Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-16; Planning Commission; ; DI 13-01 - ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETSThe City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ltemNo. 0 Application complete date: N/A P.C. AGENDA OF: October 16, 2013 Project Planner: Don Neu Project Engineer: Jason Geldert SUBJECT: DI 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. 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 Citizens for the Preservation of Olde Carlsbad (CPOC) presented a petition of over 700 signatures to the Carlsbad 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 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 widening 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. 0 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 Summary-Report .... .,. ................................................................................... , ............................................................. 1 Background ............ : ................................................................. : ................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Street Categories ....................................................................................... 2 Compatible Improvement Streets ............................................................... 3 Alternative Design Streets .......................................................................... 3 Alternative Street Design Approval Pro'cess ............................................... 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 "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 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 "Olde 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 to 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 ccmpatibility and preferences, safety, liabilrty, environmental impacts, and to consider all applicable laws, including but not limited to Americans with 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 iis 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 lhe 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-I,ieu 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. T.he 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. Resident/owners request improvements 4. Necessity for walkway/pedestrian access 5. Average Daily Traffic 6. Linkage corridor (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, GUTTER & 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 VH!age Dr. Magnolia Ave. Chinquapin Ave. Carlsbad Blvd Adams St. *Adams St. Chestnut Ave. Park Dr. Park Dr. Monroe St. Tamarack Ave. (section alreadv imoroved) 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. pas! 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. 2 lots west Oak Ave. At cul de sac Jeanne Pl. End of cul de sac Althea Ln. End of cul de sac • Adams St. modified design 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 Wv. 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/Sunnvhill cul-de-sac • ,GavleWy. JanisWv. To Highland Dr. Buena Vista Wy. N. of Hillside Dr. end Chinquapin Ave. end Eureka Pl. Highland Ave. Valley St. Canyon St. Monroe St. Ridgecrest Dr. Park Dr. cul-de-sac Ocean St. Garfield St. Basswood Ave. cul-de-sac Jefferson St. cul-de-sac Laouna Dr. l end Jefferson St. Davis Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Crest Dr. W. of Highland Dr. cul-de-sac Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac Canyon St. cul-de-sac Canyon Pl. Basswood Ave. Donna Dr. cul-de-sac Seacrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. Forest Ave. 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. GayleWav Grand Ave. ' Gregory Dr. Guevara Rd. Harbor Dr. Harrison St. Hibiscus Cir. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From To MacAruthur Ave. N. of cul-de-sac S. of Park Dr. c1,J1-de-sac ' Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wy. cul-de-sac cul-dee sac Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvd. Garfield St. end Buena Vista Wv. Laguna Dr. Davis Ave. cul-de-sac at Nob Hill Dr. Falcon Dr. S. of Janis Wy. N. of Sharleen Cir. Chestnut Ave. Laguna Dr. Buena Vista Wy. S. of Basswood Ave. 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. Garfield St. Knowles Ave. Cynthia Ln. Highland Dr. cul-de-sac Chlnquapln Ave. cul-de-sac Chinquapin Ave. Adams. St. Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac 6 Street Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. ' Highland Dr. Highland Dr- Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Highland Dr. Hillcrest Cir Hillside Dr. Holly Brae Ln. Home Ave. Hoover SI. JanisWy. Jefferson St. Jefferson St. Karen Ln. i<:nowles Ave. Knowles Ave. Laguna Dr. Laguna Dr. Laguna Dr. " Larksour Wv. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS I From I To N. of Butters Rd. Forest Ave. Forest Ave. Arland Rd. , Buena Vista Wy. Oak Ave. Oak Ave. Basswood Ave. Basswood Ave. Chestnut Ave. Chestnut Ave. Magnolia Ave. Magnolia Ave. Tamarack Ave. Tamarack Ave. Chlnquaoin Ave. Chinquapin Ave. Adams St. Seacrest Dr. cul-de-sac Highland br. 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 SI. cul-de-sac Jefferson st. Davis Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Elmwood st. Roosevelt St. East of Kremeyer Cir. E. of Davis Ave. 1-5 Pio Pico Dr. Elmwood St. 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 SI. Mountain View Dr. Norrnandie Lane OakAve .. Ocean St. Ocean St. Olive Av. Pacific Ave. Palisades Dr. Palm Ave: Park Dr. . Park Dr. TABLE2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS. From To Ann Dr. cul-de-sac Tamarack Ave. end Harrison SI. Adams. St. Chinquapin Ave. cul-de-sac Sunnyhill Dr. Skyline Rd. S. of Arbuckle Pl. N. of Grand Ave. Basswood Ave. end Park Dr. cul-de-sac Chestnut Ave. cul-de-sac Valley St. cul-de-sac Pine Ave. Basswood Ave. Ridgecrest Dr. cul-de-sac East of Park Dr. Sunnyhill Dr. Ocean St. Carlsbad Blvil. Garfield St. Mountain View Dr. Pio Pico Dr. Valley St. Mountain View Dr. Christiansen Wy. Grand Ave. Pine Ave Garfield St. end Ocean St. . Mountain View Dr. Tamarack Ave. N. of nuckle Pio Pico Dr. Adams St. Monroe St. Westhaven Dr. Tamarack Ave. Kellv Dr. 8 Street Pine Ave. Pio Pico Dr. Pio Pico Dr. Polly Ln. Ratcliff Rd. Redwood Ave. Ridgecrest Dr. Sandy Pl. Seacrest Dr. Sequoia Av. Skyline Rd. Skyline Rd. Spruce st. Spruce St. Sunnyhill Dr. Sunnyhill Dr. Tuttle St. Tyler St. Valley Pl. Valley St. Via Hinton Washington St. Westtiaven Dr. Wilson St. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From To Pio Pico Dr. Highland Dr. Las Flores Dr. N. of Yourell Ave. Tamarack Ave. Las Flores Dr. Tamarack Ave. cul-de-sac I Highland Dr. cul-de-sac Garfield SI. cul-de-sac Basswood Ave. Charter Oak Dr. Canyon St. cul-de-sac Ridgecrest Dr. Ridgecrest Dr. Carlsbad Blvd. Garfield St. Westhaven Dr. Alder Ave. Alder Ave. N. of Telescope Ave. Forest Ave. 1 lot north Yourelf Ave. 1 lot north Monroe St. 5 lots S. 5 lots S. of Monroe St. N. of Hillside Dr. Las Flores Dr. Buena Vista Wv. Oak Ave. Chestnut Ave. Valley St cul-de-sac Buena Vista Wv. Carlsbad Village Dr. end Pine Ave. Walnut Ave. N. of Park Dr. Woodvale Dr. Forest Ave. Buena Vista Wv. 9 Street Woodvale Dr. Yourell Ave. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS From Park Dr. Westhaven Dr. To Pio Pico Dr. !west of Hiohland 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 neighbor.; 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 al City Hall and notices will be published in local papers and mailed to affected residents and neighbor.; wRhin 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. 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 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 "Olde 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 • RO/.lJJWAY 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: • Turf block . • 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 and cultural resources as detennined 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-term. 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 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 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, Piro, 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 "Olde 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-Cirdes, 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 Muriicipal 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-□ 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 1 0. 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: 13-0-0 AYES: Wickham, McBane, Chartier, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Schlehuber, Leger, Gamache, Piro, Lewis, Dwelley, 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 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 Loca • . Citizens Corm,· tion Map Sidewalk and St ittee to Study the reet Improvement P rogram STREET'""_...,.,. AI.J'ERNAIFIC6.TI~ co.APAn[i DESIGN S~ETS PLSLIC LA.NO ~ STREETS OUR0-1 OTYHALL&UB PARK SCHXl. VARIOUS 625 -----~o;.... ___ ~625 Feet ' . . [\ , e ,. N ~~,r•s ;=;········ .... -, \ \ BUENA VISTA LAGOON I ) ~-~J- ' (> I ~ I • CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL ! BlEHA VISTA EI..EIENTARY i SCHCXl.. I -- \ CARLSBAD HIGHSCliOOL Figure 1 Map2 Study kea Location rv1ap Citizens Committee to Study the Sidewalk and Street Improvement Program STREET O.ASSIFlCATl()',i -.ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS1-REE----.~1S~ <nJPATIBlEIM"RCJ\IENENT STH::EIS PUELICI.AIIO Q-IUROi -· OTY HAl.L & US --PARK r.-SCl<X)l ., VARIOUS 625 0 625 Feet --.--1---- Camc....cn \\ \ •• ~ : C5) :.~~; Figure 1 Map3 Study Area Location Map Citizens C',ommittee to Study the Side\i\lalk and Street Improvement Program STREET Q..ASSIACATla-J -AI..TERNATIVEOESIGNSTREETS CO-.,PATIBLE IM'RCM:MENTSTREETS P\J3l1Ci.Ai-D OURQ-1 OTYHAl..l&Ll6 PAA!< SCl-00.. VARIOOS 0 625 Feet --i-....1' ___ _ -\ \ I . .,,.. \·, \ ' CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL f I Figure 1 Map4 Study Area Location rvlap • ttee to Study the Citizens Commt II provement Program Side'lllal k and Stree m TREET CLASSIFICATION TREETS S-.ALTERNATIVE~ STREETS CO,f>ATlBlE I PUBLIC LAND -a;uRa; ~ OTY H.AJ..L & LIB PARK SCI-ICXll VARIOUS ~ N 625 0 625 Feet ,../ l \ 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. .,.;: 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 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 __ 2_5_th ___ day of __ J_u_l-y~------' 2000 by the following vote, to wit: Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchin ATTEST: OOD, City Clerk 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 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 1'8.40.100 waiver or modifications. "The street tro·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 lo Section _18.40.100 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 Callrans) 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 appropria1e 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 iristead 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 "Olde 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, rumble 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 permits that create new residential dwelling units. Residential remodels would be exempt 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 irrev_ocable offers of dedication to be executeq. 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 recorrimends 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 corijunclion 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 lo 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 altem{ltive 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 homeowners 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 ceimplied 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 secjjon presented for Council action includes this section for Council adoption. 5