The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/01/1992, C-6 - CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED WHERE MORE THAN 50% OF THE BLOCK IS ALREADY IMPROVED Q��hll�ll►�►I�II,IIIIIII�IIIII`I VJ 1" MEETING DATE: ►i�u�� ul c� o san �a�s oBispo Sept. 1, 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER1.4 FROM: Wayne Peterson, Interim Public Works Director PREPARED BY: Dennis E. Cox, Streets Manager." George Bradley, Streets Projects Coordinator SUBJECT: Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements required where more than 50% of the block is already improved CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, review and finalize the proposed list of sidewalk improvement projects and direct staff to proceed with the distribution of "Construction Notices" to property owners. DISCUSSION: Resolution No. 6031 (1986 Series) calls for the Staff to bring to the City Council's attention those properties where more than 50% of the frontage of a block has been improved, thereby meeting the 1911 Act criteria for completion of improvements within a block. A Staff survey of sidewalk improvements within the community resulted in the list shown on the attached map and frontage calculation sheets. The City Council should review the list and modify it as it wishes. This is a preliminary step in a three step process. The property owners have not been notified of this hearing. If the Council decides to proceed with any of these locations, staff will then post the properties following provisions of the 1911 Act. The second step begins with the property owners receiving a "Notice to Construct" . This notice will mention an opportunity to raise any objections or protests to the Council at a public hearing. This hearing will also provide a description of improvements needed and an individual estimated cost for each property. After this second Council meeting the improvements will be executed according to the Council's decisions made after having heard any objections or protests. If the property owner does not make the required improvements within the time allotted in the 1911 Act, the City has the work done. Upon completion of the work, there will be a public hearing to confirm the costs. This is the third step and at that meeting, the City Council will hear and pass on objections raised by the property owner. After the City Council has confirmed the costs, the property owner has an opportunity to pay in cash, may opt to make a three (3) year repayment in accordance with City Council approved funding arrangements, or if the property owner takes no action, the costs of improvements becomes a lien against the property collectable with taxes. i�11111�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiI IIUIU city Of san 6,41s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements Page 2 Fiscal Impact Property owners costs range from approximately $725. 00 to approximately $20, 000.00 depending on improvements required. If the City finances all of the work, total cost would be approximately $61,798 .40. Past experience is that approximately 70% of owners either have the work done or pay their costs in cash. If past history holds, the City could expect to finance approximately $18, 539.52 . The 1992-93 budget contains approximately $60, 000. 00 for this kind of work. Alternatives Option. No. 1 - Approve list as submitted Option No. 2 - Council may remove individual properties or entire blocks from list Attachments: Resolution No. 6031 (1986 Series) Street Map (Exhibit A) Frontage Calculations (Exhibit B) Proposed Improvements (Exhibit C) I i I agd-sidewp/th#2 J RESOLUTION NO. 6031 (1985 Series) A RESOLUTION OF Th=r COUNCIL OF T:: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING GENMAL CRITERIA AND SITE SELECTION PRIORITIES FOR TrM SIDEW= IV2ROV:MEN'T PROGRAM h- 'REFS, the City desires that its citizens have available safe, convenient and suitably located sideezlls; and many area of the City do not have such sidesalks; an:3 KHMYF S, the City desires such areas to be ir`rcved considering meds, haza.r s and the wishes of the neighborhoods, NOW, T'r?��RE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City CCL"icil hereby adopts the following: G-- -SALrP�AM CRI1"ERA a. Sidewalk program should integrate repair and construction. b. Sidewalk prcgr-z-n should emphasize safety, particularly safety of children. To this effect, City staff should consult with school authorities and PTAs in preparing specific donstruction priorities. c. City-initiated sidewalks should be installed only dere there is a demonstrated pedestrian need. d. City should mond favorably Mien it is petitioned for sidewalk irprovements by more than 50% of the owmrs of a block (those portions already iamroved are considered a favorable vote) . e. Sidewalk program should consider topography and significant trees. f. Council may consider scenic nature of area, desires of the neighborhood, traffic flow and other Judgement items in its determinations. R 6031 Resolution No. 6031 (1986 Series) g. Staff will bring to Council attention those properties where more than 5C% of the frontage of a block has been i=-roved, thereby neeting 1911 Act criteria for co=letion of ir..nroveDents within a block. SIia S==T�.GTION ?P.IO.RITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW S=am J.CS 1. In areas with safety hazaa-ds or he±vv medestrian use, esxcially children. 2. Along arterial and collector streets near schools, parks, churches, and neichborhood cou;zercial centers. 3. Along local streets near schools, parks, churches, and neighborhood ccam-ercial 'centers. 4. In other residential and commercial area as necessary. On motion of Councilman Griffin , sewed �, Councilman Settle and on the following roll call vote: Ayf,,,,�c: Councilmembers Griffin, Settle, Dovey and Mayor Dunin NOES: None pgggT: Councilwoman Rappa the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of July 1986. . MAYOR RON OUNIN A� cir CI.giK PA.MErfVOGES ,;P1'hU'1GU: 12 Cite ndministrat,i`/e Officer City Att'drney � M ' - Public works Director • EXXISIT .•; � s , < riVCA POLY ` ! J � sf �_�� 4• '�� _ � i$... � mac'` ' u _.. �. • 96.1 . L .ate J((�._.�.�t� � • 1 dna' r r ■ �OGi.rY. NS T " W —� �..� 1- �. 8.• i r• V 1 /a •r . a . PROPOSED SIDEWALK LOCATIONS: ' •' 1. HIGHLAND 2. RAMONA - 3. PEPPER rw • :� ' 4. PISMO 5. BRANCH ' f 6. HARRIS = " •' +' 7. LAWRENCE :` s• � � ILL �— ap 1 � s ft .0e i Lam' • � ..-or. , r• � /wl./`. per= � j!r C 00, �+ AL EXHIBIT B MORE THAN 50% IMPROVED FRONTAGE CALCULATIONS 1. Highland Avenue - south side (between Oakridge & Patricia) Total front footage - 1130.93 feet Improved - 835.23 feet = 74% Unimproved - 295.70 feet = 26% 2. Ramona Drive - north side (between S. Tassajara & La Entrada) Total front footage - 1425.52 feet Improved - 929. 02 feet = 65% Unimproved - 496.50 feet = 35% 3A. Pepper Street - west side (between Marsh & Higuera) Total front footage - 240. 00 feet Improved - 126. 00 feet = 52. 5% Unimproved - 114 . 00 feet = 47.5% 3B. Pepper Street - west side (between Higuera & Monterey) Total front footage - 260.77 .feet ,. Improved - 146.27 feet = 56% Unimproved - 114 .50 feet = 44% 4. Pismo Street - north side (between Johnson & cul-de-sac end) Total front footage - 501. 60 feet Improved - 286. 6 feet = 57% Unimproved - 215. 0 feet = 43% 5. Branch Street - north side (between Beebee & -Cypress) Total front footage - 539. 37 feet Improved - 289. 37 feet = 54% Unimproved - 250. 0 feet = 46% 6. Harris Street - west side (between' Branch & Sandercock) Total front footage - 300.0 feet Improved - 200. 0 feet = 67% Unimproved - 100. 0 feet = 33% 7. Lawrence Drive - south side (between Broad & Chandler intersect) - Total front footage - 600. 0 feet Improved - 550. 0 feet = 92% Unimproved - 50. 0 feet = 08% 50�wp/ma x EXHIBIT C LIST OF PROPERTIES LACKING STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS WHERE MORE THAN 50% OF THE BLOCK IS ALREADY IMPROVED NOTE: C = curb & gutter S = sidewalk R = driveway ramp W = wall IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION PARCEL NO. OWNER REQUIRED 451 Jaycee 52-311-16 & San Luis Coastal S. Railing (Highland side) 52-311-17 Unified School Dist. bus loading zone 316 Ramona 52-141-15 A. & G. Kubinski S remove tree and grind stump 298 Ramona 52-141-19 J.K. Walker SIR remove railroad ties, slope back 2:1 290 Ramona 52-141-06 L.L. & D. Nelson S,R remove shrubs & tree; grind stump 280-282 Ramona 52-141-14 L.O. & L. Sherwin SIR 274 Ramona 52-141-31 G.M. & P.C. Eastham S 252 Ramona 52-141-59 M.E. Richter S 240 Ramona 52-141-33 A.C. & M.L. Censullo SIR 232 Ramona 52-141-32 S. Steiner S 1367 Higuera 02-334-09 D. Gang, Tre. S,R,C (Pepper St. side) 1368 Higuera 02-333-13 M. L. Leitner S (Pepper St. side) — 1332-36 Pismo 02-343-19 S.W. & L.M. Sanson S,C,R 1362 Pismo 02-343-16 A.G. & K.L. Gomez, etal. S,C,R vacant lot S.B.E. So. Pacific Transporation SIC n. side Pismo St. Par. No. 4 (between Johnson 872-40-28 & east end of street) IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION PARCEL NO. OWNER REQUIRED t145 Cypress 03-723-26 B. & M. Jones S,C,R (Branch St. side) 4 ft. detached 268 Branch 03-723-24 J.E. Mann, etal. S,C,R 4 ft. detached 236 Branch 03-723-20 P. Derr S,C,R 4 ft. detached 220 Branch 03-723-19 R.L. Day, etal. S,C,R 4 ft. detached 2121 Harris 03-734-06 D.W. King S,C,R 2129 Harris 03-734-16 G.G. & J. Clinard S,C,R 601 Lawrence 04-942-12 L. Bechtold, etas. C imprvmncwp/w#z