The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/16/1988, 6 - CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WHERE MORE THAN 50% OF THE BLOCK IS ALREADY IMPROVED MEETING DATE: �'�► u�111IIP� U city o� san Luis OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT' REM N BER: FROM: DAVID ROMERO, DIRECTOR DENNIS COX PREPARED BY: TONY HELffER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STREETS MANAGER SUBJECT: Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements where more than 50% of the block is already improved CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, after making modifications desired, direct staff to proceed 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 the attached map and frontage calculation sheet. The Council should review the list and modify it as it wishes. Staff will then post the property following provisions of the 1911 Act. If the property owner does not make the required improvements within the time allotted in the 1911 Act, the City has the work done. Upon the completion of the work, there will be a public hearing to confirm costs. At that meeting, the Council will hear and pass on objections raised by the property owner. After the Council has confirmed the costs the property owner has an opportunity to pay in cash, may opt to make a three (3) year repayment in accordance with Council approved funding arrangements, of if the property owner takes no action, the cost of the improvements becomes a lien against the property collectable with taxes. FISCAL IMPACT Property owner costs range from approximately $600 to approximately $6,000, depending on improvements required. If the City finances all of the work, total cost would be $32, 000. Past experience is that approximately 700 of owners either have the work done or pay their costs in cash. If past history holds, the City could expect to finance approximately $10, 000 in addition to its own share (City-owned property) of approximately $14 , 000. The 1988-89 budget contains $60, 000 for this work. �� 1 city of San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Page Two ALTERNATIVES Option 1 - .Approve list as submitted. Option 2 - Council may remove individual properties or entire blocks from the list. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council, after making modifications 'as desired, direct staff to proceed with the work. Attachment: Resolution No. 6031 (1986 Series) Map Frontage Calculation sidewalk/dfr#12 pr Co - 2 RESOLUTION NO. 6031 (1986 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING GENERAL CRITERIA AND SITE SELECTION PRIORITIES FOR THE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM M-EEREAS, the City desires that its citizens have available safe, convenient and suitably located sidevalks; and WHEREAS, many areas of the City do not have such sidewalks; and WHEREAS, the City desires such areas to be improved considering needs, hazards and the wishes of the neighborhoods, NOW, THERE0:'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the following: (SAL PROGRAM CRITERA a. Sidewalk program should integrate repair arra construction. b. Sidewalk program should emphasize safety, particularly safety of children. To this effect, City staff should consult with school authorities and PTAs in preparing specific construction priorities. c. City.-initiated sidewalks should be installed only where there is a demonstrated pedestrian need. d. City should respond favorably when it is petitioned for sidewalk improvements by more than 50% of the owners of a block (those portions already improved are considered a favorable vote) . e. Sidewalk program should consider topography and significant trees. f. Cantil may consider scenic nature of area, desires of the neighborhood, traffic flow and other judgement items in its determinations. Resolution No. 6031 (1986 Series) g. Staff will 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. SITE SELECTION PRIORITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS 1. In areas with safety hazards or heavy pedestrian use, especially children. 2. Along arterial and collector streets near schools, parks, churches, and neighborhood commercial centers. 3. Along local streets near schools, parks, churches, and neighborhood commercial *centers. 4. In other residential and commercial areas as necessary. on motion of Councilman Griffin seconded by Councilman Settle and on the following roll call vote: AYM: Councilmembers Griffin, Settle, Dovey and Mayor Dunin NOES: None ABS=: Councilwoman Rappa the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of July 1986. . CMAYOR RON DUNIN ATr: cT CLERK PANErfvoms �-4 API' O�D: City Administra We dfice Cityf At/ rney� v Public Works Director �5 TWIN RIDGE CT. 1 TWIN I '�fOq Y diy � p0 4NAUPi OSE d Q CIRCLE YIN MtW44t �-' I I d4� YOUxi P �ad O• �i ice___ BRM ` I $ WIN VY'NNV XOLV VUF NO y n t0s YARLEXE I a� '--- • �I :� I I CAL POLY 1°�� J r � >• o og I g I = Y = oo I I f I'4k.NO F l YYI S XIGMUXOi < <WARR N TOLOSL NNA I W CHID 'R I ,.---- _ RMAULDO w cERRO 3 . (OiRRO _ '� s6N ° t' > ueFgr 9 NYS !�'^ 1 FPp,N� - $ fy u iCYgqjO yPCE [= Y Yg a FOOTHILL BLVD. U OT a ,. ND z NOPE `) NM N. NMONA ROIlESEREI GO< 1 I u i m o IN N m 9y Loomis s \ ^�\ OEL SUR TALIXA MA °� m � o � � o -I O N� W Odd ST.FfORO I\ \\ JOSE 4 L I u m m aj 'w O\ .9BOT 5\A DR. N x.RL ONt� i 6 i / „S h� h1g0 MAP // AAA � OF0 0 a I LUIS OBISPOis - _ OBP`S{ls '4 i I �'�P4 �p •� � �k f I s I / \ 2 NIFER �pV � RA MIGH m FT. YLVIAP` i - s NOM ,, k XNNCX m m J KEmmwrm zo STREET ON �� BIIIDGE '3 BRIDGE rqP ® q f RIII[Y lP q SO(/fgN� Q' o¢ 5 MITCXfImL TLP Pkr 4k J.y"I . MORRISON Jam. UWRE _OE eaI.RWOOD CIRCUIT ROAD I- R, - l A,® �r ® 3 2£ 1 I kR' IFQi O /' \./ m I I $ I I 4, sk1'JI 1 � � .. L_.�__ L___-_-J � ALT• V � "XpPO- 90C AlN1 " s / 3 •STM 4 `'r Cr ;RE 7 SOXETTI 8 1 PTµw, RWM yC 4ifF•se �/ �v\f � ra'f �1qr. `ate �I T"� �p"dog-�C/ Frontage Calculation Areas in City where more than 50% of block is already improved 1A. East side - Meadow Street (between South Street and Funston Avenue) : 350 feet total front footage Improved - 200 feet = 57 . 14% Unimproved - 150 feet = 42 . 85% B. East side - Meadow Street (a) between Funston Avenue and Woodbridge; (b) south side - Funston between Meadow and Lawton: (a) 350 feet total front footage (this property has approximately four foot high bank - will have to slope 2 : 1 back of new sidewalk) Improved - 300 feet = 85.71% Unimproved - 50 feet = 14.28% (b) 300 feet total front footage Improved - 182 feet = 60.66% Unimproved - 118 feet = 39.33% C. East side - Meadow Street (between Woodbridge Street and Caudill Street) : 285 feet total front footage Improved - 185 feet = 64.91% Unimproved - 100 feet = 35.08% *This property has asphalt berm - no gutter Handicapped ramps at: Northeast corner Meadow and Funston Southeast corner Meadow and Funston Northeast corner Meadow and Caudill 2A. East side - Lincoln Avenue (between Montalban Street and West Street) : 812. 28 feet total front footage Improved - 534 . 28 feet = 66% Unimproved - 278 .00 feet = 34% B. South side - Lincoln Avenue (between Chorro Street and Broad Street) : 340.30 feet total front footage Improved - 300. 30 feet = 88% Unimproved - 40.00 feet = 12% r^f� C. South side - Lincoln Avenue (between Broad Street and Hill Street) : 284.50 feet total front footage Improved - 209.50 feet = 74% Unimproved - 75.00 feet = 26% D. North side - Lincoln Avenue (between Broad Street and Hill Street) : 300 feet total front footage Improved - 200 feet = 67% Unimproved - 100 feet = 33% 3 . South side - Mountain View (between Lincoln Avenue and Chorro Street) : 261 .3 feet total front footage - Improved - 193.96 feet = 74% Unimproved - 67. 34 feet = 26% 4. North side - Serrano Drive (between Palomar Street and Serrano Heights) : 908. 61 feet total front footage Improved - 604. 11 feet = 66% Unimproved - 304.50 feet = 34% 5A. North side - Branch Street (between Cypress Street and Price Street) : 305.05 feet total front footage Improved - 155 . 10 feet = 50.84% Unimproved - 149 .95 feet = 49. 16% B. West side - Cypress (between Branch Street and Sandercock Street) : 300 feet total front footage Improved - 250 feet = 83% Unimproved - 50 feet = 17% C. West side - Cypress (between Sandercock Street and High Street) : 300 feet total front footage Improved - 197.97 feet = 66% Unimproved - 102 .03 feet = 34% 6 . North side - Cerro Romauldo (between Patricia Street and Rosita Street) : 300 feet total front footage Improved - 180 feet = 60% Unimproved - 120 feet = 40% 7 . East side - Santa Rosa (between Marsh Street and Pacific Street) : 264 feet total front footage Improved - 187.75 feet = 71% Unimproved - 76. 25 feet = 29% 8. South side - South Street (between Beebee Street and Exposition Drive) : 910.0 total front footage Improved - 379 . 60 feet--- 1 505 . 36 feet = 55% Committed but not - 125 . 76 feet--- yet improved Unimproved - 404 . 64 feet = 45% dh b/cox/hellerl