HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/1997, 2 - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY STEPHAN LAMB AND MARRY ELLEN GIBSON TO ALLOW THE POSTPONEMENT OF FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PENNY LANE FRONTAGE AT 1251 BUCHON ST. council
j agenda izEpoizt
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 R I S P 0
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey,Director of Public
Prepared By: Jerry Kenny,Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider an appeal by SPhan Lamb and Marry Ellen Gibson to
allow the postponement of frontage improvements on the Penny Lane frontage at
1251 Buchon St.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and requiring the property owners to install standard frontage
improvements along the Penny Lane frontage.
DISCUSSION
The property owners recently obtained a building permit to construct a major addition to the
existing residence at 1251 Buchon St., which requires the completion of frontage improvements
(i.e. installation of new curb and gutter and sidewalk) along the Penny Lane frontage of their
property. City regulations require these improvements..."when an existing structure is altered or
expanded in excess of 50% of the value of the existing structure, as determined by the Building
Official". (Attachment 5 - M.C. excerpts, Sections 12.16.050& 17.60.060) The valuation of the
remodel is$75,252 per the building permit and is thus greater than 501/o of the value of the existing
structure.
Public Works staff first referenced the subject code requirement in conjunction with a setback
variance request in May of 1996, since the existing building does not meet current zoning setback
requirements. The project was subsequently revised to make the.addition conform to the current
setback requirement and an administrative use permit was applied for and granted. The condition
for frontage improvements was reiterated during the building permit review process. The project is
currently under construction.
The project architect(Louisa Anne Kluver),on behalf of the owners,has appealed the condition for
frontage improvements and requested consideration of granting of a"temporary"postponement of
the condition to a future date, subject to execution of a recorded covenant that runs with the land
(Attachment 4). Deferral, or a temporary waiver of all or a portion of these requirements is
authorized under the above-referenced code section,subject to a joint finding by the Public Works
and Community Development Directors that "...they will cause extreme hardship or serve no
useful purpose". The directors did not make that finding, which was noted in a letter dated
December 23, 1996 to the owners from Ron Whisenand (Attachment 6).
There is considerable overgrown shrubbery that encroaches into the Penny Lane right-of-way that
will need to be cut back to accommodate the sidewalk The construction of the curb and gutter
(along with a temporary asphalt berm adjacent to this property)will control street drainage runoff
that now drains into this and the adjacent property. The sidewalk accommodates safe and
convenient pedestrian travel. The attachments to the letter from the architect include seven letters
from supporters of the postponement. Two of the letters are from disabled persons that do not live
in the neighborhood. They are generally in agreement with installation of sidewalks and curb
ramps, but essentially have concerns with only partial improvements on this street and resulting
"curb barriers". Staff feels that this is no different from any other area of the City in this regard.
Council Agenda Report- 1251 Buchon Appeal
Page 2
New developments have curbs with comer curb ramps per the typical City and national standards.
The existing plans for the project provided that the sidewalk would be installed and thus the
building permit was issued. Municipal Code Section 17.76.060 (Attachment 5) provides that the
appeal must be filed "prior to execution of the agreement to make the dedication and/or
improvements and set forth the grounds of undue hardship", etc. The building permit and plans
form such an agreement to perform,but as in the recent case of TK Development(appeal of traffic
island requirement)there have been numerous"post agreement" appeals heard by the City Council
and thus staff has prepared this report in response to the latest appeal.
The appeal is based on the Code section stating that the "...sidewalk would serve no useful
purpose..." because the sidewalk,if constructed,would lead simply to the end of the property and
not connect to any other sidewalk and also the fact that Penny Lane is a short street with low
numbers of pedestrians. Staff would counter that besides Council direction to pursue sidewalks the
comer property is the proper place to start with a sidewalk installation since it connects existing
sidewalk on Buchon and provides a place to connect with in the future (as opposed to a lone piece
of sidewalk in the middle of a block). Additionally,the connection of Penny Lane to Breck Street
via a pedestrian bridge has been proposed in the past and again as recently as last month at a public
meeting to take citizen ideas on the Railroad Area Master Plan. Thus in the future pedestrian
activity could increase substantially over existing usage.
In the past, many covenants deferring these conditions have been approved in old subdivisions,
typically,where the adjacent properties do not have sidewalks. However,in recent times,staff has
taken direction from Council goals that the City be made more pedestrian friendly and in fact an
emphasis be placed on constructing new sidewalks in areas where none now exist. As a result no
covenants have been granted by the Community Development Director and the Public Works
Director within the last two years. Thus,when property owners do not agree with the requirement,
their proper recourse is to appeal the condition to the City Council. Recently, the City Council
heard a similar appeal on Henderson Street.
Another difficulty in granting such covenants is that when indeed it is time for the City to"call"the
covenant the property owner may not be financially able or even willing at that time to comply.
Usually,a major project such as this one is financed and it is more reasonable to include these costs
in the loan.
As previously mentioned,the City Council has put new emphasis on sidewalk installation by: a)
increasing the budget for sidewalk repairs by staff;b)creating a budget for contract sidewalk repair;
c) creating a budget for 1911 Act new sidewalk installations;d) directing that staff prepare a staff
report for Council consideration to install new sidewalks on Chorro Street between Murray and
Rougeot streets;and e)previous Council requests for cost estimates to construct new sidewalks on
Santa Barbara Street and Mill Street.
ADA vs. Sidewalks
Finally, the appellants have somewhat confused the two aspects of ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) compliance and the need for sidewalks. The requirement for sidewalks is
independent of ADA. The municipal code requires sidewalks to be constructed as noted above.
Any sidewalk built must meet ADA standards and all adopted City standard sidewalks do meet
current ADA standards. Where ADA compliance issues arise is at the corer existing sidewalk
(comer of Buchon and Penny Lane).
Ot-Z
Council Agenda Report- 1251 Buchon Appeal
Page 3
Current Title 24 regulations state that when construction occurs in an area of disabled access ramps
"that access" must be brought to current standards. Thus even though the disabled access ramp at
the existing corner was at one time constructed to standards at that time,the law requires that the
ramp be brought to current standards at this time. When the City does a construction project
(Grand Avenue overlay,Marsh Street reconstruction,etc.)the City must improve the access ramps
to current standards. When a property owner does construction(this project)the property owner
must improve the ramps"as reasonably as possible". In this case,grinding of the ramp to eliminate
an excessive lip height at the street would be seen as a reasonable attempt to meet current
requirements.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Director and City Attorney concur with the recommended action.
FISCAL RYIPACT: None
ALTERNATIVES
Option 1: Approve the execution and recording of a covenant to postpone only sidewalk
improvements,to a future date when called due by the City Engineer,based on need and/or when
adjacent property owners install their frontage improvements,but that the curb, gutter, driveway
ramp and ADA ramp modifications must be installed.
Option 2: Approve the execution and recording of a covenant to postpone the curb,gutter and
sidewalk installation.as noted in Option 1. However, a driveway ramp must be installed. Direct
City staff to modify the disabled access ramp.
Option 3: Approve the execution of recorded covenant to postpone the curb, gutter,sidewalk
and driveway ramp.
Attachments
I) Resolution denying appeal
2) Resolution upholding appeal(w/alternatives)
3) Map
4) Letter from Louisa Anne Kluver(8-18-97)
5) Municipal Code Sections 12.16.050& 17.60.060
6) Letter from R. Whisenandto Stephan R.Lamb(1-13-97)
F:\PWAAgenda\Appealof Penny Ln frontage impts at 1251 Buchon
�-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL TO
POSTPONE THE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL FRONTAGE
I14PROVEMENTS ALONG THE PENNY LANE FRONTAGE
OF 1251 BUCHON STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 16, 1997 and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that postponing the condition to install
standard frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway ramp) per City
regulations along the Penny Lane frontage of 1251 Buchon Street is not justified under the
appeal procedures of Municipal Code Sections 12.16.050 & 17.60.060 and would result in
added administration time and monitoring by staff if a covenant were authorized which would
call the improvements due upon future written notice by the City Engineer.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's
request to postpone installation of frontage improvements along the Penny Lane frontage
pursuant to execution and recordation of a covenant to guarantee the said installation of same
upon future notice by the City Engineer, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which requires the installation of frontage improvements per City
standards is necessary in order to accommodate orderly development, pedestrian
travel and street drainage runoff in the vicinity.
SECTION 3. Denial. The request for postponement of the requirement to install
frontage improvements is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No,
the foregoing.resolution was passed and adopted diis _day of 1997.
Mayor Allen%. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVEV AS TO TORM:
-r.�iH.
City Atto ey ff ie en —
acvrevistrecWhwJwaahqybn
�'s
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A REQUEST TO POSTPONE FRONTAGE 51PROVEMENTS ALONG
THE PENNY LANE FRONTAGE OF 1251 BUCHON STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 16, 1997 and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that postponing the condition to install
standard frontage improvements would not result in significant public inconvenience for
pedestrian safety or drainage hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's
request to postpone installation of standard frontage improvements along the Penny Lane
frontage of 1251 Buchon Street and staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which requires the installation of standard (sidewalk)(frontage)
improvements along the Penny Lane frontage of 1251 Buchon Street is not needed at
this time to accommodate orderly development, pedestrian travel and street drainage
runoff and would otherwise cause an undue hardship on the owners which does not
apply to other property owners pursuant to City Municipal Code Sections 12.16.050 &
17.76.060.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request to postpone the requirement to install standard
(sidewalk)(frontage) improvements along the Penny Lane frontage of 1251 Buchon Street, in
conjunction with a current building permit, is hereby postponed to a future date when required
by the City Engineer based on need and/or at the time of the installation of the frontage
improvements at the adjacent southerly property, subject to execution and recordation of a
covenant by the property owners, which shall run with the land.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
pG'to
i
Resolution No. _
the foregoing resolution was passed andadopted this —day of_______ , 1997.
Mayor A11en:Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie G.awf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
v"Ch
deviev/sm.fteLon/pennylin
e�r
51 TE
17 p goo '�� 12.61 jean
11 0 21
18 J
7
19 �o
$ �y� KRISTY KENDRA
. o
0 JENNIFER 9Gc
r G
o m
oLU
Q v G
m RACHEL CT.
I` TtL� peAc � � F:ANT�NG J flrSb. rR,cc$-�� /
dot irj � �: r /•- I
l\ I
PlLK,E I i
tiAr.0W
fz
°o a I 02
Z egs ''
1$Ccc n FG
D
'. � — — — — — —— — — — o Io
_
i I 1
Low.5600E rGL6 3:1Z,•�.` � � t
m m mIt
i g � � . . em
rz
1-77
ILO
t
-_-_ = SFtuCf AL1�CK
Imo_
Sromw-7JMS>•,CCA I•I IF +s•
0 ZI
I (::
fo, P
rm
�,`O F'ty1 s at G 2 T ti O n n1�1�1��11e G1
�`iy]oo* m 2 H A y W R1 A a Sj L�2xS2 r
M
01 9
OLS 1•• � /
Louisa
Anne
Kluver
N L
00
ao m
August 18, 1997
Micheal McClusky
Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
995 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Regarding: Stephan Lamb and Mary Ellen Gibson
1251 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. McClusky,
Thanks so much for taking the time to speak with me and Ms. Gibson. I have gained
a deeper understanding of decision processes in your office, and I do empathize.
Mr. Lamb and Ms. Gibson would like to continue to engage my services to work the
City in pursuing all avenues available regarding the subject of granting a covenant
for curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along Penny Lane in lieu of the
building permit requirement.
I would not have accepted this job, if I did not feel my client' request was
reasonable. I feel the covenant process exists for situations like this. We feel that
no public interest would be served by installing frontage improvements along Penny Lane
AT THIS TIME .
The following points are outlined to substantiate the justification of the granting of a
covenant:
You have stated that the City has granted covenants when there were no other
sidewalks in the neighborhoods, but with the adoption of ADA, you feel the street
improvements should be installed. We have letters from two individuals who are
actively involved with the disabled community and who are themselves living in
wheelchairs.They feel that the improvements do not serve the public good. They
have brought up some excellent points, including the fact that access to the Lamb
household would actually be hindered by installation of frontage improvements.
The properties along Penny Lane will eventually be improved, and that may be the
appropriate time for installation of the improvements. If this scenario is in the far future,
it may be more appropriate for Penny Lane to stay.as it is, rather than to improve one
piece of property.This sort of haphazard improvement, gives the impression of a half-
way finished construction project .
Penny Lane dead ends at the railroad tracks. It mainly serves the inhabitants of Penny
Lane, who have all agreed that street improvements are not needed at this time.The
street improvements may actually encourage increased traffic for the sole purpose of
making a unsafe crossing of the railroad tracks.This will only exacerbate an already
dangerous situation. The most appropriate time for frontage improvements along
Penny Lane is with the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks.
Frontage improvements installed only in front off the Gibson/Lamb Property on
Penny Lane would be no access gain and possibly the unintentional creation of an
access hazard by the abrupt ending of the sidewalk into the fence bordering the
adjacent property.
Just recently the City council granted a covenant at 645 Henderson, which is similar
to Penny Lane situation. As this occurred within the last several months, we know that
the City council is amenable to granting covenants. I feel that our chances of the City
Council granting the covenant are very good.To have you grant a covenant at this
time would save your time and that of your staff in preparing the packet and
attending the hearing.
If you decide that frontage improvements are still required along Penny Lane, we wish to
appeal the decision to the City Council.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you require
additional information. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
(�0u HOW
Louisa Kluver
979 Osos Street Suite A-2 San Luis Obispo California 93401
1290-3rd St.#4
Los Osos, CA 93402
August 13, 1997
RE: Penny Lane sidewalk construction and the ADA
To Whom It May Concern:
As a wheelchair user for nearly 15 years, my appreciation of and respect for the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act(ADA) is enormous. My precious independence would be drastically limited if this law had
not required America to make its buildings, transportation services, government,etc. accessible to me
and others like me.
But while we often associate the ADA with architectural rules and guidelines, it is actually a landmark
civil rights action that gives equal rights to people with all types of disabilities. It allows us to participate
as active and equal members of this society.
With that in mind, I am writing this letter in support of Mary Ellen Gibson and Stephan Lamb of 1251
Buchon, San Luis Obispo.Their residence, which is currently being remodeled, is at the comer of
Buchon and Penny Lane. Gibson and Lamb have been told by the City that ADA regulations requires
them to construct a sidewalk along the Penny Lane side of their property. The homeowners would like
that area to remain unchanged and continue to use it for parking.
Although I generally support compliance of ADA regulations, in this particular situation I see no advan-
tage in doing so. In fact,building a sidewalk on Penny Lane would make it much more difficult for me,
or any other wheelchair user,to enter the Gibson/Lamb property. The area of the proposed sidewalk and
curb is where I park, which allows me to wheel a mere five feet directly into their yard. If a sidewalk
and curb were built, I would be forced to park on the street and wheel to the busy Buchon corner to
access the sidewalk via a curb cut.This appears to be a case of regulation for regulation sake, not for the
good of the people for whom the ADA was written.
Requiring accessibility for all people is the right thing to do,but there are more appropriate places to
fight the battles and win the wars.This tiny street—more rural than urban and actually quite secluded—
is simply not a factor in the bigger issue of accessibility.
Thank you for seeing this as an individual case and understanding the importance of keeping the Penny
Lane side of the Gibson/Lamb property flat with no sidewalk. It may be a small matter when compared
to other issues the City of SLO faces, but it is important to Mary Ellen Gibson and Stephan Lamb...and
it is important to me.
Very incerely,
Po Mintliag
i '
William Bailey
1540 Hansen Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 13, 1997
Mike McClusky
Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
995 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. McClusky:
I have had occasion to discuss with Stephen Lamb and his wife, Mary Ellen
Gibson, the current remodel of their residence on the comer of Buchon and
Penny Lane. In our conversation, Stephen mentioned their dilemma
regarding the curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the Penny Lane
side of their home. It is Stephan's impression that your concern is the need to
provide access to persons with disabilities through the installation of a curb,
sidewalk and gutter running the length of their property on Penny Lane. If
this is true I appreciate your commitment to access for persons with
disabilities, and would like to ask you to reconsider the particulars of their
situation.
I feel qualified in my support of their request to postpone the installation of
the curb, sidewalk and gutter until such time as the remainder of Penny Lane
is ready to complete a similar installation. I have been a paraplegic over 27
years and am actively involved as an advocate for the implementation of the
ADA, both professionally in my capacity as Director of the Disability Resource
Center, and personally as a board member of SLOCO Access and a local citizen
with a disability.
Ironically, until the remainder of Penny Lane is improved there will, at the
least, be no access gain and possibly the unintentional creation of an access
hazard by the abrupt ending of the sidewalk into the fence bordering the
adjacent property. I see the current situation, which allows wheelchair
access, as adequate considering the lack of traffic, the lack of side slope or any
other obvious obstacles on Penny Lane. The existing curb ramp on the
Buchon corner provides adequate sidewalk access along the Buchon Street
frontage.
Again, I appreciate your efforts on behalf of persons with disabilities. I also
appreciate your willingness to entertain my input. If I can in any way clarify
these thoughts or answer other questions you might have please do not
hesitate to contact me directly. I 'can be reached by phone at: (daytime) 756-
1400 or (evening) 54375373.
Sincerely,
William Bailey
Mark and Karen Bindner
1563 Penny Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
805-544-8060
Mike McClusky
Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Mr. McClusky:
We strongly disagree with the possible city mandated installation of curbs and gutters for
various properties on this street. Our one question: why would the city go to the trouble to
require such a needless expense on the part of homeowners? If the required changes were
warranted by a need here on the street where we have lived for 16 years, we might sit by passively
and let the city government and its mandates continue without comment. However, when the
required changes reflect more a policy position than an evaluation of the needs of a segment of the
population, it is time to speak out. We urge you to reconsider the suggested "improvement" to
our neighborhood. It is unnecessary and unwanted. Thank you for hearing the voices of those
who live here.
Mark and Karen Bindner
Ll/V '
�Ci-14-15 7 'rJo 4Uiii'I FROM TO I- CJ f JdJ. YfF, P.kJl
—_ Q7�llJCJ1 LL._.�Q'CC�JLA.� ......._...
1.51.x.
121
—
.QSan_.L.u�is_06y�spa�_ L'a.:__9.3�b1_ _._. ..---. ..----- - •
/49.7._ . --
_..--
.
-G-''1 t 2�1'tL�_�_�•-�— --- un
c s cha cc d �z -496LIZ
L - ----=
by
,k.4 , Q �-
August 12, 1997
Mr. Mike McClusky
Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: 1252 Buchon St.
Installation of sidewalks and curbs
Dear Mr. McClusky:
As a resident and home owner at 1216 Buchon St. for 13 years,
I support Mary Ellen Gibson and Stephan Lamb in their efforts
to postpone the installation of curbs and sidewalks as part
of their house remodel.
At this point in time, this requirement seems frivolous and
unreasonable. I do not believe that it is the intent of City
government and its rules to order unnecessary demands of its
citizens.
Sincerely,
. l.J
Jim Kelleher
1216 Buchon St. '
San Luis Obispo
544-4897
J40
August 12, 1997
Mr. Mike Mcclusky
Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: 1251 Buchon St.
Installation of sidewalks and curbs
Dear Mr. McClusky:
I support, the request of Mary Ellen Gibson and Stephan Lamb
at 1251 Buchon St. to postpone the installation of curbs and
sidewalks.
I have been a resident of old Town for 22 years and have
owned my present house for 13 years. Old Town is unique and
it is important to me to keep its uniqueness and quaint
atmosphere.
In this situation, the City requirement for these homeowners
to install sidewalks and curbs seems to be senseless and
unreasonable. No other homeowners on Penny Lane have had to
do these types of improvements even though just recently
another house remodel occurred on this street.
Since there is no master plan for Penny Lane, I do not
believe that following the letter of city rules makes any
sense. If required, this sidewalk would end abruptly causing
more of a hazardous situation than a safe one. It would also
end a few feet in front of the adjacent neighbor's door.
This seems very silly.
In this case common sense should prevail -- not nonsense.
Sincerely,
Sherry Fo n
12 `6 Buch St.
Sa Luis Obispo
544-4897
Ursula Bishop
1265 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 13, 1997
Mike McClusky
Public Works Director
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. McClusky:
My family and I live at 1265 Buchon Street. We have owned our home since 1991. We
strongly support the covenant request of the property owners, Stephan Lamb and Mary
Ellen Gibson, at 1251 Buchon and Penny Lane.
Our family,along with Stephan and Mary Ellen, and others in the neighborhood,are
working hard to keep this a desirable, pleasant area for those to choose to live here. We
care about our homes and neighborhood and have seriously considered this particular
issue. My family has come to the decision that a short sidewalk, leading nowhere, is not
going to add to our neighborhood, indeed, we believe it will detract from the area.
For example, I am concerned that if Penny Lane has even partial curbs and sidewalks it will
become a more visible, additional area for renters (who do not have enough parking at their
houses for the number of residents) or their visitors, to use for parking.The increasing
number of renters and their guests, are already heavily adding to the parking congestion
and noise disturbances around our homes. We are held hostage to loud noises, prolonged
conversations at cars, and other late night disturbances as renters and guests of the renters
come and go from Buchon Street. If Penny Lane looks inviting to people seeking parking,
they will use it, and our neighborhood will suffer greatly because of the unwelcome
addition of a section of cement.
If you have any questions, or want to talk with me or my husband Mark Johnson in
person, please contact us at home 545-8643, or at work Ursula 756-2840,
Mark 542-9109.
Sincerely,
J
Ursula Bishop
12.16.050-12.16.060
12.16.050 Installation or pleted, then the city may use all or any
reimbursement required portion of said bond to complete the installa-
when—Exceptions. tion.
Whenever any building is constructed on Exceptions: The director and the commu-
or moved onto any parcel of real property in nity development director may defer or tem-
the city, or whenever existing buildings are porarily waive all or portions of these require-
altered or expanded in excess of fifty percent ments if they jointly agree that they will
of the value of such building as determined cause extreme hardship or serve no useful
by the chief building official, it is required, purpose.
except as hereinafter provided, that a stan- (Ord. 1132 § 2, 1989: prior code § 7330.8)
dard concrete curb,gutter,sidewalk and street
pavement as determined by council resolu- V.16.055 Reimbursement.
tion be installed on all street frontages of caner or developer talls im-
such property by the owner of such property provements ch property other than
or the person in possession of the property that being de ope be reimbursed as
prior to granting of occupancy or final ap- provide ' Section 16.44.0 his code.
proval. The council shall establish by resolu- ( 1132 § 3, 1989)
tion from time to time relevant standards
and special requirements for such improve- 12.16.060 Appeals.
ments. In the case of the construction of a An appeal of a decision of the director shall
garage or other structure, which by its na- follow the procedure set out in Chapter 1.20
tune requires the construction of a driveway of this code.
ramp, the street improvements directly re- (Ord. 1132 § 4, 1989: prior code § 7330.9)
lated to the construction must be installed
unless a waiver is obtained from the director
and community development director. It is
unlawful for any person to occupy or use such
buildings prior to the installation of the re-
quired curb, gutter and sidewalks unless a
certified check or cash in the amount to be
fixed by the director is deposited with the city
to guarantee such installation. In the case of
structures which are already occupied and 17.76.060 Appeal.
which, due to the extent of the construction, Any person required to dedicate land or make
require the installation of street: improve-i improvements under the provisions of this chap=
ments, the owner or developer !shall post ter may appeal to the council, in writing, any
(prior to issuance of the building permit) a determination made by the city engineer or the
bond or other security in-a form acceptable to . application of these provisions to his property.
the city attorney in an amount equal to the The appeal must be filed prior to execution of the
cost to install the street improvements. The agreement to make the dedication and/or
bond may be released when the improve-
improvements and must set forth any grounds of
ments are accepted by the city and prior*to undue hardship which does not apply to other
the completion of the building construction. property owners affected by this chapter. ' on
In the event the improvement is not so com- finding by the council of such undue hal Ap,
the council may make such modifications in the
dedication and improvements as the council
deems just. (Prior code§ 9310.3)
sAn
91 -B��
apeclra
p
.0city 990 palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
/`�TT!,r-C•l�iyz�-suit
December 23, 1996
Stephan R. Lamb
1251 Buchon St.
San Luis Obipso, CA 93401
Subject:Deferred Improvements at 1251 Buchon St.
Dear Mr.Lamb:
The City has reviewed your request for deferred improvements at 1251 Buchon Street pursuant to Section
12.16.050 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Your request has been reviewed by both the Public Works
and Community Development Directors in order to determine if the sidewalk and curb improvements to Penny
Lane would"cause an extreme hardship or serve no useful purpose."
The responsibility for the orderly installation of public improvements lies primarily with the Public Works
Director who does not wish to postpone frontage improvements along Penny lane. The Public Works and
Community Development Directors are therefore unable to make the necessary finding that would allow Penny
Lane improvements to be deferred. If you would like to discuss the reasoning behind the decision or wish to
find out about the appeal process,you should contact Mr. McCluskey or his staff at 781-7214.
Sincerely,
Rona d Whise
Development Rdview Manager
cc: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
446e McCluskey,Public Works Director
The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
"EETIN AGENDA
_,ATE "16-97 ITEM # � t
Louisa
Anne
Kluver
LOM
00 co rL
PO NCIL ❑ CDD DIR
�uAu ❑ FI IR rarC�tl �(
September 11, 1997 V-<A RNEY ❑ E CHIEF `a - :•z .
PW DIRffT � :[ �« �•
LERK/ORIG 13 POLICE CHF 5�r. ,;��;`.,•L. A;
Allen Settle ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Cit of San Luis Obispo ❑ O UT DIR
Y p ..:
900 Palm Street ''
❑ PERS DIR
—� San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Wm Regarding: Stephan Lamb and Mary Ellen Gibson
> O 1251 Buchon Street
} San Luis Obispo
W ~
Jr w U Dear Mr. Settle,
O
co
After reading the staff report for the Lamb/Gibson appeal, I felt it necessary
to address some of the issues mentioned.
I wish to reiterate that the installation of street frontages at this time serves
no useful purpose, and may actually be detrimental. Penny Lane is a unique
neighborhood and deserves special attention. The photographs attached support this
opinion.
Staff states that the street drains onto my clients and the adjacent property.
This is not the case. The street has a crown which drains slightly toward these
properties. But when the City has had heavy rains in the past and the Johnson
Avenue Street underpass floods, my clients' property flooded with the water from
that direction. Therefore the historic drainage of the property is towards Penny
Lane. With the installation of street frontage improvements, the natural drainage
pattern will need to be changed, making my clients' property the low point. The
improvements at that end of the property will be out of the ground between 12 and
15 inches also blocking the downhill drainage and now causing the. street tg drain
onto the adjacent property. Also since the improvements are so far out of the
ground, mitigating measures may need to occur, such as a cut off wall, thus
further impacting the natural drainage and resulting in the sidewalk not roviding
convenient pedestrian travel This is a problem that can be resolved when street
improvements are installed along the whole block and the drainage for the street is
captured in the gutter all along the block block.
' All the correspondence my clients received during the initial request for a
covenant never mentioned a time limit or the fact that by accepting of the building
permit, they were negating their right to further explore the covenant.
I agree with staff's assessment that the best time to require these
improvements is with major construction, since financing could be expanded to
" include the additional costs. But my clients understand the conditions of the
covenant and are willing to incur the financial costs at a later time.
Staff mentioned the pedestrian bridge to Breck Street. I'll reiterate that the
best time for these improvements would be with the installation of the bridge. The
report also mentions the appeal on Henderson, but it was not stated that a covenant
was granted in the Henderson case. That situation is very similar to this one.
The covenant process is not a perfect solution. But the process currently
exists and my clients project on Penny Lane is an ideal situation in which to grant
a covenant.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Please fell free to call me if you
have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
I W/A mw el
Louisa Kluver
979 Osos Street Suite A-2 San Luis Obispo California 93401
F .y
r _ Y+•
_ Fewm-
,*n 1 ryY ! `� y"♦/ {'-! �S}�Cy`mac+ r
t'' � e'�C.r_..zF_.r"'r's�t r • s.- .i--, t�7-,- ai.r� �y �1'�s•� -1�, s•
xA ls�� 4 �` h' _►`' ..,.
i -r •. 1 C 4 h �y �rfµ�' ]� rC BTW
V' r , . ��tir •��� 1 ��•Y � i f. Yj�� 1 ��T}
�_ •1-•y.''�`*���• ��i� ,t��.M•,���$`A'nj(•`� s.a�a��n._������r�'% :�.�Y. 1 ai
omz�' P, ; `a�raN`' • ,rTi 'eeti„ �:r Y .�a x• y�
�`�`a +"i�� `�.`S..n�L �'+X r, �aCi• ��.�' 'F . �'r����'..--- y .. J a r� '•'"+�!' / r
r� t� Liar J /'S..ro r1 '1 jo Y` • �� p � :.4 c7 T,4 -� f : i.
lei,
l'S r r r ♦ •r r"' i'a•51 �F.`••7'i•".Y. i t ,"-_• rC f -- 9`
qty'.! Y- f .(} :>' .- 7�.���tt ♦ -�f cY� ..� �. / t�. a• ••�h.s
' r _� +, r • , � d17t r rl r� -' ♦Ti Kxa] ea` .' fir`.•• y`
74'r A I �rl��i�' iyw,.w``nh�1j���i� 3 r'Lr fi a �.`.S} �'O s•-
V :.� 'N �t Cr �� Y )y,1�~ ae+�`��1�+.r�..' ;ny1+��� }��vG,/•S[�;'Te�-J _�•.
,.
fy � � 1 cR4 y tr•.�a•` :V F y _`r,r �'Fyr�r EL \�� l Y �
� - - ` ., 71�'r +. r?T,k.�r: a�lr Y ' y ,kr r 1r y.� •'4.r�� yKr ♦ .
tij ` � � rr � 1 �r►. r � {..� s �� ~' t _'r~�{•r` �%��uti �' .. ,S ♦.r•.
.!Oyu r f r ,�. � t F �1:� rte.lL.�'f`�I,;� r�++� 4 i ♦ ` I.0� r ..1�'"li( ." ~c'r� - r
`y .•.a,-.�•'4 _' .•aR .C�� ! r ,; _ `a F 'S.. 7a{ a Y.. i t ,� � r! ♦ G-��. 1 ,�. .-
.r C
` _ ..._;3.� . . /^ y•' r _� r-� ,. i L. [. siy_ •- 1� !• Y'j/ ! ter-
.-.►':. d�crC r.-` "r :. h `.a�,..��lr..•:� yf rad• •S_Jn
_ ,
'� '_ ! �' i `�fir..... �� .� � ,Y ,-}.•" y �,,..
m
}
S !
4-1 4 _y Y• �.� jM-..
r'' y S.1 � e •�
-44
all
• SGS- � y ai .`I - - ,
3
• Y
w �
n � ,
� '.f X1:1• � o � -
i n v
`f �; J T �W�t .r ;� �-�ti•I Y�1 ._ al'i �.•� „r t M ly r n �, `i p.
-16
ow
ml
� + �'\af� r�yya a� -�n f• .. J 4.c 'a ,,-
F. •i r
Y
j4 � i'r...P
rC ti; .C: �4 a+.k �-,\\. 1 _ i 15 r^41 I.y r✓ [..µ" / - s! '��.-t ! t�:s •p i'`!q ',af J ry\ 1111 r
14R•.ti'{lt -ZP i � !\.i s.. I. :✓>I �'- r��(.r! r+ f t (r, Wi: rT-.Ai-:
Yr" vtrnc r �3e '��r� .� Wyk ✓'' .Y 1 a 11 ! A\ n� -� �IT iC. �.->-'
} 1�4.fN� �}a. '\ ;�v y4 �� � Ir r} '�a � � } '- I n � �\tR �u .V./.,�• �t<>- J'. \an,�
'''� 1 F f w� ` - I.� A r !. �'!F r ti. 1 .a.N ►a R sy f,+l 1' ]'.
7a' � 1�:.. 1 1'�la� !• ,.
+"` -:�:� - �... ti�'r 1 a a ! -. :rte }•:::.-
• r�;C y, ,y L f"� --QN—— .�'. Ji ` t l t r!-" • �--.- _
110.
Yti' �.��'C'r\
.....................
N4
4-1
wi
t SO
'a
4 L
7 1
44
ZY,
me'
5z:
G.CJ O IV1U1
rMcmillaRl '
LAND 8lJfiVEY6
September 16, 1997
Ms. Louisa Kluver, Architect
Via Facsimile: 544-6615
Subject: Proposed curb and gutter installation at Penny Lane, San Luis Obispo
Job#102-05
Dear Ms. Kluver,
i
I am writing this to follow up on our conversation of 9-11-97 regarding the existing topographic
conditions of Penny Lane adjacent to the Lamb's property at 1251 Buchon Street. As you are
aware, several of the properties along the northerly right=of-way of Penny Lane. have.
improvements that are encroaching into the right-of-way. It appears these improvements, along
with the steep gradient of Penny Lane beyond the Lamb's property, could have the effect of
creating a drainage pattern that could course through the Lamb's property if their street frontage .
is the only area with curb and gutter constructed. It would also appear.that, at the veryleast,
some type of mitigation measure would need to be taken to prevent the drainage coming down
Penny Lane.from crossing the Lamb's property; and perhaps creating a potential for some level
of inundation. Additionally, the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements, may serve as a
dam, preventing water from running off of the property, where the existing ground is lower than
the proposed curb, gutter, and sidewalk grades. Using the City's design criteria for determining
top of curb grades, the top of curb elevation at the Lamb's most easterly property line on Penny
Lane would be 1.00' higher than the elevation of the existing garage.slab for the Lamb's next
door neighbor on Penny Lane.
I hope this helps you to better understand the existing conditions, please do not hesitate to call
me if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Keith McMillan
P.L.S.
2306 Broad Street•Sao Luis Obispo,California 93401
(805)541.1663-Fax(805)541-1664
Members of the City Council Thank you for your time to listen to our request for a
covenant for sidewalk curb and gutter improvements at our home at 1251 Buchon.
We also want to acknowledge the time that has been spent by the City's Offices of
Community Development and Engineering.
In the realm of the issues that the Council considers, our request.may appear trivial,
but for us the issue of thoughtful planning that preserves that which is unique and
special about our city is important.
We are concerned that a premature frontage improvement on our property will
create an aesthetically unpleasing and functionally discordant situation at a highly
visible comer of the old town community.
The pictures that you have been sent illustrate the lane more than my words can do
justice. The comer in question is one that you have all passed on many occasions.
It has been our home fbr fifteen years. The decision by the City Engineer will
change this comer irrevocably and establish a sidewalk to nowhere.
Moreover the curb will create an engineering problem that is of great concern. The
curb height will mean that our lot must be redesigned against the natural flow of
water runoff. Water that has historically drained to Penny Lane from our property
in wet years will have to be redirected against the flow and across the length of our
side property to Buchon. This redirection of an historic water drainage is significant
in a year that the rain projections are triple that of normal.
During the last wet season when the Johnson underpass filled up both our property
and our neighbors at 1256 were flooded. The drainage access to Penny Lane is the
only factor that kept damage low; despite this our neighbors lost their basement
furnace. Our fear is that the re-routing of water will create a giant pond
Between the properties that will be very very costly.
If in the future improvements are deemed necessary our desire is to have the
improvements and redesign of Penney Lane be made as a connected and
considered plan. One that is visually beautiful and that serves drainage and access
issues. Currently there is no master plan for the lane. We request the covenant
until which time such a vision is created.
r
1 ! .:; �,_,. � �' ^a hr'li�`yr illY�$q:twe � ,' .`r,' .,..•r
� ���� � � � a.., a ""'. ',,"`."xe Nor. r "`�,` _ a�� •�r i
o':. s � a. ,. :: .,'•w,. ,,,_.".. .� .'3 esti .' ,�w.t- m��a� �.�- 4' .t�„ r:"......, .
r
G s a
n
;r
f _
r
1.0
22�Y.L.n,' : ;.. ., .rad...." ,.,.� .:. "w;'",a � � -•;� .. .„ ��
770
r
,
Y
i
5
f�
r f
f
m
"
y;
-
II, L
R v „
NO,
+F"o:. ♦.y ms' s.✓r utc"),.
`
r,
w
k
7
RFs., :
v
x
a
.�„",, _ w• '" ��..,.,� r .. � ,�`IN,
,„
r.
lf
k.
.7; , .:.•<>.,. r ,._ ._, - �., .-.-. '• w. ^� .,,.n1'�"^> Vea.«.k: r<i:. +-. rtf
a. T
4.
...>n.
,.
f �
r
.^A"' � «. ""x, .� r.� „gam.+`^nx•• a,.art
n j
ate" r
„3
a
m
m
a
•i--• o ;E:, yam,. �a+`,' ..v,. Ufa` �' ', `i '3�' r �
q
t
� a
ry
w.
e
seyu
y
a n"
l r
w, 9
E;
S `