HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-19; City Council; 15446; Citizens For The Preservation Of Olde Carlsbad.- A 97 Cl I Y OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA triLL
AB# 15,446 TITLE- L REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEPT. H
REGARDING RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY MTG. 1 O/l 9/99 CITIZENS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CITY ATTY. bzfl
OLDE CARLSBAD nFPT FNT: CITY MGR. %%-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council review Concerns of Citizens For The Preservation of Olde Carlsbad and direct staff as
appropriate.
I
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At the September 28, 1999 City Council meeting, the Citizens For The Preservation of Olde
Carlsbad (CPOC) and many residents presented testimony concerning a number of issues related
to development policies and quality of life standards. Their concerns focused on the area bounded
by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the west, between the Aqua Hedionda and
Buena Vista Lagoons. Staff identified four categories of concern:
0 Quality of Life/Development Standards 0 Tree Preservation Policies 0 Sidewalk Construction Program 0 Improvement Deferral Policies
Staff will briefly present background during the Council meeting on each of these issue categories
and present options for Council consideration.
I Qualitv of Life/Develooment Standards
Community testimony in this area focused primarily on the impact of street standards on community
character and safety. A number of other considerations related to neighborhood compatibility of
infill development, traffic calming and storm water pollution were also raised. The testimony on street standards related to street widths, placement of trees relative to the street and the use of
curb, gutters and sidewalks. In general the presentation supported a concept of narrower streets, canopy tree plantings within the street right-of-way to shade the streets. Curbs, gutters and
sidewalks may not be appropriate depending on the character of the neighborhood. The testimony indicated that flexibility in street design was required to better reflect the historic character of “Olde”
Carlsbad and to create a more desirable residential environment. It was recognized that each area
has a unique character and that in heavily traveled and populated areas, the current City standards
may be appropriate.
I Staff has five ongoing efforts related to these concerns:
a Review of Planned Development Ordinance to Include Livable Communities 0 Traffic Calming Program/Livable Neighborhoods 0 lnfill Development Report 0 Storm Water Pollution (NPDES) Program 0 Development Access Standard Review
I
Staff will briefly overview the status of these programs at the Council meeting. All of these efforts
would affect areas of the City beyond what has been identified as “Olde Carlsbad”.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Council hold a workshop overviewing
these programs and exploring other issues the Council may wish to review in more detail.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. i>.446
Tree Preservation Prooram
The testimony given indicated that the current City tree policy needs to be strengthened to better
reflect the value of mature trees to the community. It was also indicated that public notification
requirements should be reviewed.
Staff is currently operating from a policy adopted in 1970 (see attached Exhibit 1). Under this policy trees are removed when they are found to be diseased, dead or creating sidewalk, street or sewer
damage. It is very common that residents will request tree removal for a variety of reasons. Requests are evaluated by the Public Works Manager supervising the tree maintenance program.
If the removal is consistent with community objectives, the tree will be removed. No formal
notification process has been adopted.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that Council appoint a Citizens committee to review
the existing tree policy and recommend to the City Council revisions that are deemed appropriate.
If Council agrees we would return with recommendation on the size and makeup of the Committee,
a proposed process, and a tentative schedule.
Sidewalks Proaram
In 1988, the City Council adopted a pedestrian action plan. This plan identified the need to
inventory sidewalks to identify missing segments. A program to construct missing critical linkages
was adopted by the Council in 1989. Funds have been budgeted each year to construct priority
critical linkages. The attached exhibit shows sidewalks that have been constructed in the “Olde
Carlsbad” area. All of these linkages were on roadways previously constructed to City standards. In many cases gaps were being filled between already existing improvements. All streets improved
provided access to Magnolia Elementary School, Valley Jr. High and Carlsbad High. Such streets
as Buena Vista Way, Adams Street, Highland Dr. and Crest Drive have been budgeted for special
studies.
Staff concurs with the concept that standard improvements may be inappropriate on certain streets
of special character. Although staff has informally recognized certain streets as unique, no formal evaluation has been conducted or policies developed.
Staff feels that it would be appropriate to review the sidewalk program objectives and priorities and
to evaluate certain streets for special designation. This process should involve community input,
which could be provided through a citizen’s advisory committee.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council appoint a citizen’s advisory committee to
review the City’s sidewalk program to evaluate standards, priorities, and recommend certain streets
for special design treatment. If Council agrees with this approach, staff would return with a more
detailed approach.
lmorovement Deferral Policies
A large percentage of testimony centered around City requirements for frontage street
improvements as a condition of issuance of a building permit and deferral of those requirements
through the execution of a Future Improvement Agreements (FIA’s).
Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. 15,446
Carlsbad Municipal Code currently requires construction as outlined in the following code sections.
“Section 18.40.040 Public improvements required stipulates:
(a) Any person who constructs or causes to be constructed any building in the city shall construct all necessary improvements in accordance with city specifications upon the property and along all street frontages adjoining the property upon which such building is constructed unless adequate improvements already exist. In each instance, the city manager shall determine whether or not the necessary improvements exist and are adequate. Each building permit application shall be so endorsed at the time it is issued.
(b) The improvements required by subsection (a) of this section shall also apply to any person who alters, enlarges or expands or causes to be altered, enlarged or expanded any building in the city if the cost of such work exceeds fifty thousand dollars.”
“Section 18.40.070 Deferral of improvement requirements allows deferral of improvements.
Upon written application, the city manager by written order may defer any of the improvements required by this chapter if he finds that the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city will not be endangered by the deferment of the construction of the improvements and that any one of the following exists:
(1) There is a lack of adequate data in regard to the grades, plans or surveys which complicate the construction of the improvements and indicate they should be deferred to a later time.
(2) The construction of the improvements is included in an approved or pending assessment district or otherwise guaranteed as provided by city ordinance.
(3) Construction of the improvements would be incompatible with the present state of the neighborhood’s development or be impractical or premature because of the condition of the surrounding property.
(4) Construction of the improvements would create a hazardous or defective condition.”
Implementation of this provision is contingent upon the geography of any particular lot or character of the street. Judgment is exercised in each particular case. Implementation practices have varied over the years. Currently, staff attempts to construct the improvements if they are at all practical. This ensures that the home is constructed compatible with the future street and avoids future costly reconstruction of front yards and driveways. Financing of improvements are also easier when the home is being constructed or significantly remodeled.
The issue of the amount of the threshold of $50,000 has been questioned. This amount was last reviewed in 1992. Review of this amount would be appropriate at this time.
Council, as a part of its discussion, requested that staff review the improvement deferral policies in response to concerns that improvements were being required inappropriately.
3
Page 4 of Agenda Bill No. 13 9 446
Staff agrees that it would be helpful to better identify those streets which are of such a character that conventional improvements would not be appropriate and deferral would be automatic until such time as a specific design has been completed for the particular street. Such a list of streets could be evolved as a part of the sidewalk policy review. These streets would then be listed in City code and given special status.
Until special character streets are specifically identified, the Council has requested that staff be
more liberal in granting deferral requests within the area west of El Camino Real between the Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda Lagoons.
Standard street improvements would only be required where they abut existing improvements or
where the street character has already been determined by previous construction projects.
Where staff would recommend installation of improvements, it is recommended that a report be submitted to Council for its information.
RECOMMENDATION: Council retain the current code provisions related to improvement
requirements and deferrals. Continue to require Future Improvement Agreements (FIA’s) where
improvement deferrals are granted.
Instruct staff to report to the Council prior to ordering improvements in conjunction with a building
permit issued within the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the
west, Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the south and the Buena Vista Lagoon on the north.
Instruct staff to return to Council with guidelines to implement appropriate review and noticing
requirements when improvements are recommended for installation.
Instruct staff to review the $50,000 building permit threshold for potential adjustments and report
back.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Action proposed under this report are exempt from environmental review. Any actions proposed as
a result of further action will be evaluated at time of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed recommendations if accepted by the Council will require a significant commitment of
staff resources and may require the retention of consultants to insure timely response. Other staff
priorities may have to be altered. A better assessment of impacts can be prepared when the
Council has completed its considerations and staff has had time to further detail and schedule
suggested programs.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Policy No. 4 - Street Trees.
2. Carlsbad Sidewalk Program.
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 10-20-70
eneral Subject: Streets Effective Date 10-20-70
pecific Subject: Street Trees I- Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
.-
opies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
PURPOSE:
To state City policy regarding removal.and replacement of street
trees.
STAT.EMEtlT OF POLICY:
1. The City will make every effort to trim-and spray street trees
. according to a regular schedule within the limits of available
manpower. .
2. Dange'rous street trees will be removed and replaced as expedi-
tiously as possible. Dead trees will be removed and replaced,
as work schedules permit, as will trees that are damaging side-
walks, curbs and gutters.
3. Realscement street trees \/ill be of the same species as those
removed unless another species of street tree is designated on
the master streetstree plan. w
4. Individuals 'or neighborhoods may request replacement of street
trees by another species due to excess leaf drop, blockage of
view, medical allergies (a doctor's certification may be re-
quested where allergies are cited) or other yood and sufficient
reasons. In thcs,e cases the individual or neighborhood must bear'
the cost of removal and replacement since no general public in-
terest is served. Except where allergies are indicated, the re-
placement trees must be uniform and of an improved species unless
othervrise approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
5. Any citizen or neighborhood may appeal to the Parks and Rccrea-
tion Commission and subsequently to the City Council regarding a
staff decision on street trees. However, ofcicial City policy
is to discourage removal of existing street Zrees simply on the
ies of trees. basis of indivydual 'or group preference between spec
Cl? 3F CRRLSBAD
- EXHIBIT 1 -_I -- Policy No. 4
I
S
Par)- and Rerreation Department-
Policy No. 31
STREET TREES
It is the policy of the Parks and Recreation Department to provide safe, healthy thriving street trees for the citizens of Carlsbad.
TRIMMING:
City trees are to be maintained to keep them in a safe, healthy, thriving condition.
Any safety hazard or obstruction caused from, or created by a city tree will receive priority treatment.
Citizen requests for trimming will first be reviewed by the parks tree supervisor and then scheduled as to the need for maintenance.
Not all requests will be determined to require trimming.
It is the goal of the Parks and Recreation Department to-trim every tree on a 7 to 10 year turn around cycle.
REMOVAL:
The removal of city street trees follows the listed guidelines:
1. No tree is to be removed from'any right of way area until Parks and Recreati.on Department approval is given. .
2. Trees are to be removed if:
a. They present a hazardous condition as determined by the Parks and Recreation Department that cannot be corrected by other maintenance actions.
b. They are dead diseased or declining in health factors.
C. They have caused damages to sewer lines - as validated by three (3) receipts or three (3) written statements from plumbing companies. This will also be verified by Sanitation Department staff.
d. They have caused damages to sidewalks, curbs, gutter, driveways or utilities.
-
r
. . . .
TREE REPLACEMENT:
1. Trees that have been removed will be replaced upon request of resident or citizen.
2. Trees that are replaced are to be planted a minimum of 10' (feet) back from any curb, gutter and driveway and 5' (feet) back from sidewalk. The resident shall be responsible for the planting and care.
3. The tree will be 15 gallon in size and be supplied by the city.
4. Only approved trees from the street tree list will be allowed.
ROOT PRUNING:
1. Evasive roots will be pruned when they are deemed to create a hazardous condition.
*Parks staff will not prune trees growing within 5' (feet) of main trunk electrical lines of SDG&E. Staff will notify SDG&E of any needs for tree maintenance on or near high voltage fines.
.
Sections:
11.12.010
11.12.020
11.12.030
11.12.040
11.12.050
11.12.060
11.12.070
11.12.080
11.12.090
11.12.100
11.12.110
11.12.120
11.12.130
Chapter 11.12
TREES AND SHRUBS
Jurisdiction of park and
recreation department.
App~h.l prior to planting.
Permit to remove-Cost of
removal.
Fastening animals to trees.
Removal of guards and devices
protecting trees.
Attachment of electrical devices
to trees-Trimming for passage
of wires. l
Permit to trim-Trimming
practices.
Space to be kept clear around
base of trees.
Safeguarding of trees during
building construction or repair.
Overhanging trees.
Interference with city
employees.
Notification of trees damaging
public sidewalks.
Uniform street planting map.
11.12.010 Jurisdiction of park and
recreation department.
The community services department shall ixercise
‘*jurisdiction and control over the planting, maintc-
~<+nce, care and removal of trees, palms. shrubs or
plants in all streets or other public highways of the
,.,city, and shall have such power, authority, jurisdic~
tion and duties as are prescribed in this chapter.
(Ord. NS-286 0 3 (part), 1994; Ord. 1060A 6 2)
11.12.020 Approval prior to planting.
No tree, palm, shrub or plant shah be planted in
any of the streets or other public highways of the
city until the city manager, or his appointee, shah
have first approved the kind and variety, designated
the location therefor and granted the permit for
331
11.12.010 -
planting the same, the city manager, Of his appoint-
ee, shall not permit the planting of any kind or
variety of tree, palm, shrub or plant in any of the
streets or other public highways which would ulti-
mately obstruct the view of a view lot. (Ord. 1071
p 1: Ord. 1060A 0 3)
11.12.030 Permit to remove--Cost of
removal.
No person shah, without a permit from the city
manager or his appointee, remove, destroy, break,
cut, trim, deface or in any other way injure or inter-
fere with any tree, palm, shrub or plant or endanger
the life of any such tree, palm, shrub or plant that
is now or may hereafter be growing in any street or
other public highway of the city.
Such permit shah specifically describe the work
to be done thereunder, and such permit shah be void
after thirty days from the date of issuance. Upon
filing of a written request, an extension of this time
up to sixty days may be granted by the city manager
of his appointee.
The cost of removal of any tree, palm, shrub or
plant at the request of and for the benefit or conve-
nience of a property owner shah be paid for by such
property owner.
Where an existing tree, palm or shrub prevents
access to a building site, such tree or plant may be
removed at the applicant’s exp&se upon issuance
of proper removal permit from the city manager or
his appointee; provided, that a valid building permit
has been issued for the construction of the improve-
ment necessitating the removal of the tree or plant.
In the event that trees or plants are so removed
in conformance with this section and the improve-
ment for which the building permit was issued is
not constructed within six months of the date of
issuance, the holder of the removal permit shall be
liable for the replacement cost of trees or plants of
equal size and variety to those removed. (Ord.
1060A !$ 4)
(Carl&d 10.94)
Il. IL.v-tV
11.12.040 Fastening animals to trees.
No person shall hitch or fasten any kind of ani-
mal to any tree, palm, shrub or plant now or hereaf-
ter growing in any street or other public highway of
the city; nor shah any person cause or permit any
animal to stand or be near enough to any tree, palm,
shrub or plant, to bite or rub against, or in any
manner injure or deface the same; nor shall any
person place a post for hitching of animals within
five feet of any tree, palm, shrub or plant now or
hereafter growing in any street or other public high-
way in the city. (Ord. 1060A 9 5)
11.12.050 Removal of guards and devices
protecting trees.
No person shall remove, injure or misuse any
guard or device placed to protect any tree, palm,
shrub or plant now or hereafter growing in any
street or other public highway of the city. (Ord.
1060A 0 7)
11.12.060 Attachment of electrical devices to
trees-Trimming for passage of
wires.
No person shall attach any electric wire, insulator
or any other device for holding electric, telephone,
television or conductor wires to any tree, palm,
shrub or plant now or hereafter growing in any
street or other public highway of the city. No person
shah, without written permission from the city man-
ager or his appointee, trim, cut or break any part of
such tree, palm, shrub or plant, in order to make
passage for such wires or conductors. Every person
having any wire charged with electricity or carrying
electronic or other signal impulses shall securely
fasten the same so that such wire or conductor shall
not come in contact with any tree, palm, shrub or
plant in any street or public highway of the city.
(Ord. 1060A $ 8)
11.12.070 Permit to trim--Trimming
practices.
When any tree, palm, shrub or plant now or
hereafter growing in any street or other public high-
way of the city interferes with electrical, telephone
or television wires or conductors, poles, standards,
buildings or signs, written permission from the city c
manager or his appointee shah be obtained before
any pruning or trimming may be done. All such
work shall be done in a manner consistent with
good tree surgery practices, taking into consideration
the shaping of the trees or plants and safety to per-
sons and property. (Ord. 1060A Q 9)
11.12.080 Space to be kept clear around
base of trees.
No person without the written permit of the city
manager or his appointee, shah place or maintain
upon the ground in any street or other public high-
way of the city, stone, cement or other material
without leaving an open space not less than nine
square feet around the trunk of any tree of less than
six inches in diameter, and for every three inches of
increase in such diameter there must be an increase
of at least one square foot of open ground in such
shape as to afford the most root area practical. Such
opening shah be in accordance with city Engineer-
ing Department Standard Drawing No. l-9. Whenev-
er there is no such open space about any existing (
tree in any street or other public highway of the
city, the city manager or his appointee may make
such open space or cause the same to be made.
(Ord. 1060A Q 10)
11.12.090 Safeguarding of trees during
building construction or repair.
In the erection, alteration, moving or repair of
any building, structure or other object, the owner
thereof, or his agent, shall place or cause to be
placed, such .guards around all nearby trees in the
street or other public highways of the city as shall
effectually prevent injury to them. (Ord. 1060A 8
11) ,
11.12.100 Overhanging trees.
The owner or his agent, of every lot or parcel of
land in the city upon which any trees, palms, shrubs
or plants are now or may be hereafter standing, shall
trim, or cause to be trimmed, the branches thereof
so that the same shah not obstruct the adequate
.
(Carl&ad 10.94) 332
4
11.12.100
passage of light from any street Light located in any
street or other public highway adjacent to the street
or sidewalk and such owner or his agent trim all
branches of any trees, palms, shrubs or plants which
overhang any street or other public highway, so that
there shah be a clear height of eight feet above the
surface of the street or other public highway unob-
structed by branches; and such owner or his agent
shah remove from such trees, palms, shrubs or
plants all dead, decayed or broken limbs or branches
that overhang such street or other public highway,
and when any such trees, palms, shrubs or plants are
dead, such owner or his agent shah remove the
same so that they shah not fall in the street or other
public highway. (Ord. 1060A Q 12)
11.12.110 Interference with city employees.
No person shall prevent, delay or interfere with
any employee of the community services depart-
ment, or contractors employed by the city in the
planting, pruning, cultivating, dusting, spraying or
removal of any tree, palm, shrub or plant which is
now or may hereafter be growing in any’street or
other public highway in the city, or in the removal
of stone, cement or other material from about the
trunk of any tree, palm, shrub or plant which is
growing in any street or other public highway of the
city. (Ord. NS-286 $3 (part), 1994; Ord. 1261 $ 13,
1983; Ord. 1060A Q 13)
11.12.120 Notification of trees damaging
public sidewalks.
The duty is imposed upon a property owner to
notify the community services department when any
tree, palm, shrub or plant in a public street adjacent
to his property is injuring or damaging any public
sidewalk. The city manager or his appointee is
authorized to have removed, at the expense of fhe
city, such tree, palm, shrub or plant, or to otherwise
remedy the dangerous condition (Ord. NS-286 Q 3
(part), 1994; Ord. 1060A Q 14)
11.12.130 Uniform street planting map.
The city manager or his appointee shall, from
time to time, prepare plans or lists, which shall
designate, by means of a map of the city streets, a
uniform method of street tree planting, zoning cer-
tain streets, or portions thereof, for a certain Speci-
men of trees and shrubs, showing the distance apart
of trees or shrubs, and the place where each tree or
shrub is to be planted; and the city manager or his
appointee shall submit this plan to the park and
recreation commission for their approval or modifi-
cation. After the same has been approved by the
park and recreation commission and the city man-
ager, the same shah be submitted to the city council
for modification or adoption by that body. Future
amendments that may be deemed advisable shall be
governed by the proceedings outlined above.
If and when the uniform plan in its original or
modified form is adopted by the city council, it shall
become the tree planting plan for the streets of the
city and shall be strictly adhered to in all future
street planting improvement projects and in the
removal or replacement of trees, shrubs or plants in
streets in the city. The uniform plan of tree planting
may, but need not, be adopted by the city council
at one time, but the council may adopt the uniform
street tree planting plan for different portions of the
city within a reasonable length of time after the
completed plan for any particular portion of the city
has been submitted to the city council.
The city manager or his appointee shall have
copies of this plan made and the same shah be kept
on tile in the office of the community services de-
partment and may be obtained by the public. (Ord.
NS-286 0 3 (part), 1994; Ord. 1060A Q 15)
333 (Carl&ad 10-94)
L
11.16.010
Sections:
11.16.010
11.16.020
11.16.030
11.16.040
11.16.050
11.16.060
11.16.070
11.16.080
11.16.090
11.16.100
11.16.110
11.16.120
11.16.130
11.16.140
Title.
Definitions.
City engineer’s authority and
responsibilities.
Permits-Required.
Permits-Application.
Permits-Requirements of
plans.
Permits--Commencement and
completion of work.
Permits-Requirements for
performance of work.
Permits-Acceptance of work.
Permits-Denial and
revocation.
Appeal procedure.
Encroachment application and
permit fees.
Performance deposits.
Placement of materials or
obstruction of streets.
Aboveground encroachments.
Exceptions:
Relo&tion of structures-
Removal of encroachment.
Holding city harmless-
Insurance.
Exemptions.
Violation.
Enforcement authority.
11.16.1;O
- 11.16.160
11.16.170
11.16.180
11.16.190
11.16.200
11.16.210
l F’rior ordimncc history: Ords. 7036.7058,7066.7U70 and 7071.
Chapter 11.16
WORK IN PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY
11.16.010 Title.
The ordinance codified in this chapter may be
cited as the “Right-of-Way Permit Code.” (Ord.
NS-5 $ 1 (part), 1988)
11.16.020 Definitions.
The following words shall have the following
meanings as set out in this chapter:
(1) “City engineer” means the city engineer of
the city of Carlsbad or his designated representative.
(2) “Encroachment” means and includes any
tower, pole, pole line, pipe, pipeline, fence, bill-
board, stand or building, or any structure or object
of any kind or character not particularly mentioned
in this subsection, which is placed in, under or over
any portion of a public place.
(3) “Facility” means any street, highway, curb,
gutter, fencing, pipe, pipeline, tube, main, service,
trap, vent, vault, manhole, meter, gauge, regulator,
valve, conduit, wire, tower, pole, pole line, anchor,
cable, junction box, transformer or any other materi-
al structure or object of any kind or character,
whether enumerated in this subsection or not which
is constructed, left, placed or maintained in, upon,
along, across, under or over any public place.
(4) “Plans” means the document developed and
approved by the city engineer describing the nature
and extent of works proposed to be constructed or
carried out on a public place. (
(5) “Public place” means any public street, high-
way, way, place, alley, sidewalk, easement,
right-of-way, park, square, plaza or other similar
public property owned or controlled by the city and
dedicated to public use.
(6) “Specification” means the Standard Specifica-
tions for Public Works Construction (current edition
including supplements) written and promulgated by
Southern California Chapter American Public Works
Association and Southern California District Associ-
ated General Contractors or California Joint Cooper-
ative Committee and published by Building News
Incorporated, or such other specifications noted on
.approved plans.
(7) “Standard drawings” means the “standard
drawings” of the city of Carlsbad, adopted
(G&&ad 10-94) 334
EXHIBIT 2
H/G/-/ SCHOOL
CARLSBAD SIDEWALK PROGRAM
-
ALrDA lTEM # 10
.
Mr. Raymond Patchett, City Manager
City of Carl&ad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CaIif. 92008
c: Mayor
City Council
CiQ Manager
CiZy Attorney
City Clerk
Dear Mr. Patchett,
On September 28, 1999, a crowd estimated at over 300 residents descended on the
council chambers of the City of Carlsbad to ask the council to let them keep their “narrow,
meandering, tree-lined streets”. This crowd would have filIed the city hall chambers 4
times over and the 46 speakers that spoke was more than the Legoland theme park
hearing and the Multiple species Habitat Plan hearings combined. On October 19, we
understand that your staff will make a recommendation to the council.
We understand that the primary concern of your stafT is the city’s exposure to litigation, so
we sent copies of recent publications such as “Residential Streets” by the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Flexibility in Highway Design by the U.S. Department of
Transportation and gave Mr. Hubbs the names and authors of other publications we
referred to in our presentations. We also called Mr.,Hubbs and Mr. Bali to sit down and
meet with them and you to discuss other “liabiity” issues, but unfortunately we were told
that most of you were out of town at a government meeting. Therefore I am sending you
the enclosed information regarding these liability issues.
Recent publications are indicating that “standard” streets Iike those proposed by the city of
Carl&ad are less safe, cost more money to maintain and more likely to result in litigation
than the roads they are replacing.
In “Residential Streets” (1986), the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National
Association of Home Builders state that circa 1960’s standard streets were designed by
traffic engineers whose sole responsibility is to provide for more traffic to travel at higher
speeds. In doing so, they have made the streets unsa$e for pedestrians, bicyclists and
children. They go on to recommend that a residential street serving up to 25 lots should be
24 feet wide with dii or grass shoulders for parking and pedestrians (similar to roads we
have in Ranch0 Santa Fe, De1 Mar and “Olde” Car&ad).
According to the book “Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities” (1996), studies in
Germany, Denmark, Japan and Israel show that narrower streets without sidewalks have
20% fewer accidents than the “standard” streets. They go on to say that the narrower
streets have 50% fewer severe accidents; the groups benefiting most being pedestrians,
children and bicyclists.
So ifthese wider roads are actually less safe, on every mile of older residential streets we
widen, we are unnecessarily grading and denuding 4.5 acres of land, unnecessarily
constructing 1.5 acres of asphalt and unnecessarily building 1.2 acres of concrete
sidewalks. That’s 2.7 acres of unnecessary road and sidewalk for the city public works to
maintain. It’s also 2.7 acres of hardscape that converts groundwater infiltration into urban
runoff which, in Carlsbad’s case, goes directly into storm drain inlets on which the city has
painted little pictures of fish to remind us that they connect directly into our oceans and
lagoons.
As a Planning Commissioner with the County of San Diego, I was routinely briefed about
the County’s legal exposure and every year we were requested to attend a seminar on
recent cases and court actions pertaining to governmental and environmental law. It is my
opinion that the city has very little exposure to liability on narrow residential streets unless
they are made aware of a problem and do not take action to correct. Therefore, most cities
do not instigate actions to aggressively widen roads in these areas since it increases
maintenance costs and only can increase their exposure since they are inspecting and
accepting the new designs. As pointed out above, this also may increase liability since cars
are induced to speed causing more accidents.
The city may have caused unnecessary exposure to themselves since we have heard that a
prior “risk management” study indicated a need to provide sidewalks in all of these old
neighborhoods. If this is indeed the case, that is unfortunate since you thereby increased
your exposure for every day that you did not install these sidewalks. This exposure,
however, was erased by our presentation which presented recent data and studies showing
that the widened roads are, in fact, less safe. You also received testimony from many
people stating that the kids are not using the sidewalks on newly widened streets like
Magnolia and that they have noticed a marked increase in speeding.
I would also lie to point out to you that the way that you have been installing sidewalks
adjacent to the curb in these last years, has created additional city exposure. In my
neighborhood, the young kids set up ramps from the street to the curb for skateboard
jumps. These activities can not be done on an “of&et” sidewalk such as the one existing
on Basswook near the High School.
Also, I have witnessed handicapped ramps being constructed on Sierra Morena to connect
to sidewalks which are not ADA compliant. Handicapped ramps are supposed to be
8.33% rise with maximum 2% cross slope. These contiguous curbs result in a 10% “cross-
slope” where the sidewalks cross the driveways on Sierra Morena. There is not room for
landing behind the sidewalk since the driveways are so short and the cars park right behind
the sidewalk. This was also called to your attention by a speaker on September 28
describing the same situation on Kelly Drive.
When I was with the County, I was advised that the County does not accept right-of-way
dedication unless full improvements are made. As an engineer, I have seen no other
agency besides C&bad who does, in fact accept dedications without the full
improvements. I am told that cities usually accept a “rejected offer” or “irrevocable offer
of dedication” in these instances. I have seen areas of Carlsbad where you have accepted
30 rights of way on “un-improved” streets and exposed yourself to risk since these excess
rights of way go into front yards where kids have built bicycle and skateboard ramps and
sometimes jump on trampolines. These activities exposure the city to great risk in the
event of injury since an attorney may argue that since it was your right-of-way, it was your
responsibility to keep the area safe. These existing rights-of-way are not an issue with
C.P.O.C. , but we only advise you that you may want to consider replacing your recent
dedications which accompanied FIA’s with “irrevocable offers” which give you the same
dedication rights without the liability until you need the land.
We think that our presentation gives the city an opportunity to significantly reduce its risk.
There is significant state law that would cover the city from exposure ifit was due to a
“community generated” overlay. I forwarded copies of this information in my
correspondence to Mr. Hubbs and can furnish at your request.
On the other hand, the legality of some of your current policies may be questionable. Since
your legal exposure appeared to be the only thing that would stand in the way of
approving an “overlay area”, we retained legal council to address the existing ordinances
pertaining to your street improvement policies. Copies of the results of our legal analysis
are enclosed for your examination.
In summation, we would like you to respond in writing to all ofthe legal questions which
we have presented in this letter and the attached letters from Walter McNeil and Morgan
Keith as well as the request for environmental documents presented to you in separate
letter by Courtney Coyle. We are also concerned that you have not yet addressed our
letter and accompanying petitions for a specific action item pertaining to enacting an
“emergency ordinance.” We would appreciate it if you would have the council address our
request with a simple yes or no. This proposal is not unreasonable and has received the full
support of organizations as diverse as the Building Industry Association and the Sierra
Club.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Gary K. Piro
Member of Citizens for the Preservation of “Olde” Carl&ad (informal organization)
BARRATT
September 7, 1999
Mr. Gary Piro
Piro Engineering
930 Boardwalk, “D’
San Mafcos, CA 92069
Dear Gary:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Carlsbad City Sidewalk issue.
Unfortunately, I am going to be in the U.K. on the 28th of September and will not be able to
attend the hearing.
.
I support the action you are taking to allow reduced (common sense) standards, and hope
that you are successful and create “precedent”. As far as BIA is concerned, I have talked to Jerry Livingston about your activities, and he is following the progress.
I am pleased to see all the press that you are getting, and would encourage you to keep the
pressure on. If there is anything I can do outside of the 28’h meeting, let me know.
Yours sincerely, 9
Michael 0. Pattinson
President
CC: Jerry Livingston, BIA San Diego
‘\ .~ “a
. :
Barrm Ancrican Incorporared
2035 Carte Dcl Noyr& Suite 160, Cdshd, CA YIN9
(760) 431-080@
LAW OFFICES OF
WALTER P. McNEILL
280 HEMSTED DRIVE, SUITE E
REDDING, CA 96002
September 27,1999
Via: Facsimile and First-class Mail
Gary Piro
Citizens For The Preservation of Olde Carlsbad
2641 Valewood Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.40
Dedications and Improvements
Dear Mr. Piro:
TELEPHONE (530) 22243992
FACSIMILE (530) W-8892
As you know, I represent the Paladin Group in Paladin, et al. v..Oranee
County and the Paladin, et al. v. Murrieta lawsuits, as well as other pending
fee/exaction challenges in Southern California cities and counties that are in the
“negotiation” phase. I have reviewed materials sent to me concerning Chapter 18.40
of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, pertaining to dedications and improvements
imposed as a condition of construction/remodeling, along with materials on the
appeal of impositions pertaining to 1898 Forest Avenue. Without going into
extensive detail I would offer the following observations concerning the illegality of
these impositions, starting with the most obvious defects and concluding with some
that are more esoteric.
The most glaring defect is the absence of any standards or guidelines in
Chapter 18.40 to require dedication of right-of-way and construction of street
i-mprovements. Section 18.40.030 requiring dedication of rights-of-way is
automatically triggered by the construction of “any building” so as to require
dedication of whatever may be shown on the “circulation element” of the general
plan. The planned streets and roads shown on a circulation element are not
designed in regard to future unknown building permits, and they are sunnosed to be
merely plan lines subject to variation and change rather than concrete restrictive
regulations that have immediate impact on the lands depicted. The condition in
§18.40.030 requiring outright dedication is not in any sense a “standard” - it is an
outright land grab. The normal rule of law is that planned roads shown on the
circulation element do not have the effect of inversely condemning right-of-way on
the properties depicted. However, an ordinance which triggers dedication on
application for a ministerial building permit does have the effect of locking in the
proposed streets - meaning that the City of Carlsbad has, whether intentionally or
not, inversely condemned all of the streets shown in its circulation element (an
Gary Piro
Citizens For The Preservation of Olde Carlsbad
Re: City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.40
Dedications and Improvements
September 27,1999
Page 2
enormous liability that I doubt the City can handle).
Section 18.40.040 imposing “public improvements” also lacks standards to
guide its application. The requirement of “necessary improvements” in accordance
with “city specifications” unless “adequate improvements” already exist, is so vague
that its enforcement would be a violation.of due process of law. People v. Gates
(1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 590. Moreover, the authority to determine compliance is
abdicated to the city manager - inviting arbitrary and unpredictable enforcement that
conforms to the personal whims of an individual. As stated in Aenew v. Citv of
Culver Citv (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 144:
Ordinances, to be valid and effectual, must set forth with clarity some
norm or standard by which all persons may know their rights and
obligations thereunder. Where an ordinance commits its application
to municipal officials it should set up a uniform standard or rule of
conduct. Domineuez Land Corn. v. Dauehtertv, 196 Cal. 468,4&I, 238 P.
703. Regulations prescribed by ordinance must be clear, definite, and
specific in their application and operation, and in their application may
not be left to the caprice of enforcement officers. Hewitt v. State Board
of Medical Examiners 148 Cal. 590,84 P. 39,3 L.R.A., N.S., 896, In re.
Peppers, 189 Cal. 682,685-689,209 P. 896; In re. Porterfield, 28 Cal.2d 91,
llO-112,168, P. 2d 706,167 A.L.R. 675; People v. Young, 136 Cal.App.2d
771,140 P.2d 130; Edwards v. Browne Coal Co. v. Citv of Souix Citv 213
Iowa 1027,240 N. W. 711; Thrift Hardware & Suunlv Co. v. Citv of
Phoenix, 71 Ariz. 21, 222 P.2d 994,995-996,22 A.L.R.2d 810. An
attempted delegation of power to an officer of a municipality, where no
standards are established by which the officer shall be governed in his
actions, is in effect an attempted delegation to such officer to enact a
law.
One should expect an exaction ordinance to contain standards tied to some
manner of measurement or assessment of the actual imoacts of develoument. This
allows for an easy transition into the Nollan/Dolan analysis that shows a nexus
between the burdens imposed by the development and the permit dedication
condition, as well as “rough uronortionalitv” between the dedication/exaction and
the development’s impact. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission [1987] 438
U.S. 825; Dolan v. Citv of Tizard [1994] 512 U.S. 374.) It is no surprise, then, that the
City staff report on the appeal for 1898 Forest Avenue fails miserably in trying to
follow the Nollan/ Dolan requirements. The staff report concerning this application
for a 1,050 square foot room addition and remodel merely states that the easement
dedication and public improvements would (in essence) promote general public
welfare and safety, without showing any relationship between the impacts of the
. Gary Piro
Citizens For The Preservation of Olde Carlsbad
Re: City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.40
Dedications and Imorovements
September 27,1999
Page 3
room addition and the dedications/improvements demanded by the Citv. Then, in
an almost laughable defense of “rough-proportionality,” the report simply cornpa=
the cost of the dedication/improvements to the cost of the room addition rather /1 than the proiected impact of the room addition. The City doesn’t fare any better if
the Nollan/Dolan analysis is actually applied, since it can’t be shown that
remodeling of a house, in any dollar amount, would cause increased impacts
public need for the street improvements/dedications. These impositions are
patently illegal. _I_-----
or
There also is a blatant denial of equal protw built into
§18.40.030 requiring easement dedications for work valued at $10,000 or more, and
§18.40.040 which requires street improvements for work valued at $50,000 or more.
From the materials provided (and using my best imagination), I can’t see any logical
or rational basis for setting thresholds at $10,000 and $50,000 to impose these
dedications/improvements. The completely arbitrary, capricious, irrational nature
of these threshold requirements is underscored by the City Manger’s letter of March
15, 1999, where he states: “If you could phase your construction in a manner that
would reduce the cost of the work below $50,000, the code requirement for street
improvements would not be applicable.” Presumably, breaking the work up into
three permits of $35,000 each, to build exactlv the same room addition, would avoid
the requirement for street improvements. There is nothing to indicate that these
ordinances could survive an equal protection challenge.
Finally, on a more obscure note (an issue that hasn’t been fully explored or
clarified in the courts), it’s my opinion that building permits are ministerial rather
than discretionary in nature, and other than application of local zoning and valid
conditions imposed under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 565961) a
local agency cannot add-on discretionary approvals and exactions to a ministerial
building permit. A building permit is a creature of state law under which a local
agency is required to administer the provisions of the State Housing Law (Health
and Safety Code 517910 et seq.), the Building Standards Law (Health and Safety Code
§18901 et seq.), and the Earthquake Protection Law (Health and Safety Code §19000 et
seq.). Local agencies then are directed to adopt ordinances or regulations imposing
the same reauirements as those established by state law. (Title 25, California
Administrative Code 56.) The only exception is for regulations based upon special
local circumstances related to climatic, geological or topographical conditions.
(Health and Safety Code g17958.) No other “local regulations” for the issuance or
administration of building permits are permitted by state law. (There may be other
state laws, like school impact fees, but those are state rather than local statutes.)
Further, every building department I have run across in the State of California
carries out a unitary system of enforcement for the State Housing Law and the
Earthquake Protection Law (using one permit, one set of plans, one fee, and
. Gary Piro
Citizens For The Preservation of Olde Carlsbad
Re: City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.40
Dedications and Improvements
September 27,1999
Page 4
. concurrent inspections; see Health and Safety Code §19138), making them subject to
Health and Safety Code 519133 (Earthquake Protection Law):
The enforcement agency shall examine the application, plans, and
specifications filed with it by an applicant, and if it appears that the
work to be done will not result in a violation of this chapter, shall
approve them and issue a permit to the applicant.
The bottom line is, I don’t think state law allows a local agency to adopt or enforce
anv local regulations (other than the exceptions noted above) which directlv reaulate
issuance and administration of building permits.
Admittedly, a local agency can reach the same result of imposing
fees/conditions on building permits through the use of zoning and conditional use
permits. However, that sort of end-run requires an extra level of permit processing
and environmental review on every single building permit, which local agencies
are afraid to implement due to the political backlash that would surely follow.
Consequently, cities like Carlsbad take an illegal shortcut by enacting a non-zoning
dedication/improvement ordinance that directly regulates and conditions issuance
of building. permits in violation of state law.
I hope this sheds some light on the legal landscape for the problems you are
encountering in the City of Carlsbad. Feel free to call me if you have any further
questions.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF WALTER P. McNEILL
WPM/p
WALTER P. McNEILL
cc: Paladin Group
THE
PALADIN GROUP
GOVERNMENT FEE AND REGULATION CONSULTANTS
September 23, 1999
Gary Piro
Citizens for the Preservation of Olde Carlsbad
2641 Va!ewood Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Chapter 18.40.Dedications and Improvements
City of Carlsbad h&nicipal Code
Dear Gary:
I reviewed the material you sent me on Chapter 18.40 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code. I also sent copies of that material to Walter McNeil1 for his
review since I am not an attorney. As you know, Walter McNeil1 is the attorney
on the Paladin, et. al v. Oranqe County and the Paladin. et. al v. Murrieta
lawsuits.
I am drafting a working paper/report consisting of my observations of some the
issues concerning Chapter 18.40 requirements of dedications and public
infrastructure improvements. I am particularly interested in the way the. City
applies these conditions on building permits based upon valuation as in the
example case of Jeffrey Piro. This working paper/report identifies the issues
and controversies that I think are important for attorney review. I am still
researching other possible issues and controversies, but I wanted to share with
you the progress I have made so far. I am including some statutory and judicial
. analysis to support my tentative positions. Since I am not an attorney, please do
not rely upon my observations or opinions contained within the draft working
paper/report or within this letter without the advice of an attorney.
I am progressively conducting the research necessary in creating the working
paper or draft report. My current analysis consists of these three issues and
controversies and the following possible allegations and conclusions:
POST OFFICE BOX 4563 t PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 92263-4563
TEL: (760) 327-6528 FAX: (760) 322-2826
- Gary Piro
Chapter 18.40, City of Carlsbad
September 23, 1999
Page 2 of 7
l The Subdivision Map Act is preemptive and conflicting provisions of
Chapter 18.10 are void.
I believe that the Subdivision Map Act preempts Chapter 18.40 because it is
inconsistent with the Act. The power to adopt supplemental ordinances in
connection with matters covered by the act may be implied, provided those
regulations bear a reasonable relation to the purposes and requirements of the
act and are not inconsistent with it. (see Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of
Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 505 [113 Cal.Rptr. 5391.) However,
Local ordinances which are inconsistent with the language and apparent intent
of the Subdivision Map Act are invalid. (Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of
Supervisors, supra, at p. 505.) The Subdivision Map Act’s grant of authority
limits local agencies to adopt legislation requiring dedications and infrastructure
improvements as a condition of approval for parcel maps and tentative maps.
Chapter 18.40 expands this authority to impose these requirements as a
condition to granting building permits where no division of land occurs and
where valuation reaches a certain dollar threshold. Since Chapter 18.40
conflicts with the Subdivision Map Act, Chapter 18.40 impositions of dedication
and public infrastructure improvements as conditions of building permit is ultra
vires’. Therefore I believe and allege that Chapter 18.40 of the City of Carlsbad
‘municipal code is void and without force or effect.
l The City’s determinations of ‘reasonable relationship; in conditioning
building permits on requirements of dedications and improvements fails
the Do/an test.
“Grant of public privilege, such as building permit, may not be conditioned
upon deprivation of constitutional protections.”
Rohn v Visalia, 263 Cal. Rptr. 319 (214 Ca. App. 3d 1463).
In the Agenda Bill to the City Council dated September 14, 1999, the City makes
findings concerning Jeffrey Piro’s appeal to the right-of-way dedication and
improvements required as a condition to obtain a building permit for residential
additions. They conclude that a nexus exists between the requirements of
dedications and public infrastructure improvements and the burden imposed by
the proposed development. First, they find that the dedication, sidewalk,
pedestrian ramp, curb and gutter, and paving improvements directly serve the
public interest and the private property interest. Second, the City finds that
dedication and infrasrructure improvements meet the Do/an/No//en “nexus test”
’ ‘[U]ltra vires’ refers to an act which is beyond the powers conferred upon a corporation by its
charter or by the laws of the state of incorporation . . ..I’ (Marsili v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1975)
51 Cal.App.3d 313, 322 [124 Cal.Rptr. 313, 79 A.L.R.3d 4771.)
Gary Piro
Chapter 18.40, City of Carlsbad
September 23, 1999
Page 3 of 7
for the “reasonable proportion” of the conditions in relation to the burden created
by the development. The City quantifies their determination of a “reasonable
relationship” existing between the development and the imposed requirements
based upon financial cost.
I am being completely honest when I tell you that I am shocked at the
methodology they applied to determine the “reasonable relationship” in the
instant case of Jeffrey Piro. First, they estimate the cost of the required
dedication and infrastructure at $19,000. Next, they estimate the valuation of
the Piro’s proposed private residential improvements at $102,900. They
conclude that since the cost of the improvements is less that 18.5% of the
valuation, this is “reasonably proportionate” and will not “deny an owner
economically viable use of land.” Obviously no denial of the use of the property
exists when Jeffrey Piro already lives in the exiting dwelling on the property, and
since he simply requests a building permit for additions and remodel work.
In Do/an, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the difference between their instant
decision and earlier ‘takings’ cases. In an earlier case, the Court found that “[a]
land use regulation does not effect a taking if it ” substantially advance[s]
legitimate state interests” and does not “den(y] an owner economically viable
use of his land.” Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260, 100 SCt. 2138, 2141, 65
L.Ed.2d 106 (1980). This appears similar to the analysis and conclusion
performed by the City in the case of Jeffrey Piro.
In Do/an, the current Court observed that:
the sort of land use regulations discussed in the cases just
cited, however, differ in two relevant particulars from the present
case. First, they involved essentially legislative determinations
classifying entire areas of the city, whereas here the city made an
adjudicative decision to condition petitioner’s application for a
building permit on an individual parcel. Second, the conditions
imposed were not simply a limitation on the use petitioner might
make of her own parcel, but a requirement that she deed portions
of the property to the city. In Nollan, supra, we held that
governmental authority to exact such a condition was
circumscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Under the
well-settled doctrine of ” unconstitutional conditions,” the
government may not require a person to give up a constitutional
right-here the right to receive just compensation when property is
taken for a public use-in exchange for a discretionary benefit
conferred by the government where the property sought-has little or
no relationship to the benefit. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S.
. Gary Piro
Chapter 18.40, City of Carlsbad
September 23, 1999
Page 4 of 7
593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Pickering v. Board of
Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 SCt.
1731, 1734, 20 L. Ed.2d 811 (1968).”
David Callies, commenting on Do/an in Land Use & Environment Forum, ‘Rough
Proportionality” Do/an v. City of ‘Tigat-d: One Year Later, Spring 1995, page 81,
explained the significance of this decision to local government:
“For local governments, the message is clear: exactions,
particularly those of the land dedication variety, must clearly and
unequivocally solve problems generated by the landowner on
whom they are levied, and must be in proportion to the projected
impact of the proposed development. . . . Even when a nexus
exists between a development’s impact and government imposed
conditions, any exaction must also be allocated so that it is
proportional to the impact of a given development.”
Callies next asks:
“How Can Local Government Meet the Dolan Test?
l Develop defensible “quantification” measures.
l Ensure that the land use decision making process is uniform and
not ad hoc. .
l Carefully set forth the nexus between needs that will be generated
by the development and the exactions and conditions imposed to
meet those needs.
l Err on the side of reducing the developer’s contribution and relying
on other sources of funding for required impositions.
l If there is a shortfall between needed facilities and what can legally
be charged to a development, consider negotiating a development
agreement to provided the needed facilities.
Kenneth B. Bley, also writing in Land Use & Environment Forum. “Rough
Proportionality” Do/an; Ramifications for Developers. Spring 1995, page 85.
also provides an opinion of Do/an that finds that:
“Under Do/an, municipalities will be required to determine
the extent of the increased-traffic that will result from a new
.
/ , I a
Gary Piro
Chapter 18.40, City of Carlsbad
September 23, 1999
Page 5 of 7
development, and compare this increase to existing and future
traffic without the development. Once a local government has
established the percentage of increase, it will be justified in
imposing a condition requiring that the new development mitigate
this proportionate impact.”
I‘
, . . . . . .
“Under Dolan . the extent of a street dedication
requirement must be measured against the impact projected to
result from the new development. Local ordinances that impose
general dedication requirements for certain types of new
developments may no longer be valid.”
I believe that Chapter 18.40 dedication and improvement conditions as applied
to Jeffrey Piro is open to challenge and the courts may declare it
unconstitutional under Dolan. In my opinion, the City not only fails to establish
how a patio and room addition and a kitchen remodel on an existing house can
create the increase traffic demand to justify requiring the dedication and new
street improvements worth $19,000 as a condition of a building permit, they do
not even address the issue.
l Unconstitutional Delegation of Legislative Authority:
Chapter 18.40 delegates discretionary authority to the city manager, and
perhaps to the building official, that affects dedication and improvement
impositions conditioned on certain building permits. I suspect that this
discretionary authority is so excessive and vague in application that it could
constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to administrators
to make law rather than implement law.
The California Supreme Court summarized their opinion of unconstitutional
delegation of legislative authority in Aqnew v. Citv of Culver Citv, (1967) 304
P.2d 788, (147 C.A.2d 144):
“Where an ordinance commits its application to municipal officials,
it should set up a uniform standard or rule of conduct.
Regulations prescribed by ordinance must be clear, definite, and
specific in their application and operation, and their application
may not be left to the caprice of enforcement officers. A
delegation by a municipality of a power giving an administrative
officer uncontrolled discretion constitutes a delegation of legislative
power. An attempted delegation of power to an officer of a
Gary Piro
Chapter 18.40, City of Carlsbad
September 23, 1999
Page 6 of 7
municipality, where no standards are established by which the
officer shall be governed in his actions, is in effect an ‘attempted
delegation to such officer to enact a law. . A municipal
legislative body has no power to delegate to an administrative
board or officer its exclusive power and function of determining
what acts or omissions on the part of an individual are unlawful,
and the distinction between the legislative and administrative
function must be recognized and enforced. . . . The legislative
body of a municipality may commit to an administrative officer the
power to determine whether the facts of a particular case bring it
within a rule or standard previously established by the legislative
body for his guidance.”
With Agnew in mind, I shall apply my interpretation of Chapter 18.40 to the
nature of this allegation as follows:
First, building permit valuation is the trigger setting off the requirements imposed
under Chapter 18.40. When the valuation of a building permit exceeds a certain
threshold, then the city manager can impose dedication requirements and when
it exceeds arlother higher amount, he can impose infrastructure improvements
requirements. Who establishes-the valuation of the building permit? We
assume that the building department staff calculates the valuation of the building
permit based upon a formula or table. Where does the formula or table come
from? Who created the valuation data used in the table? Did the city council
delegate the authority over to the building official to determine valuation? Did
the valuation data come from an outside source such as ICBO or one of the local
ICBO chapters? Does the governing body adopt the valuation data by
legislative action?
Excessive valuation can lead to unjust impositions of the dedication and
improvement requirements. Our experience on this matter leads us to the
conclusion that most of the valuation data we have reviewed in other
jurisdictions far exceeds the reasonable cost to build’. We have seen examples
where the building department valuation for new residential construction ranges
in the mid $70.00~ per square foot. The actual builder cost ranges in the high
$30.00~ per square foot. Each project is different, therefore valuation tends to
reflect averages. A building permit issued with a valuation over $10,000 could
actually cost around $6,000 to build. In the example of Jeffrey Piro, his actual
cost of construction could be less than the $50.000 threshold. and the imposition
’ The valuation tables published by Marshall and Swift tends to reflect reasonable cost, however,
and we consider those tables an exception to our findings.
Gary Piro
Chapter 18.40, City of Carlsbad
September 23, 1999
Page 7 of 7
of over $17,000 in public improvements unjust judged by the standards set in the
Agenda Bill.
Second, Chapter 18.40 vests the city manager with the authority to determine
when to apply the requirements of dedications and improvements one the
building department established that the valuation of the project exceeds one of
the two benchmarks. Chapter 18.40 also vests the city manager with the
authority to execute contracts and deferrals of requirements imposed.
Chapter 18.40 provides that the improvements shall be designed to meet the city,
standards. Chapter 18.40 also outlines a process or procedure for the city
manager to follow once he makes the determination to require public
improvements. These processes or procedures are ministerial in nature,
whereas the original determination by the city manager is discretionary. Chapter
18.40 does not provide the city manager with any criteria or standard to guide
the city manager in making any significant determination to impose the
requirements on someone except the building permit valuation benchmarks.
The lack of guidance from the governing body leaves plenty of room for arbitrary
and capricious determinations by the city manager. Political pressures from
influential individuals and neighborhoods can affect the city manager’s
determinations as to the impositions of the requirements leading to potential
equal protection challenges from affected parties.
Public Record Reauest
For me to continue my study, I need certain documents relating to the
allegations above. I will put a list of documents together for you to request if you
wish me to proceed.
I spoke with Walter McNeil1 yesterday,afternoon. He indicated that he had
placed a call to you now that you have returned from vacation. I suggest that
you refer to him or another attorney concerning any questions of law resulting
from my analysis.
Call me if you have any questions or comments on the above summaries.
Sincerely,
Morgan Keith
Consultant
C
COURTNEY ANN COYLE
ATORNEY AT LAW
HELD-PALMER HOUSE
I609 SOLEDAD AVENUE
la JOLLY. CA USA 92037-38 I7
TELEPHONE: 858-454-8687 E-MAIL: COURTCOYL@AOL.COM FACSIMILE: 858-454-8493
Mr. Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager
City ofcarlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008 October 15, 1999
Re: Public Records Act Request, City of Carlsbad, Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Patchett:
On behalf of my client, Citizens for the Preservation of Old Carlsbad (“C.P.O.C.“), this
letter is to request records believed to be in the possession of the City of Carlsbad for the purpose
of inspection and copying pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code
section 6250 et. seq.
The information that we ask to inspect is as follows:
0 all CEQA documentation regarding city-initiated tree removal for
removals in the city right-of-way completed in the past four years;
0 all CEQA documentation regarding proposed city-initiated tree removals
in the city right-of-way;
0 all engineering documentation regarding city-initiated tree removal for
removals in the city right-of-way completed in the past four years;
l all engineering documentation regarding proposed city-initiated tree
removals in the city right-of-way;
. and the project description as well as the project termini for such
“improvements.”
Requested information includes, but is not limited to: environmental documents,
environmental studies/surveys, technical studies. environment&l exemptions, writings, maps,
renderings, photographs, audio and/or videotapes on the described subjects. Requested
information relates. but is not limited to. proposed, ongoing, or completed tree removal.
streetscape improvements and road maintenance projects in the following locations in the City of
Carlsbad: James Drive: Jeanne Place; Tamarack Avenue; Donna Drive; Janis Way; Seacrest
Drive; Chestnut Avenue: Charleen Circle and the area commonly known as Olde Carlsbad.
We also request to inspect the following public records:
0 all writings and CEQA documentation regarding the enactment and
implementation of Chapter 18.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
entitled “Dedications and Improvements;”
l all documents relating to cumulative urban runoff impacts resulting from
city-initiated tree removal and implementation of Chapter 18.40;
0 all documents relating to compliance or noncompliance of said
“improvements” with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
This request reasonably describes identifiable records or information produced therefrom,
and we believe that there exists no express provision of law exempting the records from
disclosure.
Pursuant to Government Code section 6257. we ask that you make the records promptly
available to us. Please provide us with a reasonable cost estimate for the copying of the requested
records before copying. We appreciate your anticipated compliance with the Act’s ten-day
response window.
Very truly yours,
Courtney Ann Coyle
Attorney at Law
/ cc: client file
Eva Shaw, PhD-
1758 Yourell Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 729-1326 - evashaw@concentric.net
September 29, 1999
Mayor Bud Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
AGENDA ITEM #
c: Mayor
city council
City Manager
City Attorney
city clerk
Dear Mayor Lewis:
-
Although we were unable to attend the City Council
meeting last evening and share our thoughts about the
unneeded street improvements, I wanted to thank you and
the council for being receptive to residents' and
voters' concerns. All of the Shaws (three registered
voters in this family) are gravely concerned about the
future of Olde Carlsbad. We like the tree-lined
streets, the quiet atmosphere, the un-sidewalked lanes
and we want to see this quality of life maintained.
As one of the speakers said as I watched the
proceedings on cable, "This is why we've moved to the
older part of town." I'd like to add: If we wanted all
the ‘modern improvements" we would be living in a
subdivision with all those look-alike homes.
Please consider wisely your decision affecting our
quiet streets and tree-lined family neighborhoods. A
lot of people are counting on your wisdom.
g;.
, Ph.D.
,’
AGENDA ITEM # m hhlqu$/ ccc cI-2m
Mayor
City Council @By Manager City Attorney Ciiy Clerk
Evan Hueners
2082 Lee ct.
Carlsbad, CA
9127199
Mayor Bud Lewis
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Dear Mayor Lewis,
As a 17-year resident of Carlsbad, I am concerned about the city policy
regarding the mandatory widening of streets, and the removal of street-side trees. I
believe and feel strongly that this will severely damage the aesthetic charm of
“Olde Carlsbad”. We selected Carlsbad as a place to live and raise our family,
because of it’s “Village by the Sea” ambience. It is a shame to see the city’s
fathers abandon the principles that have made this a great place to live. And as a
citizen of this great city, I would appreciate a response from your office regarding
your position on this issue.
AGENDA ITEM # rO
C: Miiy0r
City Council City Manager City Attorney
City Clerk
Sincerely,
Evan Hueners
- -
Mayor Bud Lewis
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad , Cal 92008
AGENDA ITEM # 10
c: Mayos- city Cowcii
CiZy Maaager
City Atioxaey
City CrePti
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I did not speak at the council meeting on Sept. 28 regarding the street improvements
issue but I attended and listened throughout and I felt from questions asked by the
council that safefy and liability are main concerns. Addressing that issue, Mr.
Gallagher mentioned alternatives to cement sidewalks and curbs. I think trail type
walkways would serve as well and prevent run off. A further alternative for Crest Dr. at
least, would be a one way street. Lefty Anear said you can’t see on narrow tree lined
streets. Paradoxically, that may be one reason why they are safer. Drivers slow down
because there is a perception that there may be hidden dangers. On wide streets,
drivers have the sometimes false perception that they can see everything. Mr. Anear’s
point about streets needing to be wide enough for emergency vehicles is certainly
valid. On Crest Dr. we have occasional visits from emergency vehicles to a residence
for elderly ladies. None have experienced difficulty. The only obstacle to even larger
emergency vehicles getting through are the telephone poles at each end of Crest Dr.
Undergrounding those poles would obviate the need to widen the street.
One’s home is not only a place of emotional attachment and security, but for most
people their largest, maybe only financial investment. Future Improvement
Agreements therefore, seem particularly unfair. The expense of street improvements
is a burden most of us can ill afford. It is certainly not in the city’s interest to have parts
of Carlsbad become run down because people cannot afford home improvements and
street improvements.
Mrs. Finila seemed to feel that we did not understand the history and reasons for the
policies we have. I feel we have done research that shows the assumptions made for
our current policies are not completely up to date. We are willing to be educated but it
is hard for me to believe that the unfairness of the current policy can be justified.
Some of us have been frustrated by inconsistencies and delays in our current policies,
so we wanted the chance to be heard and appeal to your sense of reason and justice.
We hope it won’t be another 15 years until Carlsbad has a logical, fair street
improvements policy that takes into~account the differences in our neighborhoods.
Sincerely, ’ ,
TM* an Suffredini
ab=xf=st Dr.
October 12, 1999
Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Dear Mayor and Council,
We would like our name to be among the many who support Leaving Highland Ave. alone - among the others....It would be criminal to cut down all the trees on Highland Ave...and pave it over....
When we came to Carlsbad nearly 50 years ago, that was the one street that stood out and was so beautiful....and after living here that long, we still think that is true!
Please consider Olde Carlsbad as something Special and do the Will of the People . . ..that is why we continue to live here.
We also agree with the many who would like the ugly overhead wires and poles done away with... .the way it is going now, we will be dead before we have underground wiring!!! Could
there possibly be another way to have it done faster? We pay for other peoples sewers, why not have it on the tax bill and everyone pay some each year toward doing away with over head wires.
Thanks for listening!!
Respectfully,
9wvF-+a
ENDAIlEM# jr)
Donna and Bill Gardner
3450 Woodland $Way
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
729-1016
c: Mayor
city council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk
/ Councii Internet Email - CITY OF CARL-D 1 CONTACT US rl Page 1
From:
To: Date:
Subject:
<jwz@compuserve.com>
<CounciI@Xi.carlsbad.ca.us>
Mon, Octl8, 1999 9:31 AM
CITY OF CARLSBAD j CONTACT US
AGENDA ITEM # /n
a Mayor
City C~J~CU
A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the
“Contact Us” form to department, City Council. Below,
please find the information that was submitted:
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
first-name: John
last-name: Zimmerer
address: 2890 Highland Dr.
city: Carlsbad
state: CA
zip: 92008
country: USA
email: jwz@compuserve.com
comments: Although I’m not going to be able to attend Tuesday’s council meeting with regards to
sidewalks/street widening in “Olde Carlsbad”, I want express my concern that we retain the rustic nature
of this part of Carlsbad of which I am a resident and homeowner. Please don’t “Pave Paradise” and don’t
fix what’s not broken.
Respectfully,
John W. Zimmerer
User details:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98) /web browser
sfr-tgn-sfx-vty7.as.wcom.net I hostname
216.192.42.7 / ip address
- 0ct 16. mm
4 . w '. IO Tfl: Mavor rrBt~d" T*eti s and Members of the Citv Collncil
R?nM : Gjrard WI. Anear. 77k? #kL TTista Campana Sn, Oreanside- CA 92057
(7601 757-t776lr
SURJECT: Strept TmBrovements in (Oldr Carlshad
Dear Fripnds:
Several wf?pkp nao T tank t.he hns from v&pro T -live t.n a.tfPnd i-he
counpi 1 mpetine‘ nn t.hp ahove SUhiept-.. Tt t.oob nnp hour tn arri 77~ and
two hours to return) Pi ve mi 1~s Pgrh mrav! After aryixring T l;st.~n~rl
to the fnrtv min1lt.P nresPnt,ati nn plus othe ?- inr3-i vi r3ual.s ,snPaki r-178 in
favor nf fhe norpnsal. Vprv. vprv li tt.1 e of thP formal prPs0nt.a-C nn was
fzlctual ! T knnw 170~ are int.~~li~ent. PnnuEh to real? 7.~3 this Tf vnu
haTTen?t a1raadv done so T ,strnnPlv silcgest vnu recpiT~c? as 3 rninimllm.
staff re-onrts from the fol loti nt? memhern ansarpri np nerti nent nllesti on,?
nPrf&na. to their fi e].d nf evperti .sd post. safetv& nepati IT@ pffprt
on effi r; enrv nf +.h4 r sPDgrtrnPn.tc onerations, leml 1-i ahili tv of the
ci tv. etc;
1 . Vtv R-i sk manager
3, mre Chief
3- Police nf Chi Pf
Lr. Traffir Safety Enmineer
5. Citv T;lnpinPev/Puh!ic Wnrks Director/Street Ma?ntenanrP SuDer-
in+.endent.
6. City BuildinP Director
7. Finance Dirertor
8. City's Insurer for lsiability lnd posqihle increased costs.
9, School SuDerintendent regardinp safetv of school childrem. AumR+SS@S u A major consi-deration that must be,,accesn for nolice and fire
eauipment when not if rrosp C-rove catches on fire. The entire nnrthwect
corner of theitv will bG a critical fire exx)osure( Remember the Harmony
Grove fire? T DrcdJcted that fire and the results 15 vearr= before 3-t
happened!
Remember a few vears ape: People obiected to the extension
north of Monroe to Marron and the EI. Camino Mall ShnpDine: Center: Ditto
"HOT" Hands Off Tamarack the extension east of Tamarack and later Elm
Avenue, (Now Carlsbad Village Dr.)-
What would the city's fraffir Droblems bo if the citv council had
liptennd to "the people don't want it!". T could ao on and on6 At
the previous ment7'oned council mpetinrr Droaonents mentionorl De1 Mar
-?-
. . -- . and Ranchn Santa Fe 6s e-zarnDl@s nf I1des-i reabl elf ,larrnw mande+ np st.reets.
Thnse t.rrrn towns are about as mnnd exnmnles as T ran imagine for not ha+ ncr
narrnar ari ndJ; no -t.rPet.s! T am 77~3-7 fa-6 1; ar with Ranchn Sant.a F’F)
sfref?t. c .cprvina as a iiirer.t,or on a Grpnfpr Ra-rho S2nt.a Pe PAC cornmj tt,pe.
and mv son owns = home t-here. Del Mar maw lnnk auai-t. but C--nm ;) t.rafffi p
safetv vi ew Doi nt the ri tv i s a n+ P’htmarp. Ask the 1nr.d fi ye r.hi efs-
of th@ ghpr< ffs deX)artment. ronrerninrr those twn tnw-n- T haT?e!
Spvpral oth-r thinrrs t.n rPmPmher: The averaee Dersnn on1-q lirrps
in h<s/her hnme 7 vpars F,;trh house ppnpratoc 10 t.raffi r trips DPY iinv-
Thp area.5 inxrol VP+ are fnr all Dract-i pal purnosos hrli7 t nut. -
When T lived in Sherman O&s. ;? vnung hov qnin(r t.o myarnmer schnnl
was struck and killed hv a car while walkin to schnol alone side nf a
narrnw 2 3 anp ct-reet. t.hat had -0: thpr rurbs or si dowal ks - To thi-s dav
T rnmember he;3rinp the tlthu~nll whe- the ca- ,~;t-w.rk him, callinn 911
and trving to render 1st aid to a dyirw bnvr
T-act z-cl mc\st importnrt 1 Ynu ra--Ii-, pamhle with Dubli r Cafet.TT.
narti rularily invol@ n- Phil ilrPn!s safotv!
AGENDA ITEM # 10
C: bkqQ.#~~
CT?! C~JoMl~cil
@. ::s Manager
C4Ej At?orney
my md-l4
October 15, 1999
AGER ?lml# p-l
Honorable Bud Lewis, Mayor
City Council, City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
c: tiiiq%A~ cI*-, ;ouncij
C.LJ Manager
CCy Attorney
Ci:y Clerk
Mr. Lewis, when we decided to move from Aspen, Colorado to San Diego in 1988, the first
thing we told our Real Estate agent we did not want was a house in a “project”. By that we
meant where all the houses looked similar and you had to read the street signs to know where
you were because the bare streets were so similar with their sidewalks and landscaping that
would mature in twenty years.
He told us about the old village area of Carlsbad, where the feel of its winding streets edged
with beautiful old trees was as scenic as La Jolla or Del Mar. We would be able to get a nice
house with a large yard, but unlike those two areas, still at a more reasonable price.
We have lived here on Highland Drive for eleven years. We have never heard, in all these
years, that anyone thought that narrow, sometimes winding, tree lined streets were a hazard to
anyone. Cars and buses go much slower on this type of street, just because it is more relaxing
and enjoyable that careening down a wide, straight thoroughfare with only telephone poles to
look at. In fact, everyone who comes to visit us comments about how beautiful Highland Drive
is with all the impressive, large trees.
Now we find out the city wants to cut down all the beautiful old trees so that they can widen the
street and put in sidewalks on Highland Drive. Do we have to move again to a less expensive
neighborhood where a city does not have enough money to spoil it? Or to a smaller house with
no yard in a much more expensive neighborhood where they know how to keep the streets
pleasant?
Is this is a problem of the city being afraid of being sued by people injured on beautiful, old
streets? Does the city feel it has to take care of any and all problems just in case? Are there
any statistics proving that there are more accidents or more suits filed from accidents on such
streets?
Could we homeowners, as citizens of Carlsbad, help the city planners find another solution?
“Historical Designation” for some streets, perhaps? Maybe enforce speed limits? There must
be a less drastic way to handle this before irreparable damage is done.
Carlsbad’s large trees are a very special resource that characterizes much of the positive,
memorable qualities of Carlsbad. What would the Village be without the beautiful old trees?
ad be without the old trees? When the trees go, there goes the
Linda M. Simpkins
92008 Phone: 760 720 9430
10-19-1999 10:3dAM FROM - P. 2
October 19,1999
AGENDA ITEM # ID
C: Mayor
City Council
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
WY Manager CiaY AtIo~~ey City @Perk
RE: Tree / Street Width Report / AB#l5.446
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I have read with great interest staff’s report and recommended action regarding
concerns of citizens for the presentation of Olde Carlsbad. I am in complete support of staffs position regarding this delicate issue. I feel they have made an
honest and sincere examination of all the issues and I fully support their recommendation to appoint a citizen’s advisory committee to review the City’s
sidewalk program and evaluate it’s standards, priorities, etc.
If council is so inclined I would offer to sew8 on suCtr a committee. If the council
would consider my development, citizen participation and personal experience of
benefit to the City and the community in the solving of this natty problem I would
b8 happy to participate.
Sincerely,
MSK DEVELOPMENT GROUP
J.A. Gallagher 1 s
President
co. Ray Patchett - City Manager
Sent Via Fax to (760) 720-9461
FIleEorbbMl111WQhhyor U%md
5142 Avcnitlrr Eneiuw+, Co&bad, CA 92008 (760) 93 I-2785 Fax (760) 93 l-2784
-
I -- _ 4055 PARK f -WE l CARLSBAD, CALI. JRNIA l 92008
PHONE: (760) 729-6085 l llwickham@ucsd.edu
AGENDA ITEM # 10
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 12,1999
a Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
city clerk
Dear City Council Members:
I would like to commend the Carlsbad City Police Department for efficiently and effectively
mitigating traffic violations on our street during the past few years. Unfortunately, they do not have the time
or resources to be present on our street every day. My vote goes for increasing fixnds allocated to the
police trafEc &v&ion thereby enabLing them to enforce the current traffic safety laws in our area
I wrote to the City Planning Offices’ Traffic Division three years ago regarding the problem of
speeding on our street. The response I received was to raise money from residents to pay for additional
street widening and sidewalk installation*. I replied to that letter with another, stating my opinion that the
speeding problems we currently have are caused by the street improvements, which have been made on
Park Drive south of our block. After making these, “improvements”, the speed limit in that area was raised
despite its’ residential status. Furthermore, the widening and speed limit increase of Tamarack also contribute
to speeding on, not only Park, but also other perpendicular streets such as Highland, Skyline, and Hillside. I
oppose this ironic “solution” which I find in complete contradiction to its’ purported function.
This brings me to the Citizens for Preserving Olde Carlsbad (CPOC). I was happy to see many
individuals who value our shady, pleasant, tree-lined avenues. The common sense behind this action seems
obvious to me. We are not only concerned for the preservation of our monetary investment and the quiet
enjoyment of our property, but also the functioning of the community. I have many times watched the
schoolchildren cross the street, leaving the sidewalk to walk on dirt or gravel under trees. They are looking
for a cool escape from the busy street, instinctively seeking out the large tree-lined areas. Some people just
like trees and the wildlife they support. However, I believe those trees, other plants, and non-hardscape areas
such as dirt and gravel paths, are efficient and inexpensive means for mitigating heat, drought, and pedestrian
and auto transit problems. Green areas often slow drivers who may pause to view these esthetically pleasing
areas.
I would like to suggest that the city fund speed deterrents rather than street improvements that the
residents neither want, nor view as effective. The city has a precedent for using speed deterrent devices in the
form of graded pavement in areas where motorists should slow. An example is the convergence of La
Flores and Highland Avenue where there are a series of parallel lines cut into the asphalt. These cuts cause
auto tires to vibrate thus making noise which usually compels the driver to slow their speed. This speed
deterrent is safe, inexpensive, and does not impair the ability of emergency vehicles to pass at higher speeds
if necessary. I would Like to see these graded deterrents in the 4UOO block of Park D&e.
Please feel free to contact me via telephone or email should you require any further clarification or
advocating of these requests.
L. L. Wickham
* Park Drive has been partially widened at least twice since -1970 according to neighbors.
+
I
.T-. L 4055 PARK C-WE l CARLSBAD, CALL-JRNIA l 92008 I PHONE: (760) 729-6085 l Ilwickham@ucsd.edu
October 12,1999
Carlsbad City Council
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 G&bad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: City Sidewalk Project No.6 [CDP 99-291
Dear Carlsbad City Council:
My neighbors and I have met with city representatives in order to review and make suggestions
to the current plan for street improvements on Park Drive. I was surprised and disappointed at the last
planning commission meeting to hear city representatives report that the residents of Park Drive are “in
favor of the street improvements and happy to have their trees removed”. Because of this statement,
the project plan was approved without revision. I would like the City Council to take revisions to this
project under consideration.
Every ne&hbor on my sEteet has told me that they are opposed to the inconvemknce
and cost of this project, and that they do not want theit trees removed. The plan calls for
widening the street to 40 feet, installing six feet of sidewalk, curb, and gutter. I oppose widening the
street at all. I stated in my earlier correspondence to the City Council that I believe these type of
improvements have caused the speeding problems we are currently working to alleviate on this street
and others throughout the city*. Excessive speed and loss of control cause most accidents. I also
oppose taking out the street trees that provide shade, shelter, noise abatement, beauty and property
value to our parcels. The school children and other pedestrians for whom this sidewalk is to be aid of,
like to walk under these trees. In my opinion, the sidewalk funds should be used to mitigate speed limit
violations. Increased funding to the police department for surveillance and increasing the citation fees if
necessary could accomplish this. Additionally, cutting grooved areas in the asphalt along the areas that
require slowing for safety would be effective. Dirt or gravel paths can provide pedestrian and
wheelchair access without erosion, loss of incident rainwater, or costly and inconvenient construction of
hardscape. City ordinances with respect to trees and other plants could be expensive and difficult to
enforce; I am not in favor of them. Residents should be able to maintain trees and landscaping or hire a
consultant to do so. Ordinances dictating plant type and size would restrict individuality. This may
result in petty squabbles among neighbors using city time and dollars as “pawns”.
Allowing residents the choice and some responsibilities for modified street improvement and
enhancement might serve as a mutually satisfactory solution for both the city and the property owners.
This type of synergy between two currently opposing factions may save money while making everyone
happy. sillc Ic?!zsP CL-- . . i am
* Park Drive has been partially widened at least twice since -1970 according to neighbors.
arisbad Unified School District
801 Pine Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008
w (760) 729-9291 l FAX (760) 729-9685 . . . a world c/ass district
October 19, 1999 All Receive-Agenda Item #A,
Mr. Ray Patchett, City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
For the InforlIWb Of h
Date lb d@ity Manage
Dear Ray,
The current initiative by the City of Carlsbad proposing the installation of additional sidewalks throughout the
city has a positive bearing on the safety of children at several school sites. At school locations where safety is a
concern due to the lack of sidewalks, Carlsbad Unified School District endorses the City’s initiative.
The safety of children at Buena Vista Elementary School, Valley Middle School, and Carlsbad High School can
be enhanced by the installation of sidewalks at the following locations and for the following reasons:
l Buena Vista Way- of Buena Vista Elemen.. SCM. During drop off and pick up times, children
often dart between cars that are arriving, parked and leaving the site. Installation of a sidewalk would
significantly reduce this hazard to children.
0 orth Side of Magnolia Street in Front of Valley Middle School. A significant number of children 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 installation of a sidewalk and a crosswalk would provide for the
control necessary to reduce this hazard.
l North e of Basswood Street Adjacent to Carlsbad &gb School. 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 has required students to park farther from the school and many choose to walk down Basswood to
enter and leave the campus. Again, the associated safety hazard to children can be reduced by installing 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 to children is deeply
appreciated. If proactive measures are not taken now to install sidewalks with our increasing student numbers,
it may exacerbate an already serious safety situation.
Thank you for your support and consideration in this matter.
Cheryl Ernst, Superintendent
Carlsbad Unified School District
cc: Frank Mannen, Assistant City Manager
Bob Johnson, Engineering Department
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
October 19, 1999
TO: MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: EILEEN CARTY
P.O. BOX 1630
730-7345
AGENDA ITEM # IO
c: Mayor cay Cowlcll
City Manager City Attorney City Clerk
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM #IO
Ms. Carty called the City Council Office regarding Council’s consideration of this item.
She first mentioned that she is disabled due to a car accident and was not able to
attend the meeting when this item was discussed, but did watch it on television. She
stated her displeasure that one of the Council Members tried to discount the petition
she signed saying that people sign petitions all the time and don’t really know what they
are about. She said she absolutely knew what she was signing and was offended by
this comment. She mentioned that people have paid a lot of money to live in this area
and she has lived in other areas where people pay even more to have trees, etc.
She also mentioned that the accident that caused her disability was on a paved,
straight-away street with sidewalks, so she doesn’t necessarily believe that paving
roads and putting in sidewalks makes it any safer. Also mentioned that maybe we
shouldn’t be so concerned about getting sued, but rather should help to keep people’s
quality of life as they prefer it.
She highly supports CPOC’s efforts and feels we need even more trees planted in the
City (i.e., at the Split Pavilion site). She stressed that she wants her opinion counted
and again stated that she knew exactly what she was signing. She would be happy to
talk to any of the Council if you would like more information.
TELEPHONE MESSAGE
October 19, 1999 AGENDA ITEM # In
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
JANE CIMOLINO
a Mayor City Council
C&y Manager
crzy Atiorney
Ctty Clerk
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM #IO
Mrs. Cimolino called to thank the Council for considering all the facets of the tree/street
widening issue. She is a 75-year old retired teacher who walks regularly and wishes
there were sidewalks in her neighborhood (she lives on Sunrise Circle). She also
mentioned she has been a resident since 1966. Feels it isn’t very safe for people to
walk without sidewalks.
. 18/19/1999 15:49 61958F-35 EHL BECK - . . .._ - ,.
.
PAGE 82
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dedicated to Ecosysten~ Rotection and ZmprowZ Land Use Planning
DanSilver . Coordimtor
8424-A Santa h4onica Blvd.. #S92 Lo6Angeles, CA 9aw-4267
L 323454-1456 l FAX 323454-1931
October 19.1999 AGENDA ITEM # 10
Mayor Bud Lewis and Council
City of Carl&ad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: M: citlmts for the Pmervn tion of Olde Catbbad
Dear Mayor Lewis and coukl,
Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk
The Endangered Habitats League wishes to offer our support, along with countless other community voices, for the proposal before you regarding the establishment of a special overlay zone that would preclude the widening of city streets without public notice.
This issue has taken on the proportions that it has because of the valid concern that the public has over the continuing loss of community character and quality of life in Carl&ad and the northcounty.
Infhwtructure doesn’t have to be cold and hard and straight and wide. Narrow winding tree
lined roads can and should be an essential aesthetic component of livable communities. Road
standards and land use policies can easily produce results that integrate aesthetics with technical needs--ifthe political will is there.
Fticmore, study after study demonstrates that widened and straightened roads are significantly more dangerous than narrow and winding roads. But numbers aren’t needed to make the point. It makes intuitive sense that safety decreases with the high spwds encouraged by making a surf&e street mimic an expressway.
It seems a bit odd to have to argue fhr such an intuitively obvious proposal that is validated by intuition and experience. We hope that you see this as a planning opportunity, and will support the proposal by the citizens of Olde Carl&ad on this very important issue.
Michael Beck San Diego Director
October 19, 1999
Mr. Gary Piro
2641 Valewood Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Piro:
I have received a copy of your letter requesting that the City “respond in writing to all of the
legal questions which we have presented in this letter and the attached letters from Walter
McNeil and Morgan Keith as well as the request for environmental documents presented to you
in separate letter by Courtney Coyle.”
In view of the legal questions raised in your letter, I have referred your letter along with the
letters from Walter P. McNeil1 and the Paladin Group to our City Attorney for response.
I am attaching a copy of my letter to Courtney Ann Coyle, Attorney at Law, which addresses her
request regarding the Public Records Act.
Should you need any additional information, please feel free to call me, or the Public Works
Director, Lloyd Hubbs, or our Planning Director, Michael Holzmiller. Thank you for your
interest in our community. -
City Manager
RP/ch
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Lewis
Council Members
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municrpal Code 12.04.080
Chapter 12.04 12.04.030 Permit Required.
SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
AND REPAIR*
No sidewalk or walkway shall be constructed
without a permit therefor issued by the Director of
Public Works. (Ord. 85-37 Q 1,1985; Ord. 318 C.S.
9 1, 1974; Code 1975 0 1214.02).
Sections:
12.04.0 10
12.04.020
12.04.030
12.04.040
12.04.050
12.04.060
12.04.070
12.04.080
12.04.090
12.04.100
12.04.110
12.04.120
12.04.130
12.04.140
12.04.150
12.04.160
General.
Definitions.
Permit Required.
Cost of Construction.
Sidewalks in the Commercial Districts.
Open Space Requirements -
Commercial Districts.
Footpaths.
Residential Sidewalk Construction.
Open Space and Design Standards -
Residential Sidewalks.
Maintenance and Repair of Sidewalk
Area.
Notice to Repair.
Liability for Damages.
Repair by City.
Assessment by City.
Illegal Acts.
Abatement of Illegal Work.
* For statutory provisions on the construction of sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, see Streets and Highways Code $5870
et seq.; for provisions on maintenance of sidewalks, see
Streets and Highways Code 9 5600 et seq.
12.04.010 General.
While the need for sidewalks in the majority of
the commercial districts is recognized, it shall con-
tinue to be the policy of the City to avoid formal
sidewalks in favor of meandering and unpaved
footpaths where possible. (Ord. 85-37 Q 1, 1985;
Ord. 318 C.S. 0 1, 1974; Code 1975 3 1214.0).
12.04.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this code, the following def-
initions shall apply:
A. “Footpath” means unpaved, unimproved
pathway used by pedestrians, in which no artificial
grading or material has been used.
B. “Walkway” means a graded and cleared
pathway, surfaced with semipermanent materials,
other than paving.
C. ‘Work” means whatever is done, whether
with or without a permit. (Ord. 85-37 0 1, 1985;
Grd. 318 C.S. 0 1, 1974; Code 1975 $ 1214.01).
12.04.040 Cost of Construction.
The cost of construction of sidewalks, curbs and
gutters shall be borne by the owner of the adjacent
property, unless otherwise determined by the City
Council. (Ord. 85-37 $ 1, 1985; Ord. 318 C.S. $ 1,
1974; Code 1975 $ 1214.03).
12.04.050 Sidewalks in the Commercial
Districts.
No sidewalk or walkway shall be constructed in
the commercial districts without a permit therefor
from the Director of Public Works. Prior to the
issuance of a permit, the Planning Commission, as
part of the design review process, will determine
the type of material to be used. In the absence of
Planning Commission review, the City Adminis-
trator, in conjunction with the Director of Commu-
nity Planning and Building, will determine the type
of material. Such permit shall specify the type of
material, the permitted area of coverage, type and
materials of curb, if any, and size and type of
planted areas. All sidewalks and walkways in the
commercial districts shall be constructed to the
established grade, unless otherwise permitted by
action of the City Council. (Ord. 85-37 5 1, 1985;
Ord. 318 C.S. 0 1, 1974; Code 1975 Q 1215.0).
12.04.060 Open Space Requirement+-
Commercial Districts.
Not less than 25 percent of the sidewalk area in
any bk&%hall be maintained in planting area. Th#
locatiou of such planting areas shall be determined.
by the Director of Public Works, based on the pres-
erva$n of existing trees and the location of strut?
tures, driveways and parking spaces on the street.
(Ord. 85-37 9 1, 1985; Ord. 318 C.S. 0 1, 1974;’
Code 1975 $ 1215.01).
12.04.070 Footpaths.
No footpath shall be improved. (Ord. 85-37 0 1,
1985; Ord. 318 C.S. 0 1, 1974; Code 1975 9
1216.0).
12.04.080 Residential Sidewalk Constructfon.
No sidewalk or walkway shall be constructed in
the residential district without a permit therefor
issued by the City. Such permit shall be grantedg
12-3
12.04.090
only when it is shown that the construction of the
sidewalk ‘or walkway is rmml$d tb $&erve the
public spfety, ,health or Welfare, that it will resols
a serious drainage problem, or that it would other-
wise benefit the general public. If granted, su&
permit shall specify the type of material, the per-
of coverage, the type and materials of
any, and the size and type of planted
a&p. (Ord. 85-37 9 1, 1985; Ord. 318 C.S. 9 1,
19‘74; Code 1975 8 1216.1).
12.04.090 Open Space and Design Standards -
Residential Sidewalks.
Any sidewalk or walkway in the residential area
shall be constructed to follow the natural contours
of the land as closely as possible, in an irregular
and meandering manner. Not less than 50 percent
of the sidewalk area in front of any building site
shall be retained in planting. Grades, if not estab-
lished by law, shall be determined by the Director
of Public Works. (Ord. 85-37 $ 1, 1985; Ord. 318
C.S. 0 1, 1974; Code 1975 9 1216.11).
12.04.100 Maintenance and Repair of
Sidewalk Area.
The owner of the adjacent property is responsi-
ble for and shall be required to maintain the side-
walk area, including the repair or correction of any
hazards or defects, except when the repair is due to
damage from tree roots. (Ord. 85-37 $ 1, 1985;
Ord. 318 C.S. $ 1, 1974; Code 1975 8 1217).
12.04.110 Notice to Repair.
Upon becoming aware of any dangerous or
defective sidewalk or walkway, or other encroach-
ment in the sidewalk area, the Director of Public
Works shall notify, in writing, the person owning
or having control of the property. Such notice shall
be in accordance with regulations set forth in the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califor-
nia and shall direct the repair or correction of the
hazardous or defective condition within 14 days
from date of notice. (Ord. 85-37 5 1, 1985; Ord.
318 C.S. 5 1, 1974; Code 1975 ?J 1217.01).
12.04.120 Liability for Damages.
After receipt of notice as provided for above,
any owner or person responsible for the property
shall become liable for damages suffered to any
person or to the property of any person lawfully
using such sidewalk or walkway, driveway, curb or
gutter, suffered as a result of the dangerous condi-
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code -
tion thereof. (Ord. 85-37 fi 1, 1985; Ord. 318 C.S.
$j 1, 1974; Code 1975 $ 1217.02).
12.04.130 Repair by City.
If the person owning or having charge of the
property adjoining a sidewalk area for which the
Director of Public Works has sent a notice to
repair, as provided for above, fails to repair or
cause to be repaired within 14 days from date of
notice, the defective or dangerous condition in the
sidewalk area shall be repaired or corrected by the
Director of Public Works. (Ord. 85-37 Q 1, 1985;
Ord. 318 C.S. 9 1, 1974; Code 1975 Q 1217.03).
12.04.140 Assessment by City.
Following the repair, as provided for above, the
City Attorney shall take such steps as may become
necessary to assess and collect the costs of such
repair, in the manner provided for in Chapter 22 of
Part 3 of Division 7 (Section 5600 et seq.) of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califor-
nia. (Ord. 85-37 5 1, 1985; Ord. 79-21 $ 34, 1979;
Ord. 318 C.S. Q 1, 1974; Code 1975 9 1217.04).
12.04.150 IIlegal Acts.
It is unlawful for any person to:
A. Construct or maintain any sidewalk, walk-
way, footpath, or other permanent or semiperma-
nent encroachment on City property without first
having obtained a permit therefor as required by
this code.
B. Maintain any sidewalk, walkway, driveway,
curb, gutter, or other permanent or semipermanent
encroachment on City property in a dangerous or
defective condition, or to permit it to become a
hazard to the public.
C. Pave or otherwise cover over any planting
areas as established by any permit granted in this
chapter. (Ord. 85-37 8 1, 1985; Ord. 318 C.S. $ 1,
1974; Code 1975 0 1217.1).
12.04.160 Abatement of Illegal Work.
Anyone violating this chapter by performing
any of the acts prohibited, without first obtaining
an appropriate permit therefor, in addition to all
other penalties which may be assessed for violation
of this code, shall remove the work done without a
permit and restore the property to the condition it
was in prior to the performance of the work. The
removal and restoration shall be at the expense of
the person or persons violating this chapter. Where
the work is done by someone other than the owner
of the adjoining property, at the request of the
Carmel-by-the-Sea Munic,,d Code 12.08.020
owner, both the owner and the person performing
the work shall be deemed to have violated this
chapter and both shall be obligated to remove and
restore. (Ord. 85-37 0 1, 1985; Ord. 318 C.S. 0 1,
1974; Code 1975 9 1217.11).
12-5
- h
from the desk of
Mercedes Martin
3715 Longview Drive, Carfsbad 92008
October 19, ‘1999
Honorabie Mayor and City Councilmembers:
in 1996, the City of Dei Mar adopted what is known as the Camino dei Mar
Streetscape Plan, a master plan to use as a guide to street improvements as
they are made to Camino dei Mar.
This Streetscape Plan was the result of over a year of public input via special
committee workshops, as well as Council workshops.
Some of the Streetscape Plan improvements include:
I.
2.
3.
4.
Narrowing travel lanes (to slow traffic);
Buibing out sidewalks at intersections (to create an illusion of less
passing space for cars, thus slowing traffic, as well as creating a shorter
crossing distance for pedestrians);
Widening street medians and adding more median landscaping (to
beautify the area and to create a wider safe-haven for pedestrians); and
Planting more trees.
The landscape architect and traffic engineer, who worked on the Streetscape
Plan, explained that these features would not only beautify the area, but would
also help slow traffic, and the planting of trees and landscaping would help
concentrate the drivers’ vision “down” the street (thus keeping their eyes on the
road) rather than the drivers’ looking around (site seeing). These features then
would make the streets safer for pedestrians.
I think that Carlsbad needs to consider these types of features to slow traffic,
rather than widen streets so that cars can go faster. Wider streets are
appropriate for arterial commuter streets, but not for neighborhood streets, and
not for the quaint Village area of Carlsbad.
Keep our City unique by keeping our beautiful historic trees. if you want
sidewalks, when appropriate, then build the sidewalks around the large historic
trees. The City understands the importance of trees - it purchased Hosp Grove
a number of years ago. Please remember that. Keep the neighborhood streets
a place where “neighbors” can talk to each other without having to go to the
nearest crosswalk to visit. Keep and protect the quality of life that the residents of
Carisbad moved here to enjoy. in the long run, the uniqueness of the Village
Area, and the “older” part of Carlsbad, will add to the City’s valuation.
October 19,1999
The City of Carlsbad has a duty and an obligation to inform the citizens of changes
to their area in regards to street improvements. This is a request for the following
items:
Location The exact location of the street improvements should be shown to
each owner. This should be done by tape, paint, markers and standards showing the
exact location of where, size and location of where the curbs and street would be.
Cost Each owner should be informed of the exact cost and who and how this will
be paid for. What will the City pay for the street cost?
Value The City should show and prove to the owners of the property what the
improvements will do to their property value. Two independent appraisals should
be required at the Cities expense. The City should consider compensation to the
owner ifthe value is lowered.
Each area is different; the people should have the right select how they Area
want their area to be. The individuals that have purchased and paid for these home
in a location did so for a reason. The City should contact each and every owner and
find out those reasons before any changes should be considered. A written
statement should be obtained from each owner to see if the changes will be a
material impact to the reason why people purchased their property.
Choice Each street / block should make a choice of what the area should do.
The individual owners should make that choice.
ur time and consideration,
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
4B# 15,446 TITLE* REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-‘REGARDING RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY DEPT. H
YITG. 1 O/l 9199 CITIZENS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ClTYA7-W. $xc I OLDE CARLSBAD IEPT. ENG CITY MGR. ‘+“L
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council review Concerns of Citizens For The Preservation of Olde Carlsbad and direct staff as
appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At the September 28, 1999 City Council meeting, t/
Carlsbad (CPOC) and many residents presented testin to development policies and quality of life standards. TI
by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on Buena Vista Lagoons. Staff identified four categories of
a Quality of Life/Development Standards 0 Tree Preservation Policies 0 Sidewalk Construction Program 0 Improvement Deferral Policies
Staff will briefly present background during the Council
and present options for Council consideration.
Quaiitv of Life/Develooment Standards
L e
0
*e
Community testimony in this area focused primarily on the impact of street standards on community
character and safety. A number of other considerations related to neighborhood compatibility of
infill development, traffic calming and storm water pollution were also raised. The testimony on
street standards related to street widths, placement of trees relative to the street and the use of
curb, gutters and sidewalks. In general the presentation supported a concept of narrower streets,
canopy tree plantings within the street right-of-way to shade the streets. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks may not be appropriate depending on the character of the neighborhood. The testimony
indicated that flexibility in street design was required to better reflect the historic character of “Olde” Carlsbad and to create a more desirable residential environment. it was recognized that each area
has a unique character and that in heavily traveled and populated areas, the current City standards
may be appropriate.
Staff has five ongoing efforts related to these concerns: W~CL\F, 6’ +T
0 Review of Planned Development Ordinance to Include Livable Communities - 8 ‘3 -3 0 -Traffic Calming Program/Livable Neighborhoods -
l lnfill Development Report - t3-\ -4 C-34
‘poA\ 0 vi-ii rrn Water Pollution (NPDES) Program - p + q _ 7 elopment Access Standard Review -(wlc+d ~ ,&q--l& ti ..&q)
I- U
Staff will briefly overview the status of these programs at the Council meeting. All of these efforts
would affect areas of the City beyond what has been identified as “Olde Carlsbad”.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Council hold a workshop overviewing
these programs and exploring other issues the Council may wish to review in more detail.
8
I
I
.
.
I ! ,
i
ii
i c ‘; l ‘i : : C
0000
P
i I 1 1
I
1 ? , I
,
,
1
, I I
1 I
? I I
, ( I / t
I ; 1
i .I 1
.T
1
i
c
.I
:
I
i
]
d
‘;
1 I
I I
1 ‘i I
i -L
-
0000
Q .- z s 2 3. 7 s” 3
f .- 5 4; . . .- $g u: 0 ‘@I s s 9 ;3 $ tj ‘- 3 a
z aE 2E g MO L, A 5;
z E0 u us
.= > ,. .- E 8 3 t c? 3 + P
;ff D k--P
% c 2 .- 3 p. ?A d 4 P R .s B B s
3 2 8 s E
z .- .f E
3 .Y f : k
2 ‘S E
8 9
E
G “a 4
2
zo
G 8 .C
c” w
B u
E si
a”
6
z 2 & E .9 = .- 3
‘\
. -
- -
-
- -
- -.
-
- -
-
- -
h 4--
C