Loading...
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.