The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 12 - Review of a Protest for Payment of Encroachment Permit Fees (William Walter, 679 Monterey St.) Department Name: Community Development Cost Center: 4003 For Agenda of: June 16, 2020 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 30 minutes FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A PROTEST (FILED BY MR. WILLIAM WALTER) FOR PAYMENT OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES AND FOR A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF A DECORATIVE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING FIXTURE RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying the protest of Encroachment Permit Fees and denying the protest of the Condition of Approval requiring the installation of a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture associated with ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey Street). DISCUSSION In 2018, Mr. William Walter, owner of the property located at 679 Monterey Street (see Vicinity Map, Attachment B), submitted a planning application to the City for the construction of a new dwelling and deck. The application was approved by City staff as documented in the approval letter dated August 1, 2018 (Attachment C). The letter includes the project’s conditions of approval - items that are required to be completed prior to the City’s final approval of the project. The project’s conditions of approval required the construction of complete frontage improvements, including Mission Style Sidewalks, a pedestrian light fixture, driveway approaches, a tree well, and other miscellaneous improvements within the City right-of-way along the frontage of the property. The conditions of approval (Condition 8) require that all frontage improvements “be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per City standards. MC 12.16.050.” Because the required frontage improvements are located within City right-of-way, the work requires an encroachment permit to be issued by the City. Under Municipal Code Chapter 4.56.060, “[a]ny party subject to the fees established by this chapter may protest the imposition of those fees” if the party tenders any required payment in full, or provides evidence of arrangement to pay the fee or meet the requirements of the imposition of the fee, and serves written notice of protest on the City Council within ninety (90) days of the imposition of the fees. On April 24, 2020, a written Notice of Protest (Attachment D) was submitted to the City by Mr. Walter. The Notice of Protest identifies two items that are being protested: 1. The encroachment permit fee in the amount of $2,036.22. Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 215 2. The condition of approval requiring the installation of a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture. Following the submittal of the written protest, Mr. Walter payed the required encroachment permit fee, and a permit was issued on April 27, 2020 (Attachment E). The frontage improvements are now nearly complete, with the exception of some items that need to be corrected since the work was not done in accordance with City standards, and the decorative lighting fixture which has not yet been installed. Encroachment Permit Fee The fees that the City charges for encroachment permits, required for a contractor to work within the City right-of-way, are contained within the City’s Master Fee Schedule. The various fees included in the Fee Schedule are reviewed and adjusted through a Fee Study which is conducted approximately every five years (most recently in 2017). The Fee Schedule is also updated annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust for inflation. The 2017 Fee Study included a City Council study session on February 21, 2017, and a Public Hearing on April 18, 2017, during which Council adopted Resolution #10790 (Attachment F) updating the Master Fee Schedule. The most recent annual update is included in Resolution #11026 (Attachment G) which was adopted on June 18, 2019. Mr. Walter’s assertion that the encroachment permit fees to be “…confiscatory, violate due process, constitute a taking of private property without just compensation, are not supported by a rational nexus, right proportionality, violate due process, under the United States and California Constitutions” are unfounded and inconsistent with the transparent public process that staff and Council conducted to establish the basis of those fees in 2017. The encroachment permit fee was calculated in accordance with the Council approved Master Fee Schedule, and based on 35 linear feet of driveway approach, and 45 linear feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk: Driveway Approach Base Fee: $912.54 plus $10.06 per linear foot of driveway approach ($10.06 x 35’): $352.10 plus $5.76 per linear foot of sidewalk ($5.76 x 45’) $259.20 plus $10.06 per linear foot of curb and gutter ($10.06 x 45’): $452.70 Subtotal: $1,976.54 plus IT surcharge of $3.05% ($1,976.54 x 3.05%): $60.28* Total: $2,036.82** * An IT surcharge of 3.05% is authorized under Council’s adopted Fee Sch edule. **Note that the software which calculates the amount of the permit fee rounds down a few cents resulting in amount of the actual fee charged of $2,036.22. Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 216 Policy Context Municipal Code Chapter 12.04.032 states the following: “A fee for encroachment permits may be established by resolution of the council and shall be paid to the city at the time of application for issuance or renewal of any encroachment permit. Public utility companies operating under franchise agreement with the city may pay monthly for permit fees or provide a deposit in advance for the estimated volume of permit applications subject to an agreement approved by the director.” Condition Requiring the Installation of a Decorative Pedestrian Lighting Fixture Mr. Walter’s attempt to appeal the Condition of Approval requiring that he install a new pedestrian light fixture, is untimely and invalid. Per Municipal Code Chapter 17.126.020, Mr. Walter had ten (10) days to submit an appeal regarding the Conditions of Approval identified in the Community Development Department’s August 1, 2018 letter approving his project subject to various conditions. The protest was not received until April 24, 2020, which is well beyond the 10-day period to appeal the underlying conditions of approval. Therefore, Council should find that the protest or appeal of the underlying condition of approval is untimely and should not consider any argument or evidence presented by Mr. Walter regarding the substance or validity of Condition of Approval #13 during the June 16, 2020 Protest Hearing. Public Engagement This Public Hearing has been advertised in the local newspaper with an ad appearing in the New Times on June 4, 2020. This notification is consistent with the City’s Public Engagement Manual. CONCURRENCE The Public Works Department concurs with the recommended action. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378. FISCAL IMPACT Denying the protest, as recommended by staff, would not result in any fiscal impact. The fee has already been paid and is structured to recover the actual costs of services provided. Council could, however, decide to refund any or all of the permit fee resulting in a reduction of the amount of the refund to the Development Services revenue. Funding Sources Current FY Cost Annualized On-going Cost Total Project Cost General Fund N/A State Federal Fees Other: Total Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 217 ALTERNATIVES Waiving the assessment of the encroachment permit fees through a modified Resolution is within the purview of the City Council but is not recommended for the following reasons: 1. Permit fees are established by City Council through a rigorous process. 2. Permit fees are based the actual cost of staff time necessary to support the permit through inspection and other services. 3. This alternative would set a precedent of yielding to a protest of an accepted process, and may lead to more permit fee protests by others. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution b - Vicinity Map c - Letter to Applicant dated August 1, 2018 d - Notice of Protest e - Encroachment Permit ENCR-0780-2020 f - COUNCIL READING FILE - Resolution 10790 (2017 Series) g - Resolution 11026 (2019 Series) h - COUNCIL READING FILE - Assorted Email Correspondence 1 i - COUNCIL READING FILE - Assorted Email Correspondence 2 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 218 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PROTEST OF PAYMENT OF PERMIT FEES FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ENCR-0780-2020, AND DENYING A PROTEST OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF A DECORATIVE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING FIXTURE AS REQUIRED BY ARCH-1236-2017 WHEREAS, Mr. William Walter, owner of the property located at 679 Monterey Street, filed a planning application for the construction of a new studio dwelling unit behind an office building, and the addition of a deck to the office building on the subject property (“Project”); and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the application, determined that the Project did not require review by the Architectural Review Commission, and responded with a decision letter , dated August 1, 2018, granting approval of the Project subject to specified Conditions of Approval as stated in the decision letter associated with ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey); and, WHEREAS, the project’s Conditions of Approval required the construction of complete frontage improvements, including new curb gutter and sidewalk, installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture, driveway approaches, a tree wells, and other miscellaneous improvements within City right-of-way along the frontage of the property; and, WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 17.126.020 provides that appeals of a decision of any official body must be submitted withing ten (10) calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.126.020, Mr. William Walter had ten (10) calendar days to submit an appeal regarding any of the Conditions of Approval identified in the City’s August 1, 2018 decision letter, including the condition to install a decorative pedestrian light fixture, but no appeal was submitted within ten (10) calendar days from August 1, 2018; and, WHEREAS, work within City right-of-way requires that the contractor performing the work obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department; and, WHEREAS, an Encroachment Permit, number ENCR-0780-2020, for work to be performed for the Project in the City right-of-way was issued on April 27, 2020, with a calculated permit fee in the amount of $2,036.22; and WHEREAS, the City’s Master Fee Schedule is reviewed through a Fee Study which is conducted approximately once every five years, most recently through a Council Study Session on February 21, 2017, and a Public Hearing on April 18, 2017; and WHEREAS, the current Master Fee Schedule is based on the 2017 Fee Study, and updated annually, most recently through the adoption By City Council of Resolution No. 11026 on June 18, 2019; and, Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 219 Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, Encroachment Permit fees are included in the current Master Fee Schedule; and, WHEREAS, on April 24, 2020, Mr. William Walter submitted a protest to the City regarding the cost of his encroachment permit fee in the amount of $2,036.22 and regarding Condition of Approval Number 13 identified in the City’s August 1, 2018 decision letter for ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey), requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture; and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was conducted during the City Council meeting of June 16, 2020, during which Mr. Walter communicated his items of contention and protest; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations of staff, presented at said hearing; and, WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, based upon all the evidence presented, that the protest submitted by Mr. William Walter is denied pursuant to the following findings: SECTION 1. Encroachment Permit Fee. The City Council finds that the fee charged for Encroachment Permit ENCR-0780-2020 in the amount of $2,036.22 is an appropriate fee based on the following: a) The established fees for encroachment permits are determined through an appropriate public process and are established by Council, based on that process in the City’s Master Fee Schedule, most recently adopted by City Council by Resolution No. 11026 on June 18, 2019. b) The fee for Encroachment Permit ENCR-0780-2020 was correctly calculated in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule. SECTION 2. Condition of Approval No. 13 ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey). City Council finds that the protest of Condition of Approval No. 13 is untimely and invalid based on the following: a) The decision letter approving the Project with conditions of approval, including Condition No. 13 requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture, was issued by the City on August 1, 2018. b) Municipal Code Section 17.126.020 provides that appeals of a decision of any official body must be submitted withing ten (10) calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. The ten-day period to appeal was stated in the City’s August 1, 2018, decision letter. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.126.020, Mr. William Walter had ten (10) calendar days to submit an appeal regarding any of the Conditions Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 220 Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 3 R ______ of Approval identified in the City’s August 1, 2018 decision letter, including Condition 13 requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture, but no appeal was submitted within ten (10) calendar days from August 1, 2018. c) Mr. William Walter’s protest of Condition No. 13 requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture was submitted on April 24, 2020, which is beyond the ten-day period allowed for appeals of conditions of approval under Municipal Code Section 17.126.020. SECTION 3. Action. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence in the record, the City Council does hereby deny the protest submitted by Mr. William Walter regarding the fee charged for Encroachment Permit ENCR-0780-2020 and the protest submitted by Mr. William Walter regarding Condition of Approval No. 13 ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey). Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on _____________________. ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington, City Clerk Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 221 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 222 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 223 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 224 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 225 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 226 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 227 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 228 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 229 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 230 LAW OFFICES WILLIAM S. WALTER A PROFESSI ONAL CORPORATION T ELll:PHO Nll: (B OS) 1541-6601 T H E B ELLO HO U SE F ACSIMILE (805) 541-6640 679 MONTEREY STREET SAN L UIS OBISP O, CALI F ORNIA 9340 1 April 24, 2020 VIA FACSIMILE US PS (emailcouncil@slocity.org) CITY COUNCIL C it y of San Luis Obi s po 919 Palm St. Sa n Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 EMA.JL WWAL.TER@TCSN .NET RE: NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR PAYMENT OF ENCROACHMENT PERMJT FEES AND PROTEST OF REQUIREMEN T TO INST ALL A "DECORATIVE P EDEST RI AN LIGHTING FIXTURE": CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION 66020 ASSOCIATED W ITH ''New Deck and Found ation Repa ir Permit: BLDG 11 43-2018, 679 Monterey St., San Lui s O bispo, CA 9340 I Dear Council Members: I am t he owner of the "Bello Ho use" located at the above address. G overnment C ode Section 66020 does not limit the right to protest fees , conditio ns and exacti ons when~ the local government has fai led to provide notice as required by Section 66020 (d)(l ). Nonetheless , this letter constitutes ·'NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR PAYMENT OF EN C ROAC HMENT P ERMIT FEES AND PROTEST OF REQ UIREMENT TO INSTALL A "DECORATIV E PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING F IX TUR E"; CAL. GOV . COD E SECTION 66020 ASSOCIATED W ITH "New Deck and Foundation Repair Permit: BLDG 1143 -20 18 ." Two condition s are protested: (1) The City is demanding the payment of an encroachment fee in the am.ount of $2,036.22, including an "IT Surcharge" $60.27 as a con diti o n to re place e ighty feet of ex isting City curbs, sidewalks. driveway entries, utility boxes, street tree, street tree grates specified by the City, etc. The sidewalk must be constructed to a s pecial "Mission" style requiring tile and expensive con struction features . (2) The Conditions of Approval (ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey)) No. 13 directs me as the owner to contact t he C ity Engi ne erin g Deve lopm en t Review Division regard ing funding fo r a new fixture described as ''decorative pedestrian li ghting fixtu res". My understanding has been that when ins talling t he requ ired curbs, gutte rs, sidewalks (Downtown Mission standard), street tree, etc., we w ill insta l l a new street l ight box, base and bolts, ready for the City to remove the existing li ght standard and attach the "deco rat ive" li ght fi xture. Within the past t hi rty days, the City is requiring that I pay for a n expens ive decorati ve li ght fixt ure , esti mated to cost approxim ately $12,000. If app licable due to lack of 66020 (d) (1) not ice , Section 66020 (a) requi res th at I t en der "any required payment in full or providi ng satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary to mee t the requirements of the impositi o n." I am after com p letin g t he service of this le tter, goin g to pay the fee under protest. Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 231 CITY COUNC IL Apr il 24 , 2019 Page 3 If appl icabl e due to lack of 66020 (d) (1) notice, Section 66020(a)(2)(A) requires that I state that "the required payment is tendered" under protest. Jf app licabl e due to lac k of 66020 (d)( I) noti ce, Sec ti on 66020(a)(2) (B) requi res that I inform this Council ("governi ng body of the entity") of the "factual elements of th e dispute and the legal theory fo rm in g the basis for the protest. Regarding th e encroach me nt permit fee. the factua l elements of the dispute and legal theory forming th e basis for the protest are as fol lows: As ex pla in ed in correspond ence to the Community Development Department, August 15 , 2019, I ha ve already paid $40,384.39 in fees related to a 90 I square foot bui ld ing on the site, and other fees of rec ord to repair the foundati on for a 102 year old historic house on the s it e. (copy attached) The con struc tion at my expense of so mewhere between $40.000 and $50,000 to replace 80 feet of City/public sidewalks with a very expensive "Mission style" s idewalks (with til es, colored conc rete , etc. etc.), and replace the only street li ght on th e bloc k at an additional ex pense of ap proxima te ly $1 2,000, which ben efits an adjacent City pa rkin g lot, the City streets an d sidewalks on both sides of Monterey St. The encroachment fee, on to p of these expensive improvements whi ch are to be owned solely by the City are confiscatory, violate due process, constitu te a tak in g of private property without just compensation, a re not suppo1ied by a rational nexus, rough proporti o na lity, vio late due process, und er the United States and Califo rni a Co nstitution s. ft is fu nd amenta ll y arbitrary, cap ri cious, and without an y rational basis to charge a fee to a property owner who is already contributing di sproportionate to City through the construction o f significan t and costly public imp rove ment s. Regarding the requirem e nt to rep lace an existing street light which is the only one on this side of Monterey Street with a new and expensive decorative li ght fixture, despite such a req ui rement not having been imp osed on th e next door restorati on of the Leitche r Hou se, is inconsi ste nt with th e language of the co ndi tion of approval wh ic h does not expressly requi re that th e property owner pay for the new decorative li gh t pole, and direct s the property owner to contact the City Engineering Review Section about publi c fu nding for the fix ture . (See Correspondence of March 12, 2020, attached and incorporated.) The interpretation of th e cond ition as req uirin g private prop e rty owner paying for the new decorative li gh t fixture in the City s idewalk, adjacent to a City pa rkin g lot, and benefiting th e public sidewalks on each s ide of Monterey St., exceeds the language of the condition , is confiscatory, violates d ue process, co nstitute a taking of private property without just compensation , is not supported by a rational nexu s, rough proportional ity , v iolate due process, under th e United States a nd California Con stitutions . It is fu ndame nta ll y arbitra ry, capricious, and without any rat ional basis to charge a fee to a property ow ner who is already contri buting dispro portionate to City thr ough the construction of significant and costly public impro ve ments. The condition references a Street Lighting Di strict which does not exist as an ass essment or finan c ia ll y fund ed public improvement district. Afte r filing a Publ ic Rec ords Act request, the re is no ev idenc e that the City has ever spent fund s on the de corative li gh t fixtures in the Dow ntow n Core. Due to the Cov id-19 she lte r in pl ace orders, thi s Notice is se rved by mai l and attached to emails to the C ity's Public Works Departmen t. Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 232 CITY COUN CIL April 24, 2019 Page 3 Cc: Engineering Development Review Division Community Development Department Enclosures C ity of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 (via email attachment) Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 233 Tl!:LEPHO NI!: 1805) 541·6601 l"AC 5 1MILE 1805) 541-6640 LAW OFFICES WILLIAM S. WALT E R A PROF"ESSIONAL CORPORATION T HE BELLO HOU51!: 6 79 MONTE REY 5TRE:ET SA N LUI S OB ISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 March 12, 2020 VIA FACSIMILE (805-781 -7170) AND USPS Eng in eerin g Deve lopment Rev iew Divisi on Co mmunity Deve lopm e nt Depa1t me nt C ity of San Luis Ob ispo 919 Palm St. San Luis Obi s po , CA 93401-3218 !!:MAI L WWALTl!:R@TCS N .Nl!:T RE: New Deck and Fo undati on Repair Permit: BLDG l 143-201 8, 679 Monterey St. San Lu is Obispo , CA 9340 I Dear Development Review Di v ision : The Cond ition s of Approva l (AR CH-1236-2 017 (679 Monterey)) No. 13 directs me as the owner to contact the City Engin eering Devel opment Review Di vis ion rega rding fun ding for a new fixt ure described as .. decorative pedestrian light ing fixtures". My understandin g is that wh e n in stalling th e requir ed c urb s, g utters, s idewalks (Downtown Mi ss ion standard), street tree, etc .. we w ill in sta ll a new street light box , base and bolts, ready for the City to remove the existi ng li ght standard and attach the "dec orative " li ght fixture. Please let me know who my con tracto r can coordi nate with on this aspect of th e wo rk. Tha nk yo u for yo ur help. ER Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 234 LAW Of"F'ICES WILLIAM S. WALTER TELE PHONE 1805) 541•6601 F"ACSIMIL£ 1805 ) 541-6640 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE BELLO HOUSE 679 MONTEREY STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 August 15, 2019 VIA HAND DELIVERY Michel Cod ron. Director Community Developm ent Department City of San Luis Obispo , c/o Van essa Nichols 919 Palm St. San Lu is Obispo, CA 93401-3218 EMAIL WWALTER@TCSN.NET R E: NOTICE OF PAYING PERMIT FEES UNDER RES ERVATION OF RI G HTS. 677 Monterey St., SLO, BLDG-3031-2019; PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST Dear Mr Codron: Concurrently with delivery of this letter, T am delivering Check No. I 071, payable to the C ity of San Lui s Obi s po, in the amount of $40 ,3 84.39, for a 90 I square foot buildin g. I am paying this a mount with a full reservation of rights t o contest the amount and justification of the fe es . T he amo un t is inco nsiste nt with hand-o uts and figures previously given to me. Attached is the itemization provided by the City for this payment. The items highlighted in blue were disclosed and hig hlighted by hand at the county on a separate handout. The other items are undi sclosed or otherwise undocumented for my records. The unreasonable delays have bee n very expensive, we have been waiting since June to pour foundations, ha ving completed archeological monito ring, soils testing and compactjon and preparations und er a separate permit. Further delays arguing about these amounts wou ld cause even more damage and in o rder to mi t igate those damages, I am making this payment under a full reservation of ri g hts and under protest.- Could you provide th e source d ocuments for each of the items in the billing not highlighted in blue, including authorizing ordinances, tim e records, and any and all other documents which formed the basis of the charges. This request is made both as an appli cation e ntitled to the information , but also und er the Californ ia Public Records Act. The abuses of overly long plan check process, especially the basel ess, repet itious, unreasonable, untime ly, third plan check, were mind-bogg ling, and so mething I will call to the City C ouncil 's attention with some positive s uggestions at a comi ng public comment pe ri od. VebWr~ WILLIA~WALTER Enclosures Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 235 Bulldlng & Safety Division• 919 Palm Street• San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-32 18 BUILDING PERMIT New Single Family BLDG""3031 -2019 Issuance Date: NOT l~SUED Project Address: 617 Monterey St Assessor's Parcel Number: Q02;421 ·Q21 Unit or Suite{s): Project Description: NEW SINGLE FAMILY j §EDRQQM COTTAGE.: 90SSQ, FT. Legal Description: Architect: Paragon Design Thomas Brajkovich Business: (805) 541-9486 Owner: WALTER WILLIAMS TRUST AGREEMENT Fire Sprinklers: Provided Stories .1.QQ Code Year: ZQ.1.§ Dwelllng Units : 1 Motel Rooms: Census: 101 -Single Family Residence Construction Type: V-B Occupancy: Residentlal, 1 and 2 family dwellings (R-3) Dimensions Valuation Catego2'.: SQFT: Group Type Sq. Ft Factor Valuation Manual $78,000.00 Fees Payments Fee Name Fee Amount Date ·-·-.... Receipt # -··--Amount ------···~·-... ···----··---Police Citywide Base fee (SF) ~o:, $0.00 SMIP (Residential) $10.00 Total Paid: $0.00 C&D Recycling -UTIL $64.23 ConsoNdated Plan Check Fees $2,194.42 DEPOSIT: RESIDENTIAL REVIEW· MAJOR -PLAN $889.13 Balcony/Porch/Deck • BLDG $1,076.77 Post Construction Raq I Stormwater SF res -ENG $140.05 Single Family Residential Flnal Inspection -ENG $140.05 Green Building Fee $4.00 Build ing Permit Review -Planning $382.00 Stormwater -Moderate Project • BLDG $1,804.40 Parkland in Heu (SF) "i.3,,1fil.p0 Building Perm it Review -Planning $47.75 WW Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft i.Jl)iil.UO-:-" Consolidated Inspection Fees $2,222.73 Rev of Mitigation Measures, Cond, and TIF's -PW $222.48 Meter Service: Install (.58"-1") $128.47 Administrative Fee $238.37 Single Family Residential -ENG $280.11 Final lnspectiQn • SF Residential -PW $229.48 Meter Cost (.75") $198.00 Construction Tax -BLDG $150.00 W Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft ~9'.Z:~ Fire Citywide Base fee (SF) ._i56lT.'0 0- Building Permit Review • Planning $191.00 TIF Citywide Base fee (SF) 700 <> 1400 $8 .3~.10~ IT Surcharge $269.67 Park Development Impact Fee (SF) ~k880 ;00 .:; Total Fees: $42,578.81 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 236 Transportation Transportation Land Use Category (Citywide)' (San Luis Ranch Sub area)' RESIDENTIAL L ~ ..... ~~ --Single Family (per dwelling unit) :!:1.400 SQ. ft . (fees are per uni!) .jp $9,828 .00 35~~ 700-1,399 SQ . ft . (fees are per sq . ft.) (R $7.02 $7,623 .00 $5.4 4 s 699 SQ. ft. (fees are per un it) $4.914.00 $3,811.00 Multifamily Condominium (per dwelling un it) :!:1,100 s q. ft. (fees are per unit) $7.636 .00 $5 ,922 .00 550 -1,099 sq . ft. (fees are per sq . ft.) $6.94 $5.38 s549 SQ. ft. (lees are per Ullll) $3,81 8.00 $2 ,961.00 Multifamily Apartment (per dwelling unit) <! 1, 100 SQ. It. (fees are per unil) $7,636.00 $5,922.00 550 -1,099 sq. It. (fees are per SQ . ft.) $6.94 $5.38 s 549 sq. ft. (fees arc per unit) $3,818 .00 $2,961.00 l NON -RES I DENTIAL Office (per sq. ft.) $9.47 57.36 Service (per sq. ft.) $9.47 $7.36 Retail (pe r SQ. ft.) $1 3.75 $10.69 Parkland Transportation In-Lieu (Citywid e, (LOVR Subarea)' exceptS•n Luis Ran ch Subaret)' $8,861.00 $3,151.00 $6 .33 $3,151 .00 $4,4 30.00 $3.151.00 $6,884 .00 $2,269 .00 $6 .26 $2 ,269 .00 $3,442 .00 $2,269.00 $6.884 .00 $1,457.00 S626 $1,457.00 $3 ,4 42.00 $1.457.00 S8 .55 $8.55 S12.42 Park Development Police Fire (Citywide, except {Cltywld e) (Citywide) Sin Luis Ranch Subarea)' Land Use Category Water (Cit ywid e) Wastewater (Citywide) RESIDENTIAL $2,880.00 $668.00 $569.0 0 Single Family & Multifamily (per dwelling unit size, fees are per unit) $2,880.0 0 $66 8.00 $569 .00 ;i:1,201 SQ . ft. $1 1,872.0 0 $10,721.00 $2,880 .00 $668 .00 $5 69.00 801-1 ,200 sq. ft. $9,497.60 $8.577.00 451-800 sq. ft. $8,310.40 $7,505.00 $2,074.0 0 $481 .00 $41 0.00 s 450sq. ft . $3,561.60 $3,216.00 $2 .074 .00 $481.00 $410.00 Mobile/Manufactured Home (per dwelling unit) $2.074.00 $4 81.00 $410.00 Mobile/Man ufactured Home $7,123 .20 $6 ,433.00 $2,074.00 $481.00 $410 .00 $2,074 .00 $48 100 $410 .00 Land Use Category Water (Citywid e) Wastewater (Citywid e) $2,074.00 $481.00 $4 10.00 NON-RESIDENTIAL (BY METER SIZE) W meter $11 ,872 .0 0 $10.721.00 $0.44 $0 .38 1· meter $20,182 .00 $18 ,226.00 $0 .24 $0.21 1.5" meter $40,36 5.00 $36 ,451.00 $0.24 $0.21 2" meter $64 ,109.00 $57,893 .00 Industrial (per SQ . ft.) $5.82 $4 .52 $5.25 N/A $0 .18 $0.15 3" meter $127,030.00 $114,715 .00 Institu tional (per SQ. It.) $11 .14 $8.66 $10.06 Lodgi ng (per room) $3,95 8.00 $3,075 .00 $3,575 .00 Specialty (per ADT)I $605.20 $469.38 $54 5.63 ------- ,., fh"r •vt:.'1G. .... ,-..... -,..,.rart ,"9-C:o\tll><it•tb:~t tfl~,...,,1111, .. ,~,-u.i; 11""1'°'Jt,;ect f~8)lad1-l,,,.,Jt 1 ,,~, 3 .. :-,,.,-.""1•·!(-;1r1;ar~ f1• Tl1• w,,,.~rt"hr • ,-ara pr,"'-e.<j t'g~"(j ('4't fiv :Mo Q!""'Q"at"'W" a n•11• •,•,.th '!"' 1•1oP C':•lv 1r 1hv,1'f• q .,.. t • ,.S i:.:in'"h aod l()l; O!ri.it Ve~v f1nad 5~a:e3,\ .,.,, Th•", ... ,a .:t'!I'( ~t pQc' ",..,,~ o,.,,,, l H .. (/\r'IT) t ~•:i fl 1i:i,, t 1~;-[tp· c-J ,,, """rec.vftni•o l d~·.·c.11"\"'u.,..! u .:::::c 1'\!11 ~'"' rir! 1:f11M11'1~,:t ;n t.he l9 11~u -co .rat•t,--"\ t-Jf ar• '~I ,,, •1 •n ,ho r .,, "'' <::0 , Lit•"'> Ob "f'IO r.vr-:1 IJa:.a ~It'" <:tv,e,-'::['l)"O'I,.. ... !' tat,;A ~ ... /? (/ ,,() $0 .24 $0 .2 1 4" meter $198.262 .00 $179.041 .00 $1 33.00 $113 .00 Req ui res Requ ires Calcul ation Calcu lation 6" meter $396.525 .00 $358,081.00 I L f1l fo., '1~:;,u•".:ict ~ar.-tand •n-•eo ff'l'l:t3 ait"l'C'.111!111 t •. •"' 0.1 -tv. At't ,c. ·"~·~ f:s-. , ·•.,...:11· _al "''Ml_...,, -1"'1 r:,, ... fb~"'t"f'"',:.-.o• • -r1·· r*1=1 c. au-J10t,zlld by m•t-,M,OJ1 1(,!t f'.e,, Al t I.C f10'!' fa1""!, ;!j.f\d,..-u'' f~·n \ r=~-,,, ,jitl j C(:S! ('• t ~C-"~1 ·" 11, •• ,.,<:,r n ,t 1. fl, 3 ',, ,r-1, :'!' ~~' l • '~?·Y-.. a r~._ , ..... , m~t D1tt l1 Hf'l-:1 re,cr~2tlt0n Ol>'ig,:1 1 ,...,,~ p~r 1h~ ,~ ... , ~, llP r ''C'.tt''-'> t:;r Pc.,l'C ~,~,,~ e•1!'.f CH ('I.a. ·e,!or.,ir~1,t IIQr#f· ,.,,.....< -- Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 237 BILLING CONTACT WALTE R WILLIAMS TRUST AGREEMENT 1504 Broad St San Lu is O bispo, Ca 93401 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME BLDG-3031 -2019 Administrative Fee Balcony/Porch/Deck -BLDG Bu ilding Pe rmit Review -Planning Building Pe rmit Rev iew· Planning Building Perm it Review· Planning C&O Recycli ng • UTIL Cons o li dated Inspection Fees Con struction Tax • BLDG DEPOSIT: RESIDENT IAL REVIEW-MAJOR -PLAN Fin a l Inspection • SF Residential • PW Fire Citywid e Base fee (SF) Green Building Fee IT Surcharge Meter Cost (.75") Meter Service : Insta ll (.5 8"-1") Park Development Impact Fee (SF) Parkland in lieu (SF) Police Citywide Base fee (SF) Post Construction Req I Stormwater SF res • ENG Rev of Mitigation Measures, Co nd, and TIF's -PW Sing le Family Re sidential -ENG Sing le Family Resid ential Final Inspection -ENG SMIP (Residential) Stormwater -Moderate Project -BLDG TI F Citywide Base fee (SF) 700 <> 1400 W Reside ntial Unit 800 <> 1200 sq ft WW Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft August 15, 2019 TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fe e Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fe e Payment Fe e Payment Fee Payment Fe e Payment Fe e Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Pa yment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Paymen t Fe e Payment Fee Payment Fe e Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment PAYMENT METHOD Check #1071 Check#1071 Check#1 071 Ch eck #1071 Ch eck #1071 Check #1 071 Check#1071 Ch eck #1 071 Check #1071 Check #1 071 Ch eck#1071 C heck #1071 Ch eck #1071 C heck#1071 Check #1071 Ch eck #1071 Check #107 1 Check#1071 Ch eck #1071 Ch eck #1071 Check #1071 Check #1071 Check #1071 Check #1071 Check #1071 Ch eck#1071 Check #1071 SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $238.37 $1,076.77 $19 1.00 $47.75 $382.00 $64.23 $2,222.73 $150 .00 $889.13 $229.48 $569.00 $4.00 $269.67 $1 98.00 $128.4 7 $2,880.00 $3, 151 .00 5668.00 $140.05 $2 22 .48 $280.11 $140.05 $10.00 $1,804.40 $6,353.10 $9,497.60 $8,577.00 $40 ,384.39 $40,384.39 Page 1 of 1 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 238 Building & Safety Division• 919 Palm Street• Sa n Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 BUILDING PERMIT New Single Family BLDG-3031-2019 Issuance Date: NOT !§SUED Project Address: 677 Monterev St Assessor's Parcel Number: 002-421-021 Unit or Suite(s): Project Description: NEW §INGLE FAMILY 1 BEDROOM COTTAGE - 905 SQ. FT . Legal Description: Architect: Paragon Design Thomas Brajkovich Business: (805 ) 541 -9486 Owner: WALTER WILLIAMS TRUST AGREEMENT Fire Sprinklers: Provided Stories 1.00 CodeYear: ~ Census: 101 -Single Family Residence Occupancy: Residential, 1 and 2 family dwellings (R-3) Dimensions Category: SOFT: Group Type Manual Fees Fee Name Fee Amount Police Citywide Base fee (SF) ~oo;r SMlP (Res idential) $10.00 C&D Recycling • UTIL $64.23 Consolidated Plan Check Fees $2,194.42 DEPOSIT: RESIDENTIAL REVIEW -MAJOR .PLAN $889.13 Balcony/PorchfDeck -BLDG $1,076.77 Post Construction Req f Stormwater SF res • ENG $140.05 Single Family Residential Final Inspection -ENG $140.05 Green Building Fee $4.00 Building Permit Review -Planning $382.00 Stormwater -Moderate Project -BLDG $1,804.40 Parkland in lieu (SF) $3;151 .60 Buil ding Permit Revi ew -Pla nning $47.75 WW Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft 1s .. s:z:z-1io consolidated I nspection Fees $2,222.73 Rev of Mitigation Measures, Cond, and Tl F's -PW $222.48 Meter Service: I nstall (.58"-1'') $128.47 Administrative Fee $238.37 Single Family Residential -ENG $280.11 Final lnspectiQn -SF Residential -PW $229.48 Meter Cost (.75") $198.00 Construction Tax -BLDG $150.00 W Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft . ,il9T.60 Fire Citywide Base fee (SF) $569:-oo-- Building Permit Review· Planning $191 .00 TIF Citywide Base fee (SF) 700 <> 1400 $6,353!10.:J' IT Surcl1arge $269.67 Park Development Impact Fee (SF) $2_,880:00 .; Total Fees: $42,578.81 Dwelllng Units: 1 Motel Rooms: Construction Type: V-B Valuation Sq. Ft Factor Valuation $78,000.00 Payments Date Receipt # Amount $0.00 Total Paid: $0.00 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 239 RECEIPT (TRC-027045-04-24-2020) BILLING CONTACT BILL WALTER 679 Monterey St San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 REFERENCE NUMBER PAYMENT METHODFEE NAME TRANSACTION TYPE AMOUNT PAID ENCR-0780-2020 Credit CardFee Payment $1,975.95Flatwork Credit CardFee Payment $60.27IT Surcharge SUB TOTAL $2,036.22 TOTAL $2,036.22 May 12, 2020 Page 1 of 1 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 240 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 241 Item 1Item 12 Packet Page 242 Item #12PUBLIC HEARINGReview of a Protest for Payment ofEncroachment Permit Fees and for aCondition of Approval Requiring theInstallation of a Decorative PedestrianLighting Fixture (679 Monterey Street) Recommendation2Recommendation: Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the protest of Encroachment Permit Fees, and the Conditions of Approval requiring the installation of a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture associated with ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey Street). Project Site – 679 Monterey Street3 Background4Building ABuilding B• 2017, Mr. William Walter, owner of 679 Monterey Street, submitted a planning application to the City of San Luis Obispo for the construction of a new dwelling and deck. Background5Building ABuilding B• City response letter dated August 1, 2018, approved the application subject to Conditions of Approval listed in the response.• Conditions of Approval included the requirement for the replacement of frontage improvements including Mission Style Sidewalk, driveway approaches, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, tree wells, and the installation of a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture.• These Conditions are based on the 2018 Engineering Standards which were adopted on May 15, 2018, and are still in effect today.• Conditions #8 through #13 can be reviewed on pages 226 & 227 of the Agenda Packet. Notice of Protest6Building ABuilding B• On April 24, 2020, a written Notice of Protest was submitted by William Walter. Two items of protest were stated:1. Encroachment Permit Fee in the amount of $2,036.222. The Condition of Approval requiring the installation of a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture. Encroachment Permit Fee7Driveway Approach Base Fee: $912.54plus $10.06 per linear foot of driveway approach ($10.06 x 35’): $352.10plus $5.76 per linear foot of sidewalk ($5.76 x 45’) $259.20plus $10.06 per linear foot of curb and gutter ($10.06 x 45’): + $452.70Subtotal: $1,976.54plus IT surcharge of $3.05% ($1,976.54 x 3.05%): + $60.28Total: $2,036.82Fee Study conducted in 2017. • Study Session February 21, 2017• Public Hearing April 18, 2017• Adopted by Resolution.Fees calculated per the approved Master Fee Schedule, approved 6/18/2019. Decorative Pedestrian Lighting Fixture8•Program Established in 2005.•Required as a Condition of Approval for 679 Monterey•City Municipal Code Chapter 17.126.020 requires an appeal to be submitted within ten days following receipt of approval.•August 1, 2018 Approval Letter. Recommendation9Recommendation: Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the protest of Encroachment Permit Fees, and the Conditions of Approval requiring the installation of a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture associated with ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey Street). WALTER PROTEST 679 MONTEREY ST•OLD DOWNTOWN PLAN DEMOLISHED BELLO HOUSE FOR AMPHITHEATRE•SUPPRESSED INVESTMENT/OLD FAMILIES LEFT•EMINENT DOMAIN ALWAYS LOOMED•CITY INITIATED EMINENT DOMAIN AGAINST WALTER IN 1993 FOR CREEKWALK•REZONING TO DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ALLOWED RESTORATION•PRESERVATIONISTS’ HAVE WON WITH LEITCHER AND BELLO (1917) REMOVE AND REPLACE 30 FOOT CITY COBRA STREET LIGHT