Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/25/2023 Item 4a, Schmidt From:Richard Schmidt < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:planning commission agenda correspondence Attachments:day rains came .1 pdf.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Agenda Item 4a, 841 Patricia Dear Planning Commissioners, I support staff's recommendation to deny the bridge and construction on the far side of the creek. Staff has taken a good environmental protection stance on this, and it should be honored. There are, however, two additional unaddressed issues here: 1. Flood management policy, which I'll address in more detail below, and 2. To permanently protect the recognized wildlife corridor and riparian area, retirement of development potential across the creek via open space easement, which would be entirely consistent with staff's analysis of why the bridge should be a no-go, and for which there is good precedent. One such precedent is 148 Broad Street, a near 400 foot deep narrow lot that crosses Old Garden Creek. The portion east of the creek carries the same sort of environmental importance as 841 Patricia's easterly portion, and like Patricia, would require a bridge for access. So, the city imposed an open space easement as a condition of development, to wit, Condition#10, "A conservation and open space easement shall be recorded for the rear portion of the property from the west edge of the required creek setback to the east boundary of the property line. The easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of a construction permit for a new residence." I believe the commission would be well advised to do that for your current Patricia application. It offers protection to the acknowledged natural resources, provides some assurance of continued wildlife corridor connectivity, and given the vast size of the principal portion of the lot, which all agree has considerable non-controversial development potential, it would not impose hardship and would be reasonable. Now, flood control policy. If you agree with staff's rationale for denial of the bridge, this issue is not necessary to consider, but if you're uncertain, read on. Unfortunately, in the 50 years since the city's last significant flood, bureaucratic amnesia has settled in. One cannot legitimately claim that the proposed bridge will do no flood harm. Let me explain: Following the 1973 flood the city council set up a Waterways Planning Board (WWPB) to do pioneering city waterways planning and help devise flood management policies. I was asked to serve on it, which I did for its +/-7 years. So that’s where my perspective about local flooding comes from -- well, also from being a 50+ year creek-side resident. (I also subsequently served 8 years on the planning commission.) If you did not experience that flash flood of 1973, you can have no idea of the shocking fury with which it attacked. The WWPB walked almost every foot of the creek system, seeking insight into what had happened and why. We saw what had been strong-looking creek banks that had liquefied and washed away, leaving buildings and pavement undermined and sometimes teetering at top of bank. Sometimes these undermined structures had been built at top of bank, and not set back; other times they were set back but were still in danger of collapse. We saw repeatedly where human-built obstructions had obstructed water flow and caused flooding by that obstruction. We saw bridges and culverts blocked by debris that obstructed flow and forced water out of streams to 1 cause flooding. (Patricia's bridge proposal would represent the last two of those issues. As for the staff comment about 100-year flood clearance, forget it: Nature doesn't play by the rules of 100-year flood assumptions.) Out of this came a realization that was accepted across the political spectrum: to avert future catastrophes we needed -- in the interest of public safety -- a substantial setback from top of bank. How large a setback? Twenty feet was a compromise minimum (and it is a minimum, not a maximum). This was for flood management, not primarily for environmental reasons, though I was in the then-minority who argued for environmental reasons being given a larger stake in setback considerations and am glad that has happened. I realize it may be hard for any of you to imagine substantial flooding on the little creek that crosses the application site, but don't let that lull you into thinking there's no issue. If you'd seen what we saw in 1973, you'd see that this proposed bridge poses a number of means of danger. Among the policies that grew out of the WWPB's work was a near total prohibition of private bridges across creeks -- for flood reasons. As a result, permits for them have been rare and few (I know of only 2 in 50 years, including one for the Promontory), and granted only when a property's legitimate development potential would be impossible without a bridge. The bridge before you clearly does not meet that measure and thus should be denied. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. Following the recent rains, I sent the council and staff a pdf of a picture booklet about the 1973 flood, and I'm sending it to you via this and a second email (pdf file is too large to send in one lump). I am in hopes it will remind all that we're being too complacent about flood dangers, and that we need to re-up our attention to prevention even if personally we've never experienced anything remarkable. The booklet is, unfortunately, not a complete picture of the flood. For example, we have no photos of the extensive flood damage in the downtown business district which resulted from the downtown creek tunnel being unable to carry peak flow and water jumping the creek at Marsh/Osos and turning Marsh and Higuera into rivers. (One low tech but effective flood control measure resulting from that experience is requiring flood gates at business doors, which you’re all probably familiar with.) Here are a few comments to go with the pictures. Since there are no page numbers, I’ll just go through the booklet sequentially. • San Luis Obispo Savings is the building at Marsh/Osos behind which SLO Creek enters the downtown tunnel. Of course the basement offices flooded, and they’ll flood again (listen up New Times). • Directional orientation of overview of flooding around Swinnerton adobe is misdescribed. The view is from 101, Chorro to the right side, Broad to the left, looking north into Anholm. The houses are on Lincoln, and the tower is what’s today Lincoln Deli. Can you believe this flooding there? (This adobe, and a number of others, the city allowed to be torn down for development. No sense of historic preservation back then.) • 533 Broad, house that floated away. This flood-prone property is where the city is about to build a dismal park. • Marsh-Higuera area. There was a mobile home sales lot on Higuera just before the freeway onramp, where the Promontory bridge and parking lot are today. When the Marsh bridge got clogged and caused the creek to back up and overflow, the mobile homes floated away. Amazingly, and fortunately, none ended up IN the creek. • Debris caught on Marsh bridge. Note the automobile. It was a Mercedes belonging to a veterinarian whose clinic was along Stenner Creek on Santa Rosa opposite Santa Rosa Park. It was swept out of the clinic parking lot, carried through 2 the flooding you’ve seen in lower Anholm, under 101 and ultimately to SLO Creek, only to get caught on the bridge pillar and contribute to the lower Higuera havoc. • Panoramic view from what’s now KSBY studio. This is a double-fold view, so you’ll have to jump back and forth to fully understand it. Notable things: to the upper left, the Dalidio farm (now San Luis Ranch) is under water; center, the entire sewer plant is under water; to the right, the site of Los Verdes Park is under water. Why do we think it OK to develop areas that are both hazardous and, if left alone, would serve the beneficial purpose of letting flood waters spread instead of causing urban havoc? The pending Froom Ranch project is just to the left of view, and to me is even scarier than what’s shown here. • Cal Poly photo. This is on Perimeter Road just east of Mustang Stadium. Who would ever suppose that could flood? • Laguna Lake flood plain. This is the “laguna” doing what it’s supposed to do. Note the lovely side of Cerro San Luis Obispo, without the ugly Madonna-made road scaring its face. The Madonna-Twisselman ranch now for sale contains more of the Laguna flood plain; the city’s nuts not to buy it for conservation and flood management. • ADX Drugs = current location of Auto Zone. • Flood map. This is the city’s official flood map. I see two things of particular interest. First, note all the “flooding” well up hillsides. Every one of these places flooded solely because a human-made obstruction in a waterway obstructed flow and forced water out of the watercourse and into a neighborhood. Second, this map expresses pro-development politics-of- denial: note that Dalidio and Los Verdes are shown as not flooding, when as you’ve seen in the panoramic photo, they were flooded. Anyway, hope this is informative. Richard Schmidt 3 7�ie Zwl tie TvaW e&a ... �wmif /?, M73 The great flood of 1973 —along with the floods of 1969—ranks among the worst ever to hit San Luis Obispo. Some said it was the worst. Others said it wasn't, and cited greater and more widespread damage in 1969. The flood of January 18, 1973, was a bizarre series of events for which both man and nature share credit. The rain that caused it began with an eve- ning drizzle that developed into a hard and steady all -Might rain. It climaxed the next mid -morning with a fierce deluge. The storm's fury was aimed directly at the San Luis Obispo area, and most of the county's flood damage was concentrated there. By mid -after- noon the sun was shining. Creeks that at daybreak were run- ning fuller than during any of that Published by Mrs. La Verne Schneider for the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County Copyrighted 1973 The proceeds from the sale of this booklet will go to the San Luis Obispo Environmental Center to promote the understanding and appreciation of the natural environment of San Luis Obispo County. Printed by Blake Printery winter's other storms rose rapidly dur- ing and after the mid -morning deluge. Independently, streets that couldn't handle their own runoff were flooded. Throughout the city a pattern seemed to develop —major flooding took place where the water's free flow was inter- rupted by manmade structures such as bridges, culverts, road crossings and building supports. There were notes of irony. Debris caught on a building support pillar at the entrance to San Luis Creek's tunnel beneath downtown, and forced muddy waters out of the creek's banks and into downtown streets and buildings. The pillar, an acknowledged problem during the 1969 floods, was slated for removal in the spring of 1973, after a long series of negotiations between its owner and the city about who would pay for its removal. Debris also caught on the Marsh Street freeway ramp bridge, as it had in 1969. This time it sent a devastating swoosh of water, mud and junk down lower Higuera. A third irony was the failure of recently cemented flood con- trol channels in the Foothill —North Tassajara area. Designed to carry flood waters faster than the previous grassy creek bottoms, they did —right into homes that had never before flooded, according to testimony of occupants and neighbors. Stenner Creek turned into a raging torrent that covered parts of Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa Street, and caused extensive damage in the Lin- coln —Broad area and near its conflu- ence with San Luis Creek in the Briz- zolara--Dana area. Prefumo Creek also surprised many with . its unaccustomed fury. Water coming from Prefumo Canyon was a major contributor to the spectacular rise of Laguna Lake into developed areas supposedly above the once-in- 100 years flood mark. Statistics collected by the Army Corps of Engineers seemed to explain the flooding's erratic nature. Rainfall differed substantially within localized regions. In Prefumo Canyon, rainfall amounted to nearly nine inches. On the Cal Poly campus, near Stenner Creek's headwaters, rainfall was 6.4 inches. At two points within the city along South Higuera, rainfall was 4.25 and 4.7 inches. As the clouds parted, the city's resi- dents were shocked at what the flash - flood had done. Cleanup began imme- diately. Homes had been destroyed, yards and cars carried away, Personal possessions lost, merchants' goods dam- aged or ruined. Monetary damage, said the Small Business Administration, amounted to $6.25 million within the city's boundaries. At first an unsympa- thetic and budget -minded federal gov- ernment rejected the disaster designa- tion that would have provided financial aid for residents and public agencies, but after a hard week's politicking the government reversed itself and made aid available. In the water's wake came a flood of emotions. Anger was common, Fingers were pointed, and blame for the dis- aster placed on many. There was also fear —fear that such a bizarre flood might happen again tomorrow or the next day. It was the kind of fear that renewed itself with the sight of a clouded sky or the sound of rainfall, and it led to demands for instant solu- tions to flood problems men were re- luctant to admit they may never be able to solve. Richard Schmidt Johnson Avenue Underpass. NO �Tti4tt�� A flood -related fire did $40,000 damage to the Tower Build- ing, a well known landmark at Chorro and Higuera, about mid- day on the day of the flood. Flood waters surging beneath the structure, which sits par- tially atop San Luis Creek's downtown tunnel, broke a gas pipe. The gas ignited a fire in a concealed stairway between Corcoran's Restaurant and a barber shop, and the fire spread to the second floor and attic of the building. Dozens of volunteers joined firemen in fighting the fire. Fire Capt. Elton Hall said he had a shortage of men because of other flood -related emergencies. His crew was "hauling in bystanders," he reported, to help fight the fire.. "At one time," Hall said, "we had 40 men on it who were picked right off the street." There were no injuries during the fire, which was reported shortly before noon the day of the flood. I 5winnerton adobe surrounded by water, looking from Chorro to Broad, near Highway 101. Flooding at Monterey at Toro Cars parked in front of house at 522 Broad as water rises. Right: Cars had been swept away by the time this picture was taken. Note high water mark on front of house. longings removed from houses oad near Lincoln. me of the cars swept from in ip in backyard of 533 Broad, !et. I, home of Q. W. Koethen, was foundations. Note front steps A. Iwo s WMAt« k e: a. Stenner Creek, with Stenner Glen in background. h A F �,. a" a #SIDd gin® Surge of water in lower Higuera area left auto- mobiles strewn about. Above: Higuera Street. Left; Top: Archer at Pacific. Left: Pismo at Walker. A PANORAMIC view of the flooding taken at approximately noon from the Breakers Restaurant at `" the south end of . , San Luis Obispo. I3ighway 101 is r impassable, the s. settling ponds m and sewer farm are covered as n is the area between the - shopping center ,s and the � auto park. Photo by Marvin Dee x