Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1990, 6 - REQUEST OF MARTHA REED THAT HER PROPERTY AT 1205 ELLA STREET BE EXEMPTED FROM INSTALLING CURB, GUTT Original agenda report from 8/21/90 meeting. "%1Vf X11$ city of SanIUI S OBI SPO MEETING DATE: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT "'NUMBER: FROM: David F. Romero, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request of Martha Reed that her property at 1205 Ella Street be exempted from installing curb, gutter & sidewalk under provisions of the 1911 Act. RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing testimony, by motion take action Council feels is appropriate. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 1990 the City Council held a protest hearing regarding installation of curb, gutter & sidewalk for 64 properties at various locations throughout the community. As a result of the testimony, 22 properties were exempted. All 6 properties on the South side of Ella between Osos and Binns Court were considered for installation, representing 33% of the frontage of this long block. The Council exempted one property (1013 Ella) near Osos Street, but did not exempt two very difficult installations at 1205 and 1215 Ella Street. Ms. Reed protested the installation, both in writing and in person at the meeting. Staff concurred with Ms. Reed's protest and recommended that the sidewalk not be installed at this time because of the major expense and problems in making the improvements. At the time of the hearing, the cost estimate for standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and retaining wall at 1205 Ella was estimated at $7,420. In addition, an unknown amount (at that time) would be .required to regrade and pave the driveway access up to the house. DISCUSSION: It is standard practice for the city to assist property owners with the design of difficult installations mandated under the 1911 Act. Staff has expended considerable time and effort in studying various alternatives to provide driveway access to the Reed property, finally presenting Ms. Reed with three alternative designs and cost estimates to resolve this very difficult problem. Two of the solutions imply exceptions to setback requirements, which may or may not be granted by the City. Ms._ Reed's letter of 7/18/90 is essentially correct regarding financial and development implications of each of the alternatives. Staff is prepared to discuss these at the meeting if the Council so desires. We believe the cost estimates are relatively close 'at this point. Depending on the alternative chosen, total costs range between $11,200 and $26,000. / city of san-Lues osispo 11iis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1205 Ella - Sidewalk Exemption Meeting of August 21, 1990 Page Two. If the Council takes no action or denies Ms. Reed's appeal, Ms. Reed may proceed with the work. If she does not, City staff will prepare plans and specifications without cost to the property owner, and will have the work done within the next year. A bill for the project would then be presented to the property owner, and if not paid would be heard at a protest hearing. Eventually the cost could become a lein against the property, subject to collection and penalties specified with collection of taxes. If Council determines to uphold Ms. Reed's appeal, it might be desirable to eliminate parking in front of this address, thus allowing pedestrian access along the street without the danger of pedestrians having to walk in the traffic lane. RECOMMENDATION: The original staff recommendation was to delay this improvement until future development of the property. In view of Council action of March 20, 1990, staff has no recommendation at this time. I. Attachments: 1 - Map 2 - Original Reed protest - March 5, 1990 3 - Current Reed protest - July 18, 1990 4 - Engineering estimates for alternatives dfr22/reed-2 by pO . . NNS cl, $ �I sorts -. � 2001 a ' :pO 091 cin ._ "�,• °' ��� ..•.n. N g OCT d! n r .: i �• Qr � IUYBM �� T •�I . 161 - - ' . 081 o .getsw.wwy �� wryv� .�t+»wx•N;;n�� . . . ;�,;.r,rv..•.-.- tRait+ati:+:w.rwso«`et+e:�wzsoos++ srb get N " •� V . •;� - � ago Sb' h V . COD y �J p Od OF 1' s LOF -C-S-FO P.O. Box 1450 Paso Rabies, CA 93447 P March& 199a David Aonhero,Director Department of Public Works City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro St. San Laic Obispo, CA 934o1 Dear Mr.Rocmero: As you suggested, I am confirming In writing my response to your notice to construct a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the front of my property at slog Ella St., San Luis Obispo~ In order that membes of the City Council may review this letter before their meeting on March to, 199o. I also plan to attend that meeting. I find it is difficult to respond conclusively. Considering the slope.of the land,and the encroachment 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 completed for the Citys estimate of S59M 1 will address my concerns primarily to the practicality and At this point, the driveway, such as Itis, appears to be the abandoned section of Ruth Street which was added to the property before 1 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 levet, approximately 12 - is feet above the street If 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. If 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 iMproven>ent of this property seems likely. Ideally, 1 believe that the curb, gutter and sidewalk should be called for at the time a building permit 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 9 ra.l r 5 i �v .s.enr'6 'sboC FtoYa '4—of You suggested Setting together with neighbour and said that you had given my telephone number to the people who awn the property neat door. W Thompson has called me, and I am sending him a copy of this letter. How- ever, other than the slope of the property, our situations sewn to be quite different, and I must confess to 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 conclusion, I would like to restate, for the benefit of the City Count,my concern with your notification process. I understand that It is legal, but I think it is iaspartant to note of fectiveness,as well as legality. W property was posted on February 13th. As of this date, that is the cnly 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 nse insnuediately, and assailed 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 nlikelythat 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 no at the address shown above, or, by telephone, (805)137.0156. Sincerely yours, �7d Martha Read c¢ Mr. &Mrs. W. Thonspson, 2290 Selena, San Luis Obispo, CA 934oi t(otCee �Qcl to 266S F/ora laer aSS,eSSa7r _r rvcc r cl - A10 r Pt . 5 ece vl no r,ce em a,led To P:o. 80 % /Al re) - Paso 4010 l rs; 5�5��� as l`PCP.rir� 3- go �p'S PA.Box 1054 Sim Ldrrbkpa, CA a4 p 0 d D July 180 1990. JUL a 1990 CITY COUNCILIGAy of San Luis Obispo o> ,��LUIS osls�o - MiWor Ron Dunin UBLIC WORKS/UTILITI Re:1203 SIIa St„ San Luis ObispolSide walk Act of 1911 Several months ago, on March 20, 1990, you voted to enforce the provisions of the Sidewalk Act of 1911 on the above-mentioned property. At that time, the City Public Works Director, Mr. David Romero, strongly recommended against enforcement because of the expense and difficulty of adding the off-sate improvements necessitated by the steep slope of the lot, and the need for extensive earth removal and retention to re-create on-site parking. We requested that the improvements be required when the property is rebuilt or remodeled, so that the significant expense and substantial alteration of the site might come in the context of a larger plan. At the time of your vote,there was no estimate of the total cost of the project,or even a definition of What would be required, beyond curbs,gutters and sidew-al'". I would like to, review for you subsequent developments, and explain my current dilemma. A day or two after the City Council meeting, I met with Mr. Romero to try to clarify the impact of your decision. He said not to worry, that completion of this project by the City might not come for two years or more. I did not find that par- ticularly articularly reassarang, since I had intended to sell the property sometime in 1991. 0 significant, required, pending, but unknown expense could not help but affect it, value and saleability. With these considerations, I first asked Mr.Romero if it would be possble to advau" to a higher priority in his timing, so that the work could be completed, rather than left pending. He agreed, and I signed the required papers for a permit. At that time, there was no estimate of on-site costs. About three weeks ago, I was able to obtain rough site plans, outlining two solations to the off-street parking. At that time, Mr. Romero said the City probably couldnot complete the work for at least a year, possibly longer. More recently,he gave me cost estimates(copies enclosed),and one additional plan. Alternative *1 appears to be the only one with enough aesthetic and functional value that it might notbe torn out in a subsequent renovation of the property. The parking area goes straight into the hillside, at right angles to the street. According to the City engineering plan, its current cost reflects only a 30 foot total depth,which would only allow a non-conforming ten foot setback if it were to become a garage. If the parking area is not completed as a garage, the property will acquire a significant cliff at the retaining wall,which will need to be fenced, at an additional cost. This has not been included in the estimate of costs,which at this point totals$26,000. Alternative $2 creates a steep driveway,which. in conjunction with grading,will elim- ivate almos', tht. entire front yard. Its cost, at $19,000,is not signiticar:.tly less than the cost of Alternative V1. In an effort to reach a more economical solution,Mr.Romero put together Alternative 03,which angles the driveway slightly,and creates a fairly steep parking area,rather r'ian a level one, as did the two previous solutions. In order to avoid the we of etaining walls, a large portion o f the front yard would become unusable.graded to a 2d slope. W. Romero agreed that.the newly graded areas would require some form of earth retention, possibly in the.form of fairly extensive landscaping,Which would seem to be counterproductive,considering the water shortage at this time. Also, his estimate of costs for this alternative does not include the figure for Item 9 -Remove and replant trees,' shown in the other estimates. There is a large, existing tree on site. Which could not be retained in any of these solutions. If$750 is added in, plus the 10%contingency, this project comes in at over $12,000, not including the cost of landscaping. Mr.Romero said that.this is the most difficult situation that he has ever encountered, in his many years of overseeing enforcement of this ordinance. He will be a resource to the Council in case of further questions. He maintains his previous position, that these improvements should be required in conjunction with a plan for remodeling or rebuilding the improvements. He has given no a list of properties, recently included in, and exempted from your requirements, enclosed herewith. No estimate on this list, whether the sidewalk improvements were required or exempted, even approaches the estimated cost of sidewalks and required related improvements to my property. -' appeal to you to reconsider your decision on 1205 Ella Street. I do not feel that the sidewalk Act of 19H was intended to create this kind of financial hardship. Even with the most expensive solution, it seems unlikely that the property would be improved so significantly that I would regain in its sale what I have spent. Some opinions have indicated that this work might actually be detrimental to its value, because of the limitations that it would place on future options. If you drive by, you Will see that the sidewalks are in directly across from 1205 Ella, and also adjacent to it, so that, even now, a pedestrian is not confronted with the alternative of walking in the street, a concern at the time of the-corm il's decision. Many of the problems inherent in installation of the on-site improvements now would be resolved if it were done in the larger context of a plan for the entire properly. Icy properties are my primary job, and my retirement. They have given me the ability to earn a living while still being at home with my children. I++1y daughter has just graduated from college. I had intended to sell the Ella Street property within the year in order to utilize its appreciation to meet my living expenses, and my contr:ffiution to my son for college. I feel absolutely trapped by your decision, and frightened of its financial consequences. I would appreciate your help. Since`rellyyyours, Martha Reed cc:Councilperscns Penny Rappa,Peg Pinard, Sill Fcoalwan &.Terry Reiss David Romero,Director of Public Works Encls.9 4/v- 7 • � � Rte.�' ��! .._ .... r _ .. -.... ... I.y�}• `,� :- " ��:•_. '_:4/n± 4�`K �..� ' ,F .i..._._---.:� — - ��=.�~ is�'e�,y.$DG 1� �; • •t♦ •;':.T: 1�\�•y..v �j�•.iL fir.:L � �: • .4 AL _ 8. �.oasr6 i►ktrmoz+iL Ls - - Soft Sv6 TbTQL ' a 09 7vr4c L/tZa Z­�Z)) �` Ps,000 :.. • aT` : . . _ `Y'� ..-•tTEM. LW/T. t+6JGiMTITy vwrr--�• plc _ �E V V' - Llo- • t.¢.:_.1_.'R1 �d7TT/✓�p - - t. � Z 1 -. .. . ._:_ _. .. _ -cam •+ .. .. •'- _•-} ;. ' 7. RrC inoi�acac GS — _ - moi. ,�a✓� �r�'�r T.l��g -[� - - - _ 7� //.. 'Rsr�ii✓G �v�x�4Y /6 77T4L ' /? c s 7arac I p� Af_t M�N�C11p4G�i0�N6 �T /• ExG4WioN cam. /goo wl, f 7, ;EZocfrra /WIe-'aGaC 1-5 9. kci/L ytFrYT /o_;/= 40 IG ENDA HMN AGE RAS •�-9� � # -- CP.O. Box 1054 San Lots Obispo, CA 934o6 RECEIVED Septembab' 1990 SEP 141990 CITY CLBERK 'SM LUIS 0815p0,CA Councilmenber Jerry Reiss City Coundl/City of San Luis Obispo P.OQ Box 8100 San Luis Obispoy CA 93403.sioo R Ree i2o5 Ella Street. San Luis Obispo CA Appeal of Enforcement of Sidewalk Act of 1911 City Council Agenda Item for Meeting of Septanber i8, 1990 Dene Reiss: I would like the opportuMty to meet with you to rmlew details of this Project, at your convmienceq before the Septen*er isth mueting. Mr.David Romeroy Director of Public Works, has agxressed his willingness to join us. Is you may remember, it is a fairly complicated situation. The additional infor- - ' ;on semis to have been helpful to the C we have met with so far. As the largest lot in the area, iZos Ella has potential for development with two or three unites I would very much appreciate your reoacsider Mon of a costly parking solution which provides for only one. If you wish to contact Mr.Rmeero regarding an appointment, I will be happy to coordinate with his schedule to meet with you at your oonveaimee. Sincerely, Martha Amw Pa Mr, David Ron -%Director, Public Wbrks Department/City of San Huls Obispo, B.O. Bose 8100 San Luis Oblsp% CA 93403-sioo -- Denote,action by Lein,Ferson i !� e5pond by: C ? nci! CICO P..ty. 1 !: Clerk-prig. �. Hoc