Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
; Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report; Sidewalk and Street Improvement Programs; 2000-02-23
CITY OF CARLSBAD STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 23, 2000 FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Report ................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Street Categories ....................................................................................... 2 Compatible Improvement Streets ............................................................... 3 Alternative Design Streets .......................................................................... 3 Alternative Street Design Approval Process ............................................... 3 Alternative Street Design Criteria ............................................................... 3 Recommendation ....................................................................................... 3 Compatible Improvement Streets (Table 1 ) ....................................................... 4 . Alternative Design Street {Table 2) ..................................................................... 5 Alternative Street Design Approval Process ..................................................... 11 Alternative Street Design Criteria ....................................................................... 13 Introduction ................................................................................................ 13 Roadway Widths ........................................................................................ 13 Parking Requirement .................................................................................. 14 Pedestrian Provisions ................................................................................. 14 Edge Treatments ........................................................................................ 14 General Considerations .............................................................................. 15 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 15 Fiscal Analysis ............................................................. ~ ............................. 15 Recommendation ................................................................................................. 16 General Plan Amendment .......................................................................... 16 Sound Walls ............................................................................................... 16 Underground Utilities .................................................................................. 16 Traffic Calming ........................................................................................... 17 Dedications ................................................................................................ 17 Future Improvement Agreements ............................................................... 18 Appendix (Separate Volume) A. Council Resolution B. Citizens for Preservation of Olde Carlsbad Petition C. Meeting Agendas D. Meeting Agendas and Summaries E. Committee Correspondence BACKGROUND FINAL REPORT CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS In late September of 1999 a group of citizens living in the Northwest Quadrant of the City came together as the Citizens For The Preservation Of Olde Carlsbad (CPOC). This group presented a petition of over 700 signatures and testimony concerning a number of issues related to the preservation of the character of the "Olde Carlsbad" area of the City. This area was defined as the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the west between the Aqua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons. Of particular concern to the CPOC group was the importance of trees to the community character and the value of less formal narrow streets in maintaining the character of many of the existing neighborhoods within the "Olde Carlsbad" area. The CPOC group submitted evidence that narrow streets better protect trees, preserve cultural resources and enhance safety while protecting the Village feeling of these older established neighborhoods. Responding to the Citizen's concerns, the City Council at its November 2, 1999 meeting adopted Resolution No. 99-485 forming the Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and Streets Improvements. The Committee was "directed to consider all relevant issues pertaining to street and sidewalk designs in formulating its recommendations to the City Council including but not limited to, aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts, and to consider all applicable laws, including but not limited to Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and the like." "After careful study and consideration of all appropriate and relevant information including public input, it shall make its report and recommendations to the City Council. Its report shall consider street categories and whether or not they should be standard or special character and recommend a process to petition for installation of improvements." The Committee began meeting on November 10, 1999 and concluded on February 23, 2000 following 17 meetings. This report responds to the mandate of the Council and makes specific recommendation to the Council related to special concerns of the Committee. INTRODUCTION Responding to the charge of the City Council, the Committee very early on established its Mission Statement to frame the tasks that it wished to accomplish. As the work progressed that Mission was adjusted to reflect the evolution of the study. The final Mission Statement is : Mission Statement • Identify streets to be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks compatible with existing improvements in the surrounding area and not in violation of state and federal law. 1 • Identify Alternative Design Streets • Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of improvements to Alternative Design Streets • Review existing City plans, policies, and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk development and make relevant recommendations • Report to Council March 7, 2000 The Committee also identified the key work products that make up the body of this report. • List of Compatible Improvement Streets • List of Alternative Design Streets • Alternative Streets Design Approval Process • Alternative Street Design Criteria • Recommendations related to City plans, policies and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk design • Final Report STREET CATEGORIES The Committee began its task with an inventory of all streets within the study area · which were not completed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks that conformed with standards at the time of development. These streets were field reviewed and evaluated against current City Standards. In order to evaluate and place various streets within logical categories for future development, the Committee reviewed and adopted relevant criteria to utilize in the sorting of the streets into the appropriate categories. It was the strong feeling of the Committee that many of these streets should not be improved but rather retain their current design in-lieu of categorization. Improvements should only be considered when appropriate triggers (Alternative Street Criteria) are met that compel improvements to be initiated. Once the trigger is reached the Council would then initiate the Alternative Design Approval Process. The process would be guided by the Alternative Design Criteria proposed by the Committee. The criteria utilized to determine the Alternative Design Streets and also the criteria to consider initiation of the design approval process are listed below. ALTERNATIVE STREET CRITERIA 1 . · Documented safety issues 2. Proximity to schools and other public facilities 3. Resident/owners request improvements 4. Necessity for walkway/pedestrian access 5. Average Daily Traffic 6. Linkage corridor ( roadway need for circulation continuity or connection to active land uses) 7. Need for traffic calming strategies 8. Land use changes 9. Drainage problems 10. Federal, State or local mandates 2 The Committee gave a great deal of consideration to the establishment of a non-essential link or non-improvement category of street. This consideration reflected the desire to maintain many of the streets as they exist today. It was ultimately determined that the final decision on whether a street would receive improvements should be deferred to the neighborhood through the Alternative Design Approval process. It was recognized that initiation of the process should only be with a compelling reason related to the triggering criteria. COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS Compatible improvement streets listed in Table 1 and shown on Figure 1 are recommended to be completed with curbs, gutter and sidewalk consistent with current City standards or compatible in width and configuration with improvement already installed in the block. In most cases, the streets are already improved with conventional improvements and will be continued with consistent improvements. Where sidewalks are not curb adjacent, the parkway configuration should be continued. In some cases, significant improvement did not exist but it was deemed that because of location, pedestrian activity demand for parking and other factors. These streets should be completed to City Standards. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS Alternative Design Streets are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 1 are deemed to be of special character. These streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of the Alternative Street Criteria trigger the need to explore the Alternative Design Process. The process is designed to work with the neighborhood to develop an alternative street design that retains the neighborhood character while addressing the issue which initiated the process. ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS The process outlined in the second part of this report is designed to guarantee full participation of the neighborhood in the street design process but also to notify the City as a whole that the process is proceeding. It is important that the neighborhood be given notice as early as possible when their street is being considered for the design process and throughout the process. The Committee recognizes the need to maintain good engineering practices in the development of the design. ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA The Alternative Street Design Criteria is prepared to be distributed to the neighborhood as it begins to consider their design options. These criteria are intended to convey a range of alternative features that can be incorporated in the final street plan. These criteria give factors to be considered and operational minimums consistent with emergency access requirements and good engineering practices. RECOMMENDATION The ·final section of the report deals with reco~mendations suggested by the Committee for Council consideration. For discussion of all items, you are directed to the minutes of the February 7, 2000 meeting. 3 TABLE 1 COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS STREETS TO HAVE CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALKS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW STREET From/At TO Grand Ave. Hope Ave. 1-5 Jefferson St. Chinquapin Ave. To Magnolia Ave. Magnolia Ave. Highland Ave. Monroe St. Valley St. Carlsbad Village Dr. Magnolia Ave. Chinquapin Ave. Carlsbad Blvd Adams St. *Adams St. Chestnut Ave. Park Dr. Park Dr. Monroe St. Tamarack Ave; (section already improved) James Dr. South of Tamarack Ave. Oak Ave. Lincoln St. Washington St. Pine Ave. Carlsbad Blvd. SDNRR Lincoln St. Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave. Chestnut Ave. Carlsbad Blvd. Roosevelt St. Juniper Ave. Garfield St. SDNRR Hemlock Ave. Garfield St. SDNRR Garfield, St. Walnut Ave. past Olive Ave. Laguna Dr. State St. Roosevelt St. Madison St. Laguna Dr. Grand Ave. Arbuckle Pl. Madison St. Jefferson St. Knowles Ave. Davis Ave. 1-5 Falcon Dr & Donna Dr. N. & W. Approaches Canyon St. at Oak Ave. Monroe St. at Park Dr. Las Flores Dr. Pio Pico Dr. 2 lots west Oak Ave. At cul de sac Jeanne Pl. End of cul de sac Althea Ln. End of cul de sac * Adams St. modified design per adopted plan 4 Street Adams St. Alder Ave. Ann Dr. Arland Rd. Aura Cir Baldwin Ln. Basswood Ave. Basswood Ave. Basswood Ave. Bayshore Dr. Beech Ave. Belle Ln. Buena Pl. Buena Vista Cir. Buena Vista Wy. Buena Vista Wy. Butters Rd. Camden Cir. Canyon Pl. Canyon St. Charleen Cir. Charter Oak Dr. Cipriano Ln. Citrus Pl. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS I From !Basswood Ave. !Chestnut Ave. I Monroe/Sunnyhill I cul-de-sac I . lGayleWy. !Janis Wy. To !Highland Dr. I Buena Vista Wy. I i IN. of Hillside Dr. iend ! I I IChinquapin Ave. 1end ; I I !Eureka Pl. I Highland Ave. I ! !Valley St. !Canyon St. I Monroe St. i Ridgecrest Dr. I I !Park Dr. l cul-de-sac I I I ocean St. I I Garfield St. I i i i Basswood Ave. I cul-de-sac i i ! Jefferson St. i cul-de-sac I i I l !Laguna Dr. lend i I I I Jefferson St. IDavisAve. ; i I I Pio Pico Dr. I Crest Dr. I I I I IW. of Highland Dr. l cul-de-sac I Ridgecrest Dr. i cul-de-sac : !Canyon St. i cul-de-sac I Canyon Pl. I Basswood Ave. !Donna Dr. I cul-de-sac ! : Seacrest Dr. I Ridgecrest Dr. !Forest Ave. , cul-de-sac , Jefferson St. : cul-de-sac 5 Street Clearview Dr. Cove Dr. Crest Dr. Cynthia Ln. Cypress Ave. Date Av. Davis Ave. Davis Pl. Donna Dr. Donna Dr. Donna Dr. Elmwood St. Eureka Pl. Falcon Dr. Forest Ave. Forest Ave. Garfield St. Gayle Way Grand Ave. Gregory Dr. Guevara Rd. Harbor Dr. Harrison St. Hibiscus Cir. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From To ' I I MacAruthur Ave. IN. of cul-de-sac i i is. of Park Dr. I cul-de-sac ; I Forest Ave. I Buena Vista Wy. I 1 cul-de-sac i cul-de-sac \ !Ocean St. I Carlsbad Blvd. I ! I Garfield St. 1end I I I Buena Vista Wy. !Laguna Dr. i !Davis Ave. i cul-de-sac 1at Nob Hill Dr. I ; I : I I Falcon Dr. IS. of Janis Wy. i I Chestnut Ave. IN. of Sharleen Cir. I I I Laguna Dr. I Buena Vista Wy. I i IS. of Basswood Ave. I Chestnut Ave. : i I Donna Dr. 1 cul-de-sac i i ! Pio Pico Dr. ! Highland Dr. : i Highland Dr. !Crest Dr. i I Ocean St. I Carlsbad Village Dr. I Monroe St. I Donna Dr. ' locean St. i Garfield St. i Knowles Ave. l Cynthia Ln. I Highland Dr. 1 cul-de-sac i I Chinquapin Ave. : cul-de-sac !Chinquapin Ave. 1Adams. St. : Tamarack Ave. ! cul-de-sac 6 Street Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Hillcrest Cir Hillside Dr. Holly Brae Ln. Home Ave. Hoover St. Janis Wy. Jefferson St. Jefferson St. Karen Ln. Knowles Ave. Knowles Ave. Laguna Dr. Laguna Dr. Laguna Dr. Larkspur Wy. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From To : IN. of Butters Rd. !Forest Ave. !Forest Ave. !Arland Rd. ; I Buena Vista Wy. !Oak Ave. ! lOakAve. ! Basswood Ave. !Basswood Ave. I Chestnut Ave. i I i I I Chestnut Ave. !Magnolia Ave. ! I I Magnolia Ave. iTamarack Ave. !Tamarack Ave. I Chinquapin Ave. I Chinquapin Ave. !Adams St. i I I Seacrest Dr. I cul-de-sac i i i I Highland Dr. !Park Dr. I i I I iAlder Ave. i cul-de-sac I i I I Hope Ave. i cul-de-sac I ! iAgua Hedionda Lagoon I Highland Dr. i I I iAnn Dr. I Donna Dr. I I I Las Flores Dr. il-5 il-5 I Marron Rd. I Monroe St. 1 cul-de-sac i ; I Jefferson St. I Davis Ave. i Pio Pico Dr. I Elmwood St. I Roosevelt St. I East of Kremeyer Cir. I IE. of Davis Ave. 11-5 !Pio Pico Dr. ! Elmwood St. !Adams St. : cul-de-sac 7 Street Laurie Cir. Linmar Ln. Locust St. Long Pl. MacArthur Ave. Madison St. Maezet Ln. Marina Dr. Marjorie Ln. McCauley Ln. McKinley St. Meadowlark Ln. Monroe St. Mountain View Dr. Normandie Lane Oak Ave. Ocean St. Ocean St. Olive Av. Pacific Ave. Palisades Dr. Palm Ave. Park Dr. Park Dr. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From To !Ann Dr. i cul-de-sac i !Tamarack Ave. 1end I 1 Harrison St. !Adams. St. ! Chinquapin Ave. i cul-de-sac I Sunnyhill Dr. I Skyline Rd. i I i S. of Arbuckle Pl. iN. of Grand Ave. I i iBasswood Ave. lend i !Park Dr. i cul-de-sac : !Chestnut Ave. 1 cul-de-sac I ivalley St. I cul-de-sac I i I !Pine Ave. I Basswood Ave. I I I I Ridgecrest Dr. I cul-de-sac I I I East of Park Dr. I Sunnyhill Dr. i I I ocean St. i I Carlsbad Blvd. i I Garfield St. i Mountain View Dr. I I iPio Pico Dr. ivaney St. i I I I Mountain View Dr. I Christiansen Wy. i !Grand Ave. !Pine Ave : ! I Garfield St. 1end iocean St. I Mountain View Dr. iTamarack Ave. IN. of nuckle i Pio Pico Dr. IAdams St. !Monroe St. I Westhaven Dr. !Tamarack Ave. iKelly Dr. 8 Street Pine Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Pio Pico Dr. Polly Ln. Ratcliff Rd. Redwood Ave. Ridgecrest Dr. Sandy Pl. Seacrest Dr. Sequoia Av. Skyline Rd. Skyline Rd. Spruce St. Spruce St. Sunnyhill Dr. Sunnyhill Dr. Tuttle St. Tyler St. Valley Pl. Valley St. Via Hinton Washington St. Westhaven Dr. Wilson St. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From To I Pio Pico Dr. i Highland Dr. i Las Flores Dr. IN. of Yourell Ave. I Tamarack Ave. I Las Flores Dr. i !Tamarack Ave. i cul-de-sac [ I Highland Dr. i cul-de-sac : ! I Garfield St. I I cul-de-sac I i I Basswood Ave. I Charter Oak Dr. i I Canyon St. 1 cul-de-sac I I Ridgecrest Dr. I Ridgecrest Dr. I I I Carlsbad Blvd. I Garfteld St. i I I Westhaven Dr. iAlder Ave. I I !Alder Ave. IN. of Telescope Ave. i I I i Forest Ave. !1 lot north I I iYourell Ave. 11 lot north i I !Monroe St. Is lots s. 15 lots S. of Monroe St. IN. of Hillside Dr. : I I Las Flores Dr. I Buena Vista Wy. ! i I IOakAve. I Chestnut Ave. I i !Valley St. I cul-de-sac i ! I Buena Vista Wy. I Carlsbad Village Dr. I I 1end !Pine Ave. IWatnutAve. IN. of Park Dr. iwoodvale Dr. :Forest Ave. ! Buena Vista Wy. 9 Street Woodvale Dr. Yourell Ave. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From IPark Dr. I Westhaven Dr. To Pio Pico Dr. iwest of Highland Dr. 10 ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS 1. Plan Initiation Alternative Design process may be initiated by Citizen petition (50% of block residents), development projects, staff identification of safety issue, staff identification of drainage or utility issues, State or Federal Mandates, or by any other means acceptable to the City Council. 2. Project information notice and posting _ The citizens and affected residents will be notified consistent with City Codes prior to Council consideration of initiation of the Alternative Design process. To inform the general public, a large project information sign will be posted at the beginning and end of the project for the duration of the project and notices will be posted at City Hall and published in local newspapers. To ensure that the residents and neighbors are made aware of the issues, notices will be mailed to affected residents and neighbors within a 600 foot radius of the project. 3. Request Council authorization & funding alternatives for feasibility and preliminary engineering studies Council will consider authorizing and funding the project with public funds, private funds, combination of public and private funds and other available funding mechanisms. Prior to Council consideration of the project, the project information and meeting date will be posted at City Hall and notices will be published in local papers and mailed to affected residents and neighbors within a 600 foot radius of the project. A new project information sign will not be erected. 4. Develop alternatives with community involvement (engineering study) Staff, with input from the community, will begin to develop concept level alternatives and cost estimates. Topographic surveys of the project will be reviewed and special character resources and constraints will be identified. Staff will consult with the community, residents, Planning Department, Fire Department and landscape professionals (landscape architects and arborists, if appropriate) to consider options for roadway width, pedestrian provisions, edge treatments, and other roadway features. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above. 5. Community Workshop to review alternatives Public workshops will be held to present the findings of the engineering study (stage 4, above). Staff will present the preliminary design approaches, make preliminary recommendations for community review and comment and disclose economic impacts of potential costs to property owners. Future steps required to carry the project forward will be outlined. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above. 6. Develop recommended preferred plan Using the comments from the public workshops (stage 5, above), Staff will develop the preferred plan and cost estimate for review by the community and reviewing bodies. Additional workshops may be scheduled as appropriate. 11 7. Prepare Environmental Documentation and circulate for review Environmental Documentation such as CECA (if required) and any other permit process will be initiated at this stage. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above. 8. Traffic Safety Commission review The Traffic Safety Commission will review the project in regard to traffic safety, pedestrian safety and street design issues. The public is welcome to attend the Commission's meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above. 10. Council hearing and approval Council will consider, and approve or reject the project. The public is welcome to attend Council's meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above. 11. Plan implementation If Council approves the project, Staff will initiate final design stage for the preparation of construction plans and contract documents when funds are appropriated. 12 Figure 1 Map1 Study Area Location 1\11ap Citizens Committee to Study the Sidevvalk and Street Improvement Program STREET a..ASSIRC'ATIO,I -ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS ·•· · COvPATIBLE IM'ROJEM:NT STREETS FU3lJCLAN) -a-fURCH ---' aTY HALL & LIB 625 PARK sa-KX.l. = VARIO.JS ~ N lC2002c.JsblldGIS g at •90:Zlt---aipl(tt.1) -3.l!.t,o:1JXl:1 0 625 Feet \ \ \ \ \ ,--'· . · 1 ____,\ ,..._...,-I ' __ J \ J I ~•r --.. _____, ----\..,.,,- \ \ C- "\ \,__ ..... ~.-~~~~ ..... ...,. ~ cP \ \ ,- - -' I \' ~ {<i_ ----_J ___ -- r -t T I I -W\~Y("'" D---. -/\ ' . ---{°f _..l -7 , \ \ r _,.. -I / \ \ I \ \ \ \ It r--'\ \ \ I ,-../1 \ '' L, I \ ~ \ \ .... ~ \ \ -r-~ / \ CHESTNUT AV -\ ~~ Figure 1 IVlap 2 Study Area Location rvlap Otizens Corrmittee to Study the Sid6'N'dlk and Street lnµ-ovement Program STREET OA5SIFICA110'.J -AL.~11\tE t:eSIGN sm:ETS (X)M=>AllEl..E 11\FROJEtvENTe-'TSTRTVt<l±-.--r,-,I S PlBJCL..w) CH.RQ-i 625 OlY 1-W.1.. & LIB PARK 50-m. VARIOUS \ ' \ \_ - \ \ I \ \ \ --\ \ \ \ \ \ T 0 625 Feet / \ \ \ I I' 1/ ,,,, \ 1, ' \ ~' ' ,..... - - - Figure 1 Map3 Study /\rea Location rv1ap Citizens Conmittee to Study the Sidevvalk and Street Improvement Program STREET Q.PSSIR0\110-.I -ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS co.t:>ATIBLE IMJROJEM:NT STREETS PU3UCLAU) Q-ilRCH -OlY HALL & UB PARK sa-m.. VARIOUS 625 0 625 Feet ~• .m.~~·1 pn,-=13.....,3'.Kl:1 _____ ,..... __ _ AGUA - - - - \ \ \. Figure 1 Map4 Study Area Location fv1ap Otizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program / I STREET a.ASSIFICATIOO -AL 1ERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS · COfvPATIBLE l~M=NT SlREETS PUBLIC LAND Q-IURQ-1 ·-· -· OTY HM.L & LIB ; / PAAK SCHCXl.. VARIOJS / / ; ✓ I I I I i 1 / / I I I 625 0 625 Feet I r , I \ ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA INTRODUCTION The Streets and Sidewalks Committee wish to maintain the current character of certain unique neighborhoods through alternative improvements consistent with a safe, effective street. These neighborhoods of "Olde Carlsbad" have developed under less formal standards than newer neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, over the years, have matured to create a character that is unique and of distinct value to the overall character of the community. These neighborhoods tend to have less formal street construction with mature trees and other unique cultural features. To encourage the protection of the character of these unique neighborhoods, flexible street design features are required to guide the Alternative Street Design process. The street criteria presented herein is intended to guide the future design process by providing minimum criteria related to: • ROADWAY WIDTHS • PARKING REQUIREMENTS • PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS • ROADWAY EDGE TREATMENTS The utilization of these requirements will be highly dependent on the actual opportunities and constraints provided by the individual neighborhoods. Factors of particular importance in the design process will be: • Street gradient • Natural topography • Drainage requirements • Utility placement needs • Location and nature of existing trees • Important cultural and historical features • Lot sizes • Availability of off-street parking • Pedestrian needs and activities • Compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements ROADWAY WIDTHS The residential roadway widths are determined by travel lane requirements, emergency access needs, parking requirements, and drainage capacity requirements. The minimum emergency access shall be 24 feet of all weather surface unless it is impracticable and adequate mitigating measures are approved by the Fire Marshal. Drainage requirements are determined by hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. 13 PARKING REQUIREMENT No parking or parking on one side only will be considered where an adequate enforcement plan is approved by the Police Department or where a finding can be made that adequate off-street parking exists to minimize potential parking enforcement issues. Provision of parking pockets is encouraged to enhance traffic calming features and to provide selective on-street parking to serve residential needs. Parking pockets could incorporate alternative materials to distinguish the parking areas from the traveled way. Tree and landscape planters can also be utilized to protect existing features or to enhance the neighborhood character through the appearance of narrow streets. Examples of alternative parking area surfaces include: • Turf block • Stabilized earth materials • Pavers • Colored asphalt • Colored concrete Loose or erosive material with high ongoing maintenance costs are discouraged. Where possible, durable permeable materials may be considered. PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS Where provided, pedestrian walkways shall be 4-foot minimum clear consistent with ADA requirement and be of a solid durable material. Walkway locations shall be located in such a manner as to preserve natural and cultural resources as determined through the design process. Proximity to the edge of pavement will depend on the design process. Alternative surfaces that further a natural .character and meet durability and ADA access requirements should be given serious consideration. Meandering walks are acceptable. EDGE TREATMENTS It is recognized that roadway edge treatments are important to stabilize the roadway pavement and to contain and divert drainage flows. The nature of the edge treatment also impacts the appearance and character of the roadway. Several options for roadway edge treatments exist within the San Diego Regional and City Standards. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Where desirable to protect neighborhood character and where adequate rights-of-way exist, a meandering street centerline can be considered. Street design needs to adequately address storm and nuisance flows within the street section. Unique design features introduce unique drainage and maintenance concerns which may require construction of storm drains or other unique roadway design configurations. When possible, all measures should be implemented to reduce sprinkler and 14 which may require construction of storm drains or other unique roadway design configurations. When possible, all measures should be implemented to reduce sprinkler and storm runoff from properties. Where adequate rights-of-way exist, natural swales should be considered to convey runoff. Maintenance cost and procedures should be fully analyzed in the planning process. Tilted roadway sections may be considered when they will provide a more compatible interface with properties abutting the street. - MITIGATION MEASURES To assist in retaining the existing character of neighborhoods through narrower street section mitigation measures, such as increased lot sizes with provisions for off-street parking, larger setbacks from the street, alternative drainage and utility systems and fire sprinkling of homes should be given consideration. FISCAL ANALYSIS All design alternatives should be reviewed for comparative construction cost and long-term maintenance costs. Where long-term maintenance costs are incurred, alternative funding for the added costs should be evaluated. · 15 SIDEWALK AND STREET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1. The Committee recommends that a General Plan Amendment be considered to reflect a slowdown and management of growth in the Northwest Quadrant. Lot size and densities will be an element of this amendment. The Committee recommends an adoption of a philosophy distinguishing the Northwest Quadrant as a unique, quaint, and special community. This philosophy would recognize the necessity for the protection and preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to include, but not be exclusive of: tree-lined narrower meandering streets, alternative pedestrian pathways, traffic calming and parking options. Special attention to the quality of life the residents have come to expect as delineated in the Municipal Code current ordinance Section 18.40. Dedications and Improvements. Specifically section 18.40.100 waiver or modifications. "The street fronting on the subject property has already been improved to the maximum feasible and desirable state. recognizing there are some such streets which may have less than standard improvements when necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things as trees, wall, yards and open space. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 8-6-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher None Noble SOUND WALLS 2. The Committee recommends sound walls on freeways, 1) City should begin negotiating with Caltrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, and 2) City (or Caltrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 13-1-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher Spano None Noble UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 3. The Committee recommends that "The Council direct staff to explore alternative funding approaches to accelerate the undergrounding of overhead utilities". VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 14-0-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano None None Noble 16 TRAFFIC CALMING 4. The Committee recommends: a) b) VOTE: AYES: NOES: Based upon our review of the current state-of-the-art street design in other communities, the Committee recommends that instead of single-standard, the City of Carlsbad utilize different design methodologies committed to preserving the existing nature and character of each neighborhood. "Based upon the public testimony we have heard, the Committee has found that one of the most important concerns to the residents of "Olde Carlsbad" is excessive traffic speed. Vehicular traffic speed should be cairned using the state-of-the-art design methods, such as traffic land narrowing, pseudo-shoulders, improved signage, textured paving, rumble strips, Botts' Dots', Traffic-Circles, and Elephant Ears." 10-4-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Gallagher ABSTAIN: Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Kubota None ABSENT: Noble 5. The Committee encourages the City Council to form a Traffic Calming Committee as a follow-up to this committee's efforts. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DEDICATIONS 13-1-0 Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano Mamaux None Noble 6. The Committee recommends that the Council adjust the Municipal Code requirement to dedicate rights-of-way as a condition of a building permit exceeding $10,000 in building permit by indexing the threshold from 1992 to increases in the International Congress of Building Officials (ICBO) valuation amount. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 7-6-0 Piro, Leger, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, Gamache, Wickham, Chartier, Dwelley, McBane, Lewis None Mamaux, Noble 17 ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 12. The Committee recommends that property owners be given 90 days to respond to demands to comply with Future Improvement Agreements rather than 30 days as currently contained in the agreement. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 9-4-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger None Mamaux, Noble 13. The Committee recommends the cost of all improvements be equitably allocated among all of the beneficiaries, and that no FIA exceed the property owner's fair share of the improvement cost. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 7-6-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis None Mamaux, Noble 14. The Committee recommends that the City retain its current policy of not building isolated improvements to curbs and sidewalks. The Committee recommends that the portion of Section 18.400. 70 as amended in November 1999 pertaining to the policy regarding the deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permanent policy after the building moratorium has been lifted. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 13-0-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley, Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis None None Mamaux, Noble 19 -i ' , \ r r r f ,r l 'f ' ' r ' CITY OF CARLSBAD STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 23, 2000 FINAL REPORT APPENDICES A-E b I I . I i . I - I I I . I . i I - I I l I I :,. '., .. ~--' ' STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT APPENDIX A RESOLUTION NO. 99-485 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 99-485 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FORMING A CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY SIDEWALKS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA WEST OF EL.CAMINO REAL TO THE OCEAN BETWEEN · AGUA HEDIONDA AND BUENA VISTA LAGOONS WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 18.40 -Dedications and Improvements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code in 1976; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that that chapter needs to be reviewed, updated and changed, as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City Council held meetings on September 28, 1999 and October 19, 1999 receiving public input and staff recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that pending a study and report from this Committee, no sidewalks shall be constructed without Its permission; and WHEREAS, the Committee is directed to consider all relevant issues pertaining to street and sidewalk designs in formulating its recommendations to the City Council including but not limited to, aesthetics, neighborhood ·compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts, and to consider all appli~ble laws, including but not limited to Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and the like, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitals are true and correct. C < m al w "' Cl)> - J a: ~ -C w"' c:, "' ... >-~; cc!:::s;l§ .QUCu. . < -c::; m ~ z _, u -~~~ I:= 0 CXI -·< 8 ~ • N a: !::: -~ u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. There is hereby fanned a Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and Street Improvements (Chapter 18.40 -Dedications and Improvements) not to exceed fifteen members and after careful study and consideration of .alt appropriate and relevant information including public input, it shall make its report and recommendations to the City Council. Its report shall.consider street categories and whether or not they should be standard or special character and recommend a process to petition for installation of improvements. It is expected that this process shall be completed early next year and after delivering its report and recommendations, the Committee's work is· completed and shall be automatically dissolved unless another Council resolution extends it. 3. The meetings of the Citizens Committee shalt be open and public and any person may attend. The Committee shall select a chairperson ~m its members and shall conduct its meetings in general conformance to City Council procedures. It shall allow a reasonable comment period on each of its meetings for public comment. 4. The Committee shall be given all necessary support, supplies, materials, assistance of experts, and other resources necessary for the expeditious completion of its work. The Public Works Director or his designee shall be an ex-officio member of the Committee and shall attend all of its meetings and assist it in the conduct of its business. 5. The Committee shall make its report to the City Council by February 1, 2000 unless at the request of the Committee it is impractical to do so and the Council has determined a different date. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ff-27 28 6. The initial members of the Committee shall be: Kip McBane Paa Wischkaemper Doug Chartier Paul Gamache Ruth Lewis Lori Wickham Bob Leger Gary Piro Joe Spano Steve Cade Zell Dwelley Joe Gallagher Jack Kubota Clarence Schlehuber John Mamaux PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Car1sbad held on the __ 2_n_d __ day of __ N_ov_e_m_b_er ___ _ 1999 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin NOES: None ABSENT: None ~~NZ, CilyClerk Karen R. Kundtz,_ Assistant City-Clerk (SEAL) 3 Figure1 Map1 Study kea Location IVap Otizens Corrmittee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program STREET aASSIFlCATIOl -~:f,=:~km PUlUC LAIO Q-lR)-1 j 01Y HALL & LIB PARK sa-oa. VARIOJS 625 0 625 Feet Q~ Czmc-llblldOIS ___ ., ........... , ... 11:!F-lllCIO ~---"' '¾,~ "'~'% ",, I BUENA \4STA LAGOON ,~,, '\·-. I r-\ --! =-~ -. Bl.ENA VISTA . · LAG<XJN / ~1·~~"'" -__ --!! -~ --1 •.. l, -=-I~ i,f , -{~T L~1 I \ 11 ijl \_ to~'" l . " , I "'~-~-~ \ \ Maida,. ·o-" ~ ;\ o~:;; llrCMn --"--~ 'v· -\~\ -~~,!'-1' \ L • Lu 1 '''' ;i,[,~ /----'~~---"' In, "Z ,_..... . I -·<' L_ -__ \ . ~l·.· l /\J J:i'' __ t=~ f ---. =1--7-/--\i,Q.:=r -----#\t---;#' ·. T/ _:l -.' \✓ ,,-CARLSBAD HGHSCHOOL '', \'"'\ \ " e-~----11------t--{2 ___ __,! ~;~U<S~cJCO~,eJ~.~~_R•~~ ,1 sukNA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---- I I J CARLSBIAD HIGH SCtHOOL. Figure 1 Map2 Study Area Location Map Citizens Committee to Study the Sidew-alk and Street Improvement Program :SlREET a..ASSIFICI\TJON -ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SlREETS -: CXJMPATIBI.E IMPROVEMENT SlREETS IPUBLICLAND CHURCH QTY HALL & LIB . PARK · 1 SCHOOL VAROU:S 625 0 625 Feet ---........ ~---- !ii. I I _______ j (Ci20CJOCar1sbadGIS '"'~"~"°""'-,m9wm...i,,i..21 "-= PAaRC OCEAN Figure 1 Map3 Study Area Location fv1ap Citizens. Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program STREET CLASSIFICATIQ\I -ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS PUBLIC LAND G-IURCH . CllYHALL&LIB PARK SCI-KXJL VARIOUS 625 0 625 Feet i z -i rn :;o (J) -i ~ CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL I HEDIONDA .. . .\ LAGOON '1 /\·. \. A . / 11, AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON Figure 1 Map4 Study Area Location Map Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program STREET CLASSIFICATION -ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS -· 1 COl'v1PATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS PUBLIC LAND l __ J CHURCH [lrl CITY HALL & LIB l_:j PARK f-~7~~ (0 200Jc:a1sbadGIS l""'}s2/J)f<xkts'Ol'Qri<Zl9.00'c23$...-(tilo-:J) 22Februaty2CID 625 0 625 Feet ""•'•'. ,,, '" ,.,, .... '' ' I I I . I I I I I I I I ! I I ' . i I STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B PETITION FROM CITIZENS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OLDE CARLSBAD (C.P.O.C.) ,.:: ~ J' ~ ., '. ALL RECEIVED CITIZENS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OLDE CARLSBAD (CP.O.C.) 2641 VALEWOOD A VENUE, CARLSBAD, C4 92008 (729-1042) Honorable Bud Lewis, Mayor Honorable Matt Hall, Councilperson Honorable Ramona Fannila, Councilperson Honorable Julie Nygard, Councilperson Honorable Ann Kulchin, Councilperson 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons, August 29, 1999 Attached you will find petitions which cover every property in the area of "Olde Carlsbad" bounded by Wilson Street, Forest Avenue, Crest Drive and Buena Vista Way. Because we are concerned about city policies which threaten the high quality of life we currently enjoy in our community and neighborhoods, we have formed a group called "Citizens for the Preservation of Olde Carlsbad" ( C.P.O.C.) and are requesting a hearing before the Council on Tuesday, September 28 to discuss your current road improvement policies in residential neighborhoods, specifically the area known as "Olde Carlsbad" which lies west of El Camino Real. More specifically, at that hearing, we are requesting that the Council take the following action: . •"' ~i,J 1. Direct the city staff to draft an emergency ordinance to exempt the area ~ bounded by Wilson Street, F2!3!1 :enue, Crest O!ive and Buena Yist4 Way ~--JI from any street widening, street eic'aiions, tree removal, or ''future. \~ff' improvement agreements". • 2. Direct staff to study the feasibility of expanding the emergency ordinance to the rest of"Olde Carlsbad", this area being defined as the area bounded by Buena Vista Lagoon, El Camino Real, Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean (with exceptions as defined in our petition). 3. Direct staff to prepare a cost/benefits analysis and identify funding sources to properly maintain existing trees within the right-of-way in "Olde Carlsbad". 4. Direct staff to prepare an analysis of the costs and benefits of discontinuing its policy of removing trees within the existing right-of-ways in "Olde Carlsbad", and instead use alternative methods for risk management such as tree wells, concrete pavers, flexible walking surfaces and grass lined walking surfaces. S. Immediately discontinue all street tree removal until hearings are completed before the Council. C.P.0.C. understands that the City Council bas the responsibility to maintain a sound fiscal policy. We also believe that no public official intends to implement policies which hann our community character. We believe that many of the intended/implemented "improvements" made in the last 10 years have resulted in irreparable damage. If such "improvements: continue, the result will be irreparable damage to our community character and quality of life. C.P.O.C. is also submitting for your review significant research to show that urbanization of established residential neighborhoods can result in increased incidents of accidents, increased maintenance costs, increased urban runoff, and reduced property values. In fact, studies show that, ironically, there are 50% fewer severe accidents on nanow, three shrouded "shared streets" than on standard residential streets with curbs and sidewalks. On these "shared streets: the driver perceives that he is entering a zone where the pedestrian has preeminent privileges. C.P.O.C. 's research has determined that Carlsbad's policy of urban improvements is one of the most aggressive in the greater San Diego area. We can find no other agency which does not allow any trees in the right of way of new developments, we can find no other agency which requires the installation of 30 foot "half width" improvements for a $50,000 home remodel, and we can find no other agency which has such an aggressive policy of tree removal in established residential neighborhoods. Does Carlsbad want to be a leader in the field of urbanizing established residential neighborhoods or does Carlsbad want to be a leader in preservation? There is precedent in the ordinance proposed. Encinitas has a specific plan area where certain streets will not be widened. The Fallbrook Community Plan allows for developers to waive curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on small lot subdivisions, "Olde Del Mar" mandates no~ widening. Preservation minded cities like Charleston, S.C. and Annapolis, MD are among the leading tourist areas in the country, whereas the Amish area of Pennsylvania is suffering due to sprawling developments with wide streets surrounding old villages. We are confident that your CoWlcil will support our recommendations once all of the impacts of your current policies are brought to your attention. We are confident that this Council does not want its legacy to be the Council that destroyed all of Carlsbad's community character and heritage. Q I , ~3 JI-j' .,1.> '- 7 rJ. CJ-11-¥/ 7;l'7 -f/7# o/3 J.1-~ -=l 7 o o/3y_53~ r y?·..;~ 7778 7~-S-~;;7 72-e> -7Zfi% 72.o .... t7oy · 7;20·//5{) 7 al. 9 if Y9 tJ (PLL~ S.et2 1\-v;.o A,~ PE:iino,-.~ Sa~,..~~ 363 -,,. - I/ 27; ~ uA.,._, ;tP,zs cu~ ;z~ ,3 .J -Lt) J 6 d K- ' ;i.t6o w~ 1 .xd&ied ;;l?c<S-!ntsl>"t 'S'f- I I 1· I I I I I ' I ' I I STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT APPENDIX C Agenda City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement ~rogram 1. Welcome AGENDA Meeting No. 1 NOVEMBER 10, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Self Introductions 3. Mission .. Breakout Discussion 4. Select Chair .. Vice Chair 5. Overview Pedestrian Action Plan -Sidewalk Program 6. Streets 101 7. Draft Future Meeting Schedules and Agenda 8. Public Comment 9. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 2 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Mission and outputs 3. ·Ground Rules and operating practices 4. Information Items A. Street Standards Review B. History and Overview of Pedestrian Action Plan and Sidewalk Program C. Pending Sidewalk Improvements and Discuss 5. Decision Items A. Work Program B. Next Agenda 6. Public Comment 7. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 3 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and approve meeting summary ofNovember 15, 1999 3. Review Final Ground Rules 4. Draft Work Program Discussion 5. Information Items A. History and Overview of Pedestrian Action Plan and Sidewalk Program B. Pending Sidewalk Improvements Overview 6. Requests for Information A. City Attorney Advice B. Video tape of school adjournments C. Sheila Sarker ITS 7. Future Meeting Agenda 8. Public Comment 9. Adjourn Decision Decision Adoption City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 4 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and approve meeting summary of November 15, 1999 3. Review Time for Public Comment and Process for Including in Committee's Work 4. Holiday meeting schedule Accept Decision 5. Develop criteria to evaluate standard and special characteristic streets . 6. Review Sidewalk Inventory and strategy for street evaluations 7. Future Meeting Agenda 8. Public Comment 9. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 5 MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of November 22, 1999 Accept 3. Public Comment 4. Finalize criteria to identify streets for potential improvement 5. Develop strategy to categorize streets 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the . Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 6 MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 .m. to 8:00 .m. Room Relocation -Dance Studio Meeting outcomes and agenda Review and accept meeting summary ofNovember 29, 1999 Public Comment Alternative Street Design Issues -Sheila Sarkar The Del Mar Experience -John Powell Emergency Access -Mike Smith Preliminary Street Category Results -Vince Gin Future Meeting Agenda Adjourn Accept City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 7 MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Room -Auditorium 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of December 6, 1999 3. Public Comment 4. Adams Street Standards Modifications Case Study -David Hauser 5. Approval of Street to be completed with curb, gutter and sidewalk Accept Information Decision 6. Develop Process to review streets for potential improvementDecision 7. Future Meeting Agenda 8. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 8 MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Room -Auditorium l. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of December 13, 1999 3. Public comment 4. Review work program and schedule Accept 5. Criteria and street evaluation Jack Debes Information 6. Review street classifications and complete street classification list 7. Future meeting agenda 8. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 9 MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Room -Auditorium 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of December 13, 1999 Review and accept meeting summary of December 20, 1999 3. Public comment 4. City Attorney Accept Accept • Environmental Process Information • Liability Issues • Conflict of Interest 5. Street Classification Evaluation -Final Decision 6. Draft Specific Plan Approval Process Review 7. Draft Final Report Outline Review 8. Future meeting agenda 9. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA · Meeting No. 10 THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2000 1. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Street Classification Evaluation -Final 4. Draft Specific Plan Approval Process 5. Draft Final Report Outline 6. Future meeting agenda 7. Adjourn Decision Review Review City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 11 MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 2000 I. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Street Classification Evaluation -Final 4. Draft Final Report Outline 5. Extension Request to City Council 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn Decision Review Review City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 12 MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2000 1. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Review of Future Improvement Agreement (FIA) Policies Information 4. Review FIA Legal Issues Information 5. Final Al_temative Street Planning Process Decision 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 13 MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 1/3, 1/10 & 1/13 3. Public Comment 4. Final Alternative Street Planning Process 5. Future Issue Identification 6. Work Program and Schedule . 7. Final Report Outline 8. Future Meeting Agenda 9. Adjourn Accept Decision Decision City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 14 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2000 1. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Faraday Center: Room 173A 1635 Faraday Avenue (Enter via west end of building) 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Issue Discussion and Recommendations 4. Final Report 5. Future Meeting Agenda 6. Adjourn Decision Discussion City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 15 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Faraday Center: Room 173A 1635 Faraday Avenue (Enter via west end of building) 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 1/17 3. Public Comment 4. Alternative Designs 5. Final Report 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn Accept Discussion Discussion City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 16 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Faraday Center: Room 173A 1635 Faraday A'Venue (Enter via west end of building) 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 1/24, 1/31 and 2/7 3. Public Comment Accept 4. Alternative Designs Decision/Vote 5. Final Report Decision 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 17 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2000 I. Meeting agenda Council Chambers 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of2/l 7 3. Public Comment 4. Final Report 5. Adjourn NOTE LOCATION CHANGE Accept Decision ; I I _I . I I STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT APPENDIX D Agenda and Minutes City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program 1. Welcome AGENDA Meeting No. 1 NOVEMBER 10, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Self Introductions 3. Mission -Breakout Discussion 4. Select Chair -Vice Chair 5. Overview Pedestrian Action Plan -Sidewalk Program 6. Streets 10 I 7. Draft Future Meeting Schedules and Agenda 8. Public Comment 9. Adjourn November l 0, 1999 APPROVED MEETING MINUTES Summary of Meeting: Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: November 10, 1999 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Senior Center Staff Member Lloyd Hubbs called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Committee Members Present: Steve Cade, Doug Chartier, Joe Gallagher, Clarence Schlehuber, Jack Kubota, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Gary Piro, Paul Gamache, Kip McBane, Bob Leger, Joe Spano, Pam Wischkaemper, Lori Wickham Committee Members Cade and Schlehuber left the meeting at 6:45pm. Staff Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Steven Didier, Bob Johnson, Dee Landers After discussion regarding the qualities that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson should possess, the Committee elected Bob Leger as Chairperson and Gary Piro as Vice-Chairperson. The Committee voted on selecting a meeting day and time. It was determined that the meetings would take place every Monday. The location of the meetings would be determined before the November 15, 1999 meeting. Staff Member Steven Didier will advise the Committee Members of the meeting location. The meetings will convene at 6:00 p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. ACTION: Motion by Kip McBane, and duly seconded, to revise the Mission Statement. VOTE: Unanimous MISSION STATEMENT • Identify streets to be completed with standard street improvements. • Review existing City plans, policies, and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk development and make relevant recommendations. • Identify streets to be completed with other than the existing standard street improvements • Identify special character streets for custom design. • Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of improvements to special character streets. • Report to Council on February 1, 2000. Page I MEETING MINUTES Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program During the breakout discussion several items were brought to the floor, including but not limited to, the need for children to be taught to walk against traffic, this committee should interact, whenever possible, with the tree committee, and the need for the committee to focus on the task at hand with sensitivity. Several Committee members suggested that traffic calming in the area should be addressed in conjunction with the sidewalk issue. It was noted that the citizens of the area have a veste.d interest and should be contacted directly to ascertain how they feel about the proposed changes to the streets in the Northwest quadrant. In addition it was noted that it was necessary for the Committee to deal with cultural issues and the changing demographics. The unique character of the area should be taken into consideration as it relates to the Master Plan of the City. It was determined that the committee should review existing plans, identify streets that were targeted, secure Traffic and Safety survey's of the area and SWITRS reports. Chairperson Leger advised the committee that Committee Members should familiarize themselves with the Reference Package before the next meeting. It was decided that the Committee Members would visit the Northwest quadrant in order to have a better understanding of the issues at hand. A sub-committee, comprised of Mr. Leger, Mr. Piro and Mr. Hubbs, was formed. This sub- committee will fine tune the agenda and the items to be discussed at the next meeting. This hopefully will prevent the committee from losing focus. Item Number 5 and Item Number 6 of this evenings agenda will be discussed in more detail at the next meeting. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Gary Nessin, 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad Peter R. Taylor, 1351 Pine Ave, Carlsbad Jack Debes, 4055 Park, Carlsbad Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad The general consensus from the public testimony revealed that the citizens wanted the committee to be objective when looking at area. It was stated quite clearly, for the most part, that the citizens in certain areas did not want the street sidewalk improvements, but if indeed the City elected to install the sidewalks, the citizens wanted the unique character of the area maintained. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10p.m. Page2 City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 2 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Mission and outputs 3. Ground Rules and operating practices 4. Information Items A. Street Standards Review B. History and Overview of Pedestrian Action Plan and Sidewalk Program C. Pending Sidewalk Improvements and Discuss 5. Decision Items A. Work Program B. Next Agenda 6. Public Comment 7. Adjourn November 15, 1999 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED Page I MEETING MINUTES Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. November 15, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Doug Chartier, Steve Cade, Joe Gallagher, Clarence Schlehuber, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Gary Piro, Paul Gamache, Kip McBane, Bob Leger, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham Staff Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Steve Didier, Vincent Gin, Bob Johnson, Dee Landers, Dave Jamieson Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Mr. Leger outlined the tasks to be accomplished at tonight's meeting. 1. Clarify Mission and Outputs 2. Establish Groundrules 3. Learn about history, standards & current status of street/sidewalk work 4. Establish Workplan Suggestion from Committee Member John Mamaux: Have City Attorney at all meetings. Chairperson Leger informed the Committee that inquires had been made as to whether it was legally necessary to have the City Attorney at meetings, due to the fact that the committee only made recommendations regarding the streets and sidewalks standards to the City Council. Mr. Leger advised the Committee that he would look into this matter further. It was decided that after further investigation, the issue regarding the presence of the City Attorney at committee meetings would be addressed in full detail at the next meeting. Chairperson Leger advised the Committee that their responsibility was to identify streets and sidewalks needing and/or not needing improvements and thus make recommendations regarding street standards to the City Council. He then asked for discussion regarding the clarity of the Mission Statement. The Mission Statement was discussed as to its clarity and if it needed to be revised. Committee Member Paul Gamache suggested that the Mission Statement be revised adding the following statements regarding the type of street standards: 1) 2) 3) Unimproved (or as existing) Standard Non-standard or special. The aforementioned items were discussed in detail. The Committee decided to leave the Mission Statement as accepted at the November 10, 1999 meeting. November 15, 1999 APPROVED Page2 MISSION STATEMENT • Identify streets to be completed with standard street improvements. • Review existing City plans, policies, and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk development and make relevant recommendations. • Identify special character streets for custom design. • Identify streets to be completed with other than the existing standard street improvements • Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of improvements to special character streets. • Report to Council February 1, 2000. Mr. Hubbs introduced the meeting facilitator and educator, David Jamieson, who will be in attendance at all future meetings. Mr. Jamieson will assist the Committee in establishing and adhering to committee operating groundrules. Mr. Jamieson explained that his purpose for being at the meeting was to enable he Committee to meet their goals successfully. With the help of the Committee he outlined the process the committee would follow in facilitating their goals thus avoiding common problems ommittee's often face. He reiterated the need to establish and adhere to the committee operating g oundrules. It was determined that Staff would handle the issue of the delivery method of fu ure agendas and meeting summaries to the Committee. Committee Member Wickham suggested that the City's website be use for Committee communications and announcements. The Committee was advised that the we site was not fully operational. Committee Member Dwelley suggested that Public Comment be heard at the ginning of each meeting. The committee was advised by the Chairperson that public comme t is not allowed during the meeting and public comment before the meeting would delay the st rting time of the meetings. Committee Member Gallagher requested clarification on how subcommittees ould be formed, their interaction and reporting process. Chairperson Leger asked the committee t formulate ideas on this issue and address it at the next committee meeting. Committee Member Schlehuber advised the committee that there indeed wer many clear-cut reasons to use the Robert's Rules for meeting procedures, including but not limit d to maintaining order. Chairperson Leger stated that instituting Robert's Rules meant making the co mittee meetings formal. He suggested that complying with a simple team meeting code of etiquett would keep the committee online and focused. No Hogging No Frogging No Bogging No Barking November 15, 1999 APPROVED Page 3 Referring to the following handouts, "Committee Operating Groundrules", "General Groundrules for Conducing Our Work" and "Draft Work Program", Mr. Jamieson stated that the Committee had to stay on track in order to accomplish the tasks at hand. In addition, he asked for input from Committee members regarding the above handouts. After much discussion the following modifications were added to the "Committee Operating Groundrules", "General Groundrules for Conducing Our Work" and "Draft Work Program": When the Committee members have differences of opinions: • Chairperson will recognize speaker • Allow Committee Member to speak without interruption • Agree to Disagree • Call for a Vote • If Vote is taken record vote • Member must be present to Vote • Vote may be taken by show of hands • Analyze to Understand • Record in Minutes • Revert to Robert's Rules {when necessary) Primary and Backup Decision Modes to be Used: Consensus -{modified) If objections then vote {simple majority rules) Policy in Report: Vote -Record Vote In addition: • Chairperson will decide which items will be placed on the agenda • Committee member may request committee to place items on agenda ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Clarence Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to accept the "Committee Operating Groundrules", "General Groundrules for Conducing Our Work" and nDraft Work Program with the revisions as noted. Unanimous Noting Terminology, Street functions, Street Classifications, Street Standards and Ownership staff member Vincent Gin, Associate Engineer, gave presentation on Agenda Item #2 Street Standards. Agenda Item #3 -History and Overview of Pedestrian Action Plan and Sidewalk Program will be held over to next meeting. November 15, 1999 APPROVED Page4 In addition the committee discussed: OUTPUTS OF COMMITTEE'S WORK • Criteria for designating standard and special character streets • Optional street design criteria • Streets to be completed with standard street improvements • Streets to be completed with other than standard street improvements • Process for petition, design & installation of special character streets • Research areas for future study 2 LEVELS OF STREET OR 3 LEVELS OF STREETS • Standard • Special • Non-standard Improvement Committee must set standard for streets/sidewalks to be improved: • No improvement (Leave as Is) • Standard • Special (Non-standard) It was determined that Agenda Item #4 and Item #5 would be continued until the meeting of November 22, 1999. Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro advised the committee that the following handouts, Residential Streets, ASCE, Current Residential Standards vs. County of San Diego Private Road Standards and November 14, 1999, newspaper article offered acceptable alternative options to street and sidewalk improvements. Mr. Piro asked that the committee be open to exploring the alternative improvement options as a viable solution to the issues at hand. In addition he informed the committee that the engineer mentioned in the article was willing to speak before the committee. Chairperson Leger informed the committee that the bus tour of the neighborhoods in question, in the Northwest Quadrant, would take place on Saturday, November 20, 1999. It was determined that the bus would depart from the Carlsbad Senior Center at 9am. It was estimated that the tour would last until 1 pm. Vice-Chairperson Piro stated that photographs would be taken to distribute to committee members unable to attend tour. Chairperson Leger requested that a list of streets that would be viewed be given to the committee members in order to view the streets before the tour and/or independent of the tour. Mr. Leger responded that a formal list had not been prepared. He stated that a list of visited streets would be provided to the committee after the tour. November 15, 1999 APPROVED Page 5 Mr. Piro requested information on the disposition of the requested Traffic Safety/Accident Reports. He also noted that he would like the report to reflect information for the past five years including ADT's pertaining to the northwest quadrant. Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation, stated that the Traffic Accident Reports would be available at the next scheduled meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gordon Prentice, 3955 Monroe, Carlsbad, requested that the committee make a determination regarding Monroe Street, because of the May Development, the lack of visibility, the impending rainy season and the existing drainage problem, he felt the installation of sidewalks, gutters and curbs were needed immediately. He noted that the developer had agreed to cover the cost of the installation. Justine McGill, 4340 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, alerted the committee to the fact that they did not speak into their microphones, thereby the audience was not able to hear them. She asked for clarification of the term collector streets and why were they designated as 40 feet in width. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, referred to his letter, reiterating his concerns regarding the environmental impact of sidewalk installation, street widening, and tree removal as it relates to legal ramifications of environmental impact. He believes that the proposed street and sidewalk improvements will have substantial negative impact on the environment. Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, asked that during the committee's tour on Saturday, they note the many items that will be impacted if the streets are widened. He wanted to know if the masonry walls or trees were removed in order to widen the street, if the City would re-landscape the areas and replace the masonry walls. He stated that he hoped the City was not just going to remove the aforementioned items and walk away. Leslie Williams, 2651 Crest Drive, Carlsbad, wanted specifications or standards regarding one way streets taken into consideration. She wanted to know the justification for Carlsbad's standards to exceed the twenty-foot fire code. Sue Ortman, 3965 Monroe St, Carlsbad, suggested that a path way be considered at the intersection of Alder Road, Sunnyhill Road and Monroe Street to help keep the unique character of the area in tact. Ms. Ortman submitted a drawing of the proposed path for the area to the committee, which would allow trees to remain, the path to curve and stay within the character of the area. She was opposed to a wide street, due to the lack of visibility and stating safety concerns relating to children in the area skateboarding. She suggested that each street be evaluated for its unique character and safety issues and dealt with accordingly. At the very least, she requested that sensitively to the uniqueness of the area be in the forefront of the committee decisions as related to the sidewalk and street improvements. Geoffrey Bell, 3686 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, was concerned that changes would be made with out taking into consideration accident reports indicating where and how often accidents occurred. In addition, he believed that the majority of the existing residents did not want the proposed changes. He suggested that the committee find out where liability would occur if the proposed changes were made. Vice-Chairperson Piro informed Mr. Prentice that the committee did not have the authority to make the changes as he requested. He suggested that Mr. Prentice appeal the decision before the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10p.m. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 3 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. I. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and approve meeting summary ofNovember 15, 1999 3. Review Final Ground Rules 4. Draft Work Program Discussion 5. Information Items A. History and Overview of Pedestrian Action Plan and Sidewalk Program B. Pending Sidewalk Improvements Overview 6. Requests for Information A. City Attorney Advice B. Video tape of school adjournments C. Sheila Sarker ITS · 7. Future Meeting Agenda 8. Public Comment 9. Adjourn Decision Decision Adoption November 22, 1999 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED Page I MEETING MINUTES Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. November 22, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper Staff Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Steve Didier, Vincent Gin, Bob Johnson (David Jamieson -Jamieson Consulting Group) Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:10p.m. Mr. Leger requested that Mr. Hubbs and Mr. Jamieson explain to the Committee the purpose of their presence at each meeting. Mr. Hubbs stated that he is an ex officio member of the Committee and a staff resource. His purpose for being here is to provide information regarding policies or other kinds of issues that may arise. In essence he is staff support for the chair of this Committee. Mr. Jamieson explained his role as follows: as a facilitator he is responsible for bringing neutrality to the work to be done and yet assisting the Committee to accomplish their goal with a high level of success, thereby meeting their mission. He stated that he will be focused on trying to manage the process; the process of interaction, and the process of how the Committee works together to get the job done. In addition, he will structure some of the work in conversations, sometimes making suggestions to the Chairperson, and sometimes his suggestions will be made directly to the Committee. Occasionally, it might be necessary for him to intervene during the meetings to clarify issues. In conclusion, Mr. Jamieson said that he would be focusing on the committees' interaction, communication, following the ground rules that the Committee has adopted and making sure that the Committee is working well together. · Chairperson Leger advised the audience that the last 15 minutes (7:45pm to 8:00pm) would be devoted to public comment. He instructed those members of the audience wishing to speak, to fill out a speaker's slip and give it to Mr. Didier. Committee member Dwelley requested clarification on why public comment could not be at the beginning of the meeting. November 22, 1999 APPROVED Page2 Chairperson Leger explained that public comment was at the end of the meeting in order to allow for swift movement of the meeting. He did indicate that if enough committee members requested public comment at the beginning of the meeting it could be changed. Mr. Leger stated that he had received several requests to maintain the meetings in an orderly fashion, thus speeding up the procedures and keeping the meeting on track. Chairperson Leger outlined the tasks to be accomplished at tonight's meeting: approval of minutes, review final ground rules, adopt work program and complete agenda item #5 regarding information items. ACTION: Motion by Kip McBane, and duly seconded, to approve the November 10, 1999 summary of meeting minutes with the following corrections: Committee members Schlehuber and Cade left the meeting at 6:45pm. Type-o error page 2-paragraph 7: change tone to tune .... VOTE: Unanimous It was determined that if it became necessary, the Chairperson would speak privately with Committee members regarding missed committee meetings. Chairperson Leger called for discussion regarding general ground rules for conducting work. The General Ground rules for Conducting Committee Work was accepted as presented by consensus: General Ground Rules for Conducting Committee Work 1. Start and end on time 2. Come on time and be prepared 3. Stay Focused 4. Listen to and show respect for the views of others 5. Listen for understanding 6. Clarify before evaluating 7. One person recognized by the Chairperson speaks at a time, allow people to finish their thoughts 8. Actively participate 9. Put your stake in the ground and be willing to move it 10. All ideas are held up for consideration, reflection and inquiry 11. Be open and honest with each other 12. Keep an open mind 13. Seek common ground; Help the committee reach agreements 14. Enjoy ourselves Chairperson Leger called for discussion on the Draft Work Program. He indicated that 10 Committee members did tour the areas in question on Saturday, November 20, 1999. Mr. Kubota asked if historic pictures were available for comparison to assist the Committee with making evaluations for alternative and standard designs. November 22, 1999 APPROVED Page3 Mr. Schlehuber noted that Citizen input on the manner is encouraged, but the Committee should be careful not to advise or allow citizens to believe that they have the power to decide which streets will or will not be affected. He stated that the final decision making power was the City Council. Chairperson Leger reiterated that the Committee's function was to make recommendations to the City Council, which could adopt or reject all or any part of the Committee's report. Committee members Kubota and Mamaux asked the Committee if items relating to underground utilities, waterlines and sewer lines needed to be incorporated separately in the work program. Chairperson Leger advised the Committee that issues relating to the underground utilities, waterlines and sewer lines were all inclusive. After discussion of the Draft Work Program, Vice-Chairperson Piro moved that the Work Program be acceptance as modified. By consensus the draft was approved as follows: DRAFT WORK PROGRAM 1. Field review study area 2. Develop criteria to evaluate standard and special character streets 3. Complete inventory of streets not completed in conformance with City Standards 4. Develop candidate list of streets with special characteristics 5. Evaluate candidate streets with established criteria 6. Finalize list of streets with special characteristics for recommendation for Council adoption 7. Develop alternative street design criteria; including pedestrian and parking areas 8. Develop process for petition, design and installation of special character streets (standard and alternative designs) 9. Evaluate areas for future study and make recommendations 10. Prepare draft report to Council 11. Finalize report to Council New Items to be incorporate into Draft Work Program: 1. Evaluate current design standard 2. Develop a method early in the process to inform property owners about their obligations 3. Advise public of FIA's and dedication requirements Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation gave presentation on Agenda Item 5A, History and Overview of Pedestrian Action Plan. Committee member Mamaux asked if Magnolia Street was part of the CIP and if residents paid for improvements. He also wanted to know if open drainage ditches that are on some streets were included in projects. Mr. Johnson advised the committee that the improvements on Magnolia Street several years ago were part of the CIP, and that there may have been some FIAs on the project. In addition, he informed the committee that CIPs are determined by examining the factors related to pedestrian November 22, 1999 APPROVED Page4 and school children's safety on a particular street. He informed the committee that the streets the committee is concerned with now do not have open drainage ditches. Mr. Johnson stated that most of the improvements were in the northwest quadrant around Valley Junior High, Kelly Elementary and Carlsbad High School. Committee member Wickham asked why there was no data on pedestrian numbers, speed limits and commuters in the sidewalk inventory report. Mr. Johnson stated that all data was in boxes in storage. The data was raw field data from 11 years ago. Mr. McBane asked if every street on the list would have a sidewalk. Mr. Johnson responded that this was indeed true, but it did not necessarily mean a full sidewalk that a pedestrian pathway was acceptable. The main safety issue was getting the pedestrians out of the street. Vice-Chairperson Piro requested clarification on the 61 miles of trails throughout the City. He also did not believe that installing sidewalks meant safety, because widening the roads often meant that driving speeds increased which negated the safety factors related to sidewalks. Mr. Johnson stated that there was a Trails Program in progress, but he did not know the current status. In addition he believed that narrower streets with pedestrian sidewalks or trail paths out of the travel lane could lead to a safer environment for the pedestrians. Mr. Hubbs explained that the Trails Program had not been finalized due to the financial obligations. Committee member Schlehuber noted that Trails Program is different than providing for pedestrian's access. The Trails Program provides for horses and motorcycles for areas that are not for use on City streets, as connectors to the trails. The Trails Programs makes developers give addition land. He did not believe the Trails Program related to the sidewalk and street issues of this committee. Vice-Chairperson responded that the trails programs had links that would be going down city streets and felt that the committee should consider certain streets that should have a soft surface to connect to the trails. Committee member Mamaux stated that the bike lanes on both sides of the street caused the streets to be widened more than necessary. He suggested that the committee should recommend that the bike lane be on one side of the street only and that a sidewalk or pedestrian path be on the other side of the street. Vincent Gin, Associate Engineer, gave presentation on Agenda Item 58, Pending Sidewalk Improvements Overview. Chairperson Leger asked the Committee to speak with Mr. Gin after the meeting if they had any questions related to his presentation. Mr. Hubbs wanted clarification on the type of advice that was needed from the City Attorney. He stated that videotapes of parks, churches and private and public school areas during high activity periods would be made and brought to the Committee for viewing. November 22, I 999 APPROVED Page 5 It was the consensus that the Committee needed direction from the City Attorney on the following items: 1. Ethical, moral and legal requirements of full disclosure by members of the committee as to conflicts of interest (personal or financial gain) 2. Legal ramifications to the City if street not designated as standard 3. Legal requirements for collecting FIAs and dedications 4. Environmental impacts Chairperson Leger asked the Committee if they wanted the City Attorney to attend a meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee that the City Attorney should attend a meeting to address the issues and answer any questions that may arise. By consensus it was determined that outside speakers would not be brought before the committee at this time, but at a further time if deemed necessary. Committee member Dwelley asked that the issue of public testimony at the beginning of the meeting be placed on the next agenda for committee vote. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jeff Tallman, 2335 Pio Pico, Carlsbad, presented the following questions: 1. How does the moratorium impact conditioned FIAs for approved projects? 2. Are new proposed streets included in the study? 3.How do you balance the city ordinances with State subdivision Map Act and constitutional issues? In addition, he stated that a method should be in place to alert homeowners of rules relating to FIAs and advance notice of FIAs. Geoffrey Bell, 3686 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that information provided to homeowners was not forthcoming as to homeowners placement on sidewalks/streets improvement lists. He also wanted to know why the streets were being widened? For Safety or Traffic Flow? He didn't feel the safety issue was valid. He suggested that a speed survey be conducted on the streets in question, because widening streets to increase traffic flow without making two lanes of traffic was not valid if traffic already moved beyond the present speed limit. He noted that widening of the streets would ultimately lead to faster speeds by cars and homeowners did not want this. He suggested that the Committee get data from the City Attorney regarding trip and fall issues with and without sidewalks. Ross Cirrincione, Janice Way, Carlsbad, questioned the constitutional equity of the FIA agreements and noted that the dollar amount of the FIAs were not fixed. He suggested that the Committee seek outside legal counsel (outside of the City Attorney) relating to this issue. He stated that the installation of standard sidewalks were not needed and not the answer to any problems that might exist. He suggested that alternatives to traditional sidewalks (i.e. pedestrian pathways) would be more in keeping with the character of old Carlsbad. In conclusion, he suggested that a joint committee to address tree and sidewalk issues be formed. Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, suggested that the Committee speak with City Attorney's of other cities who have experience with the issues at hand (i.e. Del Mar and streets with special character). He did not feel that the identification of a street that would not be changed should be buried. He stated the Committee, as to the areas that should be left alone, should make a clear statement. Vehicle and foot traffic should be a consideration in all recommendations made by the Committee. Standards should be reevaluated with present conditions factored in. Traffic speed should be slowed down in the areas. All residents in the area want traffic calming. November 22, 1999 APPROVED Page6 Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, gave a slide presentation showing streets in their current configuration, unacceptable proposed improvement configurations and acceptable alternative improvement configurations. (See Final Report Appendix E). He stated that the proposed standard improvements would result in a loss of trees and character to the area and provide wide freeway style streets which would increase speed limits thus negating safety. The alternative improvement plan would preserve trees, while preserving the areas' character, provide traffic calming, result in decreased runoff by having less hard-scape, less expensive and if alternative pedestrian pathways are constructed 42 inches in width, it will meet the ADA requirements. Gordon Prentice, 3955 Monroe, Carlsbad, asked Mr. Hubbs if the plans for completion of the roads and sidewalks up to Sunnyhill and Monroe Streets were available. He noted that the developer of the May project had withdrawn from completing the sidewalk. He wanted to know if the City would complete this part of the sidewalk on Monroe Street. Due to the fact that the rainy season would be upon the area soon, he expressed his concern regarding the drainage problem. He asked if the completion of the sidewalks in this area required committee approval. Mr. Hubbs informed Mr. Prentice that it did not require committee approval, however it did require City Council approve. Leslie Williams, 2691 Crest Drive, Carlsbad, wanted to know when public comment would be addressed. Chairperson Leger stated that direct response to public comment was not an obligation of the committee, but each comment was being noted and would be addressed by the committee. Committee Kubota asked that the public comments be submitted in writing in order to address each issue. Committee member Dwelley welcomed public comment, which would facilitate making an informed decision. Committee member Schlehuber indicated that in order to keep the committee meetings flowing, the City Engineer stated that he would answer citizens' questions after the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Jamieson stated that it should be noted that if public comments/problems were relevant to the committees' charge it would be placed in the committee's task discussion. Chairperson Leger asked Mr. Hubbs if the next committee agenda would be distributed to the committee members before Monday. Mr. Hubbs indicated that it would be issued before Monday. Chairperson Leger requested that the committee members stay in their seats after adjournment of the meeting in order to receive handouts. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18pm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 4 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and approve meeting summary of November 15, 1999 3. Review Time for Public Comment and Process for Including in Committee's Work 4. Holiday meeting schedule Accept Decision 5. Develop criteria to evaluate standard and special characteristic streets 6. Review Sidewalk Inventory and strategy for street evaluations 7. Future Meeting Agenda 8. Public Comment 9. Adjourn November 29, 1999 APPROVED Page 1 MEETING MINUTES Summary of Meeting: Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: November 29, 1999 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Steve Cade, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Pam Wischkaemper, Joe Gallagher Committee Members Absent: Jack Kubota, Paul Gamache Staff Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Adrienne Landers, Bob Johnson, Steve Didier, Vincent Gin, David Jamieson Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m. Mr. Mamaux submitted affidavits from the City of Carlsbad regarding the cleaning of the open drains at a particular home in the Carlsbad area. The worksheet records indicated that the open drains in question had been cleaned twice within a 5-month period. Chairperson Leger indicated that the Meeting Outcome Agenda would be as follows: ACTION: • Decide on public comment process • Decide holiday schedule • Develop criteria to evaluate standard and streets with special characteristics • Review sidewalk inventory • Establish strategy for evaluating streets By consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the November 22, 1999 meeting was accepted as presented. Mr. Hubbs gave brief history of public comment and how it is handled at the City Council meetings. He noted that the committee members are not allowed to address or respond to public comment at the time it is being given. Committee member McBane stated that he preferred the public comment at the end of the meeting. Committee members Dwelley and Wickham and Vice-Chairperson Piro indicated that they preferred public comment at the beginning of each meeting. The committee, in detail, discussed the matter of the placement of public comment at each meeting. November 29, 1999 APPROVED Page2 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: Motion by Zell Dwelley, and duly seconded to have public comment during the first 15 minutes of each meeting, beginning on December 6, 1999. 7-6-0 Chairperson Leger, Vice-chairperson Piro, Chartier, Gallagher, Dwelley, Smith, Wickham ABSTAIN: Wischkaemper, Spano, McBane, Cade, Mamaux, Schlehuber 0 Chairperson Leger advised the committee of the proposed commitment of committee meetings for every Monday through January 2000. The committee discussed this matter in detail. ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Committee member McBane, that the committee conduct a regular meeting on December 20, 1999 and not have a regular meeting on December 27, 1999. Unanimous Vincent Gin, Associate Engineer, gave presentation-recommending steps to develop criteria to evaluate standard and special characteristic streets. Mr. Gin explained the scoring method, which could be used to determine criteria, noting that any street receiving a score greater than 20 would indicate a special character street. Street Evaluation Criteria Matrix 1. Heavy landscape and vegetation 2. Streets with less than 1200 ADT 3. Streets adjacent to open space or otherwise unloaded 4. Streets not a direct route to schools 5. Topographic constraints (driveway, slopes, drainage issues, etc.) 6. Streets not a direct route to commercial landuse, parks, public centers 7. Streets with low parking requirements Committee member Gallagher asked if setbacks were considered when developing the criteria matrix. Mr. Gin indicated that setbacks were not considered. Committee member Wickham suggested that widening of the streets be uncoupled from the installation of sidewalks and gutters. Committee members Chartier and Mamaux requested clarification regarding improvements and the triggering of FIA's. Mr. Hubbs explained that FIA's do not trigger improvements. FIA's are an implementation tool. November 29, I 999 APPROVED Page 3 Chairperson Leger advised the committee that the criteria had not been decided and that the presentation by Mr. Gin was merely a framework for decision making and to assist the committee in developing a means of operation. Committee member Mamaux suggested that the committee identify what mechanisms will trigger action. The committee discussed the Street Evaluation Criteria and what item(s) should trigger the need for improvement and how it would be determined that nothing should be done to a given street: What triggers to improve Options? Leave alone unless criteria triggers need for improvement Streets need sidewalk Streets do not need sidewalk Criteria for needs improvement Street widening and sidewalks Committee member Schlehuber stated that unless a street meets criteria it should be left alone. Committee member Cade stated that the committee should determine criteria for the special character streets that need sidewalks and in so doing it would be evident what streets did not need sidewalks or improvements. Committee member Gallagher suggested that the committee create criteria standards that mandate change from the current existing conditions. Before making a motion Committee member McBane declared the following: With respect to street widening, installation of curbs, gutter, and sidewalks, alteration of landscaping; and collection of Future Improvement Agreements or additional dedications; or other street alterations, streets are to be left in their current condition unless specific problem conditions are identified on a specific segment of a street which warrant that specific changes be made to that street segment to correct those problems. The Committee should attempt to identify those specific conditions, which might warrant changes, and to describe the processes and changes which could be undertaken to correct those conditions. Specifically, the Committee should identify certain streets for Special Character Design, which is to be a process for addressing the unique combination of conditions found on each of those streets. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, that the committee start with a baseline which is that unless a street is identified as triggering a change, that the street be left alone. The committee will undertake to identify the triggering mechanisms and the level of improvement that goes with that triggering. The improvements can be standard, non-standard or alternative. 11-2-0 Chairperson Leger, Vice-chairperson Piro, Chartier, Gallagher, Dwelley, Smith, Wickham, Wischkaemper, McBane, Cade, Schlehuber Spano, Mamaux ABSTAIN: 0 The committee determined by consensus the system for street categorization strategy and criteria to identify candidate streets for potential improvement as follows: · November 29, 1999 APPROVED Page4 1. Committee assumes that streets within the study area shall remain in their current configuration unless criteria identify potential need for improvement 2. Streets identified for potential improvement would be further studied to determine if standard improvements or alternative designs should be implemented 3. A process to implement change should be adopted a) Documented safety issues • accident reports/statistics: pedestrian/vehicular b) Proximity to schools and other public facilities • churches, city buildings, parks, etc. c) Residents/owners request improvements d) Necessity for walkways/pedestrian access e) ADT over 1200 t) Linkage corridor (roadway needed for circulation continuity or connection to active land uses) g) Need for traffic calming strategies h) Land use changes i) Drainage problems j) Federal, State or local mandates November 29, 1999 APPROVED Page 5 Agenda Item '#6, Review Sidewalk Inventory and strategy for street evaluations, was continued until the meeting of December 6, 1999. Chairperson Leger announced that the City Attorney would attend the committee meeting on January 10, 1999. Committee member Wischkaemper stated that the committee had a great deal to accomplish in a short span of time. She continued by saying that the City of Carlsbad had very qualified City of Carlsbad staff members to answer any questions that might arise, thus information from outside sources was not warranted. Committee member Dwelley commented that in order to make informed decisions regarding the issues at hand, areas outside of the City of Carlsbad should be looked at. She stated that having an expert advisor would help to make clear the different options available to the committee. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: Motion by Vice-Chairperson Piro, and duly seconded to invite Professor Sheila Sarkar to give a 15 minute presentation on other cities' successes relating to sidewalk, street, and curb, alternatives. The date of the presentation will be determined at a later time. 9-4-0 Chairperson Leger, Vice-chairperson Piro, Chartier, Gallagher, Dwelley, Smith, Wickham, McBane, Spano, NOES: Mamaux, Wischkaemper, Cade, Schlehuber ABSTAIN: 0 Chairperson Leger informed the audience that public comment would be limited to 2 minutes for each speaker, thus the 15-minute time limit for public comments. He advised the public speakers to submit their comments in writing as a statement. The written statement would be distributed to all the committee members. He suggested that the public speakers summarize their written statement when making the public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Girard W. Anear, 3747 #44 Vista Campana South, Oceanside 92057, former Carlsbad Fire Chief, stated that a city should provide safety for its population. He advised the committee that 600+ children must walk to and from school on streets without the benefit of curbs, gutters or sidewalks. He believed this was a very unsafe condition. He also stated that streets did not allow for proper access for fire trucks because of the width needed and suggested that the committee have a member of the fire department present at each meeting to advise the committee. He referred to the map, stating that Cost Grove was a disaster waiting to happen. In conclusion, he asked the committee to check the handicap state requirements for sidewalks and comply with the law. Cindy Piro, 1898 Forrest Ave, Carlsbad, Noted that the accidents reports of the last five years indicated that there were no accidents on undeveloped streets. All accidents, according to the reports, occurred on developed streets. The street dedications and the FIA's hold the homeowners hostage, making the homeowners give up property or do things to their property that are not needed or wanted. She stated that the committee should follow the actions of surrounding areas, and not do anything unless it is done because of requirements related to safety issues or drainage problems. In conclusion, she did not believe that Carlsbad residents should pay for the final build out of certain developing areas. November 29, 1999 APPROVED Page6 Margie Monroy, 749 B. Magnolia Ave., Carlsbad, she indicated that she lived in the barrio with sidewalks, wide streets and beautiful streets. She has lived in the area 20 years. As a pedestrian she fell down and into traffic on Highland Ave south of Carlsbad Village Drive, which is an area of Carlsbad with lots of beautiful trees but no sidewalks. Ms. Monroy believed that each street should be looked at individually. A determination made based on the history and complexity of each street should be made regarding the need for sidewalks. She noted that Highland Avenue was not a rural area and believed sidewalks were needed. In conclusion, she hoped the committee would adhere to the criteria, thus mandating sidewalks via the criteria. Susan Ortman, 3965 Monroe Street, Carlsbad, she had a blueprint of the proposed sidewalks that would be installed as a result of the May Development. She pointed out that the blueprint did not show existing items (i.e. fire hydrant, etc.). Ms. Ortman affirmed that she would prefer having a pathway for pedestrians instead of a sidewalk Geoffrey Bell, 3686 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, Asked the committee to obtain the Trip and Fall Reports for the areas in question. He didn't believe the safety issue was valid. He noted that traffic speed would undoubtedly increase and could not be controlled if the streets were widened. The Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, wanted to know the cost vs. the benefits of the proposed changes. He asked who would bear the burden of replacing or relocating scrubs and retaining walls that would be removed as a result of the proposed changes, the city or the residents. He reiterated that the residents in the northwest quadrant did not want their part of paradise paved. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, presented a slide presentation showing in detail a speed abatement device called a Rumble Strip. Mr. Debes informed the committee that Rumble Strips: 1. Discourage Speeding 2. Do Not Inhibit Emergency Vehicles 3. Easy Retrofit 4. Are Cost Effective Mr. Debes distributed copies of the aforementioned slide presentation to each committee member. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05pm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 5 MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. I . Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of November 22, 1999 Accept 3. Public Comment 4. Finalize criteria to identify streets for potential improvement 5. Develop strategy to categorize streets 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn December 6, 1999 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED Page 1 MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. December 6, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Joe Gallagher, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Paul Gamache, Jack Kubota Committee Members Absent: Pam Wischkaemper, Steve Cade Staff Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Bob, Johnson, Steve Didier, Vincent Gin, Adrienne Landers, David Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:02p.m. Chairperson Leger indicated that the Meeting Outcome Agenda would be as follows: ACTION: 1. Finalize criteria to identify streets for potential improvements 2. Develop strategy to categorize streets using the criteria By a consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the November 22, 1999 committee meeting was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, gave a presentation titled "A New Model for Alternative Roadway Design". The model is based on two simple physical principles: 1. two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time and 2. as the speed of objects increase, the space between them must increase in order to prevent them from colliding. Mr. Debes constructed a mathematical model with input variables of ADrs, pedestrian activity and housing density, and produced recommendations on traffic lane widths, parking lanes and pedestrian walkways. He explained the advantages of this approach, indicating that it provided an objective model geared towards reducing speeding and accidents (which decreases liability) and preserving the unique characteristics of neighborhoods in an environmentally friendly fashion. He indicated that the model could be used as a screening tool, a design tool or both. He submitted a written report to the committee. Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that after surveying Carlsbad's improved and unimproved streets, he was impressed by the lack of street speed limit signs. He noted that there were two speed limit signs between Elm and Tamarack and no signs on Chestnut, which is a well- traveled street. In addition, he did not see any signs alerting drivers to watch out for pedestrians. Traffic calming can be initiated with watch out for pedestrian signs. He also noted that Magnolia had become a giant heatsink. One characteristic of asphalt, besides eliminating trees and shrubs, is that it sucks up the heat. When the sun goes down the asphalt releases the heat. He noted the difference between Magnolia and Oak, stating that the overhanging trees give shade to approximately 75% of the asphalt on Oak. Asphalt causes the Urban Heat Island Effect. Mr. King informed the committee December 6, 1999 APPROVED Page2 that if the streets were installed in the traditional standards, the Carlsbad area would have tremendous Urban Heat Island Effects. Sally Burgess, 3615 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she was against widening the streets in the northwest quadrant. The quality of life needed to be preserved. The big builders did not need to be accommodated at the residents' expense. Widening Highland would only create a means for the commuter, thus creating speeding traffic and hazardous conditions. She indicated that growth was inevitable, but wanted to preserve the quality of life in her neighborhood. Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson Leger opened the floor for discussion regarding finalizing criteria to identify streets for potential improvements. He further stated that the committee had decided that the process would be to do nothing, unless there was cause to do something. Committee Member Dwelley reminded the committee that it was formed to study the northwest quadrant because the standards, relating to street and sidewalk improvements which were in place, were not wanted by the citizens in the area. It is the committee's charge from the City Council to look at the area and give recommendations to the City Council as to what is appropriate. City Staff informed the Committee that approximately 70% of the streets have been improved to the current standards. Committee member Mamaux requested clarification on whether the committee would address right- of-way issues. Chairperson Leger advised the committee that it was not within their authority to deal with right-of-way issues. The committee determined that the criteria to identify candidate streets for potential improvements would be as follows: 1. Documented safety issues • Accident reports/statistics: pedestrian vehicular 2. Proximity to schools and other public facilities • Churches, city buildings, parks, etc. 3. Residents/owners request improvements 4. Necessity for walkways/pedestrian access 5. ADT over 1200 6. Linkage corridor (roadway needed for circulation continuity or connection to active land uses) 7. Need for traffic calming strategies 8. Land use changes 9. Drainage problems 10. Federal, State or Local mandates Referring to a location map, Chairperson Leger advised the committee that developing strategy to categorize streets using the criteria was the next order of business. Committee member McBane stated that the maps did not show if the streets were developed to the full width of the standard. The map did indicate where curbs and gutters had been installed, but the map did not indicate if they had been installed in the proper locations by the current standards. Committee member Wickham noted that the markings on the map did not necessarily mean that the improvement had been completed, because the streets were on a list earmarked for improvements. Chairperson Leger suggested that the committee, via the criteria, formulate a list of streets needing improvements using the map as a tool to get started. December 6, I 999 APPROVED Page 3 Committee member Dwelley suggested that the streets needing improvements be selected via the street evaluation criteria matrix. Committee member Mamaux suggested that staff look at streets where only portions of the street need improvements, i.e. Skyline or Highland. Committee member Schlehuber reminded the committee of staffs street evaluation criteria matrix and using it as a starting point. Committee member Gallagher suggested that sub-committees be formed to identify streets meeting the committee's criteria. Mr. Hubbs stated that the disadvantage of having staff prepare such a list was the lack of hands on experience by the committee members. Committee member Wickham indicated that on the list of streets, which the City indicated needed improvements, the City had rated the streets. Committee member Schlehuber indicated that staff needs to give committee leadership regarding the candidate streets. Chairperson Leger summarized the motion for the committee as follow: ACTION: Staff should provide: 1. List of streets that can be improved with standard improvements 2. List of streets that need improvements due to committee's criteria and information and background Motion by, Gary Piro and duly seconded, directing staff to make a list of candidate streets, using the committee's criteria, that should be considered for special consideration. In addition staff should make a list of streets that can be improved with standard improvements. These lists will not be all-inclusive. VOTE: Unanimous Chairperson Leger suggested that 3 subcommittees be formed to actually look at the streets in question. Committee member Schlehuber was against forming subcommittees, stating it was not a viable solution because the number of streets had not been determined. Committee member Gallagher indicated that the committee should have more involvement by visually assessing the streets. He also indicated that the City Engineer should alert the committee of streets needing special attention. Vice-chairperson Piro suggested that subcommittees should be formed after the list of streets have been received from staff. Any member of the committee can bring the committee's attention to any street or link of a street. Chairperson Leger asked the committee how the streets were going to be categorized. Committee member Chartier suggested that the matrix given by staff at the last meeting be used. Committee member Wickham suggested that the mathematical model be used in assessing the streets. December 6, 1999 APPROVED Page4 Committee member Gamache indicated due to the potential size of the list, the list should be available before the committee decides what to do with the list. By consensus, it was indicated that the matrix approach would be used by City Staff to develop a list to categorize streets. Mr. Hubbs indicated that the list would indicate which criteria the street met. A partial list would be provided to the committee at the December 13th meeting and the completed list would be provided to the committee at December 20th meeting. Committee member Dwelley asked staff to provide information from other cities regarding how they handled future improvement agreements and dedications. Mr. Hubbs indicated that staff is currently compiling the data from a survey that was circulated to other cities. Future Agenda Items: December 13, 1999 1. Mike Smith of the Carlsbad Fire Department will make a presentation 2. Sheila Sarkar will make a 15 minute presentation December 20, 1999 1. Adams Avenue Case will be presented January 10, 2000 1. Carlsbad City Attorney will address committee concerns January 17, 2000 1. City Engineer from Del Mar The meeting was adjourned at 7:42pm City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 6 MONDAY,DECEMBER 13, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 .m. to 8:00 .m. Room Relocation -Dance Studio 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of November 29, 1999 3. Public Comment 4. Alternative Street Design Issues -Sheila Sarkar 5. The Del Mar Experience -John Powell 6. Emergency Access -Mike Smith 7. Preliminary Street Category Results -Vince Gin 8. Future Meeting Agenda 9. Adjourn Accept December 13, 1999 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED Page 1 MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. December 13, 1999 Senior Citizens Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Joe Gallagher, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Paul Gamache, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Bailey Noble Resigned Committee Member: Staff Members Present: Steve Cade Lloyd Hubbs, Bob Johnson, Steve Didier, Vincent Gin, Adrienne Landers Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m. Chairperson Leger introduced new Committee member Bailey Noble. ACTION: By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the November 29, 1999 meeting was accepted as presented. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings. It was noted that guest speaker Sheila Sarkar was not available and would be rescheduled. Guest speakers for this evening's meeting are: John "Rusty" Powell, Del Mar, City Engineer and Michael Smith, City of Carlsbad Fire Marshall. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, his comments pertain to two comments made by committee members at the last meeting. The first was in the form of a question, as to whether the citizens of the northwest quadrant had to live by the same (street and sidewalk) standards as the rest of Carlsbad. The second (during the following discussion) was affirming that essentially, we all live in the same city. Mr. King stated that in a geographic sense we do live in the same city. However, time wise there are significant differences between "Olde Carlsbad" and Calavera Hills. It makes no more sense to say that the older parts of the city must be upgraded to the newest standards than it does to say that the newest parts must comply with the older standards. Each is, and will continue to be, December 13, 1999 APPROVED Page2 unique. This is what I believe, those hundreds of people were trying to tell the City Council. WE ARE A UNIQUE ENTITY AND WE WANT IT LEFT THAT WAY! In conclusion, Mr. King affirmed that there are many places in the U.S.A. that recognize this characteristic as a positive condition and have instituted ways to preserve their history by establishing historic areas of the city to preserve their distinctive characteristics and heritage. Carlsbad has recognized the Barrio as a distinct segment of the City. Those who support "Olde Carlsbad" ask for no more or less. Penny Johnson, 1360 Hillview Court, Carlsbad, lived at this address for 22 yeti:irs. She noted that the side of her property is on Highland. She was opposed to the street improvements that would diminish the environment and negate the ambience that everyone purchased property and moved to Carlsbad to have. The small town feeling of community and neighborhood should be preserved. In addition, she noted that it was quite disturbing to know that the trees along Highland would be disturbed, which is a very negative aspect for the environment and the wildlife living in the trees. The trees are nesting areas for herons. She indicated that she would be contacting a bird related society to solicit their involvement in this matter. In conclusion, Ms. Johnson stated that widening the streets only invited traffic to proceed at much higher speeds, i.e. Donna Drive and Highland Drive at Los Flores. Higher speeds on these streets are just accidents waiting to happen. Ms. Johnson reiterated that she was against the widening of the streets and removing the trees, because it would undoubtedly negate the small town flavor of Carlsbad, which is cherished by all who live here. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, stated that there were a number of Carlsbad residents who have faithfully attended each meeting of the committee since November 10, 1999. He requested that the significant points made by the citizens during public comment be addressed by the committee via adding the points to the committee's agenda for discussion. Specifically, with regard to a pending issue, Mr. Debes wanted to know what would be the method for selecting streets for modification and what would be the method for determining the types of modifications for the selected streets (i.e. standard or alternative). Finally, stated Mr. Debes, it is important that the committee realize that an objective method must be developed and adopted. He referred to the system he proposed at the last meeting, suggesting that it could be used in combination with the method that Mr. Gin outlined. The selection process must become de-personalized, to preclude the committee members arguing for their personal interest. Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Staff member Lloyd Hubbs introduced John "Rusty" Powell, Del Mar City Engineer. John "Rusty" Powell, Del Mar City Engineer gave a presentation (with hand out) on the City of Del Mar that outlined how they handled their street improvements and yet maintained their unique small town beachfront atmosphere. Under some circumstances widening or curb construction may be needed for drainage or traffic management, or pedestrian or bicycle purposes. Mr. Powell noted that a landscape architect is involved in all projects. In general, whenever possible, Del Mar does not widen streets, increase paved areas or add improved street edges such as curbing. Of paramount importance to the residents of Del Mar was traffic speed, which has been calmed by using European designs such as speed humps and traffic circles, as well as installing signal lights and stop signs. Instead of a standard, Del Mar developed a philosophy: different parts of the City December 13, 1999 APPROVED Page3 have different standards and therefore Del Mar is strongly committed to preserving the nature and environment of the City of Del Mar. Committee member Kubota asked if Powell & Associates stamped improvement plans for the City of Del Mar. Mr. Powell responded that Powell & Assoc. does stamp its plans, but may decline to stamp questionable plans with the understanding that the City of Del Mar agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Powell & Assoc. in the event of legal actions stemming from construction plans. (Addition to minutes per consensus action of 12/20/99: ... a professional would not sign off a substandard street unless the City indemnified him). Recess at 6:50pm. Meeting reconvened at 7:00pm Chairperson Leger introduced Michael E. Smith, Fire Marshall, City of Carlsbad. Michael E. Smith, Fire Marshall, City of Carlsbad gave a presentation (including slides) on fire department procedures and outlining emergency access. He noted that flashover starts within 10 minutes of the onset of a fire and that the fire doubles in size every 60 seconds. The merits of home sprinklers were discussed in detail, Fire Marshall Smith noted that home sprinklers units would indeed mitigate fires. On a typical structure fire, 3 fire engines and 1 medical unit are dispatched. Mr. Smith indicated that minimum street width is 20 feet in the State Fire Code, but 24 feet in the Carlsbad City Ordinance. He suggested to the committee that they look at each street and address the streets individually as to their access needs. In conclusion he stated that the wider the street, the better and safer the access is for the emergency vehicles. Time is an important element in fighting fires. Wider streets enable the fire department to accomplish their mission expeditiously. Vincent Gin, staff engineer, presented the street inventory list of suggested streets for future improvements using standard design and preliminary street category results as requested by the committee. He gave a brief summary on the process used to generate the lists. He indicated that the aforementioned lists were works in progress not final assessments. The lists were based on the committee's criteria and were being provided to the committee by staff as tools to start the process. He further indicated that the committee could and/or should remove or add any streets as they deemed appropriate. The committee discussed Mr. Gin's presentation in detail. Committee member Dwelley requested clarification on the funding of the improvements. Mr. Hubbs stated that some parcels were undeveloped and developed parcels may not have obligations, or FIA's. - Chairperson Leger suggested that subcommittees be formed to analyze the streets in question now that staff had provided the starting tools. Committee member Wickham voiced objection to the lists generated by staff, because she did not believe it was constructed using the criteria that the committee develop0ed during the meeting of December 6, 1999. Mr. Hubbs suggested that if any committee member had objections to any particular street, it could be placed in a category for further evaluation. December 13, 1999 APPROVED Page4 Chairperson Leger advised the committee that staff provided the lists to the committee to be used as a tool to get started. Now it is the committee's task to decide which streets need or do not need improvement via the criteria adopted by the committee. He suggested that the committee needed to physically look at the streets in question. Committee member Gallagher concurred with the chair, citing that the list was the committee's list and it was not staffs responsibility to analyze and quantify the list. ACTION: VOTE: YES: NO: ABSTAIN: Motion by Kip McBane and duly seconded, 1. List to be re-titled: Streets to be finished with Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks, 2. Request that a sentenced be associated with each street to explain reason for street being on list, 3. Committee should analyze each list street by street at the next meeting to determine whether or not a street should be on a list and which list is appropriate. 11-4-0 Leger, Piro, Chartier, Schlehuber, Gallagher, Dwelley, Lewis, McBane, Wickham, Gamache, Noble Mamaux, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota None The Chairperson restated that absentee members could not vote in writing and that the committee members had to be present at the meeting to participate in the voting. Chairperson Leger announced that the next meeting agenda would include reviewing, analyzing and voting on the streets by category, the Adams Street issue and the presentation by Sheila Sarkar. It was determined that additional agenda items for the next meeting would be decided by the chairperson at a later date. Committee Member McBane requested that staff alert the committee in a timely fashion when committee related issues were placed on the City Councils' agenda. Committee Member Spano advised the committee of an informative article in the Community Services and Recreation Guide, page 8, regarding speed and traffic calming. Meeting was adjourned at 8: 15pm 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 7 MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1999 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Room -Auditorium Meeting outcomes and agenda Review and accept meeting summary of December 6, 1999 Public Comment Adams Street Standards Modifications Case Study -David Hauser Approval of Street to be completed with curb, gutter and sidewalk Accept Information Decision Develop Process to review streets for potential improvementDecision Future Meeting Agenda Adjourn December 20, 1999 APPROVED Pagel MEETING SUMMARY Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: December20,1999 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Bailey Noble Committee Members Absent: Joe Gallagher, Zell Dwelley, Paul Gamache Staff Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Adrienne Landers, Bob Johnson Staff Members Absent: Steve Didier Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:04p.m. ACTION: By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the December 6, 1999 meeting was accepted as presented, with the following minor corrections: Page 1 paragraph 1: 2. As the speed of object's increase, the space between them must increase in order to prevent them from colliding. Page 1 paragraph 1: : .. the parking lane ... Page 2: City staff informed the committee members that approximately 70% of the streets have been improved to the current standards. Page 3: 1. Documented safety issues • Accident reports/statistics: pedestrian vehicular 2. Proximity to schools and other public facilities • Churches, city buildings, parks, etc. 3. Residents/owners request improvements 4. Necessity for walkways/pedestrian access 5. ADT over 1200 6. Linkage corridor (roadway needed for circulation continuity or connection to active land uses) 7. Need for traffic calming strategies 8. Land use changes 9. Drainage problems 10. Federal, State or Local mandates Page 4 third paragraph: By consensus it was indicated that the matrix approach would be used by City Staff to develop a list to categorize streets. December 20, 1999 APPROVED Page2 Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meeting. Guest speaker for this evening's meeting is David Hauser, who will give a presentation on Adams Street. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, referred to Agenda item 3# Standards Modification, noting that booklets containing information regarding standard modifications which have been approved by the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Homebuilders and the ____ Institute had been given to each committee member. He trusted that the committee would look at the approved Modification Standards before completing their assigned tasks. There are alternatives to standard streets, sidewalks and gutters; which are modified standards relating to streets and sidewalks that will address and solve the problems relating to traffic calming, safety and ADT's. The concept of just connecting all of the dots (i.e. improvements), by making standard improvements is not acceptable. To modify or replace the existing standards is the only viable option. WE ARE A UNIQUE ENTITY AND WE WANT IT TO REMAIN THAT WAY! Michael Swanson, 4040 Park Drive, Carlsbad, Concerned citizens, in favor of alternatives to standard curb, street and sidewalk improvements. All alternative avenues of environmental design relating to curbs, gutters, sidewalks and streets should be looked at before a final decision is rendered. The aesthetics of Old Carlsbad are of great importance. The unique character of the area should be taken into consideration before improvements are done. The unique character of the area should be preserved. Douglas L. Burgess, 3615 Highland, Carlsbad, understands citizens wanting to preserve the trees and charm of Old Carlsbad, including the lifestyle. He supports narrower streets to preserve the charm of the area and promote safety and traffic calming. He wondered if he had been slightly misled by the City as to what improvements would or would not be done on Highland. He noted that an atmosphere of mistrust existed between the neighborhood residents and the city. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, referring to Agenda Items #5 and #6 he stated that the issues were reversed. Mr. Debes gave a slide presentation, Titled "Uncoupling street width from pedestrian access requirements allows evaluation based on distance from a pedestrian point source and ADT. He issued copies of the presentation to all committee members. In the presentation he applied this approach to the primary list of streets issued by the City, the results were noted. Uncoupling of the streets widths from pedestrian access requirements would be an acceptable alternative and would provide safe pedestrian pathways. Finally, stated Mr. Debes, it is important that the committee realize that an objective and quantitative method must be developed and adopted. He referred to the system he has proposed, suggesting that it could be used in combination with other methods. The selection process must be objective and systematic and put in to place prior to final decisions being made as to whether standard or modified improvements should be made. Public Comment was closed Chairperson Leger introduced David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer. Mr. Hauser gave an overview of the street standards modification, process to establish specific road alignment and the process used to establish criteria and street standards modification as it relates to Adams Street. Mr. Hauser indicated that the initial process related to the project took several years to implement, at a cost of $117,000 for the consultant and staff salaries. The committee discussed Mr. Hauser's presentation in detail. Mr. Hauser answered committee members' questions relating to street standard modifications, alternatives to standard December 20, 1999 APPROVED Page 3 improvements, environmental concerns, safety issues relating to pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicle needs, utility needs, and emergency vehicle access. Although Ms. Wickham and Mr. Chartier were opposed, the committee determined that the suggested street list to have standard curb, gutter and sidewalks improvements should be modified as follows: Valley Street (From/At) CBVD (to) Magnolia Ave Pio Pico Drive will be placed on other list Adams Street (From/At) Magnolia Ave (to) Park Drive (remove) Park Drive (From/At) Monroe Street (to) tamarack Davis Ave (From/At) Buena Vista Way (to) Knowles Ave (remove) ACTION: VOTE: YEAS: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Kip McBane and duly seconded, Re-title list to be reviewed, delete the term "standard" from the list of streets suggested for curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Streets to have curb, gutter, & sidewalk improvements compatible with existing improvements not in violation with state or federal mandates. 8-5-0 Schlehuber, Piro, Kubota, McBane, Wickham, Wischkaemper, Lewis, Leger Spano, Chartier, Noble, Mamaux 0 Committee Member Wickham volunteered to assess all streets on the "hit'' list using the method suggested by Mr. Debes. He will provide the committee with a report of the results. Agenda Item "#6, Develop Process to review streets for potential improvements, was continued until the January 3, 2000 meeting. Chairperson Leger advised the committee that the "Do Nothing List" would be discussed at the next meeting. Additional agenda items for the January 3, 2000 meeting will be determined at a later time. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15pm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 8 MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Room -Auditorium 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary ofDecember 13, 1999 3. Public comment 4. Review work program and schedule Accept 5. Criteria and street evaluation Jack Debes Information 6. Review street classifications and complete street classification list 7. Future meeting agenda 8. Adjourn January 3, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 1 MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. January 3, 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Joe Gallagher, Zell Dwelley, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, ·Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, and Pam Wischkaemper Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Joe Gallagher, Paul Gamache, Bailey Noble Lloyd Hubbs, Steve Didier, Vincent Gin, Bob Johnson, David Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Chairperson Leger indicated that the Meeting Outcome Agenda would be as follows: 1. Presentation by Jack Debes on the mathematical evaluation of streets after the public comment. 2. Review of the work program and the schedule. 3. Review of street classification and street classification list. Chairperson Leger pointed out that on page 3 of the minutes "Vice-Chairperson Leger" should be changed to "Chairperson Leger." Vice-Chairperson Piro pointed out a typo on page 4 on the Action that on line 3 "sentenced" should read "sentence." Committee member Kabota referred to item 2 on the Action, page 4, and stated that he recalled specifically asking Mr. Powell as a professional if he would sign off a substandard street, and Mr. Powell responded that he would not unless the City waived his professional responsibility. Committee member Kabota said that he thought this was an important point and questioned if it should be included in the minutes. Chairperson Leger pointed out that the minutes would be very lengthy. Committee member Dwelley clarified that if Mr. Powell put his name on a substandard project that the City would have to indemnify him. Mr. Kubota stated that the point was that a professional would not sign off a substandard street. Vice-Chairperson Piro referred to the motion where the committee modified Adams Street and Committee member Spano made the recommendation that the committee stop the standards but it was overruled. Vice-Chairperson Piro mentioned that he revisited the area above Chestnut and pointed out that it was very steep and now questioned whether a standard road would fit. He asked Mr. Hubbs if there was sufficient clarification that you can make a modification to the driveway. · January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 2 Staff member Mr. Hubbs responded that during the improvement process, alternatives would still be looked at. Vice-Chairperson pointed out that he would still like to see no parking on the street. Committee member Mamaux commented that the slopes were the same as Highland. Chairperson Leger clarified that the list was not part of the December 13th meeting but was a product of the December 20th meeting. Committee member Schlehuber stated that the minutes should be supplemented with committee member Kabota's comments. He made a motion that the secretary go back and listen to the tape and supplement the December 13, 1999 minutes with the comments specifically referred to by committee members Kabota and Dwelley and supplement the minutes by those topics only. Committee member Wickham requested that on page 3, fourth paragraph from the bottom that the wording be changed from "Using the correct types of criteria" to "using the criteria that the committee developed during the meeting of December 6, 1999. ACTION: PUBLIC COMMENT By consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the December 13, 1999 meeting should be supplemented with the comments specifically referred to by committee members Kabota and Dwelley, and the following corrections made: • Page 3, change "Vice-Chairperson Leger" to "Chairperson Leger" • Add that a professional would not sign off a substandard street unless the City indemnified him • Page 3, change the wording in the fourth paragraph from "using the correct types of criteria" to "using the criteria that the committee developed during the meeting of December 6 1999." Penny Johnson, 1360 Hillview Court, Carlsbad, distributed a letter from William Daugherty, President of the Buena Vista Audubon Society. She read the letter and expressed the Society's opposition to jeopardizing a breeding area. She stated that it was against State law to remove trees or habitat of migrating birds and added that the Fish and Wildlife Department would be appraised of what was being considered. Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, expressed his concern about the lack of attention to a booklet previously distributed relating to new street designs and new concepts for new street designs. He stated that he extracted four pages from the beginning of the booklet and highlighted the booklet's essence. Mr. King read a few sentences from the publication and emphasized that the bottom line was that the people who live on the streets should have a big say in what happens to their streets, rather than the traffic patterns determining what happens to a street. Leslie Williams, 2691 Crest Drive, Carlsbad, asked for clarification of the working vocabulary that was being used. She stated that she thought substandard would not be part of the working vocabulary of the committee but the term was continuously being referred to. Public comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, gave a presentation titled "A New Model for Alternative Roadway Design: Pedestrian Access." He expanded on the ideas mentioned previously in a document distributed on December 5TH which describes the complete model, including: traffic lanes, parking lanes, and pedestrian access. He distributed copies of his presentation to the committee members. January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 3 Mr. Debes referred to two types of pedestrian activities: Random Pedestrian Activity which was not related to a point source (such as going for a "jog") and Point-Source Pedestrian Activity (such as going to and from a school). He added that Point-Source Pedestrian Activity had a greater influence on design criteria. He explained how he calculated that one-tenth of the amount of cars (ADT) would be the number of pedestrians walking on a street (APDT). He clarified that APDT could be separated into three levels based upon the amount of pedestrians in an hour, in this way the number of walkways could be determined for a street. He then referred to Point-Source Pedestrian Activity which relates to schools and churches. Mr. Debes stated that an assumption was made that the roadways were grid-like structures and described the Point-Source Pedestrian Activity slide in detail. He stated that when counting the number of block lengths, the table showed a pattern. He mentioned that room on a roadway increases geometrically as one moves away from a point source. Mr. Debes explained the equation for the Point-Source Pedestrian Activity. He stated that an assumption was made that pedestrians would not stay on the road forever, and that as they moved away from the point source, 10% left the roadway per block. He described the 1,000 person point source and said that as pedestrians moved further away from the point source, there were more block-ways for them to move onto. He emphasized that the high concentration of pedestrians was within the first two blocks of the point source. Mr. Debes pointed out that the mathematical model could be used as a screening tool to begin making decisions. He drew a sample on the board and stated that when considering the point source, you could measure it out. He added that to make it more accurate, he would need to determine where the children were let out on the block and where the children live. Mr. Debes emphasized that the mathematical tool provided a screening mechanism as a starting point, and that in borderline cases, it would have to be reviewed. Mr. Debes summarized by referring to the Interpretations slide where he suggested that walkways could be made of alternative surface pathways such as decomposed granite or crushed seashells. He added that by creating double, single or decomposed optional walkways, it was a means to determine the urgency for improvement on a street (i.e., double = high, single = medium, optional = low). He suggested that non-essential links could be immediately removed from consideration and that local history and statistics in Carlsbad should be considered when determining street improvements and the types of improvements. Mr. Debes pointed out an error on the table that he distributed and stated that Cypress Avenue should have an ADT of .6, not 6 (x 1,000). He added that he was available for questions and could attend future meetings to address parking criteria and traffic lane width issues. Committee member Schlehuber suggested that Mr. Debes' information was hypothetical and was not studied. Mr. Debes replied that the ADTs and distance from point source were taken from data that the City had provided to the committee. Committee member Schlehuber stated that the children in the Barrio were the biggest walkers and that the hypothetical falls apart if the Barrio was considered. Mr. Debes responded that the purpose of the model was to use it as a screening tool to separate "children from adults" (i.e, gross separations). He added that gray areas would have to be reviewed. Committee member Chartier commented that he thought that Mr. Debes was indeed describing the Barrio and explained why. January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 Committee member Schlehuber stated that he understood the circle on the grid but that two blocks was a long way from the schools. He mentioned that lots of children walk along the streets. Mr. Debes pointed out the area on his drawing and stated that it was important to obtain expert local knowledge. He agreed that in this instance the actual pedestrian traffic deviated somewhat from the model. This was Mr. Debes' point. The model serves as a starting-point for design. Chairperson Leger emphasized that the model was a tool to look at. Committee member Mamaux asked Mr. Debes if he reviewed student population at the schools. Committee member Schlehuber verified that the main time for children to leave the schools was at 2:20 p.m. He added that 700 would leave one school, 1100 at another, and 2200 at the third school. Mr. Debes replied that he could insert larger numbers and rerun the equation. Committee member Mamaux asked about the proportion of developed vs. undeveloped streets when looking at accidents. He added that there were substandard streets without sidewalks where people did not walk since there were no sidewalks and it was unsafe. Committee member McBane asked about walking from the high school to the Barrio and suggested using a "gravitational" model. Mr. Debes replied that perhaps a cubic model or an inverse square may fit the data. Vice-Chairperson Piro stated that it made more and more sense. He mentioned that he read the ADT estimate based on similar streets. Mr. Debes pointed out that when running the figures, he accepted non-essential links that the City already identified and that his estimates were conservative. When in doubt, he biased his estimates of ADT upward. The discussion ended and Chairperson Leger reviewed the work program schedule. Vice Chairperson Piro asked what was meant by street classifications, and Chairperson Leger reviewed the actions that the committee could take. He pointed out that a list was made of streets already approved. He added that they could create another list of non-essential links and pare it down, and then they could go through alternatives and see if those streets could be placed with the non-essential links or found consistent with existing improvements. He pointed out that there were different routes that they could take. Committee member Mamaux agreed that there should be two lists. He commented that he thought that was what the committee was supposed to do. He stated that he thought that any street requiring special engineering design should result in the engineering cost being borne by property owners on that street. He added that if categories were being created where streets would get special treatment, there should be conditions included providing for no lot splits or granny splits so that the character of the street would not be changed. Mr. Hubbs clarified that this was a process issue, not a category issue. Committee member Chartier pointed out that these were legal issues that must be brought up in a proper forum and that the committee could not discuss these issues since it was not the proper forum. Committee member Mamaux commented out that he thought it was an issue. Committee member Wischkaemper said that drivers should be considered, not just pedestrians. She described build-out and said that everyone will have to drive to work and move through Carlsbad. She expressed her concern that safety issues were equally important for drivers as they were for pedestrians. January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 Committee member McBane mentioned that improvements were being required for the benefit of the entire community and that it was unfair for the costs to be paid by the people residing on the streets. Committee member Dwelley stated that she understood build-out but pointed out that the committee was not looking at the entire city being built out but only the North West Quadrant. She mentioned that she agreed with Del Mar's philosophy to include to a standard and that it was important for the committee to decide the philosophy to be followed. Committee member Schlehuber asked about the video of the schools that the City promised to show the committee. Mr. Hubbs responded that the video would be an aid to making a decision about street classes and that the video taping was completed. He pointed out that it was important to look at real world facts on a street and that the committee was not responsible for designing a street but was responsible for determining that a street looked significant enough to warrant detail. Mr. Jamieson clarified that the points brought up about particular streets would become part of an alternative design process. He stated that if the committee left a street alone, it met certain criteria where improvements were needed. He added that there were streets that should be improved in a certain way, but they would need to get some alternative design. He clarified that the committee could discuss particular streets or determine the process for alternative design. Committee member Schlehuber added that it was important to count the number of automobiles coming in and out of the high school. Chairperson Leger reviewed what the Committee had already completed. Committee member Wickham suggested eliminating the Non-essential Link List and putting those streets on the back burner. Mr. Hubbs explained what the list was and said that they would not pursue installation of sidewalks on the non-essential links streets. Mr. Jamieson added that the other criteria did not kick in on the non-essential links streets. Vice-Chairperson Piro pointed out that when referring to a standard road, traffic, parking, concrete and sidewalks were being considered. Committee member McBane asked for clarification about non-essential links, wondering if it only included cul-de-sacs. Chairperson Leger explained that non-essential link was the starting point. Vice-Chairperson Piro mentioned that proximity to a school would pull some streets off the list. Chairperson Leger asked Vince Gin, staff engineer, to review the list. Mr. Gin explained that a non-essential link could be called a non-essential segment. He told the Commission that some of the streets were obviously not very important because they were on cul-de-sacs and that was why staff labeled them as a non-essential link. Mr. Gin suggested that "non-essential segment" was a better term. · Mr. Hubbs pointed out that staffs intent was to give the committee a way to sort the streets. He reminded the committee that they were not responsible for designing the streets since a study would have be performed, public hearings would have to be held, etc. He added that staff labeled streets as non-essential links if it was obvious that they were non-essential links but there may be other streets that were also non-essential links that still needed to be identified by the committee. Mr. Hubbs clarified that improvements would be deferred until a process determining the improvements was initiated. Mr. Gin encouraged the committee to review the list. January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 6 Committee member Dwelley asked if other streets could be added to the list if a motion was made to accept non-essential streets. Chairperson Leger supported accepting these streets as listed and asked for a sub-committee involving City staff and members of the committee to review remaining streets. He added that the sub-committee would return in two weeks and report to the entire committee as a whole, and at that point the committee could start on the process to initiate design. Committee member McBane expressed his interest in making a motion that they work with three lists rather than two. He clarified that they could work on three lists: streets that will have curbs and gutter, streets where nothing will be done, and streets that will be designed to alternative standards. Mr. Hubbs pointed out that the Do Nothing List was already done. Chairperson Leger said they would have to make it a Non-essential Segment List and explained why. He indicated that he preferred having three lists. Mr. Jamieson said that if they went the route of creating the third list, it should be very clear what criteria the committee was using to create the list. Committee member Chartier suggested studying which streets should be left alone by stipulating criteria which was the flip side of what was done the previous week. Chairperson Leger clarified that they would do nothing on the street unless there was a reason to do something. Committee member Chartier said that the committee was supposed to prepare three lists. He mentioned that the Do Nothing List was what the public requested in the public comments. He suggested that the committee come up with some basic requirements for these streets. Mr. Hubbs said there was a problem with a recommending a classification that a street was a "do nothing forever street." He stated that staff did not think there was enough information to make that decision. He mentioned Wilson Street as an example. Committee member Spano said that he felt more comfortable with a Do Nothing List rather than a Low Priority List. Committee member Lewis suggested only having two lists, not three. Mr. Hubbs stated that it was not important to have three lists. He clarified that two and three lists would be treated the same. Committee member Dwelley pointed out that the main criteria for lists was to determine how the development process would be handled. She gave Wilson Street as an example. She asked if they should assume that all streets would eventually be improved or that they should assume that the streets would be rural. Mr. Hubbs clarified that it kicked into a special process that would involve the community. He restated that the reason the committee was meeting was to determine the process. Mr. Jamieson stated that they clearly identified that some streets were standard and that others were hard to categorize without some type of due process reviewing a variety of factors. Chairperson Leger asked Mr. Hubbs if two lists were satisfactory, and Mr. Hubbs responded that if the committee wanted to propose three lists, they could. He said they might want to express that there was a good reason to do nothing which was practically the same as an alternative design. Vice-Chairperson Piro made a motion to establish a third list which recommended no further improvements, non-essential segments, as shown on the list, the ones with the asterisks. The motion was seconded by Committee member McBane. January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 7 Discussion on the motion included the following: Vice-Chairperson Piro pointed out that they already took care of list one. Committee member McBane asked if the list could be added to, and was told that it could. Committee member Schlehuber commented that he preferred using the language "low priority" rather than "do nothing." Committee member McBane mentioned that he had a problem with the term "low priority." Vice-Chairperson Piro restated his motion to create a third list, Non-essential Segments, and consisting of the streets with asterisks with the recommendation that no further improvements be made on these streets. The motion was seconded. Further discussion on the motion included the following: Committee member Kubota referenced two streets that were not in the category of a cul-de-sac and asked that Jefferson Street be removed from consideration. Vice-Chairperson Piro agreed that Jefferson should be removed but said that he thought that Buena Vista Circle should not be removed. Mr. Hubbs mentioned that staff reviewed Jefferson Street at length. Committee member Schlehuber pointed out that if there was a question on Buena Vista Circle, the street would automatically move to another list. Mr. Jamieson clarified that they were creating a list where they were recommending no further improvements and the way that a street was placed on the list was that it was categorized as a non-essential segment. Vice-Chairperson Piro amended his motion to include removing Buena Vista Circle. ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Gary Piro, and duly seconded, to create a third list entitled "Non-essential Segments" which consists of the streets marked with asterisks, with the Committee's recommendation that no further improvements be made on these streets, and to remove Buena Vista Circle from the Non-essential Segments List. Unanimous Committee member McBane proposed creating a sub-committee open to all members who wanted to attend. Mr. Hubbs read the rules on sub-committees listed under the Committee Operating Ground Rules, and Vice-Chairperson Piro pointed out that a public meeting was required if more than six members were on the sub-committee. Mr. Hubbs suggested that they could have two sub-committees. Committee member Dwelley recommended dividing the list for review by a couple of sub-committees. Committee member McBane reminded the committee that there should be a noticed public meeting because the public was interested. Committee member Schlehuber mentioned that after review by the sub-committee(s), the reports would go through the full committee and that the meeting when the full committee was in attendance would be a better forum for the public to attend the discussion. He suggested that they have an entire meeting reserved for public comment when the sub-committee(s) made their recommendations. Committee member McBane suggested having an extra meeting of the committee with the specific purpose of going through the list. Vice-Chairperson Piro made a motion to have it in workshop format. January 3, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 8 Chairperson Leger commented that he would like a little time to see the streets and would like to get started on the process at the next meeting. Vice-Chairperson Piro amended his motion to include the meeting would take place on Thursday, January 13th, from 6-8 p.m. in a workshop format, and the City would determine where to have the meeting, with public comments. ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Gary Piro, and duly seconded, to have a supplemental meeting on Thursday, January 13th, from 6-8 p.m. in a workshop format, with public comments, for the purpose of reviewing the street list. The City will determine the location of the meeting. Unanimous Committee member Dwelley pointed out the need to allow as many people to speak since it was the only way to know if there was controversy. Committee member Lewis asked about limiting time and Mr. Hubbs said that if they go through all of the streets, it would be very time consuming. He suggested that people make recommendations and express strong feelings on certain streets. He added that if the streets were gray enough, they should go on the Alternative Design List. Committee member Mamaux clarified that final determinations would not be made at that meeting so those who could not attend could attend another meeting. Chairperson Leger directed the committee members to be prepared to discuss the streets without asterisks at the supplemental meeting. Committee member McBane suggested that the committee consider streets that should be removed from the list and added to the Non-essential Segment List. He pointed out that as a result, they may not need a special meeting. Mr. Jamieson suggested that the list with the non-essential segment be considered with the group with some form of alternative design. He suggested they consider if there are streets that should go on the Standard List or the Non-essential Segment List. He added that on the second pass they could see what had to be split up. Chairperson Leger pointed out that the meeting set for Thursday, the 13th, could be cancelled at the Monday meeting if there was no need for a supplemental meeting. Committee member Schlehuber recommended that they appoint five people on a sub-committee and have them work it out. After discussion, it was decided that the entire committee would meet. Chairperson Leger pointed out that the City Attorney will be at the next meeting. He mentioned that Committee members should think about a draft process for the next meeting and be prepared to name their favorite streets. He added that the City will present an outline of the final report at that meeting. Mr. Hubbs clarified that it was the City's intention to give the committee a draft process to work from. Committee member Schlehuber suggested passing along comments on the streets to Chairperson Leger who would pass them on to Mr. Hubbs to include in the preliminary report. The meeting adjourned at 8:03. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 9 MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Room -Auditorium 1. Meeting outcomes and agenda 2. Review and accept meeting summary of December 13, 1999 Review and accept meeting summary of December 20, 1999 3. Public comment 4. City Attorney Accept Accept • Environmental Process Information • Liability Issues • Conflict of Interest 5. Street Classification Evaluation -Final Decision 6. Draft Specific Plan Approval Process Review 7. Draft Final Report Outline Review 8. Future meeting agenda 9. Adjourn January 10, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED Page 1 MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. January 10 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Joe Spano, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Bailey Nobles, Zell Dwelley, Joe Gallagher, Paul Gamache Committee Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers, Vincent Gin, Lloyd Hubbs, Bob Johnson Staff Members Absent: None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:02p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings ACTION: By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the December 13, 1999 meeting was accepted as presented. By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the December 20, 1999 meeting was accepted as presented, with the following minor corrections: Page 2, Paragraph 5 ... he stated that the issues were reversed. Page 2, Paragraph 6 ... an objective and quantitative method ... Page 3, Paragraph 4 ... & sidewalk improvements compatible with ... Page 3, Paragraph 6 ... volunteered to assess all streets ... PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, Tonight you are scheduled to begin drafting the final report to the City Council. One element of Resolution 99-485 was "to consider all relevant issues pertaining-etc." One relevant issue that should be clearly identified is the unique nature of the area called "Old Carlsbad." It is unique in several ways. It is an area of individual homes that predate the uniformity of today's Master Planned sections of Carlsbad. It has established trees, shrubs, landscaping and hardscape that will take many years to look "established" if disturbed. Its January 10, 2000 APPROVED Page2 streets and urban setting represent a time frame that has historical relevance to the cities early days. In summary, it is the place my neighbors and I chose above the other choices because we like it that way and we would like it left alone. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, with a slide presentation he addressed the following issues: regarding Committee member McBane's suggestion that a gravitational field model could be used to describe dispersion of pedestrians from a point source, he is correct. He indicated that he contacted the school district to obtain exact data on the numbers of students and times that they are dismissed. Mr. Debes referred to data, noting that 25% of the streets in the NW quadrant are "unimproved" and no pedestrian accidents were reported on these streets. He addressed the need for traffic calming and did not feel that the residents of Olde Carlsbad wanted or needed more traffic arteries or speedways in the area (See Final Report Appendix E). Jeff Piro, 1898 Forest Ave, Carlsbad, referred to the 1911 Map Act and the numbers needed to trigger curb, gutter and sidewalks improvements. He believed that 100% of the residents in his neighborhood did not want the curb, gutter and sidewalk. He asked for clarification of the "low priority" list. He voiced concern, questioning whether a property owner on a low priority list would have to dedicate property or sign an FIA. He wanted to make sure that the committee addressed the aforementioned issues. Mr. Piro reiterated that 100% of the property owners in the neighborhood did not want the improvements, and therefore the improvements should not be done. Steve Ford, 3869 Woodvale Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he lived on Woodvale with his wife and three children. The home was purchased 15 years ago. As a result of home improvements on his property, he signed a FIA without fully knowing what it meant, because the City did not disclose the full scope of the document. He indicated that his neighbors Fernando and Anita were in agreement with the following statement: Noting that Woodvale street is short in length, which is connected between Chestnut and Park. The pedestrian traffic and car traffic uses Chestnut or Park. Very few pedestrians use Woodvale Drive. Mr. Ford stated that he felt safe walking on Woodvale as it is now and that his children walk to and from school with no problems. Mr. Ford said that it was the general consensus of the neighborhood that sidewalks not be installed on Woodvale for a myriad of reasons. He did not believe it was fair that property owners were being forced to pay for sidewalks, curbs and gutters that were not wanted. In conclusion he stated that the FIA was an unfair third tax. Leslie Williams, 2691 Crest Drive, Carlsbad, reminded the committee that the petition from the Citizen's to Preserve Old Carlsbad submitted to the Carlsbad City Council triggered the forming of the committee. The Citizens of Carlsbad did not want excessive dedications, or the standard street improvements proposed by the City. The Citizen's of Carlsbad were concerned with the negative impacts that the current city policy, of installing standard streets and sidewalks, would befall Old Carlsbad. Standard streets and sidewalks improvements would diminish the quality, character and safety of the Old Carlsbad Community. The Citizen's request that the City Council adopt an emergency ordinance that would immediately suspend the current requirements of urban standard sidewalk, street and curb improvements. Ms. Williams noted that over 800+ citizen's of Carlsbad . signed the petition and asked the City Attorney to enlighten the public about the legality of FIA's. Jeff Tallman, 2335 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, asked for a response from the committee on the following questions: 1. How the committee procedures related the State Sub-division Map Act and 2. How will the committee project be in place? 3. How as an approved project does he pull his permits based on the approvals he currently has? January I 0, 2000 APPROVED Page3 Chairperson Leger explained that the committee could not respond to public comment, but that the concerns would be listened to. He noted that the concerns might be addressed as the committee progressed with their charge. Mr. Leger indicated that the committee would not be responding to public comments directly or via writing. Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Lloyd Hubbs stated that several committee members requested that the City Attorney clarify issues pertaining to Environmental Process, Liability Issues and Conflict of Interest. He indicated that the subject of FIA's would be addressed at a later meeting. City Attorney Ron Ball stated that he would be giving a general overview on the three items mentioned by Mr. Hubbs. The environmental process was mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act. This act has been on the books since the early 1970's and is constantly being monitored and changed by the legislature. The basic purposes of the environmental laws are to inform the decision-makers of the environmental consequences of their decisions. Committee member Chartier expressed concerns regarding the Wetlands and what he could do to help preserve and save the Wetlands. Mr. Ball outlined the process that was available to the public to protect Wetlands. Committee member Wickham questioned methods in which Mitigated Negative Declarations were approved. Mrs. Landers, Senior Planner, stated that public notices are placed in the newspapers to inform the public about impending projects and signs are posted on properties that are undergoing development review. In addition, anyone can call the City Planning Department and request that their names be placed on a mailing list for notification of any environmental actions. Committee member McBane raised concerns regarding the traffic being generated around schools. He asked if schools were exempt from the environmental impact evaluation process. Mr. Ball indicated that schools were not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. However, the School District is its own separate legal entity and conduct's its own environmental evaluation for their projects. Committee member Gallagher wanted to know if the City changed its current standards, which would therefore effect traffic flow, would that initiate an environmental impact report, based on what the committee recommends to the City Council Mr. Ball indicated that the City Council could decide to amend the General Plan or engineering standards based on recommendations presented by this committee. This would indeed trigger an environmental review. Environmental issues and impacts relating to the issues were discussed in detail. Attorney Ball stated that Liability issues are related to property that the City owns and controls, and the property is determined to be in a dangerous condition. Liability is determined by the Liability Government Claims Act of 1963. This Act erased the immunity of the government, allowing the government to be sued under certain circumstances. Very few lawsuits are successful against a January 10, 2000 APPROVED Page4 government entity. The way to reduce liability is to reduce or eliminate defects on city owned and controlled property. Committee member Wickham asked if the City of Carlsbad was a private municipality. Attorney Ball said that it was Municipal Corporation. Committee member Wischkaemper wanted clarification on the city's liability, in the event that the streets were not widened. She asked, if the City would be liable in a fire emergency, if a fire vehicle could not access the street in a timely manner. Mr. Ball indicated that in a situation such as Committee member Wischkaemper referred to, it would be difficult to place responsibility on the government. Mr. Ball stated that there have been numerous lawsuits involving 911 issues and failure to respond. In general the lawsuits have not been unsuccessful. Committee member Dwelley referred to the Del Mar philosophy regarding maintaining the quality of life of its citizens and Del Mar City Councils willingness to accept the liability to protect that quality. She indicated that the question clearly was how much liability the City of Carlsbad was willing to accept to preserve and protect the standard and quality of life of its citizens. Attorney Ball stated that it could not be said in advance what the decision would be on any particular policy or change in the standard. Many things had to be taken into consideration by the City Council, including but not limited to fiscal impacts, environmental concerns, liability issues, risk management concerns and the overall delivery of services. Committee member Wickham asked if it made it easier for Carlsbad to adopt alternative improvements to streets and sidewalks because neighboring cities elected to adopt alternative improvements. Mr. Ball stated that each case had to be judged on its own merits. Committee member Gallagher asked for data relating to lawsuits that had been brought against the city by pedestrians, or as a result of street issues, in the northwest vs. other parts of the city. Mr. Ball indicated that a study had not been done. He stated that the northwest quadrant did not stand out and therefore he did not think it was an area with undue percentage of lawsuits. He stated that he would supply the data upon his return in two weeks. The issues of the City's liability were discussed in detail. Regarding Conflicts of Interest Attorney Ball indicated that as a result of the 197 4 Political Reform Act and the Fair Practices Commission, no public official could participate or make a decision on an issue in which that official has a financial involvement. Chairperson Leger stated that if that applied to the committee, everyone would have to resign. Committee member Mamaux stated that he did not feel committee members should vote on streets where the committee member owned property. Committee member Gallagher disclosed his land developer status . • January I 0, 2000 APPROVED Page 5 Committee member Wickham suggested that if committee members used a mathematical model, using data supplied by the City, it would eliminate some of the burden of bias when making decisions regarding the streets and sidewalk improvements. Attorney Ball responded that Dr. Wickham's suggestion was a viable option." Attorney Ball stated that the committee members were not elected public officials, but an ad hoc committee appointed by the City Council. Mr. Ball advised the committee that they should decide to vote or not vote on the issues relating to their charge via their conscience. Agenda Items #5, #6, and #7 were continued until the next meeting, which will be held on Thursday, January 13, 2000. The Chairman will determine the agenda for that meeting at a later date. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15pm City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 10 THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2000 1. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Street Classification Evaluation -Final 4. Draft Specific Plan Approval Process 5. Draft Final Report Outline 6. Future meeting agenda 7. Adjourn Decision Review Review January 13, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 1 MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. January 13 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Bailey Nobles, Zell Dwelley, Joe Gallagher Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Joe Spano, Paul Gamache, Ruth Lewis Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Bob Johnson, Dave Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:10p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, Another relevant item that should be clearly identified in this committee's final report is the development of a mathematical model to project pedestrian and traffic loads for individual streets and local areas. This model has shown some capability in limited trials and is worthy of mention. When this model is used with the new criteria and concepts described in the Residential Street Design Manual developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, The National Association of Home Builders and the Urban Land Institute, a new methodology may emerge. In conclusion, Mr. King stated that the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan initiative has been mentioned in these meetings. When it was proposed, it was considered as radical and untested as these new approaches. Yet, it has served the City well. It may be that these concepts taken together may benefit the City also. In any event they deserve recognition and discussion at the next levels of decision making. January 13, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page2 Dr. Sharon Baker-Slowik, 3960 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she lived on the southeast corner of the intersection of Monroe, Sunnyhill and Alder and purchased this property 2 months ago, only recently to find out our property would be affected by the May project (#CT 97-24) or more specifically the extension of the May project, which would ultimately reconfigure the intersection of Sunnyhill, Monroe and Alder. To review, the May project is a residential development on the corner of Park and Monroe. It would provide sidewalks, curbs and gutters for the area of the development and was approved prior to the moratorium. The project, however, caused drainage problems for the adjacent property, the Prentice's on 3955 Monroe. To resolve this issue, the sidewalks and gutters were to continue in front of the Prentice's property at the developers' expense. The City subsequently decided to continue the sidewalk to the south end of Monroe in front of the Ortman property. This continuation resulted in a decision to totally reconfigure the intersection of Monroe, Sunnyhill and Alder. This continuation results in an alignment of Monroe with our driveway. The street will appear to continue up our driveway. We have children ages 6 and 3 and are very concerned about the safety of this change. It would only take one driver to make that easily conceivable mistake of driving up our driveway thinking they are continuing down Monroe. This could be a fatal error and we cannot let this happen. Likely the development will be increasing the traffic in the area also. Finally, stated Dr. Baker-Slowik, we are requesting the City not proceed with these plans for the safety of our children. We understand from the City's design subcontractor for this extension, Glen Van Peski, that it is in the bidding phase for the work to be done. This appears to be in violation of the current Moratorium. While the May project was exempt, the plans for the sidewalk extension fell under the time period of the moratorium. We plan to involve legal counsel, as these issues were not disclosed to us at the time of the sale of the property. However, we would prefer not to and therefore request the City accommodate the Prentice's and their drainage problem, but stop the sidewalks before the Ortman property. If safety is of concern, a three way stop and path for pedestrians in front of the Ortman's property, could be placed without a need to totally reconfigure the intersection and place our family in danger. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, referred to the last meeting and the conflict of interest issues, stating that an application of a model or system may make decisions more objective and depersonalize the process, thereby eliminating problems related to conflicts of interest. Dr. Debes gave a slide presentation regarding Traffic Lane Widths. (See Final Report Appendix E). He stated that the well established concept in Civil Engineering was that in order to reduce speed narrowing of the lane width was necessary. He alerted the committee to the fact that the California State Law requires a 20-foot wide roadway, but the Carlsbad ordinance stipulated a 24-foot roadway. The smaller width roadway would meet the California State Law requirement and a mountable berm and drive-able shoulder would allow for lane widths to be less than 20-feet, provided that the total drive- able width was 20-feet. In Mission Hills, California parking is allowed on both sides of the street, forcing cars to travel in a single lane that is less than 1 O feet-wide. This provides traffic calming and less maintenance of wider roads, in addition to the fact that residents prefer not to give up frontage to asphalt. In conclusion, he stated that he spoke with a personal injury attorney in Carlsbad regarding slip and fall cases. The attorney informed Dr. Debes that, several cases had been filed, however, none had ever been won by the plaintiff. He felt that the City's concern regarding liability was a great deal of hype, because there was no data/history regarding problems of liability to support their concerns in the Carlsbad area. January 13, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page3 Geoffrey Bell, 3686 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, believed that it was important to review the data that he requested weeks ago at one of the first meetings. 1. Do we have an increase in trip/fall pedestrian liability (i.e. lawsuits) in the northwest quadrant on the streets in question? A map, plotting money, incidents and location should be provided by the City Attorney. Included in this date should be information regarding whether the City won or settled or lost the lawsuit. 2. Again review the PD statistics. The question is still: Why are we doing these "improvements"? and Do the statistics over the last forty years justify the efforts. Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson Leger asked for discussion regarding the Street Classification Evaluation. Referring to the Street, Gutter and Sidewalk compatible list, Chairperson Leger asked the Committee members if they wished to remove anything from the list. Vice-Chairperson Piro stated that the streets in question were on the list of streets to have improvements compatible with the existing neighborhood. The committee requested clarification on the alternative design list. Mr. Hubbs informed the committee that for every alternative design street there would be a process that would involve the community. As a part of that process, depending on how it was initiated, and how it is to be paid for, there would be a pubic hearing with the residents on the street. At that time the staff would give their option of what the street needs were, i.e. standard improvements, or alternative, etc. The next step of the process would be to go to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Committee member Schlehuber raised concerns regarding funding of alternative projects. Committee member Mamaux said he did not feel that public money should be used to develop a plan for each individual street. Referring to the 25 zones in the Growth Management Plan, siting that everyone within the zones were told to develop their own plan at their expense. In conclusion, he stated that everyone one on the alternative streets list should develop their own plan at their own expense. Committee member Chartier reminded the committee that it was not the committee's charge to determine who pays, or what the amounts are going to be, and that the committee should not be discussing the aforementioned issues. The committee's duty is to select streets that have character and charm and should be left alone or an alternative to that be studied by the City. The committee is not charged with discussing funding. Committee Member Mamaux did not agree with Mr. Chartier. Mr. Hubbs stated that the City Council asked for a process. Fiscal matters where up to the City Council. Committee Member Mamaux stated he wanted the City Council to be aware of what the possible financial impacts could be. Committee member Chartier stated that it was not within the authority of the committee to tell the City of Carlsbad how to pay for something. Mr. Jamieson stated that when the draft process was finalized it should include the estimated cost of the proposed projects. January 13, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 Chairperson Leger stated that the City needed to be cognitive of the estimated cost, but that the committee did not have to determine whether it would be funded via private or public funds. Committee member Schlehuber stated that alternative design did not automatically mean narrowing of the streets. Vice-chairperson Piro stated that alternative design meant narrowing of the hardscape, narrowing from what the standard section of the street would be. Referring to the Draft Specific Plan Approval Plans, Committee member Wickham reminded the committee members that the bullet statements were options. By consensus the committee agreed to address the issues of FIAs (i.e. Future Improvement Agreements) regarding conditioning the City not to make development of curbs, gutters and sidewalks a must for only one property on one block because of home improvements. ACTION: Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro, and duly seconded, to adopt the Draft Specific Plan Approval Process of the Alternative Roads with amendments. This Motion was passed by the consensus of the committee. Street & Sidewalk Committee Draft Specific Plan Approval Process 1. Plan Initiation, including but not limited to the following:- • Citizen petition (50% of block residents) • Development project • Staff identifies safety issues/special committee • Staff identifies drainage or utility issues • State or Federal Mandates 2. Public Notification of City Council hearing (posting at the end and beginning of the project at each phase) 3. Request Council Authorization & funding alternatives for engineering feasibility studies • Public funding • Private funding • Public/Private combination funding • Other funding alternatives 4. Development alternatives with community involvement (engineering study) • Topographic survey to map • Identify special resource/character • Identify opportunities and design constraints • Develop road width and path alternatives • Develop edge treatment and other road feature alternatives • Professional input (i.e. landscape architect, arborist, planning professional) January 13, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 5. Community Workshop to review alternatives • Establish preliminary design approach 6. Develop recommended preferred plan 7. Prepare Environmental Documentation and circulate for review 8. Traffic Safety Commission review as required 9. Planning Commission review as required 10. Council hearing and approval 11. Plan Implementation Chairperson Leger asked the committee members if any streets on the compatible list should be removed and transferred to another list. Committee member Wickham stated for the record that she was basing her decisions regarding the streets on the mathematical model presented by Dr. Debes, using the criteria decided upon by the committee. It was the consensus of the committee that portions of the following street would be removed from the alternative list, leaving the remaining portion of Adams Street on the "Standard List''. (Vote 11-1/Committee member Wickham opposed). (Change to:) Adams Street -Chestnut to Park Drive Chairperson Leger asked the committee members if any streets on the non-essential segment list should be moved and transferred to another list. By general consensus it was determined that #33 would be moved from to the non-essential list and placed on the alternative list. Chairperson Leger asked the committee members if any streets on the alternative list should be moved and transferred to another list. ACTION: VOTE: YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Vice-Chairperson Piro, and duly seconded, to remove the following streets from the alternative list and transferred them to the non-essential list: #59,#49,#47,#46,#39 4-6-1 Piro, Dwelley, McBane, Wickham Leger, Schlehuber, Chartier, Wischkaemper, Mamaux, Kubota Gallagher Chairperson Leger stated that the following items would be discussed at the next meeting: Alternative Design Approval Process Final Draft Continuation of Street Classifications Draft of Final Report Outline January 13, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 Mr. Hubbs suggested that the committee members submit their changes to staff by Monday, January 17, 2000. Staff would then distribute the list to each committee member. Member Wickham suggested two streets for alternative consideration (orally and in writing). Status: 1. Carlsbad Boulevard from Laguna to City limits (N). 2. Jefferson Street from Las Flores to Marron Road. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10pm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 11 MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 2000 1. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Street Classification Evaluation -Final 4. Draft Final Report Outline 5. Extension Request to City Council 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn Decision Review Review January 17, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 1 MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. January 17 2000 Carlsbad Senior Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Doug Chartier, Clarence Schlehuber, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Bailey Noble, Pam Wischkaemper, Zell Dwelley, Joe Gallagher, Joe Spano, Paul Gamache, Ruth Lewis Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: None Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers, Bob Johnson, Dave Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:04p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he spoke with several attorney's regarding the City's liability in improved vs. unimproved areas. It was unanimous that the data supported the fact that slip and fall liability exposure was higher in the improved areas, due to dangerous conditions. Related to the aforementioned, the lawsuit statistics that should be considered are, not how many lawsuits were filed, but how many were won by the plaintiffs. These statistics are a matter of public record. Ultimately an economic decision should be made, weighing the cost of potential litigation vs. the cost of a project, so that a decision can be made that makes economic sense. He further stated that at this point in the committee's work, the most important thing that the committee has left to do, is to develop a useful and effective process procedure and to document it. The process procedure should be designed to provide thorough review and design process, which involves the Community and City working together throughout the process. It is essential that a citizens based commission be formed, which is specifically dedicated to the issues of streets and sidewalks. This commission must be involved from the beginning of the process, so that their input may be integrated into the plans and not simply added on or even dismissed as mere afterthoughts. Ideally, this commission would meet on a regular basis, in perpetuity with City Staff to discuss the ongoing process of the shaping of the streets of the City of Carlsbad. January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 2 Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that there seems to be some confusion in the minds of some committee members about the term special Character streets. First, this term is a creation of the City Council, it was not requested by the hundreds of people who showed up at not one but two City Council meetings. Their request was to retain the rural nature of their neighborhoods and not pursue the policy of "standardizing" streets and sidewalks in Olde Carlsbad, aka the northwest . quadrant. Paraphrased their request, "We don't want this, we like it the way it is. Leave us alone." Second, one charge of the City Council to this committee as reflected in the first revision to Resolution 99- 485 was "DIRECTION to consider ALL RELEVANT ISSUES pertaining to street and sidewalk design." Implicit in this charge is recognition that possibly there might be better methods available to work this out. Two of these methodologies have been made available to this committee. One is newly developed as a way of quantifying the issues and promoting consistent decisions about the volume and effect of pedestrian and automobile traffic. The second is a residential street design handbook developed recently by recognized authorities in this field* and sanctioned by the U.S. government Housing and Urban Development Agency. This handbook was introduced by a committee member and is DIRECTLY applicable to this problem. Sadly, both have been rejected out of hand by this committee. Worse, the concept has been advanced several times, that those who do not choose to accept what the City wants to give them, i.e. standardized streets, should quite literally pay the penalty. If those hundreds of people had been listened to, there would be no penalty to pay. There would be no rush to make all of Carlsbad similar, if not identical to the newest developments. This is not a citizen- generated activity. This is a Citizen Resisted Activity. Third, analysis of accident reports made available by City Staff and comments by the City Attorney before this committee show that accident rates are significantly lower in the northwest quadrant and there is not a significant difference in the number of complaints handled by the Attorney's office. Leading to the conclusion that perhaps something is proper here. The concern voiced by many of the citizens at the City Council meetings was tr:affic speed control. Nothing in the committee's action to this point has addressed that. Indeed, the trend to wider standard streets will exacerbate the problem. That fact is recognized in the Street Design Handbook mentioned above. The City approach to streets and sidewalks for the northwest quadrant as presently implemented is inappropriate for in-fill construction. It does not respond to citizen requirements. It is wasteful in terms of materials and money and it will progressively destroy the very characteristics the residents have said they want to preserve -in one instance a cul-de-sac for six homes. The AS constructed streets (36 wide) and sidewalks (five feet wide on both sides of the street) exceed the standards mentioned above by 77% for streets and *69% for sidewalks in materials alone! To let this practice continue does not respond to the charge to consider all relevant issues for street and sidewalk design issued by the City Council and it ignores the voices of the residents of this area. *Developing agencies for the Residential Street Design Manual American Society of Civil Engineer's The National Association of Home Builders The Urban Land Institute. Diane Maple, 3883 Woodvale Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she was at the meeting because she had been informed that the committee would be discussing putting in curbs, sidewalks, and widening her street. She apologized for not attending a meeting before this day, stating that she did not know exactly what the committee was planning to do. Ms. Maple stated that she had 3 children that played in her yard, in the neighbor's yard, on and in the street and that sidewalks were not needed on her street. In addition, the widening of the streets were not needed. People that come to Woodvale live there. In conclusion Ms. Maple stated that Woodvale is a small street not a major thoroughfare and it would be appreciated if the committee would consider not widening the street and not putting in sidewalks. Sheryl Ford, 3869 Woodvale Drive, Carlsbad, stated that there were only five houses on Woodvale, which adjoin Westhaven. She indicated that she had two children that walked to school via the street and that January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 3 curbs and gutters had been installed. In conclusion Ms. Ford stated that the street was wide enough and that it would be appreciated if sidewalks were not put in. Geoffrey Bell, 3686 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he has lived at this address for 17 years. Referred to a report composed by Bob Johnson, City of Carlsbad Traffic Engineer. The report indicated that speed limits could not be enforced outside of specific residential and school overlays, if the 85% of the drivers drive at a specific speed, i.e. Highland may not have density enough to justify a residential overlay. No one has contradicted that fact, that if the street is widen people drive faster. He stated that the committee appeared to have gone full circle, starting out with the premise that "do nothing" as the initial premise and then change it if needed. But now it appears that the committee has gone back to 1988, prioritizing according to the same criteria that was used in 1988 to determine that every street should get a sidewalk and every street should be widened. The only thing that has changed is who will pay for it and when will they pay for it. Dr. Bell stated that the point had been missed. Why are we doing this? It is safer, when the streets are widened? There has been no data submitted indicating that it is safer. He stated that 40 years of experience on Highland Drive did not indicate that it would be safer. Children have been walking to school on streets for 40 years without sidewalks. Dr. Bell stated that the City Attorney of Carlsbad had no ideal where the liability lies with the city. This is something that should be known. If there is more liability in a specific area, that area should change, not other areas that have no liability. That data should have been submitted before any talk about installing curb, gutters, sidewalks and widening of the streets began. Why are Del Mar, Fire Mountain and Carmel able to maintain the uniqueness of the areas without widening the streets? Do they have no liability or are they sensitive to the desires of the residents? Regarding drainage, Dr. Bell requested a list of where the drainage problems occurred, who identifies them, and where the compliments are? He felt that the residents could solve problems. The expense of entire street improvements did not have to be incurred in order to solve most drainage problems. In conclusion, he stated that before the streets were improved the residents in the neighborhood should be informed that people would be driving faster because of the street improvements and widening. He referred to Steve Cade's son, stating that if he had been hit by a vehicle on Highland Drive as an improved widened street, the child would have been killed, because undoubtedly the driver would have been exceeding the speed limit. Fortunately the car was traveling at 22 mph. Widening of the streets are not wanted by the residents in the northwest quadrant. Cindy Piro, 1898 Forest Ave, Carlsbad, 780 residents willingly and wanted to sign the petition to maintain the rural atmosphere of the northwest quadrant. Old Carlsbad is a special area and it does take special consideration. Perhaps some streets do need some improvements, but it does not have to be asphalt and concrete. Other quadrants are watching the progression of these meetings, because they have indicated that they do not want their neighborhoods destroyed with the standardized widening of the streets and sidewalks. Ms. Piro stated that the following streets should be addressed and left as they are: 1. Buena Vista Circle, there are only two remaining sites, it is a built out closed out street, needs no improvements and has off street parking. 2. ___ , provides access to the City, but it is wide enough, there is off street parking, it does not need anything more. It is adequate. There is no drainage. There is no traffic. 3. Pio Pico north of Las Flores it is aesthetic and is loved by the residents as is. 4. On Forest Ave east of Highland, 100% of the residents are for the situation as it is now. It is an older tract. There is adequate off street parking on the south and north side in many areas. 4. Wilson Street, 100% of the residents do not want any improvements there. There is a point of drainage that is one concern. Mr. Gallagher, the developer, is improving the lot, which will take care of the problem. The neighbors do get together to solve problems and address issues of concern in the neighborhood. 5. ___ from Pio Pico to Highland, is wide enough, the residents have ample off street parking. 6. McKinley should not be changed because of the aesthetics. 7. Hoover Street, topography and aesthetics, if street is widened traffic speed will increase down the hill. 8. Westhaven and Woodvale have been as is since the 40's and the streets are wide enough, off street parking is available. 9. Basswood from Donna to Ridgecrest and 10. MacArthur between Sunnyhill and Skyline. The aforementioned streets are fine as is, Please leave them alone. Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson Leger asked for discussion regarding the Street Classification Evaluation. January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 Lloyd Hubbs stated that there appeared to be a number of streets to be moved from the alternative list to the non-essential segment list. In order to do this, there needs to be some understanding of what is the significance of the non-essential list. The criteria that was used needs to be understood. Basically, all of the streets that are on the non-essential list were improved at curb and gutter, and in most cases do not have sidewalks. The genesis of the list came from the sidewalk study with the same category, non- essential links, which means there is no sidewalks on that link, and Staff does not believe there are a lot of reasons to install sidewalks or to give the links high priority. This was the criteria used to establish the list. As the committee decided to move streets on the list, it would be changing that or be consistent with that. If there is a change the committee should address what criteria warrant that designation, what is the significance of that designation. Committee member Dwelley asked for clarification on the difference between the special character street and the non-essential link, in terms of protection on the non-essential that nothing will be done to them. It appears that both special character streets and non-essential links initiate the process, when a building permit is applied for. Citing another scenario, Ms. Dwelley asked if the non-essential links could be moved onto the standards streets list because of the criteria set for the standards, i.e. it is almost completely done? Mr. Hubbs stated that from an operational prospective it would not make a difference between alternative and non-essential at this point. Committee member Dwelley wanted to know what the committee was really trying to do, if they were all on the same list. Mr. Hubbs said that unless the committee wanted to create some other kind of distinction or recommend some other type of distinction, there is no reason for three lists. Committee member Dwelley stated that in the beginning, the people involved in the petition asked for nothing to be done. The committee asked several times to have a do nothing list. Now there is a non- essential list, which some people thought was a do nothing list but there is nothing is writing to support that. She stated that today the committee is being asked to vote on streets based on which list they should be placed on. There seems to be no difference and no protectior. for streets that should be protected, i.e. Buena Vista Circle -it is a lovely street, has been there forever and there is no reason to do anything to it. If it is placed on the non-essential list, someone that has more power than I could very well remove it and place it on the standard list. Ms. Dwelley asked for clarification regarding the list. Vice-Chairperson Piro asked if a person did a major remodel or brand new home on a vacant lot on a non- essential link, would dedication and a FIA be asked for. Mr. Hubbs stated that an FIA would be required. Vice-Chairperson Piro stated that people on the non-essential link did not have to go through the gymnastics of the alternative process talked about earlier. Referring to #19 on the street inventory list, if Long Place requested a building permit and there are curbs there, the dedication is done, but a FIA is not really done, but sidewalks are not being asked for, but #18 Tyler Street, would have to provide curb, gutter and sidewalk, unless they get 50% of the residents on the block to come up with an alternative design. Mr. Hubbs stated that a FIA would still be requested. He informed the committee that the list was merely an inventory list provided by Staff so that they could take action. In clarifying the issues, Committee member Schlehuber stated that if a building permit were pulled on Tyler Street, it would not automatically trigger the entire street for installation of a sidewalk. Mr. Hubbs stated that he was correct, it would be triggered if it were on the alternative list, because the presumption would be, a Future Improvement Area. Any street not on the standard design consistent with existing improvement list would get a FIA, assuming FIA's are not eliminated. January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 Committee Dwelley asked if she was correct in her assumption, that the vision for the future is that all streets will have a sidewalk. If non-essential is exactly the same as special character, which means it is still up to the City and Staff, not necessarily what the neighborhood wants, then the committee is wasting their time because they all fall into the same category. She further stated that committee's work might indeed be done, as it pertains to categorizing. Chairperson Leger responded that he did not see it that way and explained the committee's charge. First, the committee has agreed upon a list of streets that would be consistent with improvements. The committee did address streets that were to be left alone, but the committee could not agree to call it "streets to be left alone", that is why the committee developed the non-essential list. The protection lies in the process that was agreed upon in principle at the last meeting. The process notifies the residents and addresses public input. The next stage, reviewing design alternatives is a very important process. Committee Mamaux reminded the committee that it would be difficult if not impossible to say what the situation would be 1 0 or 20 years from now. What we now have is a process that would make it possible that if 50% of residents on a street did not want any changes or improvements, there would be no trigger, unless the Staff comes in and says something is wanted. The process that must be developed is how do the people on the street go to the City Council, public hearing, etc. All of the processes make it difficult for someone to build sidewalks, street widening or anything. It is impossible to say that a street is never going to be touched. Committee Chartier, stated that the very thing the committee has been asked to do, it is not doing, that is listening to the hundreds of people who have stated over and over again, that they do not want curb, gutters and sidewalks. Committee member Zwelley stated that before the developers came into the neighborhood 100% of the residents did not want the sidewalks, but with the developers now representing 50% the FIA's could very likely be activated. She felt that the neighborhoods should tell the developer, that they wanted the neighborhood to stay the way it is. Committee member Wischkaemper stated that she did not understand how the committee could make a decision to say that a certain street would never be changed. She expressed concern that the committee members were becoming emotional about their own places where they lived. She suggested that the committee members take a step back and decide what would be the overall best decision the committee could make for the city at large, taking in as many conditions as possible. That kind of decision is not necessarily what one would want personally. Every committee members is so overwhelmed with their own personal feelings about the issues, that sight of the greater issue has been lost. We live in the City of Carlsbad. It is a whole city. It is not just the northwest quadrant. Committee member Mamaux agreed with Ms. Wischkaemper. He stated that if everyone said, "they wanted to leave it the way it is", that means there will be no more lot splits, no more development, because as soon as you have those things, you are changing the nature of what it is today. With lot splits there will be more people and more cars. If the developer does not split the lot you will not have the problems. The developer develops the lots and asks for a benefit from the community, to develop property. There are people in the northwest quadrant thinking of splitting lots in the back part of their property. This changes the neighborhood once you have these developments. What we have, even if the FIA's are triggered, is a process where the neighbors can go down and say, "we don't like the way Lloyd Hubbs has designed this street." The process allows residents to discuss why the change is not wanted. We as a committee cannot guarantee that nothing is going to change. Chairperson Leger agreed with Committee member Wischkaemper. He pointed out the following: 1. We will not do anything, unless there is a reason to do something. This committee does not have the power to eliminate FIA's or change the dedication rules. That is a legal matter. What we have done is set the tone of "don't do anything, unless there is a reason to do something. We as a committee have also come up with various triggers. Now we are trying to agree on at least two categories of streets, maybe three. He stated that he had a problem with taking a street off the hook, because it was not fair to say, i.e. "Wilson is ok, but Skyline is not." The best thing for the committee to do is find a process, where the neighborhood has input and the neighborhood has to be consulted regarding the design. But to go street by street and say "do nothing" and if the circumstances change, it is then an inequity for someone else. January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 Committee member McBane referred to the committee's Mission Statement, indicating that there were three categories. The committee has identified streets to be completed with standard and non-standard streets, but special character streets for custom designs have not been identified. He wanted to know if non-essential links were equivalent to special character streets. He did not feel that the committee was fulfilling their mission. Chairperson Leger declared that all streets that are not standard are special character. Committee member McBane remarked that he agreed with Committee member Dwelley; the committee's work of categorizing the streets was complete. However, now the committee had the charge of setting some type of design standards. He affirmed that the committee did not know what the future held, but the committee does in fact know what exists today. The process of taking FIA's and dedications would be continued, assuming a future that is different than what exists today. We don't know that future to be correct, by taking the FIA's and dedications a trajectory is set that predetermines an outcome. He stated that it did not'make sense to take an extra 20 or 40 feet of right-of-way from private citizens on streets that work today, because of sometime in the future we may need that. Sometime in the future everyone could be riding bicycles and not need streets of the present width at all. Chairperson Leger stated that when the City Attorney returned that would be the best time to discuss FIA's. David Jamieson reminded the committee of the change in language of the mission statement. The word "standard" was maintained and the committee elected to use the phase "alternative design", which replaced words such as "special character'', "custom", etc. "Standard" was further defined when Staff was asked to create the inventory list. "Standard" then meant curb, -gutter and sidewalk. The word "compatible" was then added and a category was created. What was left was called "alternative design." Committee member Dwelley referred to the charge and mission statement indicating that the committee was to be concerned with the area west of El Camino and Ocean, between booth Lagoons. She understood that the decisions must be made that are best for the entire city, but decisions for the whole City may not be in the best interest of the northwest quadrant. The northwest quadrant is the area the committee has been asked to study, not the entire City. She did not believe the committee needed to accommodate the development in other areas of the City. Committee member Gallagher stated that if a street, i.e. Wilson, develops out in its historical manner, in that the lot sizes are 9500 or greater and it is 99% built-out, the impacts of a couple of lots or improving existing homes is not going to increase the traffic. If an area changes its character and is no longer going to be developed in the manner that is consistent with what exists today, then a whole new fresh look should be taken. That is when the Planning Commission and the entire approval process will come into effect and all is reviewed subject to an ERi, Traffic Study, etc. There is a whole process which the committee is not dealing with today, if the character of the neighborhood changes. The northwest quadrant is pretty much defined as it today. We are talking about continuing its improvement in-fill as it is today. We can not forecast the future. The stop gap measures are in place. If the character of the street changes there is a process that will make sure that the improvements are put in pursuant to the impacts created by that development. Chairperson Leger agreed with Committee member Gallagher. Reaffirming the mission of the committee, he stated "the mission is to do nothing, unless there is a reason to do something." Vice-chairperson Piro recommended that streets with less than 1,000 ADT's, curbs and no sidewalks, 1300 feet from schools and public facilities, be put on the do nothing list, but with an irrevocable offer, so that in the event the right-a-way is required in the future, also recommending against FIA's on the streets. Committee member Dwelley asked for clarification on an "irrevocable offer." Vice-chairperson Piro explained that an irrevocable offer, was an offer to dedicate. It is the best thing for an agency, i.e. City. The property owner pays taxes on the property, resident has use of the property, but January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 7 you can not build within the 30 foot section and the City can take the property at any time within 25 years absolutely free of charge. The City doesn't have the liability, property owner pays taxes on the land, set backs must be maintained in case road needs to be widen. After 25 years the irrevocable offer expires. Committee member Schlehuber stated that he would not accept the irrevocable offer over an FIA, because there are economic downturns. Vice-chairperson Piro declared that he was not proposing irrevocable offers in lieu of FIA's. The irrevocable offer was in lieu of the actual dedication. Committee Mamaux wanted to know if citizens would be allowed to change their minds and have sidewalks installed. What process would be used? Vice-chairperson Piro stated a 1911 ACT or go to the City Council. Under the non-essential link category the City Engineer still has the ability to request improvements. Committee member Chartier stated the law of imminent domain and public right to safety covers the aforementioned. Because if there is no FIA, no dedication, but the City has a problem and it is a safety issue, the power of imminent domain would prevail. Committee member Mamaux agreed, but under imminent domain the public has to pay for it. Where as if the right-of-way is given the public does not have to pay for it. Several Committee members stated they supported Vice-chairperson Piro's motion to combine the non- essential and alternative design street list. Committee member McBane stated that he supported the motion, but reserved the right to add three statements of guidelines defining what it means to be on the alternative design list. Chairperson Leger stated that the appropriate place to insert the guidelines would be in the process draft that would be returned next week by staff. ACTION: Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro, and duly seconded, combine non- essential list with alternative design street list. This Motion was passed unanimously by the committee. Lloyd Hubbs informed the committee that there was an overlap on Garfield Street, #9 on the list. It is covered also by "consistent with existing". He suggested that #9 remain on the Alternative Design List. The committee agreed with this suggestion via consensus. Committee member Wickham stated for the record that she was against the standard improvements because of safety, liability, and environmental impacts. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion, and duly seconded, to move Las Flores Drive -south side only, #36 on the street inventory, list to the standard design street list. 14-1-0 Kubota, Lewis, Mamaux, Spano, Leger, Schlehuber, Chartier, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Dwelley, Nobels Wickham None Committee member McBane and Chairperson Leger stated that they would not support moving Valley Street to the standard design list. Both stating that it should be treated as an alternative design street. January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 8 Committee member Chartier said that, he too would be opposed to moving #60 -Valley Street because of the old growth trees, the area to feed horses, the street drains well, kids walk in the street with no problems, there is no speeding on the street, and the tomato patch lady would be impacted. This area needs to be left alone. Committee member Mamaux indicated that if the property was developed and the developer were told curb, gutter and sidewalks did not have to be installed, this would accelerate growth. Chairperson Leger stated that it was not meant that the street would not have curb, gutters and sidewalks, but only that it would not be a standard street section. It would be an alternative design. Committee member Mamaux reiterated, that because of the drainage problems, and any future development that might take place, this street should be placed on the standard street design list compatible with all of Valley Street. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion, and duly seconded, to move Valley Street, #60 on the street inventory list, to the standard design list. 4-11-0 Kubota, Lewis, Mamaux, Spano Chartier, Leger, Schlehuber, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Dwelley, Nobels, Wickham None Motion, and duly seconded, to move Oak Ave, #68 on the street inventory list, to the compatible standard design street list. 13-2-0 Kubota, Lewis, Mamaux, Spano, Leger, Schlehuber, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Dwelley, Nobels Chartier, Wickham None Motion, and duly seconded, to move Jeanne Place, #86 on the street inventory list, to the standard design street list. 13-2-0 Kubota, Lewis, Mamaux, Spano, Chartier, Leger, Schlehuber, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Nobels Dwelley, Wickham None Motion, and duly seconded, to move Althea Lane, #87 on the street inventory list, to the standard design street list. 12-2-1 Kubota, Lewis, Mamaux, Spano, Chartier, Leger, Schlehuber, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Nobels Dwelley, Wickham Gamache January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 9 Chairperson Leger asked for discussion on the Draft Report Outline and what the contents would be. It was agreed via consensus that the committee would work from the second page of the Draft Report Outline. Committee member Dwelley recommended that a citizen's commission should be added to the Executive Summary. Committee member Chartier suggested that the Trees Committee be joined with. the Streets and Sidewalk, forming a citizen's commission. Mr. Hubbs announced that copies of the Tree Committees report would be distribute to the committee next week. Committee member McBane stated that the Executive Summary needed to include a list of all of the recommendations that have been made. Chairperson Leger suggested that recommendations be de-coupled from conclusions. Mr. Hubbs indicated that an Executive Summary, typically was a highlight of what is contained within a report. Committee member McBane said that modification of the existing standards should be included in the executive summary, as well as background, existing standards and FIA process. Committee Leger asked the committee if they would prefer to look the Draft Report Outline over and address the issues next week. Mr. Hubbs explained to the committee that they were not locked into the outline form. The Draft Report Outline was needed so that staff could have a framework from which to work. The committee's report will be presented to the City Council, by staff. If there are questions or recommendations, the report will be referred back to Staff for review and analyses. Committee member Gallagher suggested that the executive summary include mitigation measures (i.e. lot splits that impact traffic etc.). This would create alternatives to just paving streets. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, that the Mission Statement be changed to ... "Identify streets to be completed with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks that are compatible with the existing adjacent improvements." 13-2-0 Lewis, Spano, Chartier, Leger, Schlehuber, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Nobels, Dwelley, Wickham, Gamache Mamaux, Kubota None Chairperson Leger announced that the next order of business was an extension request to the City Council. Next week the City Attorney would speak at the meeting addressing FIA's and other issues. The alternative design recommendations must be addressed and the outline must be finalized. Steve Didier advised the committee that there were two holidays in February, February 14 and February 21, the Senior Center room was not available. Chairperson Leger asked for an agreement from the committee regarding the extension and charged staff with determining meeting dates to replace the two holidays. January 17, 2000 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 10 Motion by Vice-Chairperson Piro and duly seconded to request an one month extension. 15-0-0 Lewis, Spano, Chartier, Leger, Schlehuber, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Nobels, Dwelley, Wickham, Gamache, Mamaux, Kubota None None Chairperson Leger informed the committee that next week's agenda would include the FIA issues and the City Attorney, the process would be addressed and along with other items to be determined at a later date. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10pm. January 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 11 Executive Summary • Council Action and direction to committee • Recommendations: street categories & petition process • Citizens Commission Introduction, Background & Purpose • Pedestrian Action Plan • CPOC's and residents' objections • Committee formation • Background existing standards, FIA process Mission Statement • Identify streets to be completed with standard improvements • Review existing City plans, policies and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk development and make relevant recommendations. • Identify special character streets for custom design • Identify streets to be completed with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks that are compatible with the existing adjacent improvements." • Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of improvements • Report to Council February 29, 2000 Criteria 1. Documented safety issues 2. Proximity to schools and other public facilities 3. resident/owners request improvements 4. Necessity for walkways/pedestrian access 5. Average Daily Traffic over 1200 6. Linkage corridor (roadway need for circulation continuity or connection to active land uses) 7. Need for traffic calming strategies 8. Land use changes 9. Drainage problems 10. Federal, State or Local mandates Street Categories • Streets to be improved with curb, gutter & sidewalks compatible with existing improvements in the surrounding area and not in violation of state and federal law. • Special character streets Recommended Specific Plan Issues Recommendations Conclusion City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 12 MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2000 1. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Review of Future Improvement Agreement (FIA) Policies Information 4. Review FIA Legal Issues Information 5. Final Alternative Street Planning Process Decision 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn January 24, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED AS AMENDED Pagel MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. January 24 2000 Senior Citizens Center Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Clarence Schlehuber, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Bailey Noble, Pam Wischkaemper, Zell Dwelley, Joe Gallagher, Joe Spano, Paul Gamache, Ruth Lewis Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Doug Chartier, Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers, Bob Johnson, Dave Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting) None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:05p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, accompanied by a slide presentation (See Final Report Appendix E) Dr. Debes discussed A New Model for Alternative Roadway Design. He referred to Mr. Piro's presentation regarding concepts and ideas related. to roadway cross sections. He believed the aforementioned outlined good ideas regarding materials and aesthetics. Dr. Debes presentation dealt with the dimensions of the streets, i.e. width of the streets and what specific portions apply to specific situations (See Final Report Appendix E). He referred to his model stating that it had 3 sections, parking, traffic and pedestrian pathways. The input for the traffic lanes is ADT and Speed; the output is width. Parking Lane input is Average lot size and the Output is number of parking lanes. Pedestrian path input is ADT and pedestrian point source and the output is optional O to 2 pedestrian pathways. He outlined the model to specific streets (See Final Report Appendix E) from the smallest street to the largest street, i.e. Crest Drive provides 13 feet for traffic lanes and 3 ½ feet on either side of a drive-able shoulder with a mountable burm, which comprises a total of 20 feet of drive-able surface, which meets the California State Emergency Vehicle Code requirement for the emergency vehicles. In his model, Wilson Street allowed 14 feet for traffic lanes, 1 parking lane (because the housing density is higher) a rough shoulder on one side and a drive-able shoulder on the other side, which could double as a pedestrian access. It does make up the 20 feet required for the emergency vehicles. The entire roadway section is 28 feet graded. He outlined Park indicating how the 28 feet could be used in a different manner to accommodate pedestrians and parking. (See Final Report Appendix E). Dr. Debes discussed Highland Drive (CVD to Oak) stating that the total width was of concern due to environmental reasons. 33 feet on Highland would allow for 2 pedestrian paths, 17 feet for traffic lanes and a single parking lane, with 21 feet of drive-able surface, which exceeds the minimum requirement of the California State Emergency Vehicle Code. January 24, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page2 In closing Dr. Debes stated that all of the streets of interest could be run through a model such as this, as a starting point for the design of the cross sections. Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the City approach to streets and sidewalks for the northwest quadrant as presently implemented is inappropriate for infill construction. It does not respond to citizen requirements. It is wasteful in terms of materials and money and it will progressively destroy the very characteristics the residents have said they want to preserve. In one instance a cul-de-ace for six homes, the as constructed streets (36 wide) and sidewalks (five feet wide on both sides of the street) exceed the standards mentioned by 77% for streets and *69% for sidewalks in materials alone! He stated that it was clearly demonstrated that the City standard as it is applied today is currently going to destroy the ambience of Old Carlsbad. He referred to the diagram stating that as built it is three feet narrower than Magnolia, which runs for several blocks and serves many houses and public facilities. In conclusion, Mr. King declared, to let this practice continue does not respond to the charge to consider all relevant issues for street and sidewalk design issued by the City Council and it ignores the voices of the residents of this area. *Developing agencies for the Residential Street Design Manual American Society of Civil Engineers The National Association of Home Builders The Urban Land Institute. Leslie Williams, commented on the list of cities in the agenda package that were used for the outside of the county review for the future improvement and dedication policies. She was dismayed, but not surprised, that none of the cities that were reviewed for the future improvement and dedication policy, except Del Mar, were from the list that she presented at the City Council meeting in September 1999. She further stated that the cities she presented were cities that had streets that were 24 feet wide, which had policies in place that allowed for that width. There were no cities in the review package, except Del Mar, that the City of Carlsbad should want to emulate. She questioned why the cities in the committees review were selected. She suggested that cities that had more in common with Carlsbad should have been selected for the review, i.e. Montecito, Sierra Madre, Pasadena, Carmel. Places the citizens of Carlsbad would want to live. She stated she did not want to live in Temecula. Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson asked the Committee not to make suggestions or comments until the end of the presentations and to confine their questions to the suggest matter. Steve Didier, Public Works Engineer, stated that dedication of right-a-way and required improvements as a condition to the issuance of building permits, have been in use in the City of Carlsbad since 1976. He gave a presentation regarding the "Review of Future Improvement Agreements (FIA) Policies. He stated that regardless of the agencies (cities) that were surveyed, the information that is provided shows an entire range of possibilities indicating what a municipal agencies can do with regards to required dedication of right-of-way, required street improvements, and future improvement agreements. This information has been supplied for the committee to study. Mr. Didier advised the committee that the report did not include cities (i.e. county of San Diego) that did not respond to the questionnaire, which included a copy of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40 and a cover letter outlining the purpose of the questionnaire, in a timely manner. (See Final Report Appendix E). In summary the report indicates the following themes: 1. The agency did not require dedications or future improvement agreements at all or 2. The agency required the dedications or future improvements agreements for commercial developments and not residential or 3. The agency required the dedications or future improvement agreements for new residential projects, but not for existing residents or 4. The agency required dedications or future improvement agreements in all cases. (See Final Report Appendix January 24, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page3 E). Mr. Didier stated that comparing the City of Carlsbad to any of the cities in the survey, was like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing the City of Carlsbad in general to some of the themes in the survey would be a better way for the committee to analyze the information and then decide what to do with the information. Committee member McBane referring to the existing property owners in Carlsbad who are suffering the burden for remodels, stated that "the cities in the report did not require dedications for remodeling of existing buildings.· The report did not appear to be a fair portrayal of information. Mr. Didier indicated that the questionnaire asked, "Do you require dedication of right-of-way and under what conditions?" The report maintained the consistency of the information in relationship to how it was presented to him from the other agencies. He reiterated that it was the responsibility of the committee to review the information as presented and make its own interpretation of the data. Vice-Chairperson Piro stated that it was unfortunate that the committee did not see the questionnaire before it was sent the agencies. Although he thanked Mr. Didier for the report, he indicated that the questionnaire should have asked very specific questions in order to prevent confusion. Committee member Dwelley asked if there were a loophole in the ordinance, which would allow the improvements piecemeal, i.e. 645 square feet at a time, or a ceiling point. Mr. Didier stated that Mr. Ball could better answer that question. Committee member Schlehuber stated that the report supplied valid information and statistics, but questioned how they applied to Carlsbad. The committee should look at the needs of Old Carlsbad as it grows (i.e. Althea Lane), before making any decisions. Mr. Didier commented that Old Carlsbad did not consist of residential properties only. It consists of commercial businesses as well. He strongly encouraged the committee to review the information in the report, paying special attention to required dedications and required street improvements. Committee member Gallagher voiced that he found the information in the report excellent. He asked if any of the cities in the report had special study area similar to the northwest quadrant. Mr. Didier indicated that the information was requested for the entire city, not any particular subsection of the city. Committee member Gallagher asked if there were a point of reference available that would indicate if certain cities are facing the same scenario as Carlsbad and are evaluating based upon the older part vs. the newer part. Mr. Didier suggested ORDLINK.com on the Internet. Committee member Wickham stated that in the committee members' packets there was information on Encinitas , which faced a scenario similar to Carlsbad, thus designating the streets as special character streets and dealing with the issue appropriately. Committee member Mamaux asked how did cities that did not require dedications, acquire the right-of- way when streets needed to be widened. Mr. Didier indicated that he would have to research that. In addition, he set forth that if the committee would like to put together a list of questions, he would be happy to address the list. Committee member Mamaux stated that the common thread between the cities of Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Macros, Vista and the northwest quadrant of Carlsbad, is that they are all left over from terrible, horrible planning by San Diego County. To follow the lead of San Diego County is appalling. January 24, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 Committee member Schlehuber commented that having the ability to get the right-of-way in Old Carlsbad was very important. The other quadrants of the City have the right-of-ways and to build a street if needed. Old Carlsbad might need right-of-ways in the future. Special consideration for Old Carlsbad does not mean giving up dedications or FIA's. Committee member Dwelley asked for clarification regarding dedications (i.e.· does the dedication change every time the standards do? Mr. Hubbs responded that dedications were required based on current standards, but he did not believe the standards had changed in 30 years .. Committee member Kubota thanked the staff for the report, adding that other cities needed to modernize also. Mr. Didier reported that half of the agencies that supplied information for the survey wanted a report on the results of the survey. Committee member Wickham remarked that the beginning of the original 1965 Carlsbad General Plan, spoke to the issues at hand, describing the goals of land acquisition, and the "super blocks connected by highways" plans for the NW Quadrant. Ron Ball, City Attorney, reviewed in detail the FIA Legal Issues. Referring to chapter 18.40, stated that it was adopted 24 years by the City in recognition that streets were required thus dedications. The purpose as it was stated by the City Council in 1976 was to allow the requirements to be extended to individual projects that were not associated with a sub-division. The building permits for individual lots are non- discretionary. If the building project conforms to the latest requirements adopted by the city, i.e. the building codes and the uniform codes, the permit is issued as in compliance with the laws and standards. Chapter 18.40 requires dedication and improvements, on the levels discussPd previously. This was an effort to make a legislative determination that in order to provide streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters with in a right-of-way, when a property owner applied to convert, change or improvement the property in excess of the threshold limits, a dedication would be required. The dedication would be required if the project exceeds $10,000, and improvements would be required if the project exceeds $50,000. These standards were upgraded in the '90's. When the City Engineer recommends road improvement or sidewalk installation, etc. the city needs to have that right-of-way. If the City does not have the right-of- way the project can only go forward after the City acquires it. If there is no discretionary permit or building permit pending, the City must obtain the right-of-way by imminent domain. Addressing the question if a project could be built for $40,000 and then following year build a project for $40,000; would the first $40,000 count? Each project is looked at individually at the time the building permit applied for. He said they were not cumulative. Regarding revised standards, if the property owner is obligated via a FIA, the improvements must be done that are called out in the agreement. If the property owner is not subject to a FIA, they will not need to do any thing until a permit is applied for and at that time the current standards would apply. Committee member McBane wanted clarification on the concept of nexus, proportionality, i.e. the relationship between the value of what is requested and what the homeowner is receiving in return; and equity, i.e. the cost that benefits an area in general, should be paid for by all of the beneficiaries. The dedication and improvement have to be related to something that is caused by the construction that is going to take place. Mr. Ball replied that the nexus was a United States Constitutional concept, which derives from the requirement of a government to pay just compensation for any property taken for pubic purpose. January 24, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 Proportionality and nexus are intertwined. The formula is the dedication or improvement must be in direct proportion to the impact of the project. If the improvements serve the pubic generally, the public generally pays. If the improvements serve the private property, then the dedication is justified. There is a crossover where there is public purpose serving the residents, i.e. curb, gutter and sidewalks in a residential development. Vice-Chairperson asked for clarification on the three alternatives available for dedication. Mr. Ball, 1.0utright dedication -the dedication is made at that time and becomes a public right-of-way; 2. Irrevocable offer of dedication -the offer lapses after twenty-fives years and the public entity is required to accept it or it lapses, 3. Rejected offer means that unlike the usual contract situation where rejection is final, it means it is rejected until the public entity changes its mind and accepts it, all within the twenty-five year time limit. Vice-Chairperson asked about liability as it pertained to the 3 types of dedications. Mr. Ball stated that the public entity is only responsible for dangerous conditions of its property and only to the extent that it owns and/or controls the property. The ownership and control determine the liability. Committee member Schlehuber asked Mr. Ball to explain the process that the city went through in acquiring the land on Palomar Airport Road via imminent domain. Mr. Ball explained the process, i.e. property must be obtained via acquisition, dedication or imminent domain, but could not go into specifics, because the case is still pending. Committee member Mamaux asked how did building permit evaluation relate to the actual cost of construction. Is there a difference between what the building permit fee is and what it is based on, as opposed to what it actually cost. Mr. Ball explained that the formula contained within the Uniform Building Code that determines the cost of the permit. The formula is used, not the actual construction contract. This code is revised every two or three years .. Committee member Gallagher asked if a FIA was signed by a property owner, did that the FIA become a lien on the property if the property were sold. Mr. Ball indicated that was correct. The lien would be attached to the title and remain there until satisfied. Committee member Wickham asked how difficult it would be to change items in the General Plan. Mr. Ball remarked that the General Plan is a fundamental document that controls the city. Any of the nine mandatory elements in the General Plan can be amended up to four times per year. There are fours ways in which a General Plan amendment can be undertaken -1. By request of the citizens, 2. Request by the developer, 3. Request by the Planning Department and 4. Request by the City Council. Committee member Wickham stated she was unable to locate data that indicated that the proposed improvements were for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. She asked if anyone had won a law suit against the City for liability on any of the unimproved or improved streets in the northwest quadrant (i.e. repeated slip and fall accidents) Mr. Ball referring to a diagram, indicated that there was not a higher frequency of slip and fall accidents or lawsuits in the northwest quadrant as compared to other quadrants of the City. There have been settlements and awards. The City is very diligent in defending these matters and does not just settle. Committee member Wickham reported that various cities published their liability cases on their websites. She asked if Carlsbad had considered doing the same. January 24, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 Mr. Ball replied, "No". Committee member Dwelley, referred to the section 18040.100 (1) Wavier or modification of requirements in the General Plan, which stated "The street fronting on the property has already been improved to the maximum feasible and desirable state, recognizing that some such streets which may have less than standard improvements, when necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things as trees, walls, yards and open space", and that the General Plan was not being adhered to. She believed that holding a property owner's building permit hostage until a portion of the land was turned over was a form of extortion. Committee member McBane questioned the city's liability if it did not take into consideration the committee's report outlining the that fact that safer alternatives regarding the -installation of sidewalks and street exist now as compared to the standard of building sidewalks and streets 30 years ago. What would be the liability of the City if it continued to construct the curbs gutters, and sidewalk using the old standards and injury results? Mr. Ball stated that the approved standards fell within the immunity provisions of the government code and there is no liability resulting from using an approved standard .. Agenda Item #6, Final Alternative Street Planning Process, was continued until the next meeting. Chairperson Leger stated that the meeting schedule would be discussed at the next meeting. Regarding the committee's report due date, he advised the that he would be requesting an extension date from the City Council. Mr. Didier advised the company that the Senior Facility was not available on the 14th and 21st of February and he would be investigating other available sites. Committee member Wickham submitted a list of streets to be included under traffic calming. The meeting was adjourned at &0Spm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 13 MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Carlsbad Senior Center 799 Pine Avenue 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 1/3, 1/10 & 1/13 3. Public Comment 4. Final Alternative Street Planning Process 5. Future Issue Identification 6. Work Program and Schedule 7. Final Report Outline 8. Future Meeting Agenda 9. Adjourn Accept Decision Decision January 31, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page I MEETING SUMMARY Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: January 31, 2000 Place of Meeting: Senior Citizens Center Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Clarence Schlehuber, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Zell Dwelley, Joe Spano, Doug Chartier, Paul Gamache, Ruth Lewis Bailey Noble, Joe Gallagher Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings. January 3, 2000 ACTION: January 1 0, 2000 ACTION: January 13, 2000 ACTION: PUBLIC COMMENTS: By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the January 3, 2000 meeting was accepted as presented, with the minor corrections (See Final Report Appendix D). By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the January 10, 2000 meeting was accepted as presented, See Final Report Appendix D: By Consensus the summary of meeting minutes of the January 13, 2000 meeting was accepted as presented, with the minor corrections (See Final Report Appendix D). Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, commented that on tonight's agenda the committee will be finalizing the Alternative Street Planning Process. This is a very important aspect of the output that will be coming from this committee. This is especially true, since it has become obvious at this point that the scope of the output of this committee's work will be limited since there are only a few meetings remaining. It is extremely important that the work that has been initiated by this committee has a venue in which it January 31, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page2 may be continued. Therefore, it is my strong recommendation that the Process include the formation of a citizen based "committee" or "commission" that would have the opportunity to work with city staff throughout the Design Approval Process. This will provide citizen input throughout the process, rather than waiting until steps 4 and 5. By involving the community early in the project, it will help assure that their input will be considered in design alternatives and that work done by the city on their own will not have to be reworked after they receive community input. This will make the process more effective, efficient, and economical. In conclusion, at this point in time, the single most important thing that this committee can do is to recommend to City Council that a citizen-based committee or commission be established that will be dedicated to street and sidewalk issues as part of the Alternative Design Approval Process. Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the committee's agenda for this evening indicates that the committee will be considering future issues. He hoped that one of these issues is traffic calming and speed control on the streets the committee has been reviewing. Speed control accomplished by extensive signage, appropriate designs and possibly the use of unmanned radar speed warning trailers that indicate the actual vehicle speed and the legal speed limit. These units are used in Palm Desert (and other places) and are reported to be very effective. Gary Hill, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, expressed concerns related to sidewalks and neighborhood character. In particular, he distributed a *brochure to the committee, which outlined different material that could be used for walkways. The brochure illustrated different characters that could be obtained, i.e. ADA compliance. The brochure outlined environmental projects, residential projects, and historical projects. The brochure illustrated clearly that a myriad of options, other than standard concrete sidewalks that the City currently has, are available. He stated that he just completed a study on the future of the Carlsbad City wide trail system. He was surprised to find out how much of the trail system is now and will be on what will be called sidewalks. The committee might want to consider where the trail system meets the sidewalk, to use some other type of character, so that it looks more like the trail even though it will function as a sidewalk. * "Soil Stabilization Products Co. Inc. -pavements, resin, modified, emulsion-Technology at Work" Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson Leger discussed that they would not consider all of Committee member Wickham's comments that are included in the committee's packets. He advised the committee that the next order of business would be the Final Alternative Street Planning Process. He asked for discussion related to staff's draft of the Alternative Design Approval Process. Committee Wickham asked for a show of hands to see if any other committee members were in favor of a committee as part of the process. Chairperson Leger indicated that he would vote against that, because he did not want the two attached together. He was not against the committee. Committee Wickham stated that since the committee only made recommendations she disagreed with Mr. Leger. Mr. Hubbs informed the committee that it was not appropriate to place the city staff on the commission. Committee member Dwelley stated that the Tree Committee recommended a commission in their process. January 31, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 3 Mr. Hubbs advised the committee that the Tree Committee placed the item regarding a commission under "other recommendation", which formed a basis for a roll for a commission. If the formation of a commission is placed in the process it negates the process. Mr. Piro made a recommendation that the motion, be modified. Dr. Wickham amended her motion as follows: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: DISCUSSION: Motion by Committee member Wickham, and duly seconded, to form a citizen based commission. Upon initiation, the Citizen's Commission will review the Criteria analysis. This commission shall meet publicly on a regular basis in perpetuity (or until other wise designated by Council). The task of this Commission will be to review and provide input on all issues related to street and sidewalks in Carlsbad. 6-7-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger, Spano, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Kubota None Committee member Dwelley wanted a time line entered into the process regarding FIA's. Mr. Hubbs stated that the draft of the Alternative Design Approval Process, just dealt with the process. Committee member Mamaux stated that the Plan Initiation addressed Ms. Dwelley's concerns. Committee member McBane wanted to amend #8 of the Alternative Design Approval Process to include consideration of pedestrian safety issues and alternative designs. Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer, responded that part of the Pedestrian Action Plan in 1988, was to amend the Municipal Code to include pedestrian safety as part of the duties of the Traffic Safety Commission. Committee member Chartier reminded the committee that this committee was formed because an FIA was triggered due to the fact that a building permit was requested. The committee must find a way that a single item of a building permit request triggers full notification of everyone that could be involved because the street could be developed. Chairperson Leger concurred, but felt that the notification issue should be in the "other recommendations" portion of the committee's report, not as part of the process, or alternative design. Vice-Chairperson Piro interjected that a myriad of residents complained that they did not receive notification of the need FIA, until they were months into their building permit process. He indicated that he would make a motion in the appropriate spot regarding this issue. Mr. Lloyd remarked that FIA's had a notification process built into it. January 31, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 Committee McBane remarked that there was no provision in the process to disclose what the economic impact on individual property owners would be. Items #4 and #5 should include economic analyses of the cost to the individual property owner (e.g. impacts of the alternative design). Chairperson Leger concurred. Committee member Mamaux indicated that it was his understanding that part of the engineering study showed what the cost would be and how the cost would be distributed. Dave Jamieson asked staff to revise the alternative Design approval Process to include the following, ... "when a study is being done and recommendations are made, that any potential cost to property owners should be included in the form of a disclosure." This should be included in the redraft of the Alternative Design Approval Process. Vice-Chairperson voiced that the aforementioned would make the process harder, e.g. addressing cost. Committee McBane responded that no sound decision could be made without knowing the relative cost of the decision. Adrienne Landers addressed issues related to #9 in the Alternative Design Approval Process, stating that small sidewalks segment and small street improvements were not normally reviewed by the Planning Commission. She set forth that the Traffic Safety Commission would more properly review the aforementioned. Committee member Wickham indicated that no time frame was listed in the notification process. Committee member Schlehuber remarked that a notice ordinance existed on everything via the General Plan Ordinance Code. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Committee Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to accept Staff's Alternative Design Approval Process with the following changes: #8 ... traffic safety, pedestrian and alternative design issues, #9 deleted, study shall include the disclosure of economic impacts of potential cost to property owner (#5). 12-1-0 Dwelley, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger, Spano, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Kubota Wickham, None Chairperson Leger stated that the committee's tenure would be over at the end of February. In order to provide the report to the City Council, Staff requires the approved final committee report on February 23, 2000. January 31, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 Mr. Hubbs asked the committee to detail specifics when outlining FIA or dedication issues. He indicated that a final list was enclosed in the committee's packet requesting. Mr. Hubbs suggested written comments from the committee members would be appropriate, if they wanted to address any item. Future Issue Identification was discussed in detail. It was determined the committee would like to address the following issues: a) Formation of a street commission, b) Various aspects of FIA's and dedications, c) Under-grounding Utilities/electric-telephone, d) Sound walls on the freeway, e) General Plan/Growth Philosophy, Traffic Calming · f) Construction of isolated segments of curbs, gutters and sidewalks g) Mitigated measures ACTION: Motion by Committee member Schlehuber, and duly seconded, that any item for consideration by the committee, must be submitted by Thursday, February 3, 2000. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 12-1-0 Dwelley, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger, Spano, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Kubota Wickham, None Because several committee members would not be present at the February 10, 2000 meeting it was determined by consensus that voting on issues would not take place until February 17, 2000. It was determined by consensus that the committee would meet on the following dates {Location: Faraday Building, Time: 6pm. The meeting time for the February 23rc1 will be determined at a later day): • February 7, discuss other issues/recommendation/vote on issues • February 10, discuss Alternative Streets Designs, but no voting will take place/Phase 1 Final Report • February 17, vote on Alternative Street Designs and/or other issues/Phase 2 -Final Report • February 23, Approval of Final Report • February 28, 2000, Presentation of the report to City Council The Final Report Outline was discussed in detail. Committee member Wickham asked if correspondence would be included in the Final Report. It was agreed by consensus that the following changes would be part of the Report Outline: 1. Written correspondence would be included in the Final Report, Appendices #5 Correspondence/written. January 31, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 2. #3 under Appendices would be corrected to read Alternative Design Streets, 3. In the Mission Statement the words "custom design", would be replaced with" alternative design.· 4. Addition to Alternative Design Criteria , Lane widths/acceptable options Pedestrian Pathways 5. Under Criteria #5 remove ... "over 1200 These changes were made to maintain consistency in language. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15pm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 14 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2000 I. Meeting agenda 2. Public Comment Faraday Center: Room 173A 1635 Faraday Avenue (Enter via west end of building) 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. Issue Discussion and Recommendations 4. Final Report 5. Future Meeting Agenda 6. Adjourn .. Decision Discussion February 7, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page I MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. February 7, 2000 Faraday Center, Conference Room 173A Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Clarence . Schlehuber, John Mamaux, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Zell Dwelley, Jo_e Spano, Doug Chartier, Paul Gamache, Ruth Lewis, Joe Gallagher Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Bailey Noble Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers, Bob Johnson, David Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:08p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, commented that not everyone looks good in a size 60 coat. Mr. Jamieson would probably look pretty silly in a size 60 coat. Size 60 coats are reserved for the fattest of cats. Similarly, all streets don't look good with a 60 foot graded width. What works for Tamarack doesn't necessarily work for Crest. This is the basis of New Model For Alternative Roadway Design. When you go to the tailor, he measures your shoulders, your chest, your waist, and your inseam, and he makes you a suit to fit. In the case of the New Model, you measure ADT and speed limit and it tells you how wide to make your traffic lanes. You measure housing density and it tells you how many parking lanes you need. You measure ADT and pedestrian point-source data and it tells you how many pedestrian paths you need. Some clothing styles emphasize looser fits, while other styles accentuate tighter fits. It all comes down to what you believe in. However, I believe that when we make it to the Promised Land, we won't all be wearing size 60 coats. Conrad Deflon, 1608 Lake Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he had an interest in property on one of the unimproved roads. Referring to FIA's asking if the FIA's were good for the City of Carlsbad or good for the individuals. He noted that individual rights were protected by the constitution and it appeared that the City of Carlsbad walked on individual rights via FIA's and this was not a good thing. The democracy appeared to be sham, because the rights of individuals were ignored thus producing a communist City of Carlsbad. He felt the entire issues at hand would ultimately end up in court. He requested that the panel look at the issues objectively. He stated that data collected from across the country, indicated that "thinner or narrower streets with lower traffic speeds are safer streets, e.g. less accidents, less fatalities." Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. r 1 r February 7, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page2 1 Issues and Recommendations were discussed in detail. \ I r I -I r-· r. ,-- -i r- 1, r t r Committee member Chartier, referring to an 800-pound gorilla lurking in the form of Staff Recommends in bold face font followed by the clear statement of staffs recommendation. He stated that the aforementioned made it appear as if it were the Staffs report and not the committees'. Although it was a request of the committee that staff place their recommendations in the report, it was determined by consensus that the bold face font on the draft of the committees' recommendation report, "Staff Recommends:" be changed to regular font type DISCUSSION: Committee member Mamaux stated his opposition to the motion, because it was over reaching the committee's goal. Committee member Dwelley inte~ected that the committee was merely making recommendations to the City Council. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: FREEWAY SOUND WALLS ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, to accept the recommendation to request a General Plan Amendment as written in Zell Dwelley's, February 3, 2000 memo to Lloyd Hubbs (Section E). 8-6-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher None Noble Motion by Committee member McBane and duly seconded, to adopt the recommendation, from John Mamaux's correspondence, Sound walls on Freeways -1. City should begin negotiation with CalTrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, 2. City (or CalTrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated. 13-1-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher Spano, None Noble February 7, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page3 DISCUSSION: Committee member McBane wanted the phase .... "Public funding" ... included in the recommendation; Committee member Mamaux stated that developers were required to underground utilities. Committee member Wickham asked if SDG&E funds could be referred to, i.e. grant funds. Mr. Hubbs advised that money is allocated via Rule 20A annually to the City, the money has been spent. New funds will become available in the future. Committee member Kubota stated that the recommendation would be best left as is. UNDERGROUND UT/LITES ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DISCUSSION: Motion by Committee Piro and duly seconded, to adopt the recommendation of staff regarding the under-grounding of utilities, e.g. "The Council direct staff to explore alternative funding approaches to accelerate the under-grounding of overhead utilities", as written. 14-0-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano None None Noble Committee member Dwelley requested that the Council be informed that the committee is aware that alternative traffic calming options exist and the committee would like the City Council to explore them. Committee member withdrew her motion. Committee member Gamache suggested that Dr. Wickham withdraw her motion including the entire page 7 of McBane's recommendation regarding traffic calming. Committee member Wickham withdrew her motion. TRAFFIC CALMING AMENDMENT: ACTION: Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro and duly seconded, to add items I and II, Page 7 of Committee member McBane's' report to the committee's final report as a recommendation. February 7, 2000 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MAIN MOTION: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DISCUSSION: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 I. Based upon our review of the current state of the art street design in other communities, the Committee recommends that instead of a single standard, the City of Carlsbad utilize different design methodologies committed to preserving the existing nature and character of each neighborhood. II. "Based upon the public testimony we have heard, the Committee has found that one of the most important concerns to the residents of "Olde Carlsbad" is excessive traffic speed. Vehicular traffic speed should be calmed using the state-of-the-art design methods, such as traffic lane narrowing, pseudo-shoulders, improved signage, textured paving, rumble strips, Botts' Dots, Traffic-Circles, and Elephant Ears.· 10-4-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Gallagher Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Kubota None Noble Motion by Committee member Schlehuber and duly seconded, to encourage the City Council to form a Traffic Calming Committee as a follow up to this committee's efforts. 13-1-0 Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano Mamaux, None Noble Committee member Mamaux stated that because of conflicts of interest, any committee member involved in dedication or/and FIA's, that are on the books today should refrain from discussions and voting on the issues. Committee Dwelley stated that the Council appointed the committee members will full knowledge of where they lived, and who they were. She remarked that the Council expected each committee member to discuss all issues at hand and to cast votes based on research. Ms. Dwelley reminded the committee that they did not have the power to amend policy or change things, the committee was only charged with making recommendations and she therefore did not see a conflict of interest. Committee member Chartier stating that taking someone's right to vote away is equivalent to taking away the rights of the City Council person whom appointed the committee member. February 7, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 Committee member Wickham liked the idea of increasing the thresholds as recommended by staff, the threshold should be amended with some of the other issues that have been discussed. Leaving the meeting, Committee member Mamaux excused himself from the committee meeting, stating that the committees' creditability had been lost. Committee member McBane stated that he was opposed to the motion. The committee's charge was to resolve problems and a major aspect of the problems are dedications, the status quo is not adequate. Committee member Chartier mentioned the 800-pound gorilla, a property owner has the right not to dedicate land. He stated that it was his belief that the entire manner would end up in court. Committee member Gallagher suggested that if an addition to a particular property is so excessive that it creates additional impacts to the street, infrastructure and changes the character of the building, instead of a dollar amount ($10,000 or $30,000), the trigger should be any improvements over 1,500 or 2,000 square feet. He noted that it was difficult to measure in dollars. Committee member McBane stated that it was unconstitutional to take property without just compensation. Committee member Gamache remarked that the square footage issue, should be a discussion for another motion. DEDICATIONS ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion by Committee Schlehuber and duly seconded, to accept staff's recommendation to index the threshold to building evaluation changes. Update with new budget year. Indexing it to the ICBO, back to 1992. 7-6-0 Piro, Leger, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano Gamache, Wickham, Chartier, Dwelley, McBane, Lewis None Mamaux, Noble Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro and duly seconded, to increase threshold for dedication from existing $10,000 to $30,000 5-7-1 Piro, Gamache, Wickham, Chartier, McBane Lewis, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, Leger Dwelley Mamaux, Noble Chairperson Leger advised the committee that, unless a committee member had some new information or data to bring to the table regarding the issues at hand, the discussion should cease. He then called for the vote. February 7, 2000 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DISCUSSION: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 Motion by Committee member Gamache and duly seconded, to recommend that, "only require dedication on building permits, which create new residential dwelling units." 7-6-0 Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Chartier Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, Leger, None Mamaux, Noble Committee member Schlehuber referred to statements made by City Attorney Ball indicating that "if the City is not utilizing the dedications, it was true the City might get sued, but Attorney Ball stated that there was no liability to sue the city on the dedication: Committee member Chartier stated that the entire process of dedication did not address the issue of taking of land as it relates to the constitution. Chairperson Leger reminded Mr. Chartier that the committee was not a court of law. Committee member Chartier asserted that the matter of dedication as set forth by the City was illegal. Committee member Gallagher was concerned that a irrevocable dedication gave the City the hammer, thus taking the neighborhood out of the equation, which is what the committee is trying to get to. He stated that he was therefore in favor of the motion. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DISCUSSION: Motion by Committee Piro and duly seconded, to recommend the adoption of #2 on the committee report: 2. The Committee recommends that dedications be in the form of a "rejected offer of dedication" and only be accepted at such time as any required improvements are planned for construction." The "rejected offer" will be treated the same as an actual dedication with regard to any new improvements on the property (i.e. setbacks, density, etc.)." 5-7-1 Piro, Gamache, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Gallagher Schlehuber, Kubota, Spano, Leger, Wickham, Chartier, Dwelley McBane Mamaux, Noble Vice-chairperson Piro withdrew motion on #3, because it was academic due to the last item being voted down. Dedication Item #3 was accepted as written. Chairperson Leger called for a vote on #4. February 7, 2000 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DISCUSSION: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page7 Motion by Committee member McBane and duly seconded, to adopt staff recommendation "At such time a right-of-way is found to be excess of that required, the excess would be quit claimed." "recommending that, all excess dedications previously taken be re-conveyed to adjacent property owners." 12-1-0 Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Chartier, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Leger, Spano, None . Mamaux, Noble Motion by Committee member McBane and duly seconded, to adopt McBane's recommendation on Page 1, IV and V. Committee member Dwelley asked for clarification regarding nexus. Mr. Jamieson stated that nexus meant direct connection. Mr. Hubbs pointed out that #V would create a whole new process for remodeling project. There is distinction in Title 18, building permit section, it is a ministerial code, e.g. if you meet the code you will get your permit. Discretionary process, e.g. staff, or city or the neighborhood, or anyone else, can propose conditions on the development. Chairperson Leger asked if McBane's' motion was redundant. Committee member McBane withdrew his motion. Dedication item #5 was accepted as written. FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ACTION: Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro, and duly seconded, to accept 1 a) as follows: Future Improvement Agreements should apply to only new construction. Remodeling of existing residential dwelling units would be exempt from improvement requirements. 7-6-0 Piro, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache None Mamaux, Noble Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded to exclude FIA's on new construction on existing lots. February 7, 2000 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: NOTIFICATIONS OF FIA'S: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DISCUSSION: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 8 3-10-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher None Mamaux, Noble Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro, and duly seconded, to strengthen notification of potential improvement requirements by issuance of notice at receipt of building permit application. 13-0-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher None None Mamaux, Noble Committee member McBane supported the motion, because current FIA's are subordinate to existing financing on the property, but not subordinate to new financing. This makes it very difficult to refinance property without a subordination agreement from the city. Committee member Schlehuber stated that he had refinanced his property without a subordination agreement. Committee member Gamache remarked that several of his clients were required to obtain a subordination agreement. Mr. Hubbs stated that some banks did require a subordination agreement. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion by Committee member Gallagher, and duly seconded, to recommend FIA's be made subordinate to homeowner's mortgages or trust deed financing at present and in the future. Staff will review language with the City Attorney's office to make sure that the agreement is subordinate to trust deeds. 13-0-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher None None Mamaux, Noble February 7, 2000 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page9 Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, with respect to requesting performance under a FIA, committee recommends that the time frame be expanded from 30 days to 90 days to allow property owner's to respond to the demand of the FIA's. 9-4-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, None Mamaux, Noble Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, the committee recommends that the cost of all improvements be equitably allocated amongst all of the beneficiaries, and that no FIA exceed the property owner's fair share of the improvement cost as found in the public hearing. 3-9-1 Wickham, McBane, Chartier Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Gallagher Dwelley, Mamaux, Noble Committee member Gamache suggested changing the motion to exclude the wording "as found in the public hearing.· ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion by Committee member Gamache, and duly seconded, the committee recommends that the cost of all improvements be equitably allocated amongst all of the beneficiaries, and that no FIA exceed the property owner's fair share of the improvement cost. 7-6-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis None Mamaux, Noble Chairperson Leger called for the vote on #6 maintaining the city's current action of not building island improvements to curbs and sidewalks. February 7, 2000 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 10 Motion by Vice-chairperson Piro, and duly seconded, that the City's current policy of not building island improvements to curbs and sidewalks. The committee recommends that the portion of Section 18.400.70 as amended in November 1999 pertaining to the policy regarding the deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permanent policy after the building moratorium has been lifted. 13-0-0 Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley, Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis None None Mamaux, Noble Committee member Dwelley withdrew her motion, stating that she would like to leave the power within the process and within the neighborhoods. Chairperson Leger concurred with Ms. Dwelley. Vice-chairperson Piro agreed with Ms. Dwelley remarking that the process as the committee has set it up shows a clear intent. A commission or committee would be an extra step involving more politics. Committee member Gallagher stated that to take issues dealing with sidewalks and streets out of the neighborhood's and give it to a commission that is not local to the issue, would mean losing direct input. He therefore does not support the motion. Committee member Gamache agreed, stating that it would mean the government would be in their backyards. Committee member Chartier interjected that the 700+ citizens that attended the meetings did ask for and want a citizen based committee. Chairperson Leger remarked that it had been given to the citizens in the "process" and he was opposed to the motion. ACTION: Motion by Committee member Wickham, and duly seconded, based upon the public testimony and the literature that the committee has reviewed, the committee believes that it may be possible to develop an objective analytical method to set the modified design standards for streets. We therefore recommend that the development of such an objective method be involved in the engineering and planning process and that the City Council appoints an ad hoc committee or an advisory commission to work with staff towards achieving this goal. This advisory body would also oversee the implementation and the recommendations of the streets and sidewalks committee .. February 7, 2000 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 11 2-11-0 Wickham, Chartier McBane, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley, Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis None Mamaux, Noble Vice-Chairperson Piro stated that Vincent Gin resigned as a staff member of the City of Carlsbad and thanked him for a job well done. Committee member Chartier distributed copies of a survey titled "Help Shape the City's New Planned Development Ordinance to all committee members. Mr. Hubbs stated that Alternative Streets Designs criteria would be an agenda item at the next meeting. Chairperson Leger announced that the next meeting of the committee would be Thursday, February 10, 2000 in the conference room of the Faraday Center, the following meeting would be on Thursday, February 17, 2000. No voting would take place on the meeting of February 10th• The final report would be approved on February 23, 2000. The agenda for February 10, 2000 was distributed to the committee members. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15pm. City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 15 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Faraday Center: Room 173A 1635 Faraday Avenue (Enter via west end of building) 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 1/17 3. Public Comment 4. Alternative Designs 5. Final Report 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn Accept Discussion Discussion February l 0, 2000 Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: APPROVED AS AMENDED Pagel MEETING SUMMARY Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. February 10, 2000 . Faraday Center, Conference Room 173A Committee Members Present: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Jack Kubota, Pam Wischkaemper, Zell Dwelley, Joe Spano, Doug Chartier, Joe Gallagher, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Bailey Noble, Ruth Lewis, John Mamaux, Clarence Schlehuber, Paul Gamache Lloyd Hubbs, Vincent Gin, Steve Didier, Adrienne Landers, Jim Murray, Bob Johnson, Dave Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:08p.m. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings. By consensus the meeting summary of January 17, 2000 was accepted as amended with minor corrections (See attached). PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, commented that over the past few months since he originally submitted his model to the Committee, he discovered four typographical errors, which he documented on an errata sheet together with a revised version of the model reflecting those corrections. Attached find the corrected revised model that will supercede the original version. Continuing Dr. Debes stated that tonight this Committee would be reviewing alternative design recommendations submitted by the Staff Monday night. While at first glance this document may appear "warm and fuzzy" to you using phrases like "preserves character" and "alternative surfaces", BEWARE! The devil is in the details... The language is misleading, but the numbers and drawings don't lie. I draw your attention to the bottom of the first page, where it calls for 24' traffic lanes, reminding you that this width (12' per lane) is the width of the lanes on Interstate 5 which are designed to drive safely at 65mph. I don't think that any of you really want people to drive 65mph in our neighborhoods. Furthermore, California State law requires 20' of open drive-able surface for emergency vehicles, NOT 24' OF TRAFFIC LANES. 24' is a City of Carlsbad ordinance, which is subject to change at the discretion of our City Council. Next I turn your attention to the layout drawing of the roadway on the last page. Note that the widest dimension shown is 36'. Don't be fooled! Look closely and you will see an additional 8' of "parkway" on both side that is then further bracketed by sidewalks outside of that. Bringing the total graded width out to 60' (and a potential Right of Way beyond that)! This will put the sidewalk in our front yards for some of us, on our doorsteps in other cases, and even right through our living rooms in a few cases! In essence what the City is asking us to do here is to trade in our comfortable old jackets for some brand new size 60 coats with fancy pockets. And to add insult to injury, if you have an FIA you will have February IO, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page2 the luxury of paying top dollar for it! Don't be fooled by the fancy pockets! Don't sell out! Vote NO on the City's Alternative Plan! It is a farce! (See Attached) Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Alternative Designs were discussed and reviewed in detail. Slide presentation by Mr. Hubbs, outlining what is needed on a typical street section. He cautioned the committee that when discussing the alternatives they should remember there are a great deal of components within the street besides the travel lanes and parking, i.e. utilities under the street, fire hydrants, street lighting. The grading must be in a positive direction, going away from the curb. Within the street water is carried, the height of the curbs determine the amount of water that can be carried in the street. If that is reduced to a low number, storm drains must be installed, which means added expense. All of the underground utilities typically go under the sidewalk. The are many items behind the sidewalks that must be accessible. The street right-of-way is typically the utility access corridors. Committee member Chartier commented that in some sections of Olde Carlsbad the sewer lines (and perhaps some other lines) do not run down the center as indicated by the generic picture shows. He wanted to know the implications for a person's property, i.e. the sewer runs mostly on the side of one property and the property becomes subject to a FIA. Mr. Chartier asked if realignment would be done. He asked what the impacts of the aforementioned scenario would be. Mr. Hubbs responded that there would be no impacts, assuming that the sewer line is at the right depth, and does not interfere with construction on the street. There is a monument centerline in the road based on the mapping that is done when a subdivision is created. Chairperson Leger stated Oak and Redwood 2x2 hubs were used and there is little or no evidence of what was done at the turn of the century. There are a myriad of variations where the sewer line is not down the centerline of the road, i.e. sewer lines do not run in the street, sewer lines running along the back of the houses. In modem development it is typically down the center of the road, but it does not have to be down the centerline. Chairperson Leger commented that the City's Alternative Street Design Criteria was excellent. The verbiage captured the essence and intent of the committee's charge. He noted that Fire Marshall Mike Smith was present at the meeting if any committee member wanted to question the 20-feet Vs the 24-feet of access. The report does not show any particular cross-sections of streets, but it does indicate the possibility of a 24-foot street with no parking. The older areas of town must have a custom type design. The proposal suggests minimizing the amount of construction to accommodate the situation. Civil engineering is a professional discipline and the committee is not qualified to question design standards. Committee member Wickham voiced her disagreement. Because of wording or order, which placed a slant on the issues, she believed that the report should be edited. Chairperson Leger reiterated that the Fire Department did want 24 feet of drive-able road. Committee member Wickham replied that the California State Code was 20-feet of drive-able surface and that should be indicated in the report. Chairperson Leger stated that if the Carlsbad Fire Department requested 24-feet of drive-able surface, then that is what they should have, because it was in the interest of public safety. Committee member Chartier commented that it was a well-written document. He noted that the majority of the populace of the northwest quadrant wanted the area "Left the Hell Alone". He suggested that the committee insert a statement at the beginning of the report stating, "where ever possible adopting standards which are the less impacting, provides the most preservative aspect to the neighborhood and February 10, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 3 produces traffic calming." He indicated that something to this effect should be added throughout the report in order to satisfy the desires of the residents. Chairperson Leger stated that their preliminary statement was, "Do Nothing, Unless there is a Reason To Do Something". He reminded the committee that they should be conscious of all of the good work that they have done, i.e. criteria, the process (which involves the community). Committee member Gallagher said that it was his position that the committee wanted to be consistent with the existing neighborhood, and whatever new occurs, (i.e. remodel or new development, lot splits) the established character of the neighborhood would be preserved. Therefore, whatever road designs occur should be the least modified or impacting within the criteria, that keeps the area safe. In addition he said the report should include a mitigation section, which would encourage developers not to go to the minimum lot standards, but incorporate larger lots that would achieve off street parking. Mitigation measures should be allowed to accommodate the issues in older neighborhoods. There should be in place, mitigation measures that help off set standard designs and, thereby, staff would be encouraged to look at the mitigation measures where appropriate. Mr. Hubbs stated that some lots were subdivided developments and therefore lot size is not an issue. He commented that Mr. Gallagher's suggestion would apply to a new subdivision. Chairperson Leger restated Mr. Gallagher's recommendation thus, "that in-fill projects be considered with alternative street designs and create mitigation measures appropriate to their design. Mr. Leger commented that this could be misapplied and the committee must be careful how this was stated. Committee Wickham stated that citizens have expressed that they are looking for narrower streets with practical, but more informal treatments on the edge of the streets for parking and walking. She stated that there exists a myriad of design alternatives that do not include concrete and big wide streets. Dr. Wickham reiterated her dislike of concrete. Committee member McBane commented that he wanted flexibility in design with the least amount of design specification and more performance specification emphasized in the report. He noted that when subdivision was in the middle of an established neighborhood, it would be difficult to use standards that were not in keeping with the exiting street design. Mr. Hubbs stated that there was in place a process that dealt with Mr. McBane's concerns. He suggested that Mr. McBane's concerns were related to alternative standards for new development and should be addressed in the future recommendation section of the report. Committee member Spano asked if a process existed in the City called a Planned Unit Development where the concerns of Committee member Gallagher are addressed. Mr. Hubbs stated that typically it would not be 3 lot subdivisions, but 20 or 30 lots that are private communities, e.g. gated communities, communities with a homeowners association. Committee member Dwelley stated that the heart of the matter is "what are the expectations of the area." She supports the mitigation section being added to the report. Additionally, creativity should be encouraged in the alternative design standards. Committee member Chartier remarked that within the committees' report should be a strong statement relating to the philosophy of preserving the character of the neighborhoods. Committee member Wischkaemper interjected that the committee had to be realistic about what it could actually do. New property owners acquiring larger lots in the older section of Carlsbad may not want to preserve the character of the area. Committee member McBane agreed that things were not static, but citizens have been known to express their outrage when new developments are not compatible with the existing community, i.e. Pasadena, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and therefore not preserving the character of the neighborhood. February IO, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 Committee member Wickham stated that remodels could be accomplished without changing the character of the neighborhood. In order to have flexibility in the document a few details should be eliminated because they are misleading. Committee member Piro commented that he was pleased with the document presented by staff. Two areas that have adopted philosophies and ordinances that have resulted in success are Carmel and Del Mar, and Carlsbad should fashion their philosophies and ordinances similar. Concrete generates heat and walkways that are not concrete are safer for pedestrians because skateboarders do not use the walkways that are not concrete. Committee member Kubota recounted the durability of concrete and the short life span of asphalt burms. Committee member Piro stated that the vertical asphalt burms were a maintenance headache, but the mountable asphalt burms are durable and very low maintenance. Committee member Gallagher stated that a mitigation section should be included in the report, which will give direction to the staff as to the alternatives available. Chairperson Leger indicated that the mitigation section would be an appropriate item to add onto the report. He asked Mr. Gallagher to work with Mr. Hubbs to frame the mitigation section. Committee member McBane expressed concerns regarding roadway widths. Mike Smith, Fire Marshall Carlsbad Fire Department, shared with the committee the various scenarios related to parking and no parking on the street. The ideal situation for the Fire Department access is 24- feet of drive-able surface with no parking on either side of the street. . Time is the enemy during a fire. It is important to keep the fire in the room of origin. Mr. Smith reminded the committee that services can not be delivered at the highest standards to the citizens of Carlsbad with restricted roadways Chairperson Leger urged the committee to review the alternative street design criteria and be ready to vote at the next meeting, which will be February 17, 2000. Mr. Jamieson recommended that the committee not attempt to rewrite the criteria at this point, but should submit clearly written suggestions to the chairperson as soon as possible. Committee member Wickham indicated that. correspondence and traffic calming should be addressed in the final report. Mr. Hubbs indicated the items would be in the final report. Chairperson Leger advised the committee that if any member wanted to submit a minority report, it would be up to that member to put the report together and it would be submitted with the Committee's Final Report to the City Council. Committee member Wischkaemper advised the committee that the briefer and to the point their Final Report was, the more likely the City Council would pay attention and read the report entirely. She feared that if the City Council were overloaded with hundreds of pages, it was likely that the report would not be read and the committee would not accomplish its mission. Chairperson Leger reminded the committee that there would be a meeting on February 17 at the Faraday Center at 6pm and a meeting on February 23, 2000, location to be determined. The final report will be presented to the City Council on February 28, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10pm. February 10, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 Changes to Alternative Street Design Criteria: Page 1 ROADWAY WIDTHS The minimum emergency access and travel lane requirements are ~4 feet of all weather surface unless it is impractical and the Fire Department approves the adequate mitigation measures. Minimum parking space widths are 8 feet. Drainage requirements are determined by hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. *California State minimum requirement is 20-feet *City of Carlsbad minimum requirement is 24-feet. Page2 PARKING REQUIREMENT Optiml:lm Conditions would include provision for parking on both sides of a street. Parking on one side emy or no parking or off street parking will be considered where an adequate enforcement plan is approved by the Police Department or where a finding can be made that adequate off-street parking exists to minimize potential parking enforcement issues. *Examples of alternative parking area surfaces include: • Turf block • Stabilized earth materials • Pavers • Colored concrete • Colored asphalt • First three are preferable Loose or erosive materials 1.-.1itt:I t:ligt:I ongoing maintenanse sosts are elissol:lrageel. Where possible, durable permeable materials may be considered. PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS Where needed pedestrian walkways shall be 4-foot minimum clear consistent with ADA requirement and be of a solid durable material of 20 to 50 year life with minimum maintenance. Walkway locations shall be located in such a manner as to preserve natural and cultural resources as determined through the design process. Proximity to the edge of pavement will depend on the design process, but should be encouraged. Consideration of soloreel or te~l:lreel sonsrete anet ott:ler alternative surfaces that meet durability and ADA access requirements should be given serious consideration when found compatible with the neighborhood character. EDGE TREATMENTS ... All optional treatments should be considered to provide the desired roadway appearance while providing for low maintenance and adequate provisions for drainage requirements. Concrete sl:lrbs anel gl:ltters are tt:le most ell:lrable anel IO'N maintenance, t:lowe•;er, san insll:lele eli~rent colors anel textl:lres to pro\1iele a 1:Jniq1:Je st:laraster. February 10, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 Page3 MITIGATION MEASURES{* this section will be added to report). Mitigation measures are encouraged in order to remain consistent and uniform with the existing neighborhood. February l 0, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 7 Comments from Committee member John Mamaux 1) Page 2 states that "concrete curbs and gutters are the most durable and low maintenance" That being the case any deviation from this standard should not put an added burden on existing taxpayers. If residents are getting benefits from alternative designs they should pay for the benefit. 2) "meandering walks and meandering roadways are acceptable" This meandering will necessitate the acquisition of additional ROW. Such additional acquisition of should be properly presented to property owners. There may well be places where the ROWS are greater on one side of the street than the other. Such situations may place unequal burdens on property owners. 3) Pop Out Parking areas should coincide with residential driveways. 4) Street Trees should be planted at property owners expense when ROW is obtained. 5} No parking on walkways 6) Some of the alternate materials are more expensive than concrete therefore the property owners must know in advance. 7) Long-term maintenance care must be guaranteed up front in accordance with the Growth Management Plan. 8) Asphalt and gravel type walkways are cheap and unacceptable. As a final note I would like to show the text of part of the ballot measure approved by the voters in 1986: ... "NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL be APPROVED by the City unless it is guaranteed that concurrent with need all necessary public facilities be provided as required by said plan with emphasis on ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities; ... "(emphasis was in the ballot measure) Lastly, the same ballot measure had the following "The City shall not reduce public facilities without a corresponding reduction in the residential dwelling unit limit." City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 16 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Faraday Center: Room 173A 1635 Faraday Avenue (Enter via west end of building) 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 1/24, 1/31 and 2/7 3. Public Comment Accept 4. Alternative Designs Decision/Vote 5. Final Report Decision 6. Future Meeting Agenda 7. Adjourn February 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page I MEETING SUMMARY Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: February 17, 2000 Place of Meeting: Faraday Center Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Joe Spano, John Mamaux, Joe Gallagher, Zell Dwelley, Paul Gamache, Doug Chartier, Pam Wischkaemper, Jack Kubota, Ruth Lewis, Clarence Schlehuber, Bailey Noble Lloyd Hubbs, Steve Didier, Bob Johnson, Adrienne Landers, Jim Murray, David Jamieson (Jamieson Consulting Group) None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 6:05p.m. Committee member Mamaux requested that the following information be included in the meeting summary: Fair Political Practices Commission May 1999 -Conflicts-of-Interest Overview The Act's conflict-of-interest rules apply to you when you: 1. Make a governmental decision (for example, by voting or making an appointment). 2. Participate in making a government decision (for example, by giving advice or making recommendation to the decision-maker). 3. Influence a governmental decision by communicating with the decision-maker. A good rule-of thumb for deciding whether your actions constitute making, participating in making, or influencing a governmental decision is to ask yourself if you are exercising discretion or judgment with regard to the decision. If the answer is "yes", then your conduct with regard to the decision is very probably covered. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY: January 24, 2000 ACTION: By consensus the meeting summary of January 24, 2000 was accepted as amended with minor corrections (See Appendix D of Final Report). February 17, 2000 January 31, 2000 ACTION: February 7, 2000 ACTION: February 10, 2000 ACTION: PUBLIC COMMENTS: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page2 By consensus the meeting summary of January 31, 2000 was accepted as amended, with minor corrections (See Appendix D of Final Report). By consensus the meeting summary of February 7, 2000 was accepted as amended with minor corrections (See Appendix D of Final Report). By consensus the meeting summary of February 10, 2000 was accepted as amended with minor corrections (See Appendix D of Final Report). Jim King, 4156 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, CA, commented that submitted 2 diagrams indicating how expectable changes could be affected on Highland Drive (See Appendix E of Final Report). He stated that since the Committee began meeting, many citizens have made comments to the Committee. He noted that only one of the citizens has been in favor of the street widening, installation of the sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Hundreds of citizens attended two City Council meetings to voice their desire to have the streets be left as they are and ask for an end to the existing policy. Over 700 citizens signed a petition to this effect. We like it the way it is. Don't Pave Paradise. Please heed that message. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, stated that those of you who were here last week will remember that I had some strong words regarding the City's draft proposal for the Alternative Street Design Criteria. Fortunately, some progress was made by the committee during last week's meeting to improve this document. You will recall that some of my major concerns related to the exemplary layout drawing which was lacking in dimensions, but implied (if it was drawn to scale) that the Alternative Streets would have a 60' graded width. I had the opportunity to discuss this further Mr. Piro and Mr. Hubbs after the meeting. While they assured me that I should trust them because they were Civil Engineers, I went ahead and took the liberty of detailing our discussion in the form of a dimensioned drawing, because where I went engineering school we were taught to dimension our drawings and to use math. (See Appendix E of Final Report) First off, you will note a paved traffic lane width of 20' to 24' (per your discussions at the last meeting with the Fire Marshal). Optional parking spaces are 8' wide and may be placed in pockets. Optional pedestrian paths are 4' wide and may be allowed to meander in order to preserve existing trees or other characteristic landmarks. Adding this all up we have a maximum total graded width not to exceed 48'. In many cases this may be substantially less, as parking and pathways may not be required on both sides. Adding a little color and character to this drawing provides us with this color rendering which emphasizes flexibility, using traffic calming devices such as signage, Bott's Dots and rumble strips; alternative surface materials for parking areas and optional meandering foot-paths. Note the "green-theme", which minimizes hard-scape for environmental and esthetic reasons. (See Appendix E of Final Report) Finally, I have read the City's draft of your Final Report. I caution you that they have added-in certain wording that did not come from this committee and may in fact not reflect this committee's goals. In George Orwell's book Animal Farm, the slogan on the wall started out as "All animals are created equal", but by the end of the book it had gradually changed to, "All animals are equal -some are more February 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 3 equal than others". Only the smartest animals noticed the change. This is not a new trick. Be Careful Please. Don't get fooled! Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings. Referring to the Alternative Street Design Criteria (page with handwritten #13 on lower right hand corner), Chairperson Leger asked for discussion regarding the final draft. The final draft of the Alternative Street Design Criteria was discussed in detail. The following motions were made and subsequent votes taken as a result of the discussion. INTRODUCTION: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ROADWAY WIDTHS ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ROADWAY WIDTHS ACTION: Motion by Committee member Spano, and duly seconded, in order to maintain consistency in the report in the first paragraph of the Introduction section replace the work "minimum" with the word "alternative". 13-1-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis, Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger Wickham None Motion by Committee member Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to delete the Alternative Language under the heading Roadway Widths, second paragraph, thus the paragraph shall read, "The minimum emergency and travel lane requirements are 24 feet. Minimum parking space widths are 8-feet. Drainage requirements are determined by hydro/ogic and hydraulic analysis." 5-8-1 Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber Piro, McBane, Wickham, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis, Chartier Leger Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, to adopt the Alternative Language under the heading ROADWAY WIDTHS, second paragraph. The paragraph shall read, "The minimum emergency access shall be 24 feet of all weather surface unless February 17, 2000 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: PARKING REQUIREMENT APPROVED AS AMENDED Page4 It Is Impractical and adequate mitigating measures are approved by the Fire Marshal. Drainage requirements are determined by hydrologic and hydraulic analysis." 8-6-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Wickham, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger None By consensus this section was accepted as written. PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EDGE TREATMENTS ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: ACTION: Motion by Committee member Wickham, and duly seconded, to remove the phrase " ... of 20 to 50 year life with minimum maintenance." 8-6-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Wickham, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger None Motion by Committee member Wickham, and duly seconded, to remove the phrases, "These treatments include conventional concrete curb and gutter, concrete rolled curb, asphalt concrete curbs and dikes of varying heights and configurations." and " Concrete curbs and gutter are the most durable and low maintenance, however, can include different colors and textures to provide a unique character 8-6-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Wickham, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger None Motion by Committee member Wickham, and duly seconded to remove the phrase from the second paragraph, "When possible, all measures should be implemented to reduce sprinkler and storm February 17, 2000 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 5 runoff from properties. Where adequate rights-of-way exist, natural swales should be considered to convey runoff. Maintenance cost and procedures should be fully analyzed in the planning process.• 2-12-0 Chartier, Wickham Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger, Piro, McBane, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis None ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Committee member Piro, and duly seconded to accept the Alternative Street Design Criteria as amended. 12-2-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis, Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Schlehuber, Leger Wickham, Mamaux None Mr. Hubbs advised the Committee that the next and last meeting of the Streets and Sidewalk Committee would be Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 5pm in the City Council Chambers. Chairperson Leger requested that the Committee members submit to Mr. Hubbs any typographical errors found in the report. FINAL REPORT Page 1 BACKGROUND ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Committee member Dwelley, and duly seconded, to amend the first paragraph of report in the Background Section, to include a reference to the petition with the 780 signatures of Carlsbad citizens, which was presented to the City Council. 8-6-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Wickham, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger None February 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page6 Page2 STREET CATEGORIES By consensus "it was determined that the wording "current state• would be replaced with the wording "current design". By consensus it was determined that the second paragraph would be amended as follows: • ... appropriate triggers (i.e. Alternative Street Criteria) are met that compel improvements to be initiated" ... ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Page3 Motion by Committee member Chartier, and duly seconded, to replace the bold text, page 2, paragraphs 2, 3, & 4 with regular/standard non-bold text. 9-4-1 Chartier, Wickham, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis, Kubota, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Leger Wischkaemper, Spano, Piro, McBane Dwelley COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS By consensus this portion of the report was accepted as approved. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS In order to maintain consistency in the report the phrase, "current state" will be replaced with the wording "current design". RECOMMENDATION: It was determined by consensus that the paragraph would be amended to read as follows: "The final section of the report deals with recommendations suggested by the Committee for Council consideration. For discussion of all items, you are directed to the Meeting Summary of the February 7, 2000 meeting. ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS It was determined by consensus that the phrase "consistent with City Ordinance" would be inserted between the words notified and prior in paragraph #2. February 17, 2000 APPROVED AS AMENDED Page 7 SIDEWALK AND STREET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: By consensus it was determined that #14 should be changed to read as follows: 14. The Committee recommends that the City retain its current policy of not building isolated s_egment improvements to curbs and sidewalks. The Committee recommends that the portion Section 18.400.70 as amended in November 1999 pertaining to the policy regarding the deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permanent policy after the building moratorium has been lifted. Chairperson Leger informed the Committee that he and Vjce-Chairperson Piro would present the Committee's Final Report to the City Council on Tuesday, March 7, 2000. Mr. Hubbs stated that after the presentation to Council by the Chair and Vice-Chair, the Council would refer the Report back to Staff for implementation and staff analyses. The Staff will report back to Council with recommendations regarding the Report. Chairperson Leger advised the Committee that public comment would be allowed at the February 23, 2000 meeting. FINAL REPORT ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The meeting was adjourned at 8:05pm Motion by Committee member McBane, and duly seconded, to accept the final report as amended. 12-2-0 Chartier, Piro, McBane, Dwelley, Gallagher, Gamache, Lewis, Kubota, Wischkaemper, Spano, Schlehuber, Leger Wickham, Mamaux · None City of Carlsbad Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program AGENDA Meeting No. 17 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2000 1. Meeting agenda Council Chambers 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2. Review and accept meeting summaries of 2/17 3. Public Comment 4. Final Report 5. Adjourn NOTE LOCATION CHANGE Accept Decision February 23, 2000 DRAFr Page I MEETING SUMMARY Summary of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalk & Street Improvement Program 5:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: February 23, 2000 Place of Meeting: City Council Conference Room Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Staff Members Absent: Chairperson Bob Leger, Vice-Chairperson Gary Piro, Kip McBane, Lori Wickham, Joe Spano, John Mamaux, Joe Gallagher, Zell Dwelley, Paul Gamache, Doug Chartier, Pam Wischkaemper, Jack Kubota, Ruth Lewis, Clarence Schlehuber, Bailey Noble None Lloyd Hubbs, Steve Didier, Bob Johnson, Adrienne Landers None Chairperson Bob Leger called the meeting to order at 5:05p.m. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY: February 17, 2000 ACTION: PUBLIC COMMENTS: By consensus the meeting summary of February 17, 2000 was accepted as amended with minor corrections. Jack Debes, 4055 Park Drive, Carlsbad, thanked the committee for listening to him during public comment for the last 17 weeks, noting that the committee really had no choice in the matter since, the public comment rule required it. However, he did thank the committee for inviting him to make a presentation as a guest speaker. Continuing Dr. Debes said, this has been a long and arduous process for everyone involved. Fortunately, some real progress has been made in certain areas. While the general spirit of this Committee's report is a step in the right direction, it is unfortunate that it does not reflect the use of an objective and rational decision-making process. While certain members of this committee have made use of my model ( or variations on it) to make their decisions, the text of the Final Report makes no reference whatsoever to any type of objective or quantitative method. A parable about "where one should not cast their pearls" comes to mind, but I won't go there ... Your report is written with a tone of reassurance for the concerned community of "Olde Carlsbad". Beware however, because it is fraught with loopholes wide enough to drive two fire engines through ... sideways! For example, on the night of December 13, 1999 (Page 4, approved Meeting Summary), Mr. McBane made a motion that was duly seconded and passed, to de-couple the issue of street width from the issue of sidewalks and pedestrian access on the so-called "standard street list". This list later became known as the "Compatible with Existing Design" list because you changed February 23, 2000 DRAFT Page2 the title to exclude reference to lane widths, and you also requested that a sentence of explanation be associated with each street to explain the rational behind its inclusion. However, if you read the text of your Final Report you will see that streets "compatible In width and conflguration ... conslstent with existing City Standards" has been inserted by Staff into the "Compatible Design" section with sufficient ambiguity to nullify McBain's motion -which a majority of you favored -because you we18 concerned that It would Imply that you all favored widening st19etsl I ask you: Is this really what you want this report to say? It is contrary to your original intentions and those of the citizens who petitioned City Hall in November 1999. You voted for sidewalks for pedestrian safety. You did NOT advocate street widening! In closing, Dr. Debes stated, we must return our thoughts to the General Plan, which in its current form states that the goal for traffic infrastructure in the Northwest Quadrant is to create a series of "super-blocks" which will be interconnected by arterial highways. The City of Carlsbad's policy of land acquisition in the guise of safety will not cease until this policy is changed. Those of you who have made a deal with the Devil should not develop a false sense of security. Sooner or later the encroachment and land acquisition will affect your street too -the Northwest Quadrant will no longer be quaint or safe unless changes are made! The work of this committee is coming to a close, but the real work has just begun! Public Comment was closed by Chairperson Leger. Chairperson Leger outlined the procedures that would be followed for this evening's meetings. Chairperson Leger stated that the Committee had approved the final report in content and the task at hand was to find any misstatements, typos and/or clarifications. The Committee discussed the Final Report in detail, noting various minor changes to be made. FINAL REPORT CORRECTIONS: Page 14 paragraph 2 ... "is encouraged to ... 11 Page 19, #3 ... "among all of the ... 11 January 31, 2000 page 4 Motion states .. ." Engineering study shall include the disclosure of economic impacts of potential cost to property owners". On page 11, item #5 of the Alternative Street Design Process this has not been included. Page 2, Street Categories, remove bold font and replace with standard font. ACTION: Motion by Committee member Piro, and duly seconded, to change second paragraph under Street Categories as follows: It was the strong feeling of the Committee that many of these streets should not be improved but rather retain their current design in lieu of categorization. Improvements should only be considered when appropriate triggers (Alternative Street Criteria) are met that compel improvements to be initiated. February 23, 2000 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: DRAFI' Page3 14-1-0 Leger, Schlehuber, Chartier, Piro, Kubota, Gallagher, Mamaux, McBane, Wickham, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Lewis, Noble, Dwelley Spano None Committee member Mamaux asked for clarification regarding existing FIA's and dedications. Chairperson Leger stated that it was not an issued, because the FIA's and ROW were simply recommendations. It is up to the City Council to decide what to do with them. Committee member Mamaux asked if a developer could sign a FIA, knowing his development would be a remodel and therefore not have to honor the FIA. Chairperson Leger stated that the issue was not addressed, other than the fact that it would trigger the process because it was a development. Mr. Hubbs stated that it would depend on the circumstances and the location, but it was highly likely that it would trigger the process. Committee member Mamaux expressed his concerns because it was conceivable that the Committee's recommendations could trigger a moratorium on all sidewalk construction in the Northwest Quadrant. Mr. Hubbs and Chairperson Leger did not agree with Committee member Mamaux. Committee member Mamaux referred to the loopholes in the recommendations and how developers looked for loopholes. Chairperson Leger reiterated that the entire report was in the form of recommendations. He believed that the City Attorney would review all of the recommendations for loopholes. It was his understanding that if an ordinance was to be adopted by the City Council, the staff would prepare the ordinance not just rewrite the report recommendations. Therefore, any possible loopholes should be addressed. Mr. Hubbs concurred with Chairperson Leger. Committee member Piro stated that the FIA would be paid for by the person that the permit was issued to. Committee member Mamaux referred to the Committee's report regarding no FIA's for remodels. Committee member Wischkaemper stated the people on the block could petition for the sidewalk. Chairperson Leger stated that there was a provision in the report saying that public and private funding will be explored in the event that the construction design is accepted and goes forward. The City Council will do a financial evaluation of funding. Committee member Wickham indicated that the Staff could also trigger the process. Chairperson Leger referred to page 2 of the final report, "Alternative Street Criteria", Item #*8, and added that it was up to the City to make the final decisions. February 23, 2000 DRAFr Page4 Committee member McBane commented that the Committee's Report did not place a moratorium on sidewalks. The Final Report clearly indicates that sidewalks will only be put in those areas in which the people want to share in the cost of building the sidewalks. The issue of FIA's and dedications were discussed in detail. Committee member Kubota excused himself from the meeting, due to a family commitment. Committee member Schlehuber remarked that the report should be approved and the minutes of tonight's meeting should reflect that Committee member Mamaux and other members had concerns regarding the loopholes that could arise from "island only" and other matters relating to FIA's and dedications. He stated that the report should not be changed. Committee member Gamache asked Committee member Mamaux for suggestions regarding the issues related to his concerns. Committee member Mamaux stated that it should be required that a redeveloper of lot splits (or any developer) do a whole process for the entire block and pay for the study of that block. The people that live on the block can decide what they want, but a study should be done and the developer should pay for it. Otherwise all chances of the City receiving enough money for pedestrian safety to build sidewalks will be lost. The only way to avoid this is to mandate FIA's on remodels. Committee member Wickham referred to the minutes of December 13, 1999, and the wording change regarding the compatible list. Dr. Wickham stated that the wording was not being used per the vote (i.e. Compatible with Existing Design). She voiced her opposition that the correct wording was not being used in the Final Report. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion by Committee member Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to accept the Final Report as amended. 11-3-0 Leger, Schlehuber, Chartier, Piro, Gallagher, McBane, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Lewis, Noble, Dwelley Spano, Wickham, Mamaux, None Kubota Committee member Mamaux requested that the vote regarding the acceptance of the Committee's Final Report be shown in the Final Report not just the minutes. Committee member McBane suggested that the final report be shown in the transmittal to the City Council (i.e ..... "And the vote was the following: ... " It was agreed by consensus that the vote regarding the acceptance of the Final Report would be shown in the transmittal of the report. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45pm I ii g I I I I I I I I I I I '~ '.I • " ·'<' ,,,_ ,'. • '_ ,,' .' "'-"•'· ._.. ·•_.,. ,•' ,,1 STREET AND SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT APPENDIX E ' . Written Correspondence • Carlsbad Unified School District Letter 15:07 ~ITY OF CRRLSBAD October 19, 199P Mr. lay Patchett. City Manapr City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Villqe Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 Dearby. 760 720 9461 P.02/02 ... a world class distrit:1 ·· r I I i"7 • I ' l l / ~ , • ,, I.. ·1. r-' - ,.......,._ ---• 1· • ' -/ t · ... _ - The cumnt initiatm by the City of Carllbld proposing the installatim of additianaI lidewaDcs throughout the cny bas a positive bearing on the safety of children at several school lites. Al school locations wheff safety is a concern due to the )ack of sidewalks. Carlsbad Unified School District endoncs the City's initiative. · The safety of children at Buena Vista Elcmaataty School. Valley Middle School. and Carlsbad High School can be enhanced by the installation of sidewalks at the following locations IDd for tbe followmg reasons: • BPCP& Yo Wa,y ip fmgt of BvCPI Ya EJcrncatm Schgql. During drop off and pick up times, children often dart between cm tbat are ani'Ving. parla:d and leaving the site. Installation of a sidewallc would significantly reduce tbis hazard to children. • Nqrth Side of Muoois Stmct in frqnt of YtUGY MjddJ,; Schpgl. A significmt number of cbildrm walk on the north side of Magnolia where there is no sidewalk. The student traffic pattern. is to cross the street from south to north at any point of choice. The iNtaJJatioa of a sidewalk and a crosswalk would provide far the control necesmy to reduce this hazard. • North Side of Basswood 3tmet Adjaem,t JO CU:!sbld Bilb $GbggJ. The north side of Basswood has a sidewalk installed only at the east end of the street that fronts the school. Students who choose to walk the north side of the street must walk on the street side of parked cars. The critical parking situation at the high school bas required students to park farther from the school and many choose to walk down Basswood to enter and leave the campus. Apin, the· associa~ safety hazard to children can be reduced by inmlling a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the section of Basswood fronting the high school. Consideration of all of the above concerns in eliminating the indicated hazards 10 children is deeply appreciated. If proactive measures are not 1aken now to install sidewalks with our incrasing student numbers. jt may exacerbate an already serious safety situation. Thank you for your support and consideration in this matter. Cheryl E:mst, Superintendent ':arlsbad Unified School District cc: Frank Mannen. Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson. Engineering Department 11!....;. _•·~. ,,--· NOV-15-99 MON 2:03 PM CAkLSBAV, t'UBLJ~ WUkK~ r AJ. ttu. ·, bU 'LU~jOL r. l Mrvit1gtu commtuuties of .. , Cardiff Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Claircmonl · Del Mar DelMllr Hcipll Del Dio, Elfin Forest Encinitas Fairbiulls Ranch ·••cost• La Jolla Leucadia Miramar Mira Mesa Minion lleadl Navajo Olivenhain Pacific Bach Rancho Bernardo Rancho Pcnuqvito1 Rancllo Santa Fe Sabre Sprinas Su Carlos Scripps Rancb Solana Beach Ti1C1Ta1anta University City • PAM SLATER CHAIRWOMAN SUPBYISOa, THIID D1S111Cf SAN DIEGO CDUNn' IOMD OIi SUl'EIYIIOIS November 10, 1999 Streets and Sidewalk Committee City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Committee Members: l am writing this letter to respectfully recommend that you elect Gary Piro as Chainnan of the Streets and Sidewalk Committee. Mr. Piro"s contributions to the region and his knowledge of the issues you will be discussing make him an extremely qualified candidate for this position. As Cbainnan of the County Planning Commission, Gary was very effective in gaining consensus on tough issues including the Resource Protection Ordinance and Multiple Species Conservation Program. Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation. If you have any questions, please can me at (619} 531-5533. ~ly, ~~ER CHAIRWOMAN DISTR1CT THREE PS/pb COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ieoo PACIFIC HIGHW~Y • ROOM 335 SM DIEGO, CA 92101-N70 (119) 531-5533 TOll FREE IOHS2-7334 ft ~~ '"'1ntadon,_-_., ··---- November 17, 1999 Jack C. Debes 405S Park Drive, City of Carlsbad •ifi§ll•tN·ilti•M•i-iill§dlih41 Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Debes, Yom letter to the Mayor and Council Members regarding the environmental impact of sidewaJk installation, street widening and tree removal has been forwarded to me. Thank you for taking an interest in the City of Carlsbad. At the November 2, City Council meeting, the Council appointed two committees to address these types of issues. The first committee is studying the City's street tree policy. Scott Carroll, Management Analyst, is coordinating the activities of this committee. If· you have questions about the time and location of these meetings, he can be reached at (760) 434-2992. The second committee will study the City's street and sidewalk policy in the Old Carlsbad section of town. The committee is meeting at the Senior Center, 799 Pine Avenue on Monday evenings from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. Questions relating to this committee should be addressed with Steve Didier, Management Analyst. Steve's number is (760) 438-1161 x4352. All meetings are open to thepublic if you would like to attend. In the meantime, I will forward your comments to both Committees for consideration by the members. Again, thank you for your in Lloyd B. Public Works Director I JACK C. DEBES 4055 PARK DRIVECARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 ,1 RECEIVED NOV O 2 1999 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Membets: I!.: fl µ,1,1,u., tJOlf.P,~ t/).,w,dlr fl~~ Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you at the City Council Meeting on October 19, regatdiDg Agenda Item 10: AB #15,446. I would like to expand on the topic of the environmental impact of sidewalk installation, stteet widening. and tree removal. While at first blush the impact of a project the si%e of the proposal for a 500 foot sttetch on one side of Park Drive (Project No. 6, CDP 99-29), may seem enruonmentally insignificant, a closer analysis reveals the contrary. Let me first consider the issue of increased rainwat.er run-off. The impact of the increased hatd-scaping would lead to an additional 3, 11 S gallons of run-off per inch of rain. On an annualized basis, this equates to approximately 31,150 gallons of water 1, which conttibutes to increased watershed on local lagoons. Increased run-off leads to increased pollution, which bas an effect on species including various endangeud fish and invertebrates. Furthermore, trees and shrubs absod> ,ignificant amounts of carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases and in tum replenish the atmosphere with oxygen. To put this in perspective, if the Park Drive project were expanded to complete both sides of the road; the aiea of land involved would be increased to well over one acre. Acco.rding to publications by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2, an acre of trees provides enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe each day. In a ~ those same trees absorb enough pollutmts to offset the atmospheric damage done by driving a car 26,000 miles. Please do not suffocate us with asphalt and concrete! Furthermo~ the replacement of flora with hard-scape increases temperatures, erosion, and noise while decreasing habitat for species such as the bats and Red Tailed Hawks that frequent our trees benefiting us by reducing nuisance species such as mosquitoes and rats. 4055PARK DRIVE • CARLSBAD, CA • 92008 PHONE: 729-6015 • E-MAIL: JDEBBS@lUCSD.BDU ; -2-October 29, 1999 All of these facts undencore the moral and legal necessity of an Environmental Impact Report prior to the commencement of sttcet improvements on PAtk Drive and elsewhere in the region bounded by the Buena Viata Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. Thank you for establishing the citizen committees to study these important issues and imposing a moratorium on ttee removal, and street and sidewalk construction until the findings of these studies are complete. By womng together, I am hopeful that the citizens and govemmeot of our community will t•lrimatcly do, "what is right for Carlsbad". FOOTNOTES L Calculations: 1 Gallon = 231 cu. in. 1 in. ain on 1 sq. ft. sidewalk= 1 in. s: 12 ill. s: 12 in.= 144 cu. in. = 144 / 231 = 0.623 gallons per sq. ft. per in. aia e.& Puli:Dme PmpOICd Sidewalk: WideEStlffl TOT.AL Wbichgiva: -soo ft. s: 6 ft. = 3,000 sq. ft. -soo ft. s: 4 ft.= 2,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 0.623 it 5,000 = 3,115 gaDom nm-off per ill. of rain Mean Annual Rain Fall • 10 in. 3 ~ 3,115 x 10 = 31,150 ..... nm-oil per year Sinccn:ly, 2. bqp;/lwww.dnr-ftatC,md,ua/fOJC111/puhlic;aliona/urban,btmJ 3. lmp;//addt,com/R»Qrta/ 4055P ARK DRIVE • CARLSBAD, CA • 92008 PHONB: 729-6015 • B-MAIL: JDBBBS@UCSD.BDU Correspondence Mr. Winkler Letter, 11/18/99 November 18, 1999 Attn: Mr. Bob Leger 1144 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Chairman Carlsbad Sidewalk Committee c/o Vincent Gin Carlsbad City Engineering Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Leger, ,·~ ... -· · · ,_ .. ,.,, \'E-D ~ . I<" t,• 1 ' :• ,, -~ ·• '•· ~, .... ·.; :. : H 1999 ~;-.1,:;;Ni.:r.;RiNG cc:p /) RT,\~ENT A few years ago the process of sidewalk and street improvement began on Magnolia Avenue east ofl-5 to Magnolia Middle School and Elementary School. My family has owned and lived on Magnolia Avenue for about 25 years, and we and our neighbors had w1certainties and concerns about this process. Some people, who had received special concessions from the city, and as a result were required to participate in the expense, were particularly unhappy. The engineers and contractors were extremely courteous and helpful and the process struggled to completion. The results are outstanding. Our street now looks like an area where anyone would wish to live. The school children have sidewalks on which to walk to and from school, and the street is much safet. I know from all the signs and car stickers that the property owners along Highland are experiencing the uncertainties and concerns which we endured. Perhaps some because of personal costs resulting from commitments they gave to the city. However, as a frequent driver on Highland, I can tell you it is extremely dangerous as it now exists. School children morning and afternoon in the narrow street, overgrown trees, joggers and bicyclists at night who are difficult to see with oncoming headlights. I feel sure that if streets and sidewalks are completed as they have been on Magnolia, that the ultimate result will be beneficial to everyone in the area. 2. Lastly, there is a silent majority who realize that you are dedicated people who have volunteered to do the somewhat thankless public service jobs such as serving on the Carlsbad Sidewalk Commission. The silent majority feels confident and expects that you will make the proper decision in matters before you for the ultimate benefit of all citizens of Carlsbad. ly, ~ . ' 0 J ---D-~ Robert A. Winkler RAW/tm CORRESPONDENCE Marie· Gallup 11/19/99 November 19, 1999 Carlsbad City Council City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis and Coundl Members REC~IVED DEC 1 0 1999 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I understand the position a number of Carlsbad residents have taken regarding street improvements in what has been called "Olde Carlsbad". It would certainly be a tragedy to lose some of Carlsbad's largest and oldest trees. However, I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on Highland Drive, south of Chestnut A venue. This is a particularly dangerous stretch of road since there are no streetlights or sidewalks to provide protection for schoolchildren, joggers and many other residents who frequently use this stteet. I often walk my 2-month-old baby along this street in his stroller. Unfortunately, there are no sidewalks along this street to provide a safe buffer from passing cars. All too often, these cars come dangerously close to my baby and myself. I urge the City Council, for safety's sake, not to take the advice of Citizens for the Preservation of Old Carlsbad, or the newly formed Sidewalk Committee, and make such a large area (in which this dangerous street is included in) off limits to street improvements. Instead, city staff should selectively look at each street and neighborhood and consider the safety of its residents, first and foremost. It would be a mistake to take such a large geographical area, carte blanche, and exclude it from necessary improvements. Fortunately, there are no trees on this part of Highland Drive, south of Chestnut, that would require saving. I urge you to please strike a balance between an aesthetically pleasing city and one that is safe. Maria Gallup 1519 Chestnut A venue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Cc: Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director Chairm~ Bob Leger Carlsbad Committee on sidewalks and street improvements I am Doug Chartier, a member of the above named committee. I feel I am not getting points across that I need to make to the other members at our 2 hour weekly sessions. I am therefore, putting these concerns in writing so I can ensure they get to all members of the committee and to the members of the public who, increasingly have approached me since this issue came to the fore in September of 1999. l. All issues of "Equity", as are continually brought up by members of the committee are not issues we can resolve. Equity is decided in a court of law. 1berefore, I request that any future references to Equity be diverted to such a court so they will not interfere with our duties. 2. Future Improvement Agreements a.k.a FIA's must similarly be dealt with in a Court of Law. As such, I would ask the Chairman to defer all questions dealing with FIA's until after we have heard from the city attorney, January 10, 2000. We may, at that time be seriously looking at the involvement of the ACLU as to the constitutionality and legality of those FIA's. The Del Mar city engineer showed us there is a better way already. In fact they have the philosophy that to do nothing is the first option. I feel we should adopt it as well. 3. The first pass at a weeding out of streets to be deferred or left alone was and is a disaster. I will vote to exclude all of the city's recommendations at our meeting Monday the 20th and recommend we begin all over with a completely, 180 degree different approach. I will ask the committee to place several streets on a "hands offu list as in Highland Drive, Wilson Street. James Drive, Adams and several others which I intend to drive over the weekend We are getting it all wrong. 4. I intend to ask the committee to adopt an agressive request for a cease of current activities which are ongoing in the agressive "Build-out" the city has adopted. I feetwe will be doing several things in the near future which will impact the ongoing "Balls to the Wall" construction now proceeding in the city. Examples include: ·· · A Develop new approaches to be applied to proposed newdevelopments requiring larger lot sizes, less •'maxed out" construction to blanket entire lots, inclusion of more greenspace and the addition of more trees in every proposed new development. All new streets in a subdivision being proposed should be meandering. curvilinear and narrow in order to slow, read here, Calm, the traffic.I want to see the .. Orange County-iz.ation" of Carlsbad stopped and the Hope Ranch, Cannel, and Rancho Bemardo-iz.ation of Carlsbad begun. B. Implementation of traffic calming programs in the city utilizing inputs from such sources as the volwninous data base provided by Co-Chairperson Gary Piro, citizen Jack Debes and others like the speaker we will hear in the future, Shiela Sarkar, must be included in our deliberations or we will fail. 2. C. Streets like Carlsbad Village Drive, locals say Elm Stree~ should be synchronized. I drove streets in San Francisco in the late 1960's which would regulate traffic, mandate speeds and keep the flow going without as much as one stop for many many miles at a a time. We here in Carlsbad are at the whim of every driver attempting to cross CVD because when they approach it they trigger a stop and a requirement that all drivers on CVD be subservient to the traffic on side streets. A simple solution, long in practice in major cities nationwide is to allow for periods of flow to NOT be interrupted on CVD while others attempting to either access or cross CVD must wait until they are given access to do so. Oceanside and other local cities have already done this on many of their thoroughfares. D. We must develop mathematical or at least logical approaches to the determination of which streets which have heavy foilage adjacent to them and should have more aggressive maintenance programs applied to them. As an example, if both Crest Drive and Charleen Circle had been aggressivly maintained over the years, the pavements would not have deteriorated so as to allow moisture to penetrate them which then drew active growth from roots of adjacent trees. We must adopt a tree friendly, aggressive maintenance program targeting such streets for annual slurry seals or more if necessary, to prevent root migration to points beneath the pavements, even to the point of active watering systems off the areas adjacent to the streets in question. In closing, I ask the Chairman to seriously consider all of the above and all of the inputs which citizens of the city have put forth and to adopt a far more aggressive and environmentally defensive position. I for one~ will not sit back and watch this beautiful city be destroyed or allowed to become yet another suburb of the LA and Orange County Syndrome. Douglas S. Chartier a.le.a. "Coachn ---- cc All members of the Committee and the interested public in attendance on December 20,1999. PARK DRIVE 4000BLOCK Presented to: The Carlsbad Street & Sidewalks Committee by Jack C. Debes 22 November 1999 r r \ . ) . ,- r- ,-- .• ''f,{ f J~,+f) ... ,, ,-- ,.~,·.·.· '~ > ~ ~ • . ~. ~ ~ ~.·0·•:.•.·.••·.• .. · .. · .. ·;' < .. ,.'.:' ,• ,;·, ' / . -~ .,; · . 1 .. -·1 ·1 ·1 l l ·1 1 --, . . . . . . , . . ~ . . . ·. . S·T. AN· · ·n· A···RD· .. v· .··.•·· .. s··. ·. ·: .,L· ·•····T··E· ···RN·•··•; ... ··:A· ,,.,1.·1v· >;E· ).: · . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . ·.· . ~ .. . . . . , · .. ·· : ... , .. . .' .. . . . .. -', -; ' \ ' ' i ,, ' " .. , :''\.,_ .. ~-... ,,---;. f OUTCOMES ~STANDARD • Loss of Trees • · Loss of Character • Increased Speeding • Increased Run-off • Increased Cost • Requires EIR ~ ALTERNATIVE • Preserves Trees • Preserves Character • Traffic Calming • Decreased Run-off • Decreased Cost • No EIR • Meets ADA 1 5,1P EED il BA TEAfE!VT DEVIC 1E: R lJAf BLE STRIP Presented to Carlsbad Street & Sidevvalk Committee bv Jack C. Debes 29 November 1999 1 2 • Discourage Speeding • Do Not Inhibit E1nergency Vehicles • Easy Retrofit • Cost Effective 3 Thelma Hayes Correspondence 11/30/99 THELMA I. HAYES, Box 1366, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Ph/Fax 760/434-3580 November 30, 1999 To: Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director Attn: Steve Didier RECEIVED DEC 011999 ENGINE&RING DEPARTMENT Yesterday I took the attached to Mr. Schlehuber's nearby office for him to bring to last night's meeting. His secretary failed to tell him that he was to be the delivery person. He learned that when Ruth Lewis, whom I had talked to, asked him about it. When he called today, I said that I would get a copy to you to include in the agenda material for the next meeting of the committee. enclosure THELMA I. HAYES, POBox 1366, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Ph. 760/434-3580 November 20,1999 To the Members of the Sidewalk Policy Committee Since I no longer attend evening meetings, I am sending some suggestions for your consideration. I do receive your minutes and appreciate your very valuable contributions. My interest has long been in providing safe footing for pedestrians. I participated in the adoption of the Pedestrian Action Plan .and each year ask the Traffic Safety Commission for an evaluation of the progress in meeting its goals. After eleven years, two obstacles have held up the completion of providing that safety, even within a half mile radius of any school. 1. The expense of concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters limits the footage possible within the allotted budget. 2. The lack of approved alternative provisions for safe footing where physical conditions do not allow the prescribed approach and where no sidewalk has yet been installed. It is the second which your committee can deal with positively. A recent tragedy illustrates the need and brought forth two possible remedies. Briana Schahn, a single parent of a three year old daughter, was walking home across Buena Vista Lagoon to Oceanside after work in Carlsbad. She was struck and killed by a car driving north from State Street at the "Y" where State Street ends into Carlsbad Boulevard. From the ocean to El Camino Real, it is one of the only two pedestrian accesses across the lagoon between the two cities. The roadway bordering the water is too narrow for traditional sidewalks, curbs and gutters. On the east side of Coast Highway, Oceanside has installed a curb and sidewalk to its city limit. This offers protection to its school children walking to the Audubon Nature Center for nature study classes. Carlsbad, with the greater amount of roadway bordering the water of the lagoon, • has provided no safe footing on either side. Not for school children, not for workers, not for tourists nor its own. At the last meeting of the Buena Vista Joint Powers Committee Briana's father, Tim Schahn spoke. So that other families will be spared what he, his wife, his two other daughters, his son and his three year old granddaughter have endured, Mr. Schahn suggested a guard rail be installed all along the roadway like the one that protects the end of the bridge in Hayes p/2 the middle of Buena Vista Lagoon. Behind the rail barrier, a pedestrian path can be leveled and cleared of ice plant and possibly some adaptation of the trails volunteers built in Hosp Grove could be installed. Humans, as well as the bridge, can quickly and inexpensively be protected until other provisions can be made. At the same meeting the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation's October 11th letter to the Carlsbad City Council was read. It again repeated the request for a board walk, first made in 1991, then 1992 and 1993, as a safe way for a pedestrian to get across the lagoon.· ~he proposed boardwalk, cantilevered from the bank, allows two way pedestrian traffic out of harm's way from vehicles, both motorized and not. It will allow every walker to meet the mostly unenforced legal requirement in Section 21956 of the vehicle code which states, "No pedestrian shall walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his left- hand edge of the roadway." Immediate action can be taken on Mr. Schahn's idea until the Carlsbad Council can decide to take the consideration of the boardwalk off "the back burner" where staff advised the BVLF it lingers. Of course, there are many other sites that can benefit from alternatives. It is my hope that you make proposals which will allow their use. A NEW MODEL FOR ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY DESIGN Presented to the Carlsbad Street & Sidewalk Committee 6 December 1999 by Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. © Copyright, 1999, Jack C. Debes. All rights reserved. I L lntrodaetion When conditions exist that indicate the need for changes in an existing roadway, design · criteria for improvements must be developed. Traditionally, streets have been categorized as either "improved" or "unimproved", where the term "improved" refers to compliance with a single existing set of standards. Recent trends in civil engineering indicate that optimal roadway design may be achieved through the application of design standards which are tailored to the specific application rather than applying a single standard everywhere. Residential roadways serve three primaly functions: 1. Conduits for vehicular traffic 2. Roadway parking space 3. Pedestrian walkways The objective of this model is to provide a mathematically based formula for residential roadway design, which optimizes safety and efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. In so doing, the unique characteristics of neighborhoods may be preserved, thereby preserving safety, quality of life and property values. This model is based on two simple physical principles: 1. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. When this situation is approached a collision occurs. Collisions may occur between two or more vehicles, two or more pedestrians, or between of vehicles and pedestrians. Of course, the objective is to provide for a design, which nunimizes the probability of such events. 2. As the speed of the objects increases, the space between them must increase in order to prevent them from colliding. Simply stated, the wider and straighter a roadway is designed, the faster vehicles may travel without colliding. Since stopping distance increases with speed, the likelihood of a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian increases with increasing vehiclilar speed Of course, the severity of ntjury to the unfortunate pedestrian who is struck by a vehicle also inCieases with speed. By applying mathematical descriptions of these two basic principles, this model strives to optimize roadway efficiency while preserving safety and quality of life. • 2 D. Tnfrac Lanes The flow of traffic may be likened to the flow of water-in a pipe or the flow of electricity in a wire. This principle is descnl>ed by electrical engineers as Ohm's Law, which states that the voltage drop along a certain length of wire is equal to the electrical current multiplied by the resistance, V=IR Or, Voltage -Current X Resistance. (2.1) Similarly, a mechanical engineer studying water flowing in a pipe may descnbc what every plumber knows, with a mathematical equation stating that, P=QR Or, Pressure= Flow x Resistance. (2.2) As the pipe narrows, the resistance to flow increases. Theref~, if one wants to keep the pressure at a safe level, one must keep the flow at a safe level, or else increase the diameter of the pipe. This same principle applies to traffic. In order to keep traffic at a safe level, as flow increases, the roadway must be widened. Hence the difference in width between a rural roadway, an interstate highway, and everything in between. Followingtbis physical analogy, let traffic-flow be given as, Q=AS Where, A = Average Daily Trips S = Speed (miles per hour). (2.3) As lane width. decreases, resistance to traffic flow increases. Stated mathematically, resistance to traffic is inversely proportional to some function of lane width, Where, R= 1 /f{W) R = Resistance W = Total width of traffic lanes f{W) = Some function of W. (2.4) In the case of a two lane road ( one lane per direction of traffic), W = 2L, where L is the width of a single traffic lane. N~ we introduce an empirical}~ derived equation for f(W), • See Appendix I. f{W) = 1.34 X 10-6 W-76. 3 (2.S) Substituting Eq. 2.5 into Eq. 2.4 yields, R = 1 / ftW) = (1.34 x 10-6 wa-7,-1 Returning to our Obms's Law analogy, P=(AS)R Or, Pressure = Flow x Resistance Substituting Eq. 1.6 into Eq. 1. 7 yields, p = AS(l.34 X 10-6 w'-~•l_ (2.6) (2.7) (2.8) Solving Eq. 1.8 for W yields an equation which tells us how wide to make the traffic lanes, W = (106AS I l.34P)°-114• Now let us define traffic pressure such that when, P < I, the street is too wide ( over designed), P = 1, the street is just right (optimal design), P > 1, the street is too narrow ( under designed). (2.9) Therefore the goal is to create a design that strives for a traffic pressure value of unity (P=l). Therefore, substituting P=l into Eq. 2.9 yields our governing equation for optimum width of traffic lanes, Now let us apply Eq. 2.10 to three example cases: (All cases are for2 lane roads, I lane per direction) Case 1: ADT == 1,000 = A Speed= 15 (mph)= S ApplyEq. 10 • W = 14' or, 2 lanes@7' each. Case 2: ADT = 5,000 = A Speed = 25 (mph) == S Apply Eq. 10 • W = 18' or, 2 lanes@ 9' each. 4 (2.10) Case 3: ADT= 10,000=A Speed= 3S (mph) = S Apply Eq. 10 • W = 20' or, 2 lanes@ 10' each. The results of cases l through 3 are summarized in Table 2.1, below: Table2.1 Case# ADT Speed Total Width (W) 1 1,000 1S 14' 2 S.000 25 18' 3 10.000 3S 20' Lane Width (L) 7' 9' 10' While Table 1.1 summarizes three specific cases, Eq. 1.10 may be applied to expand table I to any case under consideration. Where case 1 should be considered as the minimum traffic lane width, even in cases of AID's less than 1,000. Hence, we have generated a tool for predicting an optimum traffic lane width. Ill. Parking Lanes In addition to serving as conduits for vehicular traffic, suburban roadways often serve the purpose of providing space for parking. Based on typical dimensions of vehicles in use today, a space 12' long and 8' wide per vehicle provides sufficient space for roadside parking. Each single family dwelling (SFD) should be allo~ space for a minimum of two roadside parking spaces. Furthermore, the roadside frontage of each property should also allow 16 • for driveway access. Based on this, the following examples are calculated: Casel ~1/8 acre lot, frontage ~SO' (SO'-l«r)/12' = 2.8 spaces Rounding down to the nearest whole nmnber yields • 2 spaces per lot Case2 ~1/4 acre lot, frontage ~ 75' (7S'-16')/12' =4.9spaces Rolmding down to the nearest whole manber yields • 4 spaces per lot s Case3 -1/l -l acre lot, frontage ~150' (150' -16')/12' = 11.2 spaces Rotmding down to the nearest whole number yields • 11 spaces per lot. Therefore, the available number of parlcing spaces may be calculated from the following general equation: Spaces• (Froatage' -16') / 12' (Rounded down to the nearest whole number.) (3.1) Most suburban streets have residences on both sides of the street ( double loaded sbeets ). However, occasionally either due to geographic constraints or for aesthetic purposes, certain stleets only have residences on one side of the street. Based on this, the available number of parking spaces for a given housing density may be calculated according to Eq. 3.1, assuming either a single parlcing lane (one side of the street), or a double parking lane ( one lane on each side of the street). Table 3 .1 summarizes several example cases for double-loaded streets: Table3.1 Parking for Double-Loaded Streets Ave. Lot Size Ave. Frontage SFD/Mile Spaces/SFD Spaces/SFD (Acres) (Feet) __ Sinele Lane Double Lane 0.125 50 211 1 2 .025 75 140 2 4 0.5 to 1.0 150 70 5 11 Therefore, given the minimum requirement of 2 spaces/S~. a single 8' parking lane is sufficient for all double-loaded streets with average lot siz.e greater than 0.125 acres. 6 Table 3.2 summarizes several example cases for single-loaded streets: Table3.2 Parking for Singl~Loaded Streets Ave. Lot Size Ave. Frontage SFD/Mile Spaces/SFD Spaces/SFD (Acres) (Feet) SinllleLane Double Lane 0.125 so 10S 2 4 .02S 15 70 4 8 0.S to 1.0 1S0 3S 11 22 Therefore, given the minimQJD requirement of 2 spaces/SID, a single 8' parking lane is sufficient for all cases of single-loaded streets. Finally, it should be noted that as the nmnber of available spaces per SFD approaches 8, it becomes questionable as to whether any on-street parking should be required at all; as most residents will choose to park off of the road in these cases. IV. Walkways The often neglected third function of roadways is to serve as a conduit for pedestrian traffic. Walkways may consist of concrete or other materials. Alternative materials such as decomposed granite or gravel offer the advantages of positive traction on a foot.:. friendly soft surface. Decomposed granite provides excellent drainage and helps to minimize water run-off. Furthermore, it is far more cost-effective to install than the traditional curb, gutter, and sidewalk. A 42" decomposed granite path combined with a 6" asphalt burm (4' total width), serves as a viable alternative. A. Random Petlatrlan Actlvity (RPA) Unfortunately due to the automobile oriented lifestyle in Southern California, many of us have forgotten the pleasures of pedal locomotion. As a result of this, it is estimated that the number of A veragc Pedestrian Daily Trips resulting from random pedestrian activities is on the order of ten times smaller than the vehicular Average Daily Trips. Stated mathematically, APDT = ADT/10. (4.1) Furthennore, one may estimate the average number of pedestrians passing a point along a given point on a walkway per hour by dividing APDT by 24, Pedestrians/Hour= APDT/24 . (4.2) 7 Table 4.1 was generated by applyingEqs. 4.1 and 4.2 to examples of neighborhoods with varying levels of ADT's. Table4.l ADT APDT Peels/Bour WalkwavCs) 0-1,000 0-100 ~4 Optional 1,000-S,OOO 100-SOO ~21 SinJ!le S,000-10,000 S00-1,000 ~42 Double As seen in Table 4.1, not all streets require walkways for random pedestrian activity if traffic is sufficiently low. As traffic increases, walkway requirements rise from a single walkway on one side of the street only, up to walkways on both sides of the street for the busiest neighborhoods. B. Point-Source Pedestrian Activity (PSPA) Of far greater significance than random pedestrian activity, is pedestrian activity resulting from a point somce. When a school or church lets out, 500 to 1,000 pedestrians may be introduced into the roadway network at one time. These individuals then typically walk less than ten blocks to their homes. In order to predict the load of pedestrian traffic due to a point source, a grid model may be applied. Consider Figure 4 .1, which depicts pedestrians dispersing from a point source within a grid. t. t .. t .· .. ...... _. _.....,...... ----~ .. , 1 1 . _·_.;.... .. ·~- Figure4.l 8 . - Counting the number of block lengths-available for pedestrian passage as one radiates from the point source, a mathematical series develops: Number of Blocks From Source R 1 2 3 4 Number of Available Block Lengths L 4=4 4+8+12=24 4+8+ 12+ 16+20 = 60 4+8+12+16+2o+24+28 = 112 This series may be summarized by Eq. 4.3, as follows: L= r(Br-4) (4.3) If a block length is estimated to average 500' then the number of people per foot of roadway is given by Eq. 4.4, p = D / [500r(8r-4)] (4.4) Where, n = the number of people per foot of roadway at a given point in time, and r = the number of blocks from the source. Based on the estimate that most pedestrians live within 10 blocks of the source, the value of n will drop by 10% for every blcok walked from the source, due to attrition of pedestrians to their homes. Therefore, applying Eq. 4.4 to the case of a point source of 500 pedestrians, the number of pedestrians per 100 feet of roadway is plotted in figure 4.2 10 0 Pedestrians on Roadway ' ' \ \ ~ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blocks from Seun:e Figare4.2 Number of pedestrians on roadway as a function of distance from a point source of 500 people. Complete analysis is given in Appendix ll. Hence it is seen that within two blocks of the source, pedestrian loads are sufficiently high to warrant walkways on both sides of the road. However, beyond two blocks a single walkway suffices. Figure 4.3 indicates that even if the point source is increased to 1,000 pedestrians, walkways on both sides of the road are only required within the first two blocks from the source. 60 50 10 0 Pedestrians on Roadway \ \ \ \ 1 '-- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Blocka from Source Figure4.3 Number of pedestrians on roadway as a function of distance from a point source of 1,000 people. Complete analysis is given in Appendix m 10 C Combining RPA and PSPA If a street tmder design consideration lies within less than two blocks from a pedestrian point source, walkway design must include the influence of both Random Pedestrian Activity and Point Source Pedestrian Activity. These factors act additively and therefore the principle of superposition applies. Hence, Table 4.1 may be expanded to include walkway requirements based on the variables of APDT ~d point soun:e consideration as shown in Table 4.2. Table4.2 ADT APDT Walkway(s) Walkway(s) ~ 2 Blocks from < 2 Blocks from Point Source Point Source 0-1.000 0-100 Optional Sirude 1,000-5,000 100-500 Sinsde Double 5,000-10.000 500-1.000 Double Double While Table 4.2 provides a general rule for walkway criteria, this rule is not without exception. Since the model is based on a homogeneous spatial dispersion of pedestrians onto a uniform grid, it represents an idealized situation. Since most real neighborhoods are not comprised of perfect grid-ways, and population density is often higher on one side of a point source than it is on the opposite side, special considerations may be required in order to optimize walkways to fit a particular community. V. Putting it all Together In order to specify the design for a given section of roadway, all three factors described above(traffic lanes, parking lanes and walkways)must be combined. Summing these factors yields the total graded width of the roadway, T •W+ N, (8')+ N.(4') Where, Wis the traffic lane width from Eq. 2.10 (in feet) N, is the number of parking lanes from Table 3.1 or 3.2 N.is the number of walkways from Table 4.2. (5.1) Note that it is considered customary to include one additional foot on both sides of the total graded roadway width as right-of-way (1). VI. Case Stady As an exemplary case, consider a I-block, 2-lane stretch of roadway with an ADT of 2,500 and a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h. This block consists of a double loaded set of SFD's with an average lot size between¼ and½ acre. It is located between 2 and 3 blocks from the nearest pedestrian point source, which is a school that releases 700 11 students at 2~ P.M, M-F. Determine the traffic lane width, the number of required parking lanes and the walkway requirements. 1. Traffic Lanes: According to Eq. 2.10, W=16.45'. Rounding-up to the nearest foot yields, W=17' or 2 lanes at 8.5' each. 2. Parking Lanes: According to Table 3.1, a single 8' parking lane is required. 3. Pedestrian Walkways: According to Table 4.2 a single pedestrian walkway ( consisting of a 42" path plus a 6" burm = 4 ') will be required. 4. Total Graded Roadway Width AccordingtoEq. 5.1, T=29'. A diagram of the cross-section of the computed exemplary roadway is given in Figure 6.1. One additional foot on each side of the graded section shown in the figure may be added as right-of-way ( 1 ). · WAuf:WAY · •·.·. ·. c .. ··.·· .· .... · .... ···.·.··· .... [.·.~ ... ·.··· .... ···,.IC.···.··.·.· .. ·.·· •... ···.·.·•· .. ···.···•.I•··· •. ·· .. ·•········.·•··· •. · •· .• • .. 1-z v ~,7 i. F~ ~. rlh-•. •~ 8~ •I• s· ~ Figure6.l vn. Discussion By applying basic laws of mathematics and physics a practical and flexible model for alternative roadway designs has been derived. The resulting designs offer the advantage of optimized safety and efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. In so doing, the unique characteristics of neighborhoods may be preserved, thereby preserving quality · of life and property values. Results of this model are consistent with progressive roadway designs cited in the literature (1-4). Generally speaking these alternative design styles are less expensive to install and simple-to maintain. Cities using this style-of roadway design have demonstrated reduced speeding problems, which in turn has resulted in reduced accident rates and decreased liability. 12 vm. References 1. Residential Streets. Second Edition, ASCR, NAHlt, ULI. • 2. Flexibility in Highway Design. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 3. Arendt, R., et al, Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. Americn Planners Association. 4. Southworth, M, and Ben-Joseph, E., Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. 13 APPENDIX I EMPIRICAL CURVE FIT FOR LANE WIDTH Width 14 18 20 ~ 0 ..J u. 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 Flow 15000 125000 350000 0 10 20 w • Series1 -Power {Series1) 30 y = 1E-06x8·7S4 R2 = 0.9988 APPENDIXU Pedestrian Load Model Dispersion from • point source on • grid ANurner. All pedlt Hve-wlthln a 10 block radlua at 10% attrition per block Length of Blocka Number of People at t-o W•Hdng Speed • 500ft 500 250 ftlmln People per People per Time (mins) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 0.25 25 4 2 0.0375 3.75 8 4 0.00625 0.625 16 8 0.000625 0.0625 20 10 0 O 60 50 c! 40 8 .. 30 I 20 10 0 Pedestrians on Roadway •l \ \ ... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blocks from Source APPENDIX ID ·Pedestrian Load Model Dispersion from a point source on a grid AssUnln: All peds Hve within a 10 block radius at 10% attrition per block t..ngth-of&looka Number of People at t-o Walking Speed = SOO-ft 1000 250ftlmln People per People per Time (mlns) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 0.5 50 4 2 0.075 7.5 8 4 0.0125 1.25 16 8 0.00125 0.125 20 5 0 0 60 50 = 40 8 ... 30 ! 20 10 0 Pedestrians on Roadway \ \ \ \ i '--- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Blocks from Source CORRESPONDENCE/HANDOUT . 1/3/00 JIM KING • Other Efforts The 1970s and 1980s saw efforts to develop new residential street design guidelines that, unlike P!evious standards, were not based upon highway standards. In 1974, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Home Builders, and ULl- the Urban Land Institute published the forerunner to this book, Residential Streets: Obiecti'(_eS, Principles ev Design Considera- tions. Though not" a comprclieiisive design guide, the book in- cluded a discussion of significant considerations to be recognized in the design of residential stre~ts. The publication focused on the relationship between the design of residential streets and their unique function, the cost effectiveness of street design, and the role of streets in contributing to, rather than detracting from, the desired intimate scale of a residential community. -.J.--Performance Streets, published by the Bucks County (Pennsyl- --·-- vania) Planning Commission in 1980, represents a significant con- tribution to the body of work on residential street design. The book reviewed and evaluated the street design literature and stan- dards developed by other authors and organizations, offered its own recommendations, and provided suggested ordinance lan- guage for use by local governments in implementing the recom- mendations. The book is based upon the concept that the move- ment of vehicles is only one of a residential street's many functions. The street is also part of the neighborhood and provides a visual setting for the homes as well as a meeting place for resi- dents. In 1984, the Institute of Transportation Engineers IITE) pub- lished Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets. The book stressed that four factors-safety, efficiency of service, liva- bility, and economy-should guide the design of residential C streets. Among the several principles derived from these factors, J two are particularly notable. First, local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds; second, minimum area should be devoted to streets. During the 1980s, many of these concepts stressing the proper role of a street in a neighborhood and appropriate design rather than overdesign of the street were applied in new residential de- velopments. In particular, the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing, (' a 0 progr 1 am init 1 i 8 atUDed byl thde U.S. Depdarbtment of Hohusing an~ Urban'l \ eve opment an supporte ;y many ot er organizations including NAHB and ULI, advocated the applicati911 of several of . the principles that evolved during the 1980s as part of an overall ) strategy to reduce housing costs. /' Introduction 19 . " ' I a . a a I. & I. I. I.. L L ~ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ 20 lJ \ Residmtial Streets _, Philosophy of Residential Street D In the past, residential streets have been mis ly viewed as fulfilling only two functions: providing access and conveying traf- fic. As a consequence of this philosophy, requirements and <Jesign guidelines placed undue stress on the efficient movement of traf- fic-in other words, moving traffic either in greater volumes or at increased speed-and.,ignored residential streets' many other functions. As stated in Performance Streets (Bucks County, 1980): It was often forgotten· that residential streets become pan of the neighborhood and are C\'Ciltually used for a variety of pur- poses for which they were not designed. Residential streets provide direct auto access for the occupant to his home; they carry traffic past his home; they provide a visual setting, an ennyway for each house; a pedestrian circulation system; a meeting place for the residents; a play area (whether one likes it or not) for the children, etc. To design and engineer residen- L tial streets solely for the convenience of easy automobile movement overlooks the·many overlapping uses of a residen- tial street. Residential Streets, Second Edition is based on the premise that the design of a residential street should be appropriate to its func- tions. A residential street's functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of a residential com- munity's living environment. The idea of a residential street system as much more than a transportation facility is reflected in the following principles that form the basis for the guidelines presented in this book: • Street planning should relate to overall community planning. • Traffic in residential areas should be kept to a minimum to reduce noise, congestion, and hazards to pedestrians. • The street is an important component of overall residential community design. Properly scaled and designed streets can· create more attractive communities and can contribute to a clearly defined sense of place. • Street design standards should permit flexibility in commu.- ni ty design. They should allow street alignments to follow natural contours and preserve natural features or to respond to other design objectives such as the creation of more inti- mate urban-or village-scaled streetscapes. • Wherever possible, street layouts should be planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff and the need for storm sewers. • The amount of paved area should be kept to a minimum to reduce construction and maintenance costs, stormwater run- off, and heat buildup. • Streets can serve social functions such as meeting places and centers of community activity. For example, children often ,.... use low-traffic streets a~ play areas. l ; ., j ' ·> j i ! I J j I I i I j I i I • In the interest of keeping housing affordable, street costs should be minimized. . • Overdesign of streets should be avoided. Excessive widths or an undue concern with geometry more appropriate for high- ways encourages greater vehicle speeds. • Different streets have different functions and need to be de- signed accordingly. Blanket standards are inappropriate. These principles suggest that a street system should be designed as a hierarchy of street uses. Routes carrying through traffic should be separated from routes that provide access to residential Introduction 21 I .. l. • •• ,- (. I ,- f 11 11 ,~ [ 28 Rasidsntial Streets rounding areas can be accurately predicted. The place in the hi- erarchy assigned to a particular residential street can and should relate to its particular traffic projection. Average daily traffic (ADT)-the average total number of vehi- cles traversing a highway or route on a typical day-is one factor in the design or alter~tion of highways and arterial streets, but it should not be the sole factor. A generalized classification scheme is presented in Table 2-1; however, the ADT ranges may overlap and thus are not intended as design criteria. Table 2-1 Street Classes Based upon Traffic Volume Class Usual ADT Range [ Access Street 0-250 Subcollec.tor 250-1,000 Collector 1,000-3,000 ADT. is not considered the best index for local residential street design. The traffic density and consequences of highway and ar- terial street speeds are absent on subdivision streets, and residen- tial driving attitudes and habits differ from highway and arterial driving behaviors. Yielding momentarily to resolve minor residen- tial traffic conflicts is practical at residential-area speeds. Either residential traffic yields to drivers backing from their driveways, or backing drivers yield to oncoming traffic, and no one is unduly delayed. When parked vehicles impede residential traffic, ap- proaching vehicles often yield and then proceed with caution. In pan, designs that encourage this kind of cautious driver behavior result in reduced speed, greater attention on the part of drivers to conflict, and, thus, safer streets. The primary considerations in selecting residential street stan- dards, therefore, are the characteristics of local residential traffic and residents' expectations. 'Il:affic volumes can provide additional guidance for decision making. Most sources estimate that the average daily traffic (ADT) per single-family detached dwelling unit ranges from eight to 10 ve- hicles per day. Attached units and multifamily units tend to gen- erate fewer trips. Surveys performed by the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers have yielded the following: ,. i <I ,, ·~ 1 :, i I :I A NEW MODEL FOR ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY DESIGN: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Presented to Carlsbad Street & Sidewalks ~ ~ Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. Point-Source Pedestrian Activity (PSPA) t 1 ~ -, 1~ - -l ~ ~ ~ l ' l- Point-Source Pedestrian Activity (PSPA) • L=r(8r-4) • P = n / [500r(8r-4)] I I I I Random Pedestrian Activity (RPA) • APDT = ADT/10 • Pedestrians/Hour= APDT/24 NJf Al'UI' ft,d;lf,. -0.1,CDI 0.100 s4 ~ 1,(m.5,IIX) Joo-,oo s21 -~10,CDl m-1,cm s42 Ibtio Point-Source Pedestrian Activity (PSPA) I 2 3 1,000 Person Point Source PeclHtna .. oaROlldway .. -,·-·--., --·--r--- 50 +-+--+--+---t--t----i-;---i-- • «I ......... ,.._._-+-i __,_ ........... --,...-.--1 II +-++-+-\--r---1----+--t-+- l ::::,::::=::=:::= 012345,9711 --- 1 Combining RP A and PSPA 4DT 41'111" Wo ... 11)'(1) I Wo ... 11)'(1) •J--: <JIIINlllfna ----0-1000 0-100 ·-9i- 1.000-,,000 100-,00 9i-•· Doubl• 5 000-10000 500-1,000 I Doubl• Doublo INTERPRETATIONS • 2 Blocks= 1,000 feet radius • Walks are recommended to consist of alternative surface pathways. • Priority for modifications: -I. Double -2. Single -3. Optional -4. "non~ links" (City List) 2 . I PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PREDICTED BY MATHEMATICAL MODEL ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONSIDERATION LIST STREET FROM/AT TO ADT PS< 1,000' PS>1,000' [x1,000] Mountain View Dr. Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvd. <1 re] X Normandie Lane Garfield St. Mountain View Or. <1 [el X Pacific Ave. Ocean St. Mountain View Dr. <1 [e] X Cypress Ave. Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvd. .,6 X Ocean St. Mountain View Or. Christainsen Wy. <1 [e] X Ocean St. Grand Ave. Pine Ave. <1 re] X Garfield St.• Ocean St. Grand Ave. (S) <1 [el X Garfield St.• Grand Ave. (N) Carlsbad Village Dr. <1 [e] X Garfield St. Walnut Ave. Chestnut Ave. 2.9 rel X Beech Ave. Ocean St. Garfield St. <1 [e] X Grand Ave. Ocean St. Garfield St. 1.3 [e) X Redwood Ave. Garfield St. cul-de-sac <1 (el X Laguna Dr. Roosevelt St. East of Kremever Ci, 6.7 X Laguna Dr. E. of Davis Ave. 1-5 <1 rel X Buena Vista Cir. Laguna Dr. end NEL NEL NEL Madison St. S. of Arbuckle Pl. N. of Grand Ave. 2.5 [el X Washington St. Pine Ave. Walnut Ave. <1 [el X Tyler St. Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave. 2 (e] X Long Pl. ChinQuapin Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Hibiscus Cir. Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Harbor Dr. Chinquapin Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Linmar ln. Tamarack Ave. end NEL NEL NEL Baldwin Ln. Chinaua0in Ave. end NEL NEL NEL Citrus Pl. Jefferson St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Home Ave. Hope Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Davis Ave. Buena Vista WY. Laguna Dr. <1 re] X Davis Pl. Davis Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Knowles Ave. Jefferson St. Davis Ave. <1 [el X Buena Pl. Jefferson St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL Buena Vista Wv. Jefferson St. Davis Ave. <1 rel X Tuttle St. las Flores Dr. Buena Vista Wv. <1 rel X 1 OPTIONAl SINGLE DOUBLE PATH PATH PATH X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NEL NEL NEL X X X NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL X NEL NEL NEL X NEL NEL NEL X X I STREET FROM/AT TO ADT PS< 1,000' PS >1,000' OPTIONAl SINGLE DOUBLE [x1,000] PATH PATH PATH Jefferson St. las Flores Dr. 1-5 11 X X Jefferson St. 1-5 Marron Rd. NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Pio Pico Dr.* N of Yourell Ave. end <1 feJ X X Pio Pico Dr.* las Flores Dr. Yourell 1.3 X X Pio Pico Dr. Tamarack Ave. Las Flores Dr. 4.1 X X las Flores Dr. Pio Pico Dr. 2 lots west 5.9 X X Yourell Ave. Pio Pico Dr. west of Highland Dr. <1 [e] X X Forest Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Hiahland Dr. <1 feJ X X Forest Ave.* Hiahland Dr. Wilson Dr. (W) <1 [e] X X Forest Ave* Wilson Dr. (E) Crest Dr. <1 [el X X Cipriano ln. Forest Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Spruce St. Forest Ave. 1 lot north <1 rel X X Spruce St. Yourell Ave. 1 lot north <1 (e) X X Ratcliff Rd. Hiahland Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Guevara Rd. Highland Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Butters Rd. W. of Highland Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Lorna Lane Forest Ave. <1 [e] X X Crest Dr. Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wy. <1 [eJ X X Wilson St. Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wy. <1 reJ X X Arland Rd. Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy. <1 [el X X Highland Dr. N. of Butters Rd. Forest Ave. <1 rel X X Highland Dr. Forest Ave. Arland Rd. <1 [e] X X Highland Dr. Carlsbad Village Dr. Oak Ave. 3 X X Highland Dr. Oak Ave. Basswood Ave. 2.6 (el X X Hiahland Dr. Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave. 2.6 X X Highland Dr. Chestnut Ave. Magnolia Ave. 3.3 [e) X X Highland Dr. Magnolia Ave. Tamarack Ave. 3.3 X X Highland Dr. Tamarack Ave. Chinauapin Ave. 3.6 X X Highland Dr. Chinquapin Ave. Adams St. 2 [el X X Buena Vista Wv.* Pio Pico Dr. Highland Dr. (W) <1 (8) X X Buena Vista Wv. * Highlnd Dr. (E) Crest Dr. <1 rel X X Valley St. Buena Vista Wy. Carlsbad Villaae Dr. <1 [el X X Gregory Dr. Knowles Ave. Cynthia Ln. NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Cynthia Ln. cul-de-sac cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL 2 STREET FROM/AT TO ADT PS< 1,000' PS >1,000' OPTIONAL SINGLE DOUBLE [x1,0001 PATH PATH PATH Knowles Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Elmwood St. <1 rel X X Laguna Dr. Pio Pico Dr. Elmwood St. <1 rel X X Elmwood St. Laouna Dr. Buena Vista WY. <1 re] X X McCauley Ln. Valley St. cul-de-sac <1 rel X X Oak Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Hiohland Dr. <1 [e] X X Oak Ave. at cul-de-sac <1 (el X X Pine Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Basswood Ave. >1 rel X X Pine Ave. W. of McKinley St. Hiahland Dr. <1 [el X X Mckinley St. Pine Ave. Basswood Ave. <1 rel X X Eureka Pl. S. of Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave. >1 [e] X X Adams St. Basswood Ave. Maonolia Ave. >1 [el X X Palm Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Adams St. <1 (el X X Woodland Wv. Chestnut Ave. cul-de-sac <1 [e] X X Larkspur Wy. Adams St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL AdairWy. Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Polly Ln. Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Harrison St. Chinquapin Ave. Adams St. <1 rel X X Locust St. Harrison St. Adams St. <1 [el X X Hoover St. Agua Hedionda Lag. Highland Dr. <1 (el X X Hillside Dr. Hiohland Dr. Park Dr. 4.5 X X Cove Dr. S. of Park Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Marina Dr. Park Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Bayshore Dr. Park Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Jeanne Pl. end of cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Althea Ln. end of cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Canyon Pl. Canyon St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Sandy Pl. Canvon St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Canyon St. Canyon Pl. Basswood Ave. <1 (el X X Maezel Ln. Basswood Ave. end NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Valley Pl. Valley St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Baswood Ave.* Eureka Pl. Adams St.(W) <1 [el X X Basswood Ave.* Adams St.CE) Hiohland Dr. <1 rel X X Basswood Ave. Valley St. Canvon St. >1 rel X X Basswood Ave. Monroe St. Ridgecrest Dr. <1 [e] X X 3 STREET FROM/AT TO ADT PS< 1,000' PS >1,000' OPTIONAL SINGLE DOUBLE rx1,0001 PATH PATH PATH Belle Ln. BasswoOd Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Falcon Or. Donna Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Donna Dr. at Nob Hill Dr. <1 Jel X X Donna Dr. Falcon Dr. S. of Janis Wv. <1 [el X X Donna Dr. N. of Sharleen Cir. Chestnut Ave. <1 Jel X X Ridgecrest Dr. Basswood Ave. Charter Oak Dr. <1 rel X X Seacrest Dr. Ridaecrest Dr. Ridaecrest Dr. NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Charter Oak Dr. Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Meadowlark Ln. Ridaecrest Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Camden Cir. Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Hillcrest Cir. Seacrest Or. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Gayle Way Monroe St. Donna Dr. <1 Jel X X Ann Dr. GayleWy. Janis Wy. <1 rel X X Laurie Cir. Ann Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL JanisWy. Ann Dr. Donna Dr. <1 Je1 X X Charleen Cir. Donna Dr. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Majorie Ln. Chestnut Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Karen Ln. Monroe St. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Park Dr.* Monroe St. Woodvale Dr. (S) 1 X X Park Dr.* Woodvale Dr. (N) Westhaven Dr. Hel X X Park Dr.* Tamarack Ave. Alondra Way (W) 2.27 X X Park Dr.* Alondra Way lE) Park Ct. lW) 2.07 X X Park Dr.* Park Ct. CE) End <2.07 Jel X X Woodvale Dr. Park Dr. Westhaven Dr. <1 rel X X Westhaven Dr. N. of Park Dr. Woodvale Dr. <1 Jel X X Monroe St. East of Park Dr. Sunnvhill Dr. 1 X X Skyline Rd. West haven Alder Ave. <1 ceT X X Skyline Rd. Alder Ave. N. of Telescooe Ave <1 fe1 X X Alder Ave. Monroe/Sunnvhill cul-de-sac <1 fel X X Hollv Brae Ln. Alder Ave. cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL Sunnyhill Dr. Monroe St. 5 lots S. 0.9 X X Sunnyhill Dr. 5 lots S. of Monroe St. N. of Hillside Dr. 0.9 X X MacArthur Ave. Sunnvhill Or. Skvline Rd. <1 (el X X Clearview Dr. MacArthur Ave. N. of cul-de-sac NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL NEL 4 STREET FROM/AT TO ADT PS< 1,000' PS>1,000' OPTIONAL [x1,0001 PATH Aura Cir. N. of Hillside Dr. end <1 re] X Via Hinton end <1 [el X X Palisades Dr. Tamarack Ave. N. of nuckle <1 [e] X X *NOTE: CROSS-STREETS DIVIDED BASED ON PEDESTRIAN POINT SOURCE DATA. [e] NOTATES ADT ESTIMATED FROM NEARBY AND EQUIVALENT STRETS. NEL NOTATES NON-ESSENTIAL LINK. 5 SINGLE DOUBLE PATH PATH X . CORRESPONDENCE 1/3/00 WILLIAM DAUGHERTY October 19, 1999 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Destruction of Trees in Old Carlsbad Dear Major and Council, The Buena Vista Audubon Society would like to call your attention to the fact that only two heron rookeries are located in San Diego County. One is located on the grounds of the North Tsland Naval Air Ra.,e and the second is located in the many t.all Torrey Pines around Highland and Oak streets in Carlsbad. For this reason, we would strongly oppose any plan that would jeopanm.e this important breeding area This is also a rookery for black crowned night herons. Please reconsider plans to remove the trees to widen the streets and install sidewalks and curbs. Sincerely, William Daugherty, President C.,, •. f u bl i c... ~Jar~ '2), re.c..iur TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR 'BUD' LEWIS AND CARLSBAD CITY COUNSEL: I AS A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF THE NORTH-WEST QUADRANT OF CARLSBAD, I HA VE DAILY WATCHED THE CHANGES TAl(ING PLACE IN MY CITY. nns AREA ENCOMPASSES 2 PRIVATE AND 4 PUBLIC SCHOOLS. MANY CHILDREN USE THESE STREETS GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL. DRIVING OR WALKING THE STREETS, I SEE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. ONES THAT COULD BE REMEDIED IN EASY, THOUGHTFUL AND CARING WAYS. WE NEED STREET IMPROVE:MENTS, INCLUDING SIDEWALKS, CURBS FOR PARKING CARS, GUTTER CHANGES TO ALLEVIATE THE RAIN/ RUNOFF DISASTERS WHEN WE DO HA VE RAIN. THESE SMALL CHANGES WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO REVERSING A LETIIAL TREND OF CHILDREN, WALKERS, BICYCLE RIDERS AND SENIOR CITIZENS VERSUS TRUCKS AND CARS THROUGH THE YEARS THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING AND TRAFFIC OFFICES HA VE MADE AVAILABLE TO US THE STATISTICS ON ACCIDENTS, NUMBER OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN EVERY INTERSECTION. I IMAGINE READING THESE FORMS WITH THE LISTINGS OF WHERE, WHEN, WHO AND WHAT HAPPENED, WOULD BE DRY READING FOR MOST PEOPLE. I FOUND THEM FASCINATING. I WALK THESE STREETS, I KNOW THESE CHILDREN, I RECOGNIZE THESE TRUCK AND BUS DRIVERS. I HA VE ATTENDED AN UNNECESSARY AND PAINFUL FUNERAL, ONE WIDCH COULD HA VE BEEN AVOIDED, HAD WE THE ( FORESIGHT AND COURAGE TO CHANGE. CHANGE HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING FOR US ALL: FEAR, FINANCIAL LOSS, LOSING OUR FRONT AGE LAND, BECOMING INVOLVED WITH OUR CITY'S POLITICS, LOSS OF A NEIGHBORS FRIENDSIDP. 2 I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD ALL CHOOSE A PATH THAT WOULD LEAD TO BALANCE. SAFETY AGAINST MONEY AND LAND. nns SEEMS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE LIVE IN PARADISE! SINCERELY, SHELLEY LESTE GROSSMAN 1387 BASSWOOD A VE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1904 760-434-4223 CC: SAN DIEGO UNION, Tiffi READER AND THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OR CARLSBAD CHANNEL 10, KOCI RADIO, THE VISTA PRESS r1. L C 0 0 0 D D u u ' D fJ u LI u ,,.~,-.,.1.1••-•.·----,. ,1t_t•.,11tA ..,,,_ --,,..,.,,~.-.-.,__:~, ~""'lc~•J• ...... ---,. -..,._,;;.,iiv,-:.·~. ~ ;:: 1 ...;;r~, ~ ... ,.~ 1 v •-~.: '-'•, ... ..;.·.w ,._,....,;.,, ••. ,, ~ ::;. ...... s:~ay ~~= s:~=\\'A:.K A~~: S":REET IMPRC\'=\~=~-:--=-~:·-3=-=-.~. -:-oniom vou a• e scneOUieo to oegin c,·atung the hnai reoor: tc me city coijnc;, ,:·r,c eierr~c:-t :17 Meso!;..;,~~:-1 99-403 "":a3 :c cJns;der an reit!·~·~:-,~ iss~cs :"'\C,,_,,.~...,11._l"! __ r.•A ....... ----·· '' ·:, ......... ..... .,.,;.i!"',.' '::11 ~"°'! ... --if\~ ~~~· ...... ~A~•t"-!~.~ r,~;!4',..~f•~--,..., •A .... ~·-~ ~"",.....~,--'.~rii ... ~,.; , • .,,.,.1"'4_...,, ,, .... ;.,,._ ...... , ..... ,. ,,.. •..1"-J,'--" ,.,~ :...1·;11-,. , •• , .. , •• ~,. ••!\--:!--__ .,., ... __ ~~'.".~'.".'.'"~ ~· C.a'"'~!!!?r-'".' "2S ~st~b\1~ea ~eP.S S"'""Ut'>~ 12"\~S~B~'"'9 a~~ ~-e~e'l?~ce !, ~:,e, c1t!es e~;y :a~·~- fr, S~:~"":~~-' ;~ ;~ !Me ~t~C~ !T\y r:~1.~:,~~ ~n~ i C~O~~ !!,~'/~ ~~ :,~~ ... ~~:!":~~ .----~ .... • i I ---I 4"" • I ,,,,_ ' . --, -_,;. - :..,' IO January 2000 Carlsbad Street & Sidewalks Committee: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Committee members and members of the public. Tonight I would like to follow-up on my presentation from last week by specifically addressing some of the questions that were raised in some more detail. First, regarding Mr. McBane•s suggestion that a gravitational field model could perhaps be used to describe dispersion of pedestrians from a point source, he is correct. Taking Newton's law of gravitation and replacing Newton's constant with another value (which we can call McBane's constant), the function fits my physical grid model (based on real values), almost exactly. On the graph, the solid line represents the grid model and the dashed line represents the gravitational model They are the same. However, some folks might consider the gravitational approach to be too "hypothetical". Speaking of hypothetical, Mr. Schlehuber, I called the schools and obtained exact data on the numbers of students and times that they are dismissed. Using this data in my grid model gives the same results u my estimates. For the High School, 2,200 students are dismissed at 2:20. If the threshold for double walkways is set at 10 pedestrians per 100', the radius of influence is 2.2 blocks and this is for the largest pedestrian point source in the area. By estimating the walking speed to 3 mph, pedestrian activity dies down in 16 minutes and. by 20 minutes, the event is essentially over. Looking at Magnolia, the nearest point source to the High School. dismissal time IS staggered from the High School, letting out at 2:35 every day except for Thursday (when it lets out at I :35). Entering the 700 students at Magnolia tells us that the radius of influence is 1. 7 blocks. Furthermore, since the time delay is fifteen-minutes, the interaction between these two point sources is negligible. Finally, Valley Jr. High Jets out about I, ISO students at 2:20 P.M., yielcfins a ndius of influence of 1. 9 blocks. In summary, these 3 schools have an average radius of influence of about 2 blocks and by staggering dismissal times, congestion is minimized. The model predicts that pedestrian issues may be solved more cost effectively by staggering dismissal times rather than re- engineering the city's infrastructure. Similarly, u mentioned previously by Dr. Wickham, the use of school buses and parking structures to obviate the need for street 'improvements' to accommodate school traffic would make sense and save money. This practice bu been applied successfully in many other cities. Mr. Mamaux asked for interpretation of the pedestrian accident data. Normalizing that data relative to tbe proportion of roads present in each category can be done using the map issued in your packet. You see that about 25% of the streets in the NW quadrant are "unimproved". There were no pedestrian accidents reported on those streets. The normalized figure is O divided by 25% which remains 0. Approximately 100/o of the streets are "semi-improved" (curbs and gutters. no sidewalks). Here, 3 accidents divided by 100/o yields a normalized figure of 30. Finally 65% of the streets are "fu11y improved". 61 accidents divided by 65% yields a normalized value of 94. Hence, it is shown that by normalization, the effect is still present. in fact it is stronger. The statistics speak for themselves. Lastly, Mrs. Wischkaemper wu concerned autos were not getting fair attention. Remember the first two sections of the Model I presented address auto traffic lanes and parking. I invite you to read and study that information and would like to offer to elaborate in the future if you desire. Regarding your opinion that more traffic aneries are required for the future of Olde Carlsbad, perhaps Sunnyhill Drive would make for a good speedway. I'm not sure your neighbors would agree. Please base your decisions on facts, figures and calculations, not on personal bias and opinions. Look at the facts ... use the model... use your brains ... use your expert local knowledge and experience ... and make some good decisions! Thank you, 1 ... ~ -<a(/i-C ~U ~-- . Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. F-= G m, 111,._ r ,_ NEWTON'S GRAVITATIONAL LAW EXAMPLE: CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL Grid dispersion model G m1 m2 r F N 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 -/-OR = 0 0 .,... I a. 2200 1980 1 108.9 110 2200 1760 2 24.2 16.5 2200 792 4 2. 7225 2. 75 2200 440 8 0.378125 0.275 2200 0 10 0 0 61'l1tr~ry : d = ,_ C7io ,c 10 -,, -Y ~, .s 4 Pac:sr~1AN.f: ~-=-~ ... ~'JC 10-5 bl«hq,/~opk, 1t:JN'r) 120 100 80 60 40 0 Gravity Model vs. Grid Model .. '§ . . . . : : • F . . ............. _•··············:··············~--+--N .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·.·. -... --...... •,• .. --.... -.... --· .. -...... ---.. --..... --. . . . . . . . ' ' : : : : : : .......... ---.... -., ...... -.... -... ---..... -.. -.... ---......... - ' ' . . ' ' . : : ' ' \ ' ' ······;··· -~·' ................ •'. ··:···············:··············~····-·-··-··-··:·---- . -.. -... -. -........ -. -.... -.. -... --.. ---. -. -... ---·----- 1 3 5 7 9 11 Blocks From Source CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL Pedesbian Load Model Dispersion from a point source on a grid Assumes: All pads live within a 10 block radius at 10% attrition per block Length of Block= Number of People at t==O Walking Speed • 500 ft 2200 250 ft/min SCI/CO~ L~rs ttJvr (? ,<,',Zo Pl'-1 -People per People per Time (mins) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 1.1 110 4 2 0.165 16.5 a 4 0.0215 2. 75 1s a 0.0021s 0.21s 20 10 0 0 60 50 = 40 8 .,. 30 J _ 20 10 0 I Pedestrians on Roadway I I ' \ I ! i ' I I I I i I ! ' I I I ' ! ! I ; ! I ; ~ i i I ..__ ( ?£/? ,oo 7 ~ A, ;;c,o @ 3:.21 P.n.J o 1 2 3 4 s s 7 a 9 10 11 Blocks from Source MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY Pedestrian Load Model Dispersion from a point source on a grid Assumes: All pads live within a 10 block radius at 10% attrition per block Length of Blocks Number of People at t=O Walking Speed = 500 ft 700 250 ft/min People-per People per Time (mins) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 0.35 35 4 2 0.0525 5.25 8 4 0.00875 0.875 16 8 0.000875 0.0875 20 10 0 0 60 so c 40 8 .,. 30 J -20 10 0 Pedestrians on Roadway I I I I •1 I \ I ' I I I I ~"--I I I i Sc #a!'£. ,er s ovr (2 f<.,'3~ { 1:3 s P.rl. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blocks from Source VALLEY JR. HIGH Pedestrian Load Model Dispersion from a point source on a grid Assumes: All peds live within a 10 block radius at 10% attrition per block Length of Block= Number of People at t=O Walking SpHd • - 500 ft 1150 250 ft/min People per People per Time (mlns) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 0.575 57.5 4 2 0.08625 8.625 8 4 0.014375 1.4375 16 8 0.0014375 0.14375 20 10 0 0 60 50 = 40 8 'P' 30 J _ 20 10 0 •• l ' I I I Pedestrians on Roadway I ' ' ! I ! ' ' ' ! ! : i \ I i I i \ ! I ! I i \ i I : I I i \.... I i ! I l i I c.JC/ltKJL t..E75 t,t/r ~ ,2.: :)_t, f? rlc 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blocks from Source . Auto Vs. Pedestrian Accidents # Accidents / % of Streets = Normalized# Unimproved Semi-Improved Fully Improved 100 0 3 Ill Number • Normalized . -• , • • -. ~25% ~10% -65% Auto Vs. Pedestrian Accidents - -- 80 . . . . -.. ----. - ---.. --.. ---. ---. ---------------------61 60 ············ ..... · 40 ~····································•··········30······i·· 2of () (). 3 • 0 0 30 94 Unimproved Semi-Improved Fully Improved Traffic Lane Width Calculation Table Based on: A New Model for Alternative Roadway Design Presented to Carlsbad Street & Sidewalks Committee 13 January 2000 J.C. Debes, Ph.D. ADT 15 25 35 45 55 65 MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH 500 13' 14' 14' 1,000 14' 15' 15' 2,500 16' 17' 18' 5,000 18' 19' 19' 19' 10,000 20' 21' 21' 30,000 23' 23' 24' 24' Width calculations indicate value for both lanes (2-lane road). Governing Equation: Width = {(ADT x SPEED x l,000,000)/1.34}8•114 CA State Law requires 20' roadways for emergency vehicles.* *Mountable berms and drive-able shoulders allow for lane widths to be less than 20', provided that the total drive-able width is 20'. The output of the model provides recommendations for pedestrian access pathways. vehicular traffic lanes. and on-street parking lanes. The primary advantages of the model are that it is quantitative. objective. unbiased. and based on established mathematical and physical principles. While this model is not exhaustive in scope. it provides a starting point for alternative roadway designs that are applicable to the Northwest quadrant of Carlsbad. While direct application of this model to the entire list of"Alternative Design" streets is beyond the scope of this committee. it is our recommendation that this useful tool ( as well as other objective methods) be applied by the community-based commission and the City Engineering staff. for the design of future improvements in the Northwest quadrant. In summary a list of relevant· criteria warranting studies for street improvement has been established. A methodology for using these criteria in a systematic fashion to decide if a street or street warrants study has been proposed. but not implemented by this committee. Furthermore. quantitative tools for alternative designs have been reviewed and discussed as presented above. Therefore it is the recommendation of this committee that a citizen-based commission be established to work with city staff in further implementing these seminal ideas. The output of this committee should be considered as the establishment of a new philosophy rather than as a completed project. References I. Residential Streets. Second Edition. ASCE, NAHB, ULI. 2. Flexibility in Highway Design. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 3. Arendt, R.. et al, Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. American Planners Association. 4. Southworth. M, and Ben-Joseph, E., Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. 5. Debes, J.C., A new model for alternative roadway design. (.)t~ l l ,7lc,o Good Evening. I am Dr. Sharoni3ake9Slowik. My address is 3960 Sunnyhill Drive, which is on the southeast comer of the intersection of Momoe, Sunnyhill and Alder. We P,urchased this property 2 months ago only recently to find our prirty would be affected by the May project (#CT 97-24) or more specifically the extension of the May project, which would ultimately reconfigure the intersection ofSunnyhill, Momoe, and Alder. To revie"; the May project is a residential development on the comer of Park and Monroe. It would p~o ide side~w· curbs and~tters. for the area ~ ~pr. ,t~~ R-ft?f"•~~ of the development. 4 e proJect o ever cause diamage problems for the adjacent property, the Prentice's on 39' S"°) ~~""~ To resolve this issue, the sidewalks, gutters were to continue-in front of~~~~at the developers expense. The city subsequently decided to continue the sidewalk to the south end of Monr-oe in front of the Ortman property. This continuation resulted in a decision to totally reconfigure the intersection of Memoe, Sunnyhill and Alder. This reconfiguration results in an alignment of Monroe with -our driveway, the street will appear to continue up our driveway. Now we have children ages 6 and 3 and are very concerned about-the s_afety of this change. It would only take one driver to make that easily conceivable mistake of driving up our driveway thinking they are continuing down ~-This could be a fatal error and we cannot let this happen. Lik-ely the development will be increasing the traffic in the area also. We are requesting the city not proceed with these plans for the safety of our children. We understand from the city's design subcontractor for this extension, Glen V anPeski, that it is in the bidding phase for the work to be done. This appears to be in viol~ioa-0f the current Moratorium. While the May project was exempt, the plans for the sidewalk extension fell under the time perio4-of the moratorium. We plan to involve legal counsel as these issues were not disclosed to us at the time of the sale of the property, however we would prefer not to and therefore request the city accomodate the Prentice's and their drainage problem, but stop the sidewalks before the Ortman property: ·· If safety is of concern, a three way stop and path for pedestrians in front of the Ortman' s could be placed without a need to totally reconfigure the intersection.and place our family in danger. Thank you for yo~ ~ention. r m Ml i -r-_ 1 V1Af ffi;C,1)4Y\.,·T TYtY-t; -~ ll u I f5-.J T)1( Dm--A 1)1Yry-I --rU Qfi/Uf f ~ o · L,vt't4t.1 lll,-v r1 T u~ ure -ific.c fi K..ST v!A'f(;----J '. (u V 0 WL r~ -~ ) t0 ul,(/TT ( t N '\)C 1 t' / r/17.-(. ff O \e Cl)c.,, v'b-J _L-1M,e,,1n (,.e. ~c...,~J,N n-ic:-NJJJ -Q U r-\1J G'hJ TT\"2:C S~--r I N Q v<£ S 1{ (i),--J ~ -A VlA M ) fL-u Tt1 f\-/c,__ 4 J I yv(A Dif ~ J ~V} W--c/fTZ U>J , St\uiALO F{ (_ 1:7,£ci v t D (~P ~ '"'1 A'1t-/ ,, w-, S) wl~ Wl Y0 or1- ((!.,' 1 IL([ cJYL (.}<[os:<:::= ) @ P6-A-10 ~f'u1 f::;_) J11?[ P, V -8~ - -7ltiZ. Q u.,F✓D Or-> l ---{ .STI vc... : tJ \{ 'I ~ -0--H DC>,N(r-~JC l'i V"l({2\)\.J1:;~ 11? l\h....O (D po -n~ st'A-n 1,r..a O\lfyt._ T)te:. un 1 -FfYL!';I l_/ <::i fiYl,J cJlfad T1 ,C '-J ~ t Y( OYlfJ,. ? " ~U/f 'R6v- '7;-ut, lrtz1r/fz?t,;JO Qx:____ u [J n 0 Li n C fl 0 CT D [J n 0 0 0 D n 0 \ AAi.•IM~,,ap~ 8'" ''1·' K''-'" ~,..,_ -· ·-,...-.... , ,,. ,.,.,..., •• ,.----.. ..,,,..., ,.,""'1\tu ,c,,·. 1 ,':) . ) ..... v. i ··-~ i 'tt,J inc ....,, • • .:..~.---~ y'-i/i.,hVH i • ~; • W -::-• ''"'\! -u: ~"r'\"'1==-'\"'""('.'!-.:'.'WA .• V '"IIOOl'"'\'1t:a.1e,•~ OQ~~R II ,v .. .... ---, •-.;or,.__ !>,: .. _. __ _._ ~••---•• ... :, ••. • ...... ~._if._,.) I • 1,., ...... ~•· ~--ic,me.-·· !·e-,~van: •1~m rna-r snou1d ~ ci~ariv !~mmeo 1n tn,s commme s fina, re:)Ol1 cs :na ::;eva.oome:-;t o~ a ;-.-.ar;iema,;:a; ~-;GQe, :o ;:,ro1ect oedestnan and tra~ic 1ceds !er ::'lc!,v!dua! streets and local areas Tn:s mode! ~ias showr. $ome ::a;:~:1:::, :~. :1mi:ec !"•ais and ,s w0'1tly o+ !""le,,nor, ·l1tneri t:.i$ :ncoe~ is 4-i&ej v.,;t,-. th·e nev.· c:-iteria ar.d ccnce~~s c!esc-ibcC i:-, thd :c~~-.-it~to'\"!"1~• -::;.,,,.e.O.l ~QClf"I.,._ ,,,!"_. !~: ... 0\!0;0"'a,~ '-'\.1 +;..,,e.. ,-_ -.-.,-,. .... t"""~,._ C'"'\A.ie•11 ~~ r:•::t .. .,, .... .11..,,,,,.1..,.. --•---.• '..,I..,...,,:,•• t,,.,.,,,.it"""'; --""""' "'_.._. .. ,"I• ... -••••-.,,•••-•I 9.,1¥1 ·~-........ _...,,V,: ~~;•,-,+~-~""~ T"'~ ~Ja~~"~i A~~~:~2,1~~ ~• ~~!""4=-~t.~!~~~~ ~!"'~ r~~ ; __ t~~"" La!"'r' !.,~rt'.!'~ a n, me:;')OQC!OQ\I !""~•: @rnerge ~~19 ·:~~!s~c~ G~o"'~ ~1e,age~e~~ ~~~;. !:-.:::a:;v: ~as bee~, :'7:e~~;:·~ec ~r t~ese ~e?.:':"~~ w~e"! ,t "'-'a~ ? .. op,se~ ,r wa~ ~~,.,s·~~?.~ ~s .. ?~,~~· 2 .. ~ U"'!eS'@= as ~~~se n~ aooroaches • ei ti ria~ serveo me cr!v weli , r ma~ f*-mar r11ese conceots tat<eri 1v9e~;,er :na~-bar.et(~ t:-ie c.~~ aisc in an:~ event tney aeservi recognit;or. ano ::~::.:ss::'.": a! ~~e ;ex~ :eve:s :~ ~e::~::~ ~ak::---.; LL Wickham Page 1 01/13/00 :=-"streets & Sidewallu Committee Meeting 01/13122: My suggested changes in the current list of streets in the NW Quadrant ["Olde Carlsbadj which may require Alternative Desip [ sometimes referred to as "Special Character"] include two additions: 1. Carlsbad Boalffanl from Lapa• to tlae Carlabad City Bo•adary. 2. Jeffenon Street from Lai Flores to Marron Road. Based on of their high ADT, history of accidents, and a visual and physical inspection, I would like to recommend that pedestrian pathways be separated from automobile traffic using a physical barrier [e.g. guard rail] to be implemented for safety. I am not suggesting that the traffic lanes be changed in any way. My only concern is for the safety of non-motorists. Briana Shahn lost her life on Carlsbad BouJevard as a pedestrian. I would like to make this suggestion on behalf of her family, and Thelma Hayes, who brought this to our attention in her correspondence of 30 November 1999. Although Jefferson Street now has bike lanes, they are not physically separated from the roadway. I would like to state for the record that my street improvement decisions are based on the ._)utput from the mathematical model presented by Jack Debes which makes use of criteria agreed upon by this committee on 6 December 1999. The remaining streets on the list merit alternative design based on my interpretJition of these data. • - G) COMMENTS BY JIM KING TO CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY STREETS AND SIDEWALKS 17 JAN , 2000 My name is Jim King . I live at 4156 Higiland ct. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of some committee members about the term "special Chncter streets ". Frst , this term is a aeation of the city council .It was not requested by the huncteds of people who showed up at not one but two city council meetings. Ther request was to retain the rural nature of ther neid\bahoods and not pll"SUe the policy of "stand.-dzing " streets and side walks in OLDE CARLSBAD aka 1he na1h west quactant .Peraphrued, thei" request wae,we don't want this. we like it the way it is ,leave us alone . Second, one ch•ge of the city council to this committee as reflected in the first revision to resolution ~485 was "DIRECTION to consider ALL RELEVANT ISSUES pertaining to"slreet and sidewalk design "" Implicit in this charge is recognition that possibly there might be better methods available to wen this out . Two of th"9 methodologi" have been made available to this committee . one is newly developed as a way o1 quantifying the issues and promoting consistent dtcillons about the volume and effect of pedestrian and automobile traffic . The 1ocond is a residential street design handbook . developed recently by recognized auth«ities in this fiel<f and sanctioned by the U.S . government Housing and Urban Otvelopment Agency.This hand>ook was introduced by a committee member and is DIRECTLY applicable to this problem . Sacty both have been reiected out of hand by this committee. Wtne • the conceot has been advanced several times. that those who do not choose to accept what the city wants to 9ve them i. e, "standardized streets " should quite literally pay the penalty. If those hum.reds of people had been listened to • there would be no penalty to pay. There would bt no rush to make all of C.-lsbad simil8f. if not identical to the newest dovtlopments , This is not a citizen generated activity. This is a citizen resisted activity. fhird, analysis of accident reports made available by city staff and comments by the e::ity 1tt«ney btktt this committee show that accident rates we significantly lower in tht ncrthwtst qu1ftant and there is not a significant difference in the number of complaints handled by the attcrney's office. ieading to the conclusion that perhaps something is proper here. The concern voiced by many of the citizens at the city council meetings was traffic speed control . Nothing in the committee's action to this point ha11 adcressed that . Indeed , the trend to wider "standard"streets will txacerbate the ~oblem . That fact is recognized in the Street Design Handbook mentioned above, The city approach to streets and sidewalks for the northwest quacrant as p-esentty implemented is inapp"opiate for infill construction . It does not respond to citizen rec,kements ,it is wasteful in terms of materials and money and it will proc,essively destroy the very ch.-acteristics the residents have said they want to SJONrvt, In one instance.a cu~c for six homes . the as constructed streets (36wide) and sidewalks (five ffft wide on both sides of the street) exceed the lt1ndrds mentioned above By 77"1. for strHts and •591> for sidewalks in materials alone! io ltt tm ,:ndice continue does not respond to the ch.-ge to consider all retevant iaues frx si'eet and sidewalk desig1 issued by the city council and it ig1ores the voices of the residents of this area. 11Qeveloping agenci•s for th• Residential S1r•t Design Manual American Society of. Civil Engineers Tht National Association of Home Builders The lkban Land Institute c..i ... , • ...,,· -...uvc...i ....... --, --, _;:,,._.._....,_, L L Wickham Page 1 01/22/00 Streets & Sidewalks Committee Meeting 01/24/00: _ We have not gotten any minutes drafts· in several weeks -we arc WAY behind. * ~ ~Traffic Calming" section [a column] in our "list of streets for alternative design" requires reviSJon: Several streets should be recommended for "YES" in that column u follows: 8. Garfield 36. Las Flores 63. Knowles, 64. Laguna 6S. Elmwood, 73. Adams 81. Hoover 93. Basswood 114. Park US. Park 117. Westhavcn ) WANi' '\H1~ JNC.O~yO fl A-~ I f\t(" D 1++£ ~--( Af, 1)~--( (jf l)U'2_ ~s-(. J/-Wf;. s }tf)Ul--D VS6 -t"-1-tC _!:-ON~~ Df 1+\~ -M{~Vf t.-1~ Wthett 11\lt-~ VJNCE:l\J( (dt,_1<; '1)\1A ~ S~ Dt.J 6\C H ~ ~ ( .t J · WW ~D(lS ~ ClJN~c-0::---(26) Sue.~ A{ '1i1-J"lt.f ~ , 1' tD~ 1M 1-(11 10 5 Ufoo t-S , .. ,,h . .) 'Z./3/D~ ,@ '"\ f ..... , Criteria The general philosophy adopted by the committee regarding the streets and sidewalks within the Northwest quadrant is to do nothing unless conditions merit change. As the old saying goes, .. if it ain't broke. don't fix it". In order to detennine if conditions exist that merit study for improvement, a list of criteria to identify candidate streets for potentiaJ improvement bas been adopted. l. Documented safety issues Accident reports / statistics: pedestrian, vehicular 2. Proximity to schools and other public facilities Churches, city buildings, parks, etc. 3. Residents/ owm:rs request improvements 4. Necessity for walkways / pedestrian access S. ADT (Average Daily Trips, vehicular) over 1,200 6. Linkage corridor (roadway needed for circulation continuity or connection to active land uses) 7. Need for traffic calming strategies 8. Land use changes 9. Drainage problems 10. Federal, state or local mandates While certain individual criteria on the list are amply important such that they may be sufficient individually to mandate a study for potential improvements, others may be less important and therefore more than one criterion may be required to trigger a study. Furthennore, certain criterion may vary in level of severity. In order to put this in perspective, a semi-quantitative approach in the fonn of a decision matrix was proposed by City Engineer, Vincent Gin. Table I, below is provides an example of such a matrix. Table 1. Criteria Street 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 Total Lake St 1 3 4 0 2 I 4 0 s I 21 Jona St. 0 0 0 0 2 4 l 0 0 l 8 Gin St. s 4 3 s 2 4 s 3 2 s 38 Each street is ranked for each criterion on a scale from l to S, with S being most severe. Then the scores for all criteria are summed and the total number is used to assess the severity level for the need of improvements. Using this method a threshold number may be set {e.g. 25) whereby meeting it would necessitate an improvement study. Table 1 serves as an example containing three fictitious streets. In this case, using a threshold of 2S, Gin St. would be slated for an improvement study, the others would not. While this semi-quantitative approach was discussed by the committee. and the general philosophy has been accepted, it has not been specifically applied to the streets in the Northwest quadrant. Due to time constraints specific analyses using this approach was beyond the current scope of this committee. However. the committee recommends that an approach similar to this be implemented by a community-based commission consisting of citiz.ens and city staff, working together. When it bas been determined that conditions exist that indicate the need for changes in an existing roadway, design criteria for improvements must be developed. Traditionally, streets have been categorized as either "improved" or "unimproved", where the term .. improved" refers to compliance with a single existing set of standards. Recent trends in civil engineering indicate that optimal roadway design may be achieved through the application of design standards which arc tailored to the specific application rather than applying a single standard everywhere ( 1-4 ). This concept provided the genesis of the committee's decision to identify streets to be categorized as "Alternative Design 9'J streets. While this report contains a list of streets that have been recommended by the committee as candidates for alternative design, this list should not be considered exhaustive since an objective screening technique such as the one described in Table 1 above has not been rigorously applied. The committee recommends further analysis by a citizen-based commission. A mathematically based method described in a rcpon titled. A new model for alternative roadway design (S) was presented to the committee by a member of the community. This model, which is based on the principles set-out in accepted civil engineering publications (1-4) published by organiz.ations such as the U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration, seeks to provide an objective and quantitative tool for roadway design. The model considers three primary roadway functions: 1. Conduiu for vehicular traffic 2. Roadway parking space 3. Pedestrian access The objective of this model is to provide a mathematically based formula for residential roadway design, which optimizes safety and efficiency while minimizing environmental impact In so doing. the 1mique characteristics of neighborhoods may be preserved, thereby preserving safety, quality oflife and property values. The input variables used in the model i~lude data, which was supplied to the committee by the City Engineers. Input variables include: I. ADT 2. Traffic Speed 3. Pedestrian load { random & point source) 4. Housing density 1:!) The output of the model provides recommendations for. pedestrian access pathways. vehicular traffic lanes. and on-street parking lanes. The primary advantages of the model are that it is quantitative. objective. unbiased, and based on established mathematical and physical principles. While this model is not exhaustive in scope, it provides a starting point for alternative roadway designs that are applicable to the Northwest quadrant of Carlsbad. While direct application of this model to the entire list of" Alternative Design., streets is beyond the scope of this committee, it is our recommendation that this useful tool ( as well as other objective methods) be applied by the community-based commission and the City Engineering staff, for the design of future improvements in the Northwest quadrant. In sumnwy a list of relevant criteria warranting studies for street improvement has been established. A methodology for using these criteria in a systematic fashion to decide if a street or street WIIITUlts study has been proposed, but not implemented by this committee. Furthermore, quantitative tools for alternative designs have been reviewed and discussed as presented above. Therefore it is the recommendation of this committee that a citizen-based commission be established to work with city staff in further implementing these seminal ideas. The output of this committee should be considered as the establishment of a new philosophy rather than as a completed project. References 1. Residential Streets. Second Edition. ASCE. NAHB, ULI. 2. Flexibility in Highway Design. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 3. Arendt. R, et al, Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. American Planners Association. 4. Southworth, M. and Ben-Joseph, E .• Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. 5. Debes. J.C., A new model for alternative roadway design. - Street & Sidewalk Committee Draft Altamatlve Design Approval Proc- 1. Pl_, lnltlalloft Allemative Delign procNI may be initiated aq;prding tp the Crlfana NCtiotJ of this 'IPQrt. 1,5, Upon lnitist;on, the Citizen City Commission will r,,m,w the Ctbdl ta,JY§is, 2. Projeet Information Notice and Poetlng To ensum "'" t9§idents and •tr,c;fad dtiDas "' mode '"" pf tt,e issues, nolices wilt oe rolllfd fQ msidtm mthhz 1000 W of m, oro1ect at lfUt one month b9fPll coung1 cooor,tion of the Afllrnfltiwp Design DIQQHS. To in(pnn m, public a /a,pe prp;,g information mn will bf DOfMd and the beainnina and ,ocJ of the oroiect limils for the dua,tion or me o,piect. Notices wil/ o, DOltt!9 at Citv Hall •mt Mfilbed la 1oca1 newspepers. 3. Requeet Councll Autllortutlon & Funding AltematlVN for Fealblllty and Prellmtna,y Engineering 8tudl• Council will con1ider authorizing and fUnding the project with public funds, private funds, combinations of publlc and private funds and other available funding mechaniem1. at,m Councll considprftion of fbt prpi9c;t, a aummary and meeting datf will bf posted at Citv Hall and nolic&s will bf published u outlined io item 2 sbod, • Reconsideration of EiA sad Dadcations: Bbolishment or threshold lnctNs,s. (?hete?I 4. DevelOf) AltemllllvN With Commlglon Involvement (Englnwtng Study) Staff with input from the Citizen Commipion will begin to develop c:oncept-,evel altemative1. Topographic SUMtys of the project will be reviewed and epecial charllc:ter rNOUl'C8S and constraints will be identified. Staff wm mm with tbl Cornrntslfra ll@nts, Planning Daoartment and • /fndscae, architect or srt>orist IQ oon§ider oRffoos me fPldWav width, Pfdntrilo QIPviaion§, egpe tro,tments and other roaawav fHtucls. Public posting and notjce w;n bt mo II to 1tem 2 aboye, 5. Community Worbhop to Rftlew Altem•tlv" Public workahope will be held to present the findings of the engineering study (Stage -4 above). Staff will preeent the preliminary design approaches, make preliminary recommendations for community revi.w and comment. Future atepe required to carry the project forward will be outlined. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of the •taoe ... in item 2 above. 6. Develop RaconwnlMded Ptwfwncl PIM Ueing the commenta from the public workshops (stage 5 above), Staff wlll develop the preferred pt•n for review by the Commission and reviewing bodies. Additional workshops may be lcheduled as appropriate. 7. Preparw Envtronmental Documentaaon and Cln:ul•t• for Revltrw Eny;rpom,ntat documentgon and studies including CEQA compllanoe, EnyirpnrnBntal Assoaments CEAJ, fmoact Reports CEfB1, and anv other perm;r oroceu w;n oe fnmofed at this stage Public posting and notice will be given as in item 2 above. LL Wtckham Per,e 1 01122'00 _, ,·_, _____ _ 8. Traffic Safety Comml11lon Review The Traffic Safety Comminion will review the project concemina traffic safety iuuea in its' monthl'I public meeting. PYblic posting lad no6ipe wlfl be atv,n as in item 2 abcwe. 9. Planning Comml .. lon Rfltew The Planning Commission will review the project In regard to long term planning issues as wall u General Plan conformance. The public is wel00ffl8 to attend the Comminion meeting. Public poating and notice will be given prior to the activitiN II in item 2 above. 1 o. Councll HNrtng and Approval Council will consider to either IPP'PYI or c,iftct tht proied. The public ia welcome to attend Council's meeting. PLA>llc posting and notice will be given OS in item 2 ebove. 11. PIM lmplementatlon If Council •pProvea the project, Staff wtll Initiate final design stage for the preparation of conltrUCtion plan1 and contract documents when fund• are appropriatad. 1fot1Rn; focmat;on at a c;itian-baad Commiasion tblt will include ntDlfflntalMps ttom tht c11v Statr [1,a. Enaineerina Public Work§l lbofl be tsfobfished. Thi§ qomm;g;pn shall meet publtcly on• l'fKWlar Q8sis /e.g. monthlyl in a,n,etutty {or until otherwise disi!Ja,ted Or Cgunci/L The tn'< ot this Commission will bf IQ mm anc1 RCPyjde inout on .,, ipu9s mfstr,cJ IQ strnt and sidewalk§ in COl1§bad. §peaWcally it8mf 1,5, 4. s, ,nc1 s above. LL~kham Pege 2 01/22,{)() ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS DETERMINED USING: A New Model/or Alternative Roadway Design Presented to: Carlsbad Streets & Sidewalks Committee By Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. 24 January 2000 GENERAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION TRAFFIC LANES INPUT: 1. ADT 2. SPEED OUTPUT: 1. WIDTH, W PARKING LANES INPUT: 1. AVERAGE LOT SIZE (SINGLE OR DOUBLE LOADED) OUTPUT: 1. 0, 1, OR 2 EIGHT-FOOT PARKING LANES PEDESTRIAN PATHS INPUT: 1. ADT 2. POINT SOURCE DATA OUTPUT: · 1. 0, 1, OR 2 FOUR-FOOT PEDESTRIAN PATHS* • 42" High-Traction, Permeable Surface + 6" Asphalt Drainage Burm CREST DRIVE ...,__ I 3 1----1 .. TRIIPFlt ~AN££ ------~o·~----w TRAFFIC LANES INPUT: 1. ADT<500 2. SPEED=15 MPH OUTPUT: 1. WIDTH, W=13' PARKING LANES INl'UT: • M6-1.S CIII. &ntrE ~/tC,f. VClt CODI 1. AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.5 T0l.0 ACRE (SINGLE LOADED) OUTPUT: 1. 0 PARKING LANES (OPTIONAL) PEDESTRIAN PATHS INPUT: 1. ADT<500 2. POINT SOURCE>l,000' OUTPUT: 1. 0 PEDESTRIAN PATHS (OPTIONAL) WILSON STREET TRAFFIC LANES INPUT: l.ADT<500 2. SPEED = 25 MPH OUTPUT: 1. WIDTH, W=14' PARKING LANES INPUT: •l"1llllllff _C"l,. STMr IE""'llrif• \11"4™ Ctl//lC 1. AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES(DOUBLE LOADED) OUTPUT: 1. 1 PARKING LANE PEDESTRIAN PATHS INPUT: 1. ADT<S00 2. POINT SOURCE>l,000' OUTPUT: 1. 0 PEDESTRIAN PATHS (OPTIONAL) PARK DRIVE (T AMARACK-ALONDRA) . . f' __.. ....... K' _._ 11-1 '...,.··-,..-4 ____ ,,, __ .,...._ Ml"II nt'~.C· ~ lflltK,l#t ._-:, ... -·~· . . ~()' .... ·"-· -: ------- . ;; . ..• . .... ·-· .. ,.. . . ..... . . . ;I.I_:.-..--. -. -----!.., TRAFFIC LANES INPUT: 1. ADT<l,270 2. SPEED 25 MPH OUTPUT: 1. WIDTH, W=16' PARKING LANES INPUT: • ~ t:A.· sn.,a. ~,V61/.t!OOIC' 1. AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES (DOUBLE LOADED*) *Except near lagoon (single loaded) OUTPUT: 1. 1 PARKING LANE PEDESTRIAN PATHS INPUT: 1. ADT<2,270 2. POINT SOURCE>l,000 OUTPUT: 1. 1 PEDESTRIAN PATH HIGHLAND DRIVE (CVD TO OAK) . .•• .. . . ·-·~ .. ---..---· ,. ___ _ TRAFFIC LANES INPUT: 1. ADT 3,000 2. SPEED 25 MPH OUTPUT: 1. WIDTH, W=l 7' PARKING LANES INPUT: . PMKI/-IIJ 1. AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES (DOUBLE LOADED) OUTPUT: 1. 1 PARKING LANE PEDESTRIAN PATHS INPUT: 1. ADT 3,000 2. POINT SOURCE <1,000' OUTPUT: 1. 2 PEDESTRIAN PATHS CITY OF CARLSBAD STREETS AND SIDEWALK COMMITTEE "ALTER.NATIVE DESIGN" RECOMMENDATIONS In order to facilitate the processing of "alternative design roads" in the City of Carlsbad, the Streets and Sidewalk Committee has prepared the following design sections as a guide for applicants. It is the recommendation of our committee that these streets maintain the "Olde Carlsbad" ambiance and minimize urban runoff through the use of "permeable"' materials for parking areas and walkways. This would include the use of pea gravel, grasscrete or stabilized decomposed granite for new construction. If the City Engineer determines that curbs are necessary to control street drainage, asphalt "motmtable berms" per San Diego Regional Standard Drawing G-5, type E and F are preferred. The main roadway section is to be 24 feet wide and no parking will be allowed in this area This width may be reduced upon approval of the Fire Chief and the City Engineer. Streets shall be posted as ''no parking" or ''no parking on the pavement" at the recommendation of the City Engineer. Where installed, walkways shall be constructed to a width of 4 feet and allowed to "meander'' for the preservation of existing trees. Where parking is required, it shall be outside of the paved 24-foot roadway and improved to a minimum width of 6 feet. Trees may be allowed in the "parking zone", between designated parking spaces, subject to the standards of the City of Carlsbad Tree Policy. • l OF RIGHT-OF-WAY 241 IMPRO 4• 4• 41 1(2• MIN.) 12' 12' ;c2· M1N.>I 4' TREES IN PARKWAY PER CITY TREE POLICY ASHPHAL T ROADWAY *PAVED WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED UPON APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER AND FIRE DEPARTMENT • 2.· 1 ·x'\ ~ "'•>'· IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL FOR MEANDERING WALKWAY ONLY ALTERNATE #1 -TYPICAL SECTION 4' ·•.!_•-. ~-. l OF RIGHT-OF-WAY 6' 12· TREES IN PARKWAY PER CITY TREE POLICY 24' IMPRO 12· ASHPHAL T ROADWAY *PAVED WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED UPON APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER AND FIRE DEPARTMENT 6' 4' (WALKWA ALTERNATE #2 -TYPICAL SECTION 4' (WALKWAY) "••. _,._ t OF RIGHT-OF-WAY 46' GRADED 7' 12' 121 7' 4' {P Af3JSJ.NG) l(WALKWA CAN VARY TYPE E-MOUNTABLE A.C. DIKE{SDRSD G-5) / L-IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL IN PKWY. TREES IN PARKWAY LASHPHAL T ROADWAY PER CITY TREE POLICY *PAVED WIDTH MAY BE REDUCED UPON APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER AND FIRE DEPARTMENT ALTERNATE #3 -TYPICAL SECTION TYPE A-SECTION ---! 6'" ~ : co Height 6'", 8", or 9" as indicated on plans 5'" n I-1.:5'" TYPE B-SECTION ~ ~ 4'" J_ n .,_ ,'.'///?>;,-' I· 2H + 6'" I I 'J-8.. I * TYPE C-SECTION • , I 1· I R=1" R1-~}Level r ~ 1•-4• I TYPE E-SECTION Slope end of dike 1: 1 . when not joining other improvements ALL TYPES -SIDE VIEW NOTES: - 1. Dike is lo be placed on a minimum 2'" of A.C. road surfacing, extending throughout the width of the dike. 2. AR-8000 grade asphalt to be used for all qikes. TYPE O-SECTION 1'-8 .. R=1" 2~-2" APPROX. DIKE QUANTITIES TYPE TONS/UN. FT. A e C-6• c-a· 0.0250 0.0375 0.0375 0.0583 3. A.C. dikes may be shaped and compacted with an extrusion machine or other equipment capable of shaping and compacting the material to the required cross section. SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING DIKES -ASPHALT CONCRETE LEGEND ON PLANS Type A Dike HCDIIMENDED IY THE SAIi DIEGO HGIOIIAL STMOAIIDS COMMITTEE DRAWING G 5 NUMBER • r 1 r - r- 1 The oty approach to streets and stctewatlcs fer the northwest quati"ant as i:,-esentiy impiemented is inappropriate ta-infill conS1ruction . it does not respond to . citizen r~ements Jt is wasteful in terms of materials and money and it wm prog-essively destroy the very characteristics the resrdents have said they want to preserve, In one instance a cut-de-sac tor srx homes . the as conS1ructed streets ( 36 'wide) and sidewalks {five feet wide on both stdes of the street ) exceed the stam:ia'ds mentioned alae•,•i By Tl% fa-streets and *69% for sidewalks in mater1als alone! ( ~\, ~',{,,~(. St'.-u..'\ ckr 'Ill\) HAl\)01-boolc::) To let thia Ff'Sdice continue doee not respond 10 the charge to consider aH relevant r issues f CJ' street and sidewalk design lssutd by the city council and it ignores the vc:ces .:t :!·,t7 res:-ie:~ts i :hi~ area r r r l ,-- l r r-l f -l 'Developing agencies for the Residential Street Design Manual American Society of Civil Engineers The National Association of Home Buttders The Urban Land lnstitut& ... r ! r r r ! r L r r l r l . f f l f r r r l r- 1 I r l i j I i i I +1 r.:;UL-U!::···~AC FOR ~!VE PES!C'ENCES DE=~:;1GN COMPARISON 10 • ... ~OUAAE FEE7 {000) A3 BUh.. T CONFiGUi=iATION SURFACE AREA COV EMED ON SQUARE FEET X 1000) 12.082. ·n EOUALTO 177%0F • • DESIGN MANUAL REQUIREMENTS I I I , I I i i I l . ! l I I EQUAL TO 169% OF" 2.942 ASPHALT SIDEWALK AS BUiLi r l I ,-- r [ f I f r i . r t r-- 1 L r 1 l I ' f I l 3 o·----~ t I I ' I j l I l l r, 1-' c ' C r-r)l"l --·.ir.:.. r.,c.--lf ~Nr:.c:-, .. , .. 1.-t)c;-~A -"". nt-lv.:-:roir:."l ) •.•• ~':-1 RESIDENTIAL STREET DESIGN HB SURFACE AREA COVERED (IN SOU.ARE FE!::T X 1000 _, 10 B 4 • sa?Jare ft {OOOi •• AS BUtLT CONFIGU8ATION Sti11 EOUA.L •() fl 56%0F• I l ASPHALT I l l I ! l=Q! IA! TO ... .._ ... t 59°/o OF# 1740 n l i I SIDEWALK Public Comment J.C. Debes 01/31/00 Good evening Mr. Chainnan, committee members and members of the public. On the agenda for tonight the committee will be finalizing the Alternative Street Planning Process. This is a very important aspect of the output that will be coming from this committee. This is especially true, since it has become obvious at this point that the scope of the output of this committee's work will be limited since there are only a few meetings remaining. It is extremely important that the work that has been initiated by this committee has a venue in which it may be continued. Therefore it is my strong recommendation that the Process include the f ormadon of a citizen based "committee" or "commission" that would have the opportunity to work with city staff throughout the Design Approval Process. This will provide citizen input throughout he process, rather than waiting until steps 4 and 5. By involving the community early in the project, it will help assure that their input will be considered in design alternatives and that work done by the city on their own will not have to be re-worked after they receive community input. This will make the process more effective, efficient, and economical. In conclusion, at this point in time, the single most important thing that this committee can do is to recommend to City Council that a citizen-based committee or commission be established that will be dedicated to street and sidewalk issues as part of the Alternative Design Approval Process. Thank you, Jack Debes COMMENTS BY JIM KING TO THE CARLSBAD STREET AND SIDEWALK COMMITTEE 31 JANUARY, 2000 My name is Jim King. I live at 4156 Hisjlfand Dr. Y cu agenda fa-this evening incicates that you will be considering M11e issues t hope that one of these issues is 1raffic calming and speed con1rol on the streets you have been reviewing. Speed con1rol accomplished by extensive signage, appropriate designs and possibly the use of unmanned rada" speed warning trailers that indicate the actual vehide speed and the legal speed limit . These units are used in Palm Desert (and other places ) and a-e reported to be very effective. Thank you . Not everyone looks good in a size 60 coat. Mr. Jameson would probably look pretty silly in a size 60 coat. Size 60 coats are reserved for the fattest of cats. Similarly all streets don't look good with a 60 foot graded width. What works for Tamarack doesn't necessarily work for Crest. This is the basis of New Model for Alternative Roadway Design. When you go to the tailor, he measures your shoulders, your chest, your waist, and your inseam, and he makes you a suit to fit. In the case of the New Model, you measure ADT and speed limit and it tells you how wide to make your traffic lanes. You measure housing density and it tells you how many parking lanes you need. You measure ADT and pedestrian point-source data and it tells you how many pedestrian paths you need. Some clothing styles emphasize looser fits, while other styles accentuate tighter fits. It all comes down to what you believe in. However, I believe that when we make it to the promised-land, Mr. Kaboda, we won't all be wearing size 60 coats. Jack Debes 02/07/00 From: To: Date: Subject: Vincent: <JMamaux@aol.com> <vgin@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 2/8/00 4:50PM Alternate designs for Thurs Meeting I will not be attending the Thurs night meeting.May I impose upon your good office to transmit my observations to the committee.I doubt if some of them will care,but I am sending them anyway. 1 )Page 2 states that "concrete curbs and gutters are the most durable and low maintenance" That being the case any deviation from this standard shouldnot put an added burden on existing tax payers. If residents are getting benifit from alternative designs they should pay for that benefit 2)"meandering walks and meandering roadways are acceptable" This meanderinging will necessitate the acquisition of additional ROW Such additional acquisition should be properly presented to property owners. There may well be places where the ROWS are greater on one side of the street than the other. Such situations may place unequal burdens on property owners 3}Pop Out Parking areas should coincide with residentialdriveways 4 }Street Trees should be planted at property owners expense when ROW is obtained 5)no parking on walkways 6)Some of the alternate materials are more expensive than concrete therefore the proprty owners must know in advance. 7) Longterm maintenance care must be guaranteed up front in accordance with the Growth Management Plan 8) Asphalt and gravel type walkways are cheap and unacceptable As a final note I would like to show the text of part of the ballot measure approved by the voters in 1986: ....... "NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL be APPROVED by the City unless it is guaranteed that cocurrent with need all necessary public facilities be provided as required by said planwith emphasis on ensuring good traffic circulation,schools,parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities; .... "(emphasis was in the ballot measure) Lastly, The same ballot measure had the following "The City shall not reduce public facilities without a corresponding reduction in the residential dwelling unit limit" Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Good lck to you in your new career Hope that all goes well for you and your family John J Mamaux Page 1 i City of Carlsbad •AFhie •hl·M·Xi·FIIU,14,11 COUNCILMEMBER ANN KULCHIN HELP SHAPE THE CITY'S NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCEIII The City of Carlsbad Planning Department is beginning a comprehensive program to revise the Planned Development Ordinance. The existing Planned Development Ordinance, comprised of a patchwork quilt of revisions implemented over the past 15 years, is often ambiguous and out-of- date. For example, the present ordinance does not allow for the development of "livable neighborhoods" that are now the nationwide standard for new, residential communities. For these reasons, the Planning Department is proposing to prepare a new Planned Development Ordinance. The new ordinance will be rewritten to be user-friendly and include updated standards to allow the development of"livable neighborhoods". The new Planned Development Ordinance will also provide the necessary flexibility and incentives to encourage the design of unique residential neighborhoods for both small lot development projects as well as multiple-unit buildings on one site. However, the new focus of the Planned Development Ordinance will be to incorporate standards to create pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods where streets are convenient and comfortable to walk and recreation areas or parks form a public focus. Building design will address streets and sidewalks with entries, balconies, porches and architectural features to create a safe and pleasant living environment. The Planning Department requests your assistance in developing the new Planned Development Ordinance. Although the ordinance will be redone to incorporate "livable neighborhood" design components, some of the existing development standards will be retained and modified as required. We ask your help in developing this new ordinance by completing the following survey. The Planning Department also invites you to participate in a workshop to help shape the City's new ordinance. The workshop will be held on February 24, 2000 at the new Faraday Center from I :30 to 4:30 p.m. A meeting agenda will be mailed to you in mid-February. Please feel free to call Dee Landers at 760-602-4615 or Chris DeCerbo at 760-602-4611 if you have any questions. Thank you for your participation in this effort!! 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 * ,,.. :, D D > .,,:.•.J;,' . Recreational vehtcle storage:·7. -~·--;,<;:,1,:-:;. ',;:.•.;:'•~,. ~::,·.;.;::_·«:";'.· ~~--~'-·..:.·:"~·t~~l-:..· ~~&;;::. •~;' -,~·:: ~~~~::;g;:_~~~~~~!!t! · -· ,i.-•·~-··, ·.'·r.·_1·;t.-;r.:~{,"~~:,~':·.•r ··;-~. ~f;,.~~·~·r::~·i, ;.,. !• .,..,.j .-Y,:-~ :·½,· :~t~~1,:-~t~·· 1;.:'.:~!i'·,t:/ , .• Private street wid ' · ~~i~l1~t;.--ifl'~ft11<::. :-wt;~ ::r~ D Secondary access'to site ·:>}1 ', :'.·:, '"'"':-~,f:!!"f,;\.~'~-~r ' . .f,.'<i:.i.; rt -~~:-~-:t. · ;1.tt, .:-, .. . .. • . ~-J'.·:;;;i~· .. \;.J/' ·.'-'~:i: · .. :;t. -~:a~,~~ t~r~:. /,: ./.::·~1l~'--·:~fff<1}'.J,. :~~/r-J~,t~f'_ • . , Recreation requirernentt:' .;;f~·J:rc.tP /.'';~, Jf~"t;W;ii;,;A'.,, .•'~/-·,, ·, i' --~ l;-.· '\.·,;i~ift}:\•~~.t'\'i:' .:t..:•·:~J~~-'. •< /~'.f~:,.~!t/~•:?•;~t.,: --:e;_(~~~ '. ·~ ·. D D • D ... · l.' .,.,f?~F" :ij;.;:•J!'. ir 2 i, t~ •. • • • • • • 2. • • • • • • • • • . Recreationalvehicle storage , :, .,r · :'!=-1,;;~tlj'<:.~~;.kr',., '\~;1,t- , • • •~.~ •' '.<f-.. ~ : ,~ ~ .. .-:::tl'<t)f~'~\.j-.}.::,~t' :, .. ,;' •:• "•,::/ ,> J:~d~~t! f!;~~:~,i\ ~~i ••,.t,,, Private street/drivewaywid -~ "·· ir:1~~~l"ro~-Y,,f~ ~ ,~;;,.tiJi~1J;~~;-¾¢~1/,fti1:· j' · .. '' . . '.:,, ''.-;,::? \f ;;.;;,. ~';; ;;· ':a! f, -,,, .L;t,",~.:•~;t'1,':\ 0:::;t n'(· ~~\~'~•P':~ •'.!\'Cl"~, - • • 3 -~·. ;, ·.3. . ;i' .. f•' '.~ D . ;~,._ Reces;ed gariges.--:-_,.·_---:-:-----:-:--""."-"-:-:--.....,..-:-.....,..~,--~--,..+~,----,~~::,.,...,::;,.:.;:;;;,,;;;;,;,,;-..;;.... D • • • • Narrower street widths • • • PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 24, 2000 •.· · .. Dee Landers or Chris DeCe~bo . . . . Planning Department _1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Other Comments: 4 '1' ,·.;;.-.. .;,_· STATEMENT FOR THE MINUTES -SSC MEETING This altematlYe dNlgn aubmltted by staff I• "• Size IO [foot] Jacket with pocketa" to UN the analogy/euphemism of Jack Debes. We should be using an objective analytical tool to make recommendations for th- streets. Assurances from etaff, who are obvlouely lntandlng to widen th•• streets to the maximum ROW dnplta our work, are suspect. The developed ROW width on their cron-eectlon Is at •-t 60 feet? Pl-• look at the placement of the sidewalks. Furthermore, I eubmltbtd a criteria document WEEKS ago, along with amendments to the Draft Procedure Document. which have been tacltly Ignored. Documented In our minutes, the staff aka for commlttH Input In writing with ntSpect to the Proceas document and the Final Report. They hava neglected my submt .. lona and even rafUHd to Include them In the packet with the others thla Int week. I want to go on record objecting to this miscarriage of the commlttN'• function. We are here •• citizens to provide Input -we were not lnatructed to regurgitate staff recommendations. The Draft Criteria document muat be edited due to Its Implication that we are in favor of theaa 'ovardNlgned' streets. We the cHluna akad for narrow street. with Informal but practJcal proviaiona for parking and ped8Strlan pathways -we did not ask that a 80-ft, graded ROW with aldewllka at Its' limit.al H is time for people to wake up and amell the -coffee. LL Wickham P~ 1 02/10/00 Sttccts and Sidewalks Committee (f;) 2-Jb-2000 8:~~AM Ft-<UM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM Lloyd Hubbs -City Engineer I City of Carlsbad J.A. Gallagher Street and Sidewalk Committee February 15. 2000 It's my position that any developer, builder, etc. that, when his or her project initiates one of the triggering mechanisms for street and sidewalk review, should be prepared to offer alternative or mitigating measures as an offset to modify the City approved street sections. I would then offer the following mitigation measures, which are not necessarily exclusive. 1. Develop larger lots than the minimum zoning aUows, ther~fore providing more off street parking on the lot rather than the street. 2. Provide more covered parking than the minimum two car parking garage. 3. Sprinkle the houses on those lots that have minimum fire access (24 feet). 4. Sign the street "no parking'\ on both sides or one side, based upon the ultimate with of the alternate street being designed. 5. Encourage the development of private street to City standards on non- connection streets, thereby eliminating through traffic responsibility of the City to maintain, as well as sidewalks where appropriate. Example Falcon. Fax to (760) 602-8562 I Mail Original File:2-15-00Hubbs Carlsbad • 5142 Avenida Encin11~, f.:arli-had, CA 92008 (760) 931-2785 Fax (760) 931-2784 Over the past few months since I originally submitted my model to the Committee, I have found four typographical errors, which I have documented on an errata sheet together with a revised version of the model reflecting those corrections. I am submitting this for the record to supercede the original version. Tonight this Committee will be reviewing alternative design recommendations submitted by the Staff Monday night. While at first glance this document may appear "warm and fuzzy" to you using phrases like "preserves character'' and "alternative surfaces". BEWARE! The devil is in the details... The language is misleading, but the numbers and drawings don't lie. I draw your attention to the bottom of the first page, where it calls for 24' traffic lanes, reminding you that this width (12' per lane) is the width of the lanes on I-5 which are designed to drive safely at 65mph. I don't think that any of you really want people to drive 65 mph in our neighborhoods. Furthermore, CA State law requires 20' of open drive-able surface for emergency vehicles, NOT 24' OF TRAFFIC LANES. 24' is a City of Carlsbad ordinance, which is subject to change at the discretion of our City Council. Next I turn your attention to the layout drawing of the roadway on the last page. Note that the widest dimension shown is 36'. Don't be fooled! Look closely and you will see an additional 8' of "parkway" on both sides that is then further bracketed by sidewalks outside of that. Bringing the total graded width out to 60' ( and a potential· Right of Way beyond that)! This will put the sidewalk in our front yards for some of us, on our doorsteps in other cases, and even right through our living rooms in a few cases! In essence what the City is asking us to do here is to trade in our comfortable old jackets for some brand new size 60 coats with fancy pockets. And to add insult to injury, if you have an FIA you will have the luxury of paying top dollar for it! Don't be fooled by the fancy pockets! Don't sell out! Vote NO on the City's "Alternative Plan"! It is a farce! Jack Debes 02/10/00 A NEW MODEL FOR ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY DESIGN ERRATA (Revised, 4 February 2000) by Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. p. 6 Table 3.1, column 1, data row 2: .025 • 0.25 p. 7 Table 3.2, column 1, data row 2: .025 • 0.25 p. 9, line 1 after Equation 4.4: ... per foot of... • ... on the ... p. 9, line 3 after Equation 4.4: blcok • block A NEW MODEL FOR ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY DESIGN Presented to the Carlsbad Street & Sidewalk Committee 6 December 1999 (Revised, 4 February 2000) by Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. © Copyright, 2000, Jack C. Debes. All rights reserved. L Introduction When conditions exist that indicate the need for changes in an existing roadway, design criteria for improvements must be developed. Traditionally, streets have been categorized as either "improved" or "unimproved", where the term "improved" refers to compliance with a single existing set of standards. Recent trends in civil engineering indicate that optimal roadway design may be achieved through the application of design standards which are tailored to the specific application rather than applying a single standard everywhere. Residential roadways serve three primary functions: 1. Conduits for vehicular traffic 2. Roadway parking space 3. Pedestrian walkways The objective of this model is to provide a mathematically based formula for residential roadway design, which optimizes safety and efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. In so doing, the unique characteristics of neighborhoods may be preserved, thereby preserving safety, quality of life and property values. This model is based on two simple physical principles: 1. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. When this situation is approached a collision occurs. Collisions may occur between two or more vehicles, two or more pedestrians, or between of vehicles and pedestrians. Of course, the objective is to provide for a design, which minimizes the probability of such events. 2. As the speed of the objects increases, the space between them must increase in order to prevent them from colliding. Simply stated, the wider and straighter a roadway is designed, the faster vehicles may travel without colliding. Since stopping distance increases with speed, the likelihood of a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian increases with increasing vehicular speed. Of course, the severity of injury to the unfortunate pedestrian who is struck by a vehicle also increases with speed. By applying mathematical descriptions of these two basic principles, this model strives to optimize roadway efficiency while preserving safety and quality of life. 2 Il. Traffic Lanes The flow of traffic may be likened to the flow of water in a pipe or the flow of electricity in a wire. This principle is described by electrical engineers as Ohm's Law, which states that the voltage drop along a certain length of wire is equal to the electrical current multiplied by the resistance, V=IR Or, Voltage = Current x Resistance. (2.1) Similarly, a mechanical engineer studying water flowing in a pipe may describe what every plumber knows, with a mathematical equation stating that, P=QR Or, Pressure = Flow x Resistance. (2.2) As the pipe narrows, the resistance to flow increases. Therefore, if one wants to keep the pressure at a safe level, one must keep the flow at a safe level, or else increase the diameter of the pipe. This same principle applies to traffic. In order to keep traffic at a safe level, as flow increases, the roadway must be widened. Hence the difference in width between a rural roadway, an interstate highway, and everything in between. Following this physical analogy, let traffic flow be given as, Q=AS Where, A = Average Daily Trips S = Speed (miles per hour). (2.3) As lane width decreases, resistance to traffic flow increases. Stated mathematically, resistance to traffic is inversely proportional to some function of lane width, Where, R= 1 I f(W) R = Resistance W = Total width of traffic lanes f(W) = Some function ofW. (2.4) In the case of a two lane road ( one lane per direction of traffic), W = 2L, where L is the width of a single traffic lane. Next, we introduce an empirically• derived equation for f(W), * See Appendix I. f(W) = 1.34 x 10-6 W8·76. 3 (2.5) Substituting Eq. 2.5 into Eq. 2.4 yields, R = 11 ttw) = (t.34 x 10-6 w8·16r1 Returning to our Ohms' s Law analogy, P=(AS)R Or, Pressure = Flow x Resistance Substituting Eq. 1.6 into Eq. 1.7 yields, p = AS(l.34 X 10-6 W8'76)"1. (2.6) (2.7) (2.8) Solving Eq. 1.8 for W yields an equation which tells us how wide to make the traffic lanes, Now let us define traffic pressure such that when, P < 1, the street is too wide (over designed), P = 1, the street is just right (optimal design), P > 1, the street is too narrow ( under designed). (2.9) Therefore the goal is to create a design that strives for a traffic pressure value of unity (P=l). Therefore, substituting P=l into Eq. 2.9 yields our governing equation for optimum width of traffic lanes, W = (106AS / l.34)o.t14• Now let us apply Eq. 2.10 to three example cases: ( All cases are for 2 lane roads, 1 lane per direction) Case 1: ADT = 1,000 = A Speed= 15 (mph)= S Apply Eq. 10 • W = 14' or, 2 lanes@7' each. Case 2: ADT = 5,000 = A Speed= 25 (mph) = S Apply Eq. 10 • W = 18' or, 2 lanes @ 9' each. 4 (2.10) Case 3: ADT = 10,000 = A Speed= 35 (mph)= S Apply Eq. 10 • W = 20' or, 2 lanes@ 10' each. The results of cases 1 through 3 are summarized in Table 2.1, below: Table 2.1 Case# ADT Speed Total Width (W) 1 1,000 15 14' 2 5,000 25 18' 3 10.000 35 20' Lane Width (L) 7' 9' 10' While Table 1.1 summarizes three specific cases, Eq. 1. 10 may be applied to expand table I to any case under consideration. Where case 1 should be considered as the minimum traffic lane width, even in cases of ATD's less than 1,000. Hence, we have generated a tool for predicting an optimum traffic lane width. m. Parking Lanes In addition to serving as conduits for vehicular traffic, suburban roadways often serve the purpose of providing space for parking. Based on typical dimensions of vehicles in use today, a space 12' long and 8' wide per vehicle provides sufficient space for roadside parking. Each single family dwelling (SFD) should be allowed space for a minimum of two roadside parking spaces. Furthermore, the roadside frontage of each property should also allow 16' for driveway access. Based on this, the following examples are calculated: Case 1 ~1/8 acre lot, frontage ~50' (50'-16')/12' = 2.8 spaces Rounding down to the nearest whole number yields • 2 spaces per lot. Case2 ~1/4 acre lot, frontage ~75' (75'-16')/12' = 4.9 spaces Rounding down to the nearest whole number yields • 4 spaces per lot. 5 Case3 ~1/2 -1 acre lot, frontage ~ 150' (150'-16')/12' = 11.2 spaces Rounding down to the nearest whole number yields • 11 spaces per lot. Therefore, the available number of parking spaces may be calculated from the following general equation: Spaces= (Frontage' -16') / 12' (Rounded down to the nearest whole number.) (3.1) Most suburban streets have residences on both sides of the street ( double loaded streets). However, occasionally either due to geographic constraints or for aesthetic purposes, certain streets only have residences on one side of the street. Based on this, the available number of parking spaces for a given housing density may be calculated according to Eq. 3.1, assuming either a single parking lane (one side of the street), or a double parking lane ( one lane on each side of the street). Table 3 .1 summarizes several example cases for double-loaded streets: Table 3.1 Parking for Double-Loaded Streets Ave. Lot Size Ave. Frontage SFD/Mile Spaces/SFD Spaces/SF» (Acres) (Feet) Sin1de Lane Double Lane 0.125 50 211 1 2 0.25 75 140 2 4 0.5 to 1.0 150 70 5 11 Therefore, given the minimum requirement of 2 spaces/SFD, a single 8' parking lane is sufficient for all double-loaded streets with average lot size greater than 0.125 acres. 6 Table 3.2 summarizes several example cases for single-loaded streets: Table3.2 Parking for Single-Loaded Streets Ave. Lot Size Ave. Frontage SFD/Mile Spaces/SFD Spaces/SFD (Acres) (Feet) Sinele Lane Double Lane 0.125 50 105 2 4 0.25 75 70 4 8 0.5 to 1.0 150 35 11 22 Therefore, given the minimum requirement of 2 spaces/SFD, a single 8' parking lane is sufficient for all cases of single-loaded streets. Finally, it should be noted that as the number of available spaces per SFD approaches 8, it becomes questionable as to whether any on-street parking should be required at all; as most residents will choose to park off of the road in these cases. IV. Walkways The often neglected third function of roadways is to serve as a conduit for pedestrian traffic. Walkways may consist of concrete or other materials. Alternative materials such as decomposed granite or gravel offer the advantages of positive traction on a foot- friendly soft surface. Decomposed granite provides excellent drainage and helps to minimize water run-off. Furthermore, it is far more cost-effective to install than the traditional curb, gutter, and sidewalk. A 42" decomposed granite path combined with a 6" asphalt burm (4' total width), serves as a viable alternative. A. Random Pedestrian Activity (RP A) Unfortunately due to the automobile oriented lifestyle in Southern California, many of us have forgotten the pleasures of pedal locomotion. As a result of this, it is estimated that the number of Average Pedestrian Daily Trips resulting from random pedestrian activities is on the order of ten times smaller than the vehicular Average Daily Trips. Stated mathematically, APDT = ADT/10. (4.1) Furthermore, one may estimate the average number of pedestrians passing a point along a given point on a walkway per hour by dividing APDT by 24, Pedestrians/Hour = APDT /24 . (4.2) 7 Table 4.1 was generated by applying Eqs. 4.1 and 4.2 to examples of neighborhoods with varying levels of ADT' s. Table4.l ADT APDT Peds/Hour Walkway(s) 0-1,000 0-100 :S4 Optional 1,000-5,000 100-500 :S 21 Single 5,000-10,000 500-1,000 :S 42 Double· As seen in Table 4.1, not all streets require walkways for random pedestrian activity if traffic is sufficiently low. As traffic increases, walkway requirements rise from a single walkway on one side of the street only, up to walkways on both sides of the street for the busiest neighborhoods. B. Point-Source Pedestrian Activity (PSPA) Of far greater significance than random pedestrian activity, is pedestrian activity resulting from a point source. When a school or church lets out, 500 to 1,000 pedestrians may be introduced into the roadway network at one time. These individuals then typically walk less than ten blocks to their homes. In order to predict the load of pedestrian traffic due to a point source, a grid model may be applied. Consider Figure 4.1, which depicts pedestrians dispersing from a point source within a grid. f t t 4-" -----1 t 1 _. ..... .... J _.... • + .... ------~ i i Figure 4.1 8 Counting the number of block lengths available for pedestrian passage as one radiates from the point source, a mathematical series develops: Number of Blocks From Source R 1 2 3 4 Number of Available Block Lengths L 4=4 4+8+12 = 24 4+8+ 12+ 16+20 = 60 4+8+12+16+20+24+28= 112 This series may be summarized by Eq. 4.3, as follows: L = r(Sr-4) (4.3) If a block length is estimated to average 500' then the number of people per foot of roadway is given by Eq. 4.4, P = n / [500r(8r-4)] (4.4) Where, n = the number of people on the roadway at a given point in time, and r = the number of blocks from the source. Based on the estimate that most pedestrians live within 10 blocks of the source, the value of n will drop by 10% for every block walked from the source, due to attrition of pedestrians to their homes. Therefore, applying Eq. 4.4 to the case of a point source of 500 pedestrians, the number of pedestrians per 100 feet of roadway is plotted in figure 4.2 9 r l . r r r j I. r-' '· r r r r ,-- 1 1 r r 1. r ' ✓ ,...... r i r ! \ -I r I r ( 60 50 ¢:! 40 8 i 30 "C :_ 20 10 0 • \ \ \ ~ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blocks from Source Figure 4.2 Number of pedestrians on roadway as a function of distance from a point source of 500 people. Complete analysis is given in Appendix II. Hence it is seen that within two blocks of the source, pedestrian loads are sufficiently high to warrant walkways on both sides of the road. However, beyond two blocks a single walkway suffices. Figure 4.3 indicates that even if the point source is increased to 1,000 pedestrians, walkways on both sides of the road are only required within the first two blocks from the source. 60 50 ¢:! 40 8 i 30 "C :_ 20 10 0 Pedestrians on Roadway \ \ \ \ 0 1 \.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Blocks from Source Figure 4.3 Number of pedestrians on roadway as a function of distance from a point source of 1,000 people. Complete analysis is given in Appendix m. 10 C Combining RPA and PSPA If a street under design consideration lies within less than two blocks from a pedestrian point source, walkway design must include the influence of both Random Pedestrian Activity and Point Source Pedestrian Activity. These factors act additively and therefore the principle of superposition applies. Hence, Table 4.1 may be expanded to include walkway requirements based on the variables of APDT and point source consideration as shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 ADT APDT Walkway(s) Walkway(s) ~ 2 Blocks from < 2. Blocks from Point Source Point Source 0-1,000 0-100 Optional Sinj?;le 1,000-5,000 100-500 Single Double 5.000-10,000 500-1,000 Double Double While Table 4.2 provides a general rule for walkway criteria, this rule is not without exception. Since the model is based on a homogeneous spatial dispersion of pedestrians onto a unifonn grid, it represents an idealized situation. Since most real neighborhoods are not comprised of perfect grid-ways, and population density is often higher on one side of a point source than it is on the opposite side, special considerations may be required in order to optimize walkways to fit a particular community. V. Putting it all Together In order to specify the design for a given section of roadway, all three factors described above(traffic lanes, parking lanes and walkways)must be combined. Summing these factors yields the total graded width of the roadway, T = W + Np (8') + N,.,(4') Where, W is the traffic lane width from Eq. 2.10 (in feet) Np is the number of parking lanes from Table 3.1 or 3.2 N,., is the number of walkways from Table 4.2. (5.1) Note that it is considered customary to include one additional foot on both sides of the total graded roadway width as right-of-way (1 ). VI. Case Study As an exemplary case, consider a I-block, 2-lane stretch of roadway with an ADT of 2,500 and a posted speed limit of 25 m. p.h. This block consists of a double loaded set of SFD' s with an average lot size between ¼ and ½ acre. It is located between 2 and 3 blocks from the nearest pedestrian point source, which is a school that releases 700 I I students at 2:40 P.M., M-F. Determine the traffic .lane width, the number of required parking lanes and the walkway requirements. l. Traffic Lanes: According to Eq. 2.10, W=l6.45'. Rounding-up to the nearest foot yields, W=l7' or 2 lanes at 8.5' each. 2. Parking Lanes: According to Table 3.1, a single 8' parking lane is required. 3. Pedestrian Walkways: According to Table 4.2 a single pedestrian walkway (consisting of a 42" path plus a 6" burm = 4') will be required. 4. Total Graded Roadway Width AccordingtoEq. 5.1, T=29'. A diagram of the cross-section of the computed exemplary roadway is given in Figure 6.1. One additional foot on each side of the graded section shown in the figure may be added as right-of-way ( 1 ). ,wz \I~1c=7 fW7 &//(/lt1f F~~-.,. -~ s1,;. 81/-i. 8' 91 Figure 6.1 VIl. Discussion By applying basic laws of mathematics and physics a practical and flexible model for alternative roadway designs has been derived. The resulting designs offer the advantage of optimized safety and efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. In so doing, the unique characteristics of neighborhoods may be preserved, thereby preserving quality of life and property values. Results of this model are consistent with progressive roadway designs cited in the literature (1-4). Generally speaking these alternative design styles are less expensive to install and simple to maintain. Cities using this style of roadway design have demonstrated reduced speeding problems, which in tum has resulted in reduced accident rates and decreased liability. 12 VIIl. References I. Residential Streets. Second Edition, ASCE, NAHB, ULI. 2. Flexibility in Highway Design. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 3. Arendt, R., et al, Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. Americn Planners Association. 4. Southworth, M, and Ben-Joseph, E., Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. 13 r-) t r r ' ( l r r ( r i r t ,- \ i r t r-i i r ( f r APPENDIX I EMPIRICAL CURVE FIT FOR LANE WIDTH Width 14 18 20 400000 300000 ~ 200000 ..J LL 100000 0 Flow 15000 125000 350000 - ' "' ? " f/ ,,,,, :,1/,,,r,: •.•.,.,. "·'· 0 10 20 w ) i : t :.: • Series1 -Power (Series1) 30 y = 1 E-06x8·7594 R2 = 0.9988 r r r \ ,-- \ I l r r r i r t r I I '. r r J l r ) , r- '· r I .. r I r ' r \ r l r APPENDIX II Pedestrian Load Model Dispersion from a point source on a grid Assumes: All peds live within a 10 block radius at 10% attrition per block Length of Block= Number of People at t=0 Walking Speed = 500 ft 500 250 ft/min People per People per Time (mins) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 0.25 25 4 2 0.0375 3. 75 8 4 0.00625 0.625 16 8 0.000625 0.0625 20 10 0 0 Pedestrians on Roadway 60 50 ¢: 40 0 0 'I"'" 30 -II) ,:, Cl) 20 Q. 10 \ \ \ -... 0 I ---, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blocks from Source r- t r ( ~ I r r r I I. r- I ' r I I t r ' t ,- ! i_ r- r ( r I i r \ ( r APPENDIX Ill Pedestrian Load Model Dispersion from a point source on a grid Assumes: All peds live within a 10 block radius at 10% attrition per block Length of Block= Number of People at t=O Walking Speed = 500 ft 1000 250 ft/min People per People per Time (mins) Blocks Walked ft. of Road 100ft. of Road 0 1 0.5 50 4 2 0.075 7.5 8 4 0.0125 1.25 16 8 0.00125 0.125 20 5 0 0 Pedestrians on Roadway 60 - 50 = 40 0 0 -30 ~ "C Q) 20 Q. 10 \ \ \ \ l~ 0 ' 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Blocks from Source ' 8 9 I l I I I· I EXAmPLE ''ALTt(l.}JATtvE'' DESIGN DRIVEWAY . I I I I I I • I I I - -L.£:.!!.N!: _ -'. I :, :' . , n ! , L, ! _j ' i ji 1' 1 , !! I ! - -L.2!Jlll:~ -_• ! I I : I I ~ ~--1 ii5'~ • I LOT LIN( ' I - ---·--II C.oNC/l67E: CullB C)(l.. AlC€f>T/t8Lt AL icfl..fvATc (1.e- 1'/Pc"£" mou1.rrABL£ ,4S f ttA L. T B£fl.,.M) Sib€WPrLY-ofLAc:t..cPrABLf: A.l>.A. C.01v1PL1ANT WAUWAY {cA1,J"fn€ltfJbcfL IIJ PA(J.f..wAY O/l- 5e" /+/r:JAGE/JT ,o l'howJm8L£ Cu.~ Ofl. 8€(l.M) . PA~/I.J6-/-A,.}£5 MAY Bt ! OMITTe) IF ''No fffRl.Jt.J6 11 ' Pfl0H181nolJ IS ACL~Pre:l). II I I l I; I ~ .JPT!:!?!L - -I • ll I I ' " I' :· h I :_ ....J.PTJ.!!L. - -' DRIVEWAY '..,_ _J.PT !:!?!L - -' . i -- I ... s;; ~ ___!:f)T !!!£_ - - I ' I l 1-, I I I Those of you who were here last week will remember that I had some strong words regarding the City's draft proposal for the Alternative Street Design Criteria. Fortunately, some progress was made by the committee during last week's meeting to improve this document. You will recall that some of my major concerns related to the exemplary layout drawing which was lacking in dimensions, but implied (if it was drawn to scale) that the Alternative Streets would have a 60' graded width. I had the opportunity to discuss this further with Mr. Piro and Mr. Hubbs after the meeting. While they assured me that I should trust them because they were Civil Engineers, I went ahead and took the liberty of detailing our discussion in the form of a dimensioned drawing, because where I went to engineering school we were taught to dimension our drawings and to use math. First off, you will note a paved traffic lane width of 20' to 24' (per your discussions at the last meeting with the Fire Chief). Optional parking spaces are 8' wide and may be placed in pockets. Optional pedestrian paths are 4' wide and may be allowed to meander in order to preserve existing trees or other characteristic landmarks. Adding this all up we have a maximum total graded width not to exceed 48'. In many cases this may be substantially less, as parking and pathways may not be required on both sides. Adding a little color and character to this drawing provides us with this color rendering which emphasizes flexibility, using traffic calming devices such as signage, Bott's Dots and rumble strips; alternative surface materials for parking areas and optional meandering foot-paths. Note the "green-theme", which minimizes hard-scape for environmental and esthetic reasons. Finally, I have read the City's draft of your Final Report. I caution you that they have added-in certain wording that did not come from this committee and may in fact not reflect this committee's goals. In George Orwell's book Animal Farm, the slogan on the wall started out as "All animals are created equal", but by the end of the book it had gradually changed to, "All animals are equal -some are more equal than others". Only the smartest animals noticed the change. This is not a new trick. Don't get fooled! J.C. Debes 02/17/00 f ' \ , I ··\ ·\·. \ , Mut:11 -ltJTa,JT;A L 1 ~:,;-AR:'=As rQi< ~/AN -P,4116 ~ ?AR.K;/../6, "ALTSPNA·n v.::. 1 MA1"6ti.JALS (GIN #NCLV1>6 C.a«".AE:11:.l COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY DESIGNS WITH FLEXIBILITY Streets & Sidewalks Committee Meeting 02/ 17 /00 LL.Wickham At.Jr. s\,,),_~ WA I..KwA '( (OPT'1~A1..) 1\ I KWIJ 'I I C "T"D P,rdsl.,e i?'~) I I I I ' , l .).J:;; TY' I ,-~~--24 ----aw 71<A1,,;ez. t.llfvEJ l ' ~T, S,v~PA<-Z" WAL\<. WA. 'I lOPrtOfJALJ ' "' \ \ I I~ ~g--;> \ <:.?Y ~,; (19 ~ / l 0-<:1vc1-1A y l I y-, - I I I I .._k ___ vP Jf~I -----"1')4 r ~- Jack C. Debes, Ph.D. 02/17/00 M/4 -,<. COMMENTS BY JIM.KING TO THE cmZENs COMMITTEE TO STll>Y THE SIDEWALK AN) STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 17 FEBRUARY, 2000 My rw ii .Im Ki1g. I he at '156 hidlllrld Drive. By way d ~ up ,rr,j two .... coq,non8 fer Jan 24 m•lllnl unmsy wn not idldld i'a fie Meeting ....-y. eo I piad lhem again and umit 1hem agairl • _,, Since Iii comnillet ~many ciliane hive commented to ttil committee. Only .. ol them h1la been in ,._ "•• widening ,eidewllb .cube end guttn • ..... .., iq,lemented. Hlnteda attended two cily COlld meeliag, to voa ._ dNi'e to be left• they n and to aat for an end to h eJCieli'fl polcy.Ovtr 700 li9aed a pedlion to 1hie effect. The mee111g9 II : we lte It 1tl9 way It II. 1>olfl Pave Pa acl11 • PIHH heed 1hat mu11ge. 281' 3.o· CUL-DE-SAC FOR FtYE RESIDENCES DESIGN COMPARISON . RESIDENTIAL STREET DESIGN HB SURFACE AREA COVERED (IN SQUARE FEET X 1000) 12 10 8 6 2 ecpreft (000) ••AS BUILT COtEIGURATION 6811 EQUAL TO 56Tt0FI 174> ASPHALT SIDEWALK HAND BOOK STAN>ARD ;-. ' CUL-DE-SAC FOR FIVE RESIDENCES DESIGN COMPARISON 281' CURBTO STREET -----81.6' ------ 12 10 8 ...,__ 5'1" 6 4 2 SQUARE FEET (000) AS BUILT CON='IGUAATION SUFFACEAREACOVERED (IN SQUARE FEET X 1000) 12.082 -EQUAL.TO 1~0F. •DESIGN MANUAL REQUIREMENTS EQUAL TO 169'.0F* 2.942 - ASPHALT SIDEWALK (5'6"WD) AS BUILT ' - • ~ I