Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 - COUNCIL READING FILE_h_Assorted Email Correspondence 11 Van Beveren, Daniel From:Amberg, Mark Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:12 AM To:Claims Administrator; Jorgensen, Markie Subject:FW: APPEAL OF DECISIONS REQUIRING OWNER TO REMOVE, DELIVER, REPLACE, CITY LAMP POST, 679 Monterey St. ; From:Amberg, Mark Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 4:45 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Cc:Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject:RE: APPEAL OF DECISIONS REQUIRING OWNER TO REMOVE, DELIVER, REPLACE, CITY LAMP POST, 679 Monterey St. ; Dear Mr. Walter, My response to your email will be brief since the City’s position, as explained in my May 8, 2020, email remains unchanged. I do apologize for misquoting condition of approval 13 from your August 1, 2018 letter of approval. The relevant language from the condition should have read: This project is located within the Downtown Lighting District, and the master plan for the district shows decorative pedestrian lighting fixtures to be installed along the project frontage. These fixtures and related infrastructure shall be installed with the project. This condition makes clear that replacement of the light fixture in question with a decorative pedestrian lighting fixture and related infrastructure (in accordance with current City code) was a required condition of your project. The reference in the conditions of approval to possible assistance with funding from either the Downtown Association or from the City’s beautification funds were recommendations for possible assistance with funding, not a modification of the required condition that you install a new decorative light fixture and related infrastructure as part of your project. Also, as noted, because your project involves the construction of a new structure, condition 8 of your letter of approval requires “complete frontage improvements” upgraded per City standards. This includes, per the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time your project was approved, installation of a new decorative light pole. Sincerely, Mark Amberg 2 From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 6:22 PM To:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Cc:Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Subject:RE: APPEAL OF DECISIONS REQUIRING OWNER TO REMOVE, DELIVER, REPLACE, CITY LAMP POST, 679 Monterey St. ; Dear Mr. Amberg: I AM COPYING STAFF ON THIS RESPONSE SO THAT THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES AT STAKE AND WILL IMMEDIATELY BE ABLE TO CORRECT THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS Thank you for your “more substantive response.”I was going to write something more formal as part of a separate appeal but I think it is more important that I quickly establish that, irrespective of your subjective intentions, everyone involved be informed immediately that the position taken in your analysis is arbitrary, capricious, causing delays for leveraging unconstitutional conditions, and not reasonable legally or factually.I don’t fault you personally, because you may not have been fully informed of the facts and background, not disclosed to you, although you would have a duty to have such knowledge before advising City staff to assert conditions which do not exist and were never enacted.Temporary takings have been found by the Court when the legal position of the agency is beyond “normal delays” patently unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.Ali v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 246 (Citing Landgate, Inc. v California Coastal Comm’n (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1006) 42 Section 1983. 1.THE US SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED MUNICIPAL EFFORTS TO LEVERAGE CONCESSIONS IN THE LAND USE PROCESS TO OBTAIN EXACTIONS The issues in this case are resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2586, concerning heightened scrutiny of monetary and other exactions tied to a specific piece of property.I quote the following to indicate the Court’s recognition of the problems I am complaining about: “Our decisions in those cases reflect two realities of the permitting process. The first is that land-use permit applicants are especially vulnerable to the type of coercion that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits because the government often has broad discretion to deny a permit that is worth far more than property it would like to take. By conditioning a building permit on the owner's deeding over a public right-of-way, for example, the government can pressure an owner into voluntarily giving up property for which the Fifth Amendment would otherwise require just compensation. See id.,at 384,114 S.Ct. 2309;Nollan,483 U.S., at 831, 107 S.Ct. 3141.2595*2595 So long as the building permit is more valuable than any just compensation the owner could hope to receive for the right-of-way, the owner is likely to accede to the government's demand, no matter how unreasonable. Extortionate demands of this sort frustrate the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits them.” 2.YOUR ANALYSIS RELIES UPON THE WRONG PROJECT CONDITION AND LANGUAGE YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE HAS FRABRICATED 3 Your email states that: “Condition 13 of the August 1, 2018, letter of approval for your project provides, in relevant part: This project is located within the Downtown Lighting District, and the master plan for the district shows decorative pedestrian lighting fixtures to be installed along the project frontage. These fixtures shall be installed along the project frontage (emphasis added).” Your email attached the August 1, 2018 letter of approval.If you open that document, you will find that Condition 13 does not contain the language you have underscored and apparently erroneously advised your client is the operable condition.For weeks now, I have been devoting 10 hours a day or more, not to mention stress and worry, annoyance, based upon fabricated language,doing public works project duties which are not my responsibility. Contrary to your language invented out of whole-cloth, on page 7, the correct language cannot be ignored in imposing ad hoc exactions after the project approval in staff emails.The conditions of approval include the following language expressly addressing the remove and replace street light recommendations for my “consideration”: “Additionally, the Public Works Department offers the following comments for your consideration during preparation of final plans for this project: …… “Pedestrian lighting fixtures. This project is located within the Downtown Lighting District. The master plan shows that decorative pedestrian lighting fixtures are proposed along the project frontage(s). The installation of these lighting fixtures and related infrastructure is recommended with this redevelopment project. The Downtown Association has discussed implementing a donation and commemorative light program to help promote the installation of these lighting fixtures. Contact the City Engineering Development Review Division at (805) 781-7201 to discuss whether City beautification funds are available for a new fixture or contact the Downtown Association at (805) 541-0286 for questions on the status of any assistance program.”(Bolding added.) This “recommended with” language is in stark contrast to Paragraph 5 of the Public Works Department language is not a recommendation, but mandatory: “ The building plan submittal must include a complete site utility plan.”Public Works knew how to write mandatory language and chose not to do so with regard to the recommendation regarding the remove and replace decorative light fixture.This “recommendation language” is the most the City could do since there was no rational nexus under Nolan/Dollan “heightened scrutiny” to make it an enforceable exaction. No justification is provided in your email by citing Resolution No. 10889 effective May 31, 2018 which is inapplicable to pending applications before its effective date.The condition of approval as written did not cite or refer to those standards because they would not be applicable to this project.IF they were to apply, they must have been referenced in the conditions of approval, and they are not. 4 The approvals are entirely silent on City Staff’s current efforts requiring me remove the existing 30 foot street light, remove a half-ton of concrete base, recycle the old lamp post at my expense, arrange and pay for its removal, arrange and pay for its transportation to the City yard, and then remove the Downtown SLO Banner and arrange for an inspector to pick it up and return it.There is no language in any condition which requires me to bear these unconstitutional and disproportionate obligations.Staff is now asking for what it now wants; not what the condition requires. Applying the wrong condition language presents serious due process, equal protection takings, and Section 1983 issues. The actual language of Condition 13 is entirely consistent with the Public Works “recommendation with” language quoted above which is also part of the conditions of approval.The actual language of Condition 13 is entirely inconsistent with how you have mis-quoted and made-up the language cited in your email.It is dangerous for Staff to follow the erroneous language you purport to be a lawful condition.Here is the REAL condition, in addition to the language quoted above: 12.This project is located within the Downtown Lighting District, and the master plan for the district shows decorative pedestrian lighting fixtures to be installed along the project frontage. These fixtures and related infrastructure shall be installed with this project. Note that the Downtown Association has discussed implementing a donation and commemorative light program to help promote the installation of these lighting fixtures. You may contact the City Engineering Development Review Division at (805) 781-7201 Page 5 to discuss the availability of City beautification funds for a new fixture, or the Downtown Association at 541-0286 for information about any available assistance program.(Bolding added.) (a)The “installed with this project” language must be given its plain meaning.The dictionary defines “with”as “accompanied by another person or thing.” The only other “person” who can act “with” me is the City.In this case, the language of the condition contemplated that the new lamp and by implication the removal and disposal of the old 30 foot lamp would not be the sole responsibility or mandatory duty of the owner and if the work was to be done, it would be done “accompanied by” the City removing the existing street light, concrete base, and replacing it with a new one. My only duty is to place the bolts and wiring for your new decorative lamp. That is the clear meaning of “with.” 5 (b)The condition did not use the words “installed by” the property owner.The dictionary defines “by” as “identifying the agent performing an action.” If the remove and replace condition was imposed upon me, the condition would have used “by” and not “with.”It’s as simple as that.The condition did not resemble other conditions which state that the applicant is required to do certain things which are mandatory; they identify who must do it, what must be done, that it is mandatory, and never use the word “with”. (c)There are many conditions in building a project which must be accomplished “with”the City or other entities. They do not mean that the applicant bears sole responsibility for the condition or expense E.g., (1)the water meter cannot be installed by the property owner because the City installs the meter when I provide the meter box and connecting water lines, water service is accomplished “with”the City; (2)the electrification of the street lamp can only be done “with”the City since PG&E must connect to the new lamp; (3)the new power service requires me to replace meters and place underground conduit, and it is done “with” PG&E and approved by City Inspectors and PG&E “pulls the wire through the conduit.” (4)My new meter for the existing Bello House and solar array required me to install the upgraded meter box, but it could not be activated apart from working “with”the City to approve it and PG&E who pulled the new wire from the old box through the underground conduit which was already in place. (5)The language of the condition “help promote” suggests not a mandatory duty imposed solely upon the property owner. (d)Based upon a Public Records Act response from the City, there is nothing in the Downtown Lighting District documents which requires or even seems to contemplate that the new lighting improvements will be imposed as an exaction paid for by private property owners, especially for foundation repairs and stair replacements for a relatively small historic property.The conditions cite no such language or requirement in the Downtown Lighting Plan because it was aspirational, not a document serving as the basis for an exaction from private owners.The two staff reports produced by the City Clerk contain no such authorization for imposing the decorative light fixture on a private applicant through conditions of approval, no doubt because of the constitutional difficulty in imposing those exactions and implementing a uniform replacement of lights through the “District.”The finding in Condition 13 does not find that the Plan imposes any requirement on a private property owner, or specifically me as the application/property owner of adjacent property. (e)The same documents response from the City Clerk includes only one set of plans for the decorative light fixtures and those plans were prepared by the City Public Works Department for Garden Street, and is a 6 public project –not a small private project.This supports the conclusion that it is the City which is to implement the plan; not a private property owner who happens to have the only 30 foot street lamp on his side of the block.That’s common sense. (f)I have a pending Public Records Act request to identify any private project (let alone a small one like mine) which has been required at a private owners sole expense to remove an existing 30 foot light post, it’s half- ton concrete base, remove the Downtown SLO Banner, call the inspector to reclaim the banner, recycle the lamp post or take it to the City yard, install a new electric street light power box, arrange for the electrification of the new fixture, etc. etc., buy and install a new decorative light fixture, and the other things now being demanded through ad hoc staff emails from non-management level Public Works Department staff.I doubt the City will find such a project with those requirements for a foundation repair and stair replacement permit for a 100 year old building, or the construction of a small secondary dwelling unit which by State statutes confer limited authority to exact non-nexus supported improvements. Being singled out for this ad hoc condition via post hoc staff emails implicates Section 1983 equal protection liability for a “class of one” (“spiteful intent”).Village of Willowbrook v. Olechon (2000) 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curium opinion). (g)The interpretation of the condition must also be compared to other conditions which used mandatory language imposing a clear and unambiguous duty upon the owner; e.g., (1)Condition 1, Conformance to approved plans, uses mandatory language, “shall be” and “must be.” (2)Condition 2, “Colors and materials” uses “shall clearly depict,” “shall clearly be”… (3)Condition 3, “Archeological monitoring,” uses clear and unambiguous language: “The applicant shall provide an archeological monitoring plan,” which “shall include…”, “shall specify methods and procedures for”, “shall identify the qualified professional”, “shall be included with”. (4)Condition 4, “Parking In-lieu Fee,” “the applicant shall pay….” (5)Condition 5, “Night Sky Preservation”, “”shall include information” (h)The language in the condition recognizes that public funds may be available for paying for expenses acknowledging the applicant working “with” the City and others if the project condition is to be implemented; in fact that was a fraud and no such funds existed at the time and never had existed for years if ever (except apparently Garden street). 3.If the condition required the owner to bear all of the expense of removing the existing 30 foot public lamp post and replacing it, the City would have adopted nexus findings supporting the heightened scrutiny required for the exaction to demonstrate the some impact of the project was rationally required by the condition. 7 I am not and never have challenged the Condition 13 as written, or the Public Works condition language “recommending” a new decorative street light, thereby negating any statute of limitations argument. Similarly, I have not attempted to re-write the condition to support my position.If the condition had required all of these expenses and exactions, it would have been supported by adequate findings and evidence to satisfy the California administrative law requirements of the California Supreme Court Topanga Canyon Case:(1) adequate specific findings and (2) supported by substantial evidence (3) meeting the legal requirements for the decision (e.g., a variance or an exaction). The Supreme Court decisions in Nolan and Dollan exercised heightened scrutiny based upon nexus findings of project impacts even though they failed constitutional muster.Here, there were no identified impacts from the repairing a foundation project which could only be mitigated by imposing the ad hoc emails “remove and replace at the owners sole expense” condition for an unrelated street light.I could easily have left the existing Street light in place and cut the sidewalk tiles as the pole near the Children’s Museum.There are no nexus findings, there is no nexus evidence, because the condition did not require what Staff now ad hoc asserts.The troubling part is how easy it is for City staff to invent conditions, make up obligations, impose those obligations, with no reference to constitutional requirements. Why weren’t there ANY NEXUS OR EVIDENCE findings like the government agencies in Nolan and Dollan prepared, which were found to be constitutionally deficient?Either:(1)The City routinely ignores these Supreme Court decisions; or (2) The language of the condition did not impose an exaction requiring any nexus evidence or findings.It is the City staff that now tries now to re-write the condition beyond its plain meaning.Presuming the City complies with the constitutional requirements of adequate findings reviewed at a heightened level of scrutiny when it does impose exactions, then the absence of nexus findings and evidence supports the conclusion that none were imposed by the condition as now interpreted by the City staff in ad hoc emails. There are serious due process faults if the condition is so vague and unspecific without nexus findings as to fail to provide notice to the applicant of what Staff may later ultra vires assert as being required of him or her as a costly exaction.I am being asked to remove the only existing street light on my side of the Block in the Downtown Core which benefited other properties including the City’s own Parking Lot 15; replace it with a decorative light fixture as the only fixture on my side of the block; while the next door Leitcher property was a more substantial restoration and not required to install any decorative light fixtures shown on the Downtown Lighting District Plan when installing its street improvements.The Downtown Lighting Plan shows lights in front the Leitcher House.There’s no rational nexus in the findings to support Staff’s radical re-writing of the conditions ad hoc and post hoc.Why does my project constitutionally require all of these exactions and expenses?Why doesn’t the condition expressly impose those conditions at my sole expense? 8 4.MY LETTER TO PUBLIC WORKS DATED MARCH 12, 2020 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITION My letter of March 12, 2020 is included as an attachment to my April 24, 2020, “NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR PAYMENT OF ENCORACHMENT PERMIT FEES AND PROTEST OF REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL A DECORATIVE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING FIXTURE; CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION 66020.” It reflects my understanding of what I was obligated to do under the conditions and had agreed to do: “when installing the required curbs, gutters sidewalks (downtown Mission standard), street tree, etc., we will install a new street light box, base and bolts ready for the City to remove the existing light standard and attach the ‘decorative’ light fixture.”There was no written response from the Engineering Development Review Division. That is all that I was required to do and I have offered to do it.Instead, I and my contractors have been appropriated in the service of and assuming the duties and obligations of the Public Works Department regarding a street light it has owned for decades and has never belonged to me, is metered to the City by PG&E, and benefits the safety of the City streets, other properties, and the City’s own parking lot located about ten feet from the existing light fixture. 5.CONDITION 8 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING STREET LIGHT AND REPLACE WITH A DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE. Your email incorrectly asserts that Condition 8 requires removal of the 30 foot street light and replacement with a decorative street light based upon Municipal Code Section 12.16.050.That section only requires “that a standard concrete curb, butter, sidewalk and street pavement as determined by Council resolution be installed on all street frontages of such property by the owner of such property or the person in possession of the property prior to granting of occupancy or final approval.”There is no mention in that section of removing a City owned 30 foot street lamp and replacing it with a decorative feature.The findings reference to the specific code section limits its scope and excludes the remove and replace condition which is nowhere expressed in the controlling Code section. The City should be grateful that I did not exercise my rights under Section 12.16.050 for an exception and “defer or temporarily waive all or portions of these requirements if they jointly agree that they will cause extreme hardship or serve no useful purpose.”Attaching perhaps $40,000 (or more depending upon additional delays caused by the City’s actions) to a foundation and stair replacement permit for a 102 year old building and an exempt accessory dwelling unit per state law is certainly a hardship.The fact that I did not do so cannot justify the continuous “piling on” of one more requirement, one more fee, one more expense, one mor delay after another.Given these ad hoc and post hoc email 9 exactions, I ask that you now find an “extreme hardship” exemption from the Staff’s piling on of any additional conditions. It is even more of a hardship to then try to collect an encroachment permit fee of more than $2,000 for the “privilege” of replacing the sidewalks, to Mission style requirements, install a street tree, expensive tree grate, replace dilapidated City owned curbs, gutters and sidewalks (per project findings).That fee was also paid under protest. I agreed to encroachment permit fees and have paid them relating to specific improvements which solely benefit my property –such as a new water line –a new sewer line.However, I object to piling on fee after fee after fee to construct public works improvements which are the City’s responsibility after long deferred maintenance.I was not required to pay any encroachment fee to install a new fire line by the Fire Marshall because they required it not for any project of mine, but solely because the City had placed a dedicated fire line in Monterey St. to which I was required to connect at my own expense.The encroachment fee could not be justified by an improvement triggered only by the City placing a dedicated fire line in Monterey St. Encroachment permit fees to construct expensive public improvements are illegal and unconstitutional.The encroachment fee is in reality a tax and not a fee, since it fails to meet the standard of the Mitigation Fee Act which must meet reasonable relationship requirements (between both the fee’s use and the type of development and between the type of development and the need for the public facility), that ad hoc fees must also meet a reasonable relationship requirements between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility, and that fees and exactions must not exceed the cost of providing the service or facility for which they are imposed.Cal. Gov. Code Sections 66001, 66005, ; Ehrlich, 12 Cal.4th at 864-867.The fees and the costs of the street improvements far exceed the costs of the foundation repairs, for instance.More fees are an unlawful tax. 6.THE ENCROACH PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO LAWFUL AND STATUTORY PROTEST PER MY APRIL 24, 2020 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 PROTEST The statement in your email concerning the encroachment permit as imposing requirements for the decorative street light and removal of the old 30 foot fixture ignores my April 24, 2020 Government Code Section 66020 protest of the encroachment fee and the removal/installation ad hock street light “condition” filed with the City Council via the Clerk. 10 Your analysis is fatally flawed because I filed a statutory protest with the City Council on April 24, 2020, copy attached.I am awaiting the scheduling of a City Council hearing on the protest.This protest statute reflects the City’s own Municipal Code Section 4.56.060 with which I complied.You can’t impose some duty from the encroachment permit that is under statutory protest. Ministerial acts, such as building and encroachment permits, cannot control or supersede quasi-judicial project conditions and findings; they cannot be a substitute for nexus and rough proportionality standards imposed by the California and United States Constitutions. I have to conclude that these arguments are frivolous and in blatant disregard of the facts and law.There is no justification for not knowing of my protest filing per Statute and City Ordinance. 7.THE BUILDING PLANS DO NOT IMPOSE A DUTY CONTRARY TO PROJECT CONDITIONS Another baseless assertion is that the building plans do anything more than identify things to be done –not by whom and at whose expense.Same as above, the plans show a water meter; the City installs it; the plans show electrical boxes and PG&E pulls the wires through the conduit, etc. etc. Moreover, the Plans reproduce and expressly incorporate the accurate language of Condition No 13, not the language you made-up, misquoted and re-written.So all of the arguments above apply to this make-shift effort to take a ministerial action, mis-interpret it, and ignore the quasi-judicial conditions printed on the plans which do apply.Certainly there has been no “with” in any of the City’s arbitrary and capricious actions. 8.RESOLUTION No. 10889 effective May 31, 2018 DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT WHICH WAS PENDING AND IN PROCESS WHEN City’s Engineer Standards Became Effective The Resolution does not include the standards, but appears by its terms to apply to public works projects since the sections refer to advertising public works projects to which the standards apply.Suffice it to say, every fee calculated by the City was based upon fees and standards in effect prior to the submission of the applications and payment of processing fees for the foundation repair and accessory dwelling unit, regardless of any post- application fee changes.Those facts are a matter of record and don’t require more elaboration. Moreover, if those standards in “Uniform Design Criteria 1010” [sic.?] were intended to apply, that fact would have been reflected in the Conditions of Approval and the findings. Nowhere is there any finding, evidence, or condition referencing these inapplicable standard or the document itself. This leads to the inescapable conclusion 11 that the prior standards (which are also not cited in the findings) do not contain a “remove and replace” condition now imposed ultra vires and ad hoc by City Staff emails. THERE IS STILL TIME TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGES WHICH THESE ERRONEOUS LEGAL ANALYSES ARE INFLICTING UPON ME AND MY FAMILY. DURING THIS PANDEMIC CRISIS, THE EMOTIONAL AND FINANCIAL STRAIN THAT THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL CONDUCT IMPOSES UPON US IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND ACTIONABLE AGAINST POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY DEFENDANTS. I HAVE LEARNED THAT INTIMIDATION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TOWARD THIS PROJECT BY REFERENCES TO MY CREATING “PROBLEMS.”I HAVE DOCUMENTED THOSE SITUATIONS BUT DO NOT WANT TO EXPOSE OTHERS TO ANY POSSIBLE RETALIATION BY CITY STAFF PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL EFFORTS IMMEDIATELY AND COOOPERATE TO AVOID ONGOING DAMAGES AND DELAYS, AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO MY HEALTH AND FINANCES. Very truly yours, WILLIAM S. WALTER, ATF WILLIAM SILAS WALTER TRUST DTD 4-92 679 MONTEREY ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 12 From:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, May 07, 2020 4:56 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Cc:Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject:RE: APPEAL OF DECISIONS REQUIRING OWNER TO REMOVE, DELIVER, REPLACE, CITY LAMP POST, 679 Monterey St. ; Dear Mr. Walter, Here is my more substantive response to the issues you have raised. 13 The requirement that you replace the existing light fixture with a new decorative light fixture (which necessarily includes removal) was included in the conditions of approval issued for your project on August 1, 2018 (condition no. 13), on your building plan that was approved on October 24, 2018, and was verified as a condition in your encroachment permit issued on April 27, 2020. Copies of these documents are attached. Additionally, Uniform Design Criteria 1010, which is contained in the City’s Engineering Standards that were adopted by Council Resolution (No. 10889) on May 15, 2018 and went into effect on May 31, 2018, contains the requirement that all significant projects as well as any significant sidewalk replacement projects in the downtown pedestrian lighting master plan area (your property is within this area) must “provide new pedestrian lighting” (Uniform Design Criteria 1010, page 31). Condition 13 of the August 1, 2018, letter of approval for your project provides, in relevant part: This project is located within the Downtown Lighting District, and the master plan for the district shows decorative pedestrian lighting fixtures to be installed along the project frontage. These fixtures shall be installed along the project frontage (emphasis added). The letter of approval also contains the following conditions: (Condition 8) Projects involving the construction of new structures require that complete frontage improvements (driveway approach with ADA extension, damaged or displaced curb, gutter or sidewalk) be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standards. [Municipal Code] 12.16.050. Because of the extent of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk, non-compliant ADA slopes and surfaces, and utility work, complete frontage improvements will be required. (emphasis added). Your building plan, which was approved on October 24, 2018, contains the handwritten notation “(N) Decorative Ped. Ltg Fixt. Per City Std. 7915.” This means that, as a condition of approval of your building plan, you are required to install a new decorative pedestrian lighting fixture in accordance with City Standard 7915 (attached) which outlines the specifications for installation of the required decorative downtown pedestrian lighting fixture. The encroachment permit (which was pulled by your contractor), under description of work, confirms that you are required, among other requirements, to: Install frontage improvements per the approved building plans and City Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards Replace . . . sidewalk . . . in Mission Style Replace existing streetlight with decorative downtown pedestrian streetlight The permit further requires that “All work to be done per the approved building plans and City Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards.” The signature block of the permit also contains the following language: “All work performed within the right-of-way shall conform to the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standard Details and Standard Specifications.” Under the Acknowledgement section of the permit, your contractor acknowledged and agreed on your behalf to meet the requirements of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Engineering Standards and Specifications. 14 With regard to the legal issues you have raised, first, aesthetic regulations “have long been held to be valid exercises of a City’s traditional police power, and do not constitute a taking merely because they might incidentally restrict a use, diminution in value, or impose a cost in connection with the property.” (Ehrlich v.City of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854; Disney v. City of Concord, (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 1410). The requirement that you remove and replace the light fixture does not in any way diminish the value of or interfere with the use of your property and does not constitute a taking. If anything, installation of a new decorative light fixture in front of your property that conforms to current City standards likely enhances the value of your property. With regard to the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan, Dolan, etc., the need to remove and replace the light fixture in question clearly is caused by your project since the project will require a complete removal and replacement of the frontage sidewalk on which the pole is located. Also, the light fixture provides a benefit to the property by providing lighting in front of the property. Finally, since the conditions of approval were not appealed in a timely manner, the conditions are deemed accepted and are not subject to further challenge (Styne v. Stevens, (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 42; McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253 (under the doctrine of administrative exhaustion, with limited exceptions, where an adequate administrative remedy is provided by statute, resort to that forum is a “jurisdictional” prerequisite to judicial consideration of the claim). In pursuing a construction project that is subject to approval by the City, you are required to comply with all legally imposed conditions of approval. If you did not agree with the conditions of approval for your project, per City Code Chapter 17.126, you had a right to file an appeal within 10 days of the decision. Your 10-day right of appeal is noted in the August 1, 2018, letter of approval: “My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of this decision.” The 10-day period to appeal and contest the conditions of approval expired in 2018. In going forward with your project, it is clear you were and are required to comply with all conditions of approval and all applicable City Code provisions, which include the requirement that you replace the existing light fixture with a decorative fixture per City Engineering Standard 7915. The City is well within its rights under City code and case law to require the conditions it has required for your building permit, including the condition that you remove and replace the light fixture in front of the property with a decorative light fixture that conforms to current City standards. Sincerely, Mark Amberg From:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 8:21 AM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Cc:Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject:Re: APPEAL OF DECISIONS REQUIRING OWNER TO REMOVE, DELIVER, REPLACE, CITY LAMP POST, 679 Monterey St. ; Mr. Walter, Good morning. My apologies for not responding sooner on the legal issues you have raised but I will respond later today. Suffice it to say, however, that replacement of the light pole clearly has been a requirement of your development since the conditions of approval were issued and building plan approved in 2018 (as confirmed in the encroachment permit) and the City fully believes the fees and other conditions imposed on your development are legal. I will provide a more detailed explanation of the City’s position later today. 15 Thank you. Sincerely, Mark Amberg Temporary Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mamberg@slocity.org T 805.783.7837 slocity.org The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above.The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product.Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records.If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140.Thank you. From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:12:28 PM To:Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Cc:walterassistant@tcsn.net <walterassistant@tcsn.net>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; mwalter@tcsn.net <mwalter@tcsn.net> Subject:APPEAL OF DECISIONS REQUIRING OWNER TO REMOVE, DELIVER, REPLACE, CITY LAMP POST, 679 Monterey St. ; Hello Mr. Johnson and Mr. Amberg, As I indicated yesterday, to avoid damages from delay and increased costs on my end and the dollar size of potential City liability on the other, my contractor proceeded to remove the lamp post and has made arrangements to deliver it to the City Yard.That makes the declaration of surplus property to be untimely as I advised would happen if not resolved yesterday.My constructive efforts to minimize out of pocket expenses by offering the street light on Craig’s list ran out of time as an option. Realizing that resources are strained during this pandemic, it seems clear that we are at impasse regarding removal of the existing 30 foot tall lamp post, requirements to deliver the lamp post to the City Yard, requirements to remove the Downtown SLO banner and return it to Downtown SLO, requirements to coordinate with PG&E, requirements to employ contractors to perform public works functions, etc.The City has an interpretation of the conditions of approval which I believe is not consistent with the clear language of the conditions of approval, requirements of law, the actions are ultra vires for being contrary to the conditions, the interpretation and administrative actions are a taking, damaging of private property, substantive and procedural due process, equal protection (City of Willowbrook “class of one,” “spiteful intent”) under the United States and California Constitutions, 42 USC Section 1983. 16 I believe that we should conserve our taxed resources during this period.As a private property owner engaging in construction on property declared to be “critical infrastructure”, during the pandemic and emergency, including an economic collapse affecting private property owners throughout the City, I need to focus on getting this project completed without further delays and costs or risk more serious losses. Mr. Johnson, as City Administration, yesterday expressed his severe time pressures and priorities during the emergency, which I fully respect.The rest of the staff can attend to other functions while I can proceed with the formal administrative and judicial remedies. I am sure you both would agree that the pandemic, however, can never justify violating legal duties and constitutional rights of citizens.The protection of these fundamental rights can never be suspended during a pandemic or declaration of emergency. I will assume that Mr. Johnson’s statements to me yesterday supported the City’s requirements I am objecting to reflect the City’s custom and practice in such circumstances, and seemed to adopt the written positions taken by Public Works Department Staff as reflected in the various emails.I intent to appeal his decision to the City Council.That will move the process along without daily communications amongst various staff members, my contractors, consultants, and myself. I object to the requirement of having to pay any fee ($1,659.64) as a condition to vindicate property rights protected by 42 USC Section 1983, the takings, due process, and equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.I think that charging the fee is a violation of 42 USC Section 1983 independent of the other actions, and violates the unconstitutional condition judicial decisions. I demand the City expressly waive the filing fee as a condition of filing the appeal.If required, it will be submitted under protest and cited as prima facie evidence of the City’s discriminatory and “spiteful intent.” In the interim, I look forward to Mr. Amberg answering of my pending questions and requests regarding the City’s justification for its interpretations and actions. Let me know if Mr. Johnson does not affirm and adopt staff actions as reflected in the email chains as his decision in his official capacity as City Manager which is subject to appeal to the City Council. Thank you both for your service. Best wishes and stay safe! WILLIAM S. WALTER, ATF WILLIAM SILAS WALTER TRUST DTD 4-92 THE BELLO HOUSE 679 MONTEREY ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805 541 6601 805 541 6640 (FAX) 17 It is my understanding that Mr. Johnson, in h From:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 06, 2020 4:01 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Mr. Walter, I will address the other issues in your email separately but attached is a memorandum clarifying that the light fixture in question has been declared by the City to be surplus property without value that can be disposed of by you in compliance with any other applicable regulations. Sincerely, Mark Amberg Temporary Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mamberg@slocity.org T 805.783.7837 slocity.org 18 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product.Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records.If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140.Thank you. From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 6:34 PM To:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Hello Mr. Amberg, I am trying to avoid delays and damage.I have referenced the availability of the existing light pole on Craigs List our inability to remove the light pole. I have received interest of various parties who would remove the light pole for their use. Can the City cooperate to now declare it surplus property so that it may be removed by others who have a use and capability to remove it? That would eliminate the timing pressure and get it removed so construction can proceed. With all due respect, my reading of the conditions is different than yours.If we are to disagree on the meaning of the language and documents, it would be good to be more specific so we can define the issues precisely for judicial review by the US District Court in Los Angeles.As a property owner with protected constitutional rights, I think my request for something more than conclusions is reasonable, simply as a matter of due process before you impose an unconstitutional condition: 1.What specific condition and approval concerning the decorative light fixture are you referencing?What specific language? 2.What specific language requires MY removal of an existing light pole at my expense? 3.What specific language requires that I pay for a new decorative light fixture? 4.What language in the encroachment permit requires any of these actions on my part? 19 5.What language in the plans requires that I remove the existing pole at my expense and replace it at my expense? 6.What is the rational nexus and rough proportionality under well known case law to interpret the conditions in this manner and satisfying the heightened standard of scrutiny required by many, many cases? I realize that agency employees take a very different interpretation of conditions and the constitutional requirements from private property owners.It would be helpful if we create a clear record, identify the remedies, and then move forward wherever it goes.We also need to make sure that the decision is made by an authorized officer or body acting under color of law.Whose decision is it at the City and what decision has been made? Thank you for a courteous tone even though I completely disagree based on what I know at this point.I promise that in what follows I will always extend professional courtesies even though my family and I are being treated contrary to clear constitutional requirements. Sincerely, Bill Walter From:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Sent:Monday, May 04, 2020 4:18 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Mr. Walter, My apologies for not getting back to you earlier today. Please see my specific responses to your questions below. Briefly, however, the project needs to be completed with all required conditions of approval, including your replacement of the decorative light fixture in question. The plans for this project were approved in 2018 with replacement of the light fixture included as one condition of approval. This most recently was confirmed in the encroachment permit drawn by your contractor. It is best if you contact City staff to clarify any compliance requirements, to clarify any specifications or to coordinate removal of the existing light pole by your contractor. It is my understanding that PG&E is scheduled to de-energize the light pole as early as tomorrow but that can be confirmed with either Mr.LaFreniere or Mr. Marquart. Sincerely, 20 Mark Amberg From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 4:34 PM To:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Hello Mr. Amberg, To focus on the most time sensitive issues as indicated in the emails: 1.Who at the City has authorized the legal position taken in Mr. Marquart’s email? Mr. Marquart’s April 30 and May 1 emails do not state a legal position –he has attempted to provide you with information to assist you with compliance with the conditions of your permit. Of course, who has been included in any discussion or authorization of legal positions on behalf of the City falls under attorney-client privilege. 2.Please advise if Mr. Marquart’s email is a final City decision which is subject to administrative appeal to the appropriate quasi-judicial authority of the City. No. As noted, Mr. Marquart has just provided information to attempt to assist you with compliance with the conditions of your permit. 3.Please identify any formal appeals forms and procedures, ordinances. Generally, appeals procedures and timelines are outlined in City Code Chapter 17.126. 4.Can staff verify the specifications the City requires in the attachments sent in previous emails so that the proper decorative light post can be ordered (subject to pending objections) and installed.This is a public works task which is ill-suited to be undertaken by a private property owner repairing a significant historic resource of the Downtown Core thereby conferring substantial public and community benefits. I believe staff has already verified that the specifications for the light fixture provided in the attachments are the applicable specifications but staff can work with you to verity the specifications. 5.Who at the City has authorized the private removal and suggested destruction of the City owned, historic light fixture, installed by the City, owned by the City, maintained by the City, electrical billings paid by the City?Is it a gift of public funds? Can I sell it?Has it become mine as a condition of approval of the Bello House Foundation Repair permit? 21 If the City determines that the existing light fixture is without value, it can be declared surplus and disposed of. The Public Works Director in this instance has the authority to make that decision. I do need to avoid damages as much as possible so getting the City’s light fixture off the site is very time critical so we can install new downtown style sidewalks with required tiles, colored concrete, etc. Any practical assistance in that regard would be appreciated and benefit everyone. Best wishes and keep safe!I look forward to your input. Bill Walter The Bello House 679 Monterey St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 541 6601 805 541 6640 (fax) From:Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Sent:Friday, May 01, 2020 4:05 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Dear Mr. Walter, Our office will respond to the concerns you have raised by the first part of next week. Thank you, Mark Amberg Mark Amberg Temporary Assistant City Attorney 22 City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mamberg@slocity.org T 805.783.7837 slocity.org The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product.Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records.If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited.IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140.Thank you. From:Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 3:21 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Amberg, Mark <mamberg@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Hello Mr. Walter, I am copying in Mark Amberg from our City Attorney’s Office. We have received this latest e-mail and you can expect further correspondence to come through his office. Thank you,-Michael Michael Codron Director of Community Development 23 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 1:26 PM To:Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Importance:High Hello Ben, I think you are being put in a difficult position on issues which may exceed your authority, job description and legal knowledge.Plans do not control conditions of approval which must be subject to statutory and constitutional standards (“rough proportionality”, “rational nexus,” “illegal exaction,” “due process”, taking and damaging private property”, etc.)The conditions of approval do not support your assertions and legal opinions. Out of fairness and consideration to the unfair position you are being placed in regarding the shared responsibility for constitutional violations, due process, takings, civil rights violations under 42 USC Section 1983, etc., can you inform me: 1.Who at the City has authorized the legal position taken in your email? 2.Please advise if this is a final City decision which is subject to administrative appeal to the appropriate quasi-judicial authority of the City. 3.Please identify any formal appeals forms and procedures. The lamp post is owned by the City; the power bill is paid by the City; it is property of the City; it is the legal responsibility of the City. I am putting everyone copied on notice that we are ready to proceed; I estimate delay damages at $10,000 per month in addition to increased construction charges; it is imperative that the lamp post be removed 24 immediately.We cannot put the required Mission style tiles in the area of occupied by the City’s existing lamp post. Lastly, can you verify that the attachment contains the correct specifications for the decorative lamp post as requested in in my April 29, 2020 email. Thank you and I’m sorry that you’ve been put in this position of participating in serious constitutional violations of my property rights defined by clear legal precedents over which the United District Court in Los Angeles has jurisdiction per a recent US Supreme Court decision. Sincerely, Bill Walter From:Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Sent:Friday, May 01, 2020 12:17 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Good Afternoon Bill- The Projects approved plans require the removal and replacement of the existing light through the permit holder.The City will notify the permit holder when the light has been deenergized.Upon further review of these plans,it will be up to the contractors discretion of how to dispose of the light fixture, you may dispose of the light pole per your approved recycling plan.Notify the construction inspector when this work is planned to occur, and your construction inspector will collect the existing banner and return the banner to the downtown association. Thank You, Ben Marquart Engineering Inspector Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E bmarquart@slocity.org 25 From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:27 PM To:Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Hi Ben, I expect the City to remove its light post at its expense.It does not belong to me and never has.It serves an adjacent City Lot 10. Let me know when you can have it removed. Thank you, Bill Walter From:Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:18 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Hi Bill- Once PGE has de-energized the street light, (Matt or I will let you know when that happens) (PGE called me this morning and it should be in the next few working day) it is up to the contractor to remove and transport the existing light pole as well as the current farmers Market banner. (the banner will be returned to the downtown association for the duration of the project for safe keeping (I can organize that) and the pole will need to be transported to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Corporation Yard (25 Prado Rd) for off-loading. Please let me know your schedule so I can arrange for receiving at the Corporation yard and let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Ben Marquart Engineering Inspector 26 Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E bmarquart@slocity.org From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:48 AM To:LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Importance:High Hello Ben and Matt, Thank you Matt for taking the lead and providing information. I think the information demonstrates that putting in a decorative street light is a municipal public works function which should be handled directly by the public entity and its established contractors. I have called Scott Wilson and am awaiting a reply.I suspect that as an owner restoring a historic home who will never be a returning customer, I don’t have the clout to get a speedy call-back.I’ll never have the City’s purchasing power or established relationship.Why wouldn’t this information be included in the project conditions for small projects, saving your time and the owners’?This is a very inefficient process for a foundation repair and stair replacement of valued private historic resources whose only fault is being in a non-funded “Downtown Lighting District.” At the moment, we have a critical need to have the existing City Street light removed. When can that happen?I’ve been asking for a while. Thanks, Bill 27 From:LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:23 PM To:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net>; Marquart, Ben <bmarquar@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com> Subject:RE: CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; Hi Bill, Now that the permit is issued, your contractor’s primary contact should be Ben Marquart. 1.Ben Marquart (Public Works inspector, included on this email) should be able to coordinate with you and/or your contractor regarding the attached engineering standards and construction processes. I’ve included all streetlight standards to reference as needed. The complete City Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards are available online at https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=19925. Ben, I’ve included Bill’s submittal dated 4-29-20 (attached). 2.Ben Marquart can also assist you with this. The primary source/installer of these lights is Scott Wilson with Lee Wilson Electric. They can order and/or install a Downtown Pedestrian Streetlight. Thank you, Matt LaFreniere Permit Technician Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E MLaFreniere@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org From:William S. Walter <wwalter@tcsn.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:06 AM To:LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc:Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; 'Stephen Williams' <sawillaims@yahoo.com> Subject:CAN YOU VERIFY THESE AS CITY SPEC'S FOR DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE AND WHO HAS PURCHASE INFORMATION; 679 Monterey St. ; 28 Hello Matt, Who at Public Works Department: 1.Is able to verify that the attachments contain the City required specifications for the decorative light fixture? 2.Has any experience or knowledge about dealer/sources used by the City to purchase these decorative lights? Thank you. Bill Walter 679 Monterey St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 541 6601 805 541 6640 (fax)