HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.11.10 Walter ConstructionCity of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401‐3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
November 10, 2020
Re: Response to your letter of October 19, 2020 regarding your outstanding City conditions to
complete improvements at 679 Monterey Street
Mr. Walter,
Since the City issued your project an encroachment permit to complete improvements at 679
Monterey Street on April 27, 2020, you have submitted or requested of the City that I am aware of:
12 public records requests, one appeal to the City Council regarding permit fees, one complaint about
City staff alleging civil rights violations, and 41 emails. This letter responds to your most recent
correspondence of October 19, 2020.
On June 4, 2020, the City provided you written documentation, as requested, of project deficiencies
and unsatisfied conditions and provided guidance on the next steps required to satisfy your project
conditions. On August 31, 2020, the City provided you with the letter again as your previously
answered questions were being asked again. In an effort to provide clarity, on August 31, 2020, the
City reached out to you to schedule a socially distanced on‐site meeting so that all parties could meet
in the field and resolution of outstanding conditions could be confirmed in the field. On October 6,
2020 a site meeting was completed where the City pointed out the items of work needed to be
completed (all previously described in the City’s June 4, 2020 letter) and discussed how they may be
resolved. That site meeting was followed by your latest letter dated October 19, 2020.
It is City staff’s opinion your letter dated October 19, 2020, mischaracterized our onsite meeting.
City staff have provided you responsive, clear direction as to the steps that need to be taken to bring
your project into compliance with the terms and conditions of approval, which include, as a bottom
line, constructing and installing all improvements to current City Engineering Standards. The City has
provided high quality professional services throughout this project to try to assist with identifying
and understanding the conditions that must be met and will continue to do so into the future. It is
in the community's best interest for your project to be complete and compliant with current public
improvement standards for the protection and benefit of the community.
Attached to this letter is the City's letter dated June 4, 2020 that has previously been provided. In
responding to your most recent correspondence I will reference the sections from that letter for
conditions where written guidance has previously been provided.
Street Light
June 4, 2020 Letter section "May 27 email: Item 2" ‐ This item relates to the pedestrian light standard
(including the specifications for the light to be purchased) that is required to be installed with your
project. At t he time of our o nsite meeting, you did n ot p rovid e information when asked as to whether
the light had been purchased and when it was going to be delivered and installed. The City's letter
dated June 4, 2020 is clear that the City is not required to approve a purchase between two private
entities. The City accepts no responsibility in project delay due to this private party transaction. If
you are unable to complete the purchase with your current vendor, I would recommend that you
find a different vendor or have your contractor purchase the light. The standards and specifications
for the light have been provided and are in City Engineering Standard 7915 for downtown pedestrian
lighting (copy attached to the City’s June 4, 2020, letter).
Parking Spaces
June 4, 2020 Letter section "May 26 email: Item 2" ‐ This item relates to the on‐street parking spaces
installed at 679 Monterey. The approved project plans show a distance of approximately 37 feet
from driveway apron to driveway apron or large enough for two 18‐foot long on‐street parking
spaces. As this project was constructed, however, the distance between driveway aprons is 30 feet,
which does not p rovide sufficient space for two 18‐foot on‐stre et parking spaces. This was identified
to the contractor in May 2020 before two parking meter posts were installed and this remains an
outstanding issue.
It would have been the City's preference that you comply with your project's conditions of approval
and install two parking spaces with sufficient distance between the driveway aprons to allow for the
spaces. However, since the available distance is now 30 feet and not 37 feet as shown on the
approved plans, this will require the elimination of one parking space, including the removal of both
installed parking meter posts and the re‐installation of one post in the appropriate location for one
parking space. The project photos that you provided do not show the locations of the underground
conduits as you indicated. The City is willing to modify this condition and not require you to
compensate the City for the loss of an on‐street parking spot.
Sidewalk
June 4, 2020 Letter section "May 26 email: Item 4" ‐ This item relates to the recently installed
sidewalk as it abuts to the existing sidewalk on Monterey Street in front of the City owned parking
lot 15. Your recently installed sidewalk is over 1‐inch higher than the existing sidewalk which creates
a trip and fall hazard and potential liability for you as the party that created the unsafe condition.
Your contractor has temporarily abated this issue by applying a cementitious material on top of the
existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter in front of the City owned parking lot. This material is already
cracking, will likely fail soon and must be replaced with a permanent solution that complies with the
City’s Engineering Standards. This could be accomplished by removing portions of the new sidewalk,
portions of the existing sidewalk or some combination of the two. The City has requested that you
develop a plan to address and submit to the City for concurrence. This was requested on June 4,
2020, again at our site meeting on October 6, 2020, and again via this letter since, to date, the City
has not yet received a plan from you to address this issue. The installed sidewalk for your project
must m atch t he s urface e levation of t he existing sidewalk i n or der to meet City Engineering Standards
and to protect public safety by not creating a trip and fall hazard. As requested, please provide a
plan to the City of how you want to correct the hazard created by the incorrectly installed sidewalk.
Water Meter
June 4, 2020 Letter section "May 26 email: Item 3" ‐ This item relates to t he water meter installation.
The City's letter identified the meter being set in the tile band of the sidewalk. While the City
Standards require that new utility boxes are installed outside of the tile bank to increase ease of
maintenance and reduce the likelihood of broken tiles, the level of time, expense and effort that
your contractor would need to expend to move and relocate the utility boxes to bring their location
fully into compliance with City Standards is much greater than the community benefits that would
result from the work. For this reason, the City has determined that no further action is required on
your part for this item and the City will not require re‐location of the utility boxes. This, however,
does not waive this requirement for the installation of utility boxes or other improvements in the
future.
Authority to require compliance
The City Council has approved design and installation standards for new infrastructure. The
particular design and installation standards applicable to your project were approved by Council and
went into effect in May 2018, before you received your approval letter with conditions of approval
and before work on your project began. Your project has varying degrees of compliance with these
standards including your conditions. As discussed during our site meeting on October 6, 2020, the
three largest concerns for the City are the parking spaces, the street light, and the trip and fall
condition your project created. The City has two methods for obtaining compliance for this work.
The first method is to withhold blue card sign off until all items of work have been completed. The
second method is included in the City's Municipal Code Section 12.16.020, which incorporates
applicable provisions of the State of California Streets and Highways Code and which could include
remediation work by the City with a resulting charge back to you of the costs of remediation.
Steps Required To Complete Your Project
Included a s an a ttachment t o this l etter is y our encroachment permit. T his permit e xpired o n October
30, 2020. You are directed to:
1. Within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter you shall extend the duration of
this encroachment permit for the duration necessary to complete this work.
2. Within 28 calendar days from the date of this letter you shall submit a plan that shows
how you intend to correct the trip and fall condition on the sidewalk your project
created.
3. Within 28 calendar days from the date of this letter you shall submit a plan that shows
the removal of the two parking meter poles placed by your project and the re‐
installation of one parking meter post in a correct location for one parking space that
complies with City Standards. Upon completion of this work no further action is
required on your part for on street parking.
4. Within 28 calendar days from the date of this letter you shall submit information from
your light supplier indicating the date of purchase of the light and the anticipated
delivery date.
5. Within 14 calendar days of the City's a pproval o f a plan to correct the sidewalk trip and
fall condition, you shall commence construction of that work and diligently pursue until
complete.
6. Within 14 calendar days of the delivery date of the pedestrian light, you shall install
the light and request final inspection of the installation.
If you fail to adhere to any of the stated timeframes above, the City shall implement authority as
discussed in the City's Municipal Code Section 12.16.020, complete the work, and schedule a Public
Hearing with the City Council to secure recovery of the costs incurred by the City for this work.
Sincerely,
Matt Horn
Public Works Director
Attachment:
1. June 4, 2020 Letter to Walter
2. Encroachment Permit for 679 Monterey Street
June 4, 2020
Mr. Walter and Mr. Williams
Thank you for the emails on May 26th, 2020, May 27, 2020, and the notification of several items
of concern for encroachment Permit #0708-2020 at 679 Monterey St. Since your emails touch on
several areas, each will be addressed individually:
May 26 email:
1.Inconsistent feedback from two different inspectors for the City including some
items that were at first approved as constructed and then questioned. The City
Inspector for this project has been Ben Marquart from the beginning and no other
inspectors have been assigned. Early in the project it was brought to my attention
that another City inspector, Mark Williams, brother of Stephen Williams, was seen
on site and Stephen Williams was contacted immediately to clarify the inspector
situation and to remind him that any work done without the review and approval
from Ben Marquart was subject to rejection and removal at his expense.
2.Parking meter location and whether they are per City Standard. The two parking
meters installed are non-compliant with City Standards. Engineering Standard 7410
(attachment 1) requires the minimum length for street parking as 18’– 22’ for end
cap spaces with a 10’ minimum set back from the top of the wing at any driveway.
Field measurements show that the parking meter posts do not provide the City
Standard setbacks and any parking striping installed will not meet standards,
including the minimum space lengths. All this information was conveyed to Mr.
Stephen Williams on May 20, 2020, prior to pouring concrete however he elected
to procced with his scheduled work (please see attachment 5 - copy of
encroachment permit field notes, entry for 5/20/20). Confusion to this item was
added by the plans that failed to identify nonstandard work and the fact that there
is not enough distance between the two driveways to fit two parking spaces with
meters per City Standards. The distance between the two driveways is
approximately 30 feet which does not allow for two spaces that meet City standards.
Attachment 1
3.Water meter issues and the final location. The new water meter service was initially
done per City Standard by D-Kal Engineering. However, during the 2nd week of
March 2020 the curb stop on the service failed requiring emergency work by the
City’s Water Distribution Department. From field observations and measurements
Staff determined that the service was no longer compliant with City Standards and
the information was conveyed to Mr. Stephen Williams. The result is now a water
meter box in the tile band that is not compliant with City Specification Section 73-
4.03 (attachment 4) which requires all sign posts, parking meter posts, utility vaults,
water meter vaults and sewer cleanouts to be placed behind the tile band.
Attachment 1
4. Issues with the limits of removal to accommodate new improvements. City
Specification Section 73-1.03A (attachment 4) requires that installed and finish
concrete must be per the lines and grades shown on the plans and that finished
concrete may not deviate more than ¼” in 10 feet from the design grade. Also, per
section 73-1.03A all adjacent improvements must be repaired or replaced to a
condition equal to that before the work began. Per the approved project plans the
new improvements were to match in elevation the existing sidewalk and curb &
gutter. However, the new concrete on one of the approaches is higher by inches
from the existing improvements, creating tripping hazards, maintenance issues and
does not meet American with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.
5. Discovery of nonstandard work adjacent to the new improvements. The City
Standards are a living document. Updates, revisions, and modifications are done to
the City’s Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards to address issues that
Staff encounter or notice over the years. It is not uncommon to encounter work that
met City Standard years ago but is noncompliant with today’s standards. Because
an older project may not meet current standards is not a justification for a newer
project to be out of compliance with current standards.
May 27 email:
1. Informed the supplier that the submitted light fixture is approved for purchase.
City Engineering Standard Specification Section 5-1.23 (attachment 3) require the
submittal of equipment information that is not specified by standards. In this
case, the equipment being ordered is specified by Engineering Standard 7915
(attachment 2). Submittal, review, and approval of this equipment is not required
by the City prior to purchase since it is provided in detail in Engineering Standard
7915. Any delays identified in your emails are not the responsibility of the City.
The submittal is approved but before the light fixture is order the supplier needs to
confirm that the light fixture will work with the bolt pattern installed by Stephen
Attachment 1
Williams. The bolt pattern in your submittal is a hard 12" meanwhile Engineering
Standard 7915 requires 12" to 15".
The City will also not contact the supplier because there is no business
relationship between the light supplier and the City. The City is not purchasing
the fixture and any direction should be coming from the individual that is paying
for the light. In addition, an email has been sent with approval of the light fixture
with one comment. If the light supplier has any questions the contact information
for me is provided at the end of this letter.
2. Have the bolt been inspected and has the contractor been informed. The answer is
yes, the bolts have been inspected and the Contractor was informed of potential
issues, see attachment 5 - copy encroachment permit field notes which are
attached.
3. Records that reflect inspection, including dates. Please see attachment 5 - copy of
encroachment permit field notes which are attached.
4. Has Stephen Williams been communicated, and if not, why not? The answer is
yes, Stephen Williams was communicated verbally of the issues throughout the
project. Please see attachment 5 - copy of encroachment permit field notes which
are attached.
Attachment 1
Mr. Walter and Mr. Williams, these are important issues and I am thankful that you took the time
to notify me. However, for the City of San Luis Obispo to accept the work and/or finalize the
work identified under Encroachment permit 0780-2020, a work plan must be submitted that
identifies corrective actions for the preceding issues. The plan should follow the City’s Standard
Specifications and Engineering Standards, May 2018. If you have any further questions or
comments regarding this matter, please contact the Manny Guzman, Construction Engineering
Manager at 805-781-7423 or via email at mguzman@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
Manny Guzman
Construction Engineering Manager
Attachments
1. Engineering Standard 7410
2. Engineering Standard 7915
3. City Specification Section 5
4. City Specification Section 73
5. Encroachment Permit Field Notes
Attachment 1
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 1
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 2
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 3
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 4
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 5
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 6
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 7
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 8
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 9
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 10
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 11
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PG 1
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PG 2
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PG 3
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 4 PG 4
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PG 5
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PG 6
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 PG 7
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PG 1
Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 5 PG 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2