Agenda packet, first session — El Cajon City Council, September 13, 2022

CITY COUNCIL

HOUSING AUTHORITY AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE EL CAJON

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Council Chamber
200 Civic Center Way
El Cajon, CA 92020
Agenda
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022, 7:00 p.m.

Bill Wells, Mayor Graham Mitchell, City Manager
Michelle Metschel, Deputy Mayor Vince DiMaggio, Assistant City Manager Steve Goble, Councilmember Morgan Foley, City Attorney
Gary Kendrick, Councilmember Angela Cortez, City Clerk
Phil Ortiz, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bill Wells
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Angela Cortez
PRESENTATION: FLAG CEREMONY AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG BY ARROW OF LIGHT DEN - EL CAJON CUB SCOUT PACK 395
AGENDA CHANGES:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

At this time, any person may address a matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council/Housing Authority/Successor Agency to the El Cajon Redevelopment Agency that is not on the Agenda. Comments relating to items on today’s docket are to be taken at the time the item is heard. State law prohibits discussion or action on items not on the Agenda; however, Council, Authority and Agency Members may briefly respond to statements or questions. An item may be placed on a future Agenda. ~ Valley of opportunity
~ ~ <'o .,.o,
"'Porate~

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

100. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004 - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

Opens the public hearing and receives testimony; 1.

Closes the public hearing; 2.

Moves to adopt the next Resolution, in order, affirming the decision of the EI Cajon Planning Commission in denying the appeal for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004.

3. ADJOURNMENT: The Adjourned Regular Joint Meeting of the El Cajon City Council/ El Cajon Housing Authority/Successor Agency to the El Cajon Redevelopment Agency held this 13th day of September 2022, is adjourned to Tuesday, September 27, 2022, at 3:00 p.m.

City Council
Agenda Report
Agenda Item 100.

DATE: 09/13/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Noah Alvey, Deputy Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004 - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

Opens the public hearing and receives testimony; 1.

Closes the public hearing; 2.

Moves to adopt the next Resolution, in order, affirming the decision of the EI Cajon Planning Commission in denying the appeal for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

This is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving a two-lot subdivision with conditions of approval (TPM No. 2021-0004). Conditions of approval include the construction of a public street that will connect two existing public streets – Oakdale and Mint Avenues. The appeal was submitted by Norma Murphy (appellant) and requests that the connection of the “road thoroughfare” between Oakdale and Mint Avenues be denied.

BACKGROUND:

General Plan: Low Density Residential (LR)
Specific Plan: N/A
Zone: RS-6 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 6,000 sq. ft.) Other City Plan(s): N/A
Regional and State Plan(s): N/A
Notable State Law(s): Subdivision Map Act
Applicant: Delgesh Shahab; [email protected]
Project Site & Constraints
The project site is 38,351 square feet (.88 acres) and is located at the terminuses of Oakdale and Mint Avenues, south of the Interstate 8 eastbound on-ramp. The site is currently vacant and is former Caltrans right-of-way. Forester Creek runs along the northerly portion of the property (between the property line and Interstate 8 on-ramp). Portions of the site are within the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. The site is situated between two City streets, both of which terminate in an incomplete “dead-end.” The General Plan Land Use Map, since the 1950s, indicates that the portion of the site situated between Oakdale and Mint Avenues is intended for public .!!!!.. Valley of opportu:!!!L
the portion of the site situated between Oakdale and Mint Avenues is intended for public right-of-way improvements.

Surrounding Context
The properties surrounding the project site are developed and zoned as follows:

Direction Zones Land Uses
North N/A Interstate 8
South RS-6 Single-family residential
East RS-6 Single-family residential
West RM-2200 Multi-family apartments
General Plan
The majority of the subject property (approximately 29,773 square feet) is designated Low Density Residential (LR) (3 to 10 dwellings per net acre) on the General Plan Land Use Map.

The LR designation in the General Plan is intended for detached single-family development or townhome style development. As indicated previously, the remainder of the site is intended for public street improvements connecting Oakdale and Mint Avenues.

Municipal/Zoning Code
The project site is zoned RS-6 which implements the LR land use designation by establishing appropriate land uses and development standards. The RS-6 zone allows a density of one unit per 6,000 square feet of lot area subject to meeting all development standards.

Subdivision Ordinance/ Subdivision Map Act
The authority and procedures for the processing of a tentative parcel map are found in the California Subdivision Map Act and the City of El Cajon Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the El Cajon Municipal Code or ECMC). The City Engineer and Director of Community Development jointly referred this tentative parcel map to the Planning Commission for consideration, as described in ECMC section 16.24.113.

Adjacent Subdivisions
To the east of the subject site, Map No. 3694 was approved on August 19, 1957 and authorized 217 lots fronting on Mint Avenue, Macon Street, Trenton Street, Verdin Street, Onyx Avenue, Jade Avenue, and Galena Street. Map No. 3694 identifies “Lot H” as a one-foot strip of land adjacent to the subject site that is reserved for a future street. To the west of the subject site, Map No. 4168 was approved on May 8, 1959 and approved eleven lots fronting on Oakdale Avenue between North Third and Durham Streets. Map No. 4168 identifies “Lot A” as a one-foot strip of land reserved for a future street adjacent to the subject site. Each of these strips of land frame the subject property for the purpose of public street completion once the property develops.

Appeal
The appeal indicates, “we are requesting to revisit and modify the General Plan as it relates to the parcel requirement including that of the road thoroughfare between Mint Avenue and Oakdale Avenue.” The reasons for the appeal include increased crime rates and activity, no traffic demand for the road, increased traffic accidents and incidents, decreases in home values, and the health and safety of residents and children. The appeal also includes a petition with 97 signatures of those opposed to the project.

DISCUSSION
TPM No. 2021-0004 complies with the General Plan and zoning standards for minimum lot size.

As conditioned, the connection of Oakdale and Mint Avenues is also consistent with the General Plan which anticipates a road connection, as well as the adjacent subdivisions which reserved land for a future road connection since the 1950s. In order to eliminate the planned road connection, a General Plan amendment would be required, including applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. The applicant for TPM No. 2021-0004 evaluated options for amending the General Plan and ultimately chose to proceed with a two-lot subdivision consistent with the General Plan.

Crime
The appellant’s reasons for the appeal include, “potential increased crime rates and activity.” The appeal also includes a map showing that the subject site is in a lower crime area and that the areas to the north and west have a higher crime rate.

Vacant lots can attract crime and squatters. According to City records, the subject site has not been a location of high crime or squatters. The City has experienced issues with crime and squatters on vacant properties throughout the City. However, when vacant property is developed and activated with uses, unwanted and derelict activities can be reduced or eliminated. The development of the subject site would eliminate a vacant lot and result in new homes with residents that are able to monitor the street and thereby contribute towards neighborhood safety.

Heartland Fire & Safety Response Times
The appeal includes a map of the area surrounding the subject site and indicates that the response time from a unit at “Rescue Station 8” would not be reduced by the proposed road connection.

This statement would apply under static conditions. However, emergency response units may be dispatched from other stations, other agencies, or while in the field. It is clear, that if an emergency response unit were to be on Oakdale Avenue or north of Interstate 8, a response to an address on Mint Avenue would be longer than if the roads were connected. Furthermore, completing the road connection would allow emergency units to approach the area from both directions, thus providing access to multiple water sources (hydrants) and improving the ability and speed to fight fire in the area.

Traffic
Traffic congestion during school hours is also listed in the appeal, as well as a lack of traffic demand for the road connection, and potential increases in traffic accidents and incidents. The appeal also includes documentation from Community & Environmental Defense Services regarding cut-through traffic.

The planned road connection would serve to reduce traffic congestion at the intersection of East Madison Avenue with Trenton Street and Verdin Street by allowing access to East Main Street via Mint and Oakdale Avenues, which will have a positive impact on those heavily impacted neighborhoods. Existing roads in the vicinity are operating at acceptable levels, so the planned road connection will not alleviate a failing road intersection nearby. However, the road connection will improve public safety response times to traffic incidents and accidents as described above. From a traffic management perspective, the road connection would increase vehicle trips on Mint and Oakdale Avenues, which will more equally distribute vehicle trips in the neighborhood by taking pressure off of East Madison Avenue. The associated trip reductions on East Madison Avenue would also reduce congestion during school hours as well as the likelihood of vehicle incidents and accidents.

Home Values
A home’s value is typically based on the sale prices of similar homes in the neighborhood that have sold recently. Furthermore, homes that are newer appraise at a higher value. Newer homes are also often larger than older homes, thus resulting in higher appraised values.

Ultimately, real estate market conditions, including the number of available homes in the area and the condition and quality of the homes, will dictate value. In this instance, the proposed project will allow for two new homes in an area where the adjacent subdivisions include more than 200 homes that are primarily more than 50 years old.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

On May 3, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed project. One public comment was received before the meeting expressing concerns about the project and eight individuals spoke in opposition at the hearing. After public testimony, the applicant requested a continuance to evaluate different options for the project. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant evaluated alternative project options and ultimately requested to proceed with the original request to subdivide the property into two lots and to connect Oakdale and Mint Avenues. On July 19, 2022, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing for the proposed project. The applicant spoke in favor of the project, four individuals spoke in opposition, and one individual asked for additional information about the project. Several commissioners expressed a desire to find a compromise regarding the road connection, but acknowledged that the project was consistent with the General Plan. The Commission voted 3-1 (Circo), 1 absent (Valles) to adopt Resolution No. 11070.

FINDINGS:

In order to overturn the Planning Commission decision and deny the request for a tentative parcel map, the City Council must make those findings in italics below. The non-italicized responses below are findings made by staff and the Planning Commission. Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act and section 16.12.080 of the ECMC state that the City shall deny approval of a subdivision map if the City’s legislative body makes any of the following findings:

A. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan goals related to housing that seek to provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City. It is also consistent with envisioned street connections and improvements in the right-of-way.

B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan, and the site is not physically suitable for the type of development and proposed density.

The proposed subdivision map design results in a two-lot subdivision, which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Furthermore, the site is physically suited for the type of development as well as the density of the development that is proposed for this property.

C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The project site has no habitat value and is located in an urbanized area. Furthermore, the subject property is in a disturbed condition, surrounded by urban development, not environmentally sensitive, and there are no biological resources that would be harmed by the residential development of the subject property.

D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious health problems.

The design of the subdivision and required public improvements to incorporate storm water management improvements will contribute to healthier streams, rivers, bays and the ocean.

Connection of public streets facilitates emergency response, emergency evacuation, and efficient transportation movement.

E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision.

The proposed map will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed map; existing access easements will be respected, and new easements will be established for public utilities.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to section 15332 ("In-fill Development Projects"). The following measuring criteria for a Class 32 exemption apply: the project is consistent with the General Plan designation; the proposal is within the city limits on a site less than five acres, surrounded by substantially urban uses; the project site has no value as natural habitat; approval would not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air, or water quality; and, the site can be adequately served by required utilities. Therefore, section 15332 is an appropriate exemption for this project.

PUBLIC NOTICE & INPUT:

Notice of this public hearing was mailed on September 1, 2022, to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to anyone who requested such notice in writing, in compliance with Government Code sections 65090, 65091, and 65092, as applicable. Additionally, as a public service, the notice was posted in the kiosk at City Hall and on the City’s website under "Public Hearings/Public Notices." The notice was also mailed to the two public libraries in the City of El Cajon, located at 201 East Douglas Avenue and 576 Garfield Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal of TPM No. 2021-0004 for a two-lot subdivision in the RS-6 zone with conditioned public street improvements, consistent with the General Plan.

Prepared By: Noah Alvey, Deputy Director of Community Development Reviewed By: Anthony Shute, Director of Community Development Approved By: Graham Mitchell, City Manager
Attachments
Proposed CC Resolution of Denial
Public Hearing Notice
PC Resolution
PC Minutes Excerpts
Appeal Application
Aerial Image
Application & Disclosure Statement
TPM No. 2021-0004

RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2021-0004 FOR THE

OAKDALE AND MINT TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION, AT THE TERMINI OF OAKDALE AND MINT AVENUES, SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 8, IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY (RS-6) ZONE; APN 511-021-11-00;
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

WHEREAS, the El Cajon Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on May 3, 2022, to consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021- 0004 ("TPM-2021- 0004"), as submitted by Bruce Krager of Civil Landworks on behalf of Delgesh Shahab, requesting a two-lot subdivision in the Residential, Single-family, 6,000 square foot (RS-6) zone, located at the termini of Oakdale and Mint Avenues, A ssessor's Parcel Number 511-021-11-00; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued from May 3, 2022 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore additional development options; and WHEREAS, the El Cajon Planning Commission held a duly advertised continued public hearing on July 19, 2022, and adopted Resolution No. 11070 approving TPM-2021- 0004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on September 13, 2022 to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision regarding TPM- 2021-0004 and received evidence through public testimony and comment, in the form of verbal and written communications and reports.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CAJON AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council finds that:

1. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan goals related to housing that seek to provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City. It is also consistent with envisioned street connections and improvements in the right-of-way and General Plan Circulation Element Objective 6- 3 which states, “Public facilities such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage channels shall be completed to facilitate traffic needs.” The completion of the planned connection of Oakdale and Mint Avenues will facilitate traffic needs in the area by providing an alternate connection to East Main Street. Providing the connection of the two streets will provide increased and timely access for emergency response vehicles dispatched from locations on opposite sides of the current termini.

3. The proposed subdivision map design results in a two- lot subdivision, ---

Page 2 of 2 ends

which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.

Furthermore, the site is physically suited for the type of development as well as the density of the development that is proposed for this property.

4. The project site has no habitat value and is located in an urbanized area.

Furthermore, the subject property is in a disturbed condition, surrounded by urban development, not environmentally sensitive, and there are no biological resources that would be ha rmed by the residential development of the subject property.

5. The design of the subdivision and required public improvements to incorporate storm water management improvements that will contribute to healthier streams, rivers, bays and the ocean. Connection of public streets facilitates emergency response and emergency evacuation.

Furthermore, the units are separated to allow air flow through and around the units.

6. The proposed map will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court j udgment, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed map; existing access easements will be respected, and new easements will be established for public utilities.

Section 2. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and affirms the Planning Commission decision to approve TPM No. 2021- 0004 for a two -lot subdivision in the Residential, Single-family, 6,000 square foot (RS-6) zone.

All property owners within this line i-------------
shall receive notification
--r
ARM- 200

OAKDALE AV
0 100 200
I I I
I-
en
C
0:::

M
z
300
I Feet
RS 6

MINT AV
c-------i 1-cn --------; ·-- - z
I
f2 z )-------j
w 1----

NOTICE OF PROPOSED

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP

FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND

PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the El Cajon City Council will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 13, 2022 in the City Council Chambers, 200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA, to consider:

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. requesting an appeal pursuant to El Cajon Municipal Code section 1 6.24.140 of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004 authorizing a two-lot residential subdivision for future single-family
homes and public street improvements. The subject property located between the terminuses of Oakdale and Mint Avenues, on the side south of the Interstate 8 on-ramp, APN 511-021-11-00. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The public is invited to attend and participate in this public hearing. The agenda report for this project will be available 72 hours prior to the
City Council meeting at https://www.elcajon.gov/your-government/city-meetings-with-agendas-and-minutes-all. In an effort to reduce the City's carbon footprint, paper copies will not be provided at the public hearing, but will be available at City Hall in the Project Assistance Center upon request.

If
you challenge the matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the publi c hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Commission or Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. The City of El Cajon encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the services, activities, and programs provided by the City. lndividuals with disabilities who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the public hearing should contact the City Clerk's office at 619-441-1763. More information about planning and zoning in El Cajon is available at http://www.elcajon.gov/yourgovernment/departments/community-development/planning-division.

If you have any questions, or wish any additional information, please contact NOAH ALVEY at 619-441-1742 or via email at [email protected] and reference "TPM-2021-0004 Appeal" in the subject line.

RS 6 -
RS-6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11070
A RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2021-0004

FOR THE OAKDALE AND MINT TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION, AT THE

TERMINUSES OF OAKDALE AND MINT AVENUES, SOUTH OF
INTERSTATE 8, IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-6) ZONE; APN 511-021-11-00; GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, the El Cajon Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on July 19, 2022, to consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004 ("TPM-2021- 0004''), as submitted by Bruce Krager of Civil Landworks on behalf of Delgesh Shahab, requesting a two-lot subdivision in the Residential, Single-family, 6,000 square foot (RS- 6) zone, located at the terminuses of Oakdale and Mint A venues, Assessor's Parcel Number 511-021-11-00; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued from May 3, 2022 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore additional development options; and WHEREAS, the El Cajon Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") according to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Planning Commission received evidence through public testimony and comment, in the form of verbal and written communications and reports prepared and presented to the Planning Commission, including (but not limited to) evidence such as the following:

A. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan goals related to housing that seek to provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City. It is also consistent with envisioned street connections and improvements in the right-of-way.

B. The proposed subdivision map design results in a two-lot subdivision, which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Furthermore, the site is physically suited for the type of development as well as the density of the development that is proposed for this property.

C. The project site has no habitat value and is located in an urbanized area.

Furthermore, the subject property is in a disturbed condition, surrounded by urban development, not environmentally sensitive, and there are no biological resources that would be harmed by the residential development of the subject property.

D. The design of the subdivision and required public improvements to incorporate storm water management improvements that will contribute to healthier streams, Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
rivers, bays and the ocean. Connection of public streets facilitates emergency response and emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the units are separated to allow air flow through and around the units.

E. The proposed map will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed map; existing access easements will be respected, and new easements will be established for public utilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon said findings of fact stated above, the El Cajon Planning Commission hereby APPROVES TPM-2021-0004 for a two-lot subdivision in the RS-6 zone on the above described property, subject to the following conditions:

Engineering Requirements
Final Map

1. Submit a current Preliminary Title Report and a Subdivision Guarantee, no older than 60 days, at the time the map is ready to record.

2. Submit a County Tax Certificate valid at the time of map recordation.

3. Set survey monuments and guarantee setting of any deferred monuments.

4. Submit Will-Serve letters from Water Company, Gas and Electric Company, Phone Company and Cable TV Company.

5. Submit signature omission letters from all public easement holders who do not have a signature block on the map.

6. Submit a letter stating if the required public improvements listed in 8 through 15 below will be completed prior to recording the Map or deferred by a Subdivision Agreement.

7. Municipal Code section 16.16.060 provides that, in lieu of constructing the required improvements prior to recording of the final map, the subdivider may enter into an agreement which guarantees construction within one year. Such agreement shall be accompanied by improvement security in accordance with Municipal Code section

16.16.080 and a certificate of insurance provided by the subdivider in accordance with City Council Policy D-3.

Public Improvements

8. Dedicate 60-feet of public street right-of-way along Oakdale A venue and Mint A venue, as necessary, to provide an ultimate right-of-way width of 30-feet from centerline along Oakdale A venue and Mint A venue.

9. Construct street improvements from Oakdale Avenue to Mint Avenue to 1-ft beyond the existing pavement structural section on Oakdale A venue and Mint A venue. A detailed scaled drawing showing the plan and profile and typical sections of the

Page 2 of 6 ends

Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
public street, curb and gutter, sewer and drainage facilities, as required, shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California and shall be submitted to the City for approval. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to street pavement to 36-ft (provide 18-ft from face of curb to) centerline, PCC curbs and gutters and sidewalks, and adequate pavement transitions. Repair all damaged concrete curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Improvements should be constructed pursuant to City Improvement Standards. Relocate existing facilities in conflict with construction as necessary.

10. Underground all new utility distribution facilities within the parcel boundaries, including services to all new buildings, in accordance with City Municipal Code sections 16.16.040D and 16.52.010. Evidence of arrangements to underground utilities must be provided.

11. The driveway(s) on Oakdale Avenue and Mint Avenue shall be per San Diego Regional Standard Drawings G-14 B, including 2:1 sidewalk transitions for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. Edge of driveways shall be a minimum of 3-feet from the property line and all obstructions. The driveway shall be a minimum 16' /22' curb cut. Repair all damaged concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk per City of El Cajon Standards.

12. Prior to issuance of Building Permit and Encroachment Permit, the applicant or contractor shall prepare a detailed scaled drawing with dimensions of the proposed driveway and sidewalk installation showing the location of the public street right-of way, property lines, face of curb, all physical obstructions, including but not limited to, utility poles, telephone and cable TV equipment, fencing, etc. along with any required offsets in accordance with San Diego Regional Standard Drawings ("SDRSD") G-15 and G-16.

13. These details shall be shown on a separate Grading, Drainage, and Improvement Plans, but may also be included with the Building Permit or Site Development Plan Set. An Engineer's scale shall be used for all drawings submitted to the Public Works department for review.

14. Install separate gravity sewer services, water services (including meters) and other utilities to each parcel with a building unit in accordance with the Municipal Code.

Wet-tap fees are required. The proposed sewer and water laterals serving the parcel shall be private and shall be approved by the Building Division. A double cleanout is required at the property line for all sewer laterals. Maintenance of the private sewer and water laterals shall be the responsibility of the homeowners. Connections to the City sewer system and payment of connection fees are required with Building Permits.

15. The proposed sewer main to serve the parcels shall be public. A detailed scaled drawing showing the plan and profile of the sewer main, manhole locations, and laterals shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. The sewer main shall be designed and built in accordance with the City of El Cajon Improvement Standards for Public Sewer Mains and submitted to the City for review.

Page 3 of 6 ends

Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
Maintenance of the public sewer main shall be the responsibility of the City.

Maintenance of the sewer laterals shall be the responsibility of the homeowners.

Connections to the City sewer system and payment of connection fees are required with Building Permits.

16. The proposed sewer manhole must be 5-foot (60 inches) per San Diego Regional Standard Drawings SM-02.

17. Stub any new underground utility services out at the property line.

18. No sheet flow is allowed over the proposed driveway and sidewalk.

19. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a Civil or Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of California, along with adequate test borings.

20. Submit a Drainage Study and a Grading and Drainage Plan along with an Erosion Control Plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. No grading or soil disturbance, including clearing of vegetative matter, shall be done until all necessary environmental clearances are secured and the Grading and Drainage Plan and Erosion Control Plan have been reviewed by the City.

21. These Plans shall be based on the preliminary soils report and in conformance with the City of El Cajon Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program ("JRMP") and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Ordinance ("SUSMP") which may require additional water quality management measures and future ongoing maintenance even after completion of the project to prevent, treat, or limit the amount of storm water runoff and pollution from the property.

22. The Erosion Control Plan shall show measures to ensure that pollutants and runoff from the development are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives throughout project construction.

23. The Drainage Study shall include all related tributary areas and adequately address the impacts to the surrounding properties and to the City drainage system. The developer shall provide any needed public and private drainage facilities, including off site drainage facilities (as determined by the study). If public drainage facilities are required, the required improvements need to be included in improvement plans, prepared by a Civil Engineer, registered in the State of California, and submitted to the City for approval. Note: If the Drainage Study indicates the existing downstream drainage system is inadequate for the proposed project density, a reduction in density and/ or hard surface coverage of the subdivision may be required.

24. The school districts in the City have developer fee assessment policies. Development impact fees for Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program ar~ also applicable. These fees are collected at the time of issuance of building permits.

Page4 of 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070

25. Existing streets shall be kept free of dirt and debris and maintained in good condition.

Dust shall be controlled so that it does not become a nuisance. The developer shall be responsible for the repair of any streets or private property damaged as a result of the construction of the subdivision.

26. Landscaping at the entrance of the driveways shall be kept low to provide adequate sight distance.

Encroachment Permit

27. An Encroachment Permit is required prior to any work within the public right-of way.

28. Submittal of a detailed drawing described above, a traffic control plan, an insurance certificate and (non-blanket) endorsements per policy D-3, proof of business license, contractor's license and the review fees. Contact the Public Works Department for additional information.

Storm Water Requirements

29. In accordance with the City of El Cajon Municipal Code section 16.60, this project falls into a Standard Project ("SP") category for Storm Water.

30. The plans shall show that all new roof drains, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other impervious areas will drain to sufficiently sized and designed landscaped areas so as to incorporate Low Impact Development ("LID") Best Management Practices ("BMPs") for compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order No. R9-2015- 0001 and R9-2015-0100; located at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/water issues/programs/stormwater/docs/201 5-1118 AmendedOrder R9-2013-0001 COMPLETE.pd£
LID BMP details must be included as a separate section of the Building Permit Plan Set. An electronic copy of the County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook can be found online at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/susmp/lid.html Planning Requirements

1. Prior to Final Map, or in conformance with condition 7 above, install street trees within the constructed parkway areas. Trees shall be spaced appropriately and at approximately 30 to 40 feet on center and shall be from the approved street tree list.

Root barriers and permanent irrigation systems shall be installed. [The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.]

Page 5 of 6 ends

Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the El Cajon Planning Commission at a regular meeting held July 19, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

MROZ, POLLACK-RUDE, SOTTILE
CIRCO
VALLES

Page 6 of 6 ends

PC Minutes Excerpts
May 3, 2022
Agenda Item: 2
Project Name: Oakdale and Mint Subdivision
Request: Two-lot subdivision in the RS-6 zone
CEQA Recommendation: Exempt
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Project Number(s): Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2021-0004 Location: Terminuses of Oakdale and Mint Avenues
Applicant: Delgesh Shahab; [email protected]
Project Planner: Spencer Hayes; [email protected]; 619-441-1656 City Council Hearing
Required?
No
Recommended Actions: 1. Conduct the public hearing; and

2. MOVE to adopt the next resolution in order, approving the CEQA exemption and TPM No. 2021-0004, subject
to conditions.

HAYES summarized the staff report through a PowerPoint presentation.

COMMISSIONERS asked questions with HAYES and ALVEY providing answers.

SOTTILE opened the public hearing.

One public comment was received before the meeting expressing concerns about the project and distributed to each Commissioner, and several people expressed concerns about the project during the meeting. Applicant SHAHAB requested a continuance to consider different options.

Motion was made by CIRCO, seconded by VALLES, to close the public hearing; motion carried 5-0.

Motion was made by CIRCO, seconded by POLLACK-RUDE, to continue TPM-2021-0004 to a date uncertain, and re-notice the public hearing; motion carried 5-0.

July 19, 2022 (DRAFT)
Agenda Item: 2
Project Name: Oakdale and Mint Subdivision
Request: Two-lot subdivision in the RS-6 zone
CEQA Recommendation: Exempt
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Project Number(s): Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2021-0004 Location: Terminuses of Oakdale and Mint Avenues
Applicant: Delgesh Shahab; [email protected]
Project Planner: Spencer Hayes; [email protected]; 619-441-1656 City Council Hearing Required? No
Recommended Actions: 3. Conduct the continued public hearing; and

4. MOVE to adopt the next resolutions in order,
approving the CEQA exemption and TPM No. 2021-
0004, subject to conditions.

ALVEY summarized the staff report through a PowerPoint presentation.

COMMISSIONERS asked questions with ALVEY and SANCHEZ providing information.

MROZ opened the public hearing.

SHAHAB spoke in support of his project.

Carley FLOT spoke in opposition

Norma MURPHY spoke in opposition

Timothy SWING spoke in opposition

Martha AVERY owns neighboring property and had questions for Commission and staff regarding her financial responsibility if she was to do a lot split.

Dave BAGALINI spoke in opposition

Motion was made by MROZ, seconded by CIRCO, to close the public hearing; motion carried 4-0, with VALLES absent.

Commissioners discussed the project with staff.

MROZ reopened the public hearing for more public comment.

BAGALINI spoke again with further comments.

Motion was made by MROZ, seconded by POLLACK-RUDE, to close the public hearing; motion carried 4-0, with VALLES absent.

Motion was made by MROZ, seconded by POLLACK-RUDE, to approve the CEQA exemption and the Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004; motion carried 3-1 (MROZ, POLLACK-RUDE, and SOTTILE; CIRCO) and VALLES absent.

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
(Public Hearing)
TO: The City Council of the City of El Cajon, California C/0: City Clerk
'
The City of El Cajon, Planning Commission rendered a decision denying/granting application for __ T~ \/ l-- 'iJq Y-(;l I V\f\o._\? I\J O · 2..--02-( -0004 as sought by _____ _ Q~ CV\{A\f\O\? .

Petitioner appeals the decision of the Planning Commission upon the following grounds:
~{t., @~cd fq rel(
Petitioner therefore requests that Planning Commission Resolution No._/ t_0_rf_0 ___ _ adopted on Ji.A I~ •1tfi1'1 1,-(J 2,-Z, .~ ·, be set aside and that tvu...-- ~Uz;l/ r I°' \I\ ( VZ'Ad fltloVbvl~ V\/tl ye, ) be granted~ NJ1 (please print) - I
SlgnaU:"'-- ~
Address
€. L C CA,_1DD
Telephone: ~ JC{_ 50Z' '09 Z>y
(circleo~
n 1'¥\U,rph.<oo~m ct'i, \~ Choo)
Email address
Applicant
Applicant's Representative
Opponent
(Specify)
1J
-F.
c.n w
CC\FORMS\Appeal Planning Comm. decision
Rev. 10/2018
µ o YYV\C\ M11tvy;1 h'f
\.i;-=t-2., Mlv\-\- A0f e_,
Ul-l q so\? aoi ~lP
We are requesting to revisit and modify the Gener1;3I Plan as it relates to the Parcel requirement includ ing that of the road thoroughfare between Mint Avenue and Oakdale Avenue.

Requesting appeal of decision for the fo llowing reasons:
-Potential increased crime rates and activity.
-No traffic demand for road to go all the way through.
-Increased traffic accidents and incidents.
- Would become cut through for ride share.
- Decrease in home values ( we lose sub division status) . - Road geographizes health and safety of those who reside in community specifica lly the children ( 3 schools within 4 blocks) .

We respectfully ask for General Plan review and revision.

S , 0) Y\OJ 1A v-e. 5 i V\ u\ V\ol(. d.

D f- v.-~d \J~ ~ loV\ I l+
tv'\ \ V\ t- °' ✓ e_, .
. .
-tv\o~ IV\ orroi;-rho V\
00\ k-cta.,, l c_ a nd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11070
A RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2021-0004 FOR THE OAKDALE AN.D MINT TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION, AT THE

TERMINUSES OF OAKDALE AND MINT A VENUES, SOUTH OF
INTERSTATE 8, IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-6) ZONE; APN 511-021-11-00; GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, the El Cajon Planning Com.mission held a duly advertised public hearing on July 19, 2022, to consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-0004 ("TPM-2021- 000411), as submitted by Bruce Krager of Civil Landworks on behalf of Delgesh Shahab, requesting a two-lot subdivision in the Residential, Single-family, 6,000 square foot (RS- 6) zone, located at the terminuses of Oakdale and Mint Avenues, Assessor's Parcel Number 511-021-11-00; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued from May 3, 2022 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to explore additional development options; and WHEREAS, the El Cajon Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( 11CEQA11) according to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Planning Commission received evidence through public testimony and comment, in the form of verbal and . written communications and reports prepared and presented to the Planning Commission, including (but not limited to) evidence such as the following:

B. The proposed subdivision map design results in a two-lot subdivision, which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Furth ermore, the site is physically suited for the type of development as well as the density of the dev elopment that is proposed for this property.

C. The project site has no habitat value and is located in an urbanized area.

Furthermore, the subject property is in a disturbed condition, surrounded by urban development, not environmentally sensitive, and there are no biological resourc es that would be harmed by the residential development of the subject property .

D. The design of the subdivision and required public improvements to incorpor ate storm water management improvements that will contribute to healthier streams , Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
public street, curb and gutter, sewer and drainage facilities, as required, shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California and shall be submitted to the City for approval. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to street pavement to 36-ft (provide 18-ft from face of curb to) centerline, PCC curbs and gutters and sidewalks, and adequate pavement transitions. Repair all damaged concrete curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Improvements should be constructed pursuant to City Improvement Standards. Relocate existing facilities in conflict with construction as necessary.

14. Install separate gravity sewer services, water services (including meters) and other utilities to each parcel with a building unit in accordance with the Municipal Code .

Wet-tap fees are required. The proposed sewer and water laterals serving the parcel shall be private and shall be approved by the Building Division. A double cleanout is required at the property line for all sewer laterals. Maintenance of the private sewer and water laterals shall be the responsibility of the homeowners . Connections to the City sewer system and payment of connection fees are required with Building Permits.

15. The proposed sewer main to serve the parcels shall be public. A detailed scaled drawing showing the plan and profile of the sewer main, manhole locations, and laterals shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California . The sewer main shall be designed and built in accordance with the City of El Cajon Improvement Standards for Public Sewer Mains and submitted to the City for review.

Page 3 of 6 ends

Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
rivers, bays and the ocean. Cmmection of public streets facilitates emergency response and emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the units are separated to allow air flow through and around the units.

Engineering Requirements
Final Map

1. Submit a current Preliminary Title Report and a Subdivision Guarantee, no older than 60 days, at the time the map is ready to record.

2. Submit a County Tax Certificate valid at the time of map recordation.

3. Set survey monuments and guarantee setting of any deferred monuments .

4. Submit Will-Serve letters from Water Company, Gas and Electric Company, Phone Company and Cable TV Company.

5. Submit signature omission letters from all public easement holders who do not have a signature block on the map.

6. Submit a letter stating if the required public improvements listed in 8 through 15 below will be completed prior to recording the Map or deferred by a Subdivision Agreement.

7. Municipal Code section 16.16.060 provides that, in lieu of constructing the required improvements prior to recording of the final map, the subdivider may enter into an agreement which guarantees construction within one year . Such agreement shall be accompanied by improvement security in accordance with Municipal Code section

16.16.080 and a certificate of insurance provided by the subdivider in accordance with City Council Policy D-3.

Public Improvements

9. Construct street improvements from Oakdale Avenue to Mint Avenue to 1-ft beyond the existing pavement structural section on Oakdale A venue and Mint A venue . A detail ed scaled drawing showing the plan and profile and typical sections of the

Page 2 of 6 ends

Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
Maintenance of the public sewer main shall be the responsibility of the City.

Maintenance of the sewer laterals shall be the responsibility of the homeowners.

Connections to the City sewer system and payment of connection fees are required with Building Permits.

16. The proposed sewer manhole must be 5-foot (60 inches) per San Diego Regional Standard Drawings SM-02.

17. Stub any new underground utility services out at the property line.

18. No sheet flow is allowed over the proposed driveway and sidewalk.

19. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a Civil or Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of California, along with adequate test borings.

21. These Plans shall be based on the preliminary soils report and in conformance with the City of El Cajon Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program ( 11 JRMP
11 ) and
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Ordinance ("SUSMP") which may require additional water quality management measures and future ongoing maintenance even after completion of the project to prevent, treat, or limit the amount of storm water runoff and pollution from the property.

23. The Drainage Study shall include all related tributary areas and adequately address the impacts to the surrounding properties and to the City drainage system. The developer shall provide any needed public and private drainage facilities, including off site drainage facilities (as determined by the study) . If public drainage facilities are required, the required improvements need to be included in improvement plans, prepared by a Civil Engineer, registered in the State of California, and submitted to the City for approval. Note: If the Drainage Study indicates the existing downstream drainage system is inadequate for the proposed project density, a reduction in density and/ or hard surface coverage of the subdivision may be required.

24. The school districts in the City have developer fee assessment policies . Development impact fees for Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program ar~ also applicable. These fees are collected at the time of issuance of building permits.

Page4 of 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070

25. Existing streets shall be kept free of dirt and debris and maintained in good condition.

26. Landscaping at the entrance of the driveways shall-be kept low to provide adequate sight distance.

Encroachment Pennit

27. An Encroachment Permit is required prior to any work within the public right-of way.

Storm Water Requirements

29. In accordance with the City of El Cajon Municipal Code section 16.60, this project falls into a Standard Project (
11 SP
11 ) category for Storm Water.

30. The plans shall show that all new roof drains, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other impervious areas will drain to sufficiently sized and designed landscaped areas so as to incorporate Low Impact Development (
11 LID
11 ) Best Management
Practices (11BMPs11) for compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order No. R9-2015- 0001 and R9-2015-0100i located at:
http://www .swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/water issues/programs/stormwater/docs/201 5-1118 AmendedOrder R9-2013-0001 COMPLETE.pd£
LID BMP details must be included as a separate section of the Building Permit Plan Set. An electronic copy of the County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook can be found on.line at:
https: //www.sandiegocounty .gov/ content/ sdc/ dpw /watersheds/ susmp/lid.html Planning Requirements

1. Prior to Final Map, or in conformance with condition 7 above, install street trees within the constructed parkway areas. Trees shall be spaced appropriat ely and at approximately 30 to 40 feet on center and shall be from the approved street tree list.

Root barriers and perman ent irrigation systems shall be installed. [The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.]

Page 5 of 6 ends

Planning Commission Resolution No. 11070
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the El Cajon Planning Commission at a regular meeting held July 19, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

MROZ, POLLACK-RUDE, SOTTILE
CIRCO
VALLES

Page 6 of 6 ends

PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ROAD
DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN OAKDALE AVE AND MINT ~[~~~T
Printed Name Address Signature Date
fl~V)_ PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ROAD
··ff/ \DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN OAKDALE AVE AND MINT STREET
,.,_) .J / I"\~~
,,,,,,,, I I
Printed Name Ad~ress Signature Date
6/t/ZZ
5/1122-
5- {-2L
/

PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ROAD

DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN OAKDALE AVE AND MINT STREET
·Printed Name Address Signature ,Date
5-f-;l?,._ \
5-\-22-

PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ROAD

DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN OAKDALE AVE AND MINT STREET

PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ROAD

DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN OAKDALE AVE AND MINT STREET
" .. , .
·Printed Name Address Signature Date
J.<!5rJlh C/Jup 1/?J7 (?',k1-1"" 1//4" ~ ~·-~s/1 /?~
l\",QV\,lllJ ro.JdlV-ll\ \i11 0twnA s+-
\ Llfl IAi J~m ~-au '5) l 'i..-2.--
~~r\rNMi -~,,\ 6 l 5 G cJu v\t~ ~ 11:.) ~:)Ji ~. STt /L& l(a:tAI~~~ Sn1 ltk b h ·" c'f) ~ L tZ ua.., s r J,!alfJ~f}/1 ~ ,5::, /-;ii 'J.. n \I if)."' s~~ \J (V\ °' 0 l S \f el\ to\/\ s~ ((-,)~ ~ ----"S-\,,,'2..1- ( I /
l'.3(1 l\ VW\~ Mvi ,tl"iy l S' -~ 1, 1\A { \f\ _,_ ~ -(__,, \ ~Wfil'fhth <;-[-LL- f 7 ltl+\V\J.,i \V\ lA V\0 h \) \<-.,, 1- i \'v\ , V' t A "'\J-L \?_;~ - <;-t,l-/7- \ I
I
/V\ I 111 -t· -NL- ?iRD6~ r . \ ✓ vL-::JY100·~ W1 l<;"u·v1 1<;, =) 'L t0 VociL r 1)<;;~ l c t-1-- Ht ~r A.;'<../ htrf/ ~ u ~ , \ . ?,,/l_, M
Against Opening of Mint Ave
1 message
Norma Murphy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
To whom it may
concern,
My name is Norma Murphy and I have been a resident
of El Cajon for over 20 years.

I was a single mom of 3 young girls when I moved to
Mint Ave. I fell in love with the community the
adjacent schooling and knowing my girls would be
safe playing on their bikes on our street. Now years
later my grandkids may not have that ability and
neither will the kids in our neighborhood if the open
street happens.

We have all seen the rise in crime in our community
and the concerns for our children safety. This is even
more alarming with the proposal of opening our street
up for traffic to come through . We have never had an
issue with traffic or needing to open our street to help minimize the traffic on Madison.

I do understand Del Shahab concerns about the
financial setback, however thi s isn't my concern and
frankly Is Deis responsibility as the property owner.

Doing your research and knowing the areas
surrounding prior to purchasing any property falls on
him and not the community nor the surrounding
neighbors. This is already a financial setback, but I
don't think the city realizes nor does Mr. Del
understand what this is going to bring to not only his
property value but to ours as well. Safety and crime is top priority for our neighborhood. We have seen it rise and making a through street will only increase this
rate.

I would like to discuss my concerns further with you in regards to this notion as soon as possible as we
move forward with our appeal against the new street
in our community.

Sincerely,
Norma Murphy
Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 6:31 AM
I Cajon Crime Map
U ,.,, ti'A-.i t •
O ·
, ,,
1---------,,..-+'-- .... ~---------- ''
200m
Lo,...,er crime
Le,~ot I• OpenStntelM•P <011hllll!lor1 q, AIJ~\libtJ
Higher crime No data available
Crime map drt[i' by SpotCrlmr. S!R,n up for loc15\ Spot[nme. o!en:..

The El Cajon crime map provides ii detililed overview of all crimes in El Cajon as reported by the local law enforcement agency. Based on the color coped legend above, the crime map outlines the areas with lo'l'ler crime compared to the areas with higher crime . The El Cajon crime heat map offers insight into the total crimes on a block group level.

RESPONSE TIME
FROM F.D. IS NOT
HEOUCl:D BY
I ROAD . SAME

DISTANCE
C.oin:muµizy ~ -~•nvi_ro1'111ent,~I De.fense Services
.(https://ceds .orgD.

HOME (HTTPS://CEDS.ORG).

ISSUES WE CAN HELP YOU W IN (HTTPS://CEDS .ORG/ ISSUES-WE-CAN-HELP-YOU-WIN/).

SUCCESSES (HTTPS:/ /CEDS.ORG/SUCCESS-EXAM PLES/).

PUBLICAT IONS (HTTP:! /WWW .CED-S.ORG/PUBLI CATIONS/).

ABOUT (HTTPS:/ /CEDS.ORG/ ABOUT-CEDS/) .

CONTACT (HTTPS:/ /CEDS.ORG/CONTACT7).
--
Regardless of where you live in the U.S., CEDS can help with making neighborhood streets safer by preventing excessive cut-thru traffic or winning the installation of speed humps and other traffic calming measures. To learn more read on or contact CEDS at 410-654-3021 or [email protected] (mailto :[email protected]) for an initial no-cost discussion of strategy options .

Also, consider participating in a CEDS one-hour online workshop (https ://www.surveymonkey .com/r/cedsworkshop) on what works with regard to making neighborhood streets safer.

Click this sentence to see examples of how we're making neighborhood streets safer. (https ://ceds .org/ success-examples/)
Of all our roads, neighborhood streets have the highest accident rate (https :// static .tti .tamu .edu/ swutc .tamu .edu/ publications /technicalreports / 16 7707-1.pdf) .

And these accidents involve a substantially higher percentage of pedestrians and cyclists when compared to those occurring on other roads. Excessive cut-thru traffic is a key factor jeopardizing the safety of our neighborhood streets. As main roads become more congested, cut-thru traffic increases. Main road congestion is a result of poorly managed growth. There are a number of measures for making neighborhood streets safer by reducing cut-thru traffic.

Other measures can then prevent future growth from threatening safety once again .

The map above shows a road network typical of many residential areas. As main roads (blue arterials and gold collectors above) become increasingly congested, drivers seek out ways for getting around traffic jams. Unfortunately, the alternative usually involves a neighborhood through-street like those in red and gold above. This cut-thru traffic makes neighborhood streets noisier and more dangerous .

Cut-thru traffic tends to operate at a higher speed, which increases the likelihood of accidents and the severity of injury because as the graphic below shows :
• a pedestrian is nearly twice as likely to die if struck by a car traveling at 30 mph compared to 20 mph,
• as speed increases driver field of vision narrows, which makes it more likely that pedestrians will not be seen nearby until its too late to avoid an accident, and • a car travelling at 30 mph requires twice the distance to fully stop compared to 20 mph .

When a person is
driving at ...
this is their field
of vision.

It takes ...
(£)
MPH
45' TO
•
@
MPH G9 MPH
85' TO
~ -
145' TO
c:::==:::;:;:~ -•
and pedestrians 95% tltttfff tt 55o/o tftftf•ttt 15% tHftHftt ~~;:\!~'.s speed su;xwi- ttttttttlt su~xi~AL tttttt•Ht su~xi~AL tttttf tHt Source: Virginia Safe Routes to Schools (http://INww.virginiadot.org/programs/ted _Rt2_schoo l_pro.asp) (http ://www.virginiadot.org/programs/ted _Rt2_schoo1_pro.asp) To measure the speed and volume of traffic on a street see the CEDS Traffic Evaluation Procedures (https://ceds .org/wp-content/uploads/2021 /02/TrafficEvaluat ionProcedures .pdf) .

Of even greater concern are situations where traffic volume increases because a court or other cul-de-sac (dead-end) street is turned into a through -street.

Congested roads and rising neighborhood cut-thru traffic are a result of poorly managed growth. In this webpage we'll explain how to resolve both in ways that can make neighborhood streets safer while accommodating a reasonable amount of growth. Contact · CEDS at 410-654-3021 or [email protected] (mailto :[email protected]) if you have any questions or would like our assistance making your street safer.

Why Cut-Thru Traffic Is A Problem
As traffic volume increases on a neighborhood street so does vehicle speed, accident frequency, noise, and even crime. All of these impacts then decrease property value.

Table 1, below, is from a Texas Transportation Institute report (https ://static .tti.tamu.edu/swutc .tamu .edu/publications/technicalreports / 167707-1 .pdf) and shows that local roads/streets in urban areas have the highest crash (accident) rate. In an urban setting, most of these local roads would be residential or neighborhood streets.

T,\Hl.t: I c·•- J d"'°8 11h•1a,h Utl." l,v 1111.Jllla\ ' ........ , ,i'hall1111111 u1lua h 'l:t, rn ltt.-.J-,-o t'Nh'tOl!ilr., ,1-W..lr4 \ (itf, c,,,.~lt:.i. <lo.Mlk'Jlt:fl I rt•tkd lnll hn,. fr.noh, S"t l•)J
Nllb n •~M,k-..-.•~
"''"''.K'I
I.N I a t n~ I.I.!:.
llfl('fl) u,- ,~ 1,,i. u ~\-:.12 I.J
:'.',,1(~ ,l~f1 1! ~,-151 )}f~O,T ,,
Ab,,. t.rU,o :i J,111 :u~ .'.! I.I
t.'dlt\1'1 1,l 4'J tt,T)1 J I.I
~
1,,-,.J ll!td)l'.l.1tr1> I YI! IU.J•~ I.~
ua,..-!•11
" ..
1,c...1 U,Tt(. 1:rui~ I.:

Table 1, shows that neighborhood streets are our most dangerous. Research (https://static.tti.tamu .edu/swutc .tamu .edu/publications/technicalreports / 167707-1.pdf) has determined that those using neighborhood streets to avoid main road congestion tend to drive at a higher speed. The combined effect of cut-thru traffic increased speed and volume makes a neighborhood street even more dangerous .

It is generally true that as traffic volume increases, the value of homes along a street declines (http ://www .diva-portal.org/smash / get/diva2 :8724/FULLTEXT01 .pdf) . This is especially true for those living on courts and other cul-de-sac streets where homes can sell for up to 20% more (https ://www .realtor.com/advice/buy/why -do-we-have-cul-de-sacs/) than those located on through streets.

Cul-De-Sac to Thru-Street Conversion
There is a large body of literature touting the benefits of maximizing street connections . This research has prompted many local planning agencies to require conversion of cul-de-sacs to thru-streets. Usually this opportunity only arises when a proposed development project abuts a cul-de-sac neighborhood . An example of this situation is pictured below.

J ..
t ........ \.. .. V
,.... ..
' ~••l-. 11, ,.
l,,
\ '•
' ;
'
u,
.. ,
l .. •
: ;
>
l
' .
t ..

Burnt HIiis Drive 2015
BEFORE Connection
.. ,
I fl ff:J
o .. ,
,, ...... ~
I
1 '
.. -- •
i i l l l D
. i
C
•:,t ~ I C_1 I f, , I A l l~
Burnt Hills Drive Becomes Only Connecting Street
l l NO
Between Route 28 & 1-87 a Distance of 3 miles ,-/ ,
'--------~----e------::----:---,:------,-----------,;-' ,..· ,.
~ ,-•t i "' f 't• gt
·~ i "'o.-
,,,
\ '•
.., ,,,.n.,
,,.., '"-\ r
......
~ .. w"'"'
Burnt Hills Drive 2018
AFTER Connection
lt,•,-o,,,,.,
lt, n.a: ,
...
l '•• ..... ,
111 , ' 1 I I '-,f
','t{ST (ii £HS. tAll
,
Q
.... , ,,., .
< , l
,./ p
Burnt Hills Drive is located in Queensbury, NY. Note that in 2015 Burnt Hills Drive was a cul-de sac. It was then converted to a thru-street when new homes were built. After clicking on the map above to get a closer view you'll see that Burnt Hills Drive became the only connecting street along a three-mile stretch between Luzerne Road and Upper Sherman Avenue and between 1-87 and Route 58. As a result whenever the two east-west streets become heavy drivers use Burnt Hills Drive in hopes of bypassing the congestion .

There were two dozen homes on Burnt Hills Drive before the connection. These homes would have generated about 25 peak-hour trips . A recent traffic study revealed that peak-hour traffic on Burnt Hills Drive is now more than ten times higher! Burnt Hills Drive residents are now seeking to win the cooperation of their elected representatives to employ measures to reduce and slow down the large volume of cut-thru traffic .

The irony of the Burnt Hills Drive situation is that the local comprehensive plan (https ://www .queensbury .net/wp -content/uploads/2015/08/ Adopted -Plan-8-6-07.pdf) contained the following text regarding cul-de-sac to thru-street conversions:
"Despite the advantages that connections bring, it is not practical or even necessary to force every residential subdivision to open up roads to its neighbors. Rather, it is important to establish the right connections between the right places." Here's an example of a "right connection":

1. If funds had been available to convert a number of other cul-de-sacs to thru -streets between Route 58 and 1-87 so the impact to any one neighborhood would be minimized, and

2. Traffic calming measures were installed to force most traffic to obey a 25 mph speed limit.

The reality is that local officials have resisted installing traffic calming measures on Burnt Hills Drive post-connection. So if they cannot afford these relatively inexpensive safeguards it is unlikely they would have had the funds to convert other cul-de-sacs to thru -streets.

Of course local officials should have required that the developer who profited from the Burnt Hills Drive connection pay for installing calming measures. Why this was not done is unclear even though the following comprehensive plan text clearly called for this:
"Any new automobile connections must be accompanied by specific and extensive traffic calming interventions to mitigate the possibility of increased traffic on some residential streets."
Finally, in most existing communities cul-de-sacs are so numerous that conversions of all to thru-streets is exceedingly unlikely. It is only in the few instances where proposed development abuts a cul-de-sac neighborhood that conversion is likely. In other words, a few neighborhoods fall victim to an unrealistic policy.

However, it would be far less expensive and beneficial to use development projects to enhance neighborhood quality of life by creating connecting pedestrian-cyclist paths. As the last bit of irony, the following town comprehensive plan text encouraged this:
"Pedestrian and bike connections can achieve many connectivity goals at a fraction of the cost."
Following is a description of the many benefits enjoyed by cul-de-sac residents .

Cul-De-Sac Benefits
Those who live on cul-de-sacs (dead-end streets) paid a premium of 20% (https://www .realtor.com/advice/buy/why -do-we-have-cul-de-sacs/) to as much as 29% (https ://www .researchgate.net/proflle/Pau l-
Asabere/pub lication/ 5151757 _ The_ Value_of_a_Neighborhood_Street_Reference_to_a_Cul-de Sac/links/ 586686e608aebf17d39ae814/The-Value-o f-a-Neighborhood -Street-Reference-to-a Cul-de-Sac.pdf) to enjoy the enhanced quality of life motivating their choice.

Converting cul-de-sacs to through streets interferes with the close neighbor relations that adds so much to quality of life. For example, one sociologist (https ://www .citylab .com/equity/2013/10/sociologists -defense-cul-de-sac/7262/) found that:
"people who live in traditional bulb cul-de-sacs have the highest levels of attitudinal and behavioral cohesion (covering both how they feel about their neighbors and how much they actually interact with them) . People who live on your average residential through street have the lowest levels ... "
· For parents living on courts or other low-volume streets, a rise in traffic volume may increase anxiety about allowing children - particularly younger kids - to play outside . Children between the ages of 5 and 9 (https://www.ncbi.nlm .nih.gov/pmc/artic1es/PMC2359256/) are particularly at risk to traffic -caused injury. Converting cul-de-sacs to through-streets robs both children and their parents of a sense of safety and freedom many cherish.

With regard to crime (http://www .accessmagazine .org/spring -2004/reconsidering-cul-de sac/) , one study noted that
"Furthermore, hierarchical, discontinuous street systems have lower burglary rates than easily traveled street layouts; criminals will avoid street patterns where they might get trapped . For example, the troubled Five Oaks district of Dayton, Ohio, was restructured to create several small neighborhoods by converting many local streets to cul-de-sacs by means of barriers. Within a short time traffic declined 67 percent and traffic accidents fell 40 percent. Overall crime decreased 26 percent, and violent crime fell by half . At the same time, home sales and values increased."
Making Neighborhood Streets Safer Success Examples
Between 2013 and 2016, New York City reduced traffic -related fatalities by 23% (https://www1 .nyc.gov / office-of-the-mayor/news/013-17 /vision -zero-mayor-de-blasio-2016- saw-f ewest-fatalities-ever-new-york-city -streets#/0) while nationally they increased by 7%.

Speed humps and tables have reduced crashes on neighborhood streets by up to 45% (https://static .tti.tamu .edu/swutc.tamu .edu/publications/technicalreports/167707-1 .pdf) .

Holding back left-turning traffic for 3-7 seconds at signalized intersections has reduced pedestrian injuries by 60% (https ://nacto .org/publication/urban -street-design guide/intersection-design -elements/traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/) .

A sizable portion of cut-thru traffic can be attributed to apps that steer drivers from congested main roads onto neighborhood streets. Very frustr ated officia ls in one town felt they had no choice but to close off neighborhood streets to rush hour cut-thru traffic (https://www.nytimes .com/2017 /12/24/nyregion/traff,c-apps-gps -neighborhoods.html ).

These are but a few of many examples of measures that can make neighborhood streets safer. This goal is best achieved by mobilizing the widespread support needed to allow government to conduct a comprehensive analysis of opportunities such as those serving as the basis for Vision Zero (https://visionzeronetwork .org/) plans . These and other measures are addressed in further detail below.

How Much Traffic Is Too Much for a Neighborhood Street
While every through-street will carry traffic from one main road to another, neighborhood quality of life suffers when the volume crosses a certain threshold.

Where is that threshold?
The table below is from a paper {https://www .safetylit.org/citations / index.php? fuseaction=c itations .viewdetails&citationlds =citjournalarticle_241216_38) that appeared in the Institute for Transportation Engineers Journal (https: //www .ite.org/) . The term "environment" in the table is defined as:
"one where residents can live, work and move about in freedom from the hazards of motor traffic."
Enviro1unent Vehicles Per Minute Vehicles Per Day
Excellent 0.5 300
Good 0.5-1.0 300-600
Acceptable 1.0-2.0 600-1200
Poor >2.0 >1200
To put these numbers in perspective, each single-family detached home generates one peak hour trip and ten trips per day. This includes not just the cars and SUVs driven by residents but delivery trucks and all other traffic entering-exiting a neighborhood. One would anticipate that those who live on a residential street prefer that traffic volume remain in the good to excellent range or less than 600 vehicles per day. In other words, land use decisions should not cause traffic volume to exceed 600 vehicles per day on a neighborhood street.

At What Point Does Main Road Congestion Cause Excessive Cut Thru Traffic
· Commuters begin seeking alternate routes when congestion cuts main road (arterial-collector) speed to half the free-flow (mid-morning) speed
(https ://static .tti.tamu .edu/swutc .tamu .edu/publications/technicalreports/167707 -1.pdf) . For example, if free-flow speed is 40 mph then drivers begin seeking out alternates when congestion causes average speed to drop to 20 mph . Of course the alternate route is frequently a through -street passing through a residential neighborhood .

As shown in the figure below, traffic congestion is rated using a system known as Level of Service ranging from A to F. That "half -free-flow-speed" where drivers begin seeking alternate routes in earnest lies between a Level of Service of C to D (https://static .tti.tamu .edu/swutc .tamu.edu/publications/technical reports/167707 -1.pdf) . So, to keep cut-thru traffic at a reasonable volume main road traffic congestion should not reach Level of Service D-E or F.

Ill
I
I
Level-of-Service A
• Free traffic flow
• High level of maneuverability
• Average delay at intersections
less than five seconds
J_, I
11111
a
I I
IIDr 1111
- ..

Level-of-Service B
• Stable traffic flow
• Maneuverability affected by other
users within traffic stream
• Average delay at intersections
less than 15 seconds
This figure Is from the Prince George's County, MD Master Plan of Transportation (click on this figure to see the full plan) . level-of-Service C
• Stable traffic flow
• Maneuverability affected by other
users in traffic stream
• Average delay at intersections
Jess than 25 seconds
level-of-Service E
• Freedom to maneuver in traffic
stream very difficult
• Average delay at intersections
less than one minute
...... .... ..... ..
.. ;, ........ Jl[II
I - bl
I
Level-of-Service D
• High density but stable traffic
I
flow
II • Speed .and freedom to maneuver
in traffic stream severe) y
restricted
• Average delay at intersections
less than 40 seconds
Level-of-Service F
• Breakdown in traffic flow
• Queues form . Operations within
traffic stream characterized by
stop and go
• Average delay at intersections in
excess of one minute
Best Options for Reducing Congestion
Much of neighborhood cut-thru traffic is a result of drivers using streets to bypas s main road congest ion. Federal law requires that local governments and states develop Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) to ensure that funds are spent on projects that will be most effect ive in reducing congestion . Transportation projects are supposed to be rated against a number of performance measures such as congestion -delay, accident rates, etc. The plans are developed by agencies known as a Metropolitan or Transportation Planning Organization, a Transportation Planning Board, etc.

Unfortunately, few plans present these ratings in a way that makes it easy for tax payers to see how projects will make their lives better by improving mobility . One of the exceptions is the Metro Washington, D.C. Plan which was based in part on the following graphic showing that ten project categories would reduce congestion by 2% to 24%.

Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Improves under All Initiatives ~'-
% oh,ngq In dllil)' vvhlole l'oou" of d'vf,y fJom 200 CLRP (https://www .mwcog .org/flle .aspx?
&A=p4JrCe45zbv1 oUd3kATAKPZvxFjPC2LqsK%2fcA4dpYQw%3d)Note that the projects involving new roads or adding lanes to existing highways are among the least effective. To understand why, see the 11-minute video Why Is It So Hard to Fix Traffic? (https://www .youtube .com/watch?v=epHRVoTFuVM&featu re=youtu.be) Assessing the Effect of Transportation Projects on Neighborhood Street Safety
A number of states and localities use a level of service system to rate the impact of increased motor vehicle traffic on pedestrian or cyclist safety. One of the earliest rating systems was developed by the Florida Department of Transportation
(http://www .fltod .com/research/fdot/quality_leveLof_service _handbook.pdf) .

The systems rate streets on a scale of"~' to "F" for walking-cycling suitability. A rating of"~' to "C" is considered acceptable while "D" to "F" indicates a street is increasingly less suited for walking -cycling . The rating declines as traffic volume and speed increases if all other factors remain the same. In other words, an increase in traffic volume could lower the suitab ility of a street for walking -cycling . If the increase is due to cut-thru traffic, which tends to operate at a higher speed, then the negative effect on suitabi lity will be compounded.

The walking -cycling level of service system should be used to assess the effect of all transportation projects on neighborhood street safety. The following Walkable Communities (http ://www .walkable .org/) posters illustrate the factors making for a more pedestrian or cyclist friendly street.
(https ://i0 .wp .com/www .walkable .org/images/1 _LOQWalking.jpg) (https://i0.wp.com/www.walkable.org/images/1 _LOQBicycling.jpg) Reducing Existing Cut-Thru Traffic
If traffic on your street exceeds the good to excellent range (300-600 vpd) given above, then cons ider calling for one or more of the many measures listed proven to reduce both cut-thru speed and volume. The permanent measures given below are more effect ive and long-lasting.

For assistance in forming a traffic management strategy for your street(s) contact CEDS at 410-654-3021 or [email protected] (mailto :[email protected]) .

Effectiveness of Neighborhood Traffic Management Techniques This /able appeared as Tobie 5 in Co11prehe11si11e B11g;,1eerb~g Approach lo Achieving Sllje Neighborhoods P1i111.uy i\•lc,t<;lllc of Pe 1cc 11I ({ed u c tion In ... ( :.th.·~o r~ Tceh11i,p1e Llh-t·Ci, l'IH'<;'< Vo l11111c Sp ,-cd Co lli<;ion o; Route Full closures (1 to 4 blocks away) Volume reduction 44% Modification Half closures (1 to 4 blocks away) Volume reduction 42% 19% - - -Devices Diagonal diverters Volume reduction 35% 4% Speed humps Speed reduction 18% to 22% 23% 13% to 40%
Speed tables Speed reduction 12% 18% 45%
- - - -
Traffic Calming Raised intersections Speed reduction 1% - -
- -
Devices Traffic circles Speed reduction 5% 11% 28%
- - -
Roadway narrowing Volume reduction 10% 4%
-
Chokers Volume reduction 20% 14%
Speed trailers Speed reduction 9% 7% 10%
Reguh1tory - - - - - -
Speed limit signs and markings Speed reduction 4% 7% 3% Measures - ,_ - ,_ - Increased enforcement Speed reduction 8% 28% 28%
(https :// static.tti .tamu .edu/swutc.tamu .edu/publications/technicalreports/167707-1 .pdf) Ensuring Measures Really Do Calm Cut-Thru Traffic
Many transportation agencies face a conflict when it comes to traffic calming measures . On the one hand, no one would argue that calming measures make neighborhood streets safer by discouraging cut-thru traffic . On the other hand, traffic agencies rely upon cut-thru traffic to reduce main road congestion .

This conflict can result in the design of calming measures that serve more as a pacifier rather than achieving the goal of making neighborhood streets safer. For example, one study (https ://www .researchgate.net/ pu bl ication/251710044_ Traffi c_M icrosimulation_Study _to_Ev aluate_the_Effect_of_ Type_and_Spacing_of_ Traffic_Calming_Devices_on_Capacity) showed a substantial difference in the effectiveness of speed humps with an entrance ramp slope of less than 5%. This same study documented that speed humps spaced 82 feet achieved a 25% lower speed compared to a spacing of 1300 feet. Combined, a slope of >5% and spacing of 82 feet slowed traffic by an average of 5 mph more compared to speed humps with <5% slope and 1300-foot spacing.

It is not uncommon that folks say that while their neighborhood streets have speed humps or other calming measures they do not seem to have much effect on cut-thru traffic volume or speed. We suspect the poor performance is mostly due to poor design. In other words, the measures may have been designed more as pacifiers than to achieve a significant improvement in neighborhood street safety.

The recommended spacing for speed humps
(https ://safety .fhwa .dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer _modules/module3pt2 .cfm#mod310) is every 260- to 500-feet. A typical speed hump :
• Extends from edge of street pavement to edge of pavement, • Has a length of 12 feet, which
• Means it must be at least 3.6-inches high to achieve a 5% entrance ramp slope.

If the speed humps on your street does not meet these specifications then they may be less than fully effective. Contact CEDS at 410-654-3021 or [email protected] (mailto :[email protected]) to discuss .speed hump design

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--- TYPICAL SPBBD HUMP - - ---
Existing Cwb
PLAN VIEW 12-inoh white mark.in.&$ Speed Hump (Wl7-1) Sec Noto ,.. Speed Hump CW17-1) w ~ ~~
aw C\ll and 2" Taper Mill
Ei _ ___. ______ _....,_ __ ~...1,.._ ___ -,1-_.__
c-i Existing R.oadway
2'
Apply Tack Coat
Varies
SJlctlON 8-8
1Vm2H
Varies
Existing Cu.rb
&isling Ro
If 12' long center height must be
lea~ ·3°: "to achieve 5% slope
-il
2'
I l'-O"(TYP.
6'
Saw cut and 2" Taper Mill
NOTH:
l. ALL SIGNINO AND STRIPING SHALL CONFORM TO THB LATEST EDITION OF THE DE MUTCD.

Cul-De-Sacs & Quality of Life
• •
~ r-:
-
6'
• Ol
0 2'
Following is a summary of research demonstrating why cul-de-sacs and other dead-end neighborhood streets should not be converted into through -roads .

In a paper entitled The Cul-de-sac Effect: Relationship between Street Design and Residential Social Cohesion (https://ascelibrary .org/ doi/full/10 .1061/ (ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000192) , published in the Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Volume 141 Issue 1 - March 2015, sociolog ist Thomas R. Hochschild reported:
"This study utilized a quasi -experimental design to assess differences in residential social cohesion for residents of "bulb" cul-de-sacs, "dead-end" cul-de-sacs, and through streets. My data reveal that bulb residents experience the highest levels of attitudin al and behavioral cohesion , followed by dead-ends, then through streets." 5 Benefits of Cul-De-Sacs: (http://www .thebarkerteam .com/advantages -of-living-on-a-cul-de sac-in-fountain -hills-arizona/)

1. "Eliminates Through Traffic: Cul-de-sacs are dead-end streets. There is no drive-through or commuter traffic speeding down the street. Because there is no reason to pull into a cul-de sac unless your destination is on that street, the flow of traffic is reduced.

2. Safer Streets For Residents and Children: Due to the reduction of traffic on a cul-de-sac, the streets are safer for children and residents on the street. Cars also tend to drive much slower on a cul-de-sac because they are approaching their destination. They realize the street is a dead-end and this adds to the safe environment for fami lies and their kids.

3. Promotes A Neighborly Environment: A cul-de-sac emphasizes the closeness of homes and families. With a quieter street, the opportunity for playing on the sidewalk, front yard and even the street is more appealing. This environment promotes more interaction with other Fountain Hills residents and invites block parties and other cul-de-sac events creating a closer bond between the families .

4. Lower Burglary and Vandalism Rates: In addition to the safety provided by the lack of speeding traffic, the homes on cul-de-sacs themselves experience lower crime rates. With more street play and activity, the famil ies are more connected and this adds protection to the homes. Criminals are denied easy access and egress and with the increased visibility, cul-de-sacs have a significantly lower rate of burglary than their neighbors on the drive through streets.

5. Increased House Values: All this adds up to increase property values for Fountain Hills homes situated on a cul-de-sac. Due to the layout of the street, more homes can take advantage of the extra space of a pie-shaped lot. The lifestyle and curb appeal of a quiet street appeal to buyers and results in higher sales prices. Corner lots are particularly desirable."
· Reconsidering the Cul-De-Sac: (http://www .accessmagazine .org/spring-2004/reconsidering cul-de-sac/) "Residents also preferred the cul-de-sac as a place to live, even if they actually lived on a through or loop street. People said they felt cul-de-sac streets were safer and quieter because there was no through traffic and what traffic there was moved slowly . They also felt they were more likely to know their neighbors. One resident's comment was typical : "Our pets and kids are safer when there is a no-outlet street; you feel kidnapping is less likely-there is more of a sense of neighborhood ." Thus, the study generally corroborated earlier transportation research on the values of a hierarchical discontinuous street pattern . It also supported claims that cul-de-sacs are more frequently and more safely used by children .

The Benefits of Living in A Cul-De-Sac: (http://infotainmentnews .net/2013/03/05/benefits living-cul -de-sac/) "Because cul-de-sacs tend to have fewer homes than traditional streets, it is easier for people to get to know their neighbors in the cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sacs also are a natural place for neighbors to plan block parties or picnics because with proper permits from the local authorities, a cul-de-sac can be blocked off to any incoming or outgoing traffic during the block party. Homes in a cul-de-sac generally face outward toward the other homes, creating a greater sense of community for the residents as they can see their neighbors' front doors from their own."
Residential Street Design and Play: (http ://playingout.net/wp- content/up loads/2017 /02/Helen -Forman-Street-design-and -play.pdf) A literature review of policy, guidance and research on residential street design and its influence on children's independent outdoor activity: "Both traffic speed and volume have been found to have an effect on how streets are used. Appleyard's study of three similar streets in San Francisco showed that residents' quality of life was measurably affected by the volume of traffic in the street (Appleyard, 1981 ). Those living on a light -trafficked street knew more of their neighbors, felt a greater sense of belonging and were more familiar with its physical features. The study was replicated on residential streets in Bristol in 2011 and the findings resonated strong ly with Appleyard's (Hart & Parkhurst, 2011)."
Preventing Cul-De-Sac Extensions
If you're concerned about a proposal to turn your cul-de-sac into a through-street then contact CEDS at 410-654-3021 or [email protected] (mailto :[email protected]) to discuss strategy options.

Take a look at the streets highlighted black, above. About a fourth to a third of the streets are courts or other cul-de-sacs. The same is probably true for most of the U.S.

Those who live on these cul-de-sacs paid up to 20%
(https ://www.realtor.com/advice/buy / why-do-we-have-cul-de-sacs/) more for the increased safety and tranquility of these low-volume streets. It is understandable then that cul-de-sac residents become irate when a proposal is made to open their street to cut-thru traffic. It's even more infuriating when this is done to allow an adjacent property to be developed.

Usually the justification for the extension is to provide a second means of emergency vehicle access should the main entrance ever be blocked by a downed tree, floodwaters, vehicle accident, etc. Another justification is to increase road connectivity to relieve congestion on main routes. The relief is achieved, of course, by increasing neighborhood street cut-thru traffic .

As stated above, increasing neighborhood cut-thru traffic to relieve congestion is a symptom of poor growth management. While a second means of emergency access is certainly a legitimate need, there are ways of accommodating this need without forcing residents to sacrifice the safety and tranquility of their neighborhoods .

Before a cul-de-sac conversion is considered, all other options must be exhausted . · CEDS has helped a number of communities with this issue. We can frequently find an alternate, second access such as creating a new road off an existing collector or arterial that prevents neighborhood impact.

If an alternate access is not available then other options must be considered . If cul-de-sac extension is the only means for creating a second access and the second access is genuinely needed for public safety, then consideration should be given to gating the access so it can only be opened by fire, ambulance, police and other emergency services personnel.

To see an example of how CEDS can help you protect your cul-de-sac from being turned into a through-street click on: Preventing Cul-De-Sacs From Becoming Through Roads (https ://ceds .org/wp -content/uploads/2019/06/culdesacs .pdf_20190627095339 .pdf) .

If for some reason an emergency-access-only gate is not an option, then a number of measures should be considered that reduce cut-thru traffic speed, volume and crash rates, like the speed humps referenced in the table above. Public officials may argue that these measures interfere with snow-plowing and emergency vehicle travel time. Rarely though do the benefits of the measures come up in these arguments .

As stated at the beginning of this webpage, neighborhood streets have the highest accident rate (https ://static .tti .tamu .edu/swut c.tamu.edu/publications/technica lreports/167707 -1.pdf) of all road types. Homes located on cul-de-sacs are valued for up to 20% more, which generates higher property-tax revenue. It's simply wrong to ask people to sacrifice the safety and tranquility of their neighborhood without exhausting all other options. I suspect that if elected officials were aware of the higher accident rates, lower tax revenue, and injustice then more responsible policies would be adopted with regard to the conversion of cul-de-sacs into through streets.

How Much of the Traffic on Your Street is Cut-Thru?
Each home adds one vehicle (or trip) to the morning or evening peak traffic hour. The aerial below shows seven homes on Bushey Road between Liberty Road (north) and Old Liberty Road (south) . Note Bushey Road has seven more morning peak-hour trips at the north end then at the south where it intersects Old Liberty. But there's another 43 morning peak-hour trips coming from those turning north onto Bushey Road from Old Liberty. So, 82% of morning traffic is from commuters using Bushey Road to reach Liberty Road - a main highway . For guidance on doing a traffic count see: CEDS Traffic Impact Evaluation Procedures (https ://ceds .org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07 /Traff1cEvaluationProcedures .pdf) .

Most neighborhood street systems are not as simple as that depicted above. Some have connecting streets which in turn connect to highways . Others have a mix of singl e-family detached homes, townhouses or apartments which each respectively add about 1.0, 0.5, and

0.4 peak-hour trips . Nevertheless, one can still get a rough idea of cut-thru traffic volume even in these complex situation using the peak-hour method described above for Bushey Road.

Why Excessive Cut-Thru Traffic Reflects Flawed Growth
Management
Responsible growth management seeks to prevent congestion from reaching the threshold (Level of Service D-E or F) where cut-thru traffic harms neighborhood quality of life. ' Ironically, increasing main road congestion seems to create pressure on public officials to engage in two practices that exacerbate neighborhood cut-thru traffic:
• Allowing cul-de-sacs to be converted into through streets, and • Resisting calls for speed humps and other measures that would slow cut-thru traffic speed volume .

Winning Responsible Growth & Traffic Management
So how would responsible growth management prevent main road congestion from reaching the point where rush-hour cut-thru traffic becomes excessive? More importantly, how can you provide elected officials with the public support they need to manage growth responsibly? Responsible growth management begins with a plan that identifies existing and future congestion problems then recommends solutions . Next elected officials must allocate the funds required to make the infrastructure improvements many solutions require. Finally, Concurrency (http ://mrsc .org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/General -Planning -and-Growth Management/Concurrency .aspx) and Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (http ://www .ced s.org/traffic/#apfo) (APFO) laws must be in place to prevent additional growth from being approved before solutions are fully implemented.

CEDS has found that far too many growth management plans fail to show both existing and future congestion. Without this information plan readers are left in the dark as to whether growth will make their streets safer or more dangerous . To see what a good plan should provide see the Traffic Congestion section of the CEDS Comprehensive Plans, Master Plans & Quality of Life Growth Management webpage (https ://ceds .org/growthplans/) .

Infrastructure improvement s frequently come years after congestion has become excessive.

Instead, the infrastructure projects must be included in capital improvement plan (https://en .wikipedia .org/wiki/CapitaUmprovement_plan) then fully funded, preferably through the use of impact fee (http://www .impactfees.com/) s.

Far too many APFO-Concurrency laws are so poorly written or enforced as to be ineffective .

This leaves local residents wondering if congestion is inevitable. Of course it isn't. A common flaw is that the congestion cut-off is set well beyond the point where cut-thru traffic becomes serious.

Earlier this point was given as when average speed is cut in half and Level of Service drops below C-D. Urban-suburban growth restrictions should kick in and postpone development which would add traffic to roads that will be at or below Level of Service D-E. Instead the cut off is frequently set at the point where average speed is reduced by 75% and congestion reaches Level of Service E-F.

Winning responsible traffic and growth management begins with homeowner and other neighborhood associatio ns taking the following actions:
• Identify issues affecting the safety and tranquility of your streets, • Develop solution s for each issue (see CEDS Traffic (https://ceds .org/traffic/) webpage), • Employ Politically Oriented Advocacy (https://ceds.org/poa/) to provide elected officials with the public support needed to implement the solution s, then • Form a coalition with kindred groups throughout your town, city or county to create the political clout needed to effect ively advocate for better growth plans (https://ceds .org/growthplans/) , full funding of solutions, and effective, fully enforced APFO laws so growth is postponed until it can be accommodated without making neighborhood streets more dangerous.

Vision Zero
The Vision Zero website (https://visionzeronetwork .org/) describes this concept as ... " ... a strategy to elimin ate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has proved successful across Europe - and now it's gaining momentum in major American citi es."
Vision Zero seeks to achieve this goal by ...
• "lowering speed limits
• redesigning streets,
• implementing meaningful behavior change campaigns, and enhancing data-driven traffic enforcement."
, • Consider urging your local elected officials to adopt a Vision Zero plan for your village, borough, town, city or county. For further detail visit the Vision Zero resources page at:
https://Visionzeronetwork.org/resources/ (https://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/) (https://www .su rveym on key .co m/r /cuthru)
Home ( h ttps://ceds org) I
I ssues We Can He l p You Win
(https://ceds.org/issues - we
can-he l p-you-w i n/) I
S u c c e s s e s
(https://ceds.org/success
examp l es/) I
Pub l icat i ons (http·//www.ced
s org/publ1cations/) I
About ( h ttps://ceds.org/about
ceds/) I
Contact
(https://cecls org/contact7)
Aerial Image of Subject Site
Aerial Image
TPM-2021-0004- Oakdale and Mint Subdivision
~\ ~~?~
11,e l'n /lcy t.1/0p/>0rlu11fl)'
•••
.,,. "' ,,..., ~"',
0"Pora1e.O"
City of El Cajon
Type of Planning Permit(s) Requested:

OAZP CUP
Administrative Zoning Conditional Use Permit
Permit
OMUP PRO
Minor Use Permit Planned Residential
Development
SP OSCR
Specific Plan Substantial
Conformance Review
VAR ZR
Variance Zone Reclassification
Project Location
Parcel Number (APN): s11-021-11
Application and
Disclosure Statement
Project Assistance Center

PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION
OLLA MA
Lot Line Adjustment Minor Amendment

OPUD OSDP
Planned Unit Site Development Plan
Development Permit
~TPM OTSM
Tentative Parcel Map Tentative Subdivision
Map
00ther:
----------------------------
Address: o Oakdale Ave.

Nearest Intersection: Durham St. and Oakdale Ave.

Project Description (or attach separate narrative)
Subdivide lot into 2 parcels for construction of 2 residential homes.

Project Screening Questions If yes, please describe:

Existing use? No Yes
Modification of use? No Yes
New development or addition? No ~Yes new residential homes Existing Structures? ~No Yes Age of the structures:
200 Civic Center Way I El Cajon I California I 92020 I 619-441-1742 Main I 619-441-1743 Fax

Page 1 of 3 ends

Demolition or substantial
modification proposed to site
improvements or structures?
Tenant improvements proposed?
Existing vegetation or trees on site
proposed for removal?
Proposed grading?
~ No Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
~Yes Proposed quantities of cut and/or fill.
130 CY cut / 370 CY fill
Applicant Information (the individual or entity proposing to carry out the project; not for consultants) Company Name:

Contact Name: Delgesh Shahab
Mailing Address: 1475 Oakdale, #19, 92021, CA
Phone: 619 760 6640 Email: [email protected]
Interest in Property: ~Own D Lease Option
Project Representative Information (if different than applicant; consultant information here) Company Name: Civil Landworks Corp.

Contact Name: David Caron ucense: 70066 -------------
Mailing Address: 110 Copperwood Way, Suite P, Oceanside, CA 92058 Phone: 760-908-87 45 Email: [email protected]
Property Owner Information (if different than applicant) Company Name:

Contact Name:

Mailing Address:

Phone: Email:

Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement
Section 65962.S(f) of the State of California Government Code requires that before the City of El Cajon accepts as complete an application for any discretionary project, the applicant submit a signed statement indicating whether or not the project site is identified on the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. This list identifies known sites that have been subject to releases of hazardous 200 Civic Center Way I El Cajon I California I 92020 I 619-441-1742 Main I 619-441-1743 Fax

Page 2 of 3 ends

chemicals, and is available at http://www.calepa.ca .gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ . Check the appropriate box and if applicable, provide the necessary information:

The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application:
~ is/are NOT contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Dis/are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

If yes, provide Regulatory Identification Number: ______ Date of List: _____ _ Authorization
Applicant Signature1:

Property Owner
Signature2:

Date: Oct, 9th, 2021
Date: Oct, 9th, 2021

1. Applicant's Signature: I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct, and that I am the property owner, authorized agent of the property owner, or other person having a legal right, interest, or entitlement to the use of the property that is the subject of this application . I understand that the applicant is responsible for knowing and complying with the governing policies and regulations applicable to the proposed development or permit. The City is not liable for any damages or loss resulting from the actual or alleged failure to inform the applicant of any applicable laws or regulations, including before or during final inspections . City approval of a permit application, including all related plans and documents, is not a grant of approval to violate any applicable policy or regulation , nor does it constitute a waiver by the City to pursue any remedy, which may be available to enforce and correct violations of the applicable policies and regulations . I authorize representatives of the City to enter the subject property for inspection purposes.

2. Property Owner's Signature: If not the same as the applicant, property owner must also sign. A signed, expressed letter of consent to this application may be provided separately instead of signing this application form . By signing, property owner acknowledges and consents to all authorizations, requirements, conditions and notices described in this application . Notice of Restriction: property owner further acknowledges and consents to a Notice of Restriction being recorded on the title to their property related to approval of the requested permit . A Notice of Restriction runs with the land and binds any successors in interest .

Pre-application Conference
The purpose of a pre-application conference is to provide you an opportunity to review your project with City staff in a preliminary form to finalize submittal requirements and receive a cursory identification of potential issues. A pre-application is required unless waived by staff.

Conference date:

Application Submittal
To submit your application, it must be done by appointment scheduled in advance for all Level 3, 4, & 5 project reviews, unless waived by staff. It is recommended for projects that will subsequently meet the criteria for a Level 1-C review through Level 2.

Appointment date:
200 Civic Center Way I El Cajon I California I 92020 I 619-441-1742 Main I 619-441-1743 Fax

Page 3 of 3 ends

Disclosure Statement
Project Assistance Center
Planning Group

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This statement is intended to identify and avoid potential conflicts of interest that may exist between the project proponents and the decision makers; including City staff, Planning Com.missioners, and City Council members.

The following information must be disclosed:

1. List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.

Delgesh Shahab
List the names and address of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.

Delgesh Shahab

2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.

3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a trust, list the name and address of any person serving as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 200 Civic Center Way I El Cajon I California I 92020 I 619-441-1742 Main I 619-441-1743 Fax

4. Have you or your agents transacted more than $500.00 worth of business with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past 12 months or $1,000.00 with the spouse of any such person? Yes __ No _X __ If yes, please indicate person(s), dates, and amounts of such transactions or gifts. "Person" is defined as "Any individual, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in concert." Gov't Code §82047. {J~ Oct, 91h 2021 _D_el..;;;_ge_sh_S_h_a_ha_b ______ _
Signature of applicant/ date Print or type name of applicant NOTE: Attach appropriate names on additional pages as necessary. lllt!IEB. OAK DALE DRIVE,
""""""""' 147$ 0M0M£ A"811t flt
ELCMIN.CA9202I
~
0 Ol,l(l),II.£ A'IOU
ELCA.Ol,CA'201t
N'N: 511-0211-11
EASEMENTS PER IlTI E REPORT PAJFP 7-31-20
© SOGlfEASDIENTltEl:a!DEDIWIOl24,1947NIICQ(2371,PAGC1MCfCfFICIALRECCR'.IS(NOTPI.OTTA8.!) 0 ANEASDIENTNl'.lRIOHT<SWAYFORRCWlNIDPU1.JCUTIUTYNIPO!ES,ASIEER\Ol8YJAl'NER.Fm0.J..

NI lNWIRE>IOWI, N l&D WX11DED FEIIIIJM!Y25, 11152 II BOOK 4JIIO, PM£~ Cf (fFKJAI. RECORDS. © SOGlfEASDIENTIIECIJIDEDOCTtllOIJQ,1957NIIOCk5814,PN£28CFCJROM.RECCROS(NOTl't.On.+a.E) © IEJXIRAIO,\JDIDIS'IRICTEASCIIOITAt:CalllEDJWUNIY7,19&.lASNSlRUIIENTNO.m4tftfflCIM.RE<XRDS @ 11£QlYGrELCA.QtEASDIENTRECIREIJNILIMl'21.19&3ASIMS1IUrlEMTN0.12'!3(fCf'AOM.R£CalOS. ® SOOICEASOIENTIIECIJIDEDFEBRUNt'r14,19&9ASINSlRI.IEfl'N0.27&.l30FcmaM.IIEIXROS. @ AIIJTIER'SAQl'ISOflNIIIESSANOEll!ESSTO<RFROIIKFIE'MYMOM>.WDITfRQNTMlEll[OCJIDED .w«IMY22,1t1SASINS'IIUIENTN0.~!181Xl<X0FFICIM.REC011lS.

PROPosm EASEMENTS AND DWICATIONS ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES VICINITY MAP (D IEICo\11C11101HECITYOfD..c,.K)NASPUlJCIIOIT--cf'-WAY @ (U!XCUIMROITOFW,YmlR<WlNllPIBJCUTIUTYPIR'O£S
PROPOSFD PARCEi PATA
I'"+"'"'" llf lfm1 I
ASSE:SSOR'S PARCEL NO
~1--021-11
-
10POJW'lf'I' Fl.OM BY PHOTO Gf:OOEllC COlfflt.AlKII MlED 12-21-20.

NlJC ROMl FEUI SI.NY Irr ~1E I.NI) SIAMYS DAfED 1+21.
-
lHEIIENQIIAAKISCITYll'B.CA.OI 1DO, SlDIIII T~N 00111.-r •NE O:Jl€R YAIIS(II. JIRI SIREET,
ElfVA1NJ1•510.lm°(NA'o11SB)
...............

APIJmCN(FMNOR'QIUNEtFIW'N0.415B,LE.NOR1Httr.JdJff
"" DYtNER/AfPUCANT·
..,,,,. .....
147$0M0M.EA\EIIJE, f19
ELCAOl,CA9202!
~
'"""""""' ~
"""'"" ,.,arr ""'"""Rl DPCRT/WPGIT
....,.,
''"' ''"" "" IIAm.11\CRTICM.oo>'ltCfClll•1.l ffET
IIADUI 'eTICM. oo>'lt (F FU• 2.0 fllT
IIAllllll.ll SUFE • 2:1
""" EARltfWIR(CIINIJl1lESOONOTIICfl.ECTNttl.OOSESOOE10
SIIIN(M£.SU1511ENCE,O'ltllOCAVAJION,Cll:IMJSP(QAL
CGOTIIJfS1HAlllYIIESll£CflDIIHSCll.SIIEl'CRTNII.W:

RJIREFEIIEHC£CN.T. SINCEHENGKOICNIIOTC<IOIIU. H .,_, ... ~
TIISIIAPCfEJGJNG10POGRAPHY'IASSIJM'i'EDBAS[l)0N
REO.IRDl[NfSF(RIE90N(;IASPECl'ICPRO.£ClNIJSOIIEll/£AS
IIAYHAW:RATERCRl£SSERD£lALBAS[l)0NPIIOECT
RE(PfBl[Nl'S..fltSIIN'ISllfbll(DFCRIJSCCN.YASADESICNAID fCltlHATPADLCT.OtM«lESIIMSOJ'E,llESIGNER,CRSIGIIFll'.:MT DEI..A'l'SNIDGNNIJjCRCQISlRUC'OONWAYRE0llR£UPOAfECf
HIIAPPNGCRMEXTEN50ICf'HltJ'OGIWIHY.

HIIWIIM'f'SHOINHEIICONISHIIESIJLTCfAPIIEOSE
REll!ACOENTCfHPll(ll[IIJTIIOUIIIARYDEPIC'IEDIOECII. A
PROCellECfSIJnEYOO'IClN.PH'fSICALE\UNCEANO
IIEASUIOIENT OlolA IS AVAUEU FCR RE\4EW IJP(ll RECllST.

HLOCAQCfUTI~Hl'IINON TIISllAPISFRQilSlll'Aa:

Ntl!IIATION GAHIUIOI.IIIIG HFE.IISUIMY, HPREOSE
LOCATICJtNIODEPlH Cfl.MSAtllfACU1611JSTIIEOEIERIIIEl8Y
FE.IIElf'LORAQPllatlOEXCAW.lKII.
<INERAl NOTES
1)Sl fElll£A: OMACRS
2)000WIIKTER'IM.~):f
3)00IERM.PLMCEilatA'ION:

DIISlll);lR-lDWDENSl1YR£SIDTIAL
PIIO"OSElkl!S-t-SIIQ.EfAIII.Y11£SUN11AL
4)ZOtl«lomJtG-P,PROPOSED-ltS-&
S)ElilSflNCNIMEICft.On: DIISflNC: 0NC.PR0POS£D:: r«)
t)PIICW'ODNl.l&R CfSRJCTIJRES: lW)SIN(l[fAIIILYOIEU.NGI.NTS 7)SE'IIER:EI.CA.«lNSMITAIOIOIS'IRICl
8)W,.lER:HEIJXWAlERDISIICl
t) ME: l£M1UHO FIii£ AICI IIESO.(
i
<TS
-5<
i MX:UV.fEI.MO ~
2SHMPINE!l.Wl,SlE4
AI.AJ£,CAtl90I
819-~10
~fEI.MIISIJIMY.COII
QYIL ENGINEER OF WORK [C
'
:irr ........ , ,... '
u .. .- _J
@-..,.,.,_,.,.._
llOCO"J'ER'MXllWAY,Sl.lfEP
"""""'-"""" n...,._,,.,
...,..,,..,. ,,.._
D'.PICAL CROSS SECTION
OAK PALE DBI\£
"'
PROK.
"""""
lmllll;_
PR(fflllTBOIJICIMTLtlE
mm,,,.,..,.
__ 1 __
ROITCf'IAY
___ , __
Ill!
""""""""' •••"'"'""
20 O 20
~--"\iiiir""I

GRAPHIC SCALE
SCALE: r- 20•
40 I
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NQ Teniat;ve ParcelMap
-----------
EL CAJON, CA 92019
.~
('
j 62\_ I
Civil l!llandworks
110 COPPERWOOO WAY. SUITE P, OCEANSIDE, CA 92058
PH: 7~908-8745 • lnfo@civlllaodwofl<.s.oom
__ ,.,
/
/ ,,
----~ -------
.,.,. .. ~ .. RJ! _.. ~ . •· ~;;-•·· • .•' ._· • '" ~ . .~ •.• ·¾:., ·.---•---,., -· --•dt r&
-.... ~1 - ----"--------+,.;.;_~~ - A;;UE . "'",·: . ';.",~ . . \_~.,,~ . . ~ ~~m = -~ ~ ... ,.,, .,\
OWNER
""""'"""" 1•7S(W(OALEA'ftlU.1!9
El.CoU:N.CAt2021

SITE ADDRESS
0OAIIDMfA',UIJE
ELCoU:N.CA'20l9

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Al'(JllDIOl'I.OT4,IFFERRDLACll£S,ACOORllllGlOWl'JHEREOF NO. 2- FUl>II Mom:EOF'll£00JNIYR£CCRIEROFSNI DIEGO
COJNTYOI JJNEN, IM.GWllEIITO JIESTA'IEIFCALFOINAGI
.wtlMll'r22."7S.INDOCUIEITN0.75-0l560Q,CfFICIAI.AEIXRIS, AE001UDNJl£CfflC(OFSAIICOUNTYIIECCRO, Tooat£RWIA
PCRlDI IFLOTA", IF
N0.4188,FUON11£
l_t_S_f,l:RANlD)lOH
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.

EARTHWORK DATA
OJT•..2JD.. C.Y. FU•.Jll..C.Y.

NET•...11......C.Y.

TOTM.LOTMfA•JMe1$.f.

TOTM.DISllllllEDAREA• 20,fflS.F .
tEPlHOFCIJT•UFUT
tEPlHOFFll•2.0FUT
UPlMCICUTNIIRLDOJmlNWIIECEOlECINCM.REllmATION ,._.,.

MAPPING NOTE:

DHSIW'OF'DIISTINGta'OGfWIH'l'WAS!UM'IUIBASED(II
AEOJIIOIENTSfOROCSIGNIFASPEaflCPRO.ECTNIDSOIIE~
IIAYIM.~OREA'IERORILSSCROETAlllASEDCNPRO.ECT
AEOJIIOIENTS. lllSIIN'ISllflEl«DfCIIUSECN.Y.+.sACUIJI Ml FOR'MA,JPIO,[Cf.OWICCSIIHSCU'E,WICNER,ORSOlflCNIT
CE.Al'SIIOESICM Nl)/w, COfS'IIIUC'IKll tU.YIIECURE UPOA'IE or 1"Ell~ORNIEXlENSICNOFHltW"Ol:RM'HY .
lHEEIII.IIJARYSl(lllill£REONISHIEIJlTtFAPRE051:
~Cf"JHEPll(J'[RTYBWtl)MYPEPClOll£REOI. A
PROOOI.IIECf"SUR\O'lE'ICTll8PH'tSICM.E\UNCl:NII
IIEASIJIUENT OATA IS AVAlABLE RII ll£'4W IN! AEWEST.
1ttEI..OCAmNflU11U11ESSH0191CIIMSIIAPISFRCll9.llf'AC[
INRRL\1DI Go\KR£D CUIIIG H rE.D suntY. H PR(CIS[
I..OCAb NII DEP1H or I.KS NII rACI.JfESIIIJSTB[ D£IDIIIN[I) 8'I' FIEI.D Elfll..CRAlOI PRO! TO EXCAVATDl

TOPOGRAPHY
~NE~iu::.r:J-.i~S1DEIIT/CNOOC811El
El.£VAIClll•S10.02S'{MAWII&)
~
APGlllON<SMIGIJHI.M OFIW'IIO. 411!8.LE.IGIJHane'lO"
""
SITE DATA .,. .....
""""""""""" """"''"'"" ==~ """"'""' """_ ..... """"""""""" ..... ,,,,,,,. -...............

LEGEND ......,., ...

IIGtfTCFW.Y
"""""' DISKcaro.ll(IIAB)
DISKCOOCUl(llllal)
--....., ..... _,
ORCTICNIFDRMWI:

AETMING WM!.
=·~ ,~ -~ t.msr
-~ -~ , .... ~
"' ,...,~ ..,.,~ , .... ~
-<--
-~
PR.~ PA\OIOIT (1111'£11WUS) ~

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
(D CONSTll.lCTQIIII CII.YPOI SDRSD ~I
@CONSTRUCTeKR.lRAlllllllASII
@CONSTRUCTCQllllESnMIIIPRAP[N[RqYDISSPATER
POI SlRSD 0-.0, T•l.1'
@NSTMLrlCL.ASSl(JRD«::HDRAIIORECLIVAl.tNT
@INSTAU.e"YMl>II.ET
@INSTM!.6° IIJIIE SD
(i)IXIISIIIJCTSB'S

UTILITY NOTES
@CONSTRUCT•"SElfJILAJERALPOISIIRSl)5S-01
@IXlNSTIIJCTI" MJERSERW:E'MIH 1° 1iE'JERN118NlCfl.0IJPOIDSlllS-01 @IXIISIIIJCTOOCAP
@IXIISIIIJCTrl£W.JERIIAIIOOEMSICII
@IXIISIIIJCTSElfJla.£AIIJl1IW/BAClfl.Ol'PE'OJERPOISIIRSD5C-01 @IXIISIIIJCTSElfJIIWHUPOl5llRSOSll--o1
@IXlNSTIIJCTr'.cSE'IIERIIAIIOOEMSICII

OAKDALE DRIVE,
"'·' 11
l~f{___

PROPOSED EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS
-
EL CAJON, CA 92019
/ ~
~
-"'"" >""-.~
') ~
·-----,~ 1~1~1~1t
0 DOllC\QlOltf:QTY(FB.CA.OIASPl&JCIQIT-(F-WAY
© QJICKQJ.IIIIGlf'l(FMYF<IIROfllNIIPl&.ICUll.JTYPll!P05£S .....
""""'
..... .......

EASEMENTS PER TITLE REPORT DATED 7-31-20
© SOOflEEASEIIENTREtalOOlMNIOl2', 1!H71NBO(J(2J71,PAGE12S(F(FF1CJALll8XIIOS{NOTPLO'm&E) 0 AMEASEIIEMTAl(llllJIT(FWAYRIIROMlAl(lPUIUCUll.JTYPUIIPOSES,ASRESOMDBY.IA'l'NER.FOIIEU,NI @ ::-0~=:°~~~~=~,~~~~l
© IE.JXIARIGATIOMDISlllCTEA!BIENTleXRIED.IAIIIARY7,1163ASNStlll.lOTNO.J254(Fcmc:w.REaR!S ® KCIIY(FB.CAolONEASOIENTRCCtRIEDJ#IJIINtl,1163ASNS111.1CNTNO.l~(F(FF'IOALRECOIIDS. @ SOCaEEASEIIENTREtalOOllUIRIJM'(H,1989ASNSllllJIIDITN0.276JJ(F(FF'IOALR£1XRlS. @ ..aJTJER'SIIClffi(FINIXSSNCIECXSSlOORfllCIIKFREEWAYNIIAO.llaNTFRCIITA«IIDXRIE) JNIIJNrr22.lfflASNSIRllEflM0.7~~(F(FFIJALIIWJRDS.
20 0 1 20
I'----~
GRAPHIC SCA.£8
SCAW. r- 20'
j

ENGINEER
@-... """"'"-· 110 OJll'Ell.:xD *Y, SU'IE P
_,.._ --~ IMWIY.¢XA(ii 10--iAI

GRADING PLAN
>-
~
~. (/)!
6"!
~ ~
:::,
·l
Civil 11.Qandworks
110 COPPERWOOO WAY, SUITE P, OCEANSIDE, CA 92058
PH: 760-90&-8745 • [email protected]

El Cajon City CouncilSeptember 13, 2022

El Cajon City Council
September 13, 2022