HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1990, 1 - CONFIRMATION OF COSTS FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION CONDUCTED UNDER THE 1911 ACT. •y `
�I�II�I�NIIf�pl IIIr MEETING DATE:
�'�/
u�j�lU Cl O Sa►n luis OBISpO _EM NUMBER:
, .
Wage
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �"''
FROM:
David F. Rome ro 1.--1, � Dennis E. Cox .� 1 Prepared by:
Public Works Director Streets Manager Tony Heller
SUBJECT:
Confirmation of Costs for Sidewalk Construction Conducted under
the 1911 Act.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution Confirming Costs
BACKGROUND:
At its July 16, 1987 meeting, the City Council approved
Resolution No. 6031 (1986 Series) directing staff to proceed with
curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements at various locations
throughout the community, following the provisions of the 1911
Act. This work encompassed the following areas: Rafael Way,
Lincoln Avenue, Swazey Street, Buchon Street, Funston Avenue,
Woodbridge Street, Dana Street, Margarita Avenue, South Street.
Many property owners installed the required improvements at their
own expense, however, for those who had not made the
installation, the city received bids and contracted to have the
work down. This involved a total of 16 properties in the area
for an approximate cost of $45,762.78. The provisions of the
1911 Act call for a public hearing by the legislative body to
confirm the cost of the work. At this time the Council may hear
objections from property owners and make adjustments to the
proposed assessments as the Council feels are appropriate. Upon
completion of the hearing, the Council should adopt a resolution
confirming the costs and creating a lien against the properties.
In 1984, the City Council determined that assessments greater
than $1000. 00, which were required by the City under its own
improvement ordinance, could be funded over a three year period
at an interest rate not to exceed 10%. At the time this
ordinance was adopted, the Council indicated that it wished to
have these provisions extend to the 1911 Act. The provisions of
the 1911 Act, however, limit the interest rate to 7$, rather than
the 10% of the City ordinance. Therefore, staff has followed the
7% interest rate allowed by the 1911 Act.
Property owners were notified of this option prior to tonight's
meeting. The property owners who have requested the three year
financing are shown on Exhibit B.
ALTERNATIVES:
i
Alternative 1: Council may adopt the resolution confirming
costs, thereby permitting the City to collect funds advanced for
sidewalk construction which is the responsibility of the adjacent.
property owner.
w
C11;y of San 1
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Sidewalk Construction
page 2
Alternative 2 : Council may fail to adopt the resolution, thereby
stopping the collection procedure with the ultimate loss of
approximately $45, 762 .78 .
FISCAL IMPACT:
Possible loss of $45, 762 .78 of funds advanced to pay contractors
to conduct this work, which is the responsibility of the property
owners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council, after hearing public testimony,
make whatever adjustments it feels are appropriate for each
individual property, adopt the resolution confirming costs and
permitting unpaid costs to be turned over to the tax collector to
be placed as a lien against the property and collected with the
taxes.
Attachments: Exhibits A and B
Resolution
swconstr.wp/th#1
I
ORESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO CONFIRMING COSTS OF CURB, GUTTER AND
SIDEWALKS CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE 1911 ACT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to public hearings duly held, the
Council hereby determines that it has addressed objections or
protests to the costs of construction submitted by the Public
Works Director and hereby confirms said costs as submitted as set
forth hereafter.
SECTION 2 . That the hereinafter listed construction costs
shall be paid within five (5) days after the date hereof and any
such costs retaining unpaid thereafter shall be turned over to
the City Tax Collector to be placed as a lien against the
property and collected with the city taxes, and subject to the
same penalties and costs if not paid on the first installment .
The property owners, addresses and construction costs are shown
on Exhibit "A" .
SECTION 3 . If the assessment is $1, 000 or more, payment may be
made in three annual installments at seven percent (7%) interest
subject to all the curative clauses and powers of the 1911 Act .
The property owners addresses and construction costs are shown in
Exhibit "B" .
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call
C vote:
Resolution No. �
( 990 Series)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this
day of
1.990.
ATTEST: MAYOR
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
t e y �.
Finance Direc r
Public works Director
1911act/dfrnl9
1
/-H
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATION COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
Mark S. Blair 441 Buchon $ 236. 00
Georgia L. Sanford 2027 Swazey 340. 00
C.L. Jost, Tr. etal 210 Margarita 353 .00
I.O.O.F. Chorro Lodge #168 520 Dana 531. 00
Clay E. Fluitt, etal 753 Woodbridge 672 .78
Kathrine J. McBride, Tre. 233 Lincoln 715.00
M. Butler 48 Rafael Way 11036. 00
Carlos & G.G.Nungary, Tres. 610 Funston 10194. 00
Iona Miller 32 Rafael Way 1, 261.40
R. J. Osbaldeston 477 Buchon 11642. 00
Elizabeth W. Gates 245 Lincoln 11773. 00
B.J. Bilsten, etal 443-45 Buchon 11957. 00
Lee A. Brazil 530-36-38 Buchon 21119. 00
J.P. and M.M. Hobbs 506 Caudill (Meadow
Street side) 2, 415. 00
McCarthy Prop. ,a Calif.Corp 313 South 14,206. 00
Marcel & Margaret Cote 521 Funston (also
Meadow St. side) 15, 311. 60
$ 45,762 .78
O
r-.
r ;
EXHIBIT "B" O
Property owners where costs are over $1, 000. 00 and who have opted
for three (3) year pay-off.
PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
John P. Hobbs 506 Caudill St. $2,415. 00
B.J. Bilsten, etal . 443-45 Buchon 1, 957. 00
R.J. Osbaldeston 477 Buchon 1, 642 . 00
MEETING AGENDA
DATE /2-y-`!o ITFEM #
SHIPSEY b SEITZ, INC.
OA.LAW CORPORATION
GERALD W. SHIPSEY 1119 PALM STREET JOHN L. SEITZ
JON S. SEITZ. POST OFFICE BOX 953 11924 - 19861
--- — -- --
SAN-LUIS-OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406-
TELEPHONE (805) S43-7272
November 26, 1990
r--
COPi.5T0!
❑ &nolp Ac&n ❑,FYI
I .uF.Xcu-nd! 1, DD?7II R.
MEMBERS OF THE SAN LUIS f ( � O G, ZEC1�?E
OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
r �I� '
'OLICECH
City Hall C ;;;�a.�;: ,;.; �— Dir,
990 Palm Street ❑ uTILDT!:_
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 � '�_T. V.
RE: PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT FOR
CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALK
MCCARTHY STEEL, INC. LOCATED
AT 313 SOUTH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1990
TIME: 7:05 P.M.
Dear Council Persons:
ORobert McCarthy has requested that I respond to the City's
proposed assessment of $14,206.00 for curb, gutter and sidewalk
constructed across his property line. The property is commonly
known . as McCarthy Steel, Inc. located at 313 South Street, San
Luis Obispo, California. The proposed assessment is based on
the Street Improvement Act of 1911. j
Please accept this letter as protesting the proposed
assessment. The basis of this protest is as follows:
1. On January 11, 1961, the City of San Luis Obispo issued
a conditional building permit for the construction of
an office and warehouse located at 313 South Street,
San Luis Obispo, California. The city conditioned this
construction on the installation of curb, 'gutter and .
sidewalk (see building permit number 3676 attached
hereto as Exhibit "1") ;
2. The building was constructed and occupied prior to
April 5, 1961 without the construction of the requested
curb, gutter and sidewalk (see letter dated April 5,
1961 attached hereto as Exhibit 11211) ;
Mr. McCarthy appealed the condition of curb, gutter and
sidewalk to the planning commission. On or about May
' Nov 2 i49f1 2, 1961, the planning commission, pursuant to
resolution number 63-61, granted Mr. McCarthy a
C"rTY GLLr;l:
MEMBERS OF THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
November 26, 1990
-- Page Two-- --- ---- - -- ---- -- — - ----- ---
conditional exception to the curb, gutter and sidewalk
requirement in exchange for a deed to a strip of
property approximately 26 feet in width and 250 feet in
length owned by Mr. McCarthy running parallel and
adjacent to South Street. The planning commission
expressly reserve the right to require curb, gutter and
sidewalk under any future . building permits (see
resolution number 63-61 attached hereto as Exhibit
11311) .
4. On or about May 15, 1961, the city council approved the
planning commission's recommendation and authorized- the
Mayor to accept the deed (see the minutes of the San
Luis Obispo City Council attached hereto as Exhibit
"4") ; and
5. The city has constructed curb, gutter and sidewalk in
front of McCarthy Steel, Inc. under protest pursuant to
the Street Improvement Act of 1911. The Street
C Improvement Act of 1911 was available to the city at
all times including the Spring of 1961 when the city
reached the agreement with McCarthy Steel, Inc. (see
paragraphs three and four above) .
6. The city has established a policy of waiving curb,
gutter and sidewalk in exchange for property dedicated
to the public domain as a condition to permitting
various projects (see Telegram Tribune Article of
Wednesday,. October 10, 1990, highlighted sections) .
It is clear from the facts and documents attached hereto
that in May of 1961 Mr. McCarthy reached an agreement with the
city, whereby on an exception to the curb, gutter and sidewalk
was granted to Mr. McCarthy in exchange for a strip of property
26 feet in width and 250 feet in length. This transaction was
in accord with long standing city policy (see Exhibit 11511) . I
can find no evidence of building permit number 3676 being
conditioned on the dedication of any property into the public
domain. Therefore, Mr. McCarthy gave the city valuable
consideration (property) for the exception with the
understanding that if Mr. McCarthy sought a new building permit
the city would have the opportunity to condition the permit on
the construction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Surely, if
Mr. McCarthy thought the city could void the agreement under
the Street Improvement Act of 1911, they would not have deeded
a valuable piece of property to the city because the exception
would be worthless.
MEMBERS OF THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
November 26, 1990
-- -. Page Three --- -- -- -— - -- — -----— - -
Further, if the city now claims they have the right to
construct curbs, gutters and sidewalks under the Street
Improvement Act of 1911 and charge the cost to McCarthy Steel,
Inc. then the prior agreement (deed for exception) fails for
lack of consideration and is subject, to rescission. Thereby,
creating the current circumstance of the city taking a valuable
property right (26x250 feet strip) in violation of California
Constitution, Article I, Section 19 (the taking of private
property for public use without just compensation) .
The city, in constructing this project along South Street,
has been buying the necessary property at its fair market value
(12. 50 per square foot) and then deducting the price for curb,
gutter and sidewalk (approximately $25. 00 a running foot) from
the sales price. As to McCarthy Steel, Inc. this would equate
as follows:
$81, 250. 00 ($12.50 times 6500 square feet) - $6250.00
O ($25.00 times 250 feet) _ $75, 000.00
Mr. McCarthy does not understand why the city is charging
him approximately $56.82 a foot while other properties along
South Street are being charged approximately $25.00 a foot.
Clearly, the McCarthys paid value consideration for the
exception and such exceptions for exchange of property are
within the city's policies.
The legal theories that support Mr. McCarthy's position are
as follows:
1. Breach of Contract based on the agreement articulated
by the planning commission and adopted by the city as
herein described;
2 . The city has waived the right to assess McCarthy Steel,
Inc. for curb, gutter and sidewalk under the Street
Improvement Act of 1911 based on the inconsistency
between the agreement (exception for property) that
would and has produced a reasonable belief that the
right to use the Street Improvement Act of 1911 has
been relinquished (see Rubin vs. Los Angeles Federal
Savings and Loan, (1984) 159 Cal.App. 3rd 292, 298, 205
Cal.Rptr. 455) ;
MEMBERS OF THE SAN LUIS
C' OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
November 26, 1990
— -- - Page Four- --- - - - -----
3. The city is estopped to use the Street Improvement Act
of 1911 to assess McCarthy Steel, Inc. because the
city's conduct in leading McCarthy Steel, Inc. to
believe that in exchange for the property, the city
would only condition curb, gutter and sidewalk on
future building permits and Mr. McCarthy in fact,
deeding , the property to the city, the city is now
estopped to contradict the agreement (see Evidence Code
Section 623) . I might also add that subsequent to the
agreement that is the basis for this protest, McCarthy
Steel, Inc. has applied for numerous building permits
without the city conditioning their permits on the
construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk; and
4. Rescission of the agreement (deed for exception) based
on lack of consideration (see Civil Code Section 1689)
and condemnation of the property in violation of
California Constitution Article I, Section 19 (the
taking of property without just compensation) .
I have no doubt that staff will insist on charging McCarthy
Steel, Inc. for the current curb, gutter and sidewalk project.
However, when the council reviews the attached material, the
city's past and present policies of accepting property for
exceptions and the basic fairness of McCarthy's position, the
council will decide to honor the intent as well as the language
of the agreement between the city and McCarthy Steel, Inc.
REQUESTED REMEDIES
1. Pay the McCarthys for the property pursuant to the rate
the city has paid other property owners on South Street
and deduct the cost of curb, gutter and sidewalk from
the amount; (or)
2 . Find that the McCarthys are not obligated to the city
for the construction of the curb, gutter and sidewalk.
On behalf of my client, I thank you for your consideration
of this letter in your deliberations.
If you should have any questions regarding my client's
MEMBERS OF THE SAN LUIS
�) OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
November 26, 1990
-
- Page Five----.-- - - ----.. _ --- -- -----
position and/or staff's position, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Further, I will make myself available for a
personal conference if you think it appropriate.
Very truly yours,
SHIPSEY & SEITZ r* INC.
JON SEITZ
JSS:kw
enc.
cc: Robert McCarthy
Dave Romero
Please incorporate this letter as well as the dttached
documents into the official reco s t the h ar'ng.
J S. EITZ
O
= ^ os 5 E fr,00
cc
a E
• N ri ly Y I Q s e�� 1 A 1 1 us v N n
. t. ❑ G• 7 i 0 G e i i"+ N A.'i'G
r s S o Nl 111 -
3'tn �-..��• ; -
w I '• «� ❑
0 p 0_O ❑ j 1 007 j 1 10 .n'• �.0.,.
eC7 1 i 09. i i� Z 733
1 g 0 Loa i ' � r'rl�••1 � �;�7 i i� "OA long �
'� a i sm
�e a y-
�-•i1.�• 3'�""w S 1 ; � 1 1 101 C •��.�.
on
1 1 C � �� I Im � •w
s0a leo 1 , TT
I�j, 9 1 1 r ❑Oro to
I 1 1 F
i o �'.Qg7yW �.� IA• & ;4 IMS' 110 O in
% a
py F � i ❑ y ❑ +� i 1 O og v =1
n a 1 1
1
A 1
Cb
_ Q•1 n- 1� 1 1 �C.Fy T
m � �.�2 F•� � i �. N i� iN � i i i ° � 5 � S
((pp $ 2 0 O' w�•1 ' w g �a b I 1.! r-
04;1
ow
H
�
S w�� � •! � 1 ; .� 1 I 1"�'+ G IBJ � � �-�
per
ps� _ 1 �
Q.
C O A 1 1� fi I h w I
y `
� Y ; y a Z s _
a.0 ga ' ( I !C 0 1 1 r
"`'f:' ?.;`-►:'tiv.w;•_;:..;�tr7r�!;+i.! Sg i g =' iC P N ; y 'C-N
z LF1.
th
1.9
i C
: $:•:r}: :::::<::::{:} $ ti::::::::::::: $ • O ' 117 1 1 i0 1 1 R• '�.
Qj 1 o y Ota 3"'. I im i i X i � 1 �
1
1'C
i ; !•' }i Y��w',o �' i IF•1 ; 1� i 10 Lam.
� 1 !� « ✓w� 3 � � ;� I 1 t 1 Im 1p. �
WC
w
C �
1
s I O OSur 1 Q $yam• j ; �W ; to
Ito
y� II a 1 �Q1 g D A
• 1 1 ��" C« I ;CT ; Iro 1 117 pe per t F+
..TT p 1
1,,. ply I Lr
i
1 3 lZ 'Y 1A 3�wA I 1 I I(� 1
PLO
D o Z i ifl• _ '� i gam+ �V�l 1 tIt I_-
i'
��} 1
''•��� :i1 4 p � 1 � 1 � 1 1 i 1
1 1 1 I 1 1 I
jp�s,1!Rl
woo cm to atim caww
n3a joule now A M%
sou Lela Leto*,Gettfinets
alt us a.t,flim
peatLmet
10 ire w to us sttsatfm of tl.b be;mteet►teat areal
ommraMetm w"W bm seaepfee WE en.m+et 4%V:ootk suwtsl t:
Mute atllmac t ndt re. Y,Tt tau lmme to}dor taiwev. a.
TAM reoade d as aataau.""Mmol tem tmt m flaei foevot►m m
bet P@quettw w met m refs eMfldlm. ruvtfw, m rima tmpetlm of
Us b%JUInt tm be mle emttl tM wcuir"Wou of jeettm T33J.1, of as
am fma mtspe ttelalpal Gees a ea,PLI" VIM. %"Jtatam r"Gir"
teat, pets'to Wo eserpMmf of te.toatd:ar eoaetrJWW Or w,w6 foto vo
CLq,mAr, autt,ee ae at4Mmtas Nola b la"Usd h tm or:er m eme
peepwt7 m tm f wda^ eejacmt to v., pw•lle stoat.
IDaMlaa,1s a etnaw to te,mme f atel"t1w cc tte roaattae lw
taeatsaats l-modtttolr and b WMIMtt mle lmulkscl-" ew npmet ftnal
tapwttsa m bbta b&Wlw 1rtata rortrfl.. (45) dale, or wttm vul
haw b b UkM to raM t.'e talljfao- raratod.
tr TM batt air 4am'tIms reomr tw ML sttw, loam tet to tam,1M
uw K1foe.
fer7 tr47 Seem,
L Y. aaMW, D aatw ;
71amtK ml aataetR aepaetsmt
tMAZM a6 bUUM
ledletaa tapatee .s
WO "zip~Am"ComYaattm Co. �. r
i
ti
ar�yry��t
'tit.
Y� '.1.: •fin :.�' �-.
Commissioner Schuarts stated that the Planning Cmnmissfon had been Ane in `
a very poor position. Mr. McCarthy was aware of the requirements of side- '
walk, curb and Cotter prior to the construction of the building and also of '
j the future street widening. Mr. McCarthy conceded that they were aware
of same, but that the building was now constructed and he wished to make -
what he believed a hazardous condition as safe as possible. :' •' .
On motion of Commissioner tengers seconded by Commissioner Jobnson. &Uoo- -
lotion No. 63-61 was adopted by the following roll call voter i'..
AYESt Commissioners Law. Longer, Carpenter. Cole. Johnson, 6 Scbwarts. -
on: Mone
ABSENT: Commissioner Scott.
Thereby conditionally granting the exception in sidewalk curb and gutter
-requirements for the fall 250 foot froatags of the property described
above. Said exception is to be considered Daly to-the requirements of .:
BuildingPermit No. 3676 and in un precludes the requirements for
. way Pre req '::. ..'. .•'
sub, gutter and sidewalk under any future building permit that may be
issued. In granting the exception, the PlauaLM Commission recommends that "'•"ma'''r`- ''' `""
the City Council accept the dead to a strip of property 26 feet in width
and 250 fact in lengths running parallel and adjacent to South Street;
said property, being offered to the City by 1h•. Robert R. HeCarthy $eaior.
for street widening purposes, and further recommends that the street pav-
ing-oa both sides of South Street be extended in width at this time asd
j a plant mix rolled berm be installed along the frontage of Hr. McCarthy's
J property
+9. Discussion of the ra-location of a portion of Bishop street.
The City Engineer reported that more work had to be done to eamplej� a
plan for the re-alignment of Bishop Street and he would try to have it +:^+.
Cready for the aezt meeting.
10. Rep"
Ra " end Information
a. The'City Clark reported that the,City Council 1n d approved thw two S
meetings per month With the Planning Consultant. This would be in
effect until the beginning of the now fiscal years at which time it '
wamld berecauLdered, s
b. The City Engineer reported on two small subdivisions. It was brought out S
that a lot depth exception would have to be rmcommeaded for the `
Paulsen small subdivision at 1840 Johnson Avenue as the lot depth L
approximately 168`6 fact. f,
By unanimous vote of the Commission. Resolution No. 64-61 was adopted; (.
thereby rceommending the City Council grant a Tot depth exception on
Property described aa'a portion of Lot 1, Block D. Tract 132, Assessors'
No. 4-684-01, in accordance with the plot plan submitted.
The lot split of property belonging to the Ranchotep also raqu$red
a lot depth exception.
By unanimous vote of the Cemmisatoa. Resolution NO.*65-61 vas
thereby recommending the City Council grant an exception in the maxim®
depth regulations. in accordance with the plot plan and sketch submitted.
on property desicribed as Block Be Phillips Addition, Assessor's No. 1-072-02.
G. The Planning Director submitted a request for a determination an a
lot at the and of the cul-de-sac on Alisal Street. Since the lot
In question faced both Alisal Street and Alta Street, there was
Sams question as to where the front setback should be located.
On motion of Commissioner Johnson* seconded by Commissioner Langer, r'
Resolution No.-66-61 was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: C+mmlaaianera Lay. Leager. Carpenter. Cole. Johnson & Schwartz.
O5/2/61 t
f�tl
1 e
EY-IIBIT 3
UFO anger esplaloed. the baste fop eaceptlo a as provided to ithe ".qAp}1
Oode.
r.
Mr..Mecatthy apPeara4 before the Clty Const L op,bahal! of,hip„gpgl�igoelon.�•
for ardeptt a to the City's curb* gutter a etdedelV0r'oLT6ay sad sieied
•,has ac soma future data it the City would over the street grade on South
scsort ate•would be very happy t9 Pita q.�, ;uFtee aa4 04”! t ;t.t4,nw
�; • grade ilea,, He also said that If the tbnac 3?PProved diq.Teg4!!t•hy vovtd
lgmediiuly deed the necessary 26 ft.'toe s rest vtdsnide purposes� h�^r? ^- : "�^•'��••�'
K. •.,$GWJrg e:plotped.the.etreaq &rode sad.s f¢.that At vje•q�F4�!'�;wt�y
4. 'street grade'hrogld br•ab+aBad•. • . r.
Cit ... 1 '!t-vat ed OS'�A L.A�avgs.;J3o.
�. Atter diseusstoa:by the•• y1:Copne} . f trice
aeeenQad-by Donald Q.•,MLLlir, that chs sty bsuactl soups t City planning
Cou®tsios reeoeoaadattoa and'authorised Ms r Davidsto to accept the dead
}a• for;Atrers.7ri4aming apd.for Ithe.yLty.6p$lno r.fa improve t,Qeratv,tgl;,•to,.ths ..
;• ant•eupb• live.and also pave the oRposita,s s,.of,.Sputa.§gj.909'".-xv ppanded
by W.city planning �ymtsatonh..!btlsn An A4A• :r.:''r:.: :. •:
26. Comaunicatton from Disabled American Peters s County Chapter ieiuestin8
Poimdmpioo to.sponsor • donkey;softhol . W go May 304r?#11t,.4ft Ss LIM-A?as
Park. .. ... ..: .•,; .ver•.•: •.
RegeoFt approved with no objecpioas,
25. CoasEpupitatioa from Peporeaa ol,.poreiga yarsh .r�ues�jng�e�m�sp�p to Ret
a. 00aev Cale La San Leis Obispo,on thuraday Friday and Saturday, May 25.
26. aad 27. 1961, and
26.• Commwaieatton frpm the.Amerieaa,Legion Awd igry rcqusst' g po;#OqAoa,to
I sell Poppies oa.Mey 23 and 26. „ . ..• 'r•r: •. ..,, •.,.-s r. .•..•- ' .«a ..
Doth requests approved an motion of Gerald . Shipoey, seconded by Donald Q.
Millet. • .. ... ...• ... .. •rV •. ..►• M1•V...,d,•: �" '.. ,..
�' 'v' - , with a statement o! s t
27. Communieatioa from the Division o! Highvaya .
revenues for the period July 1, 1960, to 30, 1961, was received and
Tiled.
28. Ce®mleation from the State of California, Division of Small Craft Harbors,
bringing to the City Couaetl's actsatioa t* revisions made to the Harbors
and gavigattmn Code and urging that the cities and counties to the State
ravisetheir boating ordinances to aoaf ria the State Beating Lay.
was received and ftled. i 1j. Mayor Mayor Davidson was authorised to wtlte a letter to the State Chamber of
Commerce, Department of Publto Rorke, and t local Chamber of Commerce
requesting that all haste bo made for the a ustruetioa of the Ma4Qnna Road
Pveraass an r»tion of Donald Q, Mtiler, seconded by Gerald W. Shipsay.
30. Communication from Gladys Pardon, presidentie! the Library Board, requests
Ing Council authority to hang certain pictu6s and paLntiags owned by she
City School Board in the City Library subject to car:asa conditions relative-
to reltevtng the City of the rsspoasibillt�.
She matter was reforrod to the City Staff_' taysattlate and bring back a
recommendation to the CLtr Camull.
31, Administrative Officer Millar asked parmis)lon of tho Coumeil for City !
Clerk Fitzpatrick to go to Los Aegiaee OUR tar 17, 19610 to sign she F rk•
i
iins District r4, 1 Bonds and to make dellwry of said be to Jobe &uveas b
Company
She trip use authorised on motion of DOAS14 Q• Mi12e=. seconded by R. L.
Graves. Jr-
4
32. Communication from the Library Board raquoi ting permission for Mra. g• Ve
Reynolds, board member. and Patricia Clark; Librartax, to attend the Covernor'e
Conference For Public Library Trustees to $acramanto an June 12-13, 1961.
Admistatrative officer recommends that to scion be granted for this trip.
Permission graotod an motion at Donald Q .1rAller. seconded•by Mia& Margaret M.•• 1
�E��II�IT
.,• rr.
��e•r'm its:� - � .. � • � __ _
nn, ,.-. ♦-.y^ 1 O<�.�11 NR903Si'O r _
,.By Tare• 4'M*:..i.i
(
Telegram-Tribune 'Ka""'�G"":a'
fay?foe 71:'ST CE
t. Jerry Ahrens calls it"erdortion." _ ti., :..�, ,. •_-j°°'—"" `" -
Ci aright tofflwo take a piece
say they
h
land"m exchange for granting his . :-� ''�`""'T✓ - ' . t
T.
tenant a permit :'
I'
Ahrens' tenant, Pete Peterson. y - > _
t �
wants to put in a part-time woodwork- +%•: .. +�. �� �' f
ing business in a building on Orcutt
Road owned since the mid-1940xby
• �t�� •z t -
Ahrens
As one of the conditions of the use �:uql, ^s �►+ , -% ' f
Permit,Ahrens mast give the city the
front 22 feet-of the Orcutt Road lots„^ ,
hear McMillan Road so .the city_ 1i ' J v• '
eventually can widen the road.
The city passed an ordinance years
aga that set optimal widths for main _ •"i ""•
streets, Associate Planner Je#Hook
" said Tuesday. Orcutt Road is one of
those streets.
property owners seek building
.W permits, Hook said, the city ;; `
tacks'on a bequest for land as a
condition of the permit
"The intent is that the city gradual-
ly
ti
l acgmre the land"to widen sheets, > •..' '-..: '
he said
Owners don't receive any money 3' .
. fortheland - ~
Public Works'Director Dave Rom-
ero said
om-ero.said the City will continue to ask RobertDyer/relegra-
for the land as permit requests Dome Kevin Duff and Lilly Duran awaken this morning in front of the courthouse in San Luis Obisp o.
'
UP.We're not is a pressing situation'
where we have m den Protesters camp at courthous
sheets,"Romero said
But when the actuation becomes.
desperate,he said,the city Likely will
have to pay.fair market value for theTuesday afternoon,stilliii the firs: • over from Hudson's G.
Indian activists cite 24 hours of his fast Merkel admitted it mac-
That's what Ahrens finds objection-
Services,Duane Leib, dnectar of General• tTiffiadt
: able. He and his wife, Doris,plan to free speech rl g hts; said he would probably 'Tin justzoning it crit,"Y.e
appeal to the,Planning Commission willing to grant a permit for �? But protester Lilly Dura
t officials coder
protesters to was noproblem.
."They wait until you want some- p signs at the steps during the ada5a "Pmvegetarian anyway,
thing from the city," Dais Ahrens hauling them off said the ' tP ' � � �� no big c.
said.`When they hit you." supersede the city ban on said.
Ahrens said he's willing to negoti- By Jan Greene even if it wanted to Merkel was ' t
ate with the city over the land, but Telegram-Tribune County officials are eraannio- local version of the nation•.
those negotiations shouldn't be a the law and their options, ww- for Indian rights after spec-.
condition of his tenant's permit Four protesters have spent the Leib admitted are not very attrar of this summer traveling
,,-"We tall it extortion," he said. past two days and nights in front of rive. ent reservations around t.
mr s a distasteful thing in my the County Government Center, "We don't want to have to dr-: by
" violating a ban on overnight camp- them away," Lefir said "{Ver'
usually pretty lenient"about allOr Although the proteste-
Please see Permits,Back Page But county officials who control ing protests on county properly general concerns about b,
the building aren't sure how they The first night, six fasters siej' mash issues such as dei.
will handle the situation. over. Two left Tuesday becaw: disturbing burial grour.,
The protesters are fasting as part they had to attend classes. didn't have any specific .
of a nationwide call for greater Merkel said he plans to sta? '- uaands.
t TELEGRAM-
TRIBUNE r " '
San Luis Obispo Coon Y(Calif.)) '. .;
• Romero said the city will continue
Pe* r mits - o attach land requests as conditions .
of permits until it gets all its main
proved earner tn the streets widened• "
talledproposal Coatinued�omA-1 That has meant hundreds of
Senate / Abrens.estimates the value of the projects in the last 20 years,Romero ;
land the city wants at$10,000.He also said :4
owns the lot next door and expects
The city has slowed down to about
/- the sty to request the front 22 feet if three or four property requests a
that]and ever needs improvements yeat,he said
"We do not iatead to donate that "We were much more active be •:
land in that un and inequity fore,." be said. "we had a very `
o trraeasa In " ble a tuner,"Ahrens sand. street wuiearag program
In
rant t3 preMur►B /> Romero acknowledged the seeming the 60s.
< It was easier to get such programs
unfairness of the law.=e,degree it isblaclmtad,"he ` appr0°ed back then,he said,because
i ttie said Tue don't think anyone fewer people�mplained for a council
�le'tor.fifgt} "Irs harder nowadays
''raises oeiltng arr,' :< tikes it" something like this passed," r
xed toi tutemeare m But the streets have to be widened to get
rc Sgp ppb; because.of the additional traffic Rom ro sai&
the sty has begun collecting on
/ brought In by businesses such as the streets not included in the 1960s
sed for Ahrens' property,
union borons on one proposed ordinance,such as Monterey,Romero '
.Romero said.
held 3years or The
In=*Sao fw tbie U34 102000:% � � ask developers of a
✓ S'ily� O ��rWJYPW,W
jp, proposed four-story building for the
for r drtpinaFbudget r V P> corner of Toro and Monterey streets
.f1O: %Y. �� develop�ess often are to give uP siz feet of their PmPerty
ermit,
nc as t�aa9r,g oa; Big Pm3 when they file for a building p
a' ,m tdgt�est asked to provide paving and sothernd
'hesat
, yy improvements as well as-curbs Ahrens and his wife expect the
guttemt their appy:
"our p01'iaes are easier commission to ! what they
on the fiWe
"WeYe tougher on the They didn't want to discuss
guy,p],hi,�/wYsaid. wID d0 if the appeal is denied-
big
y
z
E LAWN
IFF
�;• ••. pWPet Lyons �UTCL
Hebb-EldwMEM
aye:6.who, omAL PARK.
anent on the proposed ,
Ws views of the dis<tiet
:ion and the ftMortuary-Cemeterg-Mausoleum
MOD&'ni&Ws mem s' Complete Financial
isuejerstand how Tauri was O Fashion For Advanced
sane building permits, Service • planning
M -LaBarbera. 'n&W Funeral Arrangements report is Tama. She Our Tradition
ft that yoiaay was Immediate Cremation 'r
ng permits for the dty of Direct Burial
S
r
smitb, the tendon r%uv "
the Pismo Beach Berl- 2890 So. Higuera St., San Luis Obispo -
i nd blue collar workers, 543-6871 -
-aty can by of employ- Jack Sutcliffe
caub.
se,as long as they're r
County
eeks'notice,and they Be Serving Entire San Luis Obispo =
if the city begins hiring
r of 61%e layoffs. =,
MEETING AGENDA
REVISED DATE ��- �� ITEM #
11/30/90 EXHIBIT "B"
Property owners where costs are over $1, 000.00 and who have opted
for three (3) year pay-off.
PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
John P. Hobbs 506 Caudill St. $2, 415. 00
B.J. Bilsten, etal. 443-45 Buchon 1, 957. 00
R.J. Osbaldeston 477 Buchon 1, 642. 00
Lee A. Brazil 530-36-38 Buchon 2,119. 00
C plus o:
Fri
ldj IIP. }
I
..(.A//( 7y1 n
i ..l
MEETING" AGENDA
DATE
-�IIf�IB�InnIIIflI����;�����Illl�llllllllllll� I city of Salr1 l�l1S OBISpo ,
MORE 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
November 29, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: city council
FROM: Dave Romero, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: McCarthy Steel Sidewalk Installation Letter from
Jon Seitz Dated 11/26/90 (refer to the 6 points
raised at the beginning of the Seitz letter)
1. The building permit issued for the office and warehouse
contained the following condition "subject to the
installation of curb, gutter and sidewalks",, Resolution
No. 341 (1958 Series) (Attachment 1) contains the following
O wording "Permits for the construction of curbs, gutters or
sidewalks shall be issued only if they conform to applicable
plan lines" . These two conditions taken together imply a
dedication of the property prior to the installation of
improvements. This interpretation has been followed by the
City since the plan line program was first initiated in
1958.
The 1958 policy was the first drawn up by the City for plan
lines. It was specific that the City. would pay curb, gutter
and sidewalk for residential property if right-of-way were
dedicated, and would not pay for these facilities in the
case of lot splits, larger subdivisions and variances. Not
specifically addressed was commercial and industrial
property. Consistent City interpretation from that time to
the present is that commercial and industrial properties
must both dedicate right-of-way and install improvements
More recently adopted policies have clarified the conditions
and have required more of the private party and less of the
City.
2 . The building was occupied in violation of the permit
requirement. This prompted the Planning Department letter
of April 5, 1961 directing the installation within 45 days.
RECEIVED
KID 4 loco
OTrV OLiisw
SAN LUIS OBIqpf),CA
C'
McCarthy
Page Two
3. The Planning Commission granted an exception to the curb,
gutter and sidewalk installation only as itappliedto
Building Permit No. 3676. A reading of the complete minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 2) , and my
recollection of the meeting, was that the entire discussion
centered around the matter that was before the Planning
Commission, i.e. an exception to the curb, gutter and
sidewalk installation for this permit. . The following quote
from a letter submitted by T.C. Maino, contractor for the
building, 'was recorded in the minutes.
"This project is in an M zone without development on either
side; therefore we request that we be allowed to omit the
sidewalk until such time as other developments in the area
warrant the installation of sidewalk".
The Planning Commission recommended that the City accept the
deed for the widening and that the City conduct considerable
paving work in the street near and adjacent to McCarthy's.
There is no statement or implication that the deed was to be
exchanged for curb, gutter and sidewalk. The implication
was that the deed was to be exchanged for paving work.
The statement in the approval regarding future building
permits clearly shows the intent of the Planning Commission
that there could (would) be a future obligation for McCarthy
to install the improvements.
4 . At the May 15, 1961 Council meeting (Attachment 3) ,
Mr. McCarthy (senior) stated ". . .at some future date if the
City would lower the street grade on South Street, he would
be very happy to place curb, gutter and sidewalk to the new
grade line. " By this wording, it is clear that he saw this
installation as his obligation.
The Council approved the Planning Commission recommendation.
subsequently, an agreement was drawn up and signed by both
McCarthy and the City (Attachment 4) . By the wording of the
agreement, it is clear we are exchanging services and
considerable paving for the deed. Curb, gutter and sidewalk
installation was not a part of this agreement.
C
O
McCarthy
Page Three
5. The 1911 Act allows the City to require completion of curb,
gutter and sidewalk improvements in a block only when more
than 50% of the block is already improved. It was not until
the City was able to negotiate a widening agreement in 1988
for property at the southeast corner of South and Beebee
that the City had the 50% necessary to proceed.
6. The Telegram Tribune article dealt with a broad general
discussion of City policy and its fairness. The property
referred to in the article needed a use permit of such a
minor nature that it is not covered by current policy.
Staff was trying to work out some amicable basis for the
widening with that owner, so the City could proceed soon
with that critical Orcutt Road widening.'
If the McCarthy building permit were to come before the City
today, it would be covered under Policy C (Attachment 5) .
C Note that dedication, installation of curb, gutter and
sidewalk and paveout would be required.
Staff believes that all of Mr. Seitz ' arguments in the remainder
of the letter are based on a faulty premise and therefore have no
validity.
McCarthy's share of the improvement cost is $14,206 and is
detailed in a submittal sent to them (Attachment 6) . The figures
include costs for excavation, repaving behind driveways (because
McCarthy's built their building low in relation to the existing
street) and relocation of a fence, all related to McCarthy's
individual circumstances. The city also paid $4,572..60 related
to street paveout and relocation of. City facilities. All figures
are based on contract costs without survey, design, contract
administration inspection, or City overhead costs. Original City
estimates were that McCarthy's cost would be $15,200.
Conclusion: Staff believes that original documentation is clear
as to intent of all parties. The 1911 Act proceeding and the
construction contract has been properly carried out. Staff feels
there is no justifiable basis for relief of McCarthy's obligation
to pay for the improvements.
Attachments 1-6
mccarthy/dfr#25
?ESOLUTILY ':0. 341 (1950 Series)
G A m3OLUTICN ESTABLISEIING CERTAIF I'OLICIEZZ Or, TBP; CITY IN
CMECTION wTrR PIP,A IDES.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Sari Luih Obispo as f011Ouat
That the following shall constitute the policy of the City in regard to
utrvots on which plan lines have been or will be sets ,
1. 11io purpose of plan linev or buildine setback Uwe aa,they are sometime
referred to, is to prevent conatruction'of improvements within designated future
righto of way, thus eliminating the necessity of condomning buildinLa as well as
acquiring land before the street can be widened.
2. On major city streets where abutting properties are coned residential
and either built on or about to be built on for such purpose, the City will seek
agreement with individual property owners on the following basics' If the owner
,All dedicate the necessary right of way for the street widening end agree to
Install his sidewalk, the City will pay for installation of curb'and gutter and
° .:
pave out to such curb and gutter. The work would proceed as noon as the property
oumer and City could reach agreement and provided thit•City has sufficient moneys
n beep the program goinE. In arty event, the dedication of the•right of way would
a conditional upon the City cocopletirig the curb and gutter and widening the
roadway. Such agreement with the property owner would normally be confined to
the normal residential frontago involved.
3. Section 2 above answers the question of how soon the C#y would plan to
to ahead with its msjor street widonings. If agreement cannot.,be:reachad with
tis property o.ner, the City would bane to wait vatil it could afford to
Co tri, ie»L+idor of the unvidened portions of its mayor streeta,'eitber by
eeuaarcut district or. threugh the use of general City funds.
1n the case of lot splits or larger subdivisions and variriiese, •the City
;.v�;Ad %iquira_'.bo. dedicaticn_of right of way and installation of curbs gutter.
and other improvemy.ICs as condition to the requested permit, Permits
"liz construction of curb:. �;ut2arq_or_sidewalke-sIm2l be i� n_� only if the;
— -- of cu —
: 'bis
to.applilcable plan line.
G
•y, I f � 1
C
-2-
4. Zi the csse of an owner of a lot of record fronting cn a plan line street
n-!* .i'-a': to b-jild vrit:in the NUre right of way, the procedure shall be rs
`''•lou:>:
If such ounar applies for such permit and the normal setback would allow
reu�a ots�_, tto erect a structure within the reserved right of way, the city building
:per.fin c_r; ehnll deny =uch permit and the ormer shall appeal to the FA,snnia;
G_ ::1c ion
c.-%d the City Council in accordance with the proceduro sot forthin
3�;QJ.6 of tho San IAuia Obispo Pluscipal Code. In the event the appsal
s Cxnied by e.e Planning Ccouission and the City Council, then the City must
.- -3 _r.::t p'.rmi.6 or initiate proceedings to acquire the property within the pias
_' -2 vithin siz months aider the submission of the appeal to the City Council,
PASSED Atm ADOPTED thin Z. 3rd day of March 19.921.by t7ie
bIIL--irg roll call vote: h
==�i Kenneth W':.Jones, Richard G. Sleight, J. Barry!,Smith,
Fred H. Lucksinger . .
IMES. c None
ABSENT: Nels Beck
s� '
Clock
Y y
requirements.
McCarthy Steel Construction C a portion of Lot 10, Beebee and Philli•
Addition, Assessor's No. 4-811-04, M zone.
The following letter from T. C. Maino was read:
"Building Permit No. 3676 for construction of an office and warehouse for
McCarthy Steel Construction Company at 313 South Street was issued subject
to inspection of curb, gutter and sidewalk.
"This project is in an M zone without development on either side; therefore,
we request that we be allowed to omit the sidewalk until such time as other
developments in the area warrant the installation of sidewalk.
"In addition to the above reason for non-installment of sidewalk at this
time, we submit that there is a definite possibility that a change in
street grade in this area will eventually mean installing,new curb and
gutter to conform to these grades.
"Your early consideration of this request will be appreciated as Mr.
McCarthy is anxious to have the City complete the street paving in front
of his building".
The Planning Director then read the following letter from Mr. Robert E.
McCarthy, Jr., dat April 19, 1961:
"l. (125) One Hundred Twenty-Five foot frontage under lease to McCarthy
Tank & Steel Company. The balance of the property to:remain un-
developed for the foreseeable future. *.
"2. Property under lease graded to suit tenant with the hope that the
elevation of South Street will be lowered by the City. (To in-
crease the usefulness of South Street as an industrial street.)
At the present time slow moving vehicles emerging.txom our drive_
ways present a traffic hazard to users of South Street due to
poor visibility.
"3. Off street parking desired rather than on street parking, since
cars parked on South Street would further reduce visibility of
Cvehicles entering and leaving our property.
s "4. Wide drive ways desired to enable vehicles to approach South Street
from our property at an angle more nearly parallel to street traffic.
7 To merge with traffic smoothly and without hazard.
"5. The attached sketch is in our opinion the minimum drive ways required
for safety.
"6. We do feel the best answer would be no curbs at all. But a continuous
drive way across our property. This would eliminate all hazards,
allow more off street parking, and still allow for drainage.
"7. We feel it would be wise to install-temporary barricades to try out
the two proposed plans before either the City or ourselves spend
any money.
"8. We do not feel a sidewalk would serve any useful purpose and would
not allow us to use off street parking.
"9. If a curb or diive way is installed the street must be brought to the
grade of the gutter immediately or we will not be able to operate our
business."
After discussing this matter fully, it was brought out by.-Mr. McCarthy, Sr.,
that they would like to have the city fill in, as much asppossible, the
shoulder on the opposite side of the street as there is ascertain amount
" of hazard involved because of the grade on the other side of the street.
It was pointed out by the City Engineer that the City could pave the front-
age
ront
age of the McCarthy property within a month or so after the construction
work had been finished.
V
5/2/61 1
s/G �
•xis
r
I _ Building Permit No. 3676 for construeti, if an office and warehouse for
McCarthy Steel Construction Company at 313 South Street was issu--d subject
! to inspection of curb, gutter and sidewalk.
"This project is in an M zone without development on either side; therefore,
Q we request that we be allowed to omit the sidewalk until such time as other
developments in the area warrant the installation of sidewalk.
"In addition to the above reason for non-installment of sidewalk at this
! time, we submit that there is a definite possibility that a change in
street grade in this area will eventually mean installing new curb and
gutter to conform to these grades.
' "Your early ebnsideration of this request will be appreciated as Mr.
McCarthy is anxious to have the City complete the street paving in front
of his building".
The Planning birector then read the following letter from Mr. Robert E.
McCarthy, 7r. .dat::, April 19, 1961:
"1. (125) One Hundred Twenty-Five foot frontage under lease to McCarthy
Tank & Steel Company. The balance of the property to remain un-
developed for the foreseeable future.
"2. Property'under lease graded to suit tenant with the hope that the
elevation-of South Street will be lowered by the City. (To in-
crease the usefulness of South Street as an industrial street.)
! At the present time slow moving vehicles emerging from our drive
ways present a traffic hazard to users of South Street due to
poor visibility.
"3. Off street parking desired rather than on street parking, since
__._ . cars parked:on South.Street would:further reduce visibility of.
vehicles'"entering and leaving our property.
4. Wide drive ways desired to enable vehicles to approach South Street
from our property at an angle more nearly parallel to street traffic.
Q To merge with traffic smoothly and without hazard.
-S
"5. The attached-sketch is in our opinion the minimum drive ways required
for safety.
"6. We do feel the best answer would be no curbs at all. But a continuous
drive way across our property. This would eliminate all hazards,
allow more off street parking, and still allow for drainage.
"7. We feeU it would be wise to install.temporary barricades to try out
the two'proposed-plans before either the City or ourselves spend
any money.
"8. We do not feel a sidewalk would serve any useful purpose and would
not-allow us to use off street parking.
"9. If a curb or dove way is installed the street must be brought to the
grade of the gutter immediately or we will not be able to operate our
business."
After discussing this matter fully, it was brought out by Mr. McCarthy, Sr.,
that they would like to have the city fill in, as much as possible, the
shoulder on the opposite side of the street as there is a certain amount
of hazard involved because of the grade on the other-side of the street.
L It was pointed out by the City Engineer that the City could pave the front-
age
ront
age of the McCarthy property within a month or so after the construction
work had been finished. r
5/2/61 c
*3*
i Commissioner Schwartz stated that the Planning Commission had been put in
a very poor position. Mr. McCarthy was aware of the requirements of side-
walk, curb and gutter prior to the construction of the building and also of
the future street widening. Mr. McCarthy conceded that they were aware
C of same, but that the building was now constructed and he wished to make
what he believed a hazardous condition as safe as possible.
On motion of Commissioner Lenger, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, gso-
lution No. 63-61 was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Law, Lenger, Carpenter, Cole, Johnson, 4 Schwartz. _
NOES: None y
ABSENT: Commissioner Scott.
Thereby conditionally granting the exception in sidewalk curb and gutter
requirements for the full 250 foot frontage of the property described
above. Said exception is to be considered only to the requirements of
Building Permit No. 3676, and in no way precludes the requirements for
curb, gutter and sidewalk under any future building permit that may be
issued. In granting the exception, the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council accept the deed to a strip of property 26 feet in width
and 250 feet in length, running parallel and adjacent to'South Street;
said property being offered to the City by Mr. Robert E. McCarthy, Senior,
for street widening purposes, and further recommends that the street pav-
ing•an both sides of South Street be extended in width at this time and
a plant mix rolled berm be installed along the frontage of Mr. McCarthy's
' property.
2.
�• i.' i Y :iF}Ft: i>;;i%>::%i7;cjibii: iii;: �'•i:r'': `ii AiBQ:::•r':ii .S'i'i"'`•c:}:::•; :i},. <.'
�`� Fig wi:? #3F,?,]<,•�a� :a�. ...._ .. .,., _
'��� ��•'}:��'.' ��yi. � 3�kfFLjt<•t�,a;•.a.� _ k4» a;�hi!c?�tkScV�CFfI.. _ .�.,.
a
Administrative Officer Miller stated that he believed A�Preset--2tfTc
Committee could take care of the problems as they hsppen and each member in
the past had been given an opportunity to make his views known.
C;,ncilman Miller stated that he believed that the Traffic Committee should
stay in the hands of the City staff as they have the time and he .personally
does not have the time to do the job properly or make the studies necessary
for a recommendation.
Councilman Graves spoke in favor of .giving Mayor Davidson's proposal a try
and review it in several months to see if the program as.proposed was hand-
ling the situation adequately.
By common consentof the Council, the Mayor's proposal for reorganization of
the Traffic Committee was accepted and members appointed.
--------------
A Communication from 0. C. Pennington, operator of the New Park Grocer, re-
questing parking time limit zones in the vicinity of his grocery store, was re-
ferred to the Traffic Committee for study and recommendation.
---------------
18. Commmunication .from the City Planning Commission forwarding Resolution 52-61, a
Resolution of the Planning Commission approving tentative subdivision map of
Tract No. 213 Laguna Park Home's No. 3, was received and filed.
L92 A,etter from William M. Houser, Jr., secretary of the Traffic Advisory Board
inviting the City Council to a luncheon on Wednesday. May 24, 1961, to discuss
progress of a revised traffic ordinance.
City Attorney Houser explained the miake-up and the purpose of the Traffic
Advisory Board and urged that either all the Council or a Committee of the
Council attend the May 24th meeting as the committee wished to discuss some
Cture policy decisions relative to traffic ordinances.
On motion of Donald Q. Mil-ler, seconded by Miss Margaret M. McNeil, the
Council unanimously voted to attend the Traffic Advisory Board meeting.
20. Communication from the. State Department of Public Health notifying the City
Council that the Department of Public Health has redeclared -San Luis Obispo
County a rabies area, effective April 14, 1961, was received and filed.
21. Communication from the City Planning Commission recommending approval by the
City Council of exceptions to the subdivision ordinance for lots over 150 feet
in depth:
1. City Engineer Romero and Planning Director Abraham explained the
exceptions to the subdivision ordinance as recommended by the Small
Subdivision Committee, for A. F. Farrow, Ranchotel.
Lot depth exception approved on motion of R. L. Graves, Jr., seconded
by Gerald W. Shipsey.
2. Planning Director Abraham and City Engineer Romero then explained
except ons involved qn tnc L. R. Pau:s.n nrnp.rty
Recommendation for lot depth exception approved on motion of Gerald W.
Shipsey, seconded by R. L. Graves, Jr.
22. Notice from the State Water Pollution Cdntrol Board of proposed changes in
regulations of said board was referred to Harry N. Jenks, sewer consultant
for his recommendations.
23. Resolution of the Planning Commission regarding curb, Rutterandsidewalk
gneption for Mr. Robert E. McCarthy. (McCarthy Tank 6 Steel) at 313 South St.
4.
-amity Engineer Romero explained the past hicory of the problem and the City
Lanning Commission recom:aendations relative to curb, gutter., and sidewalk.
Mr. Houser explained the basis for exceptions as provided in the MtapicSpal
. .) Code.
:�• I
Mr. McCarthy appeared before the City Council on, behalf of h1.§ ap1ld siiion .
3 sidwans
forxdption to
the Citytwouldnlowerethekstreetsgradean South
d
Street he would be very happy to place curb, gut.ter and qk.d.qyalk to thg.,new
grade line. He also said that if the Council•approved"hi� request'he woyld
immediately deed the necessary 26 ft. for street widening purposes.
,,,gomero explained the street grade and stated that it waq quiia,-ynl}kRAY.
that, the street grade would be changed. .
.
p' Ater discussion by the City Coyncil, it.t+as,tmxed by . IR. . G;avep„J;.,
i` seconded by Donald Q. Miller, that the City Council accept'Che City Planning
��. Commision recommendation and authorized Mayor Davidson to accept the deed
for.street widening and for the, City,Engineer, tp improve Ck�e,.at;e�5,•to„rhe
new curb line and also pave the opposite side. of•,Souch §,5;eet,as.;�gGgmanded
by the City Planning Commission., lotion carried.
24. Communication from Disabled American Veterans County Chapter requesting
permission to sponsor a donkey, softball game on May Sap.4a:Aosa
Park. .. .
Request approved with no objections.
25. Co®unication.from Veterans of,Foreign. Wars, ,reguest inf{ oe,2iss n to ho.
a poppy sale in San Luis Obispo, on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, May 25,
26, and 27, 1961, and
�1 26.• Comm,nication from the American Legion Auxiliary requesting permis¢1on,F9.
sell poppies on May 25 and 26.
Both requests approved on motion of Gerald W. Shipsey. seconded by Donald Q.
Miller. nu,,
tax
27. Communication from the Division of Highways with a statement o£ a
revenues for the period July 1, 1960, to June 30. 1961, was received and
filed.
28. Communication from the State of California, DivLAion of Small Craft Harbors,
bringing to the City Council's attention the revisions made to the Harbors
and Navigation Code and urging that the cities and counties in the State
revise their boating ordinances to conform with the State Boating Law,
was received and filed.
29, Mayor Davidson was authorized to write a letter to the State Chamber of
Commerce, Department of Public Works, and the local Chamber of Commerce
requesting that all haste be made for the construction of the Madonna Road
overpass on motion of Donald Q. Miller, seconded by Gerald W. Shipsey.
30. Communication from Gladys Forden, president of the Library Board, request-
ing Council authority to hang certain pictures and paintings owned by the
City School Board in the City Library subject to certain conditions relative
to relieving the City of the responsibility.
^Sty Staff to investigate and bring back a
The matter was referred Lu the
recommendation to the City Council.
31. Administrative Officer Miller asked permission of the Council for City
Clerk Fitzpatrick to go to Los Anglees on May 17, 1961, to sign the Park-
ing District No. 1 Bonds and to make delivery of said bonds to John Nuveen 6
Company.
The trip was authorized on motion of Donald Q. Miller, seconded by R. L.
Graves, Jr.
32. Cottmunication from the Library Board requesting permission for Mrs. R. W.
Reynolds, board member. and Patricia Clark, Librarian, to attend the Governor's
Conference For Pubtic Library Trustees in Sacramento on June 12-13, 1961.
Administrative officer recommends that permission be granted for this trip.
Permission granted on motion of Ibnnld Q
• Miller, seconded by Miss Margaret M..
Mc Ne L1.
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT, executed this *7 ay of o �zlj4 J4;
1961, by and between ROBERT E. McCARTHY and CORRINE McCARTH , herein-
after called Grantors, and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter called City,
W I T N E S S E T H:
For and in consideration of the conveyance by Grantors of
0.149 acres, more or less, lying along South Street, the City agrees
to do the necessary engineering, surveying, inspection and construction
of. a plant mix berm across the frontage of Grantors' remaining property.
Said berms shall be placed where designated by Grantors. City shall
grade and.place base and paving out- to the berm, and grade and-place
base and paving for an additional twelve foot traveled lane on the
North side of the present paved roadway across the frontage of the
�roperty.
It is understood that the City shall complete said project
within six months from date hereof.
EXECUTED by the parties hereto on the dates indicated.
DATE-Sa,d. ZI/G/
VK615ert K. McCarthy
DATE
Corinne McCarthy `
DATE
Clay P. Davidson
ATTEST: DATE-4 %a+ �l tF
9 y C e -' J. H.Fitzpatrick
'T �
{
REQUIREMENTS FOR �
-PROPERTY O4)NERS AND THE CITY
WHEN STREETS ARE WIDENED
SITUATION PROPERTY OWNER REQUIRE11ENTS CITY REQUIREMENTS
City initiates widening.and purchases right-of- 1. Install sound curb, gutter and sidewalk 1. Provide engineering and descriptions
way where none exists: or deduct estimated
cost from final price 2. Record any nonconformity created
i n / 3. Place overhead utilities underground
�J 4. Replace deficient public utilities
S. Plant street trees
6. Pay fair market value for property
7. Advise owner of potential nonconformity
8. Replace sound curb, gutter and sidewalk
9. Pave out street to new curb and gutter
Property owner applies-to subdivide property 1. Dedicate required right-of-way
2. Install improvements required in
O Subdivision Ordinance
Property lies to deve oajm�Ety 1. Dedicate required right-of-way 1. Provide engineering and descriptions
R-1 ora vson
2.=Install curb.-gutter and sidewalk . _.. ;2:-Prepare-dot+aoentrfor-dedicWon-or
3. Pave out street to new curb aM gutter 3. Record any nonconformity created
Property owner applies for use permit
requiring more than six parking spaces 4. Replace deficient public facilities if 4. Place overhead utility lines underground
O -required by Code -
C
S. Replace deficient public facilities unless
S. Plant street trees required of applicant
Property owner applies to develop property 1. Dedicate required rightrof-way 1. Provide engineering and descriptions
(R-1)
2. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk 2, Prepare documents-for dedication
O3. Pave out street to new curb and gutter 3. Record any nonconformity created J
4, Comply with specified conditions if City 4. Place overhead utilities underground -i
contributes for paveout
S. Replace deficient public facilities
6. Contribute up to $5,000 for street paveout !
if funds are available
1
Property owner voluntarily offers to dedicate 1. Dedicate required right-of-way 1. Provide engineering and descripticns
right-of-way - -
Z. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk 2. Provide documents for dedication
O3_ Refrain from specified development or 3. Record any nonconformity created
use for two years
4. Place overhead utilities underground
S. Replace deficient public facilities
6. Plant street trees
7. Pave out street to new curb and gutter
C
NOTICE OF HEARING
ON
REPORT OP SUPERINTENDENT Or- STREL•'TS
Time: 7'QS P.M.
Place: Council Chambers
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
At the above time and place, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, will hear and pass upon a report by the Superintendent of Streets
of the cost of the work, together with any objection or protest, if any, which
may be raised by any property owner liable to be assessed for the cost of such
work and any other interested persons.
The following described property is to be .asessed as. follows:
. . . _ OWNER ::McCart Pi^o .e ;=>c
-�
ADDRESS 3030 M Street
CITY Bakersfield, CA 93300 j
Description of the property:
COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 313 South Street
LOT: ptn. BLOCK: r
SUBDIVISION: Tract 634
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 04-811-13
Description of work: I
OUANTITY
DESCRIPTION I
� COST �
80 cu.ydsl Excavation at 518.50/cu vd I
( 1I480.00
170 lin.ft. l Sidecvalk curb & tter at 31.50/lin_ft.
5355.00
1095 sq.fti Drivewn at 55.00/sq.ft. j
1 5475.00
I8 tons I A/C at 572.00/ton
I 1296.00
1 Job f Relocate fence - lump sum
600.00
• r �
r
Tot�G• c�sc�srcr.t to be M--dc ��,Sr.,� tt:
nrnn�r:v c cbovc described S 14,20G.00
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 42 /-9 TEM #
EXHIBIT "A"
O
PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATION COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
HaEk S. Blair 445: Bqmehen 2-96 a&
_1 ,. ,. „ „L..-_ Ledge #+60 52•e Bame 9;9 . 99
Glad*--Ev Fleitt, eta! 33—W+ ! - }k+ d__ 6:F2.Fa
Kmbi=ilke a. feBT ide,--T a -299 Lincoln
Me Butler 8 Rat Way 1 ., 036 On
TEes, 619--Ftmeben !1!, & r,-a
Eand Miller 92 Rafael Way ±126t.4
R. J. Osbaldeston 477 Buchon 1, 642 . 00
Bli-esbeth W.—Gates• R45 Ll%eeln
# B.J. Bilsten, etal 443-45 Buchon 11957. 00
*, Lee A. Brazil 530-36-38 Buchon 2 , 119 . 00
1CJ.P. and M.M. Hobbs 506 Caudill (Meadow
Street side) 2,415. 00
McCarthy Prop. ,a Calif.Corp 313 South 14 ,206. 00
Marcel & Margaret Cote 521 Funston (also
Meadow St. side) 15, 311. 60
$ 45,762 .78
DATE _ _ AGEi�Dq
CEXHIBIT "B"
Property owners where costs are over $1, 000.00 and who have opted
for three (3) year pay-off.
PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
John P. Hobbs 506 Caudill St. $2,415. 00
B.J. Bilsten, etal. 443-45 Buchon 1, 957. 00
R.J. Osbaldeston 477 Buchon 11642. 00
Lee A. Brazil 530-36-38 Buchon 2 ,119. 00
C
Fi7
a
MINIM
to
MEETING AGENDA
ATE 1 1TEM
Paft
cu
!33 t
„ TIS`°' (TV s
qy� exp
0 .0
A . " .
„hd 0
tt�
CE
J
43 cu
r 4-
5
3. u
4�,u r TA
. ,..
MINI
fr
{ Y 9
j�
t
Kit"
t S
he
J
Y �
wo4qwf*�t
fib a 5w Rv� 94"''y✓' p;� ��'^qq
1
AN
fir
,
a
I
m.
Y
w
i
t ,
bo
NOW
CA
7777
Y �
Y
.,
a;
,
s
to
Sim
cW
gv to
�` 8tJ yiyFs
ZI
43
CE
tu
Er3
r e-
fir•
�t°
*�q K
t�
.x
r
' N
v
fr
,
°
AWMINUM
F ,
=H,
_� .
s
�NNT Wtfm
-i��
"MiNum w*/
p y
I v
M1
rb
T
v
:._..