Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/07/08 (11) City Planning commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 8, 1992 Page 1 4. consideration of the request for a waiver of the requirement to install a street liqht at 245 "E" 'Street BACKGROUND In March of last year, the owner of the property at 245 "E" street submitted plans for Design Review to convert a single family home into an office. He proposed to expand his insurance offices at 249 "E" street to the building next door. As the application was routed through the Engineering Division, the owner was informed that, in accordance with section 12.24.040, the requirement to install a City standard street light in front of the property would be added at the building permit stage. The building permit was applied for on November 14, 1991. The building modification work was valued at $30,000 and the street light requirement was added. Mr. Wilson, applied for a waiver on the grounds that there was sufficient lighting already in place along this block of "E" Street. In accordance with Section 12.24.060 of the City Code, the Planning Commission must consider all requests for waivers of public improvements. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission deny the request for a waiver to install a street light. DISCUSSION According to Section 12.24.040 of the city Code, the city may require the installation of missing street improvements or the replacement of existing substandard pUblic improvements if the owner of a property is "erecting, constructing, enlarging, altering, repairing, improving, converting or relocating any building or structure" defined as any building or structure of which cost price exceeds $10,000. Mr. Wilson is spending approximately $30,000 to remodel the existing single family home to use it as offices. When the building permit for that work came to the Engineering Division, it was conditioned with the requirement that the owner install a City street light at the westerly property line (which is the common property line with a lot to the west which Mr. Wilson also owns). The owner indicated that there is an existing light on a wooden power pole just across the street. This light is owned by San Diego Gas and Electric Company, as are many in the older parts of town. It is our goal to have all street lights in the city eventually owned and maintained by the city. Mr. Wilson contends that his project is minor and that it "does not '-i -/ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 8, 1992 Page 2 make sense" to impose this burden as it will "represent a disproportionate percentage" of the remodel costs. Section 12.24.060 (A) states that waivers may be granted by the Planning Commission of the requirements of section 12.24.040 "in circumstances and conditions including but not limited to the following: Where adequate improvements of the nature and type already exist." FINDINGS There are street lights along this block of "E" Street. However, the ones closest to the subject property are on SDG&E's wooden power poles and fed from overhead lines. An under grounding district has been formed for this portion of "E" Street and the wooden poles will be coming out and all street lights will be on City poles, fed from underground. Because it is less expensive for the city, we are working toward converting all street lights to city ownership. To accomplish this, we are in the process of purchasing the lights located on S. D. G. & E.' s poles and requiring the conversions through the development and redevelopment of properties. The cost of the street light (approximately $3,000) represents a 10% addition to the cost of the project. Granted, the project may seem minor compared to a completely new office building, however, the requirement for a street light is not unreasonable in view of the fact that the new use will increase the trip generation considerably. In addition, the new use is considered "for-profit" as opposed to residential. Staff feels that the imposition of installing a street light is not causing a financial hardship for the owner. Their have been similar instances throughout the city where we have required the installation of a street light and the owners have complied with our requirements. There have been no similar waivers requested. However, one deferral was granted in 1988 for a street light at 271 "J" Street where the owner was building a residential, single family dwelling. He was required to submit a cash bond as a guarantee of the future installation of the light. council Policy No. 576-11 adopted in December 1969 states that for development of individual properties, there would be no City participation in the cost of the street light construction. The Council has set another policy by minute action that owners desiring to make residential modifications (room additions, remodels, etc.) on their single family houses are exempt from the street light requirements. That policy does not include commercial properties. Granting a waiver in this case could set a precedent "'/-<.Q.. City Planning commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 8, 1992 Page 3 for future arguments. Alternatives to denying the request for a waiver (other than approving it): 1) City participate in the cost of installing the light; 2) Recommend that the City Engineer grant a deferral with the requirement that the owner submit a cash bond, and; 3) Owner pay his proportionate share. option No.1 Council Policy No. 576-11 regarding the City's financial participation in street light installation states "For isolated installations concurrent with development of indi vidual properties: No Participation." Should the Planning commission decide on this option, staff recommends that a new policy be submitted to Council for approval. option No.2 would be the most effectual way to assure that when the light is installed in the future, it be paid for by the owner. The owner would have to enter into a deferral agreement with the City and submit a cash bond. When the street lights are converted to City standards, whether it is by the formation of a district or some other means, the cash bond would be used to pay for the light. Option No.3 This option relates to the theory that, at the present standard distance of 250 to 300 feet between street lights, one street light benefits approximately three properties on each side of the street (using an average of 60-foot frontages) . A proportionate share, therefore, for each property would be 2/6 or 1/3 of the cost of one light, or $1,000. The Planning commission may require that the owner contribute that amount to the undergrounding fund to help offset the City's cost of that project. However, this action would be setting a precedent in an area similar to a street lighting district and the City Council has not acted on a policy in that regard. "I -- 3 LEGEND , , / . -- CI Ty ST, L!6HT -f ~ S.D,G. 9.t. Li61-1T :c - t----- AJ , 0 PRopOSED S1. liGHT ------ --- -r--..,----r-' --, , I I I I I , I I , I I I S REET I I I I , , >1 ~ ~ -i rn o "'~ :E C'..... z ,." r ("") (J) - m () o 2:: o i-- I r-- I 1:>- c::::. ITl ---1 ; I I -~-r-~- I , DAV IDSON ST. -1.....-- I ~-- I -~- ,." < ,." ---I 4 EXHIBIT "An REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF STREET AT 245 "E" STREET ~-