administration, fees and implementation of Permit Parking as
applicable to public streets within the City.
Authority
SECTION 22507 (a) Local Regulations of the State of California Vehicle Code (CVC)
grants cities the authority. to establish preferential parking on designated streets upon
approval by the City Council of an ordinance or resolution containing provisions that are
reasonable and necessary to assure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program;
and, after the proper signs giving notice of such regulations are placed.
Criteria
Only single-family residential streets shall be eligible for Permit Parking.
2. The single-family residential street or group of such streets comprising a Permit
Parking Area must be adjacent to or within a half mile of an institutional,
commercial, industrial, recreational or multiple family land use. For the purpose of
this. Policy the term Permit Parking Area shall be used to generally describe single
streets or groups of streets.
3. Permit Parking will not be approved if the identified parking intrusion can be
mitigated with less restrictive parking or traffic control measures.
4. Permit Parking, if approved, shall be on a total Permit Parking Area and individual
residences will not be excluded.
5. Permit Parking will be considered if the above criteria are met and:
A. Sixty seven percent (67%) of the households within a potential Permit Parking
Area agree to and would approve the implementation of Permit Parking on
their street if warranted and approved by City Council.
B. A traffic engineering study determines that parking intrusion is occurring and
the intrusion is seriously impacting residents.
6. In the interest of community benefit or public safety, the City Council may, at its
sole discretion, approve or deny any application for Permit Parking.
-1-
Cn
Z
O
D
Z
0
U
z
X
W
~ ~
Z Z
O O
~ ~ D o
U U Z Z
W W ~ ~
~ ~ 0 0
p p m m
=
O O p
m m ~ z
uS v~ cn cn
w w w w
z z z z
Q Q ¢ ¢
J J J J
d'
II to
II N
II M
LLZ
FN LL
OW
~Z
NA
U~
0 o
U
LA
COL
w
~
w wnss_ sT.
-
~
OLD IRVINE BL W
z
a
o Q
o
~
,,~
y Q IRVINE BLVD
~b
~ ~O
W
Z
COUNTY OF Z
ORANGE
~
3
~
U
z
Q
z
~~Y~ 'S'
d W
~ CITY OF
TUSTIN m
~ z
F O
1J~ ~~
° FIRST ST. Q ~
~o
~
~~~ d
~• a
~~
BRYAN
AVENUE
~5 P~~
~'o
d~d ~
i
P~Q`
~Ci ~'f~
PARKVIEW
~
~~
~a, ~
J`~
~~ SAN JUAN ST.
Q
~'~d ~' ~P~,\N~ RFq~ Z
ti
~ ~~~ ~.
~ FREEWAY
s
?! ~
GjJb ~'~'~` O
~,` ~ °~ N~S$ON
MITCHELL ROAD ~;
AVENUE a
~~ ~~
p ~
_~
r c'~
oJ~~ ~~~~
~ w
~P
g
`~ Z
~
~
\~~,'~ ~
7dd ~5~`' ~ WALNUT m
~ ~Ob a
~
`'/ ~n a
" ~ a
~G~
,~ Z SYCAMORE AV. o
`r~,
~~ Pp~~
EDINGER ~ AVENUE
~
~
P,~ O
~~\~~~~ ~
a
~ VALENCIA
J AVENUE
O
w
J
Q
Q J
=
Q
W
~
O
o
Z AVENUE
U
F ~
~ Q
~~~~
`~
VJ VJ
Z Z
~_
U U
NW W
L.L
I- ~
O O
vJ v~
W W
Z Z
Q Q
J J
~ ~
~~ ~~
DYER ROAD ~ BARRANCA PARKWAY
I LL
Ow
N ~ ~ 2
UF' I =OO m
U
~ W
Z
~ ~ O ~
O ~ cp®
D O CJ~
M ~.[~ J u
W ~~ cam, ' ^
~ IRVINE BLVD.
w 56~20~1 (50.400)
~~ti Q l ~2~p0 30,700
.~b ~~ W ^ COUNTY OF
ro ~ S ORANGE
t~
y S «~ W rn o CITY OF
Q• N s', ~ g°, TUSTIN
J ~ 1 v FIRST ST. Q "'
~l~~so ~ ~~1~ c~
d% ` ~
`~~' BRYAN AVENUE
~~~~s ~~~~ N ~- ~~
~ ~ o
b~d~-/ PPP J~~oO°~ y~ '~' ~, ~ .
~Q' ~1• v~ `~7 ~ SAN JUAN
`~~'~ --
~6, ~ o
~- ~ ~ ~
o ~-.z
~s' J ~ N
~r•
~~-- ~"
,~ Jba ~ S ~ N1S$ON ~a~
~,~~~`' ~P~ ~ v MITCHELL AVENUE `,'
-CZ` ~~ ~Py -- ~~ ^ v
!- J~ ,~~ ~ S ~ ~soQpt
`O ~ ~ ~ N - ~
~~5~ 'ebb ~~J v WALNUT v N
SAPRA ~ ~~~a- P
s ~~
.~~y, ~ bd ~ ~ ~
/,Gj ~ ~ SYCAMORE AV. ~ ~
0
~~s
~~ ~~
~s s POO~~ ~ a EDINGER ~
~bj~ ~~` W
~ P~. z >
a
C~~ O o
~0~~ ~ ~ o
J u-S ~s~
W P!i C`J
Q VALENCIA AVENUE
J
Q J
Q~
W = ~ °o
~ W ~ '`'
~ ~
O
~ AVENUE
0
z ~~
y,P~~
`~' ra
~j cJ
..~
DYER ROAD BARRANCA PKWY
w W
W
G
~ ~
~ O O
J >
U U
~ ~
~ ~
H H
U o M
~
N N
~ ~
LL W W
Q }
II ~--
II
'~
x
x x
x
x
Application
1. An application for Permit Parking shall contain a description of the problem, the
time the problem is occurring, the general area affected by the parking intrusion,
proof of area residency and the applicant's home address and telephone
number(s).
2. The City Engineer shall determine if the location criteria is met and, in concert with
the applicant, determine the Study Area and appropriate times for the parking study
to be conducted.
3. The applicant, or his designee, shall be the contact person for the City staff, may be
responsible for circulating the program petition and fact sheet and shall be the
liaison between the City and Study Area residents.
Traffic Study
1. The City Engineer shall prepare a petition and fact sheet for circulation and review
by each household to determine if 67% of the households within a potential Permit
Parking Area would be in favor of Permit Parking if it were warranted and approved
by the City Council.
A. The fact sheet shall state the Permit Parking Program criteria, ramifications,
participation requirements, fees and residents' responsibilities.
B. The petition will contain each property address, a column indicating that each
household is in favor of (or opposed. to) being included in the proposed Permit
Parking Area and a signature block.
2. The City, at its discretion, may circulate the initiating petition and fact sheet by mail
or other means and may elect to resurvey any potential Permit Parking Area at any
time during the application process.
3. The petition shall be returned to the City Engineer within 45 days of issuance to
applicant.
If the returned petition indicates that there is not 67% approval for Permit Parking
within a Study Area or if the petition is not returned within 45 days of issuance, no
further action will be taken by staff on the application and the application process
shall be officially terminated.
4. The City Engineer shall proceed with the traffic study upon receipt of the petition
indicating a minimum of 67% of the Study Area households approve
implementation of Permit Parking.
-2-
5. If the location, petition, parking, and approval criteria are met, the City Engineer
shall prepare and submit a staff report pertaining to the request for Permit Parking
to the City Council. The applicant shall be provided a copy of the staff report and
City Council meeting specifics.
6. If a Permit Parking Area is approved by the City Council, each household in the
Permit Parking Area will be so notified and sent a Permit Parking Application.
7. Residents shall return completed and signed Parking Permit application to the City
at time of permit issuance. This document will be the permanent record of the
respective household's Program participation.
8. If the request for Permit Parking is denied or terminated, pursuant to Section 3
herein above, a second study of the same or similar Study Area will not be
conducted for a minimum of twelve months unless there is a significant, identifiable
change in parking characteristics as determined by the City Engineer. Subsequent
studies of the same general Study Area will be subject to the same requirements
and procedures as the initial study request.
Permit Issuance
1. Each household will be issued two parking permits. There will be a Permit
Issuance Fee for these permits.
A. There shall be an additional Permit Issuance Fee for new permits issued as a
result of change in home ownership. Parking permits are not transferable.
Permit Issuance Fees are approved by the City Council and are included in the City-
adopted fee schedule.
2. Temporary guest permits may, at the City's discretion, be issued at no cost to
households in a Permit Parking Area subject to the following conditions:
A. The City must receive a written request for the permits at least two business
days prior to the event for which the permit is requested.
B. The temporary event guest permits will be issued at the Police Department
during normal business hours.
C. Temporary guest permits shall have a maximum duration of seven (7) days and
need not be returned to the City upon their expiration.
3. Parking Permits shall be obtained in person at the Police Department. The
applicant must provide proof of residency, provide the completed and signed Permit
Parking Application and pay the Permit Issuance Fees.
-3-
4. All residents in a Permit Parking Area will be subject, without exception, to all
related parking regulations.
5. Residents shall return completed and signed Parking Permit Application to the City
at time of permit issuance. This document will be the permanent record of the
respective .household's Program participation, acknowledgement and receipt of the
Permit Parking Program's procedures and requirements.
6. Service, maintenance and construction vehicles, except those governed by the
Public Utility Commission or other .Government Agencies, are considered guests
and must display a permit when performing services on a Permit Parking street. It
is the contracting resident's responsibility to provide permits for service,
maintenance and construction vehicles.
7. Upon issuance of the Permit Parking Application, each household in the Permit
Parking Area will be given a 30-day period to obtain their permits before regulatory
signing is installed or displayed. A five-day "grace" period will be given all motorists
after regulatory signs are displayed and enforcement commences.
8. All Parking Permits remain the property of the City and may be revoked if used
contrary to the provisions of this policy.
Bail Schedule
1. The fine for violation of the Permit Parking regulations shall be as the City Council
may set from time to time.
Misuse of Parking .Permits
1. Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a Parking Permit
issued in conjunction with the Parking Permit Program shall be guilty of an
infraction and shall be subject to a fine as the City Council may set from time to
time and the forfeiture of all permits in conflict, or such other penalty as the City
Council may, from time to time, set by ordinance.
Program Removal
1. A Permit Parking Area or part thereof may be removed from the Permit Parking
Program by the City Council pursuant to:
A. Approval of a staff recommendation based on cause and a petition indicating
67% of all households in a Permit Parking Area request removal from the
Program.
B. A determination that removal from the Program is in the community interest or
in the interest of public safety or at City Council discretion.
-4-
City Council action to remove an area from the Permit Parking Program requires
notification to those affected and must occur in conjunction with an advertised public
hearing.
2. There shall be no cost to the residents associated with removing an area from the
Permit Parking Program.
3. If an existing Permit Parking Area is revoked, any request for reinstatement shall be
subject to the same process as that of a new Parking Permit Area and if approved
shall be assessed the total cost of the traffic study, permit printing and distribution
cost and all re-signing cost.
Exceptions
1. To accommodate particular events or circumstances, the Police Department may,
from time to time, suspend enforcement of the Permit Parking regulations or issue
additional permits. This may be done summarily or by covering the regulatory
signs.
2. HARDSHIP: An interim parking deficiency due to changing family/residents needs
as additional drivers come of age. This is provided only to those residents who
currently utilize all available off-street parking and have an interim parking
deficiency due to a hardship as defined herein. A "HARDSHIP" is considered to be
a short-term need based on a family's need for an additional parking space as the
children reach driving age and there are insufficient spaces on site for the added
vehicles.
The Police Department shall accept, review, approve, and issue or deny a property
owner's request for additional permits under the Hardship definition for a Hardship
Exemption Permit.
The Hardship application requires that the property owner complete the appropriate
application, submit the applicable (non-refundable) processing and filing fee as
established by Council, and submit to an on-site inspection of the property by the
Police Department. At that time the Police Department will verify that all garage,
carport, driveway, and apron parking is being fully utilized for its intended purpose
as vehicle parking for personal vehicles. All reasonable attempts to increase
available parking on site, i.e. widening driveways and/or re-setting fence lines to
provide additional parking adjacent to alleys, shall have been considered and
deemed unavailable prior to further consideration of a Hardship Permit.
Recreational vehicles, commercial business vehicles, miscellaneous equipment;
and/or building materials, etc. shall not be stored on site in these locations, in what
could otherwise be used for vehicular storage.
-5-
Signing and Marking
1. Installation and maintenance of regulatory signs and markings associated with
Permit Parking shall be the responsibility of and at the sole discretion of the City.
S:\Tim\2007\Permit parking on public streets.doc
-6-
i
I I I
I
I ,a~ ,<< I ,a~
o
~ '
.~.
I ~ ~
II I ,o~
J ~~
~//
~ .o
ca
~ ~ / s--
i ,
~ ~ ~ ~-
~ ,zv ~ (V Q
o '
/ '' ~ U
' Z
/ W ~
g ~ ~ ~ c~
Q ._
Z ~ ~
~ ~
Q ,o~ ,z~ I ,8~ 0
' ;, b I
~ W
/ ~ ~,
,z~ ,« i ,z~ I ~
3 ~
' - --------- d W
' W
(V ,w r,n w /~ _
~ W
nr~Nl nr ~\~~/
J I wain wui,
~ ~ O
w I w~
~ ~rw I ~rw r ^
,w ,waa V ,
w ~ I ---------
O z
wQ I g
>w o
¢z w
°~ J I ~
~o I ~
z
I ' ~-
I~ I n X
~ ~ w
I I ~I I I
0
J
O
o I I ~ ,
i
I
I
I ; ; ~ I~ ~
a
I '~
i i ~
i~
ii
i~ --
}~
J
Q ' /
i
J /
(n ~ ~ ~ ' •
~ /'
I (///
~
~ 4
1 ~ /
~ ~ i O
b
'' ~~
~- U
~ ~
j
1
~ ~ i 1 ~
~ ~Z~
f '
/
~ ~ ~ ~ I
1 '
^~
1
'
~
'
~i
~ ~ ~J
I
g ~ ~
-
~ ~ ~
.
Z
Q ~ ~
~ ,,
~,
~
~
CCi
°
o
~
,a~ ,«
' -
,,
' I
~'
,z< <~ ,z~ ~,<< ,a~ '-
~
~ /
~ ~, I
~ w
°
Z I
W
I
' i
,~
I ~ ~
d W
~ "~
~
+-+
w I
J ~
I ~ ~ W C~
o ~ I
Z I ~ I O~
~ ~ W I I ~~
Q
w
z
n X
w
n Q I
I ,~ I
'~3a a~a
~ ~ I
~ I ~o
~~ `~ I I
3
I a
II
~
I I I
Z