HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/1990, 6 - REQUEST OF MARTHA REED THAT HER PROPERTY AT 1205 ELLA STREET BE EXEMPTED FROM INSTALLING CURB, GUTT t MB:TM DATE:
city of Sa►n LUIS OBISpo Aug. 1. 1990
MaNe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: SMA
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.
RECO31MENDATION:
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.
a► � city of san ,6ais OBlspo
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
208 1990, staff has no recommendation at this time.
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
deo - v
O `' � � -•at°tl R •
NS
$ Pi
=pOH k cT
1pai - -.
m O � Oi
�A -.40- ao
tea : N 4�0 o "'
d g OC7� A
Y n •' lit , T
V60'cn
a/1 — 161
CD 001 p �,
_,t'�M,c,•, '^"+�i . ..:.u,:,r•..;'ni.•bCtkxrsi�:r��Apgoe.fikio�+
1 �
fit
to
f. qD • V :.
ti
:f
a • .
• .� . Zfar
�1
A
W t...
O G� 4F
aIN
,.:'- $
o
P.O.Box 1430 W1- 51M,01- 5190 �
Paso Robles, CA 93449
Mardi& i990
David Romero,Director
Depart>zhent of Public Works
Qty of San Luis Obispo
953 Morro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear 16.Romero:
As you svg®ested, I am mnBrnft In writing my response to your notice
to construct a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the front of my property
at 1Zo5 Ella St., Son Luis Obispo, in ardor that thheth a 9 of the Qty Couadl
nay review this letter before.their meeting an March =p, 1990. I also plan
to attend that meeting.
I find it is difficult to respond Conclusively. Considering the slope of the
W4 and the encroachment of thatslope onto the logical area for location
of a sidewalk, I Cannot see that earth removal, retaining waft and engineer-
Ing of a driveway, Curb, gutter and sidewalk Could be c r *meted for the City's
ate of$59= I will address my Concerns primarily to the practicality
and timing.
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 staeper by the cut required to properly
locate the sidewalk. The front yard Is level, apprmdimatdy iz- IS feet above
the streeL If the driveway were installed perpendicular to the street, with a
slope which would Conform to realistic use regtduwhheats, it would extend b&
yond the front yard, into an even steeper section of the hillside. If it were put
in at an angle, it would remove hhhost of the front yard
A garage,and off-street parking need to be built Into the hillside. The way the
area is developing, further Improvement of this property seems likely. Ideally,
I 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 Coshoeiv that the
driveway might be better located somewhere else along the so foot width of
the lot, which would negate ezdh of the work doney If it Is required at this
tune.
rtvr 7 I-X-v,sev-r1 a-f c
10�of
You suggested getting together with neighbors, and said that you had given
my telephone number to the people who own the property n=9 door. W.
Thompson has called me, and I sen sending him a copy of this letter. Now-
ever, other than the slope of the In opaty, our situations ween 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 on 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 mare conventionally configured prapertK 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 Council,aey
concern with your notification process. I understand that it is legal, but I
think It Is inv=1ant to note effectiveness,as well as legality. W property
was posted on February 13UL As of this date,that Is the only notice that �
I have readved. You have records available to you that show my nulling
address, that I own more Ulan one property in San Luis Obispo,and that
I do not live in this ane. Fortunately, I have conscientious tenants, who
called me immediately; and mailed me the notice at their awe They were
quite upset•it does not seen to ate an Issue that they should be Involved In.
A few days after the postin& we had a fairly serious and windy rainstor=6
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 respoe.4e, I think It is Iasportantto consider utMzing a
more effective means of delivery.
If there are any questions, please contact no at the address shown above,
or, by telephone, (805)237.0156.
Sincerciy yon,
i
Martha Reed
cc:Mr. &Mrs. W. Thomson, 2290 Helena, San Luis Obispo, CA 934oi
llotfC.e MailPcf t0 266S" F/era/ i°er 2SSrssoYJ
reccfcl — Ato �cspc tS er �t� rutvt
Seceq-1 .iorce M 01fe w To too Qo x 14f s o _ Paso iPob(rs
C` s fs„Fa
vs I-ece yr.'
PA.BOR W54 n
p
Sea LmIcObispa,GA 934068, II
July 11990. , a ►iso
CITY COUNCILICity of San Luis Obispo EOFsarj wisosisP0
MayorRonDumin 4Rssiurni
Re:1209 EMa St. San Luis Ob ispolSidewalk Act of 19U
Several months ago, on March 20, 1990, you voted to enforce the provisions of the
Sidewalk Act of DU 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 site 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 sidewauks.
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 you: decision. He said not to worry, that completion sof this
project by the City might not come for two years or more. 1 did not find that par-
ticularly reassuring, since I had intended to sell the property sometime in 1991. t
significant, required, pending, but unknown expense could not help but affect its
value and saleability.
With these considerations, I first asked Mr.Romero if it would be po srab le 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 solutions
to the off-street parking. At that time, Mr. Romero said the City probably could not
complete the work for at least a year, possibly longer. More recently,he gave me cost
estimates(copies enclo sed),and one additional plan.
Alternative #1 appears to be the only one with enough aesthetic and functional value
that it might not be tora 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,whichwould 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 used 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 Q creates a steep driveway,which,in conjunction with grading,will elim-
inate almost dw entire front yard. Its cost, at $I9,000,is not significantly less than the
cost of Alternative el.
to"lo
In an effort to reach a no re economical solution,1dr.Romero put together Alternative
A,Which angles the driveway slightly,and creates a fairly steep parking area,rattier
�_.Xhan a level one, as did the two previous solations. In order to avoid the we of
retaining walls, a large portion of the front yard would become unusable,graded to a
2d slope. Mr. Romero agreed that the newly graded areas would regaim some form
of earth retention, poseiblsy in the form of fairly extensive landscaping,which would
seem to be counterproductive.considering the water shortage at this time. Also,his
estimate of costs for this alternative does not include the figure for Item 9 -Remove
and replant tree$' shown in the other estimates. There is a large, existing tree on
site, which could not be retained in any of these solations. If$750 is added in, plus
the 10%contingency, this project comes in at over $12,000, not including the cast of
hndscaping
M.Romero said that-this is the most difficult situation that he has ever enc mitered,
in his malty years of overseeing enforcement of this ordinance. He will be a resource
to the Council in can 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 me 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 estintated*cost of sidewalks and required related improvements to my
property.
I appeal to you to reconsider your decision on 1205 Ella Street. I do not feel that the
Sidewalk Act of 19U was intended to create this kind of financial hardship. Even with
the most expensive solution,it seemsunlikely 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 council's decision.
Many of the problems inherent in installation of the on-site improvements now would
be resolved if it were done is the larger context of a plan for the entire property.
My properties are my primary job, and my retirement. They have given me the
ability to earn a living while stilt being at home with my children. fifty 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 m9 living expenses, and my
contribution to my son for college. I feel absolutely trapped by your decision, and
frightened of its financial consequences. I would appreciate your help.
Sincerely y oars,
Martha Reed
cc: Couacilpersons Penny Rappa, Peg Pinard,hill Roalman &Jerry Reiss
David Romero,Director of Public Works
Encls.9 6_
^a:• i
_ . ,TEM.'.
�� __ -'��•'.-4'- -,�_�.e..r-�- 'fit !y'1.1:T ) 1 .� .4
� ' �3, ��v�V.4•l:aQ.airiP-'.�; . _ .. . �- .. - lie
300 � z:
3 0.0
8. �'Loc4T� r►fRr�o�Z, LS - - Soo ��
/O• ass-W,06
7M42 G (•G�tJn27EZ�� y+� P46,1 Q70
AL 6�ao�n/� aNLy . - ..._.. ..;Gar' r1• ; -:
Ld'Y/T .rtb✓QNrn3/ VIViT l;7�ZZG
CVA:Jz ',� •. '_.. .'AI`s..
!
AY
cy a .�.
44
• 7. �RrE zoic aeac G S
GS .. ...
/D• �/�'iNL g2' ?�S G 5 �.
move
SUBT�T.4L � /?3�S
Cl,Ll�ri�G�/vCy �` � 73G
�vr�• ( �� � /9 000
i
� 6-q
;N,
Al.? M.N�MAG.G�C�N6 GAT
tM Lam/? 6vgrNT7Ty v MWc
.... - .(o 30 , /too.
3 � r.�vcrvgY �amP •
t
f
Z 6, Gs
S. = ZOCCrj r►4�r�as.a er�rt.
Sao `
rr.. 74�,r✓�i �v�xcay sf 3 b a 7
Z,,B TIJ7
MEETING
(I DATE
C � A( NDA jjrB4 t
� O
s C...) ❑ FLN.U ti
l I: l-rorNLY IPPV.'DLR.
�'•O (_ JafILDIR
ROi. BOX 10S4
Sen LUIS Obispo, CA 934ft
August 20p 19"
City COtmdl
City Of San LUIS Obispo
San Luis Obispo,CA
Ree 120S Ela SUwVRegaest for amnpton fram installing curb,
gutter and sidewalk under the Sidewalk Act of 1911
BOnorable Mayor and Members of the Clay Council
:)nderstsand that my appeal will appear on the agenda of the next City Council
hhheetng, tamorrawq August;n i990.
Due to unavoidable scheduling=xAictc, it will be very difficult for me to be
there. I would appreciate your assistance in rmsMedulln.It to the next avail-
able date.
Thank you for your consideratan.
Sthh wdy yours,
%Aj YX 74
Martha Reed
0 RECEIVE®
AU 14;m
l 0 1
ae1u�.i uR n , �,m
io, a0 cam_