ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE REPORT OF: February 15, 2018 ITEM B. Establish Time Period Parking Restriction

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE REPORT OF: February 15, 2018 ITEM B. Establish Time Period Parking Restriction"

Kory Hampton
5 years ago
Views:

ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC COMMITTEE SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: 4 SUBJECT: LOCATION: INITIATED BY: INVESTIGATOR: REQUEST: Parking Greenwich Lane and its Cul

1 ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC COMMITTEE SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: 4 SUBJECT: LOCATION: INITIATED BY: INVESTIGATOR: REQUEST: Parking Greenwich Lane and its Cul de sacs; Anaheim Islands; TB 768 C6 West Island Neighbors Group Deepthi Arabolu Establish Time Period Parking Restriction DATA: LOCATION MAP Page 1 of 8

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Greenwich Lane between Ramm Drive and Broadway is an approximately 600 foot long, 36 foot wide residential local street with one travel lane in each direction. There is no centerline stripe or a posted speed limit on Greenwich Lane. Greenwich Lane is fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Two residential cul de sac streets Ramm Drive and Messersmith Avenue intersect Greenwich Lane. On the southerly end, Greenwich Lane cul de sacs into Ramm Drive. On the northerly end, Greenwich Lane is stop controlled at Broadway. There are several residential driveways fronting Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. Parking is permitted on both sides of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. ACCIDENT DATA Traffic Engineering s collision records show no reported accidents on Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs in the past 24 months. ANALYSIS OC Public Works Traffic Engineering received a request from the community s West Island Neighbors Group to implement on Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs the same parking restriction that was recently approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors for Thistle Road and its cul de sacs. As a result of this recent Board approval, Thistle Road and its cul desacs have an established No Parking zone between the hours of 12:00 midnight to 5:00 am on both sides of the streets. This restriction was evaluated and recommended by Traffic Engineering based on the parking needs of the community. In response to the request on Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs, OCPW Traffic Engineering contacted a resident of Greenwich Lane to learn more about the parking issues the neighborhood is experiencing. The resident mentioned that Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs experience some issues as a result of overflow parking from the vicinity of their neighborhood. Their primary issue is that the tenants and guests from the apartment complex located on the northwest corner of Broadway at Brookhurst Street are parking their vehicles in the residential streets. He mentioned that the major concern is that the public that park on their streets exhibit no responsibility for maintaining their community and thereby affect the cleanliness of the streets. Littering was a primary concern of the neighborhood; however, the resident mentioned that the problem as of now was occasional and was not as prevalent as on the nearby streets of Thistle Road and its cul de sacs. Page 2 of 8

3 Madison Park Apartment Homes occupy the northwest corner of the intersection of Broadway at Brookhurst Street. The apartment homes front the north side of Broadway in the City of Anaheim jurisdiction; Greenwich Lane intersects Broadway on its south side in the unincorporated County portion and is located west of Thistle Road and its cul de sacs. Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs and Thistle Road and its cul de sacs are the only set of unincorporated streets located in the close proximity of the apartment homes, with the entrance to Thistle Road located right across from the main entrance/exit to the apartment complex. The majority of the City area along Broadway in front of the apartment homes has onstreet parking restricted except for small segment with parking permitted. With the recently implemented parking restrictions on Broadway and Thistle Road and its cul de sacs in place, Traffic Engineering anticipates that the parking demand in the unincorporated portion of the neighborhood would greatly increase and subsequently would lead to migration of the existing overflow parking to spillover onto Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. This condition could most possibly worsen the issues stated by the resident of Greenwich Lane. Based on community input, the land use and the prevailing parking/ no parking zones within the neighborhood, and the recent implemented parking restrictions in the nearby streets, Traffic Engineering concurred implementing time period parking restrictions on Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. Traffic Engineering considers this approach as proactive to prevent parking issues from becoming worse leading to adverse impacts to the residents of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. Therefore, staff requested the representative of the West Island Neighbors Group to provide the neighborhood s consensus with respect to the hours of parking restrictions to be implemented. The community formulated the following parking regulations recommendations to alleviate the parking situation in their neighborhood: No Parking on both sides of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs from Midnight to 5 am. No Parking on both sides of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs from 2 am to 5 am. Through a petition, the homeowners along the affected portions of Greenwich Lane and its culde sacs were requested to choose their preferred option of the suggested parking restrictions. Out of 22 homes along Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs, 14 homeowners responded in affirmative to restricted parking hours of Midnight to 5 am. One resident responded against both the proposed parking restrictions. Based on the parking needs of the community, Traffic Engineering recommends a No Parking zone between the hours of 12:00 midnight to 5:00 am on both sides of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. Page 3 of 8

4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INPUT A resident of Greenwich Lane addressed the Committee. He stated that the City of Fullerton has a similar regulation of no overnight parking restriction and provided the statistic of the time the City police allocates to these parking related issues and appeals filed. He expressed that implementing parking restrictions like the proposed one, is not efficient and is not the best use of resources. He talked about Opinion No State of California, which states that under CVC 22507, it is not permissible to discourage parking in residential areas against apartment dwellers. He mentioned that staff s report on this item does not state any safety issue or illegal activities reported along the Greenwich Lane tract. He stated that the report states that the close proximity of the Madison Park Apartment homes to the Greenwich Lane tract leads to spillover parking of the residents/ guests of the apartment homes into Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. He stated that we do not have the right to prevent them to use public parking space. He stated that it is a part of the civic duty to not ban the apartment owners from parking on public streets. He stated that most of the vehicles parked on the streets that staff presented belong to the homeowners and not the apartment residents. He explained that, he being an owner of a large van would be inconvenienced by this restriction, as his large truck would be overhanging and blocking the sidewalk if parked on his driveway. He mentioned that similar is the case for many of the residents in the neighborhood that own larger sized vehicles. He said that the only place that these residents park these types of vehicles is along the streets. He said neither him nor any of his neighbors that park their vehicles along the streets of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs have ever experienced any vandalism or theft of their vehicles. He therefore stated that there is no valid reason on why he or his neighbors should not be able to park along the streets of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. He mentioned that ever since he bought his home in 2010, as per his escrow records, there is no Homeowners Association for that area and that the West Islands Neighbors Group who have represented the community for this item have no legal ability to do so. He stated that these proposed parking restrictions will only inconvenience the residents and should not be considered as none in the neighborhood is being harmed. He further stated that people who park on these streets legally should not be banned from parking for no concrete reason. He said that this proposal does not make any sense and requested the County look at the Opinion No for consideration. A resident residing on Messersmith Avenue over the past 34 years addressed the Committee. She mentioned on how the neighborhood changed over the years from a quiet, kid friendly neighborhood to a scary place to live today. She mentioned that she had attended several meetings, which were open to everyone, held by the West Islands Neighbors Group. She said that the group is not a Homeowners Association and that it never presented itself to be so. She mentioned that at these meetings she spoke to a representative from Supervisor Nelson s office about permit parking which would be her preference and that she was told that permit parking is not an option. She mentioned that at that meeting she was provided an option for overnight parking ban in lieu of permit parking which she thought would be a good compromise. She mentioned the neighborhood has a lot of trash on their streets that is not just Page 4 of 8

5 coming from the apartment dwellers that park on the streets but also from an Airbnb and a meditation center. She mentioned that the Airbnb in the neighborhood accommodates 30 people in a ten bedroom home. She stated that that specific property hosts 6 to 8 large vehicles that overflow from their driveway on to the streets. They create a safety concerns and violate the vehicle code by often blocking fire hydrants, driveways, etc. She mentioned the meditation center that recently opened in the neighborhood backs up to four of the homes in the neighborhood. She stated that last October the center hosted a festival for six consecutive days with over 300 people attending it. She said the neighborhood faced a parking issue with all the visitors of the center parking in the neighborhood. She said as a result, the streets were subjected to extensive littering. She mentioned that neighbors place trashcans in front of their homes in an effort to preclude on street parking from non residents. She stated some examples of non resident cleaning out the trash from their vehicles onto the streets, living in their vehicles, neglecting cleaning their dogs mess, leaving their vehicles for weeks while going on vacations, stolen vehicles hidden in the neighborhood, etc. She mentioned that although she is very unhappy about losing street parking in the neighborhood, she supports the overnight parking ban for the safety and cleanliness of the neighborhood. A resident of Greenwich Lane addressed the Committee. He stated that imposing a hardship on residents living in the neighborhood by restricting parking in front for their homes is not the best solution. He said that this solution is worse than the problem itself. He stated there should be a solution that would allow homeowners to have on street parking and still limit the chaos caused by non resident parking. He questioned the Committee about permit program and the cost associated with permit parking. He understands the County has a policy of not having a permit parking program. He questioned the reasons for this policy but figures it may be due to cost. In response, the Chairman mentioned there is no actual estimate for the cost associated with a permit program for this specific neighborhood. The Chairman mentioned enforcement becomes cost prohibitive when taking into account multiple neighborhoods requesting permit parking and how the County unincorporated islands are spread out throughout the County it becomes very difficult to constantly enforce given the limited resources. The resident stated that the street sweeping days are enforced sporadically and the permit parking enforcement could be done in a similar manner. He stated that this would give the homeowners in the neighborhood the privilege to park in front of their homes at all times. He mentioned that he is 100% against the restricted parking hours in the neighborhood. He stated that the percentage in support of the parking proposal is overrepresented and mentioned that his next door neighbor and many others he spoke to did not comprehend the proposal correctly. He mentioned that most of the people that signed in support of the proposal mistook it to be a permit parking proposal. He questioned the Committee about what percentage of residents needed to be in support for the proposal to pass or rejected and stated that before making a decision on this recommendation, the Committee should determine the necessary percentages. A resident of Ramm Drive addressed the Committee. He mentioned that he was never approached to sign any petition and stated that he is opposed to this proposal. He stated that Page 5 of 8

6 he has never seen any problem like vandalism or any other such issue in the neighborhood and does not feel it is fair for him to not being able to park on his street. He said that if the apartment dwellers are creating a problem then they should be involved in resolving the situation. He mentioned that he being an owner of multiple cars needs to be able to park on his street at all times. He said he spoke to many of his neighbors and they are all against this proposal. He further mentioned that he has not seen a littering issue, at least not along the culde sac where he resides. Staff presented the input of two residents of the neighborhood to the Committee. Both the residents sent their input via to staff. One of the resident living on Ramm Drive stated in his a letter of his opposition to staff s proposal. He stated that he was never contacted about signing the petition and opinions that the petition process was conducted in a deceitful manner. He said that his neighbors and him are owners of multiple vehicles and have never faced any issues due to non resident parking. He mentioned that although the restrictions have been implemented on Thistle Road and its cul de sacs, he has recently observed many vehicles violating the restrictions. He said that implementing proposals that would be ignored by the residents is not a solution to the community s problems. A resident of Greenwich Lane, in her letter expressed about the inconveniences the community faces because of overflow parking on the streets of Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. She expressed that being a resident that lives closer to Broadway, she faces many issues due to non resident parking and expressed that the recent parking restrictions on Thistle Road and its cul de sacs have made the situation worse. Such of the issues she expressed were theft, lack of parking for the homeowners of Greenwich Lane and their visitors, meddling of trashcans to make room for parking, non resident vehicles parked for extended periods, theft of automobiles, etc. She expressed her support for staff s recommendation in an effort to maintain a clean and safe neighborhood. A resident who circulated the petition along Messersmith Avenue addressed the Committee. She said the petition process was conducted in an honest manner and the intent of the petition was conveyed with clarity. She also stated a relative that was fluent in Spanish accompanied the individual that circulated the petition in the rest of the neighborhood and the residents were well aware of the proposal before stating their input through their signatures. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DISCUSSION One of the Committee members representing Caltrans asked staff if there were any sight distance issues observed due to parked cars. Staff answered that no such conditions were noted. The Committee member also asked staff if they ever looked into CVC which one of the resident mentioned. Staff answered that they were not aware of it. A Committee member asked why a neighborhood permit parking program was not being considered. Staff Page 6 of 8

7 answered the OC Public Works Department as well as the Sheriff Department do not have the resources to administer and enforce such a program and that the Orange County Board of Supervisors is not in support of such program. The Committee member questioned on how the parking restrictions currently existing on Broadway are being enforced. An officer from the Orange County Sheriff Department addressed this question and stated that, it is easier to cite vehicles for the No Parking Any Time restrictions than citing vehicles for Permit Parking. He mentioned that unincorporated areas are limited by resources and the officers do not have the time to check every vehicle for its permit for parking. The officer mentioned that he distributed warnings beginning last Thursday about the new overnight parking ban on Thistle Road and its cul de sacs and day by day, the number of vehicles illegally parked during the restricted timings are decreasing. The Committee member concurred with the input of the officer and staff about the complexity in enforcing permit parking within the unincorporated areas of the County. The Committee member asked staff if, other than the problems of littering and quality of life issues that were observed and stated in the report, if there were any other substantial concerns. Staff answered that this current parking restriction proposal has been made in anticipation of the parking problems that Thistle Road and its cul de sacs have experienced before the parking restrictions were implemented on them, to spillover or migrate on to Greenwich Lane and its cul de sacs. The Committee member asked staff about the origin of the West Islands Neighbors Group. The representative from the West Islands Neighbors Group addressed the Committee on this question. She mentioned that when City of Anaheim wanted to annex these unincorporated islands, the West Islands Neighbors Group was formed to fight against the annexation. She said that this group is not a homeowners association. She said she was the representative that volunteered herself to represent the West Islands Neighbors Group. She said that they meet monthly to discuss the problems in neighborhood. The Chairman of the Traffic Committee asked the Committee member representing the Sheriff Department if a private company could conduct the permit parking enforcement, provided the permit parking program be investigated in the future. The Committee member stated that he is not aware of that aspect and however stated that, as mentioned by the officer that previously spoke, they are limited with resources on this issue. The Chairman asked if there was a motion on this item. The member at large representing the Orange County Transportation Authority stated that he was not ready to pass a motion on this item because there was not 100% support from the residents of the community. He also stated his concern about the issue of narrow driveways of some homes that precludes them from parking larger vehicles on their driveways. The Chairman offered to help the residents through a County property permit request to widen the narrow driveways. The Chairman made a motion to table this item pending further investigation. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. Page 7 of 8

8 RECOMMENDATION Table this item pending further investigation. BOARD ACTION NECESSARY TO ENACT THIS RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve this report. Page 8 of 8

Winning Farm of Winchester

Winning Farm of Winchester Planning Board Presentation Winning Farm of Winchester 12.9 acres of undeveloped forest on the former Winning Farm site Located north of Thornberry Road in the northwestern corner