The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/02/1997, 5 - CONSIDERATION OF REQUIRING NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION VIA THE 1911 ACT counat "'i°'°' IZ-Z- 97 j acEnaa nEpont �N�.bw CITY OF SAN L U I S OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey,Public Works Director MDM Prepared By: Greg Walker, Streets Project Coordinator SUBJECT: Consideration of requiring new sidewalk construction via the 1911 Act CAO RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to pursue implementation of the 1911 Act for all priority 1,2 and 3 locations shown on Exhibit B (except Chorro Street) at an estimated total of$66,898 DISCUSSION One of the Council's major adopted goals for the 1997-99 budget is Street and Sidewalk Maintenance. A key action step in meeting that goal was the reinstatement of a program to install new sidewalks in areas of town most in need. The 1911 Act of the Streets and Highways Code was identified as the procedure to be used to accomplish this action step. The 1911 Act requires that more than 50% of any one block have existing sidewalk. Assuming that condition can be met, the local jurisdiction may proceed to require the property owner, of remaining non-sidewalk property, to construct new sidewalk. The City Council approved funding to support the 1911 Act program for two of the three years (the third year cannot be funded until the 1999-00 budget) necessary to make it self sufficient (property owners are allowed to repay the City over a three year period, if they decide not to construct the sidewalk themselves). How is a 1911 Act sidewalk program implemented in the City of San Luis Obispo? The following table outlines the six step process that has been followed in the past. Step Action 1 Council decides which areas to pursue for new sidewalk installation 2 Public Works advertises for bids to build the new sidewalks 3 Public Works posts the properties to receive improvements: Notice gives owner ability to appeal, do construction themselves or let the City do it. Monies can be repaid to the City over three years 4 City Council holds protest/appeal meeting; can decide not to do work, to not require repayment, or to proceed 5 Actual construction of new sidewalks takes place 6 City Council holds confirmation meeting; can decide to exempt repayment or not; sets final amounts for repayment 3�� Council Agenda Report- Sidewalk Construction via the 1911 Page 2 The proposed Council action is the first step in the process. In order to guide future City Councils in deciding the relative importance of various areas needing sidewalk improvements, the City Council of 1986 adopted Resolution 6031 (Exhibit A). Resolution 6031 sets priorities as follows: First Priority In areas with safety hazards or heavy pedestrian use, especially where used by children Second Priority Along arterial and collector streets near schools, parks, churches, and neighborhood commercial centers Third Priority Along local streets near schools,parks,churches, and neighborhood commercial centers Fourth Priority In all other residential and commercial areas as necessary Staff mapped the entire City for areas without any sidewalk(available as an Exhibit at the Council meeting), then all area were judged against the criteria established by Resolution 6031. A list of proposed projects was then formulated, grouping the various streets, according to the four priority categories of Resolution 6031and is attached as Exhibit B. With construction contingencies included a list of projects totaling about$68,000 should be prepared. Staff has recommended a list of projects with a value of$66,898 being all locations shown with priority ratings of 1-3. Staff did not recommend the Chorro Street project due to the fact that it alone would require all funds and is not a priority one project. How is the proposed process different than in previous years? In previous years, City staff would prepare a list of proposed projects for Council consideration. However there was no public involvement at that meeting, since the means did not exist for such a broad based notification program. Due to the City's GIS system implementation, staff now has the tools to inform the public at a much earlier stage in the process and thus help the Council make a more informed decision. In the past City staff put in much work toward the establishment of 1911 Act sidewalks, only to have large areas eliminated from consideration by the Council at the first public protest hearing (Step 4). By informing and involving the public at this early stage it is felt that there will be fewer protests at Step 4; fewer areas deleted from consideration; less wasted staff time; and a better perception of City government as being citizen oriented. What happens next? Public Works will advertise for bids from contractors to perform sidewalk installation at those locations approved by Council. Then, per Section 5611 of the Streets and Highways Code (1911 Act) each affected property owner will be notified of the City's intent to require sidewalk construction on their frontage. This is identified above as Step 3. A second Council meeting will be held to hear formal protests or appeals from the affected property owners. After conclusion of the protest hearing the Council will authorize the work and the contractor will install the sidewalk. After construction, with final costs in hand, the Council will hold one final meeting to hear final appeals and confirm the individual costs to property owners. Property owners will then have the opportunity to fully pay off the assessment or repay the City over a period of three years in accordance with Resolution 6744(1990 Series). S'� Council Agenda Report-Sidewalk Construction via the 1911 Page 3 How does the Chorro Street sidewalk project compare? At the October 21'meeting of the City Council, staff presented an agenda item responding to the Council's request regarding installation of new sidewalk on Chorro Street between West Street and Rougeot Street. This sidewalk installation did not meet the criteria to be eligible for the 1911 Act and thus would require 100%City funding. Funding for this project was not included in the current budget. The engineer's estimate of cost for installation was $75,000, the exact same amount as budgeted for the sidewalk installation program via the 1911 Act. In order to build the project a number of current City standards would have to waived and a number of engineering and ADA obstacles would need to be overcome. The City Council decided to reconsider this project and compare its value to the community with others proposed via the 1911 Act program. Staff's evaluation of Chorro Street is a Priority 2 project. CONCURRENCES There is no environmental determination from Community Development, as no specific projects have been chosen by the Council, however, unless extenuating circumstances arise, sidewalk projects are generally considered to be Categorically Exempt. FISCAL II"ACT As mentioned above, $75,000 has been budgeted for support of the 1911 Act sidewalk installation program. Assuming that each property owner chooses the option of repaying the City over a three year period,and assuming that the City Council funds this program for the next two fiscal years,the program will become self-funding in year four and beyond. Should the Council fund the Chorro Street Project, and desire to continue the 1911 Act program funding,that program would need to be extended to fiscal year 2000-01 and the program would not become self-funding until year five. ALTERNATIVES Many alternatives exist in terms of locations chosen for implementation i.e. each new location chosen represents a new alternative. After public input the Council can choose to amend the staff recommendation but should observe that the list of projects should remain near an estimated construction cost of$68,000. Attachments Exhibit A: Resolution 6031 Exhibit B: List of Sidewalk locations and priority Exhibit C: List of Streets meeting 1911 Act criteria Exhibit D: List of Properties meeting 1911 Act criteria I:car/1911 agenda 1 S-3 � \� / IYI VI • /� RESOLUTION NO. 6031 (1966 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 K-IERPAS, the City desires that its citizens have available safe, convenient and suitably located sidewalks; and WHEREAS, many areas of the City do not have such sidewalks; and WMZEAS, the City desires such areas to be improved considering needs, hazards and the wishes of the neighborhoods, NOW, TFMU7ORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the following: GENERAL PROGRAM CRITERA a. Sidewalk program should integrate repair and 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. Council may consider scenic nature of area, desires of the neighborhood, traffic flow and other judgement items in its determinations. F. 6031 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 SIDEWAIiG4 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: , AYES: Councilmembers Griffin, Settle, Dovey and Mayor Dunin NOES: None AB=: Councilwoman Rappa the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of July . 1986. . 'MAYOR RON DUNIN ATT CITY CLERK P VOGES sS APl' City Administra.ti a dfficer Ci ty At rney Public Works Director �L "EXHIBIT B" LIST OF SIDEWALK LOCATIONS,PRIORITY,AND ESTIMATED COSTS LEGEND: A= ARTERIAL C=COLLECTOR H=HOSPITAL S=SCHOOL HP=HIGH PEDESTRIAN CH=CHILDREN SF=SAFETY HAZARD COSTS 2121 HARRIS 1 S,HP, CH $49073.00 2129 HARRIS 1 S,HP, CH $49073.00 220 BRANCH 1 S,HP, CH $39614.00 236 BRANCH 1 S, HP, CH $3,614.00 268 BRANCH 1 S,HP, CH $3,614.00 2145 PRICE (BRANCH ST. SIDE) 1 S,HP, CH $6,452.00 2145 CYPRESS(BRANCH ST. SIDE) 1 S,HP, CH $69364.00 2031 CYPRESS 1 $59100.00 TOTAL OF ABOVE SECTION $369904.00 464 BUCHON 2 C $39123.00 472 BUCHON 2 C $39123.00 476 & 480 BUCHON 2 C $19782.00 496 & 498 BUCHON 2 C $49059.00 CHORRO ST. PROJECT (EAST SIDE -BETWEEN WEST ST. AND ROUGEOUT ST.) 2 A,HP $759000.00 TOTAL OF ABOVE SECTION $879087.00 1367 HIGUERA(PEPPER ST. SIDE) 3 S $89457.00 1368 HIGUERA(PEPPER ST. SIDE) 3 S $99450.00 TOTAL OF ABOVE SECTION $179907.00 .S-7 (EXHIBIT B-Page 2) LOCATION PRIORITY REASON ESTIMATED COSTS 208 ALMOND 4 SF $3,975.00 216 ALMOND 4 SF $1,683.00 234 ALMOND 4 SF $19683.00 262 ALMOND 4 SF $19683.00 280 ALMOND 4 SF $1,683.00 2391 LAWTON (WOODBRIDGE SIDE) 4 SF,CH $69930.00 601 LAWRENCE DR. 4 SF $2,390.00 232 RAMONA 4 SF $2,344.00 240 RAMONA 4 SF $39465.00 252 RAMONA 4 SF $39465.00 274 RAMONA 4 SF $29170.00 280-282 RAMONA 4 SF $49520.00 290 RAMONA 4 SF $5,253.00 298 RAMONA 4 SF $29829.00 316 RAMONA 4 SF $29455.00 1 HIGUERA * 4 A $44,666.00 2958-68-78 S. HIGUERA 4 A $159893.00 2890 S. HIGUERA 4 A $679472.00 TOTAL OF ABOVE SECTION $1749559.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL OF ALL PROJECTS $3169457.00 * assumes city ownership of right-of-way ,j'D "EXHIBIT C" LIST OF ALL STREETS MEETING 1911 ACT CRITERIA More than 50% improved frontage calculations Harris St. Westside(between Branch and Sandercock) Total Front Footage- 300 feet(91m) Improved-200 feet(61 m)= 67% Unimproved- 100 feet(30m)=33 % Branch Street-North side (between Beebee and Cypress) Total Front Footage- 538.65 feet(164m) Improved-286.65 feet(87m)= 53% Unimproved -250.00 feet(76m)=47% Branch Street-North side (between Cypress and Price) Total Front Footage- 305.05 feet(93m) Improved-205.1 feet(63m)=67% Unimproved-99.95 feet(30m)=33% Cypress Street- West side (between Sandercock and High) Total Front Footage-300 feet (91m) Improved-235 feet(72m)=78% Unimproved-65 feet(20m)=22% Ramona Drive-North side (between So. Tassajara and La Entrada) Total Front Footage - 1425.56 feet(435m) Improved-980.86 feet(299m)=68% Unimproved-444.70 feet(136m)=32% Pepper Street-West side (between Marsh and Higuera) Total Front Footage- 240 feet(73m) Improved- 126 feet(38m)= 53% Unimproved- 114 feet(35m)=47% Pepper Street- West side(between Higuera and Monterey) Total Front Footage-260.77 feet(79m) Improved- 146.27 feet(45m) = 56% Unimproved - 114.50 feet (35m)=44% .3-9 Exhibit C - Page 2 Lawrence Dr. - South side (between Broad and Chandler) Total Front Footage-652.30 feet(199m) Improved - 602.30 feet(184m)= 92% Unimproved - 50.00 feet(15m)= 08% Note: This property is only one in block without curb and gutter. A driveway must be constructed. Buchon Street-North side(between Beach and Carmel) Total Front Footage -450 feet(137m) Improved -232.3 feet(71m)=52% Unimproved - 217.7 feet(66m)=48% South Higuera-Westside(between Elks Lane and Margarita) Total From Footage-2378.75 (725m) Improved- 1232.25 feet(1233m)= 52% Unimproved- 1151.50 feet(351m)=48% South Higuera-East side(between Fontana and Bridge) Total Front Footage-2144 feet(653m) Improved- 1644 feet (501m)=77% Unimproved- 500 feet(152m)=23% IICAR11911 EX C SWO "EXHIBIT D" LIST OF PROPERTIES LACKING STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS WHERE MORE THAN 50% OF THE BLOCK IS ALREADY IMPROVED LEGEND: C = Curb & Gutter S = Sidewalk R = Driveway Ramp W = Wall LOCATION PARCEL OWNER IMPROVEMENTS NO. REQUIRED 2121 HARRIS 03-734-06 D.W. KING S,C,R 2129 HARRIS 03-734-16 G. & J. CLINARD S,C,R 220 BRANCH 03-723-19 R.L. DAY C,R S4' DETACHED LARGE TREE IN PRKWAY 236 BRANCH 03-723-20 P. & P. BRESHEARS C,R S-4' DETACHED 268 BRANCH 03-723-24 B. & D. LOUIE C,R S-4' DETACHED 2031 CYPRESS 03-722-41 J.C. PIPER, ETAL S,C,R 2145 CYPRESS 03-723-26 B. & M. JONES C,R S-4' DETACHED (BRANCH ST. SIDE) 3 LARGE TREES IN PARKWAY *2145 PRICE 03-732-12 J. BRASS C,R S-4' DETACHED (BRANCH ST. SIDE) 3 LARGE TREES IN PARKWAY *NOTE: On November 3, 1988, this property was presented to Council for required improvements. A temporary extension was given to the owner for an indefinite period, subject to some future call. It now appears that the property ownership has changed. S�l Exhibit D - Page 2 LOCATION PARCEL OWNER IlVIPROVEMENTS NO. REQUIRED 601 LAWRENCE 04-942-12 L.BECHTOLD, ETAL C,R 1367 HIGUERA 02-334-09 D. GANG, TRE. S,C,R (PEPPER ST. SIDE) 1368 HIGUERA 02-333-13 D. LITTLEJOHN S (PEPPER ST. SIDE) 232 RAMONA 52-141-32 S. STEINER S,C 240 RAMONA 52-141-33 A. & M. CENSULLO SR(HEDGE) 252 RAMONA 52-141-59 M.E. RICHTER SA 274 RAMONA 52-141-31 G. & P. EASTHAM S (FLEDGES) 280 & 282 RAMONA 52-141-14 L. & L. SHERWIN S (CUT BACK TREES) (TREE OUT,GRIND STUMP, 290 RAMONA 52-141-06 L. & D. NELSON BUSHES) 298 RAMONA 52-141-19 M. & M. MAXWELL S (RAILROAD TIES,NON- STANDARD,SM 316 RAMONA 52-141-15 DONALD WILSON S (REMOVE TREE MIDDLE OF Sm 464 BUCHON 03-613-12 R. & J. CORDOVA S,R 472 BUCHON 03-613-13 A. & I. STOVER S,R 476 & 480 BUCHON 03-613-14 A. & I. STOVER S 486 & 498 BUCHON 03-613-17 ENG-KONG & SIOW- S TING 2958 & 68 & 78 S. HIGUERA 53-041-13 1 B.W. POLIN, ETAL S,C,R (3) 1 SO. HIGUERA 53-021-24 1 M.R. SPANGLER S,C,R 11CAR/1911 EX D S-4- /v110J%7 290 Ramona Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 12/2/97 San Luis Obispo City Council Dear Council Members: I request for the following reasons that Council remove the north side of Ramona Drive from the list of areas designated for sidewalk installation: 1. Requiring the installation of sidewalk for this section of Ramona Drive which includes my property at 290 Ramona would not "improve pedestrian circulation" which is the purpose of the sidewalk program. There is already a sidewalk along the entire length of the south side of Ramona between La Entrada and Broad Street. I walk on that sidewalk every working day on my way to and from Cal Poly. Although I live on the north side of Ramona, it is very easy to cross the street to the sidewalk on the south side. Installing a sidewalk on the north side of Ramona would not noticeably improve my ability to walk to any destination in San Luis Obispo. There is no evidence that pedestrian circulation between La Entrada and Broad Streets, or between La Entrada and Tasajara Streets, has been restrained by the absence of sidewalk on the north side of Ramona. Ramona Drive continues to the west of La Entrada after making a jog to the south. Although there are no sidewalks continuing west of La Entrada, any pedestrian traffic heading toward the center of town from the west on Ramona or from the north on La Entrada would naturally empty onto the sidewalk on the south side of Ramona where there is already a sidewalk. 2. Requiring the installation of sidewalk on my property would destroy about 72 feet of hedge made up of six ornamental trees between 15 and 20 feet tall that I planted twenty years ago to block out the sight and sounds of the street. The foliage on the hedge now reaches to the curb. Removing this visual screen would destroy the privacy and beauty of my front yard and the view from the picture window in my living room. 3. My property is part of the sidewalk program proposal because the north side of Ramona Drive between La Entrada and Tasajara was considered to be a "block," and more than 50% of that "block" has sidewalks. Please note that this section of Ramona is an extremely long "block." For the western half of this block that includes my property, less than 50% of the distance has sidewalks. Consistent with the definition of "block" in The American Heritage Dictionary, "a segment of a street bounded by successive cross streets," I consider the block including my property to be the segment of Ramona Drive between La T . , Entrada and Del Mar Court. Although Del Mar Court does not cross the north side of Ramona, it does cross the south side of Ramona and, in my opinion, my property is on a section of Ramona "bounded" by Del Mar and La Entrada. The north side of this block on Ramona Drive has less than 50% of the distance with existing sidewalk. Therefore, the city has no right to require sidewalk for this segment of Ramona Drive. I asked Mr. Greg Walker, Streets Projects Coordinator, to tell me where I might find the legal definition of "block." He told me to ask the City Clerk for a copy of Municipal Code, section 12.12.02. I did so, but that section does not define "block." The Planning Department informed me that there was no written definition of "block" to their knowledge. There appears to be some ambiguity about the definition of "block." I ask the Council to give me the benefit of the doubt and to recognize that I live on the north side of the block on Ramona Drive between La Entrada and Del Mar Court, a section of street with less than 50% sidewalk. If that is asking too much, I would request that you decide in my favor on the grounds of fairness. It seems unfair to conclude that my section of Ramona Dr. has more than 50% sidewalk only because an exceptionally long distance of street is technically defined as a block. I appreciate your serious consideration of this rather lengthy protest. Sincerely, Linden Nelson Phone: 805-544-3928 PROTEST PURSUANT TO STREETS AND HIGHWAYS SEI:TIUN 3220 Douglas C. Littlejohn 1368 Higuera St. 3L0, CA 93401-3122 Under Section 5220 , Streets and Highways , I hereby protest a sidewalk assessment for the following reasons : 1. ' believe an issue of fairness exists . I have owned and lived on the property for only 16 months . I have had to incur substantial expense in renovating this early-1920s residence, -which had not sustained any appreciable upgrading for apparent decades . In part I have voluntarily upgraded the median between the sidewalk existing on the Higuera St. side of the lot, from weeds to decomposed granite. I have also incurred substantial expense in eradicating the pre- existing eyesore that constituted the front yard of this residence, and installing an attractive new garden. I would a],s.Q point out that numerous other lots in the area of Pepper St. do not have sidewalks - have these people also been notified of sidewalk assessments`? Sprcifically, 1367 Higuera, 23W 1397 Marsh, the corner lot of Pepper and Pacific Streets , 1390 Palm at Pepper, 881 Pepper, 1367 dill at Petper, and the Union Pacific right-of-way adjacent to the entire length o Pepper St? / 2. I propose to offer a comprmmise: I had Aready planned to dig out the weeds along the Pepper St. side of my property, and replace the weed- infested dirt with a similar layer of decomposed granite, such as now exists along the Higuera or front of the residence. 3. Lastly, I further plan an addition to the back of the residence in the near future. Could we defer my sidewalk assessment until such time as I make the move to improve the residence? It' s really quite daunting alread, to make a go of this property as a new business and residence without being immediately hit with this assessment. 4 . I also declare that an assessment for sidewalk construction at the present time would work an extreme financial burden for me and my business at this time. 't1-%sw<,_4dbe-,r. p-4 ('1nr-gs�:C IF f(t Pe'wT };me ^or the foregoing reasons, I hereby object) to the planned sidewalk. OCT,, a