HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2014 PH2 Appeal of Denial of Enchroachment Permit for Maytag Building 779 Higuera - Staff ReportCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DENIAL TO REMOVE SIDEWALK – 779 HIGUERA
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the City’s Community Development and Public Works
directors to deny an encroachment permit for the removal of public sidewalk at 779 Higuera.
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan, the Council approved several downtown improvement
projects. In an action of June 15, 2010, the Council approved consolidation of the downtown
projects into a single improvement project. The scope of the project was the reconstruction of
sidewalk along Higuera Street between Morro and Garden streets, the upgrading of sidewalk
fixtures, and the installation of pedestrian street lights and tree lighting conduits. In preparation
for the project, property owners and businesses, along with the Downtown Association, were
provided several notices of the upcoming project along with contact information for the Project
Manager, Bridget Fraser. The purpose of the outreach was two-fold, to provide notice of the
work, and to encourage contact with the Project Manager of any known issues that may impact
the project.
Work commenced on the City’s project in early 2012. During the course of the project, sidewalk
was removed in front of 779 Higuera Street. The City’s construction inspector arrived one
morning to find the entry way of 779 Higuera Street had been removed with the abutting
sidewalk. The inspector was informed by a representative of the City’s project contractor, that
the building owner representative had approached them and requested the removal.
The removal of the building entrance prompted a series of written exchanges and a meeting of
City staff from Community Development, Public Works, and the City Attorney, and the property
owner and her legal and architectural representatives, to discuss an issue of non-compliance for
access at the building entrance, and the City’s responsibility for that issue. The property owner
represented that they were of the understanding that the City was going to change the sidewalk
grades to correct the access issue that had resulted during the building retrofit and that the City
had caused the issue with their project. City staff was unaware that any such understanding
existed and no documentation was found for such an understanding. The City also agreed to
research the project construction to determine if an access issue had been created by the
construction.
Sept 16, 2014
PH2
PH2 - 1
Appeal for Sidewalk Removal Page 2
Attachments 1 through 6 include a timeline of events, the City’s response to issues raised by the
applicant’s representatives, internal memos, and other relevant background information for the
Council’s consideration.
Significant research was made into the situation to determine whether the City had worsened the
access situation through its sidewalk project. A post-construction site survey was completed to
verify actual construction grades. The as-built survey was completed by the surveyor who
provided the original topographic survey used for the City’s project design.
Using the original survey, which captures the preconstruction grades, and comparing it to the as-
built survey, which captures the post construction grades, it was found that all of the post
construction back of sidewalk grades were equal to or higher than the preconstruction grades.
The exceptions were in front of 779 and 781 Higuera Street, which were found to be .02’
(slightly less than ¼”) lower than the original sidewalk, within normal construction tolerance for
concrete work.
The top of curb elevations, except for one area, ranged from 0” difference up to .23’ (2 ¾”)
higher along the top of curb. One area near a tree well was lower than the existing. This was part
of the design to take out a high spot in the curb line resulting from root displacement. In all
cases, except for the area near the tree well, the resulting cross slopes were found by the surveyor
to be less steep than the pre-existing condition. (Original cross-slopes ranged from 2.4% to
2.78%. New cross-slopes range from 1.2% to 2.2%.) The survey confirmed the sidewalk
construction did not create or aggravate the pre-existing access issue. Other than a localized
area, the new sidewalk was found to be higher than the original sidewalk and at a less steep slope
than before sidewalk replacement occurred, thus improving the access issue.
The City was able to clarify for the owner’s attorney that the owner and her architect did not take
advantage of opportunities, provided through noticing during the design phase, to make contact
with the City’s Project Manager to coordinate efforts. Staff also clarified that the City did not
create or aggravate access issues into the building, and that there is every indication that the
entry aprons had not been constructed correctly with the owner’s seismic retrofit project.
Appeal
The owner is currently proposing to reconstruct the sidewalk in front of the building to address
the access issues for their building (Attachment 7). A number of concerns were relayed to the
owner’s attorney by the City, via Attachment 8, with the key ones being:
The proposed sidewalk reconstruction plans have not shown that they will correct the
access issue without creating problems within the right-of-way
The removal of the sidewalk will create a disruption to the downtown, additional to the
one already endured to construct the sidewalk in the first place.
Upon receipt of the City’s denial of the request to reconstruct the sidewalk, the owner filed an
appeal and the matter was calendared for Council consideration (Attachments 9 and 10).
The crux of the matter is, assuming the owner is able to show that reconstruction of the sidewalk
will correct access issues for the building, does the Council agree:
PH2 - 2
Appeal for Sidewalk Removal Page 3
The public right-of-way is the appropriate place for these corrections to be addressed; and
A second disruption of this area of the downtown is warranted.
The Council may want to consider that the sidewalk cannot be guaranteed to retain correct slopes
as tree roots overtime will cause displacements. The City may, unwittingly, be taking on
responsibility for private access compliance by permitting the work. Also worthy of
consideration is the upcoming planned disruption of the downtown for the second phase of the
improvement project which will remove and replace sidewalk from Garden Street to Broad
Street, currently scheduled to start work in early 2015. The recommendation is to keep
responsibility for building access with the building owner, on-site. It appears the access issue
was created, or overlooked during the seismic retrofit project and is not a failure of any kind on
the part of the City.
CONCURRENCES
Public Works and Community Development have been involved in the discussions with the
property owner and her representatives from the original contact after the entry removal during
construction, and concur with the recommendation for the property owner to pursue on-site work
to improve access.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no specific fiscal impacts resulting from a Council decision, unless the property owner
pursues legal action to either receive compensation from the City for not allowing the sidewalk
removal, or to reimburse the property owners for expenses associated with reconstructing the
sidewalk. There is no way to know at this time if the owner is considering further action.
ALTERNATIVES
Uphold the appeal. The Council could determine that it is in the public interest to allow the
property owner to remove and reconstruct the sidewalk to new grades to address building
accessibility. New grades would still need to comply with the City’s standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2007-2012 Timeline prepared by the City’s Project Manager
2. March 13, 2012 Letter from the owner’s architect – with comments from the City’s Project
Manager incorporated
3. March 14, 2012 Memo to the File from the City’s Project Manager
4. June 14, 2012 Letter from the owner’s attorney – with comments from the City’s Project
Manager incorporated
5. June 19, 2012 Email from the City’s Building Official
6. June 30, 2012 Letter from the owner’s attorney – with comments from the City’s Project
Manager incorporated
7. June 25, 2014 Letter from the owner’s attorney requesting a formal decision
8. July 24, 2014 Letter from the City Attorney
PH2 - 3
Appeal for Sidewalk Removal Page 4
9. August 4, 2014 Letter from the owner’s attorney appealing the City’s decision
10. August 15, 2014 Letter from the City Attorney
11. Resolution
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-09-16\appeal of denial of encroachment maytag bld 779 higuera (grigsby-lynch-hannula)\report - 779 higuera appeal.docx
PH2 - 4
Timeline of Events
Regarding the Sidewalk at 779‐787 Higuera
Prepared by Bridget Fraser
11/14/07: Encroachment permit issued to Dennis Noble to install a new sewer lateral to serve
779‐781 Higuera. This permit work may have triggered the requirement for some sidewalk
replacement. Permit finaled 11/21/07.
Sept 7, 2009‐ Jeff Bague, Project Architect, (email) says conversations began with Hal Hannula
(Engineering Development Review) regarding the sidewalks and that they were considering
replacing the sidewalk in front of the building. (Hal recalls that these conversations were very
general in nature regarding sidewalk replacement – when required, when not required, etc.
There was no conversation that he recalls about grade or compliance issues at this specific
address.) The question regarding any proposed work required in the City’s right‐of–way was
formally raised during the plan review with the architects response noted and limits of work
shown on the approved building plans.
12/2/2009‐ Owner submits for building permit for URM upgrade and facade.
12/3/09 thru 4/2/2010 ‐ Building permit plan check comments: ‐ 2 plan checks by both Building
Dept (Bob Arnet) and Public Works (Ken Chacon) and 3 by Fire Dept.
During this plan review period the Building Dept staff do not recall any conversations regarding
the landings and need for grade changes in order to make them comply.
12/29/2009‐ Ken Chacon plan check comment “show any proposed sidewalk modifications on
plans.” Resubmittal note indicates a reference to note 12 on sheet T1 which indicates a section
of sidewalk replaced in fr ont of 785 with a note that curbs remain and sidewalk grades remain.
There is no indication of sidewalk work in front of 779/781 or grade changes of any kind.
4/2/2010 Plans were approved and Building Permit was issued 4/5/2010
4/15/10: Encroachment permit issued to Chamblin‐Landes for pedestrian protection (barricade)
& construction staging at 785‐787 in the public right‐of‐way. Permit finaled 9/18/10.
Date Unknown – Some time after permit was approved on 4/2/2010 ‐ Hal remembers trying
to work with owner’s contractor to do whole frontage rather than just the piece meal sections
shown on th e approved plan. This conversation was focused around aesthetics and did not
involve issues concerning slopes and grades in the City’s right of way. This deal never came to
anything. Hal’s recollection is that the contractor provided the City with a cost to do the whole
frontage and asked if the City would participate in costs. The contractor said that if there was no
City participation in cost then the owner would likely just do the trench repair which they were
on the hook for. This is captured in an email dated 7/9/2010 between Marty Landes of
Chamblin‐ Landes, building ow n ers contractor. Hal said that the Public Works Director was not
supportive of participating in the cost. Emails occurring on 8/5/2010 between Hall, Ken and the
contractor go on to discuss the in lieu fee for 80 sf of sidewalk that the contractor/owner was
going to pay for the sidewalk tr ench repair that they were responsible for. The City accepted
their in lieu fee for 80 square feet. This is equivalent to about an 8’ wide piece of sidewalk or
two trenches. The City received a check for $2,862 on 8/26/2010.
Attachment 1 - 1
PH2 - 5
DATE Unknown ‐ Electronic date on file is 4/27/2010 ‐ Sometime during this same period in last
paragraph, the architect emailed a drawing (electronic copy found in the Public Works address
file is dated 4/27/2010) with a couple of handwritten grades on it. This was not any kind of
approved drawing and was likely on l y submitted due to the possibility that they might decide to
redo the whole sidewalk frontage as part of their upgrade. It is also incomplete. When it was
determined that the owner’s contractor was not going to replace the whole sidewalk then this
issue was dropped and Hal did nothing fu r ther with the architect’s sketches. Hal does not
remember ever indicating or suggesting that the City would incorporate these new grades into
the City’s downtown sidewalk project plans.
The sketch shows a couple of existing and proposed grades changes to the top of curb in front of
Location 4 (785) an d Location 3 (787). Nothing noted in front of Location 1 & 2 (779/781). It
indicates a 1 1/2” grade change at the curb in front of location 4 and 1” change at curb in front
of location 3. This implies the architect was thinking of raising the curbs in these locations to
lessen the slope of the sidewalk. It’s not clear if he was suggesting any kind of grade change at
the back of walk/apron since no existing and proposed grades where indicated on the drawing.
In retrospect, the actual grade changes at these two curb locations ended up be ing 1 1/8” and 1
1/2”, respectively which is slightly more than what he shows on his sketch. In other words our
project resulted in the sidewalk slopes been even less steep and it essentially met his “design.”
This sketch is the only indication that we have that the architect was thi nking the grades needed
to be changed in front of his project. And after all was said and done, the City actually DID raise
the curbs to slightly more than he is indicating.
6/29/10: Encroachment permit issued to Yungman Const for construction staging in the public
right‐of‐way for a crane lift related to the URM work. Permit finaled 7/1/10.
7/9/2010 Ken (City) received email form Contractor (Marty Landes of Chamblin‐Landes)
regarding a price for sidewalk replacement across entire frontage (779‐787) and inquired if the
City would participate in the costs. He indicated that if the City couldn’t contribute to some of
the costs, then the owner would likely just do the patch back (just fix the trenches that they are
obligated to do).
7/12/10: Encroachment permit issued to Quaglino for construction staging for roof repairs.
Permit finaled 8/13/10.
7/21/10: Encroachment permit issue to D‐Kal to install a fire service lateral from the existing
stub into the building. This permit work, at least in part, triggered the requirement for sidewalk
replacement. D‐Kal was a sub‐contractor to Noble and not Chamblin ‐Landes. Permit finaled
8/30/10.
8/5/2010 – Hal received email from contractor whi ch provides a cost for 80 SF of sidewalk
replacement that they would have been on the hook for due to the new fire line and gas line
trenches. And indicated the owner would provide this amount back to the city for Mission Style
sidewalk (we would then replace the sidewalk with the City project) Again this payment was only
for the patch back of the trenches. Their proposed cost was $2,311. Ken responded back that
same day indicating the adjusted cost should be $2,862 which includes the cost of water meter
boxes that we would also have to pay for on their behalf.
Attachment 1 - 2
PH2 - 6
8/26/2010 – Per memo in file, City received a check for $2,862.00 for the 80 square feet of
sidewalk and meter boxes as indicated in Ken’s email above. Check was entered in to
FinancePlus with a transaction date of 9/7/2010.
10/7/2010 ‐ Encroachment permit issued to the general contractor, Chamblin‐Landes for
construction staging/barricade construction at 779. Although our conversation about the
sidewalk requirement was with Chamblin ‐Landes, an encroachment permit for sidewalk
replacement was never issued to Chamblin‐Landes. Permit finaled 12/30/10.
Sometime during construction of 10/2010 and final of 11/2011 ‐ Owner poured existing
landings back to match existing ba ck of sidewalk grades. (The as‐built survey confirms that the 3
landings at 779/781 and 785 were installed steeper than 2%. The only landing that complied
was at 787.)
11/9/2011‐ Building Permit was finaled. Throughout the construction the building inspector
does not recall having any conversations with architect regarding grades or work expected to be
done by City on City’s future project. There is no documentation that landing grades were
verified.
9/2010‐9/2011 Beautification project was designed ‐ City sidewalk project was designed to
match existing grades at the existing landings. (There is no record of anyone contacting the
City’s project manager during the design period about redesigning or raising grades to
accommodate new landings for the owner.)
March 1 or 2, 2012 ‐ Bridget received a phone message from someone regarding work on
Higuera (It might have been Shragge but not sure because she couldn’t hear the name clearly)
Bridget returned call and left message but received no follow up call from caller. She did not
know what the call was about.
3/5/2012 ‐ Contractor demolished Phase 4 which included the City sidewalk in front of 779/781
store. Contractor also demolished the concrete landing at the store front. Th is was the first time
that City Inspector, Mark Williams, was informed that the City’s contractor, JMC, was
approached by the building owner to redo their landings at the same time that the City was
replacing the sidewalk in front. (We do not know what the terms of the agreement between
JMC and the owner were or what they were hired to do.)
Date unknown ‐ Probably daytime of 3/5/12 after demo. Mark Williams, City Inspector,
alerted the building department that building owner hired our contractor to redo their landings
and indicated it was a possible compliance issue as they had no permit. Mark was told by Dave
Fogg, Building Inspector, that the installation of the store landings needed a Bldg. Permit for this
work. There was no permit applied for, or issued to, the owner indicating that their landings
were going to be redone or that showed that grade changes and redesign of the sidewalk that
were needed.
3/6/2012 ‐ The sidewalk in Phase 4 was re‐poured in front of 779/781 store and up to store wall
that separates 781 and 785. The top of curb at this joint was poured lower than existing by .05’
(slightly less than 5/8”) and .01’ (1/8”) lower than the design grade. This is the only area where
designed top of curb was lower than existing in order to remove a hump in the curbline. Refer to
Attachment 1 - 3
PH2 - 7
profile to see where it is lower around STA 5+75. This edge is indicated in Bague’s photos of his
letter dated 3/13/11 and applies to this one general area not the whole project.
Date unknown ‐ Sometime on or after 3/6/2012 after the Phase 4 sidewalk was poured ‐
Bague called Mark Williams an d said that the grades were set too low at 779/781. Mark told him
that JMC (who was also Bague contractor) set the back of walk at the same grades. Mark said at
no point did Bague indicate that he expected the City to raise the back of walk grades to
facilitate new landings. Mark indicated that he did not have anything to do with landings and
Bague needed to get a building permit for that work.
3/12 ‐ 3/13/2012, JMC continued with demolition and re‐pouring Phase 5 sidewalk which
includes the next sections north in front of 785 and 787 stores. Contractor did not remove the
building landings at these stores. The back of sidewalk was poured to match the existing
landings per City plan.
3/12/2012 ‐ Call from Bague to Bridget. Bague said City poured sidewalks lower than they used
to be. Bridget told him to send pictures, evidence to support that claim.
3/13/2012 ‐ Email and letter sent to Bridget from Bague stating that new sidewalk was poured
too low.
3/14/2012 ‐ Bldg, PW staff met to discuss claims and reviewed site.
3/15/2012 ‐ Project Engineer(Bridget) and Project Inspector (Mark) talked with City’s contractor
and concrete subcontractor. According to JMC and JMC’s concrete subcontractor, Silver Oak,
they poured back the City sidewalk at the back of walk at the 779/781 location to the original
back of sidewalk grades.
During this same site visit, Mark W and Bridget used a smart level to measure the landings. The
existing landing at location 4 (787) was compliant at 1.8%, existing landing at location 3 (785)
was found to be 5%. The landings at 779/781 could not be determined because it was torn out
by JMC and just had a temporary wood strips but it appeared to be significantly more than 2%.
3/15/2012 ‐ Bridget prepared memo to file of analysis of existing situation and Bague claims.
Evidence did not support that the City poured curbs or back of walk significantly lower. ¼”
(which is construction tolerance) at most at the 779/781 landing. ¼’ in lower would not make
much difference in their ability to comply.
3/19/2012‐Tim, Building Official, met with Bague and discussed how the he could resolve their
landing issue through a hard ship case request and provided suggestions/ideas on how they
could provide compliant landings.
6/14/2012 ‐ Letter received from Shragge requesting sidewalk replacement
6/19/2012 ‐ Tim responded via email – indicated his meeting with Bague, options for the
landings, and that landings are subject to building permit
6/30/2012 ‐ Letter received from Shragge requesting the City remedy the situation.
Attachment 1 - 4
PH2 - 8
7/2/2012 ‐ Email received from Dennis Law requesting a meeting.
7/2/2012 ‐ Tim Girvin, Building Official, replied back to Dennis Law referring to PW and
indicating that permits are needed when they eventually do the landings
7/23/2012 – Hal, Mark, Bridget met with City Attorney – she requested that we complete
timeline, confer with Building Dep’t to get their facts, and order as‐built survey.
8/7/2012 ‐ City received as‐built survey of grades in front of 777‐ 787 Higuera. And‐as built
grades on all 4 landings. In all cases except one the new top of curb matched or was higher (up
to .16’ to 2”) than the original top of curb grades. The one lower area was in front of tree well
and was designed to be lower than existing to take out a hump. Refer to profile. The back of
sidewalk grade at the demoed landing at Location 1 and 2 (779/781) was found to be .02’
(slightly less than ¼”) lower than existing point on the original survey. All other grades along the
back of sidewalk either matched or where higher than existing grades. As built survey also
indicates that cross slopes along frontage taken at the 20’ station sections ranged from 1.2% to
2.2%. Original slopes ranged from 2.3% to 3.4% at these same sections.
Attachment 1 - 5
PH2 - 9
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
Attn: Ms. Bridget Fraser
13 March 2012
Re: Sidewalks Renovation at 779-787 Higuera Street
Bridget,
Per our discussion yesterday morning I am providing the photos that were taken at the site on the 8th of March.
I would also like to reiterate our discussion about the history of the sidewalk/entry. Back in September of 2009 I had
lengthy discussions regarding the very subject with Hal Hannula. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Hal does
not recall nor have record of specific Sept 2009 conversation. These were just general conversations regarding
sidewalk removals and requirements for grades if they remove, etc.] On the 7th of September 2009 I explained that
we were considering replacing the sidewalk in front of the building but that I was concerned about the cross slopes.
The existing curbs ranged from just over 6 inches to almost 8 inches and the cross slopes were over 2%. My initial
question was concerning whether we would have to comply with the ADA requirements for a 2% cross slope across
the sidewalk since the existing sidewalk was over the accepted slope amount. Hal indicated at that time that we
would have to comply with the cross slope requirement. He indicated that we might be able to raise the curb height a
little to try to accommodate the entries but I explained that even if we maxed it out we would still be far below the
building entries. I then explained that we would be changing some of the vaults at the front of the building and
would have to do some saw cutting and patching. Hal indicated that minor sidewalk repair could be done to match
the existing slopes and that if we left the sidewalk as existing we could provide ADA accessible entries from that
sidewalk. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - What bothers me here is that he says he had these issues with
ADA compliance with the aprons and sidewalk yet if you look at the building plans that he submitted 3 months later
in Dec of 2009 and were approved April 2, 2010, there are no notes indicating any grade changes to curbs or to a
section of sidewalk that they were supposed to replace, no grades called out for landings and no work at all on the
sidewalk on locations 1 & 2 where there seems to be the most problem with compliance.]
We went to great lengths to comply with the ADA entries. The front of the building at 787 Higuera was lowered and
a level landing provided at both sides of the entry as required. A section of the floor was then sloped at less than 5%
to meet the existing floor level. At 785-779 level landings were provided at both sides of the door and the entire
floor at the front of the lease space was removed and sloped at less than 5% to meet the existing floor elevations. I
am only including this information to show that we made significant efforts to make the building comply with all the
accessibility requirements. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - He says they went to great lengths to comply
with the ADA entries yet the as-built survey shows that only location 4 entry complied (2.11%). Landing 3 was
found to be 5.25%; landing 2 -3.5% and landing 1 - 4.5%. In addition, the approved building plans do show interior
work to lower the floors at location 4 as he states above and some on location 3 but no work is shown to be done at
all on locations 1 and 2. There is also no work shown on the plans indicating that sidewalk work was needed in
order to raise grades outside in order to create compliant aprons.]
Upon completion of the project the building was inspected and received a final. I have spoken with the building
inspector and he agrees that the entries were in complete compliance at the time of final. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - As-built survey shows that only the landing at location 1 complied. There for the statement is
incorrect.]
In the included photos you can clearly see that the new
sidewalk does not match the existing sidewalk. The curb was
lowered and as can be expected the sidewalk itself is lower.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Per the as-built
survey this area was the only place that the curb was lower
than existing. It was designed this way to take out a “hump”
in the curb line. All other curb tops were designed to be
higher.] I spoke with the foreman for Madonna Construction
and he indicated that Mark Williams instructed him to
comply with the 2% cross slope requirement. That further
exacerbated the problem since the existing sidewalk was over
the allowed amount. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
Attachment 2 - 1
PH2 - 10
The sidewalk at this location, pre or post construction, was not over the 2% cross slope. This photo was taken at the
construction joint between Phases 4 and 5 at approximately station 5+75. At this point the new top of curb elevation
was designed to be lower than existing to take out a hump. Refer to the profile. This is the only area (near a tree that
likely raised the sidewalk) where the existing top of curb was lower. Pre and post cross slopes at this location were
1.97% and 1.81% both less than the 2%] I took photos of the existing sidewalk and how the cast stone bases were
set right on top of the sidewalk. In the photos of the new sidewalk you can see that the cast stone bases are now
sitting above the new sidewalk to varying degrees. Since we were right at the complying level landing slope
any change in elevation from the existing would put us out of compliance. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - Hard to say since this shows only one section and doesn’t show the gap. We have a preconstruction
video but it is hard to tell if the base was placed on top of the sidewalk or not.]
The first photo is of the new curb in front of 781 and 779 Higuera. A straight board was placed on the existing curb
and projected out over the new curb. You can see that there is a substantial difference. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - Per the as-built this
difference is around .05’ or 5/8” and this was
part of the design to take out a hump. See
profile. All other areas were raised.]
The next two photos are showing the
difference in elevation between the existing
sidewalk and the new sidewalk. These were
taken at about the middle of the sidewalk.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - The
new sidewalk in this area was straight graded
from the back of walk to the top of curb to
take out a flat spot likely raised due to tree
roots. That is what you are seeing in this
picture. The resulting slope is 1.81% which is
under the 2%. He argues that the whole
sidewalk was lowered everywhere based on
this one photo. This section of sidewalk as
already stated, is the one area on this frontage that was designed to be lowered a little to take out a hump in the curb.
See profile around 5+75.]
You can see that there is no way that the new sidewalk will
meet our existing aprons at the same elevation. [RESPONSE
BY BRIDGET FRASER - He doesn’t show that at the back of
walk the elevations matched the existing sidewalk. The as-built
elevations indicate that they do indeed match which means we
met the existing elevations and did not lower the sidewalk at
the back of walk. Again this is only one spot. He is basing his
assumption that the whole sidewalk frontage was lower and
that is not the case.]
This photo shows the southern corner of the entry apron
for 781 and 779 Higuera. You can clearly see the change
in color from the old bottom of the base and the new
colored concrete. The wood element is where the apron
starts and I have put a scale showing that there is at least
a 5/8” difference in elevation. That color demarcation
shows how the existing sidewalk warped up at the entry.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - It is not clear
what he is saying is the color demarcation. The white spots
are probably just concrete dust or paste from sawcutting
that would have splattered on the wall and filled in the
concrete voids. It does not indicate that the existing old
sidewalk was at this level. As-built elevation doesn’t
support this. The as-built survey indicates that a spot about
Attachment 2 - 2
PH2 - 11
2’ to the left of this photo in front of the apron is .02’ lower than the original sidewalk elevation or a little less than
¼”. That doesn’t support his claim of 5/8. Also if this landing was actually compliant as he states, the sidewalk
would have to have been at least an inch higher at this point to have a 2% landing. If this was the case then the
warping of the sidewalk to the south to match the tile frontage about 2.5-3’ away would be more evident in
preconstruction photos that we have.]
This photo shows the existing sidewalk at the
northern corner of the lease space at 785 Higuera.
That cast stone is sitting directly on the concrete.
This shows how they dealt with the case base at
the
The next photo shows the corner of the lease
space at 781 Higuera after the new sidewalk was
installed. The cast stone is above the sidewalk
and as it moves to the south the gap begins to
grow. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
Again this only shows this one spot, and doesn’t
really prove anything. Construction tolerance is
¼.]
I hope this provides a clearer picture of the conditions that are present in front of our building. If you have any
questions please feel free to contact me. I have been out at jobsites lately so the best phone number you can reach
me at is 805.801.8011.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bague
Project Architect
Attachment 2 - 3
PH2 - 12
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
MEMORANDUM
March 14, 2012
To: Project File – 90979A Downtown Maintenance/Beautification Project
From: Bridget Fraser, Sr. Civil Engr./Project Manager
Subject: 77-787 Higuera – landings & sidewalk
On March 13, 2012, I received the attached document from Jeff Bague. He argues that the
City poured the new sidewalk too low in front of 779/781 Higuera and now his new landings
cannot be built to comply with the 2% slope required per code for ADA. His document shows
pictures that indicate the sidewalk was poured lower than the adjacent existing curb. The
pictures are shown at a joint at the north end of the 781 store along the wall that separates
781 from 785 to the north. There is no measurement on his photo but it looks like the new
curb is about an 1” lower than the existing top of curb. He also shows that there is this same
differential between the new and the existing sidewalks at the midpoint of the sidewalk (half
way between the back of walk and the top of curb). He does not continue along this joint to
show a photo at the back of walk. From these photos Mr. Bague suggests that the whole
sidewalk would have been lowered this same 1” in order to get the crossfall of 2%. I showed
these photos to Mark Williams, the City’s inspector, and he confirmed that the curb at this
one point was set 1” lower than in existing and this was an error but that the sidewalk
matched grades at the back of walk as required per plan. This was confirmed by the
concrete subcontractor that did the work.
A review of the project topo shows an existing elevation of 203.59 at the back of walk at this
joint, 203.57 at 7 feet off the back of wall and 203.43 at the curb 11.5 feet from back of wall.
The slope calculates out to 2.08% using the existing back of wall elevation of 203.59 and an
elevation of 203.35 (existing top of curb 203.43 minus 1”) With this in mind there doesn’t
appear to be a reason for the contractor to not follow the design to match the existing back
of walk grades. Using the existing grades and a new 2% slope the mid point differential
between the new and old sidewalks is around 1.4”. This is supported by the photo that Mr.
Bague has presented.
At the back of walk along the frontage of these two store fronts (781/779) the building is
faced with a concrete stone base. There is a lip that projects out at the base of the stone
facing. The subcontractor indicated that the existing sidewalk matched the top of this
projecting lip and used this lip to set the grades for the new sidewalk. The subcontractor
explained that he used this lip on both the north and south edges of the landing to set the
new sidewalk grades. (The contractor could not use the actual landing to set grades
because the existing landing was removed at this store front as a side agreement made
between the contractor and the building owner.) We have a pre-construction video taken by
Mark Williams along this store front. A review of this video appears to show the lip at the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Attachment 3 - 1
PH2 - 13
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
bottom of the base at the same elevation as the existing sidewalk which supports the
inspectors and the subcontractors claim that the existing sidewalk matched the grade of the
top of the projecting lip at the bottom of the stone base.
A field review indicates that the sidewalk elevations substantially match the top of this lip
along this base - there are some locations where it appears the sidewalk elevation is around
¼” lower than the lip but this does not support his argument that the sidewalk was poured
significantly lower. At this same field review we set a level at the doorway at the outside
edge of the threshold then measured horizontally out perpendicular to the doorway a
distance of 24”. The new sidewalk was approximately 1 3/8” lower than the doorway. If the
existing landing was originally poured at 2%, then the grade at the 24” location would only
be .48” (1/2”) lower. If this was the case then the new sidewalk would have had to be poured
nearly 1” lower than what previously existed before.
A comparison of what exists today to the video taken prior to construction does not support
this claim. Also, the contractor matched the tile entry at Hands Gallery at the southerly
border of the 779 store at the back of the walk. This point is around 7’ from the southerly
landing. There doesn’t appear to be much grade change in old photos along these frontage
to support the claim that the existing sidewalk was 1” higher than the new sidewalk.
Link to video:
T:\Public Works\Bague-779-787 Higuera Lanidngs\00004.MTS What appears to be a lip
along the bottom of the base can be seen starting around 50 sec through 55 sec.
The following photos were taken on 3/15/2012 to document the existing landing slopes at
785 and 787 Higuera. These landings were not removed by the contractor and the new
sidewalk was poured to match the edge of the existing landings.
This picture below was taken on the south side of the entry at 787 Higuera (Amnesia)
showing that the southerly part of the landing is around 3.1%
Attachment 3 - 2
PH2 - 14
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
At this same location we removed the carpet at this location and shot the center of the
landing in front of the doors and found the slope to be 1.9%
The next picture is the landing at 785 Higuera (Hep Kat) taken at the center of the landing in
front of the door. The slope was found to be 5.1%
.
Attachment 3 - 3
PH2 - 15
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
The picture below is at the northerly edge of 781 and shows the new sidewalk poured to the
projecting lip at base of the concrete facing.
At northerly edge of landing at 779/781 Higuera. Sidewalk poured to lip
Attachment 3 - 4
PH2 - 16
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
Same at the southerly edge of the landing at 779/781. Sidewalk poured to lip.
Looks like the existing landing concrete was cut below relief edge of the concrete facing.
Attachment 3 - 5
PH2 - 17
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7200 Fax: (805) 781-7198
Below are pictures at the southerly boundary of 779 Higuera were the sidewalk matched the
existing tile at Hands Gallery. The lip of the stone base shows at the left of the picture and it
looks to be substantially the same grade as the tile at Hands.
Attachment 3 - 6
PH2 - 18
June 14, 2012
Mr. Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Girvin,
As you know we have been attempting to resolve sidewalk issues related to Beverly
Maytag's building at 787, 785, 781 and 779 Higuera Street. The City's reconstruction of the
sidewalk at this location altered the relative grade and slope of the sidewalk causing ADA
compliance issues with three of the four building entrances (779, 781, and 785).
During our recent seismic retrofit work we spent significant time and resources
coordinating with the City to ensure our ADA compliance. As a part of this work, our architect
(Jeff Bague) and contractor (Marty Landes) had lengthy conversations with Hal Hannula to
coordinate work so that both the sidewalk and the building entrances would be compatible and
ADA compliant upon completion of the new Mission-style sidewalk. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - This is a much different version of the conversation than what Hal says.
Hal says there were conversations about getting them to consider doing their whole frontage
rather than just a piece meal that they were on the hook for. It was centered on aesthetics and it
was not centered on coordinating work with the City project to take care of their grade issues at
the back of walk. Their approved building plans show they were not dealing with any grade
issues in the right of way at all. There are no notes on the plans indicating that landings would
need to be replaced with the city project and that grades would need to be addressed.]
We even offered to perform the City's sidewalk reconstruction work during the building
renovation to ensure uniformity and constancy between our two projects. We in fact paid an in-
lieu fee to the city for a portion of the new sidewalk. The City, however, choose to reconstruct its
sidewalks independently of Ms. Maytag’s building and project. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - Again this completely contradicts what Hal said happened. Hal tried to talk them into
doing sidewalk replacement ahead a time. When the City could not share the cost with them they
chose to pay the in-lieu fee instead for an 80 sf of trench repair. Again their approved building
Attachment 4 - 1
PH2 - 19
2
plans showed no indication of grade changes in the City sidewalk and no work at all in landings
at 779/781.] As soon as we learned that the City would take responsibility, we worked with
various City employees [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - We have no idea who they
worked with. They should have been in contract with the project engineer/designer if they needed
the City to adjust grades] and your contractor (Madonna) to ensure a coordinated effort with the
construction of the new sidewalk. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - We have no control
over the agreement made between Madonna and them. Mark Williams first heard about it at 3AM
on the morning that we demolished the sidewalk at 779/781 and where Madonna also demolished
the landing. There was no building permit and no approved plan for new compliant landings.
Mark was not aware of any arrangement to adjust our project grades to facilitate them being able
to make a compliant landing. He thought they were only removing the concrete landing in order
to install a more aesthetic tile entry.]
When the first section of sidewalk was poured on March 6, 2012 (reaching the 781- 779
entrances) we discovered that the height and slope were not done to our recommendation
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - we have no idea what their recommendation was other
than a handwritten sketch with 2 grade changes on it. However as built survey indicates that we
did meet or exceed their “recommendation” if that sketch was indeed their recommendation.
Again, they did not have a permit or an approved drawing of any kind showing new grades. They
did not work with Bridget Fraser the Project engineer/designer, at any time during the design or
construction to provide “recommended” grades] and therefore created a material ADA
compliance issue due to the manner in which the sidewalk was poured. The sidewalk adjacent to
the 781-779 entry is 1/2” lower than the existing aprons, which only exacerbated our problem.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Since the existing aprons were demolished by Madonna
without a permit, it is hard to say if this statement is correct. Our As-built survey indicates the
area is in front of the 779/781 landing is .02’ lower than what existed prior to the demo. This is a
little less than ¼”] Further, the new sidewalk is 1/2” -3/4” lower than the existing sidewalk at the
transition from new to old and the existing curb has been lowered as well. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - I have no idea what he means by the “transition.” Throughout the whole
frontage, the new curbs either matched the existing elevation or were raised (up to 2” or more)
except for one area that was lowered to remove a hump. See profile. The back of walks matched
existing grades and landings except at the area discussed above that was found to be a little less
than a ¼” lower than existing.] These modifications in grade and slope have changed our building
entrance transitions so that they cannot be ADA compliant without costly and disruptive interior
ramps . [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - The only way to make their landings compliant
would be for the City to have raised the back of the sidewalk at their landings. The existing
landings that they installed were not compliant as shown on the as-builts. What we did or didn’t
do at the curb has no impact on what they do at their landings. If the architect had coordinated
with the project engineer it might, or might not, have been possible to raise the back of walk to
accommodate their non-compliant situation. Again no one made contact with the project
engineer. Furthermore Tim Girvin (email of June 19th) has already spent time with Bague to help
resolve the issue of the non-compliant landings and suggested ways to comply.]
Mr. Tim Girvin Page 2 June 14, 2012
Attachment 4 - 2
PH2 - 20
3
We immediately made the City and the contractor aware of this situation/problem.
[[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Again, no contact made with project engineer. Not sure
who they “immediately” contacted. Contractor did not bring up the need to adjust the back of
walk grades to the project engineer or inspector.] Rather than address the situation, matters were
then made worse two weeks later when the City chose to proceed without addressing the sloping
problem and the contractor poured the second section of the sidewalk which then made it
impossible for the entrance at 785 Higuera Street to become ADA compliant without interior
ramping. The entrance at 787 appears to be compliant. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
Again if they had a sloping problem with their landings it was not brought to the attention of the
project engineer. This type of coordination should have been brought up during the design phase
as well as through a building permit process.]
To correct this situation will require the replacement of the new sidewalk with one that is
compatible with the relevant building entrances. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - I don’t
believe it is the City’s responsibility to adjust our sidewalks to take care of their non-compliant
issues for the building. Additionally, Girvin has already given Bague ideas on how they can
comply without removing sidewalks or significant interior work.] We are asking the City to
replace the sidewalk and correct this situation. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - This
problem was not created by the City. This problem was created by the building owner not
coordinating their issue with the project engineer. Also, they had no building permit or plans
indicating the need for new higher grades at the back of walk. This would have helped flag the
situation and provide coordination between the two projects. If I had known we might have been
able to accommodate them. They keep saying they coordinated with all these City folks but who
were they?] Doing so will require close coordination. We would like to schedule a meeting for
this purpose. Please contact me as soon as you are able.
Sincerely yours,
Harmon M. Shragge, Jr.
Property Manager
CC B. Maytag
J. Bague
M. Landes
D. Law Esq.
Attachment 4 - 3
PH2 - 21
1
Lynch, Barbara
From:Girvin, Tim
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:18 AM
To:'Harmon Shragge'
Cc:Johnson, Derek; Walter, Jay; Lynch, Barbara; Fraser, Bridget; Horn, Matt; Ellery, Mark;
Armet, Robert; Cruce, Greg
Subject:RE: 779-781 Higuera Street
Mr. Schragge,
I met with Mr. Bague after the sidewalk was installed and discussed options for replacing the landings in front of the
building in question. I had been alerted to the issue because ADA upgrade work is subject to a permit and there are
provisions in the California Building Code to allow fo r va riances. I proposed a scenario in which code requirements could
be met with precise design and installation of the landings, or one or more of the landings could provide improved
features that may not meet the practical standards, yet be in compliance with the prescriptive code requirements due to
circumstances known as a hardship. The Building Division will be available to follow‐up on whatever scope of work is
proposed, but keep in mind that, in this case, obtaining proper permits is a requirement of the building code and the
City expects coordination of effort between right of way im provements and private property permitting to achieve code
compliance.
Based on the request stated in your letter I have referred this request to the Public Works Department for follow‐
up. Please refer any future correspondence related to public improvements to Jay Walter, Public Works Director or
Barbara Lynch, City Engineer. I have included them in this update so you should have their email contacts for future
reference.
I will state again, feel free to work with Building Division staff when proposing replacement of the landings, my staff or I
will help coordinate code complying ADA upgrades.
Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From: Harmon Shragge [mailto:harmon@shragge.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Girvin, Tim
Subject: 779-781 Higuera Street
Hi Tim,
Attached is a letter concerning the sidewalk in front of the above building.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Harmon
Attachment 5
PH2 - 22
June 30, 2012
Tim Girvin
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Tim,
Thank you for your email of June 19, 2012 regarding the sidewalk issue at the Maytag
building. We have always maintained an excellent relationship with the various City Departments
and representatives. During the seismic upgrade of our building both the Planning and Building
officials that we worked with were efficient, pleasant and professional. This is why I am just a bit
confused because up until now, all parties have always acted in good faith.
Upon completion of our seismic upgrade we understood that the entrances to the units at
779, 781 and 785 Higuera were not in compliance with ADA. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - This is in direct conflict with Bague letter were he states they were all in compliance
at time of building final.] We worked with various City officials [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET
FRASER - who? And when?] and together concluded that when the new sidewalk was to be
poured, most if not all our sloping/ADA issues could be addressed by raising the curb by ½ inch
and simply connecting the raised curb and sidewalk to our upgraded landings. [RESPONSE BY
BRIDGET FRASER - Hal has a different version of this. There was no agreement, no plans no
written correspondence that we can find that suggests that the City was going to design our
sidewalks to take care of their compliance problem.] I understand that this solution in some form
was utilized across the street to great success. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - He is
referring to the sidewalks in front of the Namen building. We did not do anything other than tie
our sidewalks into the existing landings and designed our sidewalks to get as close to 2% cross
fall as possible. We did the exact same thing at the Maytag building and throughout the project.
There was no special coordination at the Namen Bldg. So I’m not really sure what he is trying to
say. We handled the design of our sidewalks that same on the entire downtown project.]
Attachment 6 - 1
PH2 - 23
2
Jeff Bague and our contractor continued this discussion both with the City [RESPONSE
BY BRIDGET FRASER - who? No one remembers being contracted by Bague until it was after
the fact] and with the City’s contractor prior the pouring of the new sidewalk. Imagine our
dismay when the first section of the sidewalk was poured with a lower curb and steeper slopes.
[RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - The as-built survey shows it was not poured lower or at
steeper slopes except for the areas already discussed previously.] Even after additional
discussions with the City’s contractor, the second section of sidewalk was poured, again with a
lower curb and steeper slopes than existed originally. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER -
This is incorrect. As-built indicates top of curbs were raised (except at one point) and slopes were
much less steep. Contractor told Mark they were not going to get involved. Again no one at the
City was aware that they wanted the City to raise grades for them. We matched their existing
apron grades.]
While we appreciate the City’s willingness to work with us to remedy the issue, we
believe there would not have been an issue had the City either not poured the sidewalk lower than
it was before, or listened to our representatives when they told the City’s contractor after the first
pour that it was too low. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - Again the sidewalk was not
poured lower (except for one point) or steeper. Also who did their representative talk to and
when?]
In light of the foregoing, and the fact that it is our understanding that the sidewalk across
the street was poured correctly, we believe the City should remedy the issue rather than requiring
us to do so. [RESPONSE BY BRIDGET FRASER - I don’t know what the sidewalk across the
street has to do with their non-compliant landings. As far as I know the City did not do anything
more than meet the existing aprons and meet the 2% slopes like we did on the entire project.
Again, I’m not clear what he is trying to imply.]
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Harmon M. Shragge, Jr.
Property Manager
CC B. Maytag
J. Bague
M. Landes
D. Law Esq.
Attachment 6 - 2
PH2 - 24
Attachment 7 - 1
PH2 - 25
Attachment 7 - 2
PH2 - 26
Attachment 7 - 3
PH2 - 27
Attachment 7 - 4
PH2 - 28
Attachment 7 - 5
PH2 - 29
Attachment 8 - 1
PH2 - 30
Attachment 8 - 2
PH2 - 31
Attachment 9 - 1
PH2 - 32
Attachment 9 - 2
PH2 - 33
Attachment 9 - 3
PH2 - 34
Attachment 9 - 4
PH2 - 35
Attachment 9 - 5
PH2 - 36
Attachment 9 - 6
PH2 - 37
Attachment 9 - 7
PH2 - 38
STYE
If
I - City Attorney's Officei; pj
990 Palm Street.San Luis Obispo.CA 93401-3249
dots `ice 805.7817140
sincity org
August 15, 2014
Dennis Law
Andre Morris and Buttery
P.O. Box 730
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RE: 779 Higuera Street Permit Appeal — Appeal to Final Decision
Permit No. 140245)
Dear Mr. Law,
The City of San Luis Obispo is in receipt of the appeal you filed on behalf of your
client, Beverly Maytag, regarding the above referenced matter.
The underlying decisionyou are appealing relates to workwithin the public right-of-
way pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code ("SLOMC") Chapter 12.04; it is not a
Title 17 decision. The correct appellate body for this matter is the San Luis Obispo City
Council as described in my July 24, 2014 letter to you.' A hearing date of September 16,
2014 has been tentatively scheduled. The City Council meets in the San Luis Obispo
Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San LuisObispostarting at 6:00 p.m. A staff
report will be preparedand will be available prior to the hearing date.
Please let me know as soon as possible if this hearing date conflicts with your or
yourclient's schedules. Thank you.
Sin 'ely,
n An olabehere
Assistant City Attorney
Cc: Daryl Grigsby, PublicWorks Director
Derek Johnson, Planning Director
Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer
HalHannula, Supervising Civil Engineer
See SLOMC Section 12.04.060.
Attachment 10PH2 - 39
Attachment 11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO
DENY AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AT 779,
781, 785 AND 787 HIGUERA STREET (PERMIT NO. 140245)
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2014, an application (Permit No. 140245; the “Application”)
was filed with the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) to allow, among other things, the
replacement of sidewalk within the City’s right-of-way located at 779-787 Higuera Street, San
Luis Obispo, California (the Property”); and
WHEREAS, during plan check for the Application, the following comments were noted
in regards to the applicant’s request to encroach into the City’s right-of-way in front of the
Property: “[p]roject plans shall be revised…without replacing the existing…sidewalk” and
“Public Works will not allow the street sidewalk to be replaced.”; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the applicant’s representative submitted a letter with the
City requesting a final decision on the Application as to whether the City would allow the
applicant to replace the sidewalk in front of the Property; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2014, the City rendered a final decision and denied the
Applicant’s request for an encroachment permit to reconstruct the City’s sidewalks in front of the
Property. The City’s July 24, 2014 denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014, the applicant appealed the City’s July 24, 2014 denial of
the encroachment permit pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.20.20;
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the
Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
considering the appeal of City staff’s decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, oral and written
testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. That the applicant seeks to encroach within the City’s public right-of-way pursuant to
Chapter 12.04 of the City’s Municipal Code;
PH2 - 40
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 11
Page 2
b. That San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.04.060 authorizes the City Engineer to
approve, conditionally approve or reject an encroachment permit application;
c. That the City’s downtown area is a critical component to the City’s identity and economic
health and well-being;
d. That between September 2010 to September 2011, the City designed a downtown
beautification project (the “Beautification Project”) which included the replacement of
the sidewalk in front of the Property;
e. That on March 5, 2012, as part of the Beautification Project, the City demolished the City
sidewalk in front of 779 and 781 Higuera Street;
f. That on or about March 5, 2012, the City discovered unpermitted work at the Property,
namely that the store landings at 779 and 781 Higuera Street were being replaced without
a building permit;
g. That on March 6, 2012, the City’s contractor poured the sidewalk in front of 779 and 781
Higuera up to the store wall that separates 781 and 785 Higuera Street;
h. That between March 12-13, 2012, the City’s contractor demolished and poured the
sidewalk in front of 785 and 787 Higuera Street;
i. That based on pre and post construction surveys, the back portion of the City’s sidewalk
that was replaced in front of the Property as part of the Beautification Project was equal to
or higher than the pre-construction grade with the exception of the portion in front of 779
and 781 Higuera Street, which was poured .02” lower than the original sidewalk and that
such deviation is within normal construction tolerances for concrete work;
j. That the Beautification Project, namely the replacement of the City’s sidewalk on Higuera
Street between Morro Street and Garden Street, did not create or otherwise contribute to
any non-compliance issues for the Property with regard to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”);
k. That the applicant/ owner of the Property has alternate solutions available which are
exclusively within the Property, which do not adversely affect the City’s right-of-way;
l. That the plans reviewed by City staff thus far, do not adequately demonstrate that removal
and replacement of the City’s sidewalk in front of the Property will actually bring the
Property into compliance with the ADA; that the plans also do not include adequate
engineering detail, survey and analysis to show the ultimate sidewalk section and code
compliance for the public right-of-way and private landings; that the plans further do not
include certain fixed planes such as custom tree grates and utility vaults; and that the
proposed sidewalk design from the applicant indicate potential incompatibility between
the curb and parked cars;
PH2 - 41
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 11
Page 3
m. That removal and replacement of the sidewalk in front of the Property will cause
unnecessary additional disruption to the City’s downtown community and will severely
impact pedestrian traffic and parking;
n. That replacement of the sidewalk in front of the Property will unnecessarily disrupt
important community events within this area (i.e. Farmers Market) as the power pedestals
within this portion of Higuera Street would be inoperable during construction and the
sidewalk closed; and
o. That the sidewalk in front of the Property is nearly brand new and was part of a
comprehensive downtown beautification project and that replacement of only a portion of
the sidewalk will likely result in inconsistent coloring and texture between the different
portions of the sidewalk.
SECTION 2. Action: That for the foregoing reasons enumerated above, the City Council
hereby denies the appeal filed by Beverley Maytag and upholds the decision of the Public Works
Director denying an encroachment permit to replace the sidewalk located within the City’s right-
of-way between 779-787 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PH2 - 42
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 11
Page 4
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 43
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH2 - 44