April 25, 2000

Staff presented a study issue (Staff Report No. 99-512) on sidewalk installation requirements in industrial areas to the City Council on December 7, 1999. The Council adopted two of the alternatives identified in the staff report (See Attachment A: Council Minutes). The first alternative was the adoption of guidelines and funding for a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program as part of the forthcoming Transportation Capital Improvement Project. The second alternative was to enact code changes to sidewalks in industrial areas as found appropriate. Council directed staff to examine the second alternative in greater detail and to look specifically at options for changing the current sidewalk installation threshold and implementing an in-lieu fee or cumulative assessment program.

This study examines three potential code changes:

1. Lower the existing sidewalk installation requirement threshold;
2. Require sidewalk installation for tenant improvements exceeding a specified threshold.
3. Develop a cumulative program to collect a partial sidewalk deposit for projects falling below established installation thresholds. Over time, multiple projects would pay for complete sidewalk installation.

This report analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The first option would result in only a small increase in sidewalk installation. The second and third options would lead to a substantial increase in sidewalk development but also have a number of significant disadvantages.

The options discussed in this report are considered potential interim measures for increasing the rate of sidewalk installation pending the development of a Comprehensive Sidewalk Funding Program, as adopted by the Council in Alternative 1. Additional alternatives that could be considered as part of the Comprehensive Sidewalk Funding Program are provided at the end of this report.

The first option would have almost no fiscal impact on the City.

The second option would cost approximately $20,000 a year in staff time.

The third option would cost approximately $40,000 a year in staff time.

Additional alternatives identified in this report that could be considered as part of the Comprehensive Sidewalk Funding Program would involve significantly higher costs. The Sidewalk Incentive program would cost between $430,000 and $1.6 million. Sidewalk installation on public right-of-way would cost between $5.3 and $7.3 million.

This study issue was reviewed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee on March 15, 2000. The Bicycle Advisory Committee recommendations are described in detail in the Public Contact Section (page 15) of this report. In response to the recommendations provided by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff modified its recommendation to include minor code changes (Alternative 1).

This issue was also reviewed at a Planning Commission Study Session on March 27, 2000 and at a Planning Commission Meeting on April 10, 2000. At the April 10, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended minor code changes (Alternative 1) in addition to the following:

• Require all property owners to install sidewalks within a seven to ten year time period and take whatever actions are necessary within that time period to ensure that sidewalks are installed.

The updated study report, including the Planning Commission recommendation, will be presented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee at their April 20, 2000 meeting. Any additional recommendations provided by the BAC at that meeting will be presented orally to the City Council.

This issue will be considered by the City Council on April 25, 2000.

Staff recommends lowering the existing sidewalk installation requirement threshold (see Appendix C: Draft Ordinance). Although this option would result in only a small increase in the rate of sidewalk development, it does not have any of the negative impacts associated with the other options. If Council would like to pursue the alternative requiring sidewalk installation within a seven to ten year time period, staff recommends that this option be reviewed through a series of public meetings with the industrial community prior to adoption.

A: City Council Minutes from December 7, 1999

B: Map of Sidewalks in the Industrial Areas

C: Draft Ordinance

D: Planning Commission Draft Minutes from April 10, 2000

Sidewalks were not required in industrial zones until 1971, when the City Council determined that there was a need for sidewalks in all parts of the City. An Industrial Sidewalk Master Plan was developed which determined the need for sidewalks along major streets. Subsequently, sidewalk installation was required with new construction, reconstruction and expansion. In 1991, the Zoning Code was amended to require the installation of sidewalks as a result of a change of use in any industrial area. However, these requirements have not resulted in the systematic or timely construction of sidewalks originally envisioned. Therefore, staff recommended that this issue be revisited as a study issue. The Council ranked this study issue sixth for 1999.

Staff conducted a review of the sidewalk issue and presented recommendations to the Bicycle Advisory Committee (November 18, 1999), the Planning Commission (November 22, 1999) and the City Council (December 7, 1999). A copy of the City Council meeting minutes is provided as Attachment A. The Council adopted two alternatives based on the information provided in the staff report and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The first alternative was adoption of guidelines and funding for a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program as part of the forthcoming Transportation Capital Improvement Project. The second alternative was to evaluate the enactment of code changes to sidewalk requirements in industrial areas as found appropriate. The Council directed staff to look specifically at options for changing the current sidewalk installation threshold and implementing an in-lieu fee or cumulative assessment program. This staff report explores the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of code changes, as well as several additional alternatives for developing sidewalks in the industrial areas.

• New construction;
• Reconstruction (20 percent of the gross floor area or 10,000 square feet – whichever is less)*;
• Expansion (20 percent of the gross floor area or 10,000 square feet – whichever is less)*;
• Change in use requiring a tentative map, a discretionary permit or having the potential to cause a significant increase in pedestrian traffic; or
• Subdivision (SMC 18.12.160).

(* Note: Sidewalks are required for reconstruction or expansion only if the cost of sidewalk construction does not exceed five percent of the total cost of reconstruction or expansion.)

The intent of these changes in the Code was to increase the number of sidewalks in pedestrian areas as a means of providing safe pedestrian access as more commercial services were made available in the industrial areas. To date, however, the extent and linkage of sidewalks has not been as comprehensive as originally expected.

A field survey has identified those portions of the industrial areas that have partial sidewalks or no sidewalks (see map in Attachment B). Of the 991 industrially zoned parcels in the City, 32 percent have sidewalks on all frontages. Sidewalks were first required in industrial zones in 1971, so it has taken approximately 29 years to reach the current level of sidewalk development. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the number of parcels providing sidewalks in industrial areas.

Staff research also indicates the following:

• Approximately 27 miles (144,500 linear feet) of sidewalks are needed to complete sidewalks in industrial zones.
• The cost for the City to install sidewalks on all industrial properties would be approximately $5.8 Million ($40/linear foot). This does not include the cost of staff time for engineering and review.
• Based on an average sidewalk requirement of 214 linear feet per parcel, the average cost of sidewalk installation would be approximately $8,560 per parcel.
• In the last five years:

1) Sidewalks have been installed in conjunction with 21 new developments.

2) Out of 35 expansion projects, 2 projects were subject to sidewalk installation based on the thresholds established in the existing City code.

3)Three projects requested and were granted exemption from sidewalk requirements because the cost of sidewalk installation exceeded five percent of the cost of project construction.

• At the current rate of sidewalk installation, it would take over 100 years to complete sidewalk installation in the industrial areas of the City.

Additional challenges that result from sidewalk installation in the industrial areas include the need for the dedication of easements and the preservation of existing landscaping. The dedication of an easement is required prior to sidewalk installation in the City. Easement dedication is a process that requires the preparation of engineering studies and legal descriptions of property lines. The result of this process is a substantial increase in permitting time and expense.

Landscaping and topographic features in the industrial areas also present significant obstacles to sidewalk installation. Since sidewalks were not originally planned for in the industrial zones, in many cases there are mature trees, landscaping, and irrigation systems that must be removed to accommodate sidewalk installation. In addition, berms and other topographic features can require extensive re-grading to accommodate sidewalks. One means of avoiding the cost and aesthetic impact associated with tree removal and other landscape alterations is to remove on-street parking and install sidewalks on the existing right-of-way extending from the existing curbs. This alternative would avoid the need for additional easements and could also accommodate bike lanes, depending on street width. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach will also be discussed in this report.

Based on the direction provided by the City Council, this report analyzes three options for changes to the existing requirements of the zoning code related to sidewalk installation.

1. The first option is to modify the existing threshold for sidewalk installation.
2. The second option is to include tenant improvements as one of the types of projects triggering the requirement for sidewalk installation.
3. The third option is to collect fees on a cumulative basis for projects that do not meet complete installation requirements. This money would be held as a sidewalk deposit until a parcel reached the sidewalk installation threshold through multiple projects.

The following section will provide a detailed description of each option and an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of program.

Under the existing zoning code, reconstruction or expansion projects that exceed 20 percent of the existing gross floor area or 10,000 square feet are required to install sidewalks. In the last five years there were 35 parcels in the City that had reconstruction or expansion projects. Two of these projects were subject to sidewalk installation based on the existing requirements of the City zoning code.

There are two methods of modifying the existing zoning code thresholds. The first method is lowering the square footage threshold for sidewalk installation. The second method is raising the existing sidewalk cost exemption.

An analysis of City building department records between 1995 and 1999 provides an indication of the number of additional parcels that would be required to install sidewalks as a result of various code changes. Lowering the existing gross floor area requirement from 10,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet would result in the addition of one parcel requiring sidewalk installation, for a total of three parcels. Lowering the threshold to 1,000 square feet would result in sidewalks for two additional parcels. Table 2 provides a summary of the number of projects falling into each threshold category and the average value of the projects. Reducing the threshold below 1,000 square feet would capture additional projects, but it could also be a significant disincentive to the development of small-scale improvement projects.

The existing zoning code states that applicants are exempt from the sidewalk installation requirement if the cost of sidewalk construction exceeds five percent of the total cost of reconstruction or expansion. Based on an average sidewalk installation cost of $8,560 per parcel, projects with a value of less than $171,200 would exceed the five percent installation threshold and be exempt under current code standards. Raising the cap from five to ten percent would reduce the average project value required for the exemption from $171,200 to $85,600, and add additional parcels requiring sidewalks.

Based on the available code change options, staff recommends combining a reduction in the gross floor area requirement with an increase in the percentage cost required to meet the sidewalk installation exemption. Staff finds that an appropriate code change would be to reduce the existing threshold requirement from 10,000 square feet or 20 percent of gross floor area to 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of gross floor area, and to raise the exemption percentage from five to 10 percent. Based on past building department data, this code change would result in five new sidewalks over a five year period, or an average of one per year. While this is not a significant increase in the rate of sidewalk development, lowering the thresholds much further would place a significant cost burden on property owners attempting small-scale improvement projects and could prevent them from pursuing these projects.

• Lowering the existing zoning code thresholds would lead to a slight increase in sidewalk construction over existing code requirements. Based on analysis of recent building department data, this option would likely result in the installation of sidewalks for approximately one new parcel per year.
• No new staffing or administrative costs would result from the code modifications.
• This option could be used as an interim measure to develop sidewalks in front of a few additional properties prior to the adoption of a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program, as part of the forthcoming Transportation Capital Improvement Program.

• This option would not significantly increase the rate of sidewalk installation in the City’s industrial areas.
• This option would result in an increase in costs for some small-scale reconstruction and expansion projects.

Tenant improvements typically involve the renovation of the interior of a building to accommodate the specific requirements of a new or existing tenant. Under the existing zoning code, tenant improvements are not required to provide new sidewalks, unless there is a change in use that would increase pedestrian activity. The uses likely to increase pedestrian activity typically require discretionary permits and the installation of sidewalks. Option 2 would require that tenant improvements over a specified threshold provide sidewalks.

In the last five years, there were 331 parcels (about half of the 676 parcels without full sidewalks) that had one or more projects involving an addition or tenant improvement. Since tenant improvements are typically not described in terms of square footage, it is more appropriate to evaluate these projects in terms of total project value. Project value is also the standard used to calculate building department fees.

Table 3 provides an overview of the number of projects meeting or exceeding a range of threshold project values. As discussed previously, the average cost of sidewalk installation is estimated to be $8,560. In some cases, the cost of sidewalk installation would be somewhat less, while in others it would be substantially greater, especially for parcels with longer street frontages or extensive trees, berms or other landscape features requiring additional engineering and construction work.

Based on the average sidewalk cost of $8,560, a tenant improvement valued at $171,200 would be required to pay five percent of the value of the project to install the sidewalk. A tenant improvement project with a higher value would pay a smaller percentage of project cost for an average sidewalk, while a project with a lower value would be required to pay a greater percentage of project cost.

Table 3 also shows the number of years it would take to install sidewalks on all the parcels in the industrial zone based on the range of thresholds provided. For example, if sidewalks were required at a threshold of $171,200 (five percent of the average cost of sidewalk installation) it would take approximately 22 years to complete sidewalk installation throughout the industrial zone. Any threshold value established under this option should be low enough to capture a substantial number of new projects without creating an undue burden on development.

• This option would lead to a substantial increase in the rate of sidewalk development.
• Implementation of this option would not result in significant administrative costs or staffing requirements.
• This option could be used to increase the rate of sidewalk development prior to the implementation of a more comprehensive long-term solution, such as an improvement district.

• The City must be able to establish a legal nexus between an improvement (e.g. sidewalk) fee or other requirement and a project. Under this program there may be a tenuous legal nexus between tenant improvements and a sidewalk installation requirement, unless it can be shown that the tenant improvement will create additional impacts on transportation.
• Most building permits for tenant improvements (TIs) are issued the same day plans are submitted ("over the counter"). This option would require the dedication of sidewalk easements and the submittal of engineering plans for sidewalk development. This process could lead to a substantial increase in permit times for TIs, undermining the goals of the one-stop permit process for these projects. As a means of reducing the impact of this option on permit times, sidewalk installation could be bonded for and/or required prior to occupancy. However, this permutation increases administrative costs.
• The cost of tenant improvements could increase substantially.
• Increased time and development costs may act as a deterrent to tenant improvements or to new tenants coming to Sunnyvale.
• The cost of the improvement would be borne by the tenant rather than the property owner in many cases.

The third option is to collect fees for sidewalk installation on a cumulative basis. This program is different from a typical in-lieu fee program, because with an in-lieu fee, once the fee is paid, the obligation of the property owner is considered complete. Under an in-lieu fee program, a small scale ($20,000) reconstruction or expansion project asked to pay 10 percent of project value as an in-lieu fee could end up paying only a small portion ($2,000) of the cost of sidewalk installation ($8,560 average cost). Although money from multiple projects could be pooled under an in-lieu program to build sidewalks, the City could be left with a substantial shortfall for funding the entire cost of sidewalk installation in the industrial areas.

Under a cumulative deposit program, a deposit would be collected based on square footage or a percentage of project value and would be tied to the property. This approach would allow the City to collect fees on a cumulative basis for parcels that have a number of smaller projects that would not normally meet the established threshold for complete installation. Under this option, parcels would continue to deposit money for each new project until enough money was available to pay for complete sidewalk installation along the parcel frontage. At that point the money held by the City would be returned to the applicant and the sidewalk would be required to be installed as a condition of project approval or building permit.

This option would require the City to set up a general sidewalk account with a record kept of the money deposited for each parcel. The City would also need to provide an estimate for the cost of sidewalk installation for each parcel in the industrial zone and to update those estimates based on inflation. This option could either be applied only to reconstruction and expansion projects, or it could be extended to include tenant improvements.

There were 35 parcels with reconstruction or expansion projects in the City over the last five years. Four of those parcels had more than one project and could be subject to a cumulative deposit. Of those four, only one would have a cumulative total that would be likely to trigger sidewalk installation in the five year time period reviewed.

Extending the cumulative deposit to tenant improvement projects would significantly increase the number of projects requiring deposits. There are 676 parcels with no or partial sidewalks. Between 1995 and 1999, 331 of those parcels had a total of 1,276 tenant improvement, redevelopment or addition projects. The remaining 345 parcels had no projects during the time period evaluated. Table 4 provides an overview of the parcels with projects based on cumulative project value.

If all projects were required to provide a deposit of 5% of the value of the project, based on the average cost of sidewalk installation ($8,560), the average parcel would be required to install sidewalks at a cumulative project value of $171,200. The actual cost of sidewalk installation would vary significantly based on the linear square footage and topographic features of the property frontage. Based on the cost of sidewalk installation, some parcels would be able to install sidewalks at a relatively low cumulative cost threshold, while other parcels would need to meet a significantly higher cumulative threshold.

Based on a deposit of five percent of project value, approximately 173 parcels would be required to pay a sidewalk deposit, while 158 parcels would be required to install sidewalks. At this rate, sidewalks would be installed throughout the industrial zone in approximately 17.3 years.

• This option would lead to a substantial increase in the rate of sidewalk development over current levels.
• Assessing projects on a cumulative basis would increase the rate of sidewalk installation compared to a program focused on individual project thresholds (17.3 years versus 22 years for a project threshold of five percent of average project value).

• This option would not be effective for reconstruction and expansion projects alone (with only one new sidewalk over five years). It would need to be extended to tenant improvements to be successful.
• The City must be able to establish a legal nexus between an improvement (e.g. sidewalk) fee or other requirement and a project. Under this program there may be a tenuous legal nexus between tenant improvements and a sidewalk installation requirement, unless it can be shown that the tenant improvement will create additional impacts on transportation.
• This option would lead to an increase in time at the counter to process applications for those projects required to pay a sidewalk deposit. Projects requiring complete sidewalk installation would see a substantial increase in permit times resulting from easement dedication and engineering plan requirements. As a means of reducing the impact of this option on permit times, sidewalk installation could be bonded for and/or required to be completed prior to occupancy. However, this permutation increases administrative costs.
• The cost of tenant improvements could increase substantially depending on the threshold established.
• Increased time and development costs could act as a deterrent to tenant improvements or to new tenants coming to Sunnyvale.
• The cost of the improvement would be borne by the tenant rather than the property owner in many cases.
• Administrative costs would increase as a result of this option. This program would require increases in staffing to maintain deposit account records and to develop and maintain a database of sidewalk installation requirements on a parcel by parcel basis.
• This would not be a good interim program because start up time and costs would be considerable.

The following alternatives have been raised as options based on staff discussions and meetings with the Bicycle Advisory Committee (3/15/00) and the Planning Commission (3/27/00). If the Council has an interest in any of these alternatives, it would be appropriate to explore them further as part of the future Comprehensive Sidewalk Program adopted by the Council as Alternative 1 (City Council Meeting 12/07/99).

This program would involve the City establishing a time limit for property owners to install sidewalks and providing an incentive on a sliding scale to have the sidewalks installed sooner rather than later. For example, the City would require that sidewalks be installed by all property owners within 10 years. As an incentive to have the sidewalks completed in the first five years, the City would make a percentage contribution toward the cost of installation. The City could contribute 20 percent of the cost of installation of sidewalks for the first year, 15 percent for the second year, 10 percent for the third year and five percent for the two years after that, after which the property owner would have to bear the entire cost of installing the sidewalks. This type of program would demonstrate the need for sidewalks and the City’s commitment to expedited sidewalk installation.

• Sidewalk installation would be completed within an established time frame.
• Sidewalk installation would be further expedited through the incentive program.

• The City could contribute a significant amount toward the cost of sidewalk installation. The estimated cost of installing sidewalks on all industrial properties is approximately $5.8 million. If the City offered to pay for 20 percent of installation costs and all property owners installed sidewalks in the first year (a maximum compliance scenario), the City would be required to pay approximately $1.16 million. The actual cost would depend on the City contribution percentage steps established under the program and program participation.

Another alternative would be to remove on-street parking in the industrial areas and install sidewalks on the right-of-way extending from the existing curbs. Bicycle lanes could also be provided depending on street width. This alternative would avoid the need for additional easements, removal of landscaping and trees along the frontage of properties, modification of irrigation systems, retaining walls for bermed areas, and grading for appropriate slopes required for sidewalks. This approach would reduce the cost of sidewalk installation in some areas and make it easier for the City to undertake sidewalk construction as a capital improvement project and complete the sidewalks in a prompt manner.

This alternative would impact parking in the industrial areas and some of the streets may not meet City Standards for streets (these standards could be revisited and modified if found appropriate). In addition, street levels may need to be modified through additional grading to include sidewalks and curbs.

The feasibility of this alternative would need to be determined through more extensive traffic and engineering analyses. If the Council wishes to pursue this alternative, more in-depth analysis could be included in the Comprehensive Sidewalk Program that will be developed as part of the forthcoming Transportation Capital Improvement Project.

• Sidewalk installation would occur promptly without the need for additional easements from property owners.
• Bike lanes could be installed in conjunction with sidewalks, depending on street width.
• No impact on existing landscaping and irrigation systems.

• Cost of sidewalks would be borne by City or other such funding mechanism.
• Loss of on-street parking may impact properties in some industrial neighborhoods.
• Some streets may be too narrow to accommodate this alternative.
• Streets may need to be modified to provide appropriate drainage slopes adjacent to sidewalks and curbs.

One additional option that has been raised is the removal of on-street parking adjacent to those properties without sidewalks. Under this alternative, property owners would be required to install sidewalks in order to regain on-street parking.

All businesses in the industrial zones are required to provide on-site parking based on the size and type of business occupying the property. Therefore, most businesses already have adequate parking, and the elimination of on-street parking would pose only a minor inconvenience. An evaluation of the parking situation in the industrial zones indicates that there are only a small number of properties that are heavy users of on-street parking. Therefore, removal of on-street parking for most property owners would probably not be enough incentive to install sidewalks, and it may also leave the impression that accepting the removal of the on-street parking relieves them of any future responsibility for installing sidewalks.

Removal of on-street parking could be an effective means of pushing heavy users of on-street parking to install sidewalks. In addition, it would increase pedestrian safety in those areas where the only pedestrian walkway is between parked cars and the street. However, this option would also have the unfortunate effect of penalizing surrounding property owners that have already installed sidewalks. Under this scenario it is likely that all on-street parking from properties without the sidewalks would shift to neighboring properties with sidewalks. This would have the effect of concentrating the parking impact in front of the properties with sidewalks, and could have a negative impact on the businesses occupying these properties. In addition, it would require the City to go to the time and expense of installing signage along every parcel frontage without sidewalks, which would then have to be removed once sidewalks are installed. For this reason, staff does not recommend widespread removal of on-street parking in the industrial zones.

The second option would require some additional staff time for plan review, dedication of easements, and sidewalk inspection. This alternative would cost the City approximately $20,000 a year.

The third option would require additional staff time for program development and administration of the sidewalk deposit program, in addition to staff time for plan review, dedication of easements, and sidewalk inspection. Program development would require modification of the existing planning and building databases to track sidewalk deposits. It would also require the development of an accounting system for keeping track of deposits and withdrawals on a parcel by parcel basis. Administration would require additional staff time for database input and tracking and financial administration. This option would cost the City approximately $40,000 a year.

Two additional alternatives were also examined. The first was an incentive program. The sidewalk incentive alternative could result in substantial City costs, depending on participation. The estimated cost of installing sidewalks on all industrial properties is approximately $5.8 million. If the City offered to pay for 20 percent of installation costs and all property owners installed sidewalks in the first year (a full participation scenario), the City would be required to pay approximately $1.16 million. Under a low participation scenario (25% install sidewalks in the first year, with 10% installation each additional year) it is estimated that the cost to the City would be approximately $430,000. Under this program, the City would also incur approximately $50,000 a year in additional staff time. Funding for this type of program has not been identified at this time.

Installation on Existing Right-of-Way

The installation of sidewalks on existing public right-of-way would require the City to undertake sidewalk installation and would have the greatest fiscal impact of the alternatives provided. The current cost of complete sidewalk construction in the industrial areas is estimated to be approximately $5.8 million. This does not include cost of staff time for project engineering, review and coordination, which is estimated to cost an additional $1 to $2 million dollars. This alternative would remove the need for easements and would reduce engineering and installation costs. The cost savings would need to be determined by traffic studies analyzing the feasibility of this option. However, a rough estimate indicates that this approach could save the City between $500,000 and $1.5 million, for a total cost to the City of $5.3 to $7.3 million. Financing mechanisms, such as assessment districts would need to be identified. In the previous staff report staff recommended and Council adopted the concept of including sidewalks in the Comprehensive Transportation Strategy. This strategy could provide funds for the capital portion of some of these programs. Some delay would result until after the financing programs are adopted in 2001, with implementation occurring one to two years later.

This study issue was reviewed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee on March 15, 2000. The Bicycle Advisory Committee recommended that all of the following alternatives from the Study Report be approved: 1, 4, 5, and 6.

In addition, the Bicycle Advisory Committee recommended implementation of the following alternatives:

• Direct staff to come up with additional alternatives that will insure 90 percent completion of sidewalks in a three to five year period.
• Raise the existing five percent cost waiver for reconstruction and expansion projects to a higher level, up to 100 percent.
• Examine a change in ownership as a trigger for requiring sidewalk installation.
• Examine an alternative requiring that property owners install sidewalks or loose their on-street parking.

In response to the recommendations provided by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff modified its recommendation to include minor code changes (Alternative 1).

This issue was also reviewed at a Planning Commission Study Session on March 27, 2000 and at a Planning Commission Meeting on April 10, 2000. At the April 10, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended Option 1, but in addition recommended the following:

• Require all property owners to install sidewalks within a seven to ten year time period and take whatever actions are necessary within that time period to ensure that sidewalks are installed.

The method of imposing this mandate and the legal ramifications of doing so were not discussed by the Planning Commissioners nor has there been time for them to be fully analyzed by staff. The updated study report, including the Planning Commission recommendation, will be presented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee at their April 20, 2000 meeting. Any additional recommendations provided by the BAC at that meeting will be presented orally to the City Council.

Staff has analyzed a variety of options for increasing the rate of sidewalk development in the industrial area of the City. Staff analysis shows that a change in the existing code thresholds would require the installation of a few new sidewalks, but would not result in a significant increase in sidewalk development.

Requiring sidewalk development as a result of tenant improvements would result in a substantial increase in sidewalk development but would have a number of potentially negative side effects, including shifting the burden of sidewalk development from the property owner to the tenant and increased permit time and costs. However, the major disadvantage of this option centers around the legal concern with the reasonable relationship (i.e., legal nexus) between a tenant improvement and a sidewalk installation requirement. While sidewalks are certainly a legitimate government interest, there may be a problem mandating installation of sidewalks for tenant improvements since tenants may only be temporary residents and the improvements may not result in an increased need for sidewalks.

Developing a cumulative deposit requirement would only result in a substantial increase in sidewalk development if tenant improvements were included. This type of program would take longer to implement than the other options and would also involve higher start-up and long-term administrative costs.

The options discussed in this report are considered interim measures for increasing the rate of sidewalk development pending the development of a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program, as adopted by the Council.

Based on the advantages and disadvantages associated with all of the options analyzed in this report, staff recommends implementation of changes to existing code thresholds as discussed in Option 1 (see Appendix C: Draft Ordinance). Although this code change would result in only a small increase in the rate of sidewalk development, a small increase is preferable to no increase.

Staff finds that the development of a Comprehensive Sidewalk Program as part of the forthcoming Transportation Capital Improvement Project (adopted by Council as Alternative 1, 12/07/1999) remains the best alternative for the complete development of sidewalks in the industrial areas. While an improvement district would be the primary funding mechanism analyzed through this report, if Council wishes to pursue the incentive program and/or modification of on-street parking in the industrial areas as part of the Comprehensive Sidewalk Program analysis, staff believes that this would also be appropriate.

If Council would like to pursue the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission, requiring sidewalk installation within a seven to ten year time period, staff recommends that this option be more thoroughly analyzed by staff and reviewed through a series of public meetings with the industrial community prior to adoption.

Staff recommends Alternative 1.

Prepared by:

Paul Spence
Associate Planner

Reviewed by:

Gail Price
Principal Planner

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

David S. Boesch Jr.
Director, Community Development

Approved by:

Robert S. LaSala

City Manager

A: City Council Minutes from December 7, 1999

B: Map of Sidewalks in the Industrial Areas

C: Draft Ordinance

D: Planning Commission Draft Minutes from April 10, 2000