HomeMy WebLinkAboutDI 13-01; Alternative Design Streets; Discussion Item (DI)The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ltemNo. 8
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 16, 2013 Project Planner: Don Neu
Project Engineer: Jason Geldert
SUBJECT: Dll3-01-ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS-Discussion of the Street and Sidewalk Policy
Committee final report, dated February 23, 2000 and a determination by the Planning
Commission of whether to request that the City Council consider changes to the policies
and regulations effecting alternative design streets.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission review the information related to alternative design streets and
determine if the Commission will request that the issue be referred to the City Council for their
consideration of changes to the policies and regulations effecting alternative design streets.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2013 the Planning Commission voted (7-0) to direct the City Planner to place on a future
agenda, an item for discussion of current policies and regulations regarding alternative design streets.
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Planning Commission to discuss and decide whether to
request that City Council consider changes to the policies and regulations effecting alternative design
streets.
In September 1999, a group of Carlsbad residents known as the Cit izens for the Preservation of Olde
Carlsbad (CPOC) presented a petition of over 700 signatures to the Carlsbad City Council. The subject of
the petit ion was the road improvement policies in effect at that time w ithin the "Oide Carlsbad" area of
the City. "Oide Carlsbad" was defined as the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific
Ocean on the west and between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons. One of the concerns was
preserving the character of the area, by not "urbanizing" the narrower tree lined streets with w idening
and edge improvements such as sidewalks, curb and gutters that would result in the removal of street
trees. Another concern for property owners was that when their remodel was valued at $50,000 or
more, they were required to construct improvements to city specifications along adjacent street
frontages, imposing a financial burden.
In response to the petit ion, the City Council at its November 2, 1999 meeting adopted Resolution No.
99-485, forming the Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and Streets Improvements (Committee).
The Committee was directed to consider all relevant issues pertaining to street and sidewalk designs in
formulating its recommendations to the City Council. Issues that were to be considered by the
committee included aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and preferences, safety, liability,
environmental impacts and all applicable laws.
The City Council at its July 25, 2000 meeting adopted a resolution approving the Committee's alternative
street designations, alternative street design approval process and the alternative street design criteria
as presented in the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report, dated February 23, 2000.
DI 13-01 – ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
October 16, 2013
Page2
Additionally, the City Council, at the same meeting, adopted a resolution responding to the Committee’s
recommendations that are contained in the final report.
On August 1, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. NS-555 amending Title 18 Chapter 18.40, of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This ordinance did the following:
Repealed a moratorium on improvements.
Increased the cost of work that requires a dedication from $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 and
allowed this amount to be increased annually.
Required a neighborhood improvement agreement for any deferral of required improvements.
Increased the cost of work that requires improvements to be constructed from $50,000.00 to
$75,000.00 and allowed this amount to be increased annually.
Allowed deferral of improvement requirements for streets designated as “Alternative Design
Streets.”
Allowed deferral of improvement requirements for streets where the improvements would not
be continuous with existing improvements and construction would be impractical.
III. ANALYSIS
As the supply of large areas of undeveloped land in the city continues to shrink, more development
projects are being proposed on infill sites. There are several potential infill sites for new development
and more so for redevelopment sites within the area defined as “Olde Carlsbad.” Several of these sites
will be influenced by Alternative Design Streets.
Alternative Design Streets are deemed to be of special character and don’t meet current street design
standards. These streets do not have sidewalks or concrete curb and gutters, are typically narrower
than standard streets, allow off-pavement parking and generally have a rural appearance.
The Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee’s report strongly encourages the design of these streets to
remain as they are. Improvements to the streets are only to be considered if an ‘Alternative Street
Design Approval Process’ is followed, which includes significant community involvement. Absent this
process, any street improvements that would be required due to adjacent development are deferred
through a neighborhood improvement agreement.
Attached is the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee’s final report dated February 23, 2000, City
Council Resolution 2000-237 responding to the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee recommendations
and the staff analysis of the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee recommendations.
To forward this issue to the City Council for their consideration at a City Council Workshop, a majority of
the Planning Commission must vote to support that action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee’s Final Report dated February 23, 2000
2. City Council Resolution No. 2000-237
3. Staff Analysis of the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee recommendations
CITY .OF CARLSBAD
STREET AND SIDEWALK
POLICY COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23, 2000
FINAL REPORT
FINAL REPORT
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY
SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summal'}f Report ........................... ~~·············~······················ .. ·····································1
Background ............ : ................................................................. : ................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Street Categories ....................................................................................... 2
Compatible Improvement Streets ............................................................... 3
Alternative Design Streets .......................................................................... 3
Alternative Street Design Approval ProCess ............................................... 3
Alternative Street Design Criteria ............................................................... 3
Recommendation ................... , ................................................................... 3
Compatible Improvement Streets (Table 1) ....................................................... 4
Alternative Design Street (Table 2) .................................................... ,. ................ 5
Alternative Street Design Approval Process ..................................................... 11
Alternative Street Design Criteria ....................................................................... 13
Introduction ................................................................................................ 13
Roadway Widths ..................................................................................... ; .. 13
Parking Requirement. .... · .................................................. :: ......................... 14
Pedestrian Provisions .............................................. , .................................. 14
Edge Treatments ........ : ............................................................................... 14
General Considerations .............................................................................. 15
Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 15
Fiscal Analysis ........................................................................................... 15
Recommendation ................................................................................................. 16
General Plan Amendment.. ........................................................................ 16
Sound Walls ............................................................................................... 16
Underground Utilities .................................................................................. 16
Traffic Calming ........................................................................................... 17
Dedications ................................................................................................ 17
Future Improvement Agreements .................................... ; .......................... 18
Appendix (Separate Volume)
A. Council Resolution
B. Citizens for Preservation of Olde Carlsbad Petition
C. Meeting Agendas
D. Meeting Agendas and Summaries
E. Committee Correspondence
BACKGROUND
FINAL REPORT
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY
SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
In late September of 1999 a group of citizens living in the Northwest Quadrant of the City came
together as the Citizens For The Preservation Of Olde Carlsbad (CPOC). This group presented
a petition of over 700 signatures and testimony concerning a number of issues related to the
preservation of the character of the "Oide Carlsbad" area of the City. This area was defined as
the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific'Ocean on the west between the
Aqua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons. Of particular concern to the CPOC group was the
importance of trees to the community character and the value of less formal narrow streets in
maintaining the character of many of the existing neighborhoods within the "Oide Carlsbad"
area.
The CPOC group submitted evidence that narrow streets better protect trees, preserve cultural
resources and enhance safety while protecting the Village feeling of these older established
neighborhoods.
Responding to the Citizen's concerns, the City Council at its November 2, 1999 meeting
adopted Resolution No. 99-485 forming the Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and Streets
Improvements.
The Committee was "directed t9 consider all relevant issues pertaining to street and sidewalk
designs in formulating its recommendations to the City Council including but ·not limited to,
aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts.
and to consider all applicable laws, including but not limited to Americans wjth Disabilities Act,
Clean Water Act and the like."
"After careful study and consideration of all appropriate and relevant information including
public input, it shall make its report and recommendations to the City CounciL Its report shall
consider street categories and whether or not they should be standard or special character and
recommend a process to petition for installation of improvements." .
The Committee began meeting on November 10, 1999 and concluded on February 23, 2000
following 17 meetings.
This report responds to the mandate of the Council and makes specific recommendation to the
Council related to special concerns of the Committee.
INTRODUCTION
Responding to the charge of the City Council, the Committee very early on established lis
Mission Statement to frame the tasks that it wished to accomplish. As the work progressed that
Mission was adjusted to reflect the evolution of the study. The final Mission Statement is :
Mission Statement
• Identify streets to be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks compatible with
existing improvements in the surrounding area and not in violation of state and
federal law.
1
• Identify Alternative Design Streets
• Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of
improvements to Alternative Design Streets ·
• Review existing City plans, policies, and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk
development and make relevant recommendations
• Report to Council March 7, 2000
The Committee also identified the key work products that make up the body of this report.
• List of Compatible Improvement Streets
• List of Alternative Design Streets
• Alternative Streets Design Approval Process
• Alternative Street Design Criteria
• Recommendations related to City plans, policies and ordinances that affect street
and sidewalk design
• Final Report
STREET CATEGORIES
The Committee began its task with an inventory of all streets within the study area which were
not completed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks that conformed with standards at the time of
development. These streets were field reviewed and evaluated against current City Standards.
In order to evaluate and place various streets within logical categories for future development,
the Committee reviewed and adopted relevant criteria to utilize in the sorting of the streets into
the appropriate categories.
It was the strong feeling of the Committee that many of these streets should not be improved
but rather retain their current design in-l)eu of categorization. Improvements should only be
considered when appropriate triggers (Alternative Street Criteria) are met that compel
improvements to be initiated. ·
Once the trigger is ·reached the Council would then initiate the Alternative Design Approval
Process. The process would be guided by the Alternative Design Criteria proposed by the
Committee.
The criteria utilized to determine the Alternative Design Streets and also the criteria to consider
initiation of the design approval process are listed below.
ALTERNATIVE STREET CRITERIA
1. Documented safety issues
2. Proximity to schools and either public facilities
3. Residen1Jowners request improvements
4. Necessity for walkway/pedestrian access
5. Average Daily Traffic
6. Linkage corri~or (roadway need for circulation continuity or connection to active
land uses)
7. Need for traffic calming strategies
8. Land use changes
9. Drainage problems
10. Federal, State or local mandates
2
The Committee gave a great deal of consideration to the establishment of a non-essential link
or non-improvement category of street. This consideration reflected the desire to maintain
many of the streets as they exist today. It was ultimately determined that the final decision on
whether a street would receive improvements should be deferred to the neighborhood through
the Alternative Design Approval process. It was recognized that initiation of the process should ·
only be with a compelling reason related to the triggering criteria.
COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS
Compatible improvement streets listed in Table 1 and shown on Figure 1 are recommended to
be completed with curbs, gutter and sidewalk consistent with current City standards or
compatible in width and configuration with improvement already installed in the block. · In most
cases, the streets are already improved with conventional improvements and will be continued
with consistent improvements. Where sidewalks are not curb adjacent, the parkway
configuration should be continued. In some cases, significant improvement did not exist but it
was deemed that because of location, pedestrian activity demand for parking and other factors.
These streets should be completed to City Standards.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Alternative·Design Streets are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 1 are deemed to be of
special character, These streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of
the Alternative Street Criteria trigger the need to explore the Alternative Desigl'! Process. The
process is designed to work with the neighborhood to develop an alternative street design that
retains the neighborhood character while addressing the issue which initiated the process.
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS
The process outlined in the second part of this report is designed to guarantee full participation
of the neighborhood in the street design process but also to notify the City as a whole that the
process is proceeding. It is important that the neighborhood be given notice as ·early as
possible when their street is being considered for the design process and throughout the
process. The Committee recognizes the need to maintain good engineering practices in the
development of the design.
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA
The Alternative Street Design Criteria is prepared to be distributed to the neighborhood as it
begins to consider their design options. These criteria are intended to convey a range of
alternative features that can be incorporated in the final street plan. These criteria give factors
to be considered and operational minimums consistent with emergency access requirements
and good engineering practices.
RECOMMENDATION
The final section of the report deals with recommendations suggested by the Committee for
Council consideration. For discussion of all items, you are directed to the minutes of the
February 7, 2000 meeting.
3
•
TABLE 1
COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS
STREETS TO HAVE CURB, GUTrER & SIDEWAlKS COMPATIBlE WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND NOT IN VIOlATION OF STATE AND FEDERAl lAW
STREET From/At TO
Grand Ave. Hope Ave. l-5
Jefferson St. Chinquapin Ave. To Magnolia Ave.
Magnolia Ave. Highland Ave. Monroe St.
Valley St. Carlsbad Vinage Dr. Magnolia Ave.
Chinquapin Ave. Carlsbad Blvd Adams St.
*Adams St. Chestnut Ave. Park Dr.
Park Dr. Monroe St. Tamarack Ave.
(section already improved)
James Dr. South of Tamarack Ave.
Oak Ave. Lincoln St. Washington St.
Pine Ave, Carlsbad Blvd. SDNRR
Lincoln St. Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave.
Chestnut Ave. Carlsbad Blvd. Roosevelt St.
Juniper Ave. Garfield St. SDNRR
Hemlock Ave. Garfield St. SDNRR
Garfield, St. Walnut Ave. past Olive Ave.
Laguna Dr: State St. Roosevelt St.
Madison St. Laguna Dr. Grand Ave.
Arbuckle Pl. Madison St. Jefferson St.
Knowles Ave. Davis Ave. 1-5
Falcon Dr & Donna Dr. N. & W. Approaches
Canyon St. at Oak Ave.
Monroe St. at Park Dr.
Las Flores Dr. Pio Pico Dr. 21ots west
Oak Ave. At cui de sac
Jeanne Pl. End of cui de sac
Althea Ln. End of cui de sac
Adams St. modified des1gn per adopted plan
4
'street
Adams St.
Alder Ave.
Ann Dr.
Arland Rd.
Aura Cir
Baldwin Ln.
Basswood Ave.
Basswood Ave.
Basswood Ave.
Bayshore Dr.
Beech Ave.
Belle Ln.
Buena Pl.
Buena Vista Cir.
Buena Vista Wy.
Buena Vista Wy.
Butters Rd.
Camden Cir.
Canyon Pl.
Canyon St.
Charleen Cir.
Charter Oak Dr.
Cipriano Ln.
Citrus Pl.
TABLE2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
I i
I
I From i
Basswood Ave. !chestnut Ave.
Monroe/Sunnyhill . cul-de-sac I , •
,GayleWy. JanisWy.
I '
To
1 Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy.
N. of Hillside Dr. end
Chinquapin Ave. end
'Eureka Pl. /Highland Ave.
I
Valley St. I canyon St.
Monroe St. Ridgecrest Dr.
Park Dr. cul-de-sac
Ocean St. I Garfield St.
isasswood Ave. cul-de-sac
! '
!Jefferson St. cul·de-sac
Laguna Dr. lend
Jefferson St. ! Davis Ave.
Pio Pico Dr. Crest Dr.
I
W. of Highland Dr. l cul-de-sac
'
Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac
' I Canyon St. cul-de-sac
Canyon Pl. Basswood Ave.
Donna Dr. cul-de-sac
Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr.
Forest Ave. I cul-de-sac
Jefferson St. cul-de-sac
5
Street
Clearview Dr.
Cove Dr.
Crest Dr.
Cynthia Ln.
Cypress Ave.
Date Av.
Davis Ave.
Davis Pl.
Donna Dr.
Donna Dr.
Donna Dr.
Elmwood St.
Eureka Pl.
Falcon Dr.
Forest Ave.
Forest Ave.
Garfield St.
Gayle Way
Grand Ave.
Gregory Dr.
Guevara Rd.
Harbor Dr.
Harrison St.
Hibiscus Cir.
TABLE2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
I
' I I
From l To
I I
\MacAruthur Ave. IN. of cul-de-sac
S. of Park Dr. cul-de,-sac .
Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wy.
cul-de-sac lcul-decsac
Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvd.
Garfield St. iend
Buena Vista Wy. I 1Laguna Dr.
Davis Ave. cul-de-sac
at Nob Hill Dr.
Falcon Dr. S. of Janis Wy.
N. of Sharleen Cir. . Chestnut Ave.
I
Laguna Dr. i Buena Vista Wy.
I
S. of Basswood Ave. I Chestnut Ave.
Donna Dr. cul-de-sac
Pio Pico Dr. Highland Dr.
I
Highland Dr. Crest Dr.
Ocean St. Carlsbad Village Dr.
Monroe St. [Donna Dr.
Ocean St. j Garfield St.
Knowles Ave. Cynthia Ln.
Highland Dr. cul-de-sac
'
Chinquapin Ave. cul-de-sac
Chinquapin Ave. Adams. St.
lramarack Ave.·
I ' I cul-de-sac
6
Street
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland DL
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Hillcrest Cir
Hillside Dr.
Holly Brae Ln.
Home Ave.
'' Hoover St.
JanisWy.
Jefferson St.
Jefferson St.
Karen Ln.
l<:nowles Ave.
Knowles Ave.
Laguna Dr.
Laguna Dr.
Laguna Dr. '
Larkspur Wy.
TABLE2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
I I
I From I To
N. of Butters Rd. I Forest Ave.
Forest A"'e . Arland Rd.
. Buena Vista Wy. Oak Ave.
I I Basswood Ave. I oak Ave.
! '
Basswood Ave. I Chestnut Ave.
l
Chestnut Ave. I Magnolia Ave.
Magnolia Ave. Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave. Chinquapin Ave.
Chinquapin Ave. Adams St.
I
Seacrest Dr. I cui-de-sac
' I I . Highland Dr. Park Dr.
Alder Ave. cul-de-sac
Hope Ave. cul-de-sac
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Highland Dr.
!
Ann Dr. Donna Dr.
Las Flores Dr. 1-5
1-5 Marron Rd.
Monroe St. cul-de-sac
!Jefferson st. Davis Ave.
i I
PioPicoDr. · i Elmwood st.
Roosevelt St. J East of Kremeyer Cir.
'
E. of Davis Ave. 1-5
Pio Pico Dr. Elmwood St.
I . ,Adams st. cul-de-sac
7
'
Street
Laurie Cir.
Linmar Ln.
Locust St.
Long Pl.
MacArthur Ave.
Madison St.
Maezel Ln.
Marina Dr.
Marjorie ln.
McCauley ln.
McKinley St.
Meadowlark ln.
Monroe St.
Mountain View Dr.
Normandie lane
OakAve ..
Ocean St.
Ocean St.
OliveAv.
Pacific Ave.
Palisades Dr.
Palm Ave:
Park Dr.
Park Dr.
TABLE2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS.
I From To
I Ann Dr. cul-de-sac
I
iTamarack Ave. end
IH . I I Adams. St. 1 arnson St.
Chinquapin Ave. cul-de-sac
Sunnyhill Dr. Skyline Rd.
I
S. of Arbuckle Pl. N. of Grand Ave.
I
Basswood Ave. end
Park Dr. cul-de-sac
Chestnut Ave. cul-de-sac
Valley St. cul-de-sac
I
IPineAve. Basswood Ave.
Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac
East of Park Dr. Sunnyhill Dr.
Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvo.
Garfield St. Mountain View Dr.
I Plo Pico Dr. ·valley St.
Mountain View Dr. Christiansen Wy.
Grand Ave. Pine Ave
Garfield St. end
9cean St. . Mountain View Dr.
Tamarack Ave. N. of nuckle
I
!Adams St. Pio Pico Dr.
I Monroe St. !Westhaven Dr.
Tamarack Ave. Kelly Dr.
8
Street
Pine Ave.
Pio Pico Dr.
Pio Pico Dr.
Polly Ln.
Ratcliff Rd.
Redwood Ave.
Ridgecrest Dr.
Sandy Pl.
Seacrest Dr.
SequoiaAv.
Skyline Rd.
Skyline Rd.
SpruceSt
Spruce St.
Sunnyhill Dr.
Sunnyhill Dr.
Tuttle St.
Tyler St.
Valley Pl.
ValleyS!.
Via Hinton
Washington St.
Westtiaven Or.
Wilson St.
TABLE2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
I i
I I From To ! !
I
Plo Pico Dr. !Highland Dr.
Las Flores Dr. i /N. of Yourell Ave.
I
Tamarack Ave. I Las Flores Dr.
Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac
I Highland Dr. cui-de-sac
Garfield St. cul-de-sac
Basswood Ave. Charter Oak Dr.
'
Canyon St. cul-de-sac
I Ridgecrest Dr. I Ridgecrest Dr.
I
Carlsbad Blvd. Garfield St.
Westhaven Dr. Alder Ave.
Alder Ave. N. of Telescope Ave.
!Forest Ave. !11ot north
I· YoureiiAve. l11ot north
j
Monroe St. 51ots S.
5 lots S. of Monroe St. N. of Hillside Dr.
Las Flores Dr. Buena Vista Wy.
Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave.
Valley St. cul-de-sac
Buena Vista Wy. I Carlsbad Village Dr.
end
Pine Ave. Walnut Ave.
JN. of Park Dr. Woodvaie Dr.
I Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wv.
9
Street
Woodvale Dr.
YoureUAve.
TABLE2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
From I
Park Dr. !westhaven Dr.
I
To
Pio Pico Dr. !west of Hiahland Dr.
10
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS
1. Plan Initiation
Alternative Design process may be initiated by Citizen petition (50% of block residents),
development projects, staff identification of safety issue, staff identification of drainage or
utility issues, State or Federal Mandates, or by any other means acceptable to the City
Council.
2. Project information notice and posting
The citizens and affected residents will be notified consistent with City Codes prior to
Council consideration of initiation of the Alternative Design process. To inform the general
public, a large project information sign will be posted at the beginning and end of the project
for the duration of the project and notices will be posted at City Hall and published in local
newspapers. To ensure that the residents and neighbors are made aware of the issues,
notices will be mailed to affected residents and neighbors within a 600 foot radius of the
project.
3. Request Council authorization & funding alternatives for feasibility and preliminary
engineering studies
Council will consider authorizing and funding the project with public funds, private funds,
combination of public and private funds and other available funding mechanisms. Prior to
Council consideration of the project, the project infomiation and meeting date will be posted
at City Hall and notices will be published in local papers and mailed to affected residents
and neighbors within a 600 foot radius of the project. A new project information sign will not
be erected.
4. Develop alternatives with community Involvement (engineering study)
Staff, with input from the community, will begin to develop concept level alternatives and
cost estimates.· Topographic surveys of the project will be reviewed and special character
resources and constraints will be identified. Staff will consult with the community, residents,·
Planning Department, Fire Department and landscape professionals (landscape architects
and arborists, if appropriate) to consider options for roadway width, pedestrian provisions,
edge treatments, and other roadway features. Public posting and notice will be given prior
to the activities of this stage, as in item 3 above.
5. Community Workshop to review alternatives
Public workshops will be held to present the findings of the engineering study (stage 4,
above). Staff will present the preliminary design approaches, make preliminary
recommendations for community review and comment and disclose economic impacts of
potential costs to property owners. Future steps required to carry the project forward will be
outlined. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in
item 3 above. ·
6. Develop recommended preferred plan
Using the comments from the public workshops (stage 5, above), Staff will develop the
preferred plan and cost estimate for review by the community and reviewing bodies.
Additional workshops may be scheduled as appropriate.
11
7. Prepare Environmental Documentation and circulate for review
Environmental Documentation such as CEQA (if required) and any other permit process will
be initiated at this stage. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this
stage, as in item 3 above.
a. Traffic Safety Commission review
The Traffic Safety Commission will review the project in regard to traffic safety, pedestrian
safety and street design issues. The public is welcome to attend the Commission's
meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this stage, as in
item 3 above.
10. Council hearing and approval
Council will Consider, and approve or reject the project. The public is welcome to attend
Council's meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities of this
stage, as in item 3 above.
11. Plan implementation
If Council approves the project, Staff will initiate final design stage for the preparation of
construction plans and contract documents when funds are appropriated.
12
ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
The Streets and Sidewalks Committee wish to maintain the current character of certain
unique neighborhoods through alternative improvements consistent with a safe, effective
street.
These neighborhoods of "Oide Carlsbad" have developed under less formal standards than
newer neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, over the years, have matured to create a
character that is unique and of distinct value to the overall character of the community.
These neighborhoods tend to have less formal street construction with mature trees and
other unique cultural features. To encourage the protection of the character of these unique
neighborhoods, flexible street design features are required to guide the Alternative Street
Design process. ·
The street criteria presented herein is intended to guide the future design process by
providing minimum criteria related to:
• ROADWAY WIDTHS
• PARKING REQUIREMENTS
• . PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS
• ROADWAY EDGE TREATMENTS
The utilization of these requirements will be highly dependent on the actual opportunities
. and constraints provided by the individual neighborhoods. Factors of particular importance
in the design process will be:
• Street gradient
• Natural topography
• Drainage requirements
• Utility placement needs
• Location and nature of existing trees
• Important cultural and historical features
• Lot sizes
• Availability of off-street parking
• Pedestrian needs and activities
• Compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements .
ROADWAY WIDTHS
The residential roadway widths are determined by travel lane requirements, emergency
access needs, parking requirements, and drainage capacity requirements.
The minimum emergency access shall be 24 feet of all weather surface unless It is
impracticable and adequate mitigating measures are approved by the Fire Marshal.
Drainage requirements are determined by hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
13
PARKING REQUIREMENT
No parking or parking on one side only will be considered where an adequate enforcement
plan is approved by the Police Department or where a finding can be made that adequate
off-street parking exists to minimize potential parking enforcement issues.
Provision of parking pockets is encouraged to enhance traffic calming features and to
provide selective on-street parking to serve residential needs. Parking pockets could
incorporate alternative materials to distinguish the parking areas from the traveled way.
Tree and landscape planters can also be utilized to protect existing features or to enhance
the neighborhood character through the appearance of narrow streets.
Examples of alternative parking area surfaces include:
• Turfblock
. • Stabilized earth materials
• Pavers
• Colored asphalt
• Colored concrete
Loose or erosive material with high ongoing maintenance costs are discouraged. Where
possible, durable permeable materials may be considered.
PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS
Where provided, pedestrian walkways shall be 4-foot minimum clear consistent with ADA
requirement and be of a solid durable material. Walkway locations shall be located in such
a manner as to preserve natural ~nd cultural resources as determined through the design
process. Proximity to the edge of pavement will depend on the design process.
Alternative surfaces that further a natural .character and meet durability and ADA access
requirements should be given serious consideration.
Meandering walks are acceptable.
EDGE TREATMENTS .
It is recognized that roadway edge treatments are important to stabilize the roadway
pavement and to contain and divert drainage flows. The nature of the edge treatment also·
impacts the appearance and character of the roadway. Several options for roadway edge
treatments exist within the San Diego Regional and City Standards.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Where desirable to protect neighborhood character and where adequate rights-of-way exist,
a meandering street centerline can be considered.
Street design needs to adequately address storm and nuisance flows within the street
section. Unique design features introduce unique drainage and maintenance concerns
which may require construction of storm drains or other unique roadway design
configurations. When possible, all measures should be implemented to reduce sprinkler and
14
which may require construction of storm drains or other unique roadway design
configurations. When possible, all measures should be implemented to reduce sprinkler and
storm runoff from properties. Where adequate rights-of-way exist, natural swales should be
considered to convey runoff. Maintenance cost and procedures should be fully analyzed in
the planning process.
Tilted roadway sections may be considered when they will provide a more compatible
interface with properties abutting the street.
MITIGATION MEASURES
To· assist in retaining the existing character of neighborhoods through narrower street
section mitigation measures, such as increased lot sizes with provisions for off-street
parking, larger setbacks from the street, alternative drainage and utility systems and fire
sprinkling of homes should be given consideration.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
All design alternatives should be reviewed for comparative construction cost and long-term
maintenance costs. Where long-ter111. maintenance costs are incurred, alternative funding
·for the added costs should be evaluated.
15
SIDEWALK AND STREET COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL PLAN' AMENDMENT
1. The Committee recommends that a General Plan Amendment be considered to reflect a
slowdown and management of growth in the Northwest Quadrant. Lot size and densities
will be an elementof this amendment. The Committee recommends an adoption of a
philosophy distinguishing the Northwest Quadrant as a unique, quaint, and special
community. This philosophy would recognize the necessity for the protection and
preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to include, but not be
exclusive of: tree-lined narrower meandering streets, alternative pedestrian pathways, ,
traffic calming and parking options. Special attention to the quality of life the residents
have come to expect as delineated in the Municipal Code current ordinance Section
18.40. Dedications and Improvements. Specifically section 18.40.100 waiver or
modifications. "The street fronting on the subject property has already been improved to
the maximum feasible and desirable state, recognizing there are some such streets
which may have less than standard improvements when necessary to preserve the
character of the neighborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things
as trees, wall, yards and open space.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
SOUND WALLS
8-6-0
Dwelley, Wickham, Plro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano; Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher
None
Noble
2. The Committee recommends sound walls on freeways, 1) City should begin negotiating
with Caltrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, and 2) City
(or Caltrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-1-0
Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis,
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wlschkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher
Spano
None,
Noble
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
3. The Committee recommends that "The Council direct staff to explore alternative funding
approaches to accelerate the undergrounding of overhead utilities".
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
14-0-0
Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis,
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano
None
None
Noble
16
TRAFFIC CALMING
4. The Committee recommends:
a) Based upon our review of the current state-of-the-art street design in other
communities, the Committee recommends that instead of single-standard, the
City of Carlsbad utilize different design methodologies committed to preserving
the existing nature and character of each neighborhood.
b) "Based upon the public testimony we have heard, the Committee has found that
one of the most important concerns to the residents of "Oide Carlsbad"
is excessive traffic speed. Vehicular traffic speed should be calmed using the
state-of-the-art design methods, such as traffic land narrowing,
pseudo-shoulders, improved signage, textured paving, ·rumble strips, Botts'
Dots', Traffic-Circles, and Elephant Ears." ·
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
10-4-0
Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis,
Wischkaemper, Gallagher
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Kubota
None
Noble
5. The Committee encourages the City Council to form a Traffic Calming Committee as a
follow-up to this committee's efforts.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
DEDICATIONS
13-1-0
Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Schlehuber,
Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano
Mamaux
None
Noble
6. The Committee recommends that the Council adjust the Mu(liclpal Code requirement to
dedicate rights-of-way as a condition of a building permit exceeding $10,000 in building
permit by indexing the threshold from 1992 to increases in the International Congress of
Building Officials (ICBO) valuation amount.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
7-6-0
Piro, Leger, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano,
Gamache, Wickham, Chartier, Dwelley, McBane, Lewis
None
Mamaux, Noble
17
7. The Committee recommends that street right-of-way dedication be required only for
building permits which create new residential dwelling units. Residential remodels would
be exempt from the requirement.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
7-6-0
Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, LeWis, Dwelley, Chartier
Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, Leger
None
Mamaux, Noble
8. The Committee recommends that at such time as rights-of-way are found to be in
excess of that required, the excess will be quitclaimed.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
12-1-0
Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Chartier,
Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Leger
Spano
None
Mamaux, Noble
FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
9. The Committee recommends that Future Improvement Agreements apply to only new
construction. Remodeling of existing residential dwelling units would be exempt from
improvement requirements.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
7-6-0
Piro, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher, Chartier
Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache
None
Mamaux, Noble
10. The Committee recommends that building permit applicants be issued a notification of
potential improvement or Future Improvement Agreement obligation at receipt of the
building permit application.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-0-0
Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota,
Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher
None
None
Mamaux, Noble
11. The Committee recommends Future Improvement Agreements be made subordinate to
homeowner's mortgages or trust deed financing at present and in .the future. Staff will
. review language with the City Attorney's office to make sure that the agreement is
subordinate to trust deeds.
VOTE: 13-0-0
AYES: Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota,
Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, Gallagher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
18
ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble
12. The Committee recommends that property owners be given 90 days to respond to
demands to comply with Future Improvement Agreements rather than 30 days as
currently contained in the agreement
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
9-4-0
Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Piro, Lewis,
Dwelley, Gallagher
Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger
None
Mamaux, Noble
13. The Committee recommends the cost of all improvements be equitably allocated among
all of the beneficiaries, and that no FIA exceed the property owner's fair share of the
improvement cost.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
7-6-0
Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley
Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis
None
Mamaux, Noble
14. The Committee recommends that the City retain its current policy of not building isolated
improvements to curbs and sidewalks. The Committee recommends that the portion of
Section 18.400.70 as amended in November 1999 pertaining to the policy regarding the
deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permanent policy after the building
moratorium has been lifted.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
13-0-0
Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dwelley, Spano,
Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis
None
None
Mamaux, Noble
19
Figure 1
Map1
Study Area Location fv1ap
Citizens Committee to Study the
Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program
STREET a.ASSIFICA TIQIJ
AI.. TERNATlVE DESIGN STREETS
CO'IAPATlBlE I~ STREETS
PU3LJCI..M[)
QUO-f
OTYHAU.&UB
PARK
625
sa-«Xl..
VARICXJS
~
N
... , .............. .,.. ............. ..._.
:!!,..,.._,.:«A
0 625 Feet
BUENA
VISTA
l:AGOON
I ;: ----
I ' IJ J·.-
--.::::; -------
HospGrove
I /·1----~
.·'" [_ ____ _
--\
L
--. _____ _.,.
t
• 1. uurn .. -. : r --··-r-... ---· -· -.. -~ .. -~L :~~-~---_-· __ -----~ ---. --------,-,::;...--
... ,
CARLSBAD
HIGH SCHOOL
Figure 1
Map2
Study kea Location 1\Aap
Citizens Committee to Study the
Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program
STREET a..ASSIFICAllON
-Al TERNAllVE DESIGNSTREE ....,.....,:;rs;;..,-.-.,.... o::M'A 118tE IM"RRVEJJIENT S'TFEE IS
PUBliC LAND
OiLR::H -· . · aTY HALL & UB __ ,PARK
~.....-SCHOOl
·• VARIOUS
6~~------o~ ____ _.625 F~
Figure 1
Map3
Study Area Location Map
Citizens Committee to Study the
Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program
STREET CLASSIFlCATIOO
-ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS C:O.PATIBLE IM'ROIEMENT STREETS
PU3UCI.JW)
Oll.JRD-1
CITY HAll & LIS PARK so-oa..
VARIOUS
625 0 625 Feet
-\ \
'·
CARLSBAD
HIGHSCHOOL
\:
' \
~~ -~·-\Y-<\ ~· ~ .;, ~ ~ .. y-)
"'-:.< ;'· \ /~ .. ~ \-(5,
MAGNOLI.A 'v
VALLEY ',..-
ELEMEINTAAY '
-,_, SCHOOL ~ •l: ) \~ \ \ > CARLSBAD ·~ . ·. '-··, ,;i. ,
JUNIOR \ , ' .> .._~-.. ·' ·:.:_
HIGH ' ·. · ..... " •. ,. . .._, ' ' ,~, -. _, SCHOOL '\ .• ; . .~.;_ \.... ~~ ...
•' .
.· .... :
~Sf
MAGNOUA , /
VALLEY ~
, SEUBMC ENTARY \
·-t HOOL CARLSBAD ~~
JUNIOR ,~
HIGH '
SCHOOL
. \ Figure 1
Map4
Study Area L . Citizens Com . ocatlon Map
Sidevvalk and St mlttee to Study the reet Improvement P rogram
STREET CLASS
TERNATIVE DE
-
AL
IFICATION
rovPATIBLE I SIGN STREETS
PUBUC lANO fiiPROVEWENT STREETS
OiUROi --, OTY HALL & UB
PARK
SCHOOL
VARIOUS
625
El CAMINO REAL
0 ----~------~~5 F~t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. ---=20:::..::0=0-=-2=3.:....7 _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RESPONDING TO STREET AND
SIDEWALK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999, the City Council appointed a 15-member Citizens
Committee to study streets and sidewalks in the area west of El Camino Real to the ocean,
between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, Council directed the Committee to consider all relevant issues in formulating
its recommendations to the City Council including, but not limited to, aesthetics, neighborhood
compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmental impacts, and to consider all
applicable laws, including but not limited to, Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and
the like; and
WHEREAS, the Committee gave its report and recommendation to City Council on March
7,2000;and
WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to evaluate the report and return to Council with
recommendations for implementation; and
WHEREAS, staff has completed its analysis and has developed associated policy
changes and implementation strategies for the Committee's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, said policy changes and recommendations are submitted by staff for Council
consideration and acceptance.
WHEREAS, City Council agrees with certain policy changes and implementation strategies
presented in the Staff Analysis of Street & Sidewalk Recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, as follows:
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 \\\
28 \\\
\\\
--,
The City Council hereby responds to the recommendations presented herein as
follows:
A. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No. 1:
General Plan Amendment
Council Response
Council hereby refers committee recommendation to Planning Department for
consideration in the annual review of the General Plan and other ongoing study
efforts.
B. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No. 2:
Sound Walls
Council Response
Council hereby directs staff to monitor the environmental review process of the
Caltrans 1-5 widening project and advise council on appropriate measures to
mitigate sound impacts.
C. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No. 3
Underground Utilities
Council Response
Council hereby directs staff to review the Underground Utilities Program and
return to Council on the existing status of the program and options for
accelerating undergrounding during Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
D. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No. 4
Traffic Calming
Council Response
Council hereby directs the Residential Traffic Management Program Committee
to review and respond to this issue as part of their work program.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
E. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No. 8
Dedications
Council Response
Council directs staff that at such time as rights-of-way are found to be in excess
of that required, the excess will be presented to Council to be quitclaimed.
F. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No.10
Future Improvement Agreements
Council Response
Council hereby directs staff to issue building permit applicants a notification of
potential improvement or "Neighborhood Improvement Agreement" obligation at
receipt of the building permit application.
G. Adopt "Neighborhood Improvement Agreement"
Council hereby approves and adopts the "Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement". Changes to this agreement may be made with approval of the
City Attorney.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 25th day of July , 2000 by the following vote, to wit:
Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchin
ATTEST:
OOD, City Clerk
STAFF ANALYSIS OF
STREET & SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITIEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
June 27, 2000
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1. The Committee recommends that a General Plan Amendment be considered to reflect a
slowdown and management of growth in the Northwest Quadrant. Lot size and densities
will be an element of this amendment. The Committee recommends an adoption of a
philosophy distinguishing the Northwest Quadrant as a unique, quaint, and special
community. This philosophy would recognize the necessity for the protection and
preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to include, but not be
exclusive of: tree-lined narrower meandering streets, alternative pedestrian pathways,
traffic calming and parking options. Special attention to the quality of life the residents
have come to expect as delineated in the Municipal Code current ordinance Section
18.40. Dedications and Improvements. Specifically section 1"8.40.1 00 waiver or
modifications. "The street fro"nting on the subject property has already been improved to
the maximum feasible and desirable state, recognizing there are some such streets
which may have less than standard improvements when necessary to preserve the
character of the neighborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things
as trees, wall, yards and open space. ·
STAFF RESPONSE
This recommendation deals with a number of issues that are being addres!;ed in
ongoing work programs. The Planning Department recently completed a report on infill
development. The Council has initiated a Residential Traffic Management Program. ·
Ongoing studies are dealing with the Planned Development Ordinance with a focus on
street standard options and walkable communities.
The references to Section .18.40.1 00 are dealt with through the Alternative Design
process. Approval of the Alternative Design Process may create an acceptable do-
nothing option here.
Growth management is a facility-based program adopted through a vote of the City.
Revisions to growth management would require a vote of the citizens.
It is staffs recommendation that concerns raised in this recommendation be referred to
ongoing Planning efforts and the annual General Plan Review Process.
SOUND WALLS
2. The Committee recommends sound walls on freeways, 1) City should begin negotiating
with Caltrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, and 2) City
(or Caltrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated.
STAFF RESPONSE
· Caltrans has begun a project to widen Interstate 5 from Del Mar through Oceanside.
Current funding for the project will provide for freeway widening to Palomar Airport
Road. Caltrans anticipates appropriating funds for the remainder of widening north of
1
Palomar Airport Road within the next few years. Caltrans anticipates beginning a five-
year environmental review process for the entire project in the Summer of 2000. This
will be followed by a two-year design phase before construction, which is set to begin in
2007-08. The project is estimated to be complete by the year 2020.
Caltrans conducted a preliminary noise study in 1993 that identified nine potential
soundwall locations along 1-5 through the City of Carlsbad. Caltrans will engage in
additional noise studies estimated to take place during the second year of the
environmental review (2001-02}. Caltrans anticipates revisiting the preliminary soundwall
locations, as well as any additional recommendations developed during the process.
All noise studies conducted by Caltrans will include public meetings and public hearings
regarding noise abatement and the construction of soundwalls along the 1-5 corridor.
Caltrans will coordinate with affected cities, neighborhoods, and residences to ensure
that the public has an opportunity to participate in determining whether the structures
are necessary, reasonable, and feasible. Final locations for soundwalls to be
constructed as part of the freeway widening project will not be determined until the
completion of the noise study portion of the environmental review in 2001-02.
Soundwalls should not be· constructed in advance of the widening project. It is
appropriate to defer this issue to be addressed as a part of the widening environmental .
process.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
3. The committee recommends that "The Council direct staff to explore alternative funding
approaches to accelerate the undergrounding of overhead utilities".
STAFF RESPONSE.
Staff recommends that Council request staff to review the Underground Utilities
Program and return to Council on the existing status of the program and options for
accelerating the undergrounding program.
TRAFFIC CALMING
. { ·'
4. The Committee recommends:
a. Based upon our review of the current state-of-the-art street design in other
communities, the Committee recommends that ir)stead of a single standard, the City ·
of Carlsbad utilize different design methodologies committed to preserving the
existing nature and character of each neighborhood.
b. "Based upon the public testimony we have heard, the Committee has found that one
of the most important concerns to the residents of "Oide Carlsbad" is excessive
traffic speed. Vehicular traffic speed should be calmed using the state-of-the-art
design methods, such as traffic lane narrowing, pseudo-shoulders, · improved
signage, textured paving, numble strips, Botts' Dots', Traffic-Circles, and Elephant
Ears."
2
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff would recommend that the Street & Sidewalk Committee Final Report be
distributed to the Residential Traffic Management Committee.
5. The committee encourages the City Council to form a Traffic Calming Committee as a
follow-up to this committee's efforts.
STAFF RESPONSE
Council has appointed a Residential Traffic Management Committee to explore traffic
calming measures.
D.EDICATIONS
6. The Committee recommends that the Council adjust the Municipal Code requirement to
dedicate rights-of-way as a condition of a building permit exceeding $10,000 in building
permit by indexing the threshold from 1992 to increases in the International Conference
of Building Officials (ICBO) valuation amount.
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff concurs in this recommendation. This has been incorporated into the ordinance
for adoption.
7. The Committee recommends that street right-of-way dedication be required only for
building penmits that create new residential dwelling units. Residential remodels would
be exernpt from the requirement.
STAFF RESPONSE
State law and generally accepted practice recognizes the obligation of each property
owner to provide frontage rights-of-way and improvements to access property and
provide continuity for the provision of services to the neighborhood and the community
as a whole. These dedications need to be consistent with accepted City standards,
unless they are modified by specific Council action. Consistent with committee
recommendation number 8, at such time as Alternative Design is adopted identifying a
reduced right-of-way requirement, the excess dedication can be returned.
Staff recommends that right-of-way dedications be retained on residential remodels, but
the threshold be increased to $15,000 and be indexed consistent with recommendation
number 6. Staff would further recommend that the Code be revised to allow irrevocable
offers of dedication to be executed. This would allow the owner to retain title to the land
until the rights-of-way are actually needed for construction of improvements. Staff's
recommendation has been incorporated into the ordinance for adoption.
8. The Committee recommends that at such time as rights-of-way are found to be in
excess of that required, the excess will be quitclaimed.
STAFF RESPONSE
This recommendation is consistent with current City practice. Staff supports this
recommendation.
3
FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
9. The Committee recommends that Future Improvement Agreements apply to only new
construction.· Remodeling of existing residential dwelling units would be exempt from
improvement requirements.
STAFF RESPONSE
As with the dedication requirement, frontage improvements are commonly recognized
as a property owner obligation. To the extent that improvements are inadequate to meet
the needs of the neighborhood and the community as a whole, the Council needs a
mechanism to ensure the ability to gain property owner participation . should
improvements be required.
Past practice of the City has been to obtain Future Improvement Agreements (FIA's).
These documents establish a lien obligation on the property and require installation of
improvements upon demand of the City. The FIA represents a lien on the property, is ·
recorded and runs with the property. FIA's have been invoked in conjunction with City
improvement projects. This has given rise to an equity concern that some citizens have
been required to install and pay for improvements through FIAs, while their neighbors
may not have been required to pay. A more equitable approach would be to form
assessment districts and spread the cost equitably throughout the block. This approach
is more consistent with a general obligation for all property owners, will allow a more
equitable distribution where an altern~tive design varies tor different frontages and .
would better lend itself to payment for improvements over time.
Staff working with an assessment attorney has developed a "Neighborhoqd
Improvement Agreement". Under this agreement, the building permit applicant agrees. to
not protest the formation of an assessment district on their block and to pay their fair
share of improvements.
This approach has the advantage of a more equitable distribution of cost and a
reduction of cost to the City as a whole, but it will require an extensive public process to
define and install needed improvements. In some instances, this may be very difficult to .
accomplish and frustrate needed improvements.
Staff recommends that the former Future Improvement Agreement be replaced with a
"Neighborhood Improvement Agreement", that improvement requirements continue to
be recognized for residential remodels, and that agreements be required when permits
exceed $75,000 in building permit valuation. This amount to be indexed to changes in
the ICBO valuation schedule. $75,000 is an increase over the existing $50,000. This
recommendation has been incorporated into the ordinance for adoption.
10. The Committee recommends that building permit applicants be issued a notification of
potential improvement or Future Improvement Agreement obligation at receipt of the
building permit application.
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff supports this recommendation.
4
11. The Committee recommends Future Improvement Agreements be made subordinate to
homeowner's mortgages or trust deed financing at present and in the future. Staff will
review language with the City Attorney's office to make sure that the agreement is
subordinate to trust deeds.
STAFF RESPONSE
Should the FIA continue, staff supports this recommendation to revise the language to
make that intent clear. The intent is consistent with current pra~tice.
12. The Committee recommends that property owners be given 90 days to respond to
demands to comply with Future· Improvement Agreements rather than 30 days as
currently contained in the agreement.
STAFF RESPONSE
If the FIA is retained, staff supports this recommendation.
13. The Committee recommends the cost of all improvements be equitably allocated among
all of the beneficiaries; and that no FIA exceed the property owner's fair share of the
improvement cost.
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff supports this recommendation. Assessment proceedings will assist in ensuring that
this intent is cc;mplied with.
14. The Committee recommends that the City retain its current policy of not building isolated
improvements to curbs and sidewalks. The Committee recommends that the portion of
Section 18.40.070 as amended in November 1999 pertaining to the policy regarding the
deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permal]ent policy after the building
moratorium has been lifted.
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff supports this recommendation and would recommend that Municipal Code section
18.40.070, Deferral of Improvement Requirements, be amended by the addition of (5)
and (6) to read: (5) "Improvement would be to a street designated by Resolution of the
City Council as an 'Alternative Design Street' and subject to the 'Alternative Street
Design Approval Process"', and, (6) 'Improvements are not continuous with existing
improvements and construction would be impractical."
The revised code section presented for Council action includes this section for Council
adoption.
5