Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 12 RELOC SIDEWALK 04-06-81_1 OAT[: MARCH 31, 1981 TO:  NO~_12 4 81 I ter Corn ~ BLANKENSHiP, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: SUBJECT: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC BI)RKS/CITY ENGINEER PETITION TO RELOCATE SIDE~ALK Staff has received the attached petition frcm Mrs. Martha Mareska of 14281A Green Valley Drive, Tustin. This petition requests that the sidewalk be relocated from its present location to a location next to the curb. Please refer to the attached sketch, ne reason for this request is outlined within the petition. The location of this requested sidewalk relocation is on ~he Green Vall~~ _~ul de sac southerly of Mitchell Ave. Please refer to the attached location map. This development was const~dcted in 1963 while the area was in the unincorporated territory of the County cf Or~%ge. This area was recently annexed to the City. The garage setba~< (distance be.~we_en the bad< edge of sidewalk ~dd the face of the garage) was only i5 feet. No_.~mally this distance is a minimum of 20 feet. This 20 feet allc~'s for a car t.~ ~e F~r~d in the driveway and not extend into the entire sidewalk a~ea. The 1~ f~ot setbacks cause ~he vehicles to extend into the sidewalk area and caus~ pedestrians tc walk on the lawn areas between the curb and sidewalk, or walk int~ the street if ~ae !~s are wet. Presently~ the City __ ,=~ng sidewalks along Green Valley which have been displaced ~_ tree ro~ss F~d could be tripping hazards to pedestrians. These hazards are a l~a~ .... ~ · b;~% ~ke pr.cperty owners and the City. These repairs are at ten locations along Green va'i=v and consist of 856 sq. ft., or 20% of the total sidewalk. area. The estimated cost for r~oving and replacing the existing sidewalks and drive aprons is $24,330.00. This estLmate includes the cost of a 6.0 foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb in lieu of a 4.0 foot wide walk because of existing light standards, fire hydrants and mail boxes. The petition which was submitted contains 29 signatures, of v~ich some_ are co-tenants in one dwelling unit. Due to the recent annexation, we do not have records of how many of these petitioners are renters or property owners. There are tv~nty duplexes, or forty dwelling units on this block of Green Valley. Staff does not feel the relocation of this sidewalk at an estimated cost of $24,330.00 is warranted at this ti~. This tract was developed in 1963 in the County of Orange to accepted standards of that time and has functioned for eighteen years in its present state. Staff feels it would be an unwarranted ~rden to the other taxpayers of the city to proceed with this project with City ft~ds. If the property owners and tenants feel this sidewalk is a continuing probl~n, this sidewalk relocation could be aco~plished under a 1911 Assessment District proceeding. This would pass the direct cost of the project directly back to each property owner. PETITION TO RELOCATE SIDEWALK MARCH 31, 1981 PAGE 2 RECC~M~ATI~: ~fhat the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of April 6, 1981, deny the request for sidewalk relocation on Green Valley Drive and direct staff to poll each property owner by letter as to whether they would be desirous of a 1911 Assessment District proceeding to accc~plish said sidewalk relocation. BOB LED~DEC~R DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WDPJ<S/ CITY EKGINEER BL:db Attach,~e_nt cc: City Clerk Mar ~.a Mareska Iqareh 11, 1981 RECEIVED TO: )~ Bob Ledendecher ~ , T~astin Engineering n~epar*~m~=nt. Resider. ts _~ ~ ~_.._'. G:e.n Valley The city zs now p!arming to repair cur sidewalks, as you k~ow. %~l,e¢her or not they are repaired, they are useless to the resiJen-~s because of their 'position. Cars must park on those sidewalks because .-_he driveways ars ~oo short. "- ..... -- ~ ~=~ :n!V a~,p~=x=s with acne oar garase for e~m 'rani-. Since .... e a!zey . _~ is irp:ssi~ie zc kee~ ~he ears off t~= ~=- :~ . ......... a_..s, the residents .......... =~- -'~i= '~::z~'~ is ve oosition the sidewalks ~_r.e ~---~ S.:~L~~. ~? ~ ..... ~= ~"~. ~== '.30'21~ = .... ~e..es~rians ~oom to walk ...... = side= walks eve:: with zaps 'zarkel in the -firlve?:ays. l-bari ..... : fs~ 2-:r.:~tsrln.? 'this proposal. ..4'ID £ WtlZlf lq'EZ OCA T/ OAI I ~,,,,~ ~ '~ ,;~t~'~ ~ t4111 .J~z'~,/~.k~k % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"n;l ' [~.l-~'el .~ _-~ _ ,AVENUE ""-' '"" '- ' ' "~s~, [~: ~ ~ ~ ~' ', .... ~L~ ' , ~ J~- '~" ~ ~1~ -'~ o m~ ~ ~ · ~ ~1.~ ~ I~ I I~ ~i~r~cc~ ~ >~ . AVENUE L ROANOKE CENT