Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-25; City Council; 16810; Install a Street Light on Branta AvenueCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL rB# 16,810 m: RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL A APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS ITG. 6/25/02 IEPT. STREET LIGHT ON BRANTA AVENUE AND ENG RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-193 approving the installation of a street light on the property line between 1412 and 1414 Branta Avenue and staff recommends appropriating funds. ITEM EXPLANATION: Branta Avenue is located within the Cantata development of Aviara and was constructed about nine years ago. It is a short, residential street about 500 feet long that intersects Black Swan Place on the west and Aviara Drive on the east. There is no street light installed midblock on Branta Avenue as required by engineering standards. Due to an oversight during the design and construction of that a street light be installed 250 feet staggered on local (residential) streets. Branta Avenue, the required street light was inadvertently left out. Engineering standards require A Branta Avenue resident contacted staff about six months ago inquiring if a street light could be installed on Branta Avenue. Staff asked her to discuss the issue with her neighbors since adding a street light might be controversial with some residents. Upon circulating a petition, the resident found that some individuals in the neighborhood were opposed to having a street light installed on Branta Avenue. Further discussions among the neighbors resulted in no agreement that a street light be constructed. Due to disagreement in the neighborhood over whether a street light should be installed on Branta Avenue, staff held a neighborhood meeting on April 8, 2002. The purpose was for interested residents to attend and attempt to reach consensus on the street light installation issue or explore following topics: install a street light, location to install a street light, type of street light, or options options. Citizens from seven homes attended the meeting. No agreement could be reached on the other than having a street light installed. On May 6, 2002, the matter was discussed by the Traffic Safety Commission. At the meeting, one resident of Branta Avenue spoke in favor of installing the street light. Two residents (husband and wife) spoke against the installation of the street light. Six letters supporting a street light on Branta Avenue were received by the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed options to a street light, various types of street lights, and the potential location for a street light. Staff had recommended that a standard city street light be installed on the northerly side of Branta Avenue on the easterly side of a tot lot located on a standard city street light on the lot easterly of the staff-recommended location. This would place Branta Avenue. After extensive deliberation, by a 4-1 vote, the Commission recommended installing the street light on the north side of Branta Avenue between residences located at 1412 (parcel 22) and 1414 (parcel 23) of Branta Avenue, as shown on Exhibit 1. to authorize installation of the street light and to appropriate funds. The street light maintenance If the City Council concurs that a street light should be installed, the attached resolution is provided contractor under contract with the City would install the street light. Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 16,810 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption and is therefore exempt from the environmental review process under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301 (f). A Notice of Exemption will be issued by the Planning Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Labor and material costs to install the street light is estimated at $1 1,000. This is not a budgeted item and an additional appropriation is requested from the City Council Contingency Account. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map. 2. Resolution No. ~302-193 approving the installation of a street light on the property line between 1412 and 1414 Branta Avenue and appropriating funds. 3. Minutes of the May 6,2002 Traffic Safety Commission meeting. a LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: 1234 - STREETADDRESS @ - PARCEL NUMBER a - STREETLIGHT RECOMMENDED LOCATION I PROJECT NAME BRANTA AVENUE EXHIBIT RECOMMENDED STREET LIGHT LOCATION 1 W BY. SCOTT EVANS CARLSEAD ENCINERING DEPT. 6/3/02 C:\lRM?lC\&lNSaU\SNrA AKNllC.OIII: 7 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OFA STREET LIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE BRANTA AVENUE TOT LOT AND 1412 BRANTA AVENUE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS. WHEREAS, a citizen has requested the installation of a street light on Branta Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission has recommended that a street light be installed on Branta Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby finds it necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to install said street light; and WHEREAS, funding for the street light exists in the City Council Contingency Account. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. .., 2. ''. Ttiat the Finance Director is authorized to, appropriate $11,000 from the City CounciLContingency Account to pay for the installationof the street light. ,, . . 3. That staff is directed to initiate the installation af a standard city street light on the common propert)Lline between the Branta Avenue tot lot and 1412 Branta Avenue. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 25th day of JUNE , 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Hall NOES: None Kulchin, Finnila (SEAL) . .. May 6,2002 Page 2 None NEW BUSINESS: ITEM SA Branta Avenue - Request for installation of a streetlight Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation, stated that agenda item MA is a request for installation of a street light on Branta Avenue. Ms. Celeste Tonai a resident of Branta Avenue initlated this item. Ms. Tonai contacted staff approximately five months ago inquiring about getting a streetlight installed on Branta Avenue. At that time staff suggested to her that she might want to discuss the matter with her neighbors that would be affected by a streetlight installation. Staff was concerned that the installation of a streetlight at this location could be controversial, in the sense that some residents may want the streetlight, while others do not. Ms. Tonai did canvas the neighbors on Branta Avenue and Black Swan Place. In discovered that there was opposition to the concept of having the streetlight installed on Branta Avenue. addition, she circulated a petition to determine the sentiment of the neighborhood regarding a streetlight and Referring to an overhead slide. Mr. Johnson commented that Branta Avenue is a short residential street, approximately 500 feet in length, when measured centerline of Black Swan Place to centerline of Aviara of Cantata it was considered to be Phase One - Unit E of Aviara development. Branta Avenue was shown Drive, and it is located in the Cantata development in Aviara. At the time of construction and development on improvement plan drawing 295-2, sheet 4 of 23. The subdivision design was CT-85-35. The improvement plans are construction plans that the developer uses when a contractor is hired to install infrastructure. Typically shown on an Improvement plan is the road alignment, both horizontal and vertical, curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveways, sewer lines, waterlines, storm drains and streetlights. In the case of subsequently the subdivision and the roads were constructed. A streetliht was not shown on the approved Branta Avenue, the City Engineer signed the subdivision improvement plans on June 4, 1991 and improvement plans for Branta Avenue, hence a streetlight was not constructed. Continuing, Mr. Johnson noted that City standards do require streetlights on residential streets. In the case side with 250 feet staggered, e.g. a streetlight is installed on one side of the street and then 250 feet further of a residential street or local street, as it is designated, the spacing should be 500 feet measured on each down the road another street light is installed on the opposite side of the street, then another 250 feet a streetlight is installed on the opposite side of the street, hence the staggered effect of streetlights. Mr. greatest extent possible, the City attempts to place the streetlights on property lines so that they do not Johnson mentioned that the distance is not necessarily always exactly 250 feet apart. He noted that to the interfere with driveways or other locations in front of the residences. Streetlights usually meet the 250 foot staggered, 500 foot distance requirement. May 6,2GQ2 IRAFFIC SAFETY COWSSION I Page 3 improvement plan and installed at a mid-block location. For some unknown reason, the streetlight was Mr. Johnson noted that in the case of Branta Avenue a streetlight should have been shown on the overlooked in the design process and also overlooked in the plan check process that was conducted by the other streetlights in the neighborhood. City. Referring to Exhibit 2 in the Commissioner's packet and on the overhead slide, he stated that there are favor of the streetlight on Branta Avenue and those opposed. Reasons sited for installation of the streetlight Mr. Johnson commented that the petition that Ms. Tonai submitled included those individuals that were in included: o Branta Avenue is a dark street that Invites theft and crime o Taxes have been paid for streetlights o Danger for pedestrians walking down the street or crossing in the middle of the street o Omission of City standards needs to be corrected o Tot lot area, which is approximately Mere the streetlight should have been installed, is a dark area Residents opposed to the streetlight also gave reasons why the streetlight should not be installed at this time: o Streetlight would shine into the bedrooms and backyards of some of the homes o Individuals purchased their homes knowing that there was no streetliht on Branta Avenue o The lighting of the tot lot could potentially attract people to gather at this location at night o Street light would impact privacy o Unfair to change a situation that has existed on Branta Avenue and in the neighborhood for the past eight years Mr. Johnson commented that because there were disagreements between the neighbors regarding the installation of the streetlight on manta Avenue, staff held a neighborhood (community) meeting at the Faraday Center on Monday, April 8, 2002. Area residents affected by the proposed installation of the streetliiht wer8 invited to the meeting. In addition to Mr. Johnson and Sgt Kelly Cain, residents from seven homes in the area attended the meeting. well as those in favor of the installation of the streetlight. The meeting lasted approximately an hour and a The purpose of the meeting was to discuss options, and listen to the concerns of residents opposed to as half; both sides having ample time to express their viewpoints. Unfortunately, there was no consensus reached at the meeting. Options for other types of streetlights, e.g. mission bell style light, or lamppost light, ratherthan the standard cobrahead light, were discussed but rejected by the residents. Other alternatives discussed at the meeting and rejected by residents that were either in favor of or opposed to the street light included: o Increased hardscape lighting o Install perimeter lighting in yard o Install motion detector lighting o Turn on porch lights o Establish a Neighborhood Watch program The polarity of the neighborhood was steadfast and no compromise solution could be achieved. Upon conclusion of the meeting, residents agreed that they could not agree on having a streetlight installed on Branta Avenue. The residents were informed that a recommendation would be obtained from the Traftic Safety Commission with a final decision by the City Council. May 6,2002 F'age 4 MF. Johmn stated that because there was no middle ground on the issue: the Traffic Safety Coordinating Avenue and that it be placed on the east property line of the tot lot that is located on the north side of the Committee recommends that a standard, City of Carisbad highmast street light be installed on Eranta street. He noted that a shield could be installed on the backside of the streetlight to help minimize the light that may intrude on the nearby homes. Mr. Johnson mentioned that six letters submitted from individuals not able to Mend this meeting were received and forwarded to each Commissioner. Letters were received from the following individuals: Jayna Regan 1417 Branta Avenue Carlsbad, CA Rick and Susan Peterson 1416 Eranta Avenue Carisbad, CA Luigi Simone 1415 Branta Avenue Carisbad, CA Maggie Lee Carisbad, CA 1411 Branta Avenue Dick and Jane Sanderr 1409 Branta Avenue Carlsbad, CA Joe and Ann OBrien Carlsbad, CA 1413 Eranta Avenue Acting Chairperson Courtney asked if there were questions of staff, Commissioner Gillfillan asked if the letters were in favor or opposed to the installation of the streetlight, Mr. Johnson stated that all of the letters were in favor of the installation of the streetlight on Branta Avenue. Commissioner Schall requested clarification regarding the shield to block light. Mr. Johnson stated that the aluminum shield or plate is placed on the backside of the streetlight and the shield helps to keep some of the lighting from invading nearby backyards and bedrooms. He stated that the luminaire" and therefore over abundance of light should not be a problem. Some individuals do believe that placement of the shield is not done on a regular basis because the streetlights are designed with a 'cut-off the shield does help eliminate unwanted light and where it can be done staff does accommodate the request and install shields. Commissioner Schall asked if in Mr. Johnson's opinion shielding the light on the backside was an effective method. Mr. Johnson said that no complaints have been received in the locations where the shields have been installed. the street. He wondered if a shield could be installed on both sides of the light, thus satisfying all residents. Commissioner Heffner noted that residents opposed to the installation of the streetlight live on both sides of the shield could be installed on the backside of the streetlight. In addition, he mentioned that there are Mr. Johnson commented that this is probably a situation where not everyone will be satisfied. He noted that options to the standard cobrahead type streetlight as mentioned previously. Mr. Johnson advised the Commission that they could make a recommendation to consider alternative streetlighl options. May 6,2002 I~~AFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5 Acting Chairperson Courtney stated that limited success has been obtained by shielding some streetlights on the backside, but noted that this has only been done on lights in parks adjacent to residential areas and questioned if shields have been placed on streetlights in residential areas. Mr. Johnson stated that shields have been placed on the backside of streetligms in residential areas. Typically, the front side is not shielded because that light needs to be directed into the roadway. Commissioner Gilltillan asked if there was a homeowners association for this neighborhood? Mr. Johnson replied yes. Commissioner Gillfillan noted that as a homeowners association nothing precluded the residents from installing an ornamental tigM in the tot lot. Avenue is a public street. Mr. Johnson mentioned that the HOA could install lighting on private property only. He noted that Branta As there were no additional questions of staff, Acting Chairperson Courtney Opened public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Valerie Thomas, 7318 Black Swan Place, Carlsbad, CA 92009, sald she has lied et this address for nearly eight years. She noted that the rear of her house faces a passive use park and Branta Avenue. She mentioned that the home was purchased in the first phase of the development and that they had the choice privacy afforded by the street layout and lighting at the time of purchase. She noted that her residential lot of lots. In choosing lot 22, one of the most important factors considered was the reasonable degree of driving range and the La Costa hillsides. backs up to what the builder referred to as a meditation park and has a lovely and peaceful view of the park, Mrs. Thomas feels that the installation of an additional streetliiM on Branta Avenue, eight years Her the completion of this development, would result in loss of privacy, diminished quality of life and enjoyment of backyard and bedroom. She mentioned that Branta Avenue has been the site of many day and night holiday her home. She noted that once installed, a streetlight on Branta Avenue would shine directly into her accidents on Branta Avenue. celebrations without incident or complaint and that Carlsbad police statistics will show no history of crime or Mrs. Thomas requests that if a streetligM must be installed, the City should carefully consider street layout and homeowners privacy issues and therefore install a low-level 8 to 10 foot high streetlight with front shielding towards the park and surrounding homes. In addition. she suggested that the city fund the cost for the installation of additional trees for the perimeter of the park, which would block unwanted ligM and still allow desirable views. Concluding, Mrs. Thomas invited the Commissioners to her home to experience how the installation of the standard streetliht would negatively affect her home and family. Acting Chairperson Courtney requested that Mrs. Thomas indicate on the overhead slide of the development, exactly where her home was located. Mrs. Thomas pointed to the comer lot on the northeast comer of the Black Swan Place/Branta Avenue intersection. May 6,2002 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 6 Celeste Tonai, 1414 Branta Avenue, Carlsbad, CA, stated that she was requesting that a streetlight be for streetligM spacing placement for the City of Carlsbad. Branta Avenue is approximately 500 feet long and placed on Branta Avenue. She mentioned that Branta Avenue does not comply with the minimum standards has no streetlight. A streetlight should have been placed in the middle of Branta Avenue to comply with the minimum standard when the area was first developed. For reasons unknown the streetligM was not installed. thus affording the residents on Branta Avenue the same sense of safety and security that the other residents In condusion, Ms. Tonai requested that Branta Avenue conform to City standards for streetlight placement, in the Cantata/Aviara area presently enjoy. Commissioner Gillfillan requested that Mrs. Tonai indicate on the overhead slide of the development, exactly where her home was located. Mrs. Tonai pointed to her home. David Thomas, 7318 Black Swan Place, Carlsbad, CA, stated that this was not a traffic issue, but a security install a STOP sign or STOP light. He noted that there are issues that affect the quality of life for the issue, and a neighborhood issue with adverse impacts. It is not the same as deciding whether or not to bedrooms of several homes. homeowners. If the streetlight is installed where recommended by staff it would shine into the backyards and Mr. Thomas noted there are alternatives available; he believed that putting in a streetlight at the proposed location was irreversible and not something that could be turned off at 10 pm when one goes to sleep. He rnenftoned that a 'win-win' solution should reached, So that all of the neighbors would be satisfied and viable options. suggested that landscape lighting or turning on the porch lights or using flashlights while walking could be Noting that the intended use of the park on the City's master plan was passive use, he feared that the Installation of a streetligM would increase the intensity of the use of the park. In addition, he expressed concern that the installation of a streetlight could potentially create an attractiie nuisance by drawing people to the area at night. He noted that the installation of a SreetligM could also potentially create a view obstruction from several of the homes. residents in the area from enjoying their homes with a reasonable expectation of privacy and suggested that In conclusion, Mr. Thomas stated that the installation of a standard cobrahead streetlight would prevent alternative lighting such as a mission bell style or 10 foot high streetlight or lamppost be considered. Noting that there is a streetlight in front of the Thomas residence, Commissioner Mertz asked if he found this streetlight objectionable. Mr. Thomas replied no, because it is in the front of his house. He noted that the reason he objects to the installation of the streetlight at the proposed location is due to the shape of his lot and the fact that the proposed streetlight would shine into his backyard and master bedroom. Commissioner Gillfillan asked the elevation of Mr. Thomas lot in relation to the tot lot. Mr. Thomas stated sligM below, approximately 3 feet. As them were no additional public comments, Acting Chairpelson Courtney dosed public testimony. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 7 DISCUSSION: Addressing Sgt Cain, Commissioner Heffner requested information regarding any problem incidents on Branta Avenue. Sgt Cain replied a petty-thefI incident occurred within a block of Branta Avenue, but no traffic incidents. does not provide adequate tiiht on Branta Avenue. He suggested that the streetliiht should not be placed Commissioner Schall noted that when he drove the area at night, the streetlight located on Aviara Drive on the tot lot but should be placed one lot Closer to Aviara Drive on the north side of the street. Wewlng the area location map on the overhead slide, the Commissioners discussed Commissioners Schall recommendation in detail. As there was no addiiional discussion, Actlng Chairperson Courtney dosed discussion and called for a motion. Noting that the effectiveness of the liming on Aviara Drive is minimal, to help Branta Avenue, Commissioner Mertz concurred with Commissioner Schall. Commissioner Gillfillan noted that from a safety and security perspectiwe a streetlight is needed on Branta Avenue. Noting that the proposed streetliiht should be installed on the lot further to the east of the tot lot, he concurred with Commissioners Schall and Mertz. As the Ciy is liable if someone gets hurt on the street due to improper lighting, Acting Chairperson Courtney stated that the Commission had no choice; a streetlight must be installed on Branta Avenue to conform with Ciy policy and standards. In addition, he reiterated that every homeowner that fronts on Branta was in favor of the installation of the streetlight. In conclusion he stated that darkness breeds loitering and unsavofy type characters and Suggests that the Iiht be installed in the tot lot to light the park area as the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommended. Commissioner Schall commented that the lighthg from Black Swan Place illuminates the tot lot adequately, As he just returned from vacation, Acting Chairperson Courtney mentioned that he has not been to the area at night. Addressing Mr. Johnson, Commissioner Heffner requested clariflcation on the less obtrusive lighting options. Stating that a consensus could not be reached at the neighborhood (community) meeting, on type of streetlight, Mr. Johnson reinterated that the cobrahead style streetlight was the City standard and was recommended by the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee. He mentioned that the lamppost style streetlight was the less obtrusive and usually done for decorative purposes. He noted that when used, the lamppost spacing is Closer than the cobrahead style. There would be some light provided by a lamppost style, but not as much as one would get with the City standard cobrahead style streetlight. Acting Chairperson Courtney asked Mr. Johnson if it was feasible for staff to revisit the area to determine the most optimum location for the installation of the streetlight, Mr. Johnson replied this could be done if that was the Commission recommendation. Acting Chairperson Courtney’s recommendation was discussed in detail. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMlSSION Wge 8 Commissioner Schall asked if the Traffc Safety Coordinating Committee looked at the area at night. Mr. Johnson stated the staff is familiar with the situation, he visited the location at night, but he did not know if staff visited the area at night. Commissioner Gillfillan asked if it would be an appropriate action for the Commission to recommend the streetlight be installed, and the location subject to the consensus of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson stated that it was an action that the Commission could take, but he was not at all sure that the neighborhood residents could reach a consensus since the neighborhood meeting failed in this attempt in April. Acting Chairpenon Courtney stated that he could not support Commissioner Gillfillan's recommendation. As there was no further discussion, Acting Chairpenon Courtney closed discussion and called for a motion. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Me&, and duly seconded, to adopt the Fecommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee, that a standard streetlight be installed, with the exception that the Commission recommends installing the standard streetliht on the lot line between parcels 22 and 23, which is one lot northeast of the recommended position made by the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee and that it be placed on the north side of the street. VOTE 4-14 AYES: NOES Gillfillan, Mea, Schall, Heffner ABSTAIN None Courtney Acting Chairpenon Courtney mentioned that this item would go before the Ciiy Council for the final determination regarding if a streetlight should be installed on Branta Avenue. None ITEM a 06/23/02 SUN 22:08 FAX A 1414 Bnnta Avenue '. Grkbad. CA 92009 Ta: Valerie From: Celeste Tonai Fax 760-720-9461 Paws: 4 Pkorwr 760-434-2830 B(C: 6/23/02 - Re: Branta Ave. Street Light Request CC U Ugent For Revbw Please Comment 0 Please Reply Please Recsle Dear Valerie, Please Clnd attached the letter we would llke forwarded to all council members and concerned parties Invoked In the City Council meeting on June 25, 2002. AI nclghbora on Brrnta Avenue are in agreement 4th thls letter and have acknowledged this fact by signing the letter. We look formrd to hearlng form Marllyn in regards to our request to meet with the Mayor and Ms. Nygaard on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 3S0 p.m. at their officer. Thank you for your tlme and attentfon to our requests1 Slncerely, Celeste Tonal 06/23/02 SUN 22:08 FAX Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis and members of the City Council: Thank you for your time and attention to our issue. As you have all read in the preliminary information sent to you, we are requesting that a street light be placed on Branta Avenue. As we have discovered, there are standards for the City of Carlsbad for street light placement and spacing. Why is there a standard and why is it required? We were told for the safety and security of those using the city streets and sidewalks. The standard for street light placement and spacing is 250' apart. Our street, Branta Avenue is approximately 500' and we have no street light. For reasons unknown to all, it was inadvertendy omitted. We have had up until now two meetings to discuss this issue. The first meeting was with Bob Johnson at his office. Following our meeting, Bob and his committee, the TSCC recommended to the Traffic and Safety Commission to install a street light between the Parmot Lot and 1412 Branta Avenue. Our understanding is that this is the location where it should have originally been placed to comply with city standards. At the second meeting with the Traffic and Safety Commission, the Commission did agree with the TSCC that a light be installed on Branta Avenue. However, they suggested the light be installed one house up towards Avian Drive, between 1412 and 1414 Branta Avenue. Although we appreciate the recommendation of the Traffic and Safety Commission for a light to be installed, we do not agree with the location. We feel that it should meet city standards and requirements. We feel it should be placed where the TSCC recommended it be placed, between the ParklTot Lot and 1412 Branta Avenue. 06/23/02 SUN 22:08 FAX We feel this would be a better placement of the light because it would be in the middle of the street and benefit all neighbors on Branta Avenue not just those living more towards Aviara Drive. In summation, it is 8 years Iater and all we are asking is that Branta Avenue conform to city standards for street light spacing. We would like to be offered the same sense of safety and security that our neighbors in the Cantata Neighborhood and Aviara Community presently enjoy. Thank you again for your time and attention to this letter. Sincerely, Neighbors of Branta Avenue Cm & Sp AttaclrnYent 06/23/02 SUN 22:09 FAX a004