Development prompts discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of public and private streets
When a developer builds a private subdivision in La Cañada, should the streets that connect those residences to larger thoroughfares be private or public?
If they’re public, the city has control over how they operate and are serviced but is on the hook for paying for their upkeep. If streets are made private, the city stands to save money but must ultimately give up control of how they are maintained, instead relying on the good will of developers or the homeowners themselves.
On Tuesday, members of the La Cañada Flintridge City Council discussed the benefits and drawbacks of each scenario, recently brought to light by developer Frank Gangi, who hoped to build a four-lot subdivision off Sunnybank Drive and have its main street, Chimneysmoke Road, currently designated private, declared public.
Join the conversation on Facebook >>
Council members contemplated whether a policy or ordinance could be drafted that would make a clear determination in such matters, when and if they should occur. Currently, the decision is up to developers, although the situation is very rare in a town as built out as La Cañada.
Community Development Director Robert Stanley said, in the wake of the recession, many cities are opting to make streets private and have developers pay to maintain them.
“It simply comes down to cost,” he said of what’s become a municipal trend. “Cities have been finding it less expensive for them to require these streets be privately maintained streets. You’d also be reducing your liability in those areas.”
Conversely, publicly controlling such streets would ensure they’d be maintained to the city’s standards and would ultimately be a financial asset, Stanley said. It would also be easier to control traffic flow and to dispatch law enforcement agencies when needed.
Stanley said if the streets are to be made public, developers would be responsible for installing them at their expense and then dedicating them to the city. City Manager Mark Alexander clarified that fact further.
“It’s very important that the developer build or construct the streets to the standards the city identifies, because once we take on the ownership of the property, we become liable for anything that might occur on that property,” Alexander said.
After a public hearing — in which Gangi asserted his street would ameliorate Sunnybank residents’ historic problems turning around their vehicles on the road’s current terminus, and should therefore be made public — council members agreed it seemed wiser to take cases on an individual basis rather than propose any blanket legislation.
“We have such a diversity of eclectic properties. It’s just too difficult to have a broad policy or ordinance that covers every situation,” said Councilman Dave Spence. “To me it makes more sense to look at a project in La Cañada Flintridge on a case-by-case basis.”
Councilwoman Terry Walker concurred.
“I think a policy takes away the flexibility the city could enjoy,” she said.
Agreeing not to pursue a policy, the council decided to examine such matters on an individual basis moving forward, including Gangi’s proposal for Chimneysmoke Road.
--
Sara Cardine, sara.cardine@latimes.com
Twitter: @SaraCardine
