Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1995, - CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEM: PURCHASE OF MATTHEWS PROPERTY, HIGUERA STREET RECEIVED MMING AGENDA CLOS6 D D y - -q5 ITEM #JI&MIP JUL 16 1995 MY COUNCIL RICHARD SCHMIDT SAN I ORmPn. e%A 112 Broad Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 July 17, 1995 CIL ❑ CDD DIR PoCA ❑ FIN DIA Re: Closed Session Agenda Item: Purchase of Matthe ME , Hi❑ FIR ireRKIORIG D P�0 CE CHF City Council ❑ MGMTTEAM IrRECDIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ C EAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Council Members: Since there has been no public discussion of the purchase of this property or the purpose and means of such purchase, I am forced to rely on unofficial information. The gist of what I've been told is that the city proposes: 1. To purchase this property 2. To create a park on it (plus presumably other parcels as well), and 3. To use open space funds for the purchase. If this information is correct, I have serious misgivings about what's happening. (If this information is totally wrong, you may ignore this letter.) My concerns: 1. City purchase. It maybe desirable for conservation reasons for the city to own the parcel, but only if the city knows what it is doing ecologically. City ownership could be an ecological boon, if it continues to maintain the creek corridor (as present owners have done) as an undisturbed semi-wilderness wildlife area; on the other hand, city ownership could be an ecological disaster if it opens the area to human use. So I am not unalterably opposed to city purchase, only to the plan indicated above, which is what I understand is in the works. 2. Creation of a park. There are two issues here: A. Appropriateness of the site: This stretch of creek, from about the end of Dana Street to Madonna Road, is the richest wildlife area in the entire city. Have you all visited it? Do you know how wild it is?This is the sort of wild resource that the city owes it to its people and the Earth and its native species to protect. Opening the area to human use is incompatible with protection of the wildlife values that currently exist. Protection of those values is important. I am far from alone in feeling this way. You may recall that a number of years ago the Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service jointly put the kabosh on city plans to widen this section of creek precisely because of its extraordinary wildlife value -- including residency of candidate endangered species and a good steelhead run. You can expect this to become a nasty public fight if Administration tries to push through a park plan for this area. B. Park Planning Priorities: Nowhere in the city's planning documents that I am aware of is this area designated as a priority for park development. On the other hand, the most densely built-up neighborhood in the city (Foothill) has no park, has been waiting for one patiently for years, and, after other possible sites one by one have been developed, we're down to one last potential site, the creekside lot next to the Lucky/Thrifty shopping center. Will a "park from nowhere" be pushed in line in front of one that's been in the plans for years? 3. Use of open space funds for purchase. This one, if true, is really annoying. I guess that pot of open space gold is just too tempting to use for its intended purpose -- getting on with creating a band of open landra ound the city', i.e., the greenbelt. The city's 1964 general plan map shows some green at the edges of the city: the beginnings of greenbelt planning. THIRTY YEARS OF TALK, AND NOT ONE BIT OF ACTION!' At the rate we're going, this place will look like LA before the city gets on with spending open space funds for acquiring open space. Let me recite the litany of recent raids on this non-replenishing fund: paying for a dubious Mission Plaza extension; paying for consultant "studies'; and now, if this information is correct, for acguirin dg eyelo,ped grgaeaX inside the city for park purposes. This would be a misuse of the open space funds. Parks and open space are not the same thing; open space funds must not be used for purchasing parks. Open space funds must be reserved for their intended purpose -- protecting the greenbelt. Question: Where on the list of prioritized open space acquisitions being drawn up under contract with the Land Conservancy does this parcel rank? USE THE OPEN SPACE FUNDS FOR THE GREENBELT, PLEASE!!! Use street widening funds, flood control funds, promotional funds (it is a city entry -- good impressions, etc.), or some other funds for this purchase, but not open space funds. I urge you to take these issues seriously. I do not wish to impede a worthwhile purchase, but I urge you to do the right thing with regard to it. I might ask, if public discussion preceded this sort of thing, it would be better and easier, wouldn't it? Finally, should this parcel end up in city ownership, I wish to call to your attention that the now rather rare little Streamline Moderne service station is of interest to architectural historians, and is worth preserving, onsite or elsewhere. I can envision numerous win/win opportunities for preservation that make constructive use of this little structure. If kept on site (and perhaps in conjunction with restoration of the other moderne service station almost across the street-- there are only three of these moderne structures still in the city -- how curious that two are so close together) it could be refurbished and recycled, and be part of a celebration of our city's transportation past (when this was Highway 101) that would bridge time along the new Hig!era Street-- sort of our own 101-esque homage a la the Route 66 hoopla celebrated by small communities along that route -- a delight for residents and tourists alike. If you end up owning the Streamline Moderne station, please be attentive and good stewards of this charming historic resource. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt ' OK, I exaggerate slightly. The city has picked up a bit of open space through development exactions. Like the open space on San Luis Mountain around the "M."There's supposed to be a public access easement from Hill Street. Where is it?The only thing that looks like an easement says"Private Keep out."Why is this access easement not signed in accordance with the subdivision agreement?