HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-07; City Council; 15644; Street & Sidewalk Policy Committee.
Cl’i f OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 15,644 TITLE*
-*
PRESENTATION BY THE STREET & SIDEWALK
POLICY COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON ON THE
MTG. 3/07/00 FINAL REPORT OF UPDATED POLICIES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-78 accepting the Street & Sidewalk Policy Committee’s Final
Report.
2. Direct staff to finalize the proposed street and sidewalk policy changes and return to Council for
adoption.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On November 2, 1999, City Council appointed a fifteen-member citizen committee to study street
and sidewalks in the area west of El Camino Real to the ocean, between Agua Hedionda and
Buena Vista Lagoon. City Council directed the Committee to consider all relevant issues in
formulating its recommendations to the City Council including, but not limited to, aesthetics,
neighborhood compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts, and to consider
all applicable laws, including but not limited to, Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and
the like. The Committee held its first meeting on November IO, 1999. Since then, the Committee
has met seventeen times, often twice a week.
During these meetings, the Committee used a variety of resources and invited numerous guest
speakers to help guide the Committee in developing a Street and Sidewalk Policy changes. A
representative from the City of Del Mar, qualified members of the community, and City staff from the
Fire Department, City Attorney’s Office, Planning Department and Engineering Department shared
useful information with the Committee. In addition, documentation regarding alternative roadway
design, traffic calming and sample policies regarding dedications of right-of-way and required
improvements were obtained and reviewed by the Committee. The Committee also embarked on a
weekend bus tour of the Northwest Quadrant to view the study area in detail. Lastly, the Committee
received a significant number of public comments and correspondence that proved to be insightful
as well as informative.
With meeting facilitation assistance from consultant Dave Jamieson, the Committee developed a
mission statement, goals, desired Committee outputs and a work program in order to develop
Street and Sidewalk Policy changes and recommendations (see Exhibit 3). After careful study and
consideration of all appropriate and relevant information including public input, the Committee
presents its report and recommendations to the City Council. The Final Report was approved by
the Committee on a 11 to 3 vote with one member absent. Members Spano, Mamaux, and
Wickham were in opposition and Kubota absent. Its report considers street categories and whether
or not they should be compatible with existing or alternative design and recommends a process to
petition for installation of improvements.
While the Committee was deliberating, a number of important issues were raised that the
Committee felt the City should address. These issues are listed in the Recommendation section of
the Final Report. The Committee is requesting that Council accept the Final Report attached hereto,
and direct staff to review the implementation of the revised policies, as well as address the items
included in the Recommendation section.
I
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 15,644
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is not known at this time the fiscal impacts of the proposed policy changes. A financial analysis
will be conducted to determine the amount of additional funding required to implement the Street &
Sidewalk Policy recommendations. Additional funding may be needed if Council decides to pursue
some of the issues listed in the Recommendation section of the Final Report.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 99-485 Forming a Citizens kommittee to Study Sidewalk & Street
Improvements.
2. Resolution No. 2000-78 accepting the Street & Sidewalk Policy Committee’s Final Report.
3. Street & Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report. Street maps referenced in Final
Report are available for review in the Clerk's Office.
2
I
~
- 1
2
3
4
5
6 Improvements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code in 1976; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that that chapter needs to be
9 reviewed, updated and changed, as appropriate; and
10 WHEREAS, the City Council held meetings on September 28, 1999 and
11 October 19, 1999 receiving public input and staff recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that pending a study and
report from this Committee, no sidewalks shall be constructed without its permission;
and
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 /-
27
28
WHEREAS, the Committee is directed to consider all relevant issues
pertaining to street and sidewalk designs in formulating its recommendations to the City
Council including but not limited to, aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and
preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts, and to consider all applicable
laws, including but not limited to Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and
the like,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1.. That the above recitals are true and correct.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-485
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FORMING A CITIZENS COMMIT-TEE
TO STUDY SIDEWALKS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
AREA WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL TO THE OCEAN BETWEEN
AGUA HEDIONDA AND BUENA VISTA LAGOONS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 18.40 - Dedications and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. There is hereby formed a Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and
Street Improvements (Chapter 18.40 - Dedications and Improvements) not to exceed
fifteen members and after careful study and consideration of all appropriate and
relevant information including public input, it shall make its report and recommendations
to the City Council. Its report shall consider street categories and whether or not they
should be standard or special character and recommend a process to petition for
installation of improvements. It is expected that this process shall be completed early
next year and after delivering its report and recommendations, the Committee’s work is
completed and shall be automatically dissolved unless another Council resolution
extends it.
3. The meetings of the Citizens Committee shall be open and public and
any person may attend. The Committee shall select a chairperson from its members
and shall conduct its meetings in general conformance to City Council procedures. It
shall allow a reasonable comment period on each of its meetings for public comment.
4. The Committee shall be given all necessary suppoti, supplies,
materials, assistance of experts, and other resources necessary for the expeditious
completion of its work. The Public Works Director or his designee shall be an ex-officio
member of the Committee and shall attend all of its meetings and assist it in the
conduct of its business.
5. The Committee shall make its report to the City Council by February 1,
2000 unless at the request of the Committee it is impractical to do so and the Council
has determined a different date.
2
1 I 6. The initial members of the Committee shall be:
2
3
4
5
6
Kip McBane
Pam Wischkaemper
Doug Chartier
Paul Gamache
Ruth Lewis
Lori Wickham
Bob Leger
Gary Piro
Joe Spano
Steve Cade
Zell Dwelley
Joe Gallapher
Jack Kubota
Clarence Schlehuber
John Mamaux
7
8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
9 Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 2nd day of November I
10 1999 by the following vote, to wit:
11 AYES: Coun&il Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin
12
9 3 mwo, 527 98, 8 13
2' fiWN
; 3 m c4 14 a 32 dtsa 94)09 15 a:,Ss ZWOY" OZJ aaan- 16 p
=Gg 17 i-g u 18
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/ AI&THAUWTI&&RAN~, City Clerk
Karen R. Kundtz, &sistant City Clerk
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-78
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE FINAL REPORT
BY THE STREET & SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE.
4 WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999, the City Council appointed a 15member Citizens
5 Committee to study street and sidewalks in the area west of El Camino Real to the ocean,
6 between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoon; and
7 WHEREAS, Council directed the Committee to consider all relevant issues in formulating
8
9
10
11
its recommendations to the City Council including, but not limited to, aesthetics, neighborhood
compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts, and to consider all
applicable laws, including but not limited to, Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and
the like; and
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
WHEREAS, the Committee was given until March 7, 2000, to make its report and
recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has fulfilled its obligation by developing street categories and
whether or not they should be standard or special character and recommends a process to
petition for installation of improvements; and
I WHEREAS, said policy changes are included in the Final Report submitted by the
Committee for Council consideration and acceptance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
IO
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(SEAL)
. .
2. Staff is directed to evaluate the report and return to Council with recommendations
for implementation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 7th day of March , 2000 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Non
ATTEST:
Exhibit 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
STREET AND SIDEWALK
POLICY COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23,200O
FINAL REPORT
-
FINAL REPORT
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY
SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Report ................................................................................................. 1
Background.. .............................................................................................. 1
Introduction.. .............................................................................................. 1
Street Categories ....................................................................................... 2
Compatible Improvement Streets.. ............................................................ .3
Alternative Design Streets.. ........................................................................ 3
Alternative Street Design Approval Process.. ............................................ .3
Alternative Street Design Criteria.. ............................................................. 3
Recommendation.. ..................................................................................... 3
Compatible Improvement Streets (Table 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Alternative Design Street (Table 2) ..................................................................... 5
Alternative Street Design Approval Process ..................................................... 11
Alternative Street Design Criteria ....................................................................... 13
Introduction.. .............................................................................................. 13
Roadway Widths.. ...................................................................................... 13
Parking Requirement.. ............................................................................... .I4
Pedestrian Provisions.. .............................................................................. .I4
Edge Treatments.. ..................................................................................... .I4
General Considerations.. ........................................................................... .I5
Mitigation Measures.. ................................................................................. 15
Fiscal Analysis.. ......................................................................................... 15
Recommendation ................ . ................................................................................ 16
General Plan Amendment.. ........................................................................ 16
Sound Walls.. ............................................................................................. 16
Underground Utilities.. ................................................................................ 16
Traffic Calming.. ......................................................................................... 17
Dedications.. .............................................................................................. 17
Future Improvement Agreements.. ............................................................. 18
Appendix (Separate Volume)
A. Council Resolution
B. Citizens for Preservation of Olde Carlsbad Petition
C. Meeting Agendas
D. Meeting Agendas and Summaries
E. Committee Correspondence
4
FINAL REPORT
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY
SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
BACKGROUND
In late September of 1999 a group of citizens living in the Northwest Quadrant of the City came
together as the Citizens For The Preservation Of Olde Carlsbad (CPOC). This group presented
a petition of over 700 signatures and testimony concerning a number of issues related to the
preservation of the character of the “Olde Carlsbad” area of the City. This area was defined as
the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the west between the
Aqua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons. Of particular concern to the CPOC group was the
importance of trees to the community character and the value of less formal narrow streets in
maintaining the character of many of the existing neighborhoods within the “Olde Carlsbad”
area.
The CPOC group submitted evidence that narrow streets better protect trees, preserve cultural
resources and enhance safety while protecting the Village feeling of these older established
neighborhoods.
Responding to the Citizen’s concerns, the City Council at its November 2, 1999 meeting
adopted Resolution No. 99-485 forming the Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and Streets
Improvements.
The Committee was “directed to consider all relevant issues pertaining to street and sidewalk
designs in formulating its recommendations to the City Council including but not limited to,
aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts,
and to consider all applicable laws, including but not limited to Americans with Disabilities Act,
Clean Water Act and the like.”
“After careful study and consideration of all appropriate and relevant information including
public input, it shall make its report and recommendations to the City Council. Its report shall
consider street categories and whether or not they should be standard or special character and
recommend a process to petition for installation of improvements.”
The Committee began meeting on November 10, 1999 and concluded on February 23, 2000
following 17 meetings.
This report responds to the mandate of the Council and makes specific recommendation to the
Council related to special concerns of the Committee.
INTRODUCTION
Responding to the charge of the City Council, the Committee very early on established its
Mission Statement to frame the tasks that it wished to accomplish. As the work progressed that
Mission was adjusted to reflect the evolution of the study. The final Mission Statement is :
Mission Statement
l Identify streets to be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks compatible with
existing improvements in the surrounding area and not in violation of state and
federal law.
1
l Identify Alternative Design Streets
l Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of
improvements to Alternative Design Streets
l Review existing City plans, policies, and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk
development and make relevant recommendations
l Report to Council March 7,200O
The Committee also identified the key work products that make up the body of this report.
l List of Compatible Improvement Streets
l List of Alternative Design Streets
l Alternative Streets Design Approval Process
l Alternative Street Design Criteria
l Recommendations related to City plans, policies and ordinances that affect street
and sidewalk design
l Final Report
STREET CATEGORIES
The Committee began its task with an inventory of all streets within the study area which were
not completed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks that conformed with standards at the time of
development. These streets were field reviewed and evaluated against current City Standards.
In order to evaluate and place various streets within logical categories for future development,
the Committee reviewed and adopted relevant criteria to utilize in the sorting of the streets into
the appropriate categories.
It was the strong feeling of the Committee that many of these streets should not be improved
but rather retain their current design in-lieu of categorization. Improvements should only be
considered when appropriate triggers (Alternative Street Criteria) are met that compel
improvements to be initiated.
Once the trigger is reached the Council would then initiate the Alternative Design Approval
Process. The process would be guided by the Alternative Design Criteria proposed by the
Committee.
The criteria utilized to determine the Alternative Design Streets and also the criteria to consider
initiation of the design approval process are listed below.
ALTERNATIVE STREET CRITERIA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Documented safety issues
Proximity to schools and other public facilities
Resident/owners request improvements
Necessity for walkway/pedestrian access
Average Daily Traffic
Linkage corridor (roadway need for circulation continuity or connection to active
land uses)
7. Need for traffic calming strategies
8. Land use changes
9. Drainage problems
10. Federal, State or local mandates
2
The Committee gave a great deal of consideration to the establishment of a non-essential link
or non-improvement category of street. This consideration reflected the desire to maintain
many of the streets as they exist today. It was ultimately determined that the final decision on
whether a street would receive improvements should be deferred to the neighborhood through
the Alternative Design Approval process. It was recognized that initiation of the process should
only be with a compelling reason related to the triggering criteria.
COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS
Compatible improvement streets listed in Table 1 and shown on Figure 1 are recommended to
be completed with curbs, gutter and sidewalk consistent with current City standards or
compatible in width and configuration with improvement already installed in the block. In most
cases, the streets are already improved with conventional improvements and will be continued
with consistent improvements. Where sidewalks are not curb adjacent, the parkway
configuration should be continued. In some cases, significant improvement did not exist but it
was deemed that because of location, pedestrian activity demand for parking and other factors.
These streets should be completed to City Standards.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Alternative Design Streets are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 1 are deemed to be of
special character. These streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of
the Alternative Street Criteria trigger the need to explore the Alternative Design Process. The
process is designed to work with the neighborhood to develop an alternative street design that
retains the neighborhood character while addressing the issue which initiated the process.
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS
The process outlined in the second part of this report is designed to guarantee full participation
of the neighborhood in the street design process but also to notify the City as a whole that the
process is proceeding. It is important that the neighborhood be given notice as early as
possible when their street is being considered for the design process and throughout the
process. The Committee recognizes the need to maintain good engineering practices in the
development of the design.
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA
The Alternative Street Design Criteria is prepared to be distributed to the neighborhood as it
begins to consider their design options. These criteria are intended to convey a range of
alternative features that can be incorporated in the final street plan. These criteria give factors
to be considered and operational minimums consistent with emergency access requirements
and good engineering practices.
RECOMMENDATION
The final section of the report deals with recommendations suggested by the Committee for
Council consideration. For discussion of all items, you are directed to the minutes of the
February 7, 2000 meeting.
TABLE 1
COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS
STREETS TO HAVE CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALKS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
STREET From/At
Grand Ave. Hope Ave.
TO
l-5
Jefferson St.
Magnolia Ave.
Valley St.
Chinquapin Ave.
Chinquapin Ave. To
Highland Ave.
Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad Blvd
Chestnut Ave.
Monroe St.
South of Tamarack Ave.
Magnolia Ave.
Monroe St.
Magnolia Ave.
Adams St.
*Adams St.
Park Dr.
(section already improved)
James Dr.
Park Dr.
Tamarack Ave.
Oak Ave.
Pine Ave.
Lincoln St.
Chestnut Ave.
Juniper Ave.
Hemlock Ave.
Garfield, St.
Laguna Dr.
Madison St.
Arbuckle PI.
Knowles Ave.
Lincoln St.
Carlsbad Blvd.
Oak Ave.
Carlsbad Blvd.
Garfield St.
Garfield St.
Walnut Ave.
State St.
1 Laguna Dr.
Madison St.
Davis Ave.
N. & W. Approaches
at Oak Ave.
Washington St.
SDNRR
Chestnut Ave.
Roosevelt St.
SDNRR
SDNRR
past Olive Ave.
Roosevelt St.
Grand Ave.
Jefferson St.
l-5
Falcon Dr & Donna Dr.
Canyon St.
Monroe St. I at Park Dr.
Las Flores Dr.
Oak Ave.
Jeanne PI.
Pio Pica Dr.
At cul de sac
2 lots west
End of cul de sac
Althea Ln. End of cul de sac
Adams St. modified design per adopted plan
4
- .-
TABLE 2
Street
Adams St.
Alder Ave.
Ann Dr.
Arland Rd.
Aura Cir
Baldwin Ln.
Basswood Ave.
Basswood Ave.
Basswood Ave.
Bayshore Dr.
Beech Ave.
Belle Ln.
Buena PI.
Buena Vista Cir.
Buena Vista Wy.
Buena Vista Wy.
Butters Rd.
Camden Cir.
Canyon PI.
Canyon St.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
From To
Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave.
Monroe/Sunnyhill cul-de-sac
Gayle Wy. : Janis Wy.
Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy.
N. of Hillside Dr. end
Chinquapin Ave. end
Eureka PI. Highland Ave.
Valley St. Canyon St.
Monroe St. Ridgecrest Dr.
i Park Dr. cul-de-sac
Ocean St. Garfield St.
Basswood Ave. cul-de-sac
Jefferson St. cul-de-sac
/ Laguna Dr. end
Jefferson St. Davis Ave.
Pio Pica Dr. Crest Dr.
W. of Highland Dr. cul-de-sac
Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac
Canyon St. cul-de-sac
Canyon PI. Basswood Ave.
Charleen Cir. Donna Dr. cul-de-sac
Charter Oak Dr. Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr.
Cipriano Ln.
Citrus PI.
~ Forest Ave.
1 Jefferson St.
cul-de-sac
I
cul-de-sac
5
-
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Street From To
Clearview Dr. MacAruthur Ave. 1 N. of cul-de-sac
Cove Dr. S. of Park Dr. cul-de-sac
Crest Dr. Forest Ave. Buena Vista WV.
Cynthia Ln. cul-de-sac
Cypress Ave. Ocean St.
Date Av. Garfield St.
Davis Ave. Buena Vista Wy.
Davis PI. Davis Ave.
Donna Dr. at Nob Hill Dr.
Donna Dr. Falcon Dr.
Donna Dr. N. of Sharleen Cir.
cul-de-sac
Carlsbad Blvd.
end
Laguna Dr.
cul-de-sac
S. of Janis Wy.
Chestnut Ave.
Elmwood St.
Eureka PI.
Falcon Dr.
Laguna Dr.
S. of Basswood Ave.
Donna Dr.
Buena Vista Wy.
Chestnut Ave.
cul-de-sac
Forest Ave.
Forest Ave.
Garfield St.
Gayle Way
Grand Ave.
Pio Pica Dr.
Highland Dr.
Ocean St.
Monroe St.
Ocean St.
Highland Dr.
Crest Dr.
Carlsbad Village Dr.
Donna Dr.
‘Garfield St.
Gregory Dr.
Guevara Rd.
i Knowles Ave.
Hiahland Dr.
Harbor Dr.
Harrison St.
Hibiscus Cir.
Chinquapin Ave.
Chinquapin Ave.
Tamarack Ave.
Cynthia Ln.
cul-de-sac
cul-de-sac
Adams. St.
cul-de-sac
6
-- -
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Street From To
Highland Dr. N. of Butters Rd. Forest Ave.
Highland Dr. Forest Ave. Arland Rd.
Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy. Oak Ave.
Highland Dr. Oak Ave. Basswood Ave.
Highland Dr. Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave.
Highland Dr. Chestnut Ave. Magnolia Ave.
Highland Dr. Magnolia Ave. Tamarack Ave.
Highland Dr. Tamarack Ave. Chinquapin Ave.
Highland Dr. Chinquapin Ave. Adams St.
Hillcrest Cir Seacrest Dr. cul-de-sac
Hillside Dr. Highland Dr. Park Dr.
Holly Brae Ln. Alder Ave. cul-de-sac
Home Ave. Hope Ave. cul-de-sac
Hoover St. Agua Hedionda Lagoon Highland Dr.
Janis Wy. !Ann Dr. Donna Dr.
Jefferson St. Las Flores Dr. l-5
Jefferson St. l-5 Marron Rd.
Karen Ln. Monroe St. cul-de-sac
Knowles Ave. Jefferson St. Davis Ave.
Knowles Ave. Pio Pica Dr. Elmwood St.
Laguna Dr. Roosevelt St. East of Kremeyer Cir.
Laguna Dr. E. of Davis Ave. /I-!?
Laguna Dr. Pio Pica Dr. Elmwood St.
Larkspur Wy. Adams St. cul-de-sac
7
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Street From To
Laurie Cir.
Linmar Ln.
Locust St.
Long PI.
MacArthur Ave.
Madison St.
Maezel Ln.
Marina Dr.
Marjorie Ln.
McCauley Ln.
McKinley St.
Meadowlark Ln.
Monroe St. I Mountain View Dr.
Normandie Lane
‘Ann Dr.
I Tamarack Ave.
Harrison St.
Chinquapin Ave.
Sunnyhill Dr.
S. of Arbuckle PI.
Basswood Ave.
Park Dr.
Chestnut Ave.
Valley St.
‘Pine Ave.
Ridgecrest Dr.
East of Park Dr.
cul-de-sac
lend
Adams. St.
cul-de-sac
Skyline Rd.
N. of Grand Ave.
end
cul-de-sac
cul-de-sac
cul-de-sac
Basswood Ave.
cul-de-sac
Sunnyhill Dr.
Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvd.
Garfield St.
(Pio Pica Dr.
Mountain View Dr.
Oak Ave.
Ocean St.
I Valley St.
, Mountain View Dr. Christiansen Wy.
I Ocean St.
Olive Av.
Pacific Ave.
Palisades Dr.
Palm Ave.
Park Dr.
Park Dr.
Grand Ave.
Garfield St.
Ocean St.
Tamarack Ave.
Pio Pica Dr.
‘Monroe St.
Tamarack Ave.
Pine Ave
end
Mountain View Dr.
N. of nuckle
Adams St.
Westhaven Dr.
Kelly Dr.
8
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Street From To
Pine Ave. Pio Pica Dr. ‘Highland Dr.
Pio Pica Dr. Las Flores Dr. N. of Yourell Ave.
Pio Pica Dr. Tamarack Ave. Las Flores Dr.
Polly Ln. (Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac
Ratcliff Rd. Highland Dr. cul-de-sac
Redwood Ave. Garfield St. cul-de-sac
Ridgecrest Dr. Basswood Ave. Charter Oak Dr.
Sandy PI. Canyon St. cul-de-sac
Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr.
Sequoia Av. Carlsbad Blvd. Garfield St.
Skyline Rd. Westhaven Dr. Alder Ave.
Skyline Rd. Alder Ave. N. of Telescope Ave.
Spruce St. Forest Ave. 1 lot north
spruce St. IYourell Ave. ) 1 lot north
Sunnyhill Dr.
Sunnyhill Dr.
Tuttle St.
Tvler St.
Monroe St.
5 lots S. of Monroe St.
Las Flores Dr.
Oak Ave.
5 lots s.
N. of Hillside Dr.
Buena Vista Wy.
Chestnut Ave.
Valley PI.
Valley St.
Via Hinton
Washington St.
Westhaven Dr.
I ,Valley St.
Buena Vista Wy.
end
Pine Ave.
N. of Park Dr.
cul-de-sac
Carlsbad Village Dr.
Walnut Ave.
Woodvale Dr.
Wilson St. Forest Ave. i Buena Vista WV.
9
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Street From To
Woodvale Dr. Park Dr. Westhaven Dr.
Yourell Ave. ‘Pi0 Pica Dr. Iwest of Highland Dr.
10
-
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS
1. Plan Initiation
Alternative Design process may be initiated by Citizen petition (50% of block residents),
development projects, staff identification of safety issue, staff identification of drainage or
utility issues, State or Federal Mandates, or by any other means acceptable to the City
Council.
2. Project information notice and posting
The citizens and affected residents will be notified consistent with City Codes prior to
Council consideration of initiation of the Alternative Design process. To inform the general
public, a large project information sign will be posted at the beginning and end of the project
for the duration of the project and notices will be posted at City Hall and published in local
newspapers. To ensure that the residents and neighbors are made aware of the issues,
notices will be mailed to affected residents and neighbors within a 600 foot radius of the
project.
3. Request Council authorization & funding alternatives for feasibility and preliminary
engineering studies
Council will consider authorizing and funding the project with public funds, private funds,
combination of public and private funds and other available funding mechanisms. Prior to
Council consideration of the project, the project information and meeting date will be posted
at City Hall and notices will be published in local papers and mailed to affected residents
and neighbors within a 600 foot radius of the project. A new project information sign will not
be erected.
4. Develop alternatives with community involvement (engineering study)
Staff, with input from the community, will begin to develop concept level alternatives and
cost estimates. Topographic surveys of the project will be reviewed and special character
resources and constraints will be identified. Staff will consult with the community, residents,
Planning Department, Fire Department and landscape professionals (landscape architects
and arborists, if appropriate) to consider options for roadway width, pedestrian provisions,
edge treatments, and other roadway features. Public posting and notice will be given prior
to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above.
5. Community Workshop to review alternatives
Public workshops will be held to present the findings of the engineering study (stage 4,
above). Staff will present the preliminary design approaches, make preliminary
recommendations for community review and comment and disclose economic impacts of
potential costs to property owners. Future steps required to carry the project forward will be
outlined. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in
item 3 above.
6. Develop recommended preferred plan
Using the comments from the public workshops (stage 5, above), Staff will develop the
preferred plan and cost estimate for review by the community and reviewing bodies.
Additional workshops may be scheduled as appropriate.
11
7. Prepare Environmental Documentation and circulate for review
Environmental Documentation such as CEQA (if required) and any other permit process will
be initiated at this stage. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this
stage, as in item 3 above.
8. Traffic Safety Commission review
The Traffic Safety Commission will review the project in regard to traffic safety, pedestrian
safety and street design issues. The public is welcome to attend the Commission’s
meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in
item 3 above.
10. Council hearing and approval
Council will consider, and approve or reject the project. The public is welcome to attend
Council’s meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this
stage, as in item 3 above.
11. Plan implementation
If Council approves the project, Staff will initiate final design stage for the preparation of
construction plans and contract documents when funds are appropriated.
12
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
The Streets and Sidewalks Committee wish to maintain the current character of certain
unique neighborhoods through alternative improvements consistent with a safe, effective
street.
These neighborhoods of “Olde Carlsbad” have developed under less formal standards than
newer neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, over the years, have matured to create a
character that is unique and of distinct value to the overall character of the community.
These neighborhoods tend to have less formal street construction with mature trees and
other unique cultural features. To encourage the protection of the character of these unique
neighborhoods, flexible street design features are required to guide the Alternative Street
Design process.
The street criteria presented herein is intended to guide the future design process by
providing minimum criteria related to:
0 ROADWAY WIDTHS a PARKING REQUIREMENTS 0 PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS a ROADWAY EDGE TREATMENTS
The utilization of these requirements will be highly dependent on the actual opportunities
and constraints provided by the individual neighborhoods. Factors of particular importance
in the design process will be:
a
0 0 0 0 0
l
0
0
0
Street gradient
Natural topography
Drainage requirements
Utility placement needs
Location and nature of existing trees
Important cultural and historical features
Lot sizes
Availability of off-street parking
Pedestrian needs and activities
Compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements
ROADWAY WIDTHS
The residential roadway widths are determined by travel lane requirements, emergency
access needs, parking requirements, and drainage capacity requirements.
The minimum emergency access shall be 24 feet of all weather surface unless it is
impracticable and adequate mitigating measures are approved by the Fire Marshal.
Drainage requirements are determined by hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
13
PARKING REQUIREMENT
No parking or parking on one side only will be considered where an adequate enforcement
plan is approved by the Police Department or where a finding can be made that adequate
off-street parking exists to minimize potential parking enforcement issues.
Provision of parking pockets is encouraged to enhance traffic calming features and to
provide selective on-street parking to serve residential needs. Parking pockets could
incorporate alternative materials to distinguish the parking areas from the traveled way.
Tree and landscape planters can also be utilized to protect existing features or to enhance
the neighborhood character through the appearance of narrow streets.
Examples of alternative parking area surfaces include:
0 Turf block 0 Stabilized earth materials
0 Pavers
0 Colored asphalt
0 Colored concrete .
Loose or erosive material with high ongoing maintenance costs are discouraged. Where
possible, durable permeable materials may be considered.
PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS
Where provided, pedestrian walkways shall be 4-foot minimum clear consistent with ADA
requirement and be of a solid durable material. Walkway locations shall be located in such
a manner as to preserve natural and cultural resources as determined through the design
process. Proximity to the edge of pavement will depend on the design process.
Alternative surfaces that further a natural character and meet durability and ADA access
requirements should be given serious consideration.
Meandering walks are acceptable.
EDGE TREATMENTS
It is recognized that roadway edge treatments are important to stabilize the roadway
pavement and to contain and divert drainage flows. The nature of the edge treatment also
impacts the appearance and character of the roadway. Several options for roadway edge
treatments exist within the San Diego Regional and City Standards. These treatments
include conventional concrete curb and gutter, concrete rolled curb, asphalt concrete curbs
and dikes of varying heights and configurations.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Where desirable to protect neighborhood character and where adequate rights-of-way exist,
a meandering street centerline can be considered.
Street design needs to adequately address storm and nuisance flows within the street
section. Unique design features introduce unique drainage and maintenance concerns
14
which may require construction of storm drains or other unique roadway design
configurations. When possible, all measures should be implemented to reduce sprinkler and
storm runoff from properties. Where adequate rights-of-way exist, natural swales should be
considered to convey runoff. Maintenance cost and procedures should be fully analyzed in
the planning process.
Tilted roadway sections may be considered when they will provide a more compatible
interface with properties abutting the street.
MITIGATION MEASURES
To assist in retaining the existing character of neighborhoods through narrower street
section mitigation measures, such as increased lot sizes with provisions for off-street
parking, larger setbacks from the street, alternative drainage and utility systems and fire
sprinkling of homes should be given consideration.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
All design alternatives should be reviewed for comparative construction cost and long-term
maintenance costs. Where long-term maintenance costs are incurred, alternative funding
for the added costs should be evaluated.
15
SIDEWALK AND STREET COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1. The Committee recommends that a General Plan Amendment be considered to reflect a
slowdown and management of growth in the Northwest Quadrant. Lot size and densities
will be an element of this amendment. The Committee recommends an adoption of a
philosophy distinguishing the Northwest Quadrant as a unique, quaint, and special
community. This philosophy would recognize the necessity for the protection and
preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to include, but not be
exclusive of: tree-lined narrower meandering streets, alternative pedestrian pathways,
traffic calming and parking options. Special attention to the quality of life the residents
have come to expect as delineated in the Municipal Code current ordinance Section
18.40. Dedications and Improvements. Specifically section 18.40.100 waiver or
modifications. “The street fronting on the subject property has already been improved to
the maximum feasible and desirable state, recognizing there are some such streets
which may have less than standard improvements when necessary to preserve the
character of the neiahborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things
as trees, wall, yards and open space.
VOTE: 8-6-O
AYES: Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chattier, Leger, Lewis
NOES: Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Noble
SOUND WALLS
2. The Committee recommends sound walls on freeways, 1) City should begin negotiating
with Caltrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, and 2) City
(or Caltrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-1-o
Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chattier, Leger, Lewis,
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher
Span0
None
Noble
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
3. The Committee recommends that “The Council direct staff to explore alternative funding
approaches to accelerate the undergrounding of overhead utilities”.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
14-o-o
Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chattier, Leger, Lewis,
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano
None
None
Noble
16
TRAFFIC CALMING
4. The Committee recommends:
4 Based upon our review of the current state-of-the-art street design in other
communities, the Committee recommends that instead of single-standard, the
City of Carlsbad utilize different design methodologies committed to preserving
the existing nature and character of each neighborhood.
b) “Based upon the public testimony we have heard, the Committee has found that
one of the most important concerns to the residents of “Olde Carlsbad”
is excessive traffic speed. Vehicular traffic speed should be calmed using the
state-of-the-art design methods, such as traffic land narrowing,
pseudo-shoulders, improved signage, textured paving, rumble strips, Botts’
Dots’, Traffic-Circles, and Elephant Ears.”
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
1 O-4-0
Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chattier, Leger, Lewis,
Wischkaemper, Gallagher
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Kubota
None
Noble
5. The Committee encourages the City Council to form a Traffic Calming Committee as a
follow-up to this committee’s efforts.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-1-o
Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Schlehuber,
Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano
Mamaux
None
Noble
DEDICATIONS
6. The Committee recommends that the Council adjust the Municipal Code requirement to
dedicate rights-of-way as a condition of a building permit exceeding $10,000 in building
permit by indexing the threshold from 1992 to increases in the International Congress of
Building Officials (ICBO) valuation amount.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
7-6-O
Piro, Leger, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano,
Gamache, Wickham, Chartier, Dwelley, McBane, Lewis
None
Mamaux, Noble
17
7. The Committee recommends that street right-of-way dedication be required only for
building permits which create new residential dwelling units. Residential remodels would
be exempt from the requirement.
VOTE: 7-6-O
AYES: Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Char-tier
NOES: Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, Leger
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble
8. The Committee recommends that at such time as rights-of-way are found to be in
excess of that required, the excess will be quitclaimed.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
12-1-o
Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Chartier,
Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Leger
Span0
None
Mamaux, Noble
FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
9. The Committee recommends that Future Improvement Agreements apply to only new
construction. Remodeling of existing residential dwelling units would be exempt from
improvement requirements.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
7-6-O
Piro, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher, Chattier
Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache
None
Mamaux, Noble
10. The Committee recommends that building permit applicants be issued a notification of
potential improvement or Future Improvement Agreement obligation at receipt of the
building permit application.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-o-o
Wickham, McBane, Char-tier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota,
Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher
None
None
Mamaux, Noble
11. The Committee recommends Future Improvement Agreements be made subordinate to
homeowner’s mortgages or trust deed financing at present and in the future. Staff will
review language with the City Attorney’s ofice to make sure that the agreement is
subordinate to trust deeds.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
13-o-o
Wickham, McBane, Chattier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota,
Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher
None
None
18
12.
ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble
The Committee recommends that property owners be given 90 days to respond to
demands to comply with Future Improvement Agreements rather than 30 days as
currently contained in the agreement.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
9-4-o
Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Piro, Lewis,
Dwelley, Gallagher
Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger
None
Mamaux, Noble
13. The Committee recommends the cost of all improvements be equitably allocated among
all of the beneficiaries, and that no FIA exceed the property owner’s fair share of the
improvement cost.
VOTE: 7-6-O
AYES: Wickham, McBane, Char-tier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley
NOES: Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble
14. The Committee recommends that the City retain its current policy of not building isolated
improvements to curbs and sidewalks. The Committee recommends that the portion of
Section 18.400.70 as amended in November 1999 pertaining to the policy regarding the
deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permanent policy after the building
moratorium has been lifted.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-o-o
Wickham, McBane, Chat-tier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley, Spano,
Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis
None
None
Mamaux, Noble
19
AGENDA ITEM # 13
March 3, 2000
ct Mayor
city council
cay Manager
city Attorney
City Clerk
City Council of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Seaview
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
With the completion of the Street and Sidewalk Report by the Committee and its
presentation to the City Council on March 7th the Seaview, LLC requests the g-lot
Seaview project, located at the terminus of Seaview be released from the
moratorium. The Seaview project and street were excluded from the
Committee’s review and discussion. The report does not comment nor mention
Seaview as an alternative design street. The street plans that have been
prepared are in and ready for third plan check approval. They complete Seaview
to full City standards, consistent with the street improvements that previously
existed on Seaview.
Therefore, since the Committee did not consider Seaview and there are no
changes (either recommended or contemplated from the standard City
improvements) it’s our request Seaview be removed from the moratorium.
Commencement of this project would have no affect on the Committee’s report
nor the implementing ordinances that will flow from the Committee’s report, as
accepted by the Council. The approval of Seaview, as designed, will not affect
any determination, based upon the Committee and staffs actions.
Sincerely,
MSK DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Donna C. Wilson
Vice President
cc. Ray Patchett - City Manager
Lloyd Hubbs - City Engineer
Joseph A. Gallagher
File:Seaview\3-3-OOMayor & Council
5142 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-2785 Fax (760) 931-2784
-_ - &id/3
JACK C. DEBES 4055 PARK DRIVECARLSBAD
CALIFORNIA 92008
November 15,199P
Carlsbad Street & Sidewalk Committee
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
G&bad, CA 92008
Dear Street & Sidewalk Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. I would like to expand on
the topic of the environmental impact of sidewalk installation, street widening, and tree
removal, especially regarding the legal ramifications of environmental impact. According to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared when there is substantial
evidence in the record that supports a fair argument that significant effects may occur. If
there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall be prepared. (PCR $
21080(d))
For example, the impact of a project the size of the proposal for a W-foot stretch on
one side of Park Drive (project No. 6, CDP PP-29), may seem environmentally insignificant,
a closer analysis reveals the contrary Let me first consider the issue of increased rainwater
run-off. The impact of the increased hard-scaping would lead to an additional 3,115 gallons
of run-off per inch of rain. On an annualized basis, this equates to approximately 31,150
gallons of water l, which contributes to increased watershed on local lagoons. Increased
run-off leads to increased pollution, which has an effect on species including various
endangered fish and invertebrates. Both the Apa Hedionda Lagoon and the Buena Vista
Lagoon fall under the legal dehnition of wetlands:
Wetlands found in the “coastal zone” are regulated under the Caliiomia Coastal Act of 1976
(CCA) and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and are within the
jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. Under the CCA, wetlands are defined as
land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically by shallow water and include
saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps,
mudflast, and fens. (Pub. Res. Code § 30121)
4055PARK DRIVE l CARLSBAD, CA l 92008
PHONE: 729.6085 l E-MAIL: JDEBES@UCSD.EDU
-2- November 15,lPPP
Furthermore, trees and shrubs absorb significant amounts of carbon dioxide and other
dangerous gases and in turn replenish the atmosphere with oxygen. To put this in
perspective, if the Park Drive project were expanded to complete both sides of the road, the
area of land involved would be increased to well over one acre. According to publications
by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2, an acre of trees provides enough
oxygen for 18 people to breathe each day In a year, those same trees absorb enough
pollutants to offset the atmospheric damage done by driving a car 26,000 miles.
Furthermore, the replacement of flora with hard-scape increases temperatures, erosion, and
noise while decreasing habitat for species such as the bats and Red Tailed Hawks that
frequent our trees benefiting us by reducing nuisance species such as mosquitoes and rats.
AR of these facts provide substantial evidence mandating the legal requirement of an
EIR, prior to the commencement of street improvements in the Northwest Quadrant of
Carlsbad that increase hard-scape areas and/or remove flora. This requirement holds for
every single project on the scale of Project No. 6, CDP 99-29 or larger. However, it should
be noted that if the project plans are modified such that there is no net increase in hard-
scape area or significant removal of existing trees and shrubs, then there is a possibility of
avoiding the EIR by means of a Negetative Declaration.
A Negative De&ration can be prepared only when there is no substantial evidence in light
of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment. (PCR $2180(c)), (14 C.C.R. 915070).
4055PARK DRIVE l CARLSBAD, CA l 92008
PHONE: 729-6085 l E-MAIL: JDEBES@UCSD.EDU
-3- November 15,1PPP
Legal precedence for the requirement of an EIR related to a street improvement project
may be found in the case of Friend of B Street t! C$ of Hayword (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988:
Friends of ‘B’ Street, ‘an unincorporated citizens’ group (Friends), sought a writ of
mandamus and an injunction to compel the City of Hayward to (1) prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 52100 et seq.) before proceeding with a proposed street
improvement project (the ‘B’ Street Project). . . The court rendered judgement granting the
writ on the ground that it was an abuse of discretion for the city council to adopt a
‘negative declaration’ certifying that the project would not have a significant environmental
effect, since there was substantial evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, I hereby respectmy submit this information to the City of G&bad Street &
Sidewalk Committee and to the Carlsbad City Council as a matter of public record,
indicating substantial evidence of significant environmental effects.
Sincerely,
‘J Jack C. Debes
Cc. Carlsbad City Council
FOOTNOTES
1. Calculations: 1 Gallon = 231 cu. in.
1in.rainon1sq.fi.sidewalk=1in.x12in.x12in.=144cu.in.
= 144 / 231 = 0.623 gallons per sq. ft. per in. rain
e.g. ParkDrive
Proposed
Sidd -500 ft. x 6 ft. = 3,000 sq. ft. Wider Stxeet -5ooii.x4ft.=2,ooosq.ft.
TOTAL 5,000 sq. ft.
Whichgives:
0.623 x 5,000 = 3,115 gallons run-off per in. of rain
Mean Annual Rain Fall = 10 in. 3
* 3,115 x 10 = 31,150 gallol38 run-off per year
2. ht4?://“Yw.dnr.state.md.us/forests/publications/urban.hml
3. &p://sddt.com/reports/
4055PARK DRIVE l CARLSBAD, CA l 92008
PHONE: 729-6085 . E-MAIL: JDEBES@UCSD.EDU
=H r3
3.7-a
Good evening. My name is Dr. Paul Slow& and this is my wife, Dr. Sharon Slow&. I have been in practice in the TriCity area for the past 15 years. We purchased a home in Carlsbad on
3960 Sunnyhill about 4 months ago. After moving in, we noted red lines drawn on the
street in front of our property. On questioning neighbors we found that the intersection
was to be reconfigured. This was subsequent to a problem that was created by the May
Project #CT97-24, a residential development on the corner of Park and Monroe. The
development itself was required to have curb, gutters and sidewalks placed.
During the initii construction a drainage problem was created for the neighboring
property at 3955 Monroe, The Prentice’s. I am sure you are well aware of their dissatisfaction and hence an agreement was reached with the developer to continue the
curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of their property at the developer’s expense.
Somehow a decision was made to continue this curb, gutter, sidewalk in front of the
next adjacent property, the Grtman’s in order to provide continuation to the corner of the
intersection. The Ortman’s did not want this placed as it would affect the trees in the
front of their property. After voicing their concerns, they were accommodated by a plan
that would totally reconfigure the intersection of Monroe, Sunnyhill and Alder.
This reconfiguration however would align Monroe with our driveway. We have children ages 7 and 3 and are extremely concerned about the one possible error a driver may make
coming down Monroe and continuing up our driveway, thinking it is a continuation of the
street.
In addition a three way stop is planned. The white stop line in front of our property will
be within the lines of our driveway. When we pull out of our drive, we will be pulling
over a stop line. This doesn’t seem right or legal for that matter.
We have expressed our concerns to Lloyd Hubbs, chief of public works, who put us in
contact with Glen VanPeski, the project manager and Bob Johnson, the trafEc engineer. We were told unfortunately, not everyone could be made happy in situations like this - so
the Prentice’s have their drainage situation taken care of, the Ortman’s save their trees,
but we run the risk of a loss of a child! On review of our safety concerns Bob Johnson
actually suggested we move our driveway or purchase a parcel of our neighbor’s property
to be able to move the driveway, all at our expense. So, we are to pay for the safety of a
child, yet the city and local developer will cover the costs for a drainage problem and
trees. Does this sound fair?
We were told the comer itselfhad safety issues, no documented accidents, but the
Packards on the South side of the Ortman’s had dirsculty exiting their property. We spoke with the Packards. Their only request was for the three way stop, which we do
agree with, not a total reconfiguration of the intersection.
At our last meeting with Bob Johnson and Glen VanPeski, on Friday, March 3ti, we were
told there was some urgency in proceeding with this project, that it was not going through
typical bidding channels, but was being placed under another project - they were “getting
it in” under another project. This raised red flags for us. We were told they wanted to
finish the project and then reevaluate the safety issue. This meeting was intended to
display proposed traftic lines which were somehow fortgotten to be surveyed and placed
for our review.
We do believe instituting a three way stop would be beneficial and the addition of a curb,
gutter and sidewalk in front of the Ortman’s can be accomplished without recontiguring
the intersection to place our property into a dangerous situation
We invite you, mayor, city council members and all those parties involved to come out
and see the intersection and physically look at it so you can see our concerns and issues.
We understand this evening the curb, gutter and sidewalk panel is going to be presenting
their recommendations to council. We believe the above proposed street improvement
should also be under the same due process.
We look forward to your response.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Drs. Paul and Sharon Slowik
3960 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 434-3 132
3-7-00
44 13
hrnrnerh by Jim King to Carlsbad City Council
SDwtand Sidewk Committee Report 7 March ,200O
My name is Jim King. I Have lived at 4156 Highland Dr. since 1934. We
selected this place because of the small town feel of the area. We have enjoyed that
ambiance and like many of our neighbors we don’t wantto see it changed.
We we among the780 signers of the petition that inR&d the committee and I
have akended most of the meetings. Throughout that process lt has never been ciear
who inthecitygovernment wantedthethes&etsofolde Carlsbadwidenedorwhat
wr>uld be accomplished by that action. Only one person spoke to the committee in
favorofsb-eetwkkningtherestvoiced theirconcemsabouttheimpactonthe nature
of this unique sqmentof CatIsbad .
The report you will vote on tonIght brings necessary visibility, structure and
conlrol totheprowss of street akration and provides appropriate citizen involvement
in the process. Itrepresents much thought, work ,and negotiation by all of the
comntiee . Itshould be accepted essentially as written.
The large fly remaining in the ointment howver is the issue of land Dedication
and future improvement agreements. I said ,w are pleased with our neighborhood
andourhouse.Thakqoodbecauseif wwwtedtodoanyupgradeofmorethan $
1 0,000 , the city will require dedication of land that could eliminate my ability to park
in lkwtofmy own garage. This ,in a house that was built to all the codes and
fatbacks required. Worse the $10,000 figure has not changed since 1984! These
requirwwnts must be reevaluated considering the changed nature of the fwthwst
quadrarkand co&of construction in todays environment.
We appreciate the work dthe committee,and their ded’kation. We appreciate the
actiins of the council in establishing the committee and implementing it’s report.
But, the message is still DON’T PAYE PARADISE ! please heed that message.
ThiWikyOU.