HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1990, 1 - HEARING TO PASS UPON OBJECTIONS RAISED BY PROPERTY OWNERS TO CITY REQUIREMENT THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING DATE:
1111 algllqwl 1 city Of San tuffs OBISPO Marnh 20- 199n
a ITEM
ONIZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: /
FROM:
David F. Romero Dennis Coev Prepared by: Tony Heller
Public Works Dir. Streets Ma
SUBJECT:
Hearing to pass upon objections raised by property owners to
city requirement that property owners install curb, gutter and
sidewalk improvements where more than 50% of the block is
already improved
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
After hearing objections or protests, by motion make
determinations regarding modifications, and approve 1989-90 Sidewalk
Improvement List.
BACKGROUND:
Resolution No. 6031 ( 1986 Series) calls for the Staff to bring to
Council attention those properties where more than 50% of the frontage
of a block has been improved, thereby meeting 1911 Act criteria for
completion of improvements within a block.
A staff survey of sidewalk improvements within the community resulted
in the list shown on Exhibit A (attached) . At its meeting of
February 6, 1990, the City Council approved the list as submitted, and
the staff has sent out appropriate notices to construct improvements .
Provisions of the 1911 Act call for a public hearing when the legis-
lative body will hear and pass upon objections or protests raised by
the property owner or other interested parties. At the public
hearing, the Council may make those adjustments it feels are
appropriate.
Fiscal Impact
If the property owner does not make the improvements within the time
allotted in the Act, the City has the work done. Upon completion of
the work, the property owner has an opportunity to pay for the costs .
On major improvements, the property owner may opt to make a three year
repayment in accordance with a Council approved funding arrangement .
If the property owner takes no action, the cost of the improvements
becomes a lien against the property collectable with taxes.
If the City finances all the work, total cost would be approximately
$143,083.00. Past experience is that approximately 70% of owners
either have the work done or pay their share in cash.. If past history
holds, the City could expect to finance approximately $42,925.00 of
property owners obligated work and approximately $8,000.00 for city-
owned property. There is approximately $85,000.00 remaining in
q'1QfX1 j� city of San tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Sidewalk improvements
Page 2
sidewalk budget accounts for this work. These accounts are 001-5049-
008-105 with $41 , 304 .98 in the operating budget and also 060-0527-
008-105 with $43,846. 34 in a revolving reimbursable account .
Under the 1911 Act, there is no provision to charge for administrated
cost of this sidewalk program.
Alternatives
1 . Option 1 - Approve list as submitted.
2 . Option 2 - Council may remove individual properties or entire
blocks from list.
Attachments : Resolution 6031 ( 1986 Series)
Exhibit A (Map)
Exhibit B (Proposed Improvements)
Exhibit C (List of Properties, Owners & Work required)
Exhibit D (Approximate Costs)
Letters from Property Owners
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
AZ4 AJ S" ZAA444^-
C' y tt ne
Finance Director
Public Works Director
dh
agd-50%.wp/heller#1
RrsOL(T aq 240. 6031 (1906 Series)
A RL-SOL rrio,4 OF nr COUNCIL OF Ti•IL• CITE' Or
S.411 LUIS OBISPO ADOPT114G Ga;MRAL CRIMIA AND
SITc SLS.-ION PRIORITIc•S FOR TIM, SIDORALX
T!•'i ROVI2-i.�dT Pi�0.a'T2A•1
W,Ifft- . the City desires that its Citlzem have available safe,
convenient and suitably located sldeoalks; and
mMZFPS, many areas of the City do not have such sidewalks; and
K-ERFAS, the City desires such areas to be i=raved corsidering needs,
hazards and the wishes of the :Lighborhoods,
Na,4, T'ri ELORE, BE IT RF-50L',=, that the City C ancil h^reby adopts
the follaaing:
CRITEERA
a. Side.^Jk proJr:� st -m-lc integrate repair a:Yi co:ut:uticr..
b. Sidz.311: o-ogr-._'i s1'. ,zld c-n: ire Safety,
of c`tild-c- .'o t!uc effect, City sta4f s'd'jild cc.uL:lt
sc1=1 aUzhL-7j11:ie•.3 ''T;•_s :n prerxaz-in; speci=iC CO:L.:,
orioritics.
e. City-lnit_atca 1>^ installed O.-11v 4.:'C:\? :!'�^:'`-' J-
dc.orstrated ped-t."Iznn
d. City -ho,: \
ld v'�otl fa -o:-ably teen it is PetitAcL d
i=raverants trl rare a--an Of theoc.oers of a blocs= ( •'=:,e
Portionsirer^y i::?;c\tr' arc considered a favo^Ule •o<<:)
e. Sick•,.-,.,] p_-ogT--: should co::sider tO�aptry and siS Lifi�nt crc -
f. Council may- consider scenic natvs•e of area, desires of the
neighborhood, traffic fla.-i and other Judg=,-nt itc in 1L
determinations.
/-3
Resolution 11o. 6031 (198G Series)
g. Staff will bring to Council attention those properties tahere
more Uun 50% of the frontage of a block lv.Ls been i=roved,
thereby rceting 1911 Act criteria for completion of improvanents
within a block.
SITE SELECCTION PRIORITIES POR COIJSTRUCTION Or NZ-7 SIDEDLALl'S
1. In areas faith safety hazards or heavy pedestrian use, especially
cdzildren.
2. Along arterial and collector streets near schools, parks, churel---s,
r--ighborhood ca-,.-;ercial cente=.
3. Along local streets near schools, parks, ehurG*�—, ajc-: rLighborlooa
ccr=rrcial 'centera.
In oth=r rsidential and ca-r_-rcial ax-cv :s n--0--sS -Y.
On .:ot1CM of Council:-gin Griffin SecC"ed by Councils::±❑ 5ecLl�
t folic.iz-13 roll call vozc:
AvZS: Councilr:cmbcrs Griffin. SCCCIC, Dovey and �, yo: Uunin
1n-jE:S: Nonc
As--:j,r: Councilt:orun faPpa
the forgoing Resolution tti; _passed and adopted this 1501 day of
July 198G.
'MAYOR RON EXPaN
A 1:
CIP CLERK mmaf VOGL•S
Af�P:Ov•.0:
Ciy .,Administra i vjC d ficcr
City 4tV l, rncy
C.
v
Public Works Dircctor
C EXHIBIT. "A►►
� a �—_�� ♦ �,.
POLY
e �(t -r 'e e, • �9 t t 1 • � ��
e.."
sc.
ec..e. a••e ♦' % '.e• �•`� 4Na .uy •' < f��xG,
w,tir ' = tool"" °lra
at" a •.,
ye GG,aVwa f - G(`slalom alm
n
tt
/JSL lllw ffa4•D N.
i
s •elfi0" r , �c �i .•. � ff
2 5 � .. („at•♦ � � 3. � � orb
e• � c /
ti
CHORRO ST. d''`•�♦ �r`sy'vr, ! `vvb
RAFAEL WAY
LINCOLN AVE. a/`J`-!+�'•� '§ 7
ALMOND -EAST SIDE �> 8
ALMOND -WEST SIDE =
PARK ST.
BRECK ST. `
Or• i �• ' O
IRIS ST. °. It. ♦�� '�
ELLA ST .
) . SWAZEY ST. °
L . BUCHON ST. .%
? BUCHON ST.
f�. ,� G/e `, . •`. � r Jam':
3 . BRANCH ST. >
L . BRANCH ST. / ` s' •,p.L�� '
i . FUNSTON ST. .,..f„ •'; _ �'� 9 ` ; '
3 . LAWTON ST. I A
- �—
r . WOOD.BRIDGE ST. = - - ` -p• \'N'
3 . WOODBRIDGE ST.
) . CAUDILL ST. _ Dv,- V1�. „ _.�'
) . FRANCIS ST. e _� _f'"�' :y 17
SWEENEY ST.
! . ROCKVIEW PL. f �_
20
}eq�/t<♦ .r0 _ •''yv-y. r� � .Y•" cam' 'cj t•.
0-cul I
Yom..• .. mac. ;" / - a = c _ •,,.o,< •a.•
••',f �o}�t��. �' / ,` •fes.
fum c
e y
�,. EXHIBIT "B"
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - 1911 ACT - 50% RULE
1 . East side - Chorro (between Boysen and Highland)
539.96 feet - total footage
improved - 438.5 feet = 81%
unimproved - 101. 1 feet = 19%
2 . East side - Rafael Way (between Lunetta and Ramona)
471 .76 feet - total footage
improved - 295.75 feet = 63%
unimproved - 176:01 feet = 37%
3. West side - Lincoln (between Venable and Mission)
291 .46 feet - total footage
improved - 157.73 feet = 64%
unimproved - 133.73 feet = 46%
4. East side - Almond (between Center and Mission)
726.78 feet - total footage
improved - 533 .0 feet = 73%
unimproved - 1.93.18 feet = 27%
- 5 . West side - Almond (between Venable & Mission)
371 .25 feet- total footage
improved - 248.72 feet = 67%
unimproved - 122.53 feet = 3356
6. West side - Park (between Phillips and Hillcrest)
251 .0 feet - total footage
improved - 181 feet = 76%
unimproved - 64 feet = 24%
7 . North side - Breck (between Johnson and Fairview)
-300.0 feet - total footage
improved - 200.0 feet 67%
unimproved - 100.0 feet = 33%
8 . North side - Iris (between Johnson and Fixlini)
294.0 feet - total footage
improved - 244 .0 feet = 83%
unimproved - 50.0 feet = 17%
9 . South side - Ella (between Osos and Binns Court)
1181 . 16 feet - total footage
improved - 790. 16 feet = 67%
unimproved - 391 .0 feet = 33%
10. West side - Swazey (between Osos and south end)
515.97 feet - total footage
improved - 387.47 feet = 75%
unimproved - 127.5 feet = 25%
Exhibit ogn -
Page 2
11 . North side - Buchon (between Nipomo and Beach)
450.0 feet - total footage
improved - 348.0 feet = 77%
unimproved - 102.0 feet = 23%
12. South side - Buchon (between Carmel and Beach)
450.0 feet - total footage
improved - 261 . 5 feet = 58%
unimproved - 188 . 5 feet = 42%
13 . South side - Branch (between Beebee and Ring)
1664.70 feet - total footage
improved - 1194. 53 feet = 72%
unimproved - 470. 17 feet = 28%
14. South Side - Branch (between King and Broad)
1528.45 feet - total footage
improved - 1181 .95 feet= 77%
unimproved - 346.50 feet = 23%
15. North side - Funston (between Lawton and Broad)
333.0 feet - total footage
improved 250.0 feet = 75%
unimproved - 83.0 feet = 25%
16. West side - Lawton (between South and Funston)
350.0 feet - total footage
improved - 194. 5 feet = 56%
unimproved - 155 . 5 feet = 44%
17 . North side - Woodbridge (between Broad and Victoria)
400.25 feet - total footage
improved -315 .70 feet = 79%
unimproved _ 84. 55 feet= 21%
18 . South -side - Woodbridge (between Broad and Victoria)
330.0 feet - total footage
improved - 290.0 feet = 88%
unimproved - 40.0 feet = 12%
19 . South side - Caudill (between Broad and Victoria)
330.09 feet - total footage
improved - 290.09 feet = 88%
unimproved - 40.0 feet = 12%
20. South side - Francis (between Broad and Victoria)
340.0 feet - total footage
Improved - 300.0 feet = 88%
unimproved - 40.0 feet = 12%
/ O
I
Exhibit "B"
Page 3
21 . South side - Sweeney (between Broad and Rockview)
507.69 feet - total footage
improved - 369.69 feet = 73%
unimproved - 138.0 feet = 27%
22. East side - Rockview (between Sweeney and Broad)
1825.94 feet total footage
improved - 1000.59 .feet = 55%
unimproved - 825.35 feet = .45%
sidewalk.wp/th*1
JJ
EXHIBIT "C"
LIST OF PROPERTIES, OWNERS AND WORK REQUIRED
Note: S = Sidewalk
C = Curb & Gutter
D = Driveway Ramp
W = Wall
Work
Location A.P.No. Owner Required
N. Chorro St. 52-331-21 R.H.& M.McCapes S
(vacant lot) c/o Ready Realty
32 Rafael Way 52-154-01 I . Miller S
48 Rafael Way 52-154-03 M. Butler, etal S
60 Rafael Way 52-154-04 M.& E. Kurkeyerian S,D
233 Lincoln Ave. 01-105-21 K.J. McBride, Tre. S
245 Lincoln Ave. 01-105-22 E.W. Gates S
280 Almond 01-104-03 J.R.Jr .& P. Dee S, move
fence back
262 Almond 01-104-02 C.& L. Margaroli , S, move
etal tree & shrubs
234 Almond 01-103-16 W.D. Baker S, move
rose bushes,
shrubs
216 Almond 01-103-11 E.R. Wade, etal S
208 Almond 01-103-01 C .J . Gibson S , very
lg.shrubs
in s/w area
735 Mission 01-101-10 M.& A. Kurkeyerian S
(Almond St . side)
215 Almond 01-101-32 D.C.& P . Moderman S, now
has brick s/w,
Ig. tree middle
of s/w
221 Almond 01-101-33 A. Mehschau S
1690 Phillips 01-063-18 Stacy M.Kiggens, S ,C,W,
(Park St . side) etal need H.C .R. , NW
corner Phillips
& Park
J-!D
Exhibit "C"
Page 2
1693 Johnson 03-564-27 Lee Swam S, power
(Breck St. side) pole in s/w area
1690 Fairview . 03-564-09 B.R.Long S,C,D
(Breck St. side) H.C.R. , NE corner
Fairview & Breck
1492 Iris 03-58. 2-05 G.B.& L.K. Benner S, fire
hydrant
1013 Ella 03-663-01 D.E. Williams S,C,D,W,
high bank, D.I . , gas
stand pipe, power
pole, H.C.R.
1215 Ella 03-664-25 W.S.& L.Thompson C,D,
S-4' intg.
1205 Ella 03-664-26 Martha Reed C,D,W,steps,
S-4 ' intg. ,
high dirt bank
1141 Ella 03-664-17 W.C .& C .Voorlas C,D
S-4 ' intg.
1131 Ella 03-664-21 C ,C .Noel , etal S,C,D intg.
1109 Ella 03-664=23 M.Huszarik C,D
5-4 ' intg. "
2027 Swazey 03-652-17 G.L. Sanford S _
2033 ,Swazey 03-652-16 G.L. Earp-Thomas , S
Tre.
cul-de-sac S .end
Swazey-vacant lot 03-652-27 Allen R. Ochs S
530 Buchon 03-615-08 L.A. Brazail S
441 Buchon 03-614-18 M.S . Blair S
. 443-45 Buchon 03-614-02 B.J. Bilsten, etal S,D
477 Buchon 03-614-05 R.J. Osbaldeston S,D
1503 Beach 03-614-19 H.Rosewall , etal S
� , (Buchon St. side)
C �
Exhibit "C"
Page 3 `-
261 Branch 03-724-09 R.C. & E. Banez CID,
S-4 'det .
319 Branch 03-739-03 G. Woelfle CID,
S-4` det.
323 Branch 03-739-04 I .C. Nevarez, CID,
etal S-4 ' det.
353 Branch 03-739-08 J. McNeil , etal CID,
S-4 ' det .
365 Branch 03-739-09 E.D. & S .Schrenk CID,
S-4' det.
367 Branch 03-739-10 D.E. Weddle CID,
S-4 ' det.
403 Branch 03-739-14 D.W.Rosenthal , CID,
Tr. , etal S-4 ' det .
421 Branch 03-739-39 R.E.& B.Edwards CID
S-4 ' det.
2150-60 King 03-739-18 SMS Co. S-4 ' det.
(Branch side) c/o F . McNamara C-very high
dirt bank
463 Branch 03-739-19 M.Stoutenborough CID,
S-4' det .
483 Branch 03-739-22 J .C . Radding CID
S-4 ' det .
511 Branch 03-749-01 G.M. Mellema CID
S-4 ' det .
525 Branch 03-749-29 P.C. /B.J. Wurster CID,
S-4 ' det .
531 Branch 03-749-06 C. Thomas CID, trim
back hedge
S-4 ' det .
543 Branch 03-749-08 H.J. Byzinski CID,
S-4 ' det..
610 Funston 04-841-14 C.& G .G.Nungaray S
Tres.
Exhibit "C"
Page 4
2201_ Lawton 04-832-03 Church of Christ S'C'
Inc. H.C.R.NW corner
Funston & Lawton
762 Woodbridge 04-846-13 W.L.& M.H.Cattaneo S-6' det.
Tres.
756 Woodbridge 04-846-23 W.L.Cattaneo, S-6' det.
Tr. ,etal
750 Woodbridge 04-846-23 W.L.Cattaneo S-4 ' transit
Tr. ,etal to 6 ' s/w at.
W. end prop.
City - C/G
753 Woodbridge 04-921-08 C.E.Fluitt, S
etal
743 Caudill 04-923=19 S.J :& B.J.Cegielski S,C,D,
move hedge
back of new s/w
2653 Victoria 04-925-13 I .Novoa, Tre. , S,C
(Francis St . side) etal H.C.R. , NW crn.
Francis & Victo-
ria;replace fence
back of new s/w
601 Sweeney Ln. 04-583-04 A.F .Reilly Sweeney side:
& Rockview Pl .sid_e S,C ,D, drain
under s/w;
Rockview side•
C,S-4 ' integ. ,
H.C :R.-SE crn.
Sweeney/Rockview
3049-69-79 Broad 04-583-29 I .M.& R. Shulman C,D,
(Rockview side) - S-4 ' integ._
3212 Rockview 04-583-17 Downing Ent . , C'D'
Inc. S-4 ' integ. ;
move fence back
of new s/w
steps down into
property .
3204 Rockview 04-583-16 Paul Jones C.,D,
S=4 ' integ.
/-/3
Exhibit "C"
Page 5 �
3280 Rockview 04-601-08 G.W.& L.S .Smalley C,D,
S-4' integ.
3355 Broad 04-601-14 Douglas L. Redican C,D,
(Rockview side) S-4 ' integ.
3361 Broad 04-601-18 " C,D,
(Rockview side) S-4 ' integ.
3369 Broad 04-601-19 C,D,
(Rockview side) S-4 ' integ.
3375-79 Broad 04-601-24 " C,D,
(Rockview side) S-4 ' integ.
C-
sidewalk.wp/th#1
EXHIBIT "D"
LIST OF PROPERTIES, OWNERS AND APPROXIMATE COSTS
Location Owner Approxi Cost
. N. Chorro St. R.H.& M. McCapes $ 1 , 612 . 55
(vacant lot) c/o Ready Realty
32 Rafael Way I . Miller 893 .37
48 Rafael Way M. Butler, etal 1 , 375.00
60 Rafael Way M.M.& E. Kurkeyerian 2,:255.00
233 Lincoln K.J. McBride, Tre. 11051 .90
245 Lincoln E.W. Gates 1 ,522.91
208 Almond C.J. Gibson 1 ,.259.06
216 Almond E.R. Wade, etal 841 . 25
234 Almond Wenonah D . Baker 841 . 25
262 Almond C .W.& L. Margaroli 841 .-25
280 Almond J.R. Jr. & P. Dee, 1 , 241 .25
735 Mission M.M.& A. Kurkeyerian 1 ,489 . 70
(Almond St. side)
215 Almond D.C.& P. Moerman 1 , 200. 00
221 Almond A. Mehlschau 939 .95
1690 Phillips Stacy M. Kiggens 5 , 512 .00
(Park St . •side) etal
1693 Johnson Lee Swam 385.00
(Breck St . side)
1690 Fairview B.R. Long 3 , 301 . 80
(Breck St . side)
1492 Iris G.B.& L.K. Benner 935.00
1013 Ella D .E. Williams 6,610.25
1215 Ella W.S .& L.N.Thompson 5, 170.00
1205 Ella M. Reed 7,420.00
1141 Ella W.C.& C.C.Voorlas 2, 310.00
Exhibit "D"
page 2
1.131 Ella _ C.C. Noel, etal $ 2 , 310.00
1109 Ella M. Huszarik 2 , 310.00
2027 Swazey G.L. Sanford 346. 50
2033 Swazey G.L. Earp-Thomas, Tre.E. 643.50
vacant lot - S.end
Swazey A.R. Ochs 957.00
530 Buchon L.A. Brazil 1 ,683.00
441 Buchon M.S. Blair 330.00
443 Buchon B.J. Bilsten, etal 1 ,821 .05
477 Buchon R.J. Osbaldeston 1 ,821 .05
1503 Beach H. Rosewall , etal 1 , 100. 55
(Buchon St . side)
261 Branch R.C .& E. Banez 2 , 150.00.
319 Branch G. Woelfle 2 , 150.00
323 Branch I .C. Nevarez , etal 2 , 150.00
353 Branch J. McNeil , etal 2 , 150.00
365 Branch E.D.& S . Schrenk 2 , 150. 00
367 Branch D .E. Weddle 2 , 150.00
403 Branch D.W. Roenthal , Tr . ,etal 2 , 150 . 00
421 Branch R.E.& B. Edwardes 2 , 150.00
2150-60 King S.M.S. Co. .1 ,900.00
c/o F. McNamara
463 Branch M. Stoutenborough 2 , 310.00
483 Branch J.C. Radding 2, 310.00
511 Branch G.M. Mellema 2 , 310.00
525 Branch P.C. /B.J. Wurster 2, 310 .00
531 Branch C. Thomas 2 , 187 . 50
Exhibit "D"
Page 3
543 Branch H.J. Byzinski $ 2 ,310.00
610 Funston C.& G.G. Nungaray, Tres. 10156:00
2201 Lawton Church of Christ, Inc. 4, 812.73
762 Woodbridge W.L.& M.H. Cattaneo 1 ,025 .00
756 Woodbridge W.L. Cattaneo, Tr: , etal 450.00 .
750 Woodbridge W.L. Cattaneo, Tr. , etal 440.00
753 Woodbridge. C.E. Fluitt , etal 660.00
743 Caudill S.J.& B.J. Cegielski 2 ,757.00
2653 Victoria I . Novoa, Tre, etal 2, 140.00
(Francis St . side)
601 Sweeney Ln. A..F. Reilly 5 ,997 :00
&. Rockview Pl . side
3049-69-79 Broad I .M.& R. Shulman 4 ,450.00
(Rockview side)
3212 Rockview Downing -Ent . , Inc. 2 ,712 . 75
3204 Rockview Paul Jones 5,539 . 30
3280 Rockview G.W.& L. Smalley 2 , 551 . 30
3355 Broad Douglas L. Redican 2 ,999 . 50
(Rockview side)
3361 Broad " 2 , 479 .00
(Rockview side)
3369 Broad 2 ,96.6. 50
(Rockview side)
3375 Broad 4 , 778 . 20
(Rockview side)
These are approximate costs to have work done at City
contractor's bid prices. Going to formal bid, the cost may
be more or less. `
sidewalk.wp/th#1
February 26, 1990
To the Honorable Mayor Ron Dunin and the City Council;
My name is Betty Long and I live at 1690 Fairview St.
San Luis Obispo. The corner of Breck and Fairview.
I am writing concering a sidewalk,curb,and gutter to be
constructed down the Breck St. side of my home'.
I donit see any advantage to putting in the sidewalk
since practically no one walks here.
The sidewalk will run into a 1vfoot road hardly wide
enough for two cars to pass. Please see picture no. 24.
I am afraid the six foot sidewalk will kill my hedge
which has proven a protection for my home. On Dec. 15, 1989
a large Van ran through the hedge and would have hit my home
if the 45 year old hedge had not slowed and stopped the Van
from hitting my home.
Please see picture n0. 14 9 and 10. Van and Hedge.
Pictures no.11 and 23 show where a 6 foot sidewalk
will cut the roots of my hedge and kill it.
Pictures no. 2 amWM& show1 a four foot sidewalk on
Rubio Lane in SLO off ofrRoyal Way
If I must have a sidewalk, curb and gutters I too
would prefer a four foot wide just like they have.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration
of this matter.
Sincerely.,
Betty Long
P.S.
About the only walking traffic comes from the ravine
across the street.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 6 100il
(yry CLERK
SAN LUle<1%Spo•CA
�b._ ..� X21.. ,';w. -� ��•-:...
dim
41
o
i /
Ann F. Reilly, I6;_ Crestview Cir. San Luis 0 spo, Calif 9340I
Phone- 543-47$2
Mr. David Romero, Director
Public Works Department �.
955 Morro Street,
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Feb. I6, 1990
Dear Mr. Romero: Re: 60I Sweeney St. San Luis Obispo Ca.
I refer to our 'phone conversation of today, at which time you were
kind, courteous and most of all .patient enough to explain to me
in detail the purpose of the i4CYiCE TU COA.5TRUCT, left at my
property at 601 Sweeney St. (corner of Rockview) S.L.O. for which I
thank you.
I was really shocked when you explained to me the essence of that
notice, and what it could do to me as owner of this property. I
asked why would they wish to install sidewalks and gutters at this
location when just nobody ever walks on the road in this area. This
area which is a very poor location in town, is now occupied mostly
by condominiums rented by Cal Poly students. From here they could not
walk to College so it is certain that they all drive cars. They or
practically nobody else ever walks along that part of Sweeney Street.
They all drive a car. As to the beautification of the road with this
improvement; I agree it would enhance the appearance of it. However,
this is certainly not a "preferred" of "class type" Residential section
of San Luis Obispo, and to be sure there must be other improvements in
town that are much more urgent than to improve this poor section with
water flooded .lots and the Carnation Truck Stop right across from it.
This I have found out when trying to re-rent the house of mine.Many
many times prospective tenants came to look at the house and when they -
saw the location they were no longer interested in even going further as
to inspect the house itself. The fact is that my last tenant woved out
she said because she found out about the participated construction you
told me about.
It seems so very sad to me that with the acute necessities in our beau-
tiful County, and with homeless people with children who are hungry
and who try to cuddle up in the cold and wet with sleeping bags and old
blankets--sometimes just weeds and trash from one day to the next that
the county would want to run up such a significant debt uecause some
(perhaps out of town) contractor is going to take over on adjoining
property. I feel it would not only be a mistake but it would be a
very extravagant mistake.
I am an elderly woman, in my eighties, a widow with two children, one
of whom is a cripple and cannot work. Due to an accident injury he has
an injured arm, cannot even grasp anything, and a broken neck(which med-
ical name I cannot recall) Often when in severe pain he has attacks and
goes into deep depression causing him to remain in bed several days.I
support him completely I00%f paying for housing, taxes, insurance, car.
gasoline, Doctors, Hosr,ital$Chiropractor, rain medication(�225.20 pr mo. )
House utilities, Arays etc. I am truthful when I say that many times
it takes many prayers to make ends meet each month. 1 do have a mortgage
still on my home.
You can see from this report that there is pessitively no way I could
pay some Gigantic debt to put unnecessary sidewalks a: curbs in on this
property--there is no way I cot AY t dis debt.
C 1/ SES; PAGE 2
FEB 2 0 1990
CITY CLERK -1 D
Ann F. Reilly -
"AGE -2 continuted.
And I'd .like :;o say that what could be even WOliSE than having such
a large unnecessary debt which I could never pay even a portion of
would be PUTTING A LEON FOh THIS ON ivff LITTLE, HOUSE. Such a situ-
ation could NE LH FOSSl VzL_y NEVER b DONE as have already
had an attorney draw up a will stating that at my death that little
house is to be given to my crippled son so that he can use that
little rent obtained to 'Live on. As stated, he has ausolutely no income
whatever now, and he cannot work at all. Any debt on that house such
as a leon or otherwise; would completely eliminate any help for this
poor crippled person at my death.
As stated; I am an old but honest porson.' l am in my eighties with a
crippled son. I have worked all of my life to pati all debts as they
came up. Many times I have had to do without wany things, to do so.
I still have a mortgage loan on my own home.
We live in San Luis Obispo because we LOVE San Luis Obis p
being here we ao. We are
good, honest , American Citizens. We feel re just
a very Part -of San Luis Obispo. We have treated it right , and my deceased
husband loved it also. We know that Sari Luis Obispo will not ever do
anything to hurt us or let us down---because we are part of it.
If anyone goes ahead with these plans according to your explanation
it will hurt us; it will be the end of my life and my poor son's life
after I die.
We know you will not let us down---yuu too are part of San Luis Obispo
like we are.
Again, Mr. Romero, thank you for the patients you have shown me in
understanding this matter, and cost of all thank you for being such a.
perfect Gentleman and bearing with me so that I could understand it.
I guess that is the kind of treatment we can only EXPECT when we reside
in San Luis Obispo. Right?
Very truly yours.
Ann F. Reilly; Owner o property AFR:
543-4782
P.S. I will make an effort to attend the meeting on March 20.
�OS F'c� TOS ��ssrr,cvtrat.eru�
7
FEBE
2 8 '.'
Aod F
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI
Spa
S7-' C WORKS/UTILITIES j
m,i re
--------------....... -j-7uh
I- [J-09,v-< 4, klm e( J&7 Q-i, eYtsa�ijetc,(-�_
c4e 7(b
Pug W 7La ,i-s�. -
7
L
-----------------------
6:114,&ZI-
L
i
\ n
pt o7` o w'yt c? c$r and
VA - —.7- 1
.7 Piave i s-Ack-,� 6ondsJ.
-cGcecicr�rq--.VncouhTi . GULiaT cas/z cn .Gia-nd S
Li sacs-1_ssl�s� D �711� 7�s
i� alb �iduSe. uJlii�cy _Z (.1/�lrcl
17
r
ti-dA� 7`a bi
l�L�tSe��7__ / '
s 6741Jam
ms cd. . Sf�o-nd
.............
u, . .Caa_ 7`-o c-r�,.----
(ear
_ _ _ _ _ __=lvc�v ._.a Gco-use....-fa•r--.hvc. se.. �a7' � ru-auld �ra,.ti s4m.e.meesuJr� .
rYucclL ) aT._ cvrl!_ be t S6 S ca-", t-o74 4-3,1z. Biu.
-at UEJ7
_ 77no-xcr2f�-/- 51-7`1_00-r7 .. will
t214
17`<
Rem __Ser7U7U.T/ CenS'Cda-rQ c7C �os7`'pani
_.. .. __�p3y rrc.zsa 7` 7�^. l..{-�.__•S4�eWa.11�/ k r177/ wW /2o-us.� !S- s o lad. -
71n
s4KC�__ .✓_ 1+.a-vc .a-icned/..
r
T'._ca-,-i�f_�a� .. . _
/-�3
O
� - -
P.O. Box 1450 51901S
Paso Rabies, CA 93447 ? m
March 5, 1990
David Romero, Director
Department of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro SL
San Luis ObisM CA 93401
Dear Mr. Ronteroc
As you sunoted, I am confirming in writing my response to your notice
to construct a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the front of my property
at 1205 Fella St., San Luis Obispo, In order that members of the City Council
may review this letter before their meeting on March ^ i99o. I also plan
to attend that meeting.
I find it is difficult to respond conclusively, Considering the slope of the
land, and the encroachna'nt of that slope onto the logical area for location
of a sidewalk, I cannot see that earth removal, retaining walls and engineer.
Ing of a driveway, curb, gutter and sidewalk could be conhpieted for the City's -
estimate of S5924L I will address my concerns prinw ily to the practicality
and tindng.
At this point, the driveway, such as it Is, appears to be the abandoned section
of Ruth Street which was added to the property before I purchased it. It is
very steep, and would be made even steeper by the cut required to properly
locate the sidewalk. The front yard Is level, approximately is - i5 feet above
the street. B the driveway were installed perpendicular to the street, with a
slope which would conform to realistic use requirements, It would extend be.
yond the front yard, into an even steeper section of the hillside. N it were put
In at an angle, It would remove most of the front yard
A garage,and off-street parking need to be built into the hillside. The way the
area is developing, further inWrovement of this property seems likely. Ideally,
I believe that the curb, gutter and sidewalk should be called for at the time a
building perndt is obtained, either for adding a garage, or for Its Inclusion as
part of a more extensive remodeling. At that point, it is conceivable that the
driveway might be better located somewhere else along the so foot width of
the lot, which would negate much of the work done, If it Is required at this
tima
i
4' 4EsP�( �51 ►+�A /P �o int�u� w�7 ��S� 9ra.�r..c� � -
c!r�vc-V�77 �vr src� ��c _._• � 7 yz o . �'-��
2G�C I'Ivra
You suggested getting together with neighbors, and said that you had given
my telephone number to the people who own the property next door. W.
Thompson has called me, and I am sending him a copy of this letter. Bow-
ever, other than the slope of the property, our situations seem to be quite
different, and I must confess 7o being puzzled as to how our alliance would
be of benefit As to the rest of the neighbors an the street, I see even less
similarity. What you are doing will add value, and seems to me fair. If I
were dealing with a more conventionally configured property, it is unlikely
that you would be hearing from me at all.
In condusion, I would like to restates for the benefit of the City Council, my
concern with your notification process. I understand that it is legal, but I
think itis Important to note of fectiveness�as well as legality. My property
was posted on February 13th. As of this date, that Is the only notice that
I have received. You have records available to you that show my mailing
address, that I own more than one property in San Luis Obispo, and that
I do not live In this one. Fortunately, I have conscientious tenants, who
called me In>nen8ately, and mailed me the notice at their expense. They were
quite upset• It does not seem to me an issue that they should be Involved In.
A few days after the posting, we had a fairly serious and windy rainstorm
Had my tenants been away, or had they been less concerned, it is unlikely
that I would have received notification at all. Since there are serious
penalties for non-response, I think It is important to consider utilizing a
more effective means of delivery.
If there are any questions, please contact an at the address shown abovey
or, by telephone, (805)237-o1S&
Sincerely yours,
i
Martha Reed
c=W. @ Mrs. VY. Thmnpson, 2290 Helena, San Luis Obispo, CA 93eoi
� l/o�,c.e r✓ta,�Pc� ro 26dS F/ora/ �r �SS�SSorJ
^(O res�otit S C O r r^Lo ru r N
Se6oV01 rlarce ►ilaf(rc� To too. C3ox �� S-o _ Paso �Pd(o(n
Az
bra AGENDA
DATE 1-&-.92 ITEM #
We , the undersigned homeowners and residents of Almond St . ,
San Luis Obispo wish to state our objections to the mandatory
construction of sidewalks on our street .
Although we know you have the best interest of the city in
mind , we feel that you should reconsider the mandatory
construction of sidewalks on A_lmond__,.,,St......... before you implement the
mandate .
The following "reasons state our objections=
1 . Location - Almond St . is seldom used as a walking
path , and when it is , it is used solely by the
residents . Normally , we have one to two pedestrians
a week .
_4
2 . La_c_kof._._Tr_aff. .c_ - We seldom hear or see a car for
hours . Many of us have lived on this street for
years and know , without a doubt , that this street
is seldom used and has never posed a safety hazard .
__ 3 . Econom _c...__Har,dship„ - This proposal will easily cost
�k Dendea ackm by Lead Pw;on
I ----- most of us $2000-$6000 , if not more . Most of us
P.a^;oond by:
✓Councl are not in a position to put up this kind of
4JAO
,JC1tyAtty. money . Many of the property owners affected are
y✓�Verkorip.
y./q,yp/aQ widows with fixed incomes and struggling young
[3 T. T
.'J• GiGE families .
4 . Psjy_chologic.al ._Tr.au_m.a.. - Many of the elderly residents
who have lived in San Luis Obispo for most of their
' � ® lives , and contributed so much to the community ,
Ele�
are feeling very betrayed and stressed about this
MAR 1 9 1990
imposition . Many wonder , why are you picking on
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA us-7
I
C
S . Loss of Historical Heritacre - Almond St . was so named
by a pioneer family that took great pride to nurture
the almond groves along the street . Most of us have
continued efforts to keep the almond trees alive and
healthy . If this sidewalk "act" is passed , many of
the trees that we worked so hard to nurture will be
uprooted in favor of concrete .
6 . Safety_ - If indeed , safety is the primary concern of
the city , then why not target the areas that pose a
legitimate safety risk? There are many areas in
town_thypt ar.e unquestionably dangerous for
pedestrians , yet they seem to be exempt from this
act . We have many legitimate citations for
your examination .
7 . Ina ropriathAgs - We all received yard signs
without notice . We all feel that the need for
sidewalks on our street is negligible . If they are
intended for our use , well we don 't want them . We
love the atmosphere and "rural " feel that our street .
projects , and have never felt a safety threat .
It is our hope that you , our elected officials , will
objectively consider our legitimate objections to this sidewalk
act . According to the letter we received ,( after the yard signs
were posted ) , this is an act passed in 1911 . It states "that
when more than 56% of a given block has an existing sidewalk ,
the Superintendent of Streets "can" require the homeowners to
install necessary improvements . We feel this is not only outdated
but frivolous as it it overwhelmingly unneeded .
`1
C
First , we_. don_'t.._need,_,it, period . Secondly , we are in a water
shortage situation and the water needed to complete these
sidewalks will utilize more water than we ( all of us ) can afford
to expend . And lastly , it is assumed that eventually sidewalks
will be instal.led when the property owner alters or adds
improvements to his\her property. The latter is the reason that
sidewalks exist on Almond St . in the first place .
It is our hope that you will give our statements serious
consideration .
Signed ,
The Homeowners of Almond St .
ADDRESS NAME HOMEOWNER? RENTER?
r
Z9 G
o?H f{.
3 L-1 c.k�,,i„e-,,,.s.! Lv 0 J
r'1
ADDRESS N ME HOMEOWNER? RENTER?
...--.....-..---._._....._.....__.._._......._._....._.__.................................................................... ..._..........._........._-....._.......__...... ...
S!/ ( 1 o-
a4navat
c
,
To: SLO City Council Me._ yrs MEETH "' AGENDA
From: Betty Schetzer, 225 Almond, SLO DATE 3_O* _�j ITEM # /
Subject : Additional sidewalks on Almond
On 3/20/90 , the City Council will decide whether or not to
Creplace existing grass , shrubs, and trees on Almond with paved
sidewalk.
One consideration is the value of plant materials to the community.
The following material may be useful in helping you reach a decision.
1 . Air. At a time when there is much talk about air pollution
and concern for our air supply, it appears that one of the greatest
sources of natural atmospheric purification is being overlooked. . .
plants which condition and cleanse our air. Some of the ways which
plants act in doing this are similar to commercial air conditioners
which heat , cool , humidify, dehumidify, clean and circulate air .
Plants are among the most effective air conditioners . They
remove carbon dioxide and other pollutants from the air and release
oxygen for man' s use.
It is a known fact that plants absorb noxious gases , act as
receptors of dust and dirt particles , and cleanse the air of
impurities .
2 . Noise . Plants reduce sounds of higher wave lengths , those
most offensive to the human ear.
Plants help screen sound by absorption, deflection and reflection
of noise . Vibrations of sound waves are absorbed by leaves ,
branches , and twigs 6f trees .
We decided to investigate the acoustical properties of grass . . .
and were pleased to discover its very large absorption ability. . .
The favorable performance of grass is impressive..
Scattering and absorbing sound waves by plants , grass , and
ground cover reduces the sound level .
Soft surfaces , such as lawns with tree or shrub borders ,
absorb sound, while hard surfaces , such as highways and parking
lots , reflect and may even amplify sound.
3. Glare. Modern man lives in a "shiny" world. . .natural daylight
from. . . streets . . . causes visual discomfort. . . Plants screen,
blunt, or soften glare and reflection.
Trees , shrubs , ground cover and turf are among the best
exterior solar radiation control devices .
A light , smooth surface reflects more of the sun' s rays
than a coarse , dark surface. Plants generally have a rougher ,
darker surface than any manmade paving. . . and as a consequence ,
reflect less solar radiation than a smooth surface .
4. Temperature. The temperature of an area may be reduced by
plants even if they are not tall enough to give shade . Plants
and grassy covers reduce temperatures by scattering of light
and radiation and the absorption of solar radiation, and also
o-transpiration process . . . temperatures over grassy
Denotes �t�� gP sunny summer days are about 10 to 14 degrees cooler
esoond by:
(C1 1,
8 g
(CAt7RECEIVED
(Cly Atty.
s�AR 1 9 1990
�i{.flAuni�
CITY CLERK
i Ale cnN I i im ORISPQ. CA
than those of exposed soil . (NOTE: The difference between
grass and cement would be even greater. )
5. Sense of Place. Plants improve the esthetic quality of
an area. They make the environment more desirable. They
keep our environment in balance.
As more and more marl-made elements become stacked one
upon another, there is an ever-increasing need to introduce
. . . something not - created by humansendeavor. A plant is the
easiest object to use in accomplishing this . . .The undisciplined
naturalness of a plant and all that this implies is , in a
way, symbolic.; it may be=ore of a necessity for the human
spirit in an urban age than is commonly realized.
Above comments were taken from:
Plants/Peo le/and Environmental Quality: a Study of Plants
and Their Environmenta_ unc tons .
Department of tne . inrertor. National Park Service . 1972.
RECEIVE ®
1'S 5� K--
mcR 1 9 1990
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA