The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-05-13; City Council; 21591; Receive Presentation On Alternative Design StreetsCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 1 AB# 21,591 RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS DEPT. DIREaOR MTG. 05/13/14 RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS CITY ATTORNEY M7 DEPT. CED RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS CITY MANAGER im RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the city council receive a presentation from Community & Economic Development staff regarding Alternative Design Streets and provide direction to staff regarding revising the list of designated streets and the alternative design approval process. ITEM EXPLANATION; Alternative Design Street is a designation given to certain streets within the City of Carlsbad in 2000 through the recommendations ofthe Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee. Maintaining these streets in their narrow, less formal configuration was deemed to be important to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods. Typically, these streets do not have sidewalks, curbs, or gutters, they are narrower than standard streets, allow off-pavement parking and generally have a rural appearance. Policies and regulations effecting Alternative Design Streets are based on the attached Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee Final Report, dated February 23, 2000. Background on the development of the policies and regulations for Alternative Design Streets is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report. On October 16, 2013, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council review the Alternative Design Streets program. The Commission stated, in its recommendation, that the program is 13-years old and questioned if the streets that are currently designated and the lack of improvements are still appropriate. Attached are the Planning Commission minutes that detail the issues and concerns raised. In the 14 years since the Street and Sidewalk Policy Committee report was issued, there have been a number of changes affecting local transportation planning, including; • Livable/Complete Streets - streets are now recognized as public spaces that serve multiple users (pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles), and are being classified by the prioritized uses, based on the character ofthe street and the surrounding land uses. • Village/Barrio Master Plan - a major effort has just been kicked off to rebuild the Village Master Plan from the ground up and expand that effort to include the adjacent Barrio neighborhood. Master planning will look at, among other things, how to make both areas more accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists and how to activate public spaces. • Safe Routes to School-a state program of grants to improve policies and infrastructure to support increases in physical activity through walking and biking to school and in daily life. • Carlsbad Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CCATS) - identifies active transportation improvements (pedestrian and bicycle) in concert with the Trails Master Plan update. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Jason Geldert 760-602-2758 iason.geldert(5)carlsbadca.gov FOR C/ry CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED • CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC • DENIED • CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN • CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF • WITHDRAWN • OTHER-SEE MINUTES X AMENDED • Report received. X PageZ • Pedestrian Master Plan - this comprehensive document includes phased recommendations to encourage more walking, enhance the pedestrian opportunities and enhance pedestrian safety. Given this new setting, council could direct staff to review the current listing of the Alternative Design Streets in the context of the current environment, and to bring back recommendations for any minor revisions to improve consistency. FISCAL IMPACT: No funding is being requested at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAa: Pursuant to Public Resources code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment, and therefore does not require environmental review. EXHIBITS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 16, 2013 2. Approved Planning Commission minutes dated October 16, 2013 The City of Carlsbad PlanniBg Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: October 16,2013 Application connplete date: N/A Project Planner: Don Neu Project Engineer: Jason Geldert SUBJECT: Di 13^1 - 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 altemative 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. il. PROJECT DESCRIiynOW AND BACKGRQUND 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 rtem 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 Citizens for the Preservation of Olde Carlsbad (CPOC) presertted a petition of over 700 signatures to the Carisbad City Council. The subject of the petition was the road improvement policies in effect at that time within the "Olde Carlsbad" area of the City. "Olde Carlsbad" was defined as the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the west and between /kgua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons. One of the concerns was presen/^ing the character of the area, by not "urbanizing" the narrower tree lined streets with widening and edge improvements such as sidewallcs, 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 petition, 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 atl applicable iaws. 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, 2(K>0. Dl 13-01 - ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS October 16, 2013 PaRe2 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 ofthe 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 SffiEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 23,2000 FIMAL REPORT FINAL REPORT CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS Summaiy Report • 1 Background 1 Introduction 1 Street Categories 2 Compatible Improvement Streets 3 Altemative Design Streets 3 Altemative Street Design Approval Process 3 Altemative Street Design Criteria 3 Recommendation , 3 Compatible Improvement Streets (Table 1) 4 Alternative Destgn Street (Table 2). 5 Alternative Street Design Approval process 11 Alternative Sttieet Design Criteiia — 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 Carisbad Petition C. Meeting Agendas D. Meeting Agendas and Summar ies E. Committee Correspondence FINAL REPORT CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDV SIDEWALK AND STRIzET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS BACKGROUND In late September of 1999 a group of ditizans living in the Northwest Quadrant of the City came together as the Citizens For The Preservation Of Olde Cartsbad (CPOC). This group presented a petttion of over 700 signatures and testimony concerning a number of issues related to the preservation of the character of the "Olde Carlsbad" area of the City. This area was defined as the area bounded by El Camino Real on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the west between the Aqua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoonss. Of particular concern to the CPOC group was the importance of trees to the community cheiracter and the value of less formal narrow streets in maintaining the character of many of the existing neighborhoods within the "Olde Carisbad" area. The CPOC group submitted evidence thai: narrow streets better protect trees, preserve cultural resources and enhance safety whiie protecting the Village feeling of these older established neighborhoods. Responding to the Citizen's concems, the City Coundl at its November 2, 1999 meeting adopted Fiesolution No. 99-465 fonning the Citizens Committee to Study Sidewalks and Streets Improvements. The Committee was "directed to consider all relevant issues pertaining to street and sidewalk designs in formulating its recommendations to the City Coundl Induding but not limited to, aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and preferences, safety, liability, environmentai impacts, and to consider all applicable laws, induding but not limited to Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Water Act and the like." "After careful study and consideration of ail appropriate and relevant information induding public input, it shall make its report and riscommendations to the City Council. Its report shail 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 conduded on February 23, 2000 following 17 meetings. This report responds to the mandate of th(5 Council and makes specific recommendation to the Councii related to special concerns ofthe C^ommtttee. {NTRODUCTION Responding to the charge of the City Council, the Committee very eariy on established its Mission Statement to frame the tasks that it wished to accomplish. As the work progressed that Mission was adjusted to reflect the evolution of the study. The final Mission Statement is: Mission Statement • Identify streets to be improved with curi^, gutter and sidewalks compatible with existing improvements in the surrounding area and not in violation of state and federal law. • Identify Altemative Design Streets • Recommend process and criteria to petition for the design and installation of irhprovements to Alternative Design Streets • Review existing Cily plans, polliaes, and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk development and make relevant recommendations • Report to Coundl March 7, 200D The Committee also identified the key woric prr^ducts 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 Ci ty plans, policies and ordinances that affect street and sidewalk design • Final Report STREET CATEGORIES The Committee began tts task with an inventory of all streets within the study area which were not completed with curbs, gutters and skiewalks that conformed with standards at the time of deveiopment. These streets were field re\1ewed and evaluated against current City Standards. In order to evaluate and place various stn^ets within iogncai 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 Committeej that many of these streets should not be improved but rather retain their current design in-ljeu 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 Coundl would then initiate the Alternative Design Approval Process. The process wouW be guided by the Altemative Design Criteria proposed by the Committee. The criteria utilized to determine the Altemative Design Streets and also the criteria to consWer initiation of the design approval process ars listed below. ALTERNATfVE STREET CRITERIA 1. Documented safety issues 2. Proximity to schools and other public faciiities 3. Resident/owners request Improvements 4. Necessity for walkway/pedestrian access 5. Average Daily Traffic 6. Linkage corridor (roadway need for drculation continuity or connectbn to active land uses) 7. Need for traffic calming strategies 8. Land use changes 9. Drainage problems 10. Federal, State or local mandates The Committee gave a great deal of consideration to the establishment of a non-essential iirik or non-improvement category of street. This consideration reflected the desire to maintan many of the streets as they exist today. Ht was ultimately determined that the final decision on whether a street would receive improvemtmts should be defen-ed 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 curias, gutter and sidewalk consistent with cunrent City standards or compatible in width and configurattan with Improvemenl 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 curia adjacent, the parkway configuration shouW be conlinued. In some cases, significant improvement did not exisl but il 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 lo be of special character These streets should remain in their cun'ent design unless one or more of the Altemative Street Criteria trigger the need to explore the Alternative Design Process. The process is designed lo work wilh the neighborhood to devetop an alternative street design that retains the neighbortiood character virtiile addressing the issue which initiated the process. ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS The process outlined in the second part of this report is designed lo guarantee full partidpatbn of the neighbortiood In the street design process but also to notify the City as a whole that the process is proceeding. It is iniportant that the neighborhood be given notice as eariy 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 consisteni with emergency access requirements and good engineering practices. RECOMMENDATION , The final sectfon of the report deals with recomnoendations suggested by the Committee for Council consideration. For discussion of all items, you are directed to the minutes of the Febmary 7, 2000 meetir^. TABLE 1 COMPATIBLE IMPROVEMENT STREETS STREETS TO HAVE CURB. GUTTER & SIDEWALKS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SURFWDUNDING AREA AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW STREET From/At TO Grand Ave. Hope Ave. 1-5 Jeffereon St Chinquapin Ave. To Magnolia Ave. Magnolia Ave. Highland Ave. Monroe St Valley St Carisbad Viiiage Dr. Magnolia Ave. Chinquapin Ave. Carlsbad Blvd Adams St. *Adams St. ChesfeiutAve. Park Dr. Parit Dr. (section already improved) Monroe St Tamerack Ave. James Dr. South of Tamarad< Ave. Oak Ave. Lincoln St Washington St. Pine Ave, Carisbad Blvd. SDNRR Lincoln St. Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave. Chestnut Ave. Carisbad Blvd. Roosevelt St. Juniper Ave. Garfield St SDNRR HemlcK* Ave. Garfield St. SDNRR Garfield, St. Walnut Ave. past Olive Ave. Laguna Drl State St Roosevelt St Madison St Laguna Dr. Grand Ave. Arbuckle PI. 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. 2 lots west Oak Ave. At cul de sac Jeanne PI. End of cul de sac • Aithea Ln. End of cul de sac Adams St modified design per adopted plan 4 TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS street ! From To Adams St Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave, Alder Ave. Monroe/Sunnyhill cul-de-sac Ann Dr. Gayle Wy. Janis Wy. AHand Rd. Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy. Aura Cir N,ofHisideDr, end Batdvnn Ln. Chinquapin Aye. end Basswood Ave. Eureka PI. Highland Ave. Basswood Ave. Valtey St. Canyon St Basswood Ave. Monroe St. Rkigecrest Dr. Bayshore Dr. Park Dr. cul-de-sac Beech Ave. Ocean SL Garfield St. BetleLn. Basswood Ave. cul-de-sac Buena PI. Jefferson St. cul-de-sac Buena Vista Cir, Laguna Dr. end Buena Vista Wy. Jefferson St Davis Ave. Buena Vista Wy. Pio Pico Dr. Cresl Dr. Butters Rd. W. of Highland Dr. cul-de-sac Camden Cir. Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac Canyon Pl. Canyon St. cul-de-sac Canyon St Canyon PI. Basswood Ave. Charieen Cir. Donna Dr. cul-de-sac Charter Oak Dr. Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. Cipriano Ln. Forest Ave. cul-de-sac Citrus Pl. Jefferson St cul-de-sac TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS street From To Clearview Dr. MacAruthur Ave. N. of cul-de-sac Cove Dr. S. of Parit Dr. cui-dersac Crest Dr. Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wy. Cynthia Ln. cul-de-sac cui-de-sac Cypress Ave. Ocean St. Carisbad Blvd. Dale Av. GariTjeld St. end Davis Ave. Buena Vista Wy. Lagutia Dr. Davis PL Davis Ave. cul-de-sac Donna Dr. at Nob HHI Dr. Donna Dr. Falcon Dr. S, of Janis Wy. Donna Dr. N. of Sharieen Cir. Chestnut Ave. Elmwood St. Laguna Dr. Buena Vista Wy. Eureka F>1. S. of Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave. Falcon Dr. Donna Dr. cul-de-sac Forest Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Highland Dr. Forest Ave. Highland Dr. Crest Dr. Qarfieki St. Ocean St Carlsbad Viiiage Dr. Gayle Way Monroe SL Donna Dr. Grand Ave. Ocean St. Garileld St Gregory Dr. Knowtes Ave. Cynthia Ln. Guevara Rd. Highland Dr. cul-de-sac Harbor Dr. Chinquapin Ave. cul-de-sac Harrison St. Chinquapin Ave. Adams. St. Hibiscus Cir. Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS street 1 From To Highland Dr. N. of Butters Rd, Forest Ave. Highland Dr. Forest Aye. Arland Rd, Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy. Oak Ave. Highland Dr. Oak Ave. Basswood Ave. Highland Dr. Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave, Highland Dr, Chestnut Ave. Magnoiia Ave. Highland Dr. Magndia Ave. Tama^k Ave. Highland Dr. Tamarack Ave. Chinquapin Ave. Highland Dr. Chinquapin Ave. Adams St Hiltorest Cir Seacrest Dr. cukJe-sac Hillside Dr. Hi^land br. Park Dr. Holly Brae Ln. AW©- Ave. cul-de-sac Home Ave. Hope Ave. cul-de-sac Hoover St, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Highland Dr. Janis Wy. Ann Dr. Donna Dr. Jefferson St. Las Fiores Dr, 1-5 Jefferson St. 1-5 Marron Rd. Karen Ln. Monroe SL cul-de-sac Knowles Ave. Jefferson Sl. Davis Ave. Knowies Ave. Pio PKO Dr. Elmwood St. Laguna Dr. Roosevelt St. East of l^emeyer Cir. Laguna Dr. E. of Davis Ave. 1-5 Laguna Dr. Pk) Pico Dr. Elmwood St. Larkspur Wy. Adams SL cul-de-sac TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS street From To Laurie Clr. Ann Dr. cul-de-sac Linmar Ln. Tamarack Ave. end Locust St. Harrison St. Adams. St. Long Pl. Chinquapin Ave. cul-de-sac MacArthur Ave. Sunnyhill Dr. Skyline Rd. Madison St. S. of Arbuckle PL N. of Grand Ave. Maezel Ln. Basswood Ave. end Marina Dr. Park Dr. cul-de-sac Marjorie Ln. Chestnut Ave, cul-de-sac McCauley Ln. Valley St cul-de-sac McKinley St. Pine Ave. Basswood Ave. Meadowlark Ln. Rkigecrest Dr. cul-de-sac Monroe St. Eastof Park Dr. Sunnyhill Dr. Mountain View Dr. Ocean St Carisbad ^vd. Normandie Lane Garfiekl St. Mountain View Dr. Oak Ave. . Pio Pico Dr. Valley St. Ocean St. Mountain View Dr. Christians©! Wy. Ocean St. Grand Ave. Pine Ave Olive Av. Garfield St. end Padfic Ave. Ocean SL , Mountain View Dr. Palisades Dr. Tamarack Ave. N. of nuckle Palm Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Mams St Park Dr. Monroe St. Westhaven Dr, Park Dr. Tamarack Ave. Kelly Dr. 8 TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS Strrot f From To Pfne Ave. Pio Pico Dr, Hij^iland Dr. Pio Pico Dr. Las Fiores Dr, N. of Yourell Ave. Pio F»ico Dr. Tamarack Ave. Las Flores Dr. Polly Ln. Tamarack Ave. cui-de-sac Ratdlff Rd. Highland Dr. cul-de-sac Redwood Ave, GariTteld St cui-de-sac Fydgea-est Dr. Basswood Ave, Oiarter Oak Dr. Sandy PI. Canyon St. cul-de-sac Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. Sequoia Av. Carlsbad Blvd. Gartieid St. Skyline Rd. Westhaven Dr. Alder Ave. Skyline Rd. Mder Ave. N. of Telescope Ave. Spnice St. Forest Ave. 1 lot north Spruce St, Yourell Ave, 1 tot north SunnyhSi Dr. Monroe St. 5 lots 8, Sunnyhill Dr. 5 lots S. of Monroe St N.ofHillskje Dr. Tutee St. Las Flores Dr. Buena Vista Wy. Tyler St. Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave. Valley R. VaUey St cui-de-sac Valley St Buena Vista Wy. Carisbad Viliage Dr. Via HInton end Washington St. Pine Ave. Walrwt Ave. Westhaven Dr. N. of Park Dr. Woodvale Dr. Wilson St. Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wy. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS street From 1 To Woodwetfe Dr. Park Dr. Westhaven Dr. Yourell Ave. Pio Pico Dr. west of Highland Dr. 10 ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS 1. Plan Initiation Altemative 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 Coundl. 2. Project information notice and posting The dtizens and affected residents will be notified consistent with City Codes prior to Council consideration of initiation of the Altemative Design process. To inform the general public, a large projed infomnatioh sign will be posted at the beginning and end of the project for the duration of the projed and notices wili be posted at City Hall and published in locat newspapers. To ensure that the residents and neighbors are made aware of the issues, notices wiil be mailed to affected residents and neighbor? within a 600 foot radius of the projed. 3. Request Councii authorization & funding alternatives for feasibility and preliminary engineermg studies Council will consider authorizing and funding the project with pubiic funds, private funds, combination of publk: and private funds and other available funding mechanisms. Prior to Council consideration of the project, the projed infomiation and meeting date will be posted at City Hall and notices will be published in tocal papers and mailed to affected residents and neighbors within a 600 foot radius ofthe project A new projed information sign will not be ereded. 4. Develop alternatives with community involvement (engineering study) Staff, with input from tiie community, will begin to develop concept level alternatives and cost estimates. Topographic surveys of the project wili be reviewed and spedal character resources and constraints will be identified. Staff will consult with the community, residents. Planning Department Fire Department and landscape professionals (landscape architects and ariDorists, if appropriate) to consider options for roadway width, pedestrian provisions, edge freatments, and other roadway features. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the activities ofthis stage, as in item 3 above. 5. Community Workshop to review alternativBS Public workshops will be held to present the findings of the engineering study (stage 4, above). Staff wiil 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 projed forward wiil 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 pubiic workshops (stage 5, above), Staff wili 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 Documentatton such as CEQA (if required) and any other permit process will be initiated at this stage. Pubtic posting and notice wiil be given prior to tiie activities of this stage, as in item 3 atiove. 8. Traffic Safety Commission review The Traffic Safety Commission will review the project in regard to traffic safety, pedestrian safety and street design issues. The pubtic is welcome to attend the Commission's meeting. Public posting and notice will be given prior to the adi\^ties of this stage, as in item 3 above. 10. Council hearing and approval Council will consider, and approve or rejed 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 wilt initiate final design stage for the preparation of construction plans, and contract documents when funds are appropriated. 12 ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN CRITERIA INTBQQUCTION The Streets and Sidewalks Committee wish to maintain the current character of certain unique neighborhoods through alternative improvements consistent with a safe, effedive street These neighborhoods of "Olde Carisbad" have developed under less formal standards than newer neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, over the years, have matured to create a character tiiat Is unique and of distind value to the overall charader of the community. These neighborhoods tend to have less formal street construction witii mature trees and otiier unique cultural features. To encourage tiie protection of the character of tiiese unique neighborhoods, flexible street design features are required to guide the Altemative Sti'eet Design process. The street criteria presented herein is intended to guide tiie future design process by providing minimum criteria related to: • ROADWAY WIDTHS • PARKING REQUIREMENTS • . PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS • ROADWAY EDGE TREATIMENTS The utilization of these requirements will be highly dependent on the adual opportunities and constraints provided by tiie individual neighbortioods. Factors of particular Importance in tiie 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 paridng • Pedestrian needs and adivities • 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 capadty requirements. The minimum emergency access shall be 24 feet of ail 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 pari<lng enforcement issues. Provision of parking pockets is encouraged to enhance traffic calming features and to provkle seledive on-street parking to serve residential needs. Parking pockets couW incorporate alternative materials to distinguish the paricing 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 nan-ow streets. Examples of alternative parking area surfaces include: Turf biock Stabilized earth materials Pavers Cofored asphalt Colored concrete Loose or erosive material with high ongoing maintenance costs are discouraged. Where possible, durable permeable materials may be conskiered. PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS Where provided, pedestrian walkways shall be 4-foot minimum clear consistent with ADA requirement and be of a solid durable materiaL Walkway locations shall be located in such a manner as to preserve natural and cultural resources as detemiined 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 shouid be given serious consideration. Meandering walks are acceptable. EDGE TREATMENTS It is recognized that roadway edge treatments are important to stabilize tiie roadway pavement and to contain and divert drainage ftows. The nature of the edge treatment also impacts the appearance and character of the raiadway. Several options for roadway edge treatirtents 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 centeriine can be considered. Street design needs to adequately address storrh 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, ai! measures shouW 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 rightsnaf-way exist, natural swales should be considered to convey runoff. Maintenance cost and procedures should be fulty analyzed in the pianning process. Tilted roadway sedions may be considered when they will provide a more compatible Interface with properiaes abutting the street, MITIGATION MEASURES To assist in retaining the existing charader of neighborhoods through nan-ower street sedion mitigation measures, such as increased lot sizes viritii provisions for off-street parking, larger setbacks from the street, dtemative drainage and utility systems and fire sprinkling of homes should be given consideration. FISCAL ANALYSIS All design altematives should be reviewed for comparative construdion cost and long-term maintenance costs. Where long-terrri, maintenance costs are Incurred, altemative funding for fhe added costs should be evaluated. 15 SIDEWALK AND STREET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL PLAIi AMENDMENT 1. TTie Committee recommends that a General Plan Amendment be considered to relied a slowdown and management of growth in the Northwest Quadrant Lot size and densities vwll 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 protedion and preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to include, but not be exclusive of: tree-lined nanrower meandering sti-eets, alternative pedesh-ian pathways,, traffic calming and parking options. Spedal attention to tiie quality of life tiie resklents have come to exped as delineated in the Munidpai Code cun-ent ordinance Sedion 18,40. Dedicattons and Improvements. Spedfically sedion 18.40.100 waiver or nnodiflcations. "The street fronting on the subjed property has already been improved to the maximum feasible and deslrabte state, recognizing ttiere are some such streets which may have less than standard improvements when necessary to preserve tiie charader of thp neiqhborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things as trees, wall, yards and open space. VOTE: 8-6-0 AYES: Dweliey, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis NOES: Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano; Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Noble SOUND WALLS 2. The Committee recommends sound walls on freeways, 1) City should begin negotiating witil Caltrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway vwdening, and 2) City (or Caltrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is antidpated. VOTE: 13-1-0 AYES: Dweliey, Wickham, Piro, Garnache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher NOES: Spano ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Noble UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 3. The Committee recommends that "The Council direct staff to exptore altemative funding approaches to accelerate the undergrounding of overhead utilities". VOTE: 14-0-0 AYES: Dweiley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger. Lewis. Mamaux, Schtehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano NOES: None ABSTAIN: Nonfe ABSENT: Noble 16 TRAFFIC CALMING 4. The Committee recommends: a) Based upon our review of the cun'ent state-of-the-art street design in other communities, the Committee recommends that instead of single-standard, tiie City of Carlsbad utilize different design methodologies committed to preserving the existing nature and charader of each neighborhood. b) "Based upon the public testimony we have heard, the Committee has found that one of the most important concems to the residents of "Olde Carisbad" is excessive traffic speed. Vehicular traffic speed shouid be calmed using the state-of-the-art design methods, such as traffic land narowing, pseudo-shoulders, improved signage, textured paving, rumble strips, Botts' Dots', Traffi&-Cirdes, and Elephant Ears." VOTE: 104-0 AYES: Dweiley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Wischkaemper, Gallagher NOES: Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Kubota ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Noble 5. The Committee encourages the City Council to form a Traffic Calming Committee as a follow-up to this committee's efforts. VOTE: 13-1-0 AYES: Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano NOES: Mamaux ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Noble DEDICATIONS 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 buiiding permit by indexing the threshold from 1992 to increases in the Intemational Congress of Building Officials (ICBO) valuation amount VOTE: 7-6-0 AYES: Piro, Leger, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, NOES: Gamache, Wickham, Chartier, I3welley, McBane, Lewis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 17 7. The Committee recommends that street right-of-way dedication be required only for building permits which create new residential dwelling units. Residential remodels would be exempt from the requirement VOTE: 7-6-0 AYES: Piro, Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dweiley, Chartier NOES: Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano, Leger ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 8. The Committee recommends that at such time as rights-of-way are found to be in excess of tiiat required, tiie excess will he quitclaimed. VOTE: 12-1-0 AYES: Piro. Gamache, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dweiley, Chartier. Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Leger NOES: Spano ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS 9. The Committee recommends tiiat Future improvement Agreements apply to only new construction. Remodeling of existing residential dwelling units wouid be exempt from improvement requirements. VOTE: 7-6-0 AYES: Piro, Wickham, McBane, Lewis, Dweiley, Gallagher, Chartier NOES: Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 10. The Committee recommends that building permit applicants be issued a notification of potential Imprcwement or Future Improvement Agreement obligation at receipt of the tnjilding pennit application. VOTE: 13-0-0 AYES: Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dweliey, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 11. The Committee recommends Future Improvement Agreements be made subordinate to homeowner's mortgages or trust deed finandng at present and in the future. Staff will . review language with the City Attomey'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, Dweliey, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 18 ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 12. The Committee recommends lhat property owners be given 90 days to respond to demands to comply with Future Improvement Agreements rather than 30 days as currentiy contained in the agreemenL VOTE: 9-4-0 AYES: Wckham, McBane, Chartier, Wischkaemper, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dweiley, Gallagher NOES: Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 13. The Committee recommends the cost of all impravements be equitably allocated among all of the beneficiaries, and that no FIA exceed the property owner's fair share of tiie improvement cost. - VOTE: 7-6-0 AYES: Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dweiley NOES: Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 14. The Committee recommends that tiie 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 tiie policy regarding the deferral of improvement requirements remain as the permanent policy after the building moratorium has been lifted. VOTE: 13-0-0 AYES: Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Gamache, Piro, Gallagher, Dweiley, Spano, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Wischkaemper, Lewis NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mamaux, Noble 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-237 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 Coundl 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 Coundl 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: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 \\\ 28 \\\ \\\ 2. 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 directe staff to monitor the environmental review process of the Caltrans 1-5 widening projed and advise council on appropriate measures to mitigate sound impacts. C. Street & Sidewalk Committee Recommendation No. 3 Underground Utilities Council Response Council hereby directe 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 Coundl 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 Carisbad City Coundl held on the 25th day of July , 2000 by the following vote, to wit: AYgS: Council/JJembers Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchin lone ATTEST RAINE M. yOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET & SIDEWALK POLICY COMMITTEE 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 protedion and preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to indude, but not bie exdusive of: tree-lined narrower meandering streets, altemative pedestrian pathways, traffic calming and parking options. Special attention to the quality of life the residents have come to exped as delineated in the Municipal Code current ordinance Section 18.40. Dedications and Improvements. Specifically sedion 18.40.100 waiver or modifications. "The street fronting on the subjed 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 presen/e 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 address.ed in ongoing work programs. The Planning Department recentiy 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 Sedion .18.40.100 are dealt with through the Altemative Design process. Approval of the Altemative 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 tiie citizens. it is staffs recommendation that concems 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 conslmdion of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, and 2) City (or Caltrans) should construd sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated. STAFF RESPONSE • Caltrans has begun a project to vwden Interstate 5 from Dei Mar through Oceanside. Current funding for the projed will provide for freeway widening to Palomar Airport Road. Caltrans anticipates appropriating funds for the remainder of widening north of 1 Palomar Airport Road witiiin the next few years. Caltrans anticipates beginning a five- year environmental review process for the entire projed in the Summer of 2000. This wiil 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 conduded a preliminary noise study in 1993 that identified nine potential soundwall locations along 1-5 through the City of Cartsbad. 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 additionai recommendations developed during the process, All noise studies conduded by Qalb'ans will include public meetings and public hearings regarding noise abatement and the construction of soundwalls along the 1-5 comdor. Caltrans will coordinate with affeded cities, neighborhoods, and residences to ensure that the public has an opportunity to participate in determining whether the stnjdures are necessary, reasonable, and feasible. Final locations for soundwalls to be construded as part of the freeway widening projed wnil not be determined until the completion of the noise study portion ofthe environmentai review in 2001-02. Soundwalls should not be construded 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 Coundl dired staff to explore altemative funding approaches to accelerate tiie 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 instead of a single standard, the City of Cartsbad utilize different design methoddogles committed to presenting 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 concems to the residents of "Olde Carisbad" 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, nimble strips, Botts' Dots', Traffic-Circies, and Elephant Ears." 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£D,iCATIONS 6. The Committee recommends that the Council adjust the Municipal Code requirement to dedicate rights-of-way as a condition of a building pemnit exceeding $10,000 In building permit by indexing the threshold from 1992 to increases in the Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) valuatron 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 permits that create new residential dwelling units. Residential remodels would be exempt from tiie 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 adion. Consistent with conhmittee recommendation number 8, at such time as Altemative Design is adopted identifying a reduced right-of-way requirement, the excess dedication can be retumed. Staff recommends that right-of-way dedications be retained on residential remodels, but the threshold be increased to $15,000 and t>e indexed consistent with recommendatton number 6. Staff woutd 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 adually needed for construction of improvements. Staffs 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 cunent City pradice. Staff supports this recommendation. >23 FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS 9. The Committee recommends that Future Improvement Agreements apply to only new construdion. 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 properiy 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 corijunction with City improvement projeds. This has given rise to an equity concem 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 eqiiitatrie approach would be to fomi 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 altemative design varies for different frontages and would better lend itself to payment for improvements over time. Staff working with an assessment attomey has developed a "Neighbortiood Improvement Agreement". Under tills agreement, the building pemiit applicant agrees to not protest the formation of an assessment distrid on their block and to pay their fair share pf 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 fonner Future Improvement Agreement be replaced with a "Neighbortiood Improvement Agreement", that improvement requirements continue to be recognized for residenttal 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 k>een 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. 11. The Committee recommends Future Improvement Agreements be made subordinate to homeowner's mortgages or tmst deed financing at present and in the future. Staff will review language with the City Attoniey'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 dear. The intent is consistent with current practice. 12. The Committee recommends that property owners be given 90 days to respond to demands to comply with Futojre Improvement Agreemente rather than 30 days as cun-ently 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 bertefidarieSi 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 complied with. 14. The Committee recommends that the City retain its cun'ent 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 pennaiient policy after the building moratorium has been lifted. STAFF RESPONSE Staflf supports this recommendation and would recommend tiiat Munidpai Code section 18.40.070. Defen-al 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 'Altemative Destgn Street' and subjed to the 'Alternative Sti'eet Design Approval Process'", and, (6) "Improvements are not continuous witti existing improvements and construction would be impractical.' The revised code sectipn presented for Council adion includes this sedion for Council adoption. A> Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Pagel Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: October 16, 2013 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Siekmann called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schumacher led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Anderson, Black, L'Heureux, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Absent: None STAFF PRESENT Don Neu, City Planner Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Chris Garcia, Junior Planner Jason Geldert, Senior Engineer Glen Van Peski, Engineenng Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the meeting from October 2, 2013. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of October 2, 2013. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner L'Heureux and Commissioner Black PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Siekmann asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page 2 1. CDP 13-20 - WALLACE RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the demolition of an existing single-family home, detached garage and storage shed, and the construction of a new 2,565 square foot single-family residence with attached two-car garage on a .29 acre lot located at 3935 Syme Drive, within the Mello 11 Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 15301, demolition of a single family residence and other small structures, and 15303, construction of a single family residence, of the state CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. Staff wouid be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to comment on Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Siekmann asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Item 1. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Agenda Item 1. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully, and Commissioner Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item, and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. 2. Dl 13-01 - 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. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Senior Engineer Jason Geldert would make the staff presentation. Mr. Geldert gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if there have been any designated Alternative Design Streets that have gone through the process of receiving approval of alternative street improvements. Mr. Geldert stated that he was not aware of any. Commissioner L'Heureux asked how a neighborhood or a block is defined. Mr. Geldert stated the report did not define either term; however for the purposes of noticing, a 600 foot radius was determined to be considered for notification. Typically though a block is defined as an area between two streets. A block is also used for initiation of the process. For instance, 50% of residents on a block can initiate the process. Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page 3 Commissioner Segall asked if Commissioner L'Heureux could explain his concerns regarding Alternative Design Streets so the Commission could have a better understanding ofthe issues. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that what triggered this item were a few recent projects that came before the Commission that were fronting along Alternative Design Streets. Back when the committee was established and the report was finalized, the concern was for the preservation of trees and the preservation of the rural character of a number of the roads. The majority of the roads were west of Highland Drive, were the lots were smaller and individual lots. However, the recent projects had larger lots that were denuded of any vegetation or any trees or any special character because the lots had previously been farmed or used for some sort of agriculture. Commissioner L'Heureux stated his concern is that while he understands the benefit of where it is appropriate to keep the small individual lots until a number of the owners get together to decide they want a change; however, maybe for some of the larger lots the City is really missing the boat by allowing them not to install full improvements at least on the property that fronts their project because he feels those improvements will never be installed as a practical matter. If that is what the City wants or the community wants, that is fine. Commissioner L'Heureux added that the process has been created to prevent any type of meaningful development. It will be very difficult to get 50% of the neighbors together, politically, would be very difficult. He stated his only question to the Commission, and perhaps the City Council, is where there are large parcels that go through potential development should the Commission re-iook at the designation of some of those sections of the street as Alternative Streets. Chairperson Siekmann thanked Commissioner L'Heureux for his clarification and asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Commissioner Scully stated she would like to know what is considered a large project. Mr. Neu stated that for the Commission to see a project, it would need to be 5 lots or more. With the densities in the northwest part of the city, it would be a lot approximately one acre in size. Commissioner Anderson stated she did quite a bit of driving around the areas where the Alternative Design Streets are designated and it does not appear that any of the recommended elements for alternative Streets were implemented. She stated she feels "alternative" looks like "open to interpretation of the owner." She commented that if she is reading the report correctly, if a home is built, it should be built and within the given criteria with some attractive, tidy looking surface. Mr. Geldert stated the idea of the design approval process is that a project is supposed to go through the process before any construction. There have been issues with residents not abiding by the process; however that is an enforcement issue. Commissioner Anderson asked if a homeowner on an Alternative Design Street is then not required to install permeable surfaces as listed in the report. Mr. Geldert stated the list is if there is a tngger that would require a change. The list is suggestions on how to alleviate it. If one of the issues was unstable earth where the parking was supposed happen, then those are suggestions on how to make it better for parking without disrupting the character too much. The purpose of the policy was to keep the streets in their current state. Commissioner Black inquired about safety triggers and the criteria. Mr. Geldert stated it would be documented issues such as a high rate of accidents, and there have not been any issues that would pique awareness. Commissioner Segall stated that the Commission approved a project on Las Flores and while he did not make a comment at the time, he was concerned about the drainage culvert. He feels that something should have been done from a safety standpoint and that it was the most bizarre street situation in the city. He asked for Staff to comment. Mr. Geldert stated that he is aware of the project Commissioner Segall is referring to and it is a little unusual although other cities do have similar situations with open channels on each side. Mr. Geldert stated he contacted the city's traffic division and a few other divisions to determine if there have been any issues, complaints, higher rates of reported accidents regarding the culverts and no complaints have been received. Typically if there are any issues, the citizens will let staff know. As for the design of the street the project is on, Mr. Geldert stated it is a narrow street which lends itself to slower speeds which makes the street safer. Staff did not feel having narrower travel lanes on this particular street was an issue. Commissioner Segall commented that some projects are creating more ADTs and more traffic for the smaller, narrower streets, and it does not seem the street has the capacity to handle the traffic. While there have not been issues in the past. Commissioner Segall commented that perhaps the city is creating future issues by adding more traffic. Mr. Geldert stated that Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page A while there is potential for development, the streets can handle the additional capacity generated from the infill lots. If the Commission is concerned regarding the capacity of the streets, the streets would need to be widened to accommodate more than 1 lane of traffic in each direction. Commissioner L'Heureux directed the Commission's attention to the slide on the screen and asked Staff if the street shown on the slide has room for parking. Mr. Geldert stated parking is allowed on both sides, as is with most streets in the city, which does narrow the travel lanes and slows down traffic. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that with the Alternative Design Streets then, there are no improvements, parking is allowed on both sides of the street so the streets become narrower for vehicles, and if there are infill projects, the potential for more cars and more traffic is increased. Pedestrians are then forced to walk in the travel lanes. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that he is having a difficult time, as an individual, with the potential problem just waiting to happen. Commissioner Black commented that it seems like there are quite a number of code enforcement issues in the city and that the city does not have the time or inclination to review or approach each situation. He asked if there is an alternative that can be used. Mr. Geldert stated that while he does not have any suggestions, the issues raised by the Commission could be considered. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the city has a right to make a property owner change a modification if there is a situation where a property owner takes it upon themself to make modifications to the alternative design and it is effecting other property owners. Mr. Van Peski stated that Code Enforcement works on a complaint basis so unless a complaint is received, those modifications would remain. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that it appears that over the years, long before the Alternative Design Streets process was adopted, throughout town people have in fact reclaimed that area in front of their home, maybe by installing drainage pipes, filling it in, and paving over it to create parking in front of their house. He asked if that was something that is acceptable in the City or do residents need to get permission or a permit. Mr. Van Peski stated that if a resident asked, and the home was on an Alternative Design Street, the resident would be told of the process; however, residents don't typically ask. Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney, commented that theoretically, if the process is working the way it is intended, if the improvements residents want to install are within the public right-of-way, the homeowner needs to apply for an encroachment permit and sign an encroachment agreement with the City that the improvements would be removed whenever the city asked them to do so at their cost with no need for the city to replace it. Chairperson Siekmann asked if anyone has come to the city with any complaints regarding the Altemative Design Streets. Mr. Geldert stated not that he was aware of. Chairperson Siekmann also asked if the Alternative Design Streets program actually slows down traffic. Mr. Geldert responded that generally narrower streets will reduce traffic speeds. Chairperson Siekmann further asked if Staff has any recommendations for changes in this program. Mr. Geldert stated not at this time. Commissioner Segall commented that the issue he had with this topic when it was brought up is that when there are larger infill developments, the City has the opportunity to have the developer install the street improvements. However, because of this ordinance, the developer is not required to do so. He feels that the city is losing the opportunity to make these half-street improvements that are contiguous with properties that are doing these larger subdivisions. Mr. Kemp stated that it is his understanding that any one of these developers would sign a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement, which is a promise to pay for the installation of those improvements later. Mr. Kemp stated that the developer would sell those properties but the agreement runs with the land so the future property owner would have the obligation but that obligation is not gone. The obligation is placed on the property owner, and if some time in the future, that street needs to be improved, the obligation would be on whoever owns the property at the time to install those improvements. Mr. Kemp further commented that there are Neighborhood Improvement Agreements throughout Olde Carlsbad as well as Future Improvement Agreements, where there are homeowners that do have an obligation to improve the street if it does become time to do that. Commissioner Segall asked if that wording is included in the resolutions of approval. Mr. Kemp stated that it is in the code as well as the process included in the Alternative Design Streets. Commissioner Segall stated that if that is the case, there does not appear to be any issue as long as at some point the Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page 5 City can make these improvements, or require the improvements, with these large frontages and that the improvements will be paid for by someone other than the city. Mr. Kemp stated that was correct. Commissioner Anderson commented that it was her understanding that a developer for a recently approved project stated he would like to install the improvements however because of the lengthy process with the Alternative Design Streets, he stated it did not fit into his timetable and that it would become a lien on the title, it will only happen if 50% of the neighbors come together and petition, which has not happened in the last 12 years so why would it happen in the next 50 years. Commissioner Anderson stated why would any of these streets going to change or why would any of the Future Improvement Agreements going to come to fruition. It will just continue to be a patchwork of development. On that previous project, Commissioner Anderson commented that it was interesting that Oak Avenue to the north of the recent development, already has curb, gutter and sidewalks, and there will be the same improvements on the Valley end of the project, but the city is saying they want dirt on the south side of Oak Avenue and to her that does not make any sense. Mr. Kemp referred the Commission to page 11 of the Alternative Design Street Report. He stated he believes there is a misconception that the only thing that will initiate the process is a petition of 50% of the residents. Mr. Kemp stated that there is more than one way to initiate the process: the citizens can do it, a development project can do it, staff can identify safety issues, there could be drainage or utility issues, state or federal mandates, or any other means acceptable to the City Council. It could be that as staff reviews these projects on a case-by-case basis, they can identify that there is an issue and therefore it could be brought fon/vard. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that there is a process for the citizens to initiate this process, but asked what the process is for the city to initiate it. Mr. Kemp stated that there is a bit of ambiguity built into the process, on purpose, because there is no "one size fits all." Every street has an individual character and the committee wanted to build that into the process. Mr. Kemp commented that as he looks at the process as mentioned by Mr. Geldert eariier, it is cleariy designed for an entire block. He stated that he is not sure if you can define a "block" or a "neighborhood." It needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and what currently exists. For the committee to define what a block is may not be a hard and fast definition that would work in every case. There is ambiguity built into the process to allow for an individualized, case-by-case basis. Mr. Kemp further stated there is a code section within Chapter 18.40 of the CMC. That is the chapter that allows the city to require public improvements of projects that are not under a map, so to speak. In other words, it is triggered by redevelopment of the property. There is a dollar threshold, which is based on actual square footage, and that triggers the obligation to then install the street improvements. There are findings at the start of the chapter that talk about the necessity for the improvements, and that address the issues previously discussed by the Commission such as safety and drainage issues. The default position of the city is to require those improvements. Mr. Kemp stated the code chapter has been around since 1976. It vvas modified through this process to include the Alternative Design Streets in 2000. There is a section that talks about deferral of improvement requirements stating that the improvements would only be deferred under 6 specific conditions, including the Alternative Design Streets, to allow the deferral of those improvements to a later date. Mr. Kemp further stated that the code states the city manager may defer the improvement upon written application by the developer, if there is a project such as the previous project on Oak Avenue, the city manager has the authority to not defer the improvements in that case. He further commented that if there is a project that involves an entire block and a number of streets, then it would have to go through the Alternative Design Street process. Commissioner Segall stated that, taking the example of the previous project which was the catalyst for this item tonight, there are about 5 large lots that will be subdivided at some point, one that has already been approved and the other currently in the review process. He stated that he recalls no street improvements will be made, and may never be made unless as a Commission, when the projects are approved it is stated that all of the improvements are to be made. He feels the city will lose the opportunity to have those improvements installed however the Assistant City Attorney is now saying that it is not true. Commissioner Segall feels that when the Commission approves a project, it should be clear that the Commission wants those improvements installed or they do not want the improvements installed, and if the Commission wants those areas to remain in a rural, eclectic nature or not. He stated that was the issue the Commission was struggling with before. Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page 6 Mr. Geldert reminded the Commission that the Alternative Design Streets came about because the neighborhoods wanted it that way. When staff reviewed the project along Buena Vista, the developer did do outreach to the neighborhood and found out that the neighborhood did not want the street to change. That was the intent of the Alternative Design Streets report which was to keep the character of the neighborhood as the residents wanted. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Siekmann opened public testimony on Agenda Item 2. Erin McDannold, 122 Avalon Drive, Vista, asked if the Alternative Design Streets is related to the Livable Streets Initiative. Mr. Geldert stated those two are separate policies. Mr. Van Peski stated they are separate but they overlap in concept. Some residents in Olde Carlsbad like the rural nature of the tree lined, narrower streets and that is how the Alternative Design Streets process came about. The Livable Streets policy is a concept that shows that when streets are narrower, traffic is slower, pedestrians are safer, there is more room for sidewalks and alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Neu commented that the Livable Streets policy added back in the landscaped parkways with sidewalks separated from the curb. Chairperson Siekmann asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on Agenda Item 2. DISCUSSION Commissioner Schumacher commented that he appreciated the presentation from staff. He stated he feels the current policy is working with no issues as of yet. Commissioner Schumacher stated he does not have any recommendations for any changes. Commissioner Segall stated his concurrence with Commissioner Schumacher. Commissioner L'Heureux thanked staff for the presentation. He commented that if staff is comfortable with how things are currently working, he does not want to recommend any changes. Commissioner Scully agrees with most of what her fellow Commissioners have stated and that she does not have any recommendations for changes. Commissioner Anderson stated she has a more proactive approach to the issue. She stated there should be a process whereby staff can recommend that improvements be made. She would like to see a provision where the city has some jurisdiction. Commissioner Anderson also stated that the process for modifying the Alternative Design Street program should be simplified. She further stated that the city should give incentives to homeowners who want to construct the improvements. Commissioner Anderson would also like to recommend that the council educate the community about choices on alternative streets, a simplified process for people who want to remain with the guidelines, a review of Oak Avenue and any other subdivisions as well as streets with culverts, and to review the larger thru streets on the current list. Commissioner Black also thanked staff for the presentation. He thinks the program has been designed by the people in those neighborhoods. He also stated that he feels the suggestions by Commissioner Anderson are good ones but essentially would not amount to anything. Chairperson Siekmann stated her concurrence with her fellow Commissioners and does not feel the issue needs to go to City Council. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that one of the things the Commission is struggling with is that when looking at the map of the Alternative Design Streets, the "green" lines are very broad, and it really is maybe that it should be applied to only one side of the street rather than both sides in certain areas. But yet, the line really hits both sides on the map. If the Commission wants anything to happen, maybe it is to Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page 7 suggest to the council, they revisit whether a) the streets designated are still appropriate; and b) those streets that are appropriate, are both sides appropriate. Commissioner Anderson added that as she reads the report, it is her understanding that if someone is building a new property, the owner is supposed to install a more attractive, semi-permeable product in front of the home not just leave it dirt. She stated she is puzzled as to why that is not required. Mr. Van Peski referred Commissioner Anderson to page 3 of the report which states "Alternative Design Streets as listed in Table 2, Figure 1, are deemed to be of special character. These streets should remain in their current design unless one or more of the alternative street criteria trigger the need to explore the alternative design process." Commissioner Anderson stated that seems to be in conflict with what is listed on page 14. Mr. Van Peski stated one needs to begin on page 13 which talks about where a decision being made that a trigger has been met and a homeowner/developer is going through the Alternative Design Street process. Commissioner Anderson stated that she thought the streets were Alternative Design Streets and the triggers are to make it not an Alternative Design Street. Mr. Van Peski stated the triggers are to make improvements to Alternative Design Streets, whether it be curb and gutter, turf block or gravel. If people decide improvements need to be made or they want improvements to be made, then there is a process as to what improvements can be made. Rather than curb, gutter and sidewalk, pages 13 and 14 of the report, list the items that should be considered to try and preserve some of the special character. Commissioner Anderson stated that the only way that is going to happen is if someone talks to 50% of the neighborhood, and there is a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Van Peslci stated that was correct. Commissioner Anderson commented that that is never going to happen. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council review all the streets included in the Alternative Design Streets program including whether or not both sides ofthe street should be included. Commissioner L'Heureux clarified that it has been 13 years since this program has been looked at and with the push towards infill development the Commission wants to make sure, collectively as a city, that everyone is on the same page and that the streets that have been designated are still appropriate and that perhaps the city should look at whether improvements or lack of improvements are appropriate on one side or both sides of the street. VOTE The Commission voted 4-3 (Siekmann, Segall, Schumacher) to approve the recommendation. MOTION Motion by Commission Anderson that the Planning Commission recommend that the council consider an education program for the community of people included on Alternative Design Streets about the program. Motion failed due to no second. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission recommend that the council review Section 18.40.070 of the CMC to clarify if the city manager has the ability to bypass the Alternative Design Streets process through that section. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if the Commission is asking the council to amend the Alternative Design Streets provision where there is an infill subdivision and the existing rules might exempt certain improvements unless a person goes through this very laborious process, and maybe what the Commission is suggesting is that there be flexibility built in to allow those improvements to be required without having to go through the huge separate noticing, separate hearing process since all of it will be part of the public process for that particular subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes October 16,2013 Page 8 Chairperson Siekmann stated it is her understanding that that is already included in the code sedion. Mr. Kemp commented that is what Section 18.40.070 states. Commissioner Black asked if the Commission could recommend that the council clarify that section to make it easier to understand. Mr. Kemp stated that, along the lines as to what Commission L'Heureux stated, the city has 13 years now of this process being administered and when it was created, it was a unique process and they could not anticipate everything that has come along. The Commission has identified infill projects as an issue that may not have been considered at the time the process was developed. He suggested that the Commission recommend that the council review infill projects in particular and develop a process on how to handle them. Commissioner Segall commented that all of these are good points he could recommend sending a request to the council because it might be a good idea after 13 years to have a committee to review the program, understand the concerns that have been raised tonight by the Commission instead of doing it piece meal; however he is not saying that anything is currently broken with the program. Mr. Kemp commented that Commissioner Segall's ideas are captured in the first motion by Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Anderson asked that the City Attorney's Office make a determination and guide city staff accordingly. Commissioner Anderson withdrew her previous motion. Mr. Neu stated that the motion recommending that the council review the Altemative Design Streets program is adequate without having to get Into additional detail. If the council deddes there needs to be a panel or otherwise, they will direct staff. Chairperson Siekmann closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and thanked staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. CITY PLANNER COMMENTS None. CiTY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting ofthe Planning Commission of October 16, 2013, was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. DON NEU City Planner Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk