HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2001, 2 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MID-HIGUERA STREET ENHANCEMENT PLAN, (ER AND GPI 39-98) council °°3 _z0-0,
j agenba RepoRt "� Z
CITY OF S-AN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning M
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Plann
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MID-HIGUERA STREET .
ENHANCEMENT PLAN, (ER AND GPI 39-98)
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution which: 1) approves the mitigated negative
declaration of environmental impact; 2) approves the Council Hearing Draft Mid-Higuera
Street Enhancement Plan, with or without changes as appropriate; 3) amends the General Plan
and initiates rezoning of the Mid-Higuera District as recommended in the Plan.
DISCUSSION
Council Comments/Direction. At its February 26`h meeting, Council members reviewed
the Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan and took public testimony. After discussing the
Plan's features, Council members voted to:
1. Conceptually approved the Council Hearing Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement
Plan with the following changes: a) modify crosswalks to ensure accessibility, b)
minimize the amount of bike path in creek setback area, and c) minimize the size of the
bridges(4:1, Settle); and
2. Directed staff to place a draft resolution on tonight's agenda to approve the mitigated
negative declaration, approve the Enhancement Plan, amend the General Plan Land Use
Element, and initiate rezoning as shown in the Plan, with the exception of the proposed
Tourist Commercial (CT) Zone for the Caltrans property, for which staff was directed
to bring back for Council consideration other alternatives (3:2, Settle, Schwartz).
Response to Comments.
Crosswalk Changes. Council members were concerned that textured surfaces on crosswalks
could limit accessibility for disabled persons. The Plan's text and Crosswalk Detail, Figure 39
(page 71) will be modified to show a smooth, colored paving surface with only light texturing for
slip resistance. Reflective traffic striping and/or material change will define crosswalk edges.
Bike Paths in Creek Setback Area. The City's adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan shows a
creek bikeway in the Mid-Higuera area. Pursuant to the.adopted plan, the Mid-Higuera Street
Enhancement Plan includes a Class 1 creek bikeway along San Luis Obispo Creek from Marsh
Street to South Street. In some areas, bikeway installation is constrained by existing buildings or
by Highway 101, limiting where a bikeway can go. Most of the bike route is located on City-
owned land or public right-of-way, outside of the creek setback. Of the 2/3-mile long bikeway
proposed in the Mid-Higuera district, about 980 feet is located in the creek setback. In laying out
the bikeway in the field, the route will run outside the setback where possible. Where no
C -_
Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
Page 2
"practicable alternative" exists, the bike route will encroach into the setback, as allowed by the
Open Space Element (OS 3.2.1E).
The creek setback regulations are intended to implement General Plan policies. Section
17.01.050 of the regulations specifically says the creek setback regulations should be interpreted
in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The Open Space Element (OSE 12.2.1)
encourages passive recreation within the outer perimeter of a creek setback or buffer, and allows
trail bridges in the creek corridor. Bike trails are deemed "passive recreation" in the General
Plan Digest Glossary. Figure 1 shows the difference between the creek corridor and setback
areas.
Figure 1. Creek Section
Creek 1 I creek The OSE also says
Setback; Edge of —> Setback
area ; Riparian Corridor Area public and private
Physical Top of Bank development should be
located outside of the
p � I
V creek corridor or setback
"except where the loca-
/� Residential tion is necessary for the
Creek Barik Backyard construction of new
some common trees m Creek Bank physical Top of Bank
this area would be ' ' ' Use plants with roads, bridges, trails or
sycamores,willowsstrong,dense
balckwamut. common, roots. infrastructure where the
shrubs would be Creek Flow Area Community Develop-
blackberry.California Trees and shrubs should
rose,toyon,and coffee not be located in this area.
berry. ment Director has deter-
mined the project has
minimized environmental impacts through project design and infrastructure placement."
The City's creek setback regulations also address this issue. They prohibit paving and structures
in the setback except where "they do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel;
will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any flooding capacity
pursuant to the city's flood damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one-
half of the setback area and are consistent with other property development standards of the
zoning regulations." The regulations allow the Council to grant exceptions "to allow reasonable
use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the
exception." The setback reduction may be approved by city action on a plan for public facilities
approved by the city council or on a specific plan, development plan under planned development
zoning, land division, use permit, or architectural review (SLOMC 17.16.025G(4)). The draft
Council resolution includes findings for a creek setback exception to allow the bikeway.
To follow the proposed route, the bike route must encroach into the creek setback in four areas: .
1) the east side of the creek, upstream from Bianchi Lane, 2) The "peninsula" at the south end of
the City-owned open space, off Bianchi Lane, 3) the proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge over San
Luis Obispo Creek, and 4) the creek bank, behind Villa's Automotive. The portion behind
Villa's Automotive is the most constricted creek section and may require locating the bikeway
a -�
I �
Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
Page 3 _
partially on an existing concrete slab extending along the rear of the property. Staff will work
with the property owners and businesses to secure public access, if necessary.
Within the project area, the riparian corridor is relatively wide, ranging mostly from about 50 —
100 feet. Creek Setbacks are measured from the outside edge of this corridor, providing an
additional 20 feet of buffer area to protect creek resources. According to the City Biologist,
some limited encroachment is possible in the setback area without adversely affecting riparian
habitat. The creek setback acts as a biological transition area or"ecotone", where animal species
can habituate to occasional, temporary human presence. In these areas, the bikeway's
environmental effects are likely to be minor and temporary provided that human encroachment in
the riparian corridor minimized. With the inclusion of mitigation measures, no significant
adverse impacts are likely. Required mitigation measures include:
A. The City shall provide a low fence or rail and appropriate native landscaping between
the top of creek bank and pedestrian and bike paths to discourage human encroachment
into creek.
B. A mesh screen or low, solid wall or railing should be constructed along the bridge to
prevent fishing or littering from the bridge and to discourage human encroachment into
the creek area. The bridge should be designed to discourage stopping, and signs
provided indicating the sensitive nature of all creek habitats and the need to respect
wildlife within these areas.
C. Bridge flooring shall consist of a solid material, such as concrete or steel, which will
prevent noise from being generated as bicycles or pedestrians cross the bridge, and shall
have a solid, not open, construction.
D. Lighting on the path and bridge shall be kept to a minimum for safety and shall be
shielded to avoid direct lighting of the creek's surface or banks.
E. Construction work shall be accomplished from the areas above top of creek bank. No
construction access to the creek should be allowed. Construction personnel should be
informed of the overall sensitivity of the creek environment and should avoid construction
activity within the creek and its banks. In particular, workers shall not bring dogs to the
construction site or let dogs enter the creek corridor.
As the Bob Jones Bike Trail extends southward along San Luis Obispo Creek to the City limits,
there are 8-10 additional creek reaches where encroachment into the setback.may be necessary
due to obstructions or other constraints. In those areas, similar mitigation measures will be
developed, on a site-specific basis, to limit human encroachment and habitat disturbance,
revegetate disturbed creek banks and maintain the widest possible creek setback.
Minimize Bridge Size. The proposed creek bikeway requires a creek crossing in the area just
west of the end of South Street. The bridge will need to be between 115 and 160 feet long, based
on a recent survey done in the planned crossing area. Three main factors guide the
a-3
J
Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
Page 4 .. _
location and design of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge: space availability, flood
hazard reduction and Southwestern Pond Turtle habitat. The City's Flood Hazard Prevention
Regulations (SLOMC 17.34) establish requirements for development within floodplains and
creeks. The regulations prohibit fill, new construction, or substantial improvements within creek
corridors or "floodways" unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided
demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in floods. Consequently, new
bridges generally must "clear span" the creek, without columns or abutments extending into the
creek corridor. The bottom of the bridge must be raised to at least one foot above the 100-year
flood elevation. These requirements tend to increase bridge height and length. Second, a study
of Southwestern Pond Turtle habitat in the proposed bridge area found higher quality habitat both
upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing site. Crossing the creek at an angle closer to
90 degrees could reduce the bridge length. This alignment, however, would move the bridge
closer prime turtle habitat.
Other alternatives were considered, including a cantilevered bikeway adjacent to Highway 101.
This alternative was rejected because it: 1) was inconsistent with Caltrans' request to locate the
bikeway as far from the state right-of-way as possible, 2) encroached into more creek area, and 3)
was likely to involve more construction cost and difficulty, since it required reconstruction or
modification of the existing creek wall along the east side of Highway 101.
Other Issues Raised At Last Hearing. Council members raised several other questions
during discussion of the Plan. These were not part of the Council's motion but merit additional
explanation.
Affordable Housing. Council member Marx asked how the Plan would preserve and create
affordable housing. Four features in the Plan address affordable housing: 1) adding mixed-use
zones to encourage dwellings over compatible commercial development, 2) rezoning Village
Mobile Home Park to allow up to twice the existing number of dwellings, a portion of which will
meet affordable housing standards, 3) rezoning C-S to C-R-MU, a change which makes existing
dwellings legal, conforming uses, and 4) eventual extension of Brook Street for additional
affordable housing. The result will be to preserve existing housing and to encourage gradual
redevelopment with significantly more dwellings than exist now.
Street improvements will affect both mobile home parks. Preliminary studies indicate up to
seven of the 28 coaches in the Matthew's Trailer Lodge will need to be removed to accommodate
Higuera Street widening and Bianchi Lane realignment. South Street widening is expected to
remove up to 4 cottages in the 74-unit park (includes both cottages and mobile homes).
Consistent with City policies, street projects will be designed to minimize displacement of low
.income tenants, and the City will provide financial assistance where relocation is necessary.
Tourist Commercial/Conference Center. A question arose with the appropriateness of the
"convention center and visitor-serving uses" and C-T-MU zoning shown on the Long-Range
Concept Plan. The Land Use Element encourages visitor-serving uses along upper Monterey
Street, at the Madonna Road area, at certain freeway interchanges, and Downtown (LUD 3.4.2).
� r
Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
Page 5
Due to its size, visibility, and accessibility from Highway 101, the site meets General Plan
policies for visitor-serving uses. The Plan's suggestion of a conference center or hotel is
conceptual. It does not preclude other allowed Commercial-Tourist uses, nor would it preclude
the City from identifying a more appropriate location for a City conference center. The Plan
could be modified to clarify that Commercial Tourist zoning provides an opportunity for hotel
and/or convention type facilities but does not mandate these uses. Other possible C-T uses
include dwellings (in combination with commercial uses), restaurants, service stations, skating
rink, nightclubs, community meeting rooms, or auditorium. Upon rezoning, Caltrans' use would
become legal, non-conforming: It could continue indefinitely until abandoned or redeveloped
with another use. In staff s opinion, given the limited availability of large C-T parcels in the
City, a Commercial Tourist designation seems most appropriate for meeting a wide range of
community goals and is most consistent with the Plan's overall vision.
The feasibility of other land use designations was also discussed. Commercial Retail (C-R) may
also be appropriate. The site's location close to Highway 101, access from two arterial streets,
and its location mid-way between the City's two main shopping areas is consistent with General
Plan policies and also supports a Commercial Retail designation. This designation would allow a
wider range of uses than C-T, including small to large retail stores, department and warehouse
stores, retail sales and rental of autos, trucks; motorcycles and RVs, dwellings, public assembly,
offices, schools, theatres, and motels and hotels. Which designation to apply is more a function
of overall City goals and_land use patterns than specific General Plan policies. In addition, there
may be some practical constraints to some types of retail on this site (e.g. department stores), and
revenue generation may be a consideration. Prior to the March 20`h meeting, the Economic
Development Manager will provide a separate memorandum which discusses Commercial Retail
vs. Commercial Tourist designation for the site.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Plan with changes, as appropriate:
2. Continue consideration of the Plan for additional discussion or information.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
Attachment 2: General Plan Amendment s
Transmitted previously:
Council Hearing Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan,
Initial Environmental Study (ER 39-98)
Advisory Body Minutes
Preliminary Flood Management Alternatives Analysis
(Please call Jeff Hook at Ext. 176 for additional copies)
Council Reading File: Letters from property and business owners, citizens and the SLO
Chamber of Commerce.
Jh/1Jmhep/ccreport2-26-01.doc
a -s
r
1
- AL-tachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE MID-HIGUERA STREET ENHANCEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the Architectural Review
Commission have held public hearings on the Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Draft Plan and considering.public testimony, these
advisory bodies recommended various changes and additions to the Draft Plan regarding flood
hazard reduction, creeks, historic preservation, transportation and circulation, land use, and
aesthetics and where feasible and appropriate, the changes have been incorporated into the
Draft Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development issued a mitigated negative
declaration of environmental impact, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and based on an initial environmental study (ER 39-98) which was
prepared and circulated for the required public review period; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of public testimony, advisory body recommendations,
staff analysis, and its own deliberations, the City Council has determined that the Mid-Higuera
Street Enhancement Plan is necessary to implement General Plan policies and programs
designed to reduce flood hazards, improve compatibility of adjacent land uses, preserve
historic resources, encourage alternative transportation modes, establish architectural
guidelines, secure necessary public improvements for a designated "Optional Use and Special
Design Area", improve public access to parks and open space, improve the safety and
a- �
Council Resolution (2001 Series)
Page 2
appearance of streets and public areas, and enhance the economic vitality of the Mid-Higuera
Street area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan conforms with the General Plan, the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, and the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines intended to
preserve historic resources.
2. The Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan implements specific General Plan policies
regarding land use; circulation, housing, flood hazard prevention; recreation and open
space preservation, including the following policies (numbers refer to San Luis Obispo
General Plan Digest policies): LU 3.1.4 (Mid-Higuera Enhancement), LU 3.4.2 (Tourist-
Commercial), LU 3.7 (Mixed Uses), LU 4.5 (Walking Environment), LU 6.1.1 (Open
Space), LU 6.4.3 (Flood Hazard Reduction), LU 6.4.6 (Creek Setbacks), LU 6.6.
(Community Heritage), LU 8.5 (Mid-Higuera Area), H5.2.2 (Mixed Use), H 6.2.2
(Housing above Commercial), H 3.2.2.(Housing Conservation), CI 3.3 (Bikeways), Cl 4.5
(Pedestrian Crossings), and CI 7.4 (Driveway Access).
3. The Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan is an "Area Plan", intended to carry out
policies and programs of the General Plan and to guide public 'and private development,
public improvements, and capital improvement programming within the District as defined
by the Plan.
SECTION 2.. Environmental Determination (ER 39-98). The City Council has considered
the environmental determination for the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan and hereby
approves a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment. The General Plan is hereby amended as shown in
Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. Creek Setback Exception. A reduced creek setback of variable width to allow
construction of a Class 1 bikeway along San Luis Obispo Creek between.Marsh and Madonna
Road as shown in the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, based on the following findings:
A) The proposed setback exception implements General Plan policies for recreational uses
within open space and conservation areas (OS 12.1.2, OS 12.2.1c)
B) The bikeway's location and design will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water
quality, and riparian habitat; and
a - �
Council Resolution (2001 Series)
Page 3
C) The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies; and
D)The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase
the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and
E) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which
do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same
zoning; and
F) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
G) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
. property in the area of the project or downstream; and
H) Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and
I) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
("Reasonable use of the property" in the case of new development may include less
development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an
already developed site, "reasonable development" may mean that no additional
development is reasonable considering site constraints and the existing development's
scale, design, or density.)
SECTION 5. Plan Adoption. The City Council Hearing Draft Mid-Higuera Street
Enhancement Plan is hereby adopted as an area plan guiding public and private land use and
improvements within the area identified in the Plan as the "Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement
District."
SECTION 6. Implementation. To implement the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, the
City Council hereby directs that:.
A. The Community Development Director shall initiate rezoning of the area as shown
on Page 33 of the Council Hearing Draft Plan.
B. The urban design and architectural guidelines are hereby adopted for the Mid-
Higuera area-and public and private development projects shall be consistent with
the provisions of the Plan.
C. City Departments shall implement the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
through their design and development of capital improvement programs, operating
programs, and in developing budgeting and grant requests.
SECTION 7. Amendments. The Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan may be amended by
the City Council at any time. Citizens, the Planning Commission or the City Council, may
initiate such changes. The Plan may be amended as often as needed, subject to the same
procedures set forth by the City Council for amending specific plans.
a-�
i
Council Resolution (2001 Series)
Page 4
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 20th day of March, 2001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
<"/
J gens ., CPIAt torney
Jh/Lmhep/ccres3-20-01
a ` q
Attachment 2_-
. :
00.0• 00.0•
0��i• :ii: Qa
0000000
�• 0eie:e: °�
o0 0°
0. N
°0000 o:�
•°i: :° �o
0000
.°�♦0�000•• —
::lf. —
°
^
0000
00000�•• High Street
T eee•e -- --
•eeeoo
= 0 0 eke•
•....
EITF
0 00
6090098 ---
eo0.o
t
•0000•
::::
Q 0000 -
:o. — —_
C CIO •�0 0: — —
.0 so — m
0 ——�-_ — a
i T0 0
n
.°. South Street '
•00000 South Street
600606060
0000. '
00 00 0000 0 - °
••0000:.-
0000see 0
ie a e•:::
e0 •..dee __L_
•0
�• ee • O o°o°° m
el+:0pb°°0000° °000° m
G?:
00 o°o�O° Bridge Street
e• Q-°a
I •:�'�s° i Mid-Higuera Districf
• i Proposed General Plan Designations
i
: i •• Open Space
° i
j ® Park
0i E] General Retail
° "-.T-----------"-
j ❑ Services and Manufacturing
e ® Tourist Commercial
j ® High Density Residential AN
•• O
March 20, 2001 `r
bv (��
Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor and Council,
Again we come before council, forced to plead for our livelihoods. Again I ask for actual and
factual consideration of the issues in this and my previous letters (February 6`h, 2001, March 16`h,
2000 and letters to council). Please consider the importance to us of this issue. To dismiss our
concerns as has been done so far is not acceptable or appropriate. To adopt the Mid-Higuera
plan as staff desires is to make a drastic mistake!
EIR DISCREPANCIES AND DISTORTIONS
The Environmental Impact Report on Mid-Higuera is not accurate, honest or thorough.
It fails to address a single concern brought up in the many meetings regarding either the medians
or Walker Street closure.
Their recommendations are allegedly based on background traffic studies. Even a casual passing
examination of the three barely related studies that could have been used by staff shows they do
not address the questions that staff is using them as documentation for.
Staff have the unique ability to write and approve their own E.I.R. in a controversial issue such
as Mid-Higuera. An independent E.I.R. not directed by staff is necessary to provide the
protection an E.I.R. is there for.
The R.R.M. study was a generalization study that dealt with"quality"issues on a broad scope
basis. Their findings were based on personal evaluations and planning philosophies, and not any
actual quantitative studies. This "study"that did ZERO actual fact gathering about our area's
unique traffic situations is being used as if it was a detailed study of factual traffic movements by
staff to support their conclusions. The study is well written,but so lacking in statistical data that
it constitutes little more than opinions and personal recommendations. The public surveys
analyzed in the plan support slowing traffic, widening Higuera,but not one word on the survey
questions on medians!
In the absence of actual relevant studies, we are left with the only factual conclusions available.
Staff guessed, made up or interpreted results as they were needed to support their positions and
philosophies.
Due to the unique situation in our area and staff's apparent total lack of familiarity or knowledge
of these circumstances, they must think it will not be obvious that they have not really done their
research as would be required to make the declarations they are claiming. RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 aBi f
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Rear end collisions constitute a majority of the accidents in Mid-Higuera. The intersection at
Walker and Pacific Streets is the safest, least accident-prone portiorfof our area(staff say closure
of Walker Street is for public safety).
Eliminating the left turn lane and putting in a median may"calm"the left turn movements from
the center lane that tend to slow traffic in both directions. But it will increase the speed and
increase the frequency of accidents,as most are caused by too much speed relative to cars
turning r&into businesses in the Mid-Higuera area.
Justifying street closures and medians "for public safety"when the facts indicate the opposite is
not sound planning. It's fraud! Planning advocates usually chant the mantra of public safety
when the actual facts cannot be made to support their position, or they haven't bothered
collecting any actual facts. I have been asking for more than a year for staff to collect facts but
they feel there is no need for localized facts. Their general planning expertise, their personal
lifetimes of experience eliminate the need for facts.
WALKER STREET
• Planners who care nothing about the actual workings of our neighborhood are"fudging"to
force their visions upon all of us.
• No significant traffic studies have been done to ascertain what Walker Street is used for. No
traffic studies on left tum volumes from Higuera. No comparisons to traffic volume on
Pacific Street(less than %4 of the traffic of Walker). No studies to base either their EIR or
staff report on!
Staff, in their planning omniscience, have empowered themselves to make up the findings based
on little more than their knowledge of general planning principles. It is totally incorrect to close
Walker Street based totally on opinion of planners who appear to have no concern for finding out
the actual impacts they will cause.
Please,until actual studies have been done, do not close Walker Street!
STAFF ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION AS ADVERSARIAL DEVELOPERS
AGAINST THE CITIZENS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE!
Staff has received direct, consistent and critical input from all the Mid-Higuera owners. Staff
feels our concerns are selfish and that we are not the true stakeholders. Therefore staff is
justified in ignoring all of our concerns.
Staff feels that council needs no choices.
-Not any options for council to choose from.
-No changes on the key objections. Staff,without even the professionalism of offering
council some alternatives, dismisses consistent objections from the parties most affected.
Staff has"blown off' the affected parties with the arrogant and self serving position that we
aren't the real stakeholders in our own neighborhood. If council approves this plan as staff
I first asked for traffic counts on left turns from Higuera onto High and Walker more than a year
ago. Staff did not feel any actual data was needed—their opinions ire sufficient.
With the combination of north/south streets meeting with 101-aligned streets creating the unique
intersections we have; with the fact that Pismo Street is one-way and with the combinations of
these and neighborhood uses caused by a poor intersection at High,Pismo and Higuera,Walker
Street is very important.
Pacific Street, on the other hand,has '/< the use of Walker Street, yet there has not even been a
thought to closing it rather than Walker(we prefer closing neither street). The speed of cars
transitioning from Higuera to Pacific is what's not dangerous on the intersection of Pacific and
Walker. Cars enter Pacific northbound at nearly full Higuera Street speeds—in contrast,Walker
right turns require a near stop. People making left turns have a center lane with more than 100
feet available to make the left turn onto Walker safely. This unique aspect of traffic flow has not
been noticed or addressed by staff. Their proposed Pacific Street alignment will make the
problem of high speed turns onto Pacific worse.
The E.I.R. and Mid-Higuera plans are fatally flawed in that they have not met the requirements
of notifying the affected parties.
The many folks in the Branch, Sandercock and High Street neighborhood that do use Walker
daily have in no way been notified of the possible closure of Walker and other Mid-Higuera
activities that effect their daily lives. People in the residential neighborhoods north of Walker
that would suffer from re-routed commercial traffic have not been notified.
Even on the effect of the medians, staff has not had the courage or resourcefulness to actually
research the issue. Relying on theoretic generalizations, they steamroll forward. They have not
even attempted to survey the many customers and uses of the Mid-Higuera tum lanes to see what
the general community's take is on losing the center turn lane.
No data or studies yet definitive conclusions based on non-existent"studies"allow for an E.I.R.
with a traffic circulation impact of
Perhaps planners'.knowledge and respect for traffic concerns is so minimal that this makes sense
to them. Our hope is that the council is not equally "blissful" in regards to the need for real facts
before making crucial, expensive long term decisions (Remember the"speed bumps"on
Chorro?).
With no data to evaluate turning movements on Walker Street that would be transferred to the
left turn at High Street,how can we realistically know how long a turn pocket is needed,how
long a signal or the many other traffic details we need? This data could be added to the data on
the left turns from Higuera to High Street. Ooops—we haven't bothered to collect any such data
on High Street left turns from Higuera...
_ J
FLOODING
The primary purpose of this plan was to be flood control and widen Higuera. Instead,
beautification,bike lanes and John Mansville's visions of tomorror#'have replaced the actual
purpose of this plan with fluff and harmful measures at our expense. After waiting more than 20
years, we are being cheated out of the improvement we have waited so long for.
Until the flood consultants bring in their recommendations, it is IRRESPONSIBLE and
PREMATURE to adopt a plan that will interfere with the flood mitigation measures the
consultants will be recommending.
Unless flood control is taken seriously the dreams of serious investment in our area is doubtful.
We have waited more than 20 years for Higuera to be widened and for flood control. Now
planning egos are going to waste most of the effort, squander our public funds, do harm to our
businesses and do virtually nothing serious for flood control.
MEDIAN
1. Median is objected to by 100% of business &property owners.
2. Consultants for the flood plan agree median will interfere with flood control!
3. It has been incorrectly stated that medians in commercial districts are safer.
Although this is true for high-speed roadways,traffic engineers know that in a
commercial district like Mid-Higuera,medians like the ones proposed are:
1. an interference to traffic patterns
2. more dangerous because the create a sense of an expressway and increase
traffic speed. For Mid-Higuera this is the opposite of what is needed and will
increase accidents and reduce public safety. San Luis Obispo City Public Works
reports on accidents in Mid-Higuera bears this out.
2a. No studies also have been done for lower Mid-Higuera on the traffic
impact of the median. No effort to look at what will actually happen to the
area. In most cases we are substituting a left turn from the center lane on
Higuera for a left turn across traffic (without a center lane)onto Parker,
(this can also back up traffic) and a left turn at the South Street/Higuera
intersection. Two left turns for one??? No alternative except staff's one
plan. Is staff unable to offer viable alternatives???
2b. No studies have been done for the 300 block of Mid-Higuera, no
thought or studies on the concerns and comments have been done by staff
as to the actual effect of medians on our businesses. For 295 Higuera, one
left turn is being replaced with three left turns and a right turn through the
most dangerous intersection in our area. Where are the studies on the
impacts of these actions?
3. horribly damaging to customer traffic patterns and access unless the
surrounding streets are compatible with supporting a median(the narrow part of
Higuera Street does not have a supporting street arrangement compatible or
consistent with the use of medians).
If you will carefully review the accident reports provided by the San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department, it is clear that staff's statements regarding safety are the opposite of the facts.
wishes,then it would appear the public process is a sham and staff can do whatever staff wants.
Our elected representatives will only represent the out-of-town staffers who wish to cram this
down the throats of Mid-Higuera businesses and property owners.-�
If the plan is adopted with medians,Bianchi Lane behind The Mill and closing Walker Street, we
will be forced to seek legal counsel to do what elected council has failed to do(represent us). Is
it easier to support staff rather than represent the citizens of the San Luis Obispo Mid-Higuera
district?
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission studied this plan, took testimony and rejected it in the form staff
brought it to council. Staff now has the complete power to ignore the Planning Commission's
findings. Staff has also edited the minutes from the Planning Commission hearings to eliminate
much of the dissenting testimony, giving council the slant they desired.
CONCLUSION
If council adopts this plan, after its rejection by the Planning Commission and over the
objections of all Mid-Higuera merchants and property owners, I feel that council will be acting in
an arbitrary and capricious manner damaging to our interests.
Further, failure to consider alternatives to removing access to our businesses (with the median
and the Walker Street closure) will in effect make for an inverse condemnation of many of Mid-
Higuera's properties. Decisions based on feelings and opinions and not actual facts and physical
studies damage us all.
I think on this issue, some members of council have forgotten that as elected representatives,
their job is the GOVERN not to RULE!
Sincerely,
Richard W. Ferris,property owner
Mid-Higuera Enhancement District
1`184K. W.doul 4•31r1'I 'cw-a�,= 7G - •�< -•
I
w wig _
I I ANDRE - -A PROP80610NI,L,...• -. '+.JN
MORRIS Retain this document for Fgt>Ja
a. BUTTERY Retain r.MORms
future Council meeting JAMBS C.BUTTERY
D.LAW
3 zn -ol J.� ,
Date, K agerdized scorn W.wwr t
I MARY&McALIFTER
j 1Ut3H_AYN M.ZMAMW
REM D.MORtL4
WUAJ"V.DOUCL465
March 8, 2001 JEAN A.uAYms(W
JLTLID ANN AUX082"N N
OF CODNM
0 CIL O CDII DIR BAMW RETINER,P.C.
VIA FACIMIM lE AND FIRST CLASS MA11 ❑FIN M? JOHN F.S2VARI P.C-
FIR: ^';THF
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen TTORNEY O FW D-9 na2 Lmi euLona
g M CLCRKJORIG D rOLl�`CHF Fart OHIO Box 790
City of San Leis Obispo o r IT TE A D REC DIR Sm Luis OhIspo
990 Palen Street cit' O VnL DIR Fonda 93406-MO
Ff:Rs DIR fhb eosisu-
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 CM
i Fu NnalbW 805/50-CM
Re: Mid-Argues Street Enhancement Plan
I
Dear Jeff.
ji
I I am writing in regards to the proposed Mid-Hipua Street Enhancement Pian
("Enhancement Plane) which is on the City Council agenda for March 20, 2001.. I represent
Roy Parsons, Gerard Parsons and San Luis M&L Co., owners of the property on which
! Haward Lumber ("the San Luis Mill Property") is located; and I represent Tom Beckwith and
David Hite the owners of The Tire Store. The comments that follow are intended to be
considered by the City Council at the March 20 mcetmg; and, therefore, I ask that you pass
alonga copy of this letter to the Council.
Let me start by stating what my clients have not asked me to do. I am not intending to
attack the vision of the Enhancement Plan. Long-term planning is a good thing, and the
planning objecOves of the Enhancement Plan are recognized. The shortcoming of the
Enhancement Plan is the unfair burden it places on a few selected property owners.as a means
of achieving the Enhancement Plan's objectives. These burdens may initiate premature and
undesirable changes in biswrW community businesses; and these burdens, if found to be
unconstitutional, may impose an unanticipated financial burden on the City. Let me be more
Specific.
Bimehi Lane W South Strwt Co on rive:
The Enbar M=ut Plan states that now development located between Bianchi Lane and
iSouth Street shall include a new private drive that will provide reciprocal access easements to
property in tWs area. The private drive will bisect both the San Luis Mill Property and The
I
F RECEIVED
i
MAR 0 R 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
1•IMK. tl.t1Jb1 4.711'1'1 CWD7 4,7e1(;?r-
ANDREa ra w
"tow coarwlou
MORRIS
&;BUTTERY
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
March 8, 2001
Page 2
Tire Store Property. The drive will substantially limit, if not completely destroy, the use of
the properties fur the existing businesses.
There is no nexus between the west Higuera Street properties and a need for the private
drive. Many of the buildings along the west side of Higuera Street, including the existing
buildings on the San Luis Mill Property and The Tire Stare Property, have been there for
marry years. The circulation issues affecting Higuera Street are not related to the west Higuera
Street properties. Rather, Higuera Street has become impacted because of citywide
development, including development along Madonna Road and south of Madonna Road. See
generally Nollan V. California Coastal Commission(1987)483 US 825 and Dolan v. Ory of
Tigard(19944) 512 US 374,both requiring a nexus between the impact of a project and
i
conditions of approval.
Since there is no nexus between my clients' property and the need for the private drive,
it is unconstitutional to place the burden of such a drive on my clients. To do so is a form of
inverse condemnation that will eventually require the City to pay the fair market valine of the
effected property interests; an amount thatwill undoubtedly equal several hundred thousand
dollars, if not millions.
I am advised that under the terms of the Enhancement Plan property owners will be
required to create the private drive as a..condition to the City approving of a change of use
1 I
and/or issuance of a building permit.
Property owners will need to obtain a building permit
not only in the case of a new development, but of more concern, in the event of a remodel or.
seismic upgrade. In such a case, the existing use of the property will be destroyed. Not only
does this mean that the City may be responstle for the value of the property interests inversely
condemned, but what should be of equal concern, the City will lose historical local businesses.
I .
Does the City really want to force out local businesses; especially local businesses with
the historical character these have, simply because of conditions triggered upon issuance of a .
building permit? While it is understandable.thatthe City wants to have a long-range
conceptual plan for the development of the Mid-Iiiguem vicinity, to create mandatory
4 conditions such as the private drive; takes the plan too far and results in the.premature
destruction of businesses that have historically been a valuable part of the local community.
1
I
F:1N5nS151mlo�LWja�an�.GW.�D!
i
PllifC. O.CkWl 4.OCrl'1 OUD7 Vu f'G
I I �
ANDRE, A rso ,n.tww coAro,uzwx
MORRIS
6 BUTTERY
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
March 8, 2001
Page 3
i The proposed private drive should either be removed from the Enhancement Plan,or
alternatively, it should be only a conceptual design that would be adopted by property owners
voluntarily in conjunction with development of the effected property.
Bicycle Path
The proposed bicycle path passes over the rear of my clients' property. 'While there
may be laudable comninnity goals furthered by the path, the property owners should not be
ex;=ted to bear the burden of dedicating the land necessary for the path.
I
The true cost of the bicycle path has not been calculated. While the Enhancement Plan
indicates that creekside property owners will be expected to dedicate the pathway to the City,
the fact is theme is no nexus between the properties and the community need for a bicycle path.
Therefore, there is no constitutional basis to require property owners to dedicate a.path and to
do so will eventually require the City to pay the fair market value of the pathway in an inverse
condemnation claim.
Please modify the Enhaucem=Plan to clarity that creekside property owners will not
be expected to dedicate the bicycle pathway.
Change of Zoning.Land Use QW&M
The proposed change in the land use category will mace The Tire Store a
nonconforming use. Tire stores.are allowed under the new land use category only under a
conditional use permit. While this would allow The Tire Store to continue for now, it will
trigger certain special conditions in the event a building permit, or other similar approval, is
required in the future. Of specific concern is the criteria for hours of operation. The Tire
Store must be able to receive early morning deliveries, and these are not allowed under the
corididoual use permits. Therefore, the Enhancement Plan should be modified to address this
issue.
� I
I ',
rwrc. U.C:kX1 4.=M"l cw;7Z"JC1 f 7G
ANDRE, _. APROIL99MAL LAW PV➢A13CN
MORRIS
6 BUTTERY
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
March 812001
Page 4
I
I
Flood_ ntrol
In my letter to you of April 3, 2000, I previously addressed the Enhancement Plan's
lack of flood control measures. I will not repeat that discussion here, but I do want to
emphasize the need for the City to address this most compelling issue.
Thank you for you cooperation. Again, please forward a copy of this letter to the City
Council as well as a copy of my prior letter of April 3, 2000,
Very truly yours,
Dennis D. Law
DDL1rlu
cc: . Roy Parsons
Gerard Parsons
David Hite, The Tire Store
i
i
i
l
� RNenStEhnlooatt�pe�rm.007..+d .
i
APR. 3.2000 3:40PM ^� NO. P.2/6
J �
IANDRE. A FAMEMIONAL LAW CeseORArmN
I MORRIS ?EMIL�xs OWU990
I&.BUTTERY
Kauai Moalus
i JAMBS c BITl'[A1CY
Omm n.rww
I.Two MMOLLA
I SCOTT w*Au
MARY&MCALISTER
KATEMYN ra.sFrMcrrr
wtuux V.oOUCLASB
I April 3, 2000 TIMOTHY L tiOM
oF.covtaBt._
.. _ BARNET REITNER,F•C
- - JOHN A BTVAR;P.C.
VIA FACSTAMTLE
I u02 lstrtet lana
Fon oma sox 730
IJeffrey G. Jorgensen s r»obsva
City of San Luis Obispo C.ntoa,s.93406-MO
990 Palm Street r�ptoae eosis�s�ln
San Lads Obispo, CA 93408 Fix Number Bas1sa3 o'az
Re: City Planning Matter
IDear Jeff:
II represent Roy Parsons,Gerard Parsons and San Luis M&L Co.,a California corporation,
owners of the property on which is located the business known as Hayward Lumber C"the San Luis
I Mill Property ). I am assisting the Parsons in responding to the proposed Mid-Iiiguera Street
!
Enhancement Plan C the Eahancemeat FWD. In response to the proposed Enhancement Plan,the
Parsons and their representative Randy Pohl,have submitted various written and verbal comments
to the Planning Commission, and several other City commissions. There are two legal issues,
however,that I think need further elaboration and that is the purpose of this letter.
I The two issues are flood control and public access.
I
I1. Flood Control
The Parsons'property has been flooded on three occasions in the last 31 years. The first in
the floods of 1969,then again in the floods of 1973 and most recently mi 1995. Each ofthese events
involved the inundation of the San Luis Mill Property from waters coming down Higuera Street.
IThe waters on Higuera Street came from San Luis Creek where the crack had overrun its banks at
various road crossings,most notably the Marsh Street bridge.
The Enhancement Plan does not adequately address the flood problems in the Mid-Higuera
l I area. While the Enhancement Plan describes the problem, it is lacking in a solution.. The
Enhancement Plan defers a solution to a later point in time during the development of the City's
1 Phase 2 Creek Management Plan. In the meantime,the Enhancement Plan describes mitigation
I
ipR. 3.2000 3:40PM No.918 P.3/6
ANDRE, A rroovAt uw
mom
BU7=Y
j ; Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
April 3, 2000
Page 2
}
measures;ttiat.will ,simply re channei waters,that have.ovem n the Marsh Street bridge: The
Enhancement Plan calls for the expansion of City owned property near the corner of Marsh and
liiguera and curbing anti grading in the street.to cause escaped waters to be returned to the creek
channel. The proposal to re-channel water,is not,however limited to City Property. New private
developmentwillbe required to desigaprojects"with unobstructed flow charnels betweenbuildings,
so that water can quickly reach the creek while minimizing damage". Also,new development will
be restricted in the amouat of:lot'covcmgc(see discussion at pp 12-14 of the Plan and Section 8 of
the Environment Determination Form).
Iaessence,the EnhaacementPlaneontemplatesthatI iigaeraStreet,andtheprivateproperties
to the west ofit,will function as an alternate creek channel. This alternate creek channel will receive
water that has overrun the Marsh Street bridge and,without unnecessary obstruction,redirect it to
the primary creek channel. All other flood-control measures are simply defatted for ft her study.
The Parsons,and other nearbygroperty owners,have been attempting to bring about adequate
flood control measures since the:fust flood in_1969. There have been numerous efforts over the
years intended to describe the need forprotection to the property owner and the responsibility of the
City to address this need. These efforts include a lawsuit against the City in 1973 for inverse
condemnation damages resulting fi m the 1973 floods. I believe it is accurate to state in response
to these efforts the City has not constructed any public improvements designed to reduce the risk of
flood to the property owners down stream from the Marsh Street bridge.
It is the City's responsibility to implement adequate flood control measures.(The flooding ..
ofthe SanLuis Mill Property,audnearbyproperdps,is the result ofinadequatepublic improvements
upstream; most notably the Marsh Street bridge.. The Marsh Street bridge is functioning as an
obsttuction. The obstruction is causing waters to leave the stream channel,and it is the water that
has been diverted from the stream channel that is causing damage to private property.
The City has an obligation to act reasonably in controlling surface and stream waters so that .
downstream property owners are not damaged. This rile of law has been express=ly adopted by the
California Supreme court in Locklin Y.Lafayette(1994)7 Cal.4th 327. Flntharmore,the City may
have strict liability,without regard to reasonableness,based on the recent decision inARns v State
of Caiifornia(1998)61 C LAppAth 1. In Lochin, the court discussed at length the liability of a
public agency for floods resulting from upstream surface and stream waters. The court held that
public agencies will be liable for flood damage-caused to downstream property if the public entity
1
1
. APR. 3.2000 3:41PM
rio.918 'P.4/6
A
AMMw rnorxisorw.LAW ooRronCox
MORM
s
BLrrMRY
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
April 3, 2000
Page 3
i' bias been unreasonable in controlling upstream surface and stream waters. In Akins, the Third
District Court of Appeal held entities are strictly liable for flood damage caused to property that is
not bistorically sub"ect to flooding. Ili addition,the case of Souza v Silver Development Company
TOM Cal App-3d 165 held th$t wham a stream channel has become apart of an entities storm
drain system it will be treated as a public improvement; and,therefore,the public entity is strictly
liable for any damage caused by the public improvement.'
Where a.public entity is mspoasible for preventing flood damage,it cannot impose that
responsibility on private property owners that will be damaged as a result of the public entity's
faUure to discharge its responsibility. See for example the decision inSalton BayMarina v.Imperial
Irrigation District(1985) 172 CalApp.3d 914. In Salton Bay the Fourth District Court of Appeal
held that certain county imposed building restrictions, indemnification agreements and, flood
easements were unenforceable and against public policy because it was the public entity's
responsibility to protect the private propertyowners against flooding and the public entity could not
shift this responsibility to the property owner as a condition of development.
The Enhancement plan is attempting to do precisely what the Salton Bay decision said a
public entity could not do. The Enhancement Plan is imposing on property owners the obligation
to restrict development and design open surface channels as q rpeaas of addressing a flood problem
that the City has the obligation to fix.
The Parsons are asking that the Enhancement P be modified t nate the restrictions
ofdevelopmeat so as to provide on u nob s tructed cbaaaelfloc wat that the Enhancement
Pian specify more concrete means for the City to construct the necessary public improvements to
provide adequate flood protection.
' You will note that the court in Locklin found that the stream at issue had int
be converted to a public improvement. The Locklin-decision,however, cited with approval
the Souza decision. Had the Locklin court found the stream was a public improvement then
Ithere would have been no reason to discuss the issue of reasonableness. I note that San Luis
Creek has been heavily developed by the City and it is very likely it would be treated as a
public improvement based on Souza. Furthermore, the Marsh Street bridge is a public
improvement and it is the obstruction which is causing the daarage.—
1
I
3.2000 3:42PM � 1 No.918 P.5i6
ANDRE, a rnoMQtM LAW CORPORATION
MORRIS
BLTPPERY
.i�
Jeffrcy G. Jorgensen
April 3. 2000
t� Page 4
Is. 2,Road Access.
The Enhancement plan sufsstaatally restricts access from Higuera Street for new
development west of Mguen Street a Plan further states that new development located between
Bianchi Lane and South Street shall include anew private drive that will provide remiprocal access
easements to property in this area. The location and design of the private drive shall be determined
prior to approval of any new development(see pp 27-28). The graphical concept plan shows this
private drive bisechn -92ILLuis Mill Property,.. -
Tbg
e no nexu ' the wesf sguera Street properties and aneed f& the private drive.
Many of bui the west side of Higuera Street,including the existing buildings on the
San LeisMi erty,have been there for many years.:The circulation issues affecting Higuera
Street are.not related to the west Mguem Street properties-Rather, Higuera Street has become
impactedberause oMity-wide development,including development along MadonnaRoad and south
ofMadounaRoad. See generallyNollan v.California Coastal Commission(1987)483 US 823 and
Dolan v. City of T igard(1994)512 US 374 both requiring a nexus between the impact of a project
I and conditions of approval.
The proposed drive is of particular impact to the San Luis Mill Propertybecause it bisqcu—
it so dramatically. The proposed private:drive would destroy the current use of the prop and it
would diminish the value of the property for )n—--
The west Higuera Street progenies,including the San Luis Mill Property,should have full
access to Higuera Strect,as thcseproperti.cs have had formanyyoars,and the proposed private drive
should be eliminated as a conditiorr to development.
3. Conclusion
The Parsons are not opposed to the overall concepts of the Enhaancement Plan. They support
the long-range vision of the Plan. However,there are certain components of the Enhancement Plan
that they feel should be corrected before it proceeds any farther. In addition to the concerns
' previously expressed by the Parsons to the Planning tromunissio .and to the various other
commissions that have reviewed the Plan,the two legal issues discussed above should also be given
serious consideration.
r:wer�ai:.ra
;.SPR. 3.2000 3 42Pr1
`\ Np.918 P.6/6
AWREf A PROFRUMOKAL LAW conrosuriox
MORRIS
$UTI'm
t
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
April 3, 2000
Page 5
4
1(�
The Enhancement Plan will be reviewed once more by the Planning Commission before
going to the City Council for review. The Parsons are asking that the Planning Commission refer
the Enhancement Plan back to staff so that it can be corrected consistent with the issues that have
been raised.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you would like to discuss this further
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Verqtrul ours,
Dennis D. Law ~~~~
DDL/rlu
cc: Gerard Parsons
jRoy Parsons
I
I
`I J
�►IIIIIIIIIIIIII����� ���illllll��llll II ��
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
March 8, 2001
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
MID-HIGUERA ENHANCEMENT PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER GPI 39-98
You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to
consider the final adoption of the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan.
The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on March 20,2001,beginning at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to
attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or
after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice,or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
The agenda report, including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the
City Clerk's Office (Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting.
For more information,please contact Jeff iPrice,
mu ty evelopment
Department at 781-7176.
.C.
City Clerk
/rte The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
vy Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
no parcel/FILE#:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
BARBARA BARKER C/O RICHARDSON REALTY OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1042 PACIFIC STREET,SUITE E 1237 ARCHER Gerry Obrikat
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3806 P.O.Box 13428
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
160 BROOK 165 BROOK 171 BROOK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5402 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5402
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
175 BROOK 176 BROOK 177 BROOK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5402 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5402
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
178 BROOK 180 BROOK 182 BROOK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
183 BROOK 184 BROOK 186 BROOK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5402 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
188 BROOK 190 BROOK 195 BROOK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401540' SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 9340'-5402
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
130 HIGH 6 HIGUERA# D 11 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5011 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5422 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5414
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
PO Box 4258 11 HIGUERA# C 25 HIGUERA
San.Luis Obispo,CA 93403 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5414 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5414
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
31 HIGUERA 43 HIGUERA 50 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015414 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5414 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5415
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39.98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
75 HIGUERA#110 75 HIGUERA#115 75 HIGUERA#120
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
75 HIGUERA#130 75 HIGUERA#150 75 HIGUERA#155
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
75 HIGUERA#160 75 HIGUERA#165 75 HIGUERA#180
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
75 HIGUERA#200 81 HIGUERA#100 81 HIGUERA#200
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5427 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5427
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
110 HIGUERA 157 HIGUERA 158 HIGUERA# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015419 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.93401-5404 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5400
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
158 HIGUERA# B 158 HIGUERA# C 158 HIGUERA# D
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5400 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5400 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.93401-5400
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
158 HIGUERA# E 195 HIGUERA 200 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5400 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5404 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
207 HIGUERA 208 HIGUERA 214 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015015
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
219 HIGUERA 237 HIGUERA 239 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
245 HIGUERA 251 HIGUERA 251 HIGUERA# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
252 HIGUERA 256 HIGUERA 258 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:3398
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
264 HIGUERA 274 HIGUERA# 1 274 HIGUERA# 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 3 274 HIGUERA# 4 274 HIGUERA# 5
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:3398
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 6 274 HIGUERA# 7 274 HIGUERA# 8
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 9 274 HIGUERA# 10 274 HIGUERA# 11
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 12 274 HIGUERA# 14 274 HIGUERA# 15
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 16 274 HIGUERA# 17 274 HIGUERA# 18
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001
FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398 FILE NUMBER:3398
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 19 274 HIGUERA# 20 274 HIGUERA# 21
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015001
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 22 274 HIGUERA# 23 274 HIGUERA# 25
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 26 274 HIGUERA# 27 274 HIGUERA# 28
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 HIGUERA# 29 274 HIGUERA# 30 277 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4213
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
280 HIGUERA 283 HIGUERA 286 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4213 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4215
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
295 HIGUERA 296 HIGUERA 300 HIGUERA# B
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4213 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4215 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
300 HIGUERA# C 303 HIGUERA Ethan Shenkman
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4209 P.O.Box 13741
San Luis Obispo,CA 9340'
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
304 HIGUERA 306 HIGUERA 306 HIGUERA# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
P.O. Box 5255 306 HIGUERA# D 307 HIGUERA
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-5255 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4209
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
309 HIGUERA 313 HIGUERA 385 HIGUERA# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4209 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4214 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4214
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
385 HIGUERA# B 390 HIGUERA# A 390 HIGUERA# D
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4214 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39.98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
390 HIGUERA# E 396 HIGUERA 406 HIGUERA#100
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3833
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
406 HIGUERA#120 408 HIGUERA#100 412 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013833 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3833 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3833
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
412 HIGUERA#100 416 Higuera Street 416 Higuera Street
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3833 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39.98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
414 HIGUERA#100 414 HIGUERA#200 416 HIGUERA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013833 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3833 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3833
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
505 HIGUERA#110 299 MARSH 272 PACIFIC
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3834 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3857 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401.4202
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2010 PARKER 2030 PARKER 2040 PARKER
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2050 PARKER 2060 PARKER 2074 PARKER#100
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
Teresa Dummit 2078 PARKER#110 2078 PARKER#200
2415 Cima Court SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
1
i
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2103 PARKER 2146 PARKER# Al 2146 PARKER# A2
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042
FILE NUMBER:39.98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2146 PARKER# A6 2146 PARKER# A7 2146 PARKER# D1
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2146 PARKER# D2 2146 PARKER# D3 2149 PARKER
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5018
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
27 SOUTH 34 SOUTH# B 109 SOUTH
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015022 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5023 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5024
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
111 SOUTH 140 SOUTH 145 SOUTH
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5024 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5025 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# 1 145 SOUTH# 4 145'SOUTH# 11
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# 14 145 SOUTH# 22 145 SOUTH# 24
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# Al 145 SOUTH# A3 145 SOUTH# AS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401.5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# A7 145 SOUTH# A8 145 SOUTH# A9
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 . FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# B1 145 SOUTH# B3 145 SOUTH# B5
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# B8 145 SOUTH# Cl 145 SOUTH# C2
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# C3 145 SOUTH# C4 145 SOUTH# C5
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN.LUIS OBISPO.CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:3.9-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH# C6 145 SOUTH# C8 145 SOUTH# C9
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A10 145 SOUTH#At 1 145 SOUTH#Al2
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE'NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A15 145 SOUTH#A17 145 SOUTH#A19
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A21 145 SOUTH#A24 145 SOUTH#A25
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A26 145 SOUTH#A27 145 SOUTH#A28
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401=5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A29 145 SOUTH#A33 145 SOUTH#A35
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A37 145 SOUTH#A38 145 SOUTH#A39
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A40 145 SOUTH#A41 145 SOUTH#A42
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A43 145 SOUTH#A44 145 SOUTH#A45
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:99-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A46 145 SOUTH#A47 145 SOUTH#A48
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A49 145 SOUTH#A50 145 SOUTH#A51
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A52 145 SOUTH#A53 145 SOUTH#A54
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401.5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A55 145 SOUTH#A56 145 SOUTH#A57
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401.5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT -
145 SOUTH#A58 145 SOUTH#A59 145 SOUTH#A60
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:3958 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A61 145 SOUTH#A62 145 SOUTH#A63
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030
I
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A65 145 SOUTH#A66 145 SOUTH#A67
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#A69 145 SOUTH#B10 145 SOUTH#B12
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#B14 145 SOUTH#B15 145 SOUTH#B16
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030
FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 SOUTH#B17 145 SOUTH#B18 1335 WALKER
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4205
FILE NUMBER:39-98 003-711-026/FILE.#:39-98 002-506-002/FILE#:39-98
OCCUPANT 252 HIGUERA LLC BARRETT SUSAN P TRE
1337 WALKER 252 HIGUERA ST 330 ENCINA RD STE B3
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4205 SLO CA 93401-5015 GOLETA CA 93117-
002-506-004/FI LE#39-98 004-511-016/FILE#:39-98 002-501-005/FILE#39-98
BEEM DAVID C&SHERYL A BETTENCOURT FAMILY LLC CHEDA RUTH G TRE ETL
313 HIGUERA ST Diane Wettlaufer 2451 AUGUSTA
SLO CA 93401-4214 1942 FIXLINIST SLO CA 93405-
SLO CA 93401-3031
004-741-006/FILE#:39-98 002-502-001/FILE#39-98 003-721-051/FILE#:39-98
CROTSER EDWARD F TRE ETAL DANA DOROTHY M DILL INVESTMENTS LLC
266 CRAIG WAY 895 PATTY KAY CT PO BOX 13755
SLO CA 93405-1240 NIPOMO CA 934449315 SLO CA 93406-3755
003-721-027/FILE#:39-98 004-742-006/FILE#39-98 002-501-004/FILE#:39-98
DUMMIT JAMES B&THERESA ERWIN WINEFRED L TRE EVON JOHN&JEANINE
3100 JOHNSON AVE 171 BROOK ST 309 HIGUERA ST
SLO CA 93401-6007 SLO CA 93401-5402 SLO CA 93401-4209
003-721-033/FILE#:39-98 004742-004/FILE#39-98 004741-007/FILE#:39-98
FERRINI JEAN E TRE FINCH GARY L&CHRISTINE E GILLIGAN MICHAEL
%JEAN E TERKILDSEN 5405 SAN BENITO RD 1023 MILL ST APT B
5177 FRESHWATER RD ATASCADERO CA 93422-1959 SLO CA 93401-2762
WILLIAMS CA 95987-
003-711-024/FILE#:39-98 003-721-037/FILE#:39-98 004-802-019/FILE#:39-98
GLEN-DEL POSADAS CORP GOLDENSON MARK L HOUGH JOHN C
3825 VALLEY BLVD 1255 CALLENS RD SUITE D 962 MILL ST
WALNUT CA 91789- VENTURA CA 93003.5675 SLO CA 93401-2704
003-721-053/FILE#:39-98 002-482-024/FILE#:39-98 002506-005/FILE#:39-98
JOHNSON PATRICIA D TRE ETAL JONES JAMES.P JR ETAL JR JOHANSON INC A CA CORP
%SMART&FINAL#377 %JAMES P JONES 1237 ARCHER ST
PO BOX 512377 3820 SEQUOIA DR SLO CA 93401-3806
LOS ANGELES CA 90051-0377 SLO CA 93401-8314
004-802-014/FILE#:39-98 004741-008/FILE#:39-98 004-742-002/FILE.#:39-98
KARIMAGHAYI JAHANSHAH KUPPER KURT P LAUGHLIN LAURIE
157 HIGUERA ST 8888 TORO CREEK RD PO BOX 1089
SLO CA 93401-5404 ATASCADERO CA 93422-1035 ARROYO GRANDE CA 93421-1089
003.721-047/FILE#:39-98 002-482-013/FILE#:39-98 002-482-017/FILE#:39-98
LAWCO FOODS INC MACHADO T MADONNA A
PO BOX 5759 172 HIGH ST PO BOX 3910
SANTA MARIA CA 93456-5759 S L 0 CA 93401-5011 S L O CA 93403-3910
004-802-015/FILE#:39-98 003-711-023/FILE#:39.98 002-482-021/FILE#:39-98
MATHEWS LLOYD&BJ TRES MODEL LANDS INC MONGE EILEEN M ETAL
1885 ALRITA ST PO BOX 3609 %F E MCNAMARA
SLO CA 93401-4605 S L 0 CA 93403-3609 PO BOX 636
SLO CA 93406-0636
003-721-042/FILE#:39-98 003-711-043/FILE#:39-98 004741-001/FILE#:39-98
MORABITO ANGELO P&JOAN E ETAL MORABITO ANGELO P TRE ETAL MURPHY CHARLES J
600 WOODLAND DR 214 Higuera Street 6727 AVILA VALLEY DR
LOS OSOS CA 93402-3818 San Luis Obispo CA 93401-7908 SLO:A 93405-8019
002-482-023/FILE#:39-98 002-482-015/FILE#:39-98 004742-011/FILE#:39.98
OCONNER BJ OCONNOR B PIERRO RALPH&MICHELLE D
PO BOX 1288 DVM 300 HIGUERA 25098 AVE 212
SLO CA 93406-1288 SLO CA 93401- LINDSEY CA 93247-
004.801-021/FILE#:39-98 003-721-034/FILE#:39-98 002-501-003/1FILE#:39-98
PRATHER PAUL J&JACQUELINE RATLIFF'FRED P JR ETAL ROBERT E JOHNSON FAMILY LTD PTP
1 %RATLIFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 1301 PANORAMA DR
4379 FOXBURROW CT 1269 DRAKE CIR BAKERSFIELD CA 93305-1113
SANTA MARIA CA 93454 SLO CA 93405-4907
004-881-006/FILE#:39-98 004742-005/FILE#:39-98 003-711-041/FILE#:39-98
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP ROSS-BROWN SABRINA SAN LUIS M&L CO A CA CORP
PO BOX 2048 858 LEFF ST PO BOX 13909
MONTEREY CA 93940- SLO CA 93401-4426 SLO CA 93406-3909
J
004802-018/FILE#:39-98 002-506-001/FILE#:39-98 053-021-024/FILE#:39-98
SLOPCC LP A CA LTD PTP SNYDER CHARLES C SPANGLER KATHERINE L ETAL
%ROSSI ENT %SAN LUIS FLORAL&GIFTS 664 MARSH ST
750 PISMO ST 299 MARSH ST SLO CA 93401-3931
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-3950 SLO CA 93401-3846
003-721-050/FILE#:39-98 004742-007/FILE#:39-98 004742-012/FILE#:39-98
SPENCER ROBERT&GAY-YVETTE ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH OF SLO ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH SLO
140 SOUTH ST 160 BROOK ST 160 BROOKS ST
SLO CA 93401-5025 SLO CA 93401-5402 SLO CA 93401-5403
004511-020/FILE#:39-98 002-501-002JFI LE#:39-98 003-721-039/FILE#:39-98
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (935) SUB CORPORATION LTD A CA CORP TAYLOR MICHAEL
Department of General Services and PO BOX 1002 207 HIGUERA ST
Residential Real Estate Planning&Mgmt. SLO CA 93406-1002 SLO CA 93401-5014
1102 Q Street#4000
Sacramento CA 95814-6550
002-482-007/FILE.#:39-98 002-482-027/FILE#:39-98 004741-009/FILE#:39-98
THOMPSON SANFORD J TODD RONALD D TRE ETAL WATERS SYLVIA HEIRS OF ETAL
PO BOX 284 P.O.Box 2567 %ANDREA BOWERS
AVILA BEACH CA 93424-0284 Paso Robles CA 93447-2567 381 HIGHLAND DR
SANTA MARIA CA 934555517
003-7214044/FILE#:39-98 003-711-044/FILE#:39-98 003-721-049/FILE#:39-98
WESTERMAN JACK&SYBIL TRES WESTSIDE AUTO PARTS INC WILSON FAMILY PROPERTIES A CA LTD PTP
PO BOX 1467 56 PRADO RD 444 HIGUERA ST#200
SLO CA 9340&1467 SLO CA 93401-7398 SLO CA 93401-3875 .
003-721-032/FI LE.#:39-98
WINKAL HOLDINGS LLC
.66 FIELD POINT RD
GREENWICH CT 06830-
03/08/01 14:34:58 Dstuart Label List Page 1
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002-506-002'002506-005'002-506-004'002-506-003.002-505-0
BARBARA BARKER C/O RICHARDSON 1042 PACIFIC STREET,SUITE E(for )
Occupants
OCCUPANT 0'OPEN SPACE non-mail
OCCUPANT O'REMNANT non-mail
OCCUPANT 1237 ARCHER
OCCUPANT Gerry Obrikat P.O.Box 13428(for 101 BRIDGE)
OCCUPANT 160 BROOK
OCCUPANT 160BROOK# non-mail
OCCUPANT 165 BROOK
OCCUPANT 170 BROOK non-mail
OCCUPANT 171 BROOK
OCCUPANT 175 BROOK
OCCUPANT 176 BROOK
OCCUPANT 177 BROOK
OCCUPANT 178 BROOK
OCCUPANT 180 BROOK
OCCUPANT 182 BROOK
OCCUPANT 183 BROOK
OCCUPANT 184 BROOK
OCCUPANT 186 BROOK
OCCUPANT 188 BROOK
OCCUPANT 190 BROOK
OCCUPANT 195 BROOK
OCCUPANT 130 HIGH
OCCUPANT 1 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 313 San Miguel Avenue (for 6 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 6 HIGUERA# 0
OCCUPANT Gerry Obrikat P.O.Box 13428(for 9 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 9 HIGUERA# non-mail
OCCUPANT 10 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 11 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT PO Box 4258 (for 11 HIGUERA)
OCCUPANT 664 Marsh Street(Attn.April) (for 1.1 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 11 HIGUERA# C
OCCUPANT 12 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 14 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 15 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 25 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 31 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 37 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 43 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 50 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT P.O.BOX 385 (for 75 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 2220 East Cerritos Avenue (for 75 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#110
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#115
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#120
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 695 (for 75 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#130
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#150
03/08/01 14:34:58 Dstuart \l-I Label List Page 2
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: i HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005'002506-004`002-506-003'002-505-0
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#155
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#160
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#165
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#170 non-mail
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#175 non-mail
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#180
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#200
OCCUPANT 325 E.Betteravia#B6-A (for 75 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#220 non-mail
OCCUPANT P.O. BOX 13159 (for 75 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#260 non-mail
OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#280 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#100
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#110 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#130 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#140 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#150 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#160 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#180 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#190 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#200
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#260 non-mail
OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#280 non-mail
OCCUPANT 110 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 110 HIGUERA# non-mail
OCCUPANT 157 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA# A
OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA# B
OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA# C
OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA# D
OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA# E
OCCUPANT 195 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 200 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 205 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 205 Higuera Street (for 205 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 205 HIGUERA# 8 non-mail
OCCUPANT 205 HIGUERA# C non-mail
OCCUPANT 207 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 208 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 214 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 219 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 1206 (for 236 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 236HIGUERA# non-mail
OCCUPANT 237 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 239 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 245 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 3163 (for 246 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 251 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 251 HIGUERA# A
OCCUPANT 252.HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 256 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 258 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 264 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 3825 Valley Boulevard (for 274 HIGUERA) duplicate
03/08/01 14:34:58 Ostuart Label List Page 3
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 SourceAddress: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001.002-506-002`002-506-005.002506-004`002-506-003`002505-0
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 1
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 2
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 3
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 4
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 5
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 6
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 7
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 8
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 9
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 10
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 11
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 12
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 14
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 15
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 16
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA 17
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 18
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 19
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 20
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 21
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 22
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 23
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 25
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 26
OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 27
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 28
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 29
OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 30
OCCUPANT 277 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 280 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 283 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 3910 (for 284 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 284 HIGUERA# " non-mail
OCCUPANT 286 HIGUERA,
OCCUPANT 292 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 295 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 296 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 14656 (for 299 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT POST OFFICE 80X9288 (for 300 HIGUERA) duplicate.
OCCUPANT 300 HIGUERA# B
OCCUPANT 300HIGUERA# C
OCCUPANT 303 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT Ethan Shenkman P.O.Box 13741 (for 303 HIGUERA)
OCCUPANT 304 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 306 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 306 HIGUERA# A
OCCUPANT 306 HIGUERA# 8 non-mail
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 5255(for 306 HIGUERA)
OCCUPANT 306 HIGUERA# D
OCCUPANT 307 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 309 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 310 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 311 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 313 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 316 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 320 HIGUERA non-mail
03Z8i01 14:34.8 Dstuart �__ Label List �� Page 4
Occupants 100 meter
File Number. ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001`002-506-002'002506-005'002-506-004'002-506-003'002-505-0
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 5003 (for 325 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 340 HIGUERA. non-mail
OCCUPANT 2351 Willow Road (for 341 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 344 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 34B HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 350 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 385 HIGUERA# A
OCCUPANT 385 HIGUERA# B
OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA# A
OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA# B non-mail
OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA# C non-mail
OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA# D
OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA# E
OCCUPANT 396 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 406 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 406 HIGUERA# 50 non-mail
OCCUPANT 406 HIGUERA#100
OCCUPANT 406 HIGUERA#120
OCCUPANT 406 HIGUERA#200 non-mail
OCCUPANT 406 HIGUERA#220 non-mail
OCCUPANT 408 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 408 HIGUERA#100
OCCUPANT 408 HIGUERA#120 non-mail
OCCUPANT 408 HIGUERA#200 non-mail
OCCUPANT 410 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 412 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 412 HIGUERA#100
OCCUPANT 416 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (for 412 HIGUERA)
OCCUPANT 416 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (for 412 HIGUERA) duplicate
OCCUPANT 416 Higuera Street(for 412 HIGUERA)
OCCUPANT 414 HIGUERA non-mail
OCCUPANT 414 HIGUERA#100
OCCUPANT 414 HIGUERA#200
OCCUPANT 416 HIGUERA
OCCUPANT 505 HIGUERA#110
OCCUPANT 299 MARSH
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 8592 (for 251 PACIFIC) duplicate
OCCUPANT 272 PACIFIC
OCCUPANT 2010 PARKER
OCCUPANT 4035 S. Higuera Street (for 2020 PARKER) duplicate
OCCUPANT 2030 PARKER
OCCUPANT 2040 PARKER
OCCUPANT 2050 PARKER
OCCUPANT 2060 PARKER
OCCUPANT 2074 PARKER non-mail
OCCUPANT 2074 PARKER#100
OCCUPANT 2074 PARKER#110 non-mail
OCCUPANT 2078 PARKER non-mail
OCCUPANT Teresa Dummit 2415 Cima Court(for 2078 PARKER)
OCCUPANT 2078 PARKER#110
OCCUPANT 2078 PARKER#200
OCCUPANT 2078 PARKER#210 non-mail
OCCUPANT 2103 PARKER
OCCUPANT 2104 PARKER non-mail
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER non-mail
03/08/01 14:34:58 Dstuart ^\' Label List. Page 5
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001`002-506-002'002506-005'002-506-004`002-506-003`002-505-0
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# B non-mail
OCCUPANT P.O.BOX 3233 (for 2146 PARKER) duplicate
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# E non-mail
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# F non-mail
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER.# Al
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# A2
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 12908 (for.2146.PARKER) duplicate
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# A5 non-mail
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# A6
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# A7
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# D1
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# D2
OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# D3
OCCUPANT 2149 PARKER
OCCUPANT 2191 PARKER non-mail
OCCUPANT 100 PISMO non-mail
OCCUPANT 150 PISMO non-mail
OCCUPANT 23 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT 27 SOUTH
OCCUPANT. POST OFFICE BOX 3609 (for 34 SOUTH) duplicate
OCCUPANT 34 SOUTH# B
OCCUPANT 67 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT 105 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT 109SOUTH
OCCUPANT 111 SOUTH
OCCUPANT 136 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT 138 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT 140 SOUTH
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 1
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 2 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 3 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 4
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 5 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 6 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 7 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 8 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 9 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 10 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 11
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 14
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 15 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 16 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 17 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 18 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 20 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 21 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 22
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 23 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 24
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 30 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 31 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 32 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 33 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 34 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 35 non-mail
03/08MI 14:34:58 Dstuart Label List Page 6
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001`002=506-002'002-506-005.002-506-004.002-506-003'002-505-0
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 36 non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 37. non-mail
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# Al
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A3
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# AS
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A7
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# AS
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A9
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# Bt
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# B3
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 85
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# B8
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C1
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C2
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C3
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C4
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C5
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C6
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# CB
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C9
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A10
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A11
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#Al2
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A15
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A17
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A19
OCCUPANT' 145 SOUTH#A21
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A24
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A25
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A26
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A27
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A28
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A29
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A33
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A35
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A37
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A38
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A39
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A40
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A41
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A42
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A43
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A44
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A45
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A46
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A47
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A48
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A49
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A50
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A51
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A52
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A53
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A54
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A55
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A56
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A57
03/08/01 14:34:58. Dstuart �I Label List 3 Page 7
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005'002-506-004"002-506-003'002505-0
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A58
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A59
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A60
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A61
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A62
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A63
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A65
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A66
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A67
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A69
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#B10
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#B12
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#B14
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#B15
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#'B16
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#B17
OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#B18
OCCUPANT 146 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT Tax Dept.-P.O.Box 660362 (for 150 SOUTH) duplicate .
OCCUPANT 193 SOUTH non-mail
OCCUPANT 1331 WALKER non-mail
OCCUPANT 1335 WALKER
OCCUPANT 1337 WALKER
Owners
252 HIGUERA LLC 252 HIGUERA ST
BARRETT SUSAN P TRE 330 ENCINA RD STE B3(for 385 HIGUERA)
BECKWITH THOMAS J&DEBORAH A 252 HIGUERA ST(for 105 SOUTH) duplicate
BECKWITH THOMAS J&DEBORAH A 252 HIGUERA ST(for 109 SOUTH) duplicate
BEEM DAVID C&SHERYL A 313 HIGUERA ST
BEEM DAVID C&SHERYL A 313 HIGUERA ST duplicate
BETTENCOURT FAMILY LLC Diane Wettlaufer 1942 FIXLINI ST(for 6 HIGUERA)
BETTENCOURT FAMILY LLC 1942 FIXLINI ST(for 10 HIGUERA) duplicate
CHEDA RUTH G TRE ETL 2451 AUGUSTA(for 1331 WALKER)
CROTSER EDWARD F TRE ETAL 266 CRAIG WAY(for 176 BROOK)
City of San Luis Obispo Administration 990 Palm Street(for 310 HIGUERA) non-mail
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department(Corp.Yard) 25 Prado Road(for 284 HIGUERA) non-mail
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department(Corp.Yard) 25 Prado Road(for 0'OPEN SPACE) non-mail
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department(Corp.Yard) 25 Pradc Road(for 170 BROOK) non-mail
DANA DOROTHY M 895 PATTY KAY CT(for 130 HIGH)
DILL INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 13755(for 2146 PARKER)
DUMMIT JAMES B&THERESA 3100 JOHNSON AVE(for 2074 PARKER)
ERWIN WINEFRED L TRE 171 BROOK ST
EVON JOHN&JEANINE 309 HIGUERA ST
EVON JOHN&JEANINE 309 HIGUERA ST duplicate
FERRINI JEAN E TRE %JEAN E TERKILDSEN 5177 FRESHWATER RD(for 239 HIGUERA)
FINCH GARY &CHRISTINE E 5405 SAN BENITO RD(for 177 BROOK)
GILLIGAN MICHAEL 1023 MILL ST APT B(for 178 BROOK)
GLEN-DEL POSADAS CORP 3825 VALLEY BLVD(for 264 HIGUERA)
GOLDENSON MARK L 1255 CALLENS RD SUITE D(for 146 SOUTH) -
HOUGH JOHN C 962.MILL ST(for 145 SOUTH)
JOHNSON PATRICIA D TRE ETAL %SMART&FINAL#377 PO BOX 512377(for 277 HIGUERA)
JONES JAMES P JR ETAL %JAMES P JONES 3820 SEQUOIA DR(for 286 HIGUERA)
JR JOHANSON INC A CA CORP 1237 ARCHER ST
KARIMAGHAYI JAHANSHAH 157 HIGUERA ST
KREW 2 PARTNERSHIP 3160 JOHNSON(for 2104 PARKER) duplicate
03/08/01 14:34:58 Dstuart Label List _� Page 8
Occupants 100 meter
File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: i HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meter
Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005.002-506-004.002-506-003'002-505-0
KUPPER KURT P 8888 TORO CREEK RD(for 180 BROOK)
LAUGHLIN LAURIE PO 80X'1089(for 195 BROOK)
LAUGHLIN LAURIE PO BOX 1089(for 67 SOUTH) duplicate
LAWCO FOODS INC PO BOX 5759(for 2010 PARKER)
LAWCO FOODS INC PO BOX 5759(for 2050 PARKER) duplicate
MACHADO T 172 HIGH ST(for 280 HIGUERA)
MADONNA A PO BOX 3910(for 284 HIGUERA)
MATHEWS LLOYD&BJ TRES 1885 ALRITA ST(for 195 HIGUERA)
MODEL LANDS INC PO BOX 3609(for 34 SOUTH)
MONGE EILEEN M ETAL %F E MCNAMARA PO BOX 636(for 390 HIGUERA)
MORABITO ANGELO P&JOAN E ETAL 600 WOODLAND DR(for 251 HIGUERA)
MORABITO ANGELO P TRE ETAL 214 Higuera Street
MURPHY CHARLES J 6727 AVILA VALLEY DR(for 23 SOUTH)
OCONNER BJ PO BOX 1288(for 292 HIGUERA)
OCONNOR B DVM 300 HIGUERA
PACIFIC GAS&ELECTRIC CO LINK(for 251 PACIFIC) non-mail
PIERRO RALPH&MICHELLE D 25098 AVE 212(fort 83 BROOK)
PRATHER PAUL&JACQUELINE 4379 FOXBURROW CT(for 110 HIGUERA) duplicate
PRATHER PAUL J&JACQUELINE 1 4379 FOXBURROW CT(for 158 HIGUERA)
PRATHER PAUL J&JACQUELINE 4379 FOXBURROW CT(for 110 HIGUERA) duplicate
PROMONTORY A CA GEN PTP 750 PISMO ST(for 406 HIGUERA) duplicate
RATLIFF'FRED P JR-ETAL %RATLIFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 1269 DRAKE'CIR(for 245 HIGUERA)
ROBERT E JOHNSON FAMILY LTD PTP 1301 PANORAMA DR(for 307 HIGUERA)
ROBERTS ESTHER D HIERS OF ETAL %JAMES L ROBERTS PO BOX 658(for 0'REMNANT) duplicate
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP PO BOX 2048(for9 HIGUERA)
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP PO BOX 2048(for 101 BRIDGE) duplicate
ROSS-BROWN SABRINA 858 LEFF ST(for 175 BROOK)
SAN LUIS M&L CO A CA CORP PO BOX 13909(for 236 HIGUERA)
SAN LUIS M&L CO A CA CORP PO BOX 13909(for 236 HIGUERA) duplicate
SLOPCC LP A CA LTD PTP %ROSS]ENT - 750 PISMO ST
SNYDER CHARLES C %SAN LUIS FLORAL&GIFTS 299 MARSH ST
SPANGLER KATHERINE L ETAL 664 MARSH ST(for 1 HIGUERA)
SPANGLER KATHERINE L ETAL 664 MARSH ST(for 15 HIGUERA) duplicate
SPENCER ROBERT&GAY-YVETTE 140 SOUTH ST(for 2191 PARKER)
ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH OF SLO 160 BROOK ST
ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH SLO 160 BROOKS ST
ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH SLO %ST LUKE MISSIONARY BAPTIST 160 BROOKS ST duplicate
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (935) Department of General Services and Residential Real Estate Planning&Mgmt.(for 50
HIGUERA)
SUB CORPORATION.LTD A CA CORP PO BOX 1002(for 303 HIGUERA)
SUB CORPORATION LTD A CA CORP PO BOX 1002(for 283 HIGUERA) duplicate
TAYLOR MICHAEL 207 HIGUERA ST
THOMPSON SANFORD J PO BOX 284(for 304 HIGUERA)
TODD RONALD D TRE ETAL P.O.Box 2567(for 306 HIGUERA)
VILLAGE PROPERTIES LLC A LLC 962 MILL ST(for 145 SOUTH) duplicate
WATERS SYLVIA HEIRS OF ETAL %ANDREA BOWERS 381 HIGHLAND DR(for 186 BROOK)
WESTERMAN JACK&SYBIL TRES PO BOX 1467(for 237 HIGUERA)
WESTSIDE AUTO PARTS INC 56 PRADO RD(for 208 HIGUERA)
WESTSIDE AUTO PARTS INC 56 PRADO RD(for 200 HIGUERA) duplicate
WILSON FAMILY PROPERTIES A CA LTD 444 HIGUERA ST#200
WINKAL HOLDINGS LLC 66 FIELD POINT RD(for 219 HIGUERA)
288 labels printed on 03/08/01 at 14:34:58 by Dstuart
+1111 II111 JfJNJ 111111 ��'_
� -- lam -- �
S � •11111:�1� 111 ..�_f
g��J� ■_ �!11! 11111 11JI= � +_rll�
Z��,�
�11 Irk Ifl
F� �r{flllrll.lr�lf �r +11`
�rr
c1 F} Ifs a.► 111...
..:.:._.:....._.....;
r flit f111:��,•�.+.SC
1►� fi`r.��ai►w`:11111
♦'� ' z _�jt� +I�NIJ
,! � ��IIRIIINII
MEETING AGENDA )
ATE 3-20-D/ ITEM #�
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT
WARREN A.SINSHEIMER II
ROBERT K SHUT
K.ROBIN BAGGETT BAGGETT & TANGEMAN PASO ROBLES OFFICE:
GGETT
MARTIN J.TANGEMAN 1200 VIM Street
MARTIN P.MOROSKI Paso Robles,Califomia 93446
DAVID A.JUHNKE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (805)238-2300
STEVEN J.ADAMSKI
THOMAS D.GREEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax(805)238-2322
M.SUZANNE FRYER 1010 Peach Street
THOMAS J.MADDEN II DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:
STEVEN M.CHANLEY SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 P.O.Box 31
THOMAS F.LEBENS• 805)541-2800
JOHN E.D.NICHOLSON ( San Luis Obispo,California 93406
ADAM M.DANER" Fax(805)541-2802
JOSEPH B.ADAMS
THOMAS D.WAYLEIT'••
KELLEY p BANNON CLIENT: 0201063
•Regirtend m Practice Before the March 20, 2001
U.S.Patent and Trademark Ofte.
**Admixed in California and Nevada.
"'Admixcd in Oregon Only.
Mayor Allen SettleC�NCIL CDD DIR HAND-DELIVERED
Councilmember John Ewan E'CAs- ❑ FIN DIR
Councilmember Jan Howell Marx R- O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Councilmember Dave RomeroT�OANEY 1:1 PW
DIR
Councilmember Ken Schwartz C1 D HEAD ❑ REC DI CHF
❑ D T HEADS ❑ REC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ LJTIL DIR
990 Palm Street ❑ HR DIR RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
MAR 2 0 2001
Re: Alex Madonna/Mid Higuera St. Enhancement Plan
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers:
This law firm represents Alex Madonna. Mr.Madonna is the owner of real property located
within the proposed area of the Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan (the "Plan"). His property
is located at the terminus of Bianchi Lane,between San Luis Creek and Highway 101..
We understand that the Plan is on your agenda tonight. The Plan purports to call for an
amendment of the San Luis Obispo General Plan and rezoning of the Mid Higuera District. Mr.
- Madonna's property is-slated for downzoning from Service Commercial to Conservation/Open
Space. If this downzoning is accomplished, the market value of Mr. Madonna's property will be
substantially diminished. We believe that such action would amount to an unconstitutional taking
of his property without due compensation. In particular,we believe that such action would convert
his property to a nonconforming use,which would substantially restrict the uses of that property and
greatly inhibit its market value.
Accordingly, we request that you refrain from taking this action with respect to Mr.
Madonna's property. We see no need or reason for downzoning this property, or modifying the
General Plan with respect to this property, prior to the time that the City actually acquires the
property. The proposed action would, if taken prior to acquisition, have the inevitable effect of
reducing the market value of that property before it is later condemned or otherwise acquired. We
do not believe that this proposed action is consistent with the legal exercise of your zoning powers.
Mayor Settle and Councilmembers
March 20, 2001
Page 2
Please be advised that if Mr.Madonna's property is downzoned by the City Council,we will
review all available legal remedies with our client. We would prefer to avoid the need for that
action,however, and suggest that the deferral of action to modify the General Plan until such time
as the City actually acquires the property would be an acceptable alternative.
Very truly yours,
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT,
BAGGETT & TANGEMPN
MARTIN J. TANvGEMAN 4
MJT:tlg
F:\GENERAL\L7R\MADONNA\Fagle\24CityCo=cil-0320.wpd
cc: Jeff Jorgensen
_ I
ITEM AGM
#®
JOHN DUNN
1036 Trevor Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Telephone: (805)541-3641 email: iohnodunnaol-com
C UNCIL DD DIR
0 FIN DIR
A 0 i] FIRE CHIEF
March 16, 2001 TRIRNE' ❑ PW DIR
LERK/ORIG p POLICE CHF
F . PTH S 0 REC DIR
I] UTIL DIR
RE: Mid-Higuera Enlargement Plan 0 HR DIR
City Council Members
City Hall
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear City Council Members,
First, I'd like to commend you for your foresight over four years
ago in creating the council goal to develop a plan for the mid-Higuera
area.
Secondly, I'd like to commend you for your action of February
26, conceptually approving the Plan that has been developed.
I'd also like to commend the hard work of Jeff Hook, John
Mandeville, Mike Multari and the others who worked with the property
owners, merchants and residents of the area to identify the issues and
to develop solutions to the many planning dilemmas of the area.
In the late 1940's my Father owned and operated a service
station in this area. At that time Higuera Street was Highway 10 1 and
the area was largely industrial development. Today it serves as one
of two major southern passageways into downtown San Luis Obispo
and as the major interconnect between the downtown and the
Madonna Shopping Area.
The area, though possessing a certain funkiness, is a traffic
bottleneck, and is not attractive. It is a relic of old San Luis Obispo,
while the areas on both ends have changed dramatically over the
years.
The initiative for the City is to realistically address the problems
of this area, and to convert it, over a period of time, to a more vital
attractive and functional part of the community.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
I could speak at length on the many details of the Plan but,
mercifully, I'll limit my comments to three.
The first is that history has made an orphan out of San Luis
Obispo Creek in this area. The creek needs to be brought out of
neglect and obscurity, and enhanced as the great amenity it is for this
area of the community.
Secondly, as a subpart of the above, the pedestrian/bicycle trail
should be put on the east side of the creek and the west side should
be preserved/enhanced as a habitat area, as Neil Havlik has long
argued. New development in this area can creatively orient itself to
the Creek environment, similar to Mission Plaza.
Thirdly, Higuera Street itself should be widened for both
functional and safety reasons for both our motorists and our bicyclists.
However, (and here's the crucial point), a landscaped median must be
installed in order to make this an. attractive thoroughfare and to
beautify this most important entrance to our downtown.
If I were a business person in this area. I might have valid
reason to hang onto the status quo and to fight change. However, the
job of the City Council is to be the City's ultimate planners, to think
about what is best for this area and for the community as a whole
over the long term.
Thank you for listening to an old warrior and for doing your best
to protect/enhance this special area of the community for the future.
Sincere
John unn
Cc: Ken Hampian
John Mandeville
ITIr16yelvW n101�13w"
1ATE N300- -01 Il'EM!_...,..,.,
council in nN
_C�t NGL- JJ DfR
City O� Sall LUIS OBISPO_a6minlstl2_A IOfl S C [ =rN DfR
a C FIRE CHIEF
DATE: March 19, 2001 SLO CSN COUNCIL LERwoRIG !� POLICE CHF
TO: City Council D DEPTT HEA01CDS ❑ RcC DIA
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer�� r Hman G UTIL DIR
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck,Economic Development Manager ❑ HR DIR
X �'► ane
SUBJECT: Comparison of the Economic Benefits of Two Different Uses for the
Caltrans Property Located at 50 Higuera Street
Background
According to the City's GIS program, the Caltrans site, 50 Higuera Street, is 10.08 acres. Due to its
size, which is "large" for any infill project in the City, the site has the potential for various uses. As
proposed in the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, Tourist-Commercial (C-T) was envisioned for
its future use. During Council's initial study of the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, a question
arose as to the appropriateness of this use designation as compared to Commercial-Retail (C-R). Both
C-T and C-R uses on the site represent potential revenue enhancements to the City with the C-T
designation potentially representing greater revenue enhancements as well as serving an immediate
need for the community and visitors.
An analysis of each use and a determination by Council of the appropriateness of one over the other
involves careful consideration of the "true uses" under each land-use designation. Some concepts
envisioned for the site may be unrealistic due to its size and location, and because of community
demographics, community interests, and feasibility in the market.
Tourist-Commercial (C-T)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is the City's third largest revenue source. Our projected TOT for
2000-01 is $3.9 million and for 2001-02 $4.2 million. We collect the entire TOT generated by local
businesses, as opposed to only a portion of the sales tax generated by our local businesses. In order to
enhance our TOT we have developed various marketing strategies to increase the number of visitors to
our community. Unfortunately, we are reaching the point where our local hotels/motels have
incredibly low vacancy rates, and more rooms are needed if we are to continue to increase this revenue
sector. The Economic Development Program has received requests from four major hotel developers
(well funded ventures with brand name affiliations) for properties in the City in the past year.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to identify developable sites for these businesses, because none
are available.
How we accomplish developing additional lodging facilities in the community is difficult because of a
lack of appropriately zoned developable sites. Presently there is a lack of large sized properties zoned
C-T in the City. Furthermore, in June 2001,we will lose the Forum, a Downtown facility that has been
used for small conferences and events as a"small convention center."
With the upcoming loss of the Forum, and the Council's 2001-03 objective of developing a
Convention Center Strategy, much as been discussed about convention centers. It must be clearly
understood that for a convention center to be financially viable, it requires attached hotel rooms. Only
in major metropolitan areas, where local hoteliers partner together, the local municipality provides
assistance, and practically thousands of individuals can meet, can stand-alone convention centers be
I - GA5ianwyekVJ=wlCo c!1 Mid Hig.dx
financially viable. The Forum served as a small stand-alone pseudo convention center; unfortunately,
the costs of running the Forum without hotel rooms to help subsidize its operations far outpaced the
returns (our community was fortunate to have an owner willing to underwrite this important venue for
so long). A hotel with conference facilities can "subsidize" conference center uses, hence the
tremendous success of the Embassy Suites Hotel.
A survey of three properties (maps of each are attached) shows how the Caltrans site, due to its size,
location, and potential land-use designation of C-T, could provide both new hotel rooms and new
conference center facilities.
Site Caltrans Embassy ites Hotel Cuesta Cadillac
iSouth Higuera 333 Madonna
Acreage 10.08 5.51 3.63 1701 Monterey
Land-Use C-T(per Mid Higuera Street C-T C-T
Enhancement Plan
The Caltrans site is.almost double the Embassy Suites site and by implication, the site could provide
twice as many rooms, and conference facilities twice as large. Embassy Suites has 196 rooms, 12,000
square feet of conference facilities that can be configured to serve 600 for a reception, 420 for a
banquet, 350 theatre style, and 275 classroom style. The Cuesta-Cadillac site represents a potential
infill C-T project as well. However, there are presently no locations for the existing auto dealership to
relocate to in the City. If the existing auto dealership were to relocate, a modest hotel/conference
center facility would be possible. However, there are creek setback issues to consider as well as height
and scale issues because the property abuts an existing neighborhood. To be economically viable, a
private hotel development on the Cuesta-Cadillac site would likely have only modest conference
facilities. Its use as a "convention center" alone will be explored in 2001-03, but it is highly unlikely
to be economically viable without the subsidy of either hotel rooms or that from the City or other
government agency.
Commercial-Retail(C-R)
According to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) a 10 acre site such as the Caltrans
property could be used for the following retailing activities: neighborhood center, community center,
fashion/specialty center, theme/festival center or an outlet center. A Regional Center, one with
department stores (e.g. Nordstrom and Macy's) requires 40 to 100 acres and income levels, population,
and various other statistical requirements that our entire County cannot even come close to satisfying.
A comparison of potential retail uses for the site, using ICSC's basic "shopping center definitions" (a
copy of which is attached) illustrates the distinction between each use, the size requirements, and the
issues that could be raised in our community.
Retail Use Use b. , . Ntentiai issues
FootageSquare
Neighborhood Convenient day to day shopping to 3-15 30,000- This might not be the best location for a
Center consumers in the immediate 150,000 neighborhood center;the trade area for
neighborhood,trade area of 3 residents is smaller than would typically support
miles such a use.
Community Wide range of goods,common 10.40 100,000- The types of anchor tenants who would locate in
Center anchors are super markets,super 350,000 such a center are big box retailers,e.g.Wal-
drug stores,discount department I I I Mart,Marshals,and Kmart. Council and the
-2- G-UwnwyrALW ICo ,/Mid Nig.doc
C
Retail Use Use Definition Acres Building Potential Issues
Square
Footage
Community
. -
.. ..-
Community stores and other off-price stores-. community have expressed concern with the
Center(cont.) compatibility of these types of retailers in the
Community. Visibility from the freeway could be
an issue. Additionally,the traffic impacts of
such a use could be severe.
Fashion/Specialty Upscale apparel,high quality 5-25 80,000- This type of center would compete directly with
Center merchandise,require trade are 250,000 Downtown. Retailers of this nature would be
with high income level unlikely to locate here because Downtown
represents a much better return on investment
Our demographics,for the entire County,fall
short of the wealth and population standards set
by many specialty retailers.
Theme Design or merchandise has a 5-20 80,000- This type of center would compete directly with
Festival Center unifying theme. Appeal often to 250,000 Downtown. It would be difficult to accomplish
tourists,anchored by restaurants this type of use in an un-urbanized location.
and entertainment facilities—
generally mixed use projects in
urban areas
Outlet Center Manufacturer's outlet stores selling 10-50 50,000• There afe two outlet centers already in the
brands at a discount 400,000 County. It is highly unlikely that our City could
sustain a third such use. These types of centers
are on the decline.
The Caltrans site if zoned C-R would likely be most attractive to Community Center retailers,
otherwise referred to as big box stores. Our community has expressed hesitation when it comes to
these types of retail centers. We have one such center, although with only one approved store,
presently under construction. The financial ability of the community to support another such center
might not be feasible. Furthermore, the "theme" oriented centers described above would directly
compete with Downtown; Council and the community have expressed constant support of the
Downtown as our entertainment center. Lastly, it would be highly unlikely that a major Department
store type of development would occur on the site. Not just because it is smaller than they typically
require but also, because our community has neither the financial nor population demographics to
support such a use. With retail trends very much in flux right now, a developer would not take the
kind of risk on return on his or her investment to pursue such a development.
Conclusion
Strictly from a revenue enhancement perspective, C-T is a better use for the site. Conservatively, a
250 to 300-room hotel, with conference facilities, would generate on average $550,000 to $600,000 in
TOT. This is just the TOT; it does not include payroll, use tax, sales tax from onsite facilities (e.g. a
restaurant), or sales tax generated from visitors (according to our recent Conversion Study by
Campbell Research 25% of visitors to San Luis Obispo list shopping as their primary activity). Were
the site to be used for C-R, and if it had a small box store and some other tenants, we would see
revenue generation starting at a low of $200,000 per year and probably increasing up to about
$350,000, depending upon the tenant mix.
From the perspective of the Economic Development Manager, C-T'is a superior use for the site. Not
only will it generate increased revenues for the City, in excess of the C-R revenue potential, but it also
provides the opportunity for the development of needed lodging and conference center facilities.
-3- G.L-.=wyrk1M=w1C=cll Mid Higdn
„�
�n
L
10.08 acres
111
11 1 11 � 11
Embassy Suites Hotel
333 Madonna
N
O
r
O
r
Scale 1:5000
200 0 200 400 Meters
0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Miles
�■ Iillri� �IrTT
�lio` f� -'
���!���� �► ♦�� it
♦ �� � ice, �� �� ��,�, ,��
`' `• ' ,N. 3.63 acres ` ,,, ,
pry, Ow,
off
C
ICSC SHOPPING CENTER DEFINITIONS
Basic Configurations and Types
The term "shopping center" has been evolving since the early 1950s. Given the
maturity of the industry, numerous types of centers currently exist that go beyond
the standard definitions. Industry nomenclature originally offered four basic
terms: neighborhood, community, regional, and superregional centers.
However, as the industry has grown and changed, more types of centers have
evolved and these four classifications are no longer adequate. The International
Council of Shopping Centers has defined eight principal shopping center types,
shown in the accompanying table.
The definitions, and in particular the table that accompanies the text, are meant
to be guidelines for understanding major differences between the basic types of
shopping centers. Several of the categories shown in the table, such as size,
number of anchors, and trade area, should be interpreted as "typical" for each
center type. They are not meant to encompass the operating characteristics of
every center. As a general rule, the main determinants in classifying a center
are its merchandise orientation (types of goods/services sold) and its size.
It is not always possible to precisely classify every center. A hybrid center may
combine elements from two or more basic classifications, or a center's concept.
may be sufficiently unusual as to preclude it from fitting into one of the eight
generalized definitions presented here.
There are other types of centers that are not separately defined here but
nonetheless are a part of the industry. Some can be considered subsegments of
one of the larger, defined groups, perhaps created to satisfy a particular niche
market. One example would be the convenience center, among the smallest of
centers, whose tenants provide a narrow mix of goods and personal services to
a very limited trade area. A typical anchor would be a convenience store like 7-
Eleven or other mini-mart. At the other end of the size spectrum are super off-
price malls that consist of a large variety of value-oriented retailers, including
factory outlet stores, department store close-out outlets, and category killers in
an enclosed megamall (up to 2 million square feet) complex. Other smaller
subsegments of the industry include vertical, downtown, off-price, home
improvement, and car care centers. The trend toward differentiation and
segmentation will continue to add new terminology as the industry matures.
SHOPPING CENTER: A group of retail and other commercial establishments
that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a single property. On-site
parking is provided. The center's size and orientation are generally determined
by the market characteristics of the trade area served by the center. The two
main configurations of shopping centers are malls and open-air strip centers.
Copright 01999 Intematinal Council of Shopping Centers.All Rights reserved.Protected under Universal Copyright Convention and International copyright
conventions.This publication may not be reproduced In whole or In pan In any fon without written permission from the International Council of Shopping Centers.
Primed in the U.SA
BASIC CONFIGURATIONS
Mall: Malls typically are enclosed, with a climate-controlled walkway between
two facing strips of stores. The term represents the most common design mode
for regional and superregional centers and has become an informal term for
these types of centers.
Strip center: A strip center is an attached row of stores or service outlets
managed as a coherent retail entity, with on-site parking usually located in front
of the stores. Open canopies may connect the storefronts, but a strip center
does not have enclosed walkways linking the stores. A strip center may be
configured in a straight line, or have an "L" or"U" shape.
SHOPPING CENTER TYPES
Neighborhood Center This center is designed to provide convenience
shopping for the day-to-day needs of consumers in the immediate neighborhood.
According to ICSC's SCORE publication, roughly half of these centers are
anchored by a supermarket, while about a third have a drugstore anchor. These
anchors are supported by stores offering pharmaceuticals and health-related
products, sundries, snacks and personal services. A neighborhood center is
usually configured as a straight-line strip with no enclosed walkway or mall area,
although a canopy may connect the storefronts.
Community Center. A community center typically offers a wider range of
apparel and other soft goods than the neighborhood center does. Among the
more common anchors are supermarkets, super drugstores, and discount
department stores. Community center tenants sometimes contain off-price
retailers selling such items as apparel, home improvement/fumishings, toys,
electronics or sporting goods. The center is usually configured as a strip, in a
straight line, or "L" or "U" shape. Of the eight center types, community centers
encompass the widest range of formats. For example, certain centers that are
anchored by a large discount department store refer to themselves as discount
centers. Others with a high percentage of square footage allocated to off-price
retailers can be termed off-price centers.
Regional Center. This center type provides general merchandise (a large
percentage of which is apparel) and services in full depth and variety. Its main
attractions are its anchors: traditional, mass merchant, or discount department
stores or fashion specialty stores. A typical regional center is usually enclosed
with an inward orientation of the stores connected by a common walkway and
parking surrounds the outside perimeter.
Copnght 01999 Intematlnal Council of Shopping Centers.All Rights reserved.Protected under Universal Copyright Convention and international copyright
conventions.This publication may not be reproduced in whole or In part in any forth without written permission from the International Council of Shopping Centers.
Printed in the U.SA
Superregional Center Similar to a regional center, but because of its larger
size, a superregional center has more anchors; a deeper selection of
merchandise, and draws from a larger population base. As with regional
centers, the. typical configuration is as an enclosed mall, frequently with
multilevels.
Fashion/Specialty Center. A center composed mainly of upscale apparel
shops, boutiques and craft shops carrying selected fashion or unique
merchandise of high quality and price. These centers need not be anchored,
although sometimes restaurants or entertainment can provide the draw of
anchors. The physical design of the center is very sophisticated, emphasizing a
rich decor and high quality landscaping. These centers usually are found in
trade areas having high income levels.
Power Center A center dominated by several large anchors, including discount
department stores, off-price stores, warehouse clubs, or "category killers," i.e.,
stores that offer tremendous selection in a particular merchandise category at
low prices. The center typically consists of several freestanding (unconnected)
anchors and only a minimum amount of small specialty tenants. .
Theme/Festival Center: These centers typically employ a unifying theme that is
carried out by the individual shops in their architectural design and, to an extent,
in their merchandise. The biggest appeal of these centers is to tourists, they can
be anchored by restaurants and entertainment facilities. These centers,
generally located in urban areas, tend to be adapted from older, sometimes
historic, buildings, and can be part of mixed use projects.
Outlet Center: Usually located in rural or occasionally in tourist locations, outlet
centers consist mostly of manufacturers' outlet stores selling their own brands at
a discount. These centers are typically not anchored. A strip configuration is
most common, although some are enclosed malls, and others can be arranged
in a "village" cluster.
Copright aJ1999 Intematlnal Council of Shopping Centers.All Rights reserved.Protected under Universal Copyright Convention and international copyright
conventions.This publication may not be reproduced In whole or In part in any form without written permission from the International Council of Shopping Centers.
Printed In the U.S.A
W m m m m m m
Q Q m E E E E < LO
W Ul) E co N o Z
a � V) LO Ln Ln Ln N m
N
- a
° Lo
CLm
O O eo o O o N C
O f' O CO O O Z O U
Z Z O
Q
Z C LO LLOLOO r C a O
Q nCo
pf �
QL ` N
�N mO
01
fOVQQVo m€ o O1 . m _
d. UGm aw— Er
O4OO C QCL ( d p°
CO OO
..7r`NUrm
CL
CL CL 0Co
} O p
ma a Em °U9 o
rn.C O N cU r
yU) 0 m m n W MQ O ° Zd N m U m mL J m 06 cc O
Y CNENEm a) Z0 Lp
O w CO m mc r
° r c
E� QN
.
mm m
Em3 ° c o m
c 2 U E , c Om Imm3 ) mO L t C O o tm
U • ` L ZaLLn m
° CL mm opm mo
U 5ui � LE wnmgvmamS
n =;
a €°
m m
m E E E E a E a Q
_ m,
`O C `° G Z C Z Z m
Z r N N M M >c
0 m
6
wE
O O N
Q OO O S�
Lf) vCD N N O N O U N
W i i i i L mE
V M O: OO N LO C o
V O m =cm
>;
m p O O O O O O O m=
O
O O O i C O C7 LD t! m o fE
H L Lp O O O OO O O m
C7 co O O m
LL C O N N C $
C7Q O O O O O O O O i= •O] m e
CO) Ct O O CD 0
co O C O O m 0 »n
C M O O co O a°D LOO y N
r V N Co
_ - r w as
ai ai T m e c _ m m i
Mo N m m m LT m m a
o v0 c ° E ° mf0 m � L0 c og
c � cn oEc co y cy c o O m m$
W m rLj m CL,7 d m m V) m O 3 to O y E N O m S m
C C �- m Vl L m C. .V w N C `1 m m m
Z > m- > �c°i °� m m Z c o c ' ° m � oa
C C C C o C •C O Ln y O m V n 7 0 °c
V U m U `m $ �`
C C L E C m O m C 7 mm O U
m mN ym 'c = Um y CO c�
C7 C7,ca
LL U > 0) 8
a
LCO end
« L
m L S
G ~' W ®ca
O W ZZ U W Q W OO ��
W O. U W O W F H Z a) w Ua
} S U d 2 m
C J U' M W W U L m
Oz 2 a az wz 3 MO.- F �
W W O W � W Q W O ='.W 7 . t
2U U � rnU LL.0 a hU 0
'"E1130 '=a AGENDA MX 0 29\ now
. .
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
1
From: Dave Romero 1 C :::Y ❑
0 RE:DI3
0 UTIL DIR
Subject: Mid-Higuera Plan ❑misDIR_�4
The Mid-Higuera Plan could represent a wonderful opportunity for
the City to prepare a planning document which will provide visionary
guidance for the future, AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. The current document so poorly addresses
neighborhood concerns that they are considering legal action to
block its implementation.
I concur with the neighborhood and strongly recommend that this
flawed document not be adopted in its current form.
The first phase MUST resolve the two fundamental problems in the
area, flooding and traffic congestion. Both of these problems have
been extensively studied in past years and are within the City's
ability to resolve, if there is the political will.
Flooding:
Past studies have shown that 'flood problems in this area could be
greatly improved by a series of flood protection projects conducted
from the Elks Lane Bridge to upstream of the Marsh Street Bridge.
These were outlined as projects A-H on the attached previous
submittal. All of the projects could be designed to accommodate the
same size storm (perhaps 25 yr ), thus eliminating the current
frequent flood caused by tight spots and a Tyr channel capacity. The
Mid-Higuera Plan shows .only one flood protection project (I.-Marsh
Street) for Short Term- Capital Improvement (3-5 yrs), a completely
inadequate approach which will do little to reduce flooding for this
area.
Traffic Congestion
The Higuera Street widening is shown as' a high priority item,
however the plan envisions median islandson that portion between
High and Marsh. Median islands can add much to appearance and
traffic control when they are properly used.. They are most effective
on Arterial Streets which handle large volumes of through traffic,
with little or no service to abutting property.. When service to
abutting property is important, median islands . may do more harm RECEIVED
than good, as will be the case here.
MAR 16 2001
SL0 CITY COUNCIL
Median Islands at this location will increase the cost of the
widening (and subsequent maintenance), will add to traffic
congestion, will act as obstructions to flood flows coming down
Higuera and Marsh. Most importantly, they are opposed by an
overwhelming majority of businesses and owners along the street.
There are simply better places in the community to spend City
money and effort in beautifying our streets.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Mid-Higuera Plan, instead of meeting the needs. and being
embraced by the neighborhood, is strongly opposed by almost
everyone affected. Rather than adopt a plan that has little chance of
succeeding, I recommend that the Council delay adoption of a plan
until staff can incorporate substantial flood protection 'measures as
a first phase and can modify the street widening plan to eliminate
the median islands and better accommodate the wishes of the
neighborhood.
Flood Protection Program - Mid -Higuera Area
A. Complete Negotiations with the Elks Club to acquire needed creek
right-of -way, stabilize eroding creek banks and widen creek to Elks
Lane.
B. Negotiate with Lady-Sutcliff Mortuary for R/W to widen and
stabilize creek along Mausoleum.
C. Negotiate with Caltrans for R/W and widen creek past their
parcels on each side of Madonna Rd.
D. Widen creek or construct shallow flood flow bypass channel on
City owned property between Caltrans property and Bianchi Lane..
E. Raise Bianchi Lane bridge so structure does not encroach into
creek floodway.
F. Conduct minor widening and improvements to increase creek
capacity between Bianchi Lane and Marsh St.. bridge. Construct flood
water diversion capability between Higuera Street and the creek.
G. Raise Marsh Street bridge so structure does not encroach into
creek floodway.
H. Improve approaches and alignment leading to and under Marsh St.
Bridge to increase capacity and reduce deposit of sediment.
All projects should be designed to accommodate the same size storm
so as to eliminate the current situation where. flooding is caused by
"tight spots".
MEETING AGENDA Q� AGENDA
March 5 2001 ❑ce'z C'� D. ---ITEM #
�%.. ❑RN e:,�
❑FIRE ::;CF
Mayor Allen Settle // -Y ❑M 0.9
City of San Luis Obispo T!_ ;'IQRIG ❑FOLW=CHF
990 Palm St. G' ...IT TE' 0 REC DIR
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 0 UTIL DIA
0 PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle,
I write this letter to thank you for your efforts last Monday night on behalf of all the propert n the
Mid-Higuera Enhancement District. I
When certain of our council members seemed to be on a different planet as far as being willbr.V-wno are
actually in Mid-Higuera,your concern for us and noticing how serious a matter this is for us i1', , -.predatedi.
As I was listening on the radio to everyone's comments at the end of the meeting(I feared if I stayed I wouldn't be able to keep my
mouth shut),I thought you attempted a masterful job of trying to direct the rest of the council towards a reasonable solution that would
not cause us such irreparable harm
In fact things seemed to be going so well when Ken Schwartz joined you,I thought you had the 3 to 2 necessary to kill the median.
But then it seemed like the conversations on Council got lost,the memo passed and all of a sudden the median was there with you as
the lone dissenter.
I am hoping indeed that what I thought I heard was true—that Ken Schwartz and Christine Mulholland will resist the median and with
a little encouragement from you it perhaps can still be stopped.
Thank you again for being willing to actually listen to our comments. I hope that you noticed the part about a lack of actual traffic
studies and reports on the impacts that planning staff is planning to do for our area. If indeed all is said and done and the median is
put in,I've heard talk among some property owners that a group will be formed to sue the city and treat this as a taking. The reality
on all our properties is their value and worth is significantly less than it would be otherwise due to the unique nature of our
neighborhood. The unique street layout that the staff simplistically wishes to further distort creates unique problems. Unless these
unique problems are looked at,reasonably analyzed,traffic counts methodically taken and rational decisions made,then that result
will not only be harmful—from a standpoint of honesty,they will be fraudulent..
I am sorry to use such strong words about this,but to those of us out here the thought of being isolated from potential customers and
the main body of our town is chilling.
Throughout staff's EIR and balance of the report,they speak of traffic studies and reports that they base their findings on. In talking
to the public works department,I cannot find the studies they are speaking of. I am again writing to public works to further research
this,but I will be surprised that there exists studies that would have allowed planners to make the kind of findings they have made.
You cannot make an EIR.finding of no impact on a situation as complicated as eliminating left turns into our businesses,closing
Walker Street and putting in a restrictive median without actual studies.
If you would please drive your car on Mid-Higuera some day and think about turning into John's Carpet. Imagine Walker Street is
closed and that there is a median. Please note what you will have to do to get there. Try the same again for the 295 property on
Higuera. Our block is unique,our problems are unique,and the solutions staff is providing aren't solutions,but severe economic
hardships imposed upon us without reasonable balance,methodology,or willingness to listen to the public.
Your comments regarding convention centers and hotels and the worthwhile-ness of the Caltrans property was 100 percent accurate.
If only your associates could understand the reality of convention centers and hotels,the lack of applicability of Caltrans for that
purpose would become apparent.
Good luck and again thank you for your efforts no matter how this turns out.
Sincerely,
Rich d W.F ' ,property owner RECEIVED
Mid-Hi nhancement District
303 Higuera Street MAR j 7 2001
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 .
SLO CITY CLERK
March 5,2001
Councilmember Ken Schwartz
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Dear Councilmember Schwartz,
The Mid-Higuera Enhancement District I'm sure certainly presented you with a dilemma. On the one hand,the very nature of your being,
that of a reasonable,fair-minded person,is being stressed against your professional desire to go along with the planners and the planning
process.
I hope that in Mid-Higuera you can see it to giving us the benefit of the doubt. The median,for those of us on the east side of the road,is
similar to taking property. The value of our property,the ability to use our land,the ability of a business to prosper in a location is severely
diminished forever once the median is put in.
I felt at the end of the meeting on the radio that you said that the Marx/Ewan coalition couldn't count on your vote for the medians as they
were. I was greatly relieved for a moment and thought at last we have a chance. Then it seemed like everything reset and"whammo"Allen
Settle was left with the one`ne'vote and we have a median. I hope that this is not the case and that you,Christine Mulholland,and Mayor
Settle will keep the median out of Mid-Higuera.
I know your knowledge of medians is greater than Jan Marx's,and that medians in high-speed freeways clearly reduce accidents. Medians in
commercial districts with left turn lanes-4he statistics certainly don't show the same insight.
If you've had a chance to look at our own accident reports of what actually happens on our street,you can see that left turn lanes across
Higuera aren't the problem.
Every person making a left tum from a center median across oncoming traffic knows how extremely dangerous it is. This is the reason why
the left tum accident rate is so low. How many people knowingly,with the time to study and make their tum,drive head an in front of
another car? Not very many. Head ons usually happen due to inattention,sleepiness or alcoholic beverage consumption. In the case of the
left turns across the center median,the safety is higher than the casual person might think because people do not enter into such left turns
without full attention,without careful consideration,and while waiting fora break in the traffic. In contrast the normal right turn movement
into driveways catches drivers off guard all the time...
Knowing that you are a fair and honest man,I am hoping that in my quest for the truth regarding what studies and reports staff actually did,I
can'count on you to at least care. It is likely that these street closures,traffic rearrangements,traffic reroutings and EIRs(EIRs that certify
absolutely no impact at all will happen by making these changes)were done on a fraudulent basis in regards to statistical data. This should
be a concern to everyone,but I think that at least it might be a concern to you.
Please take me up on my example at the meeting. Drive a car,pretend Walker Street is closed,pretend there's a median,and go to John's
Carpet. See what it's like. Imagine what this will do to customers. When you can drop into a competitor with no effort,you'd have to be a
dedicated follower of John's business to ever go see him. Try the same for 295 Higuera.
My truck routinely comes from the freeway on Marsh Street,coming to my business at 303 Higuera/150 Pismo. Now,I get off the freeway,I
left tum onto Walker, I right turn into my business. When Walker is closed,I will be one of the many people at the High Street left turn lane,
queuing up.
High Street is the most dangerous intersection in this part of town and increasing the left tum volume will probably only aggravate this
situation. Some property owners have been saying that if the city takes away our access,then it must be some form of taking and we should
band together and look into legal remedies. I truly hope that our own city doesn't drive us to such desperation by destroying our access as to
put us in this kind of position.
These type of things make no sense for cities or citizens,and yet a planning staff that doesn't even live in our community seems to be pitting
the interests and well-beings of the property owners against the dreams and egos of the city's planners. The way the cards are being played
out now,planners win and neighborhood people lose.
Please help in this"matter if you can. No medians. Leave Walker Streeralone.
Sinc rely,
RECEIVED
MAR 1 9 2001
Rich ems,property owner
Mid-Higuera Enhancement District SLO CITY CLERK.
March 5,2001
Councilmember Christine Mulholland
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Dear Councilmember Mulholland,
At the council meeting last Monday you were a surprising breath of concern,consideration and sanity. Some of us expected you to instantly jump
onto the beautification,fancification and justification bandwagon and were more than pleasantly surprised to see that instead you were willing to
listen,hear our concerns,and certainly,from our point of view,give us a much fairer shake than some of your fellow councilmembers.
The median in Mid-Higuera is such a big deal to us that it's hard for some people to understand. John Ewan would understand if a median was being
put in front of his business on Santa Barbara Street He would oppose it with every bit of political skill and ability he has. Yet,as with The Drum
Circuit"oh well,he has to go,"he has basically resigned us to the same fate with the median,"oh well,they'll just have to suffer." I really wish Mr.
Ewan would treat us as he wishes he would be treated,rather than being so"kingly."
Thank you for your observations regarding our neighborhood,thank you for your actually noticing the many suppositions,if;and questionable
judgement calls staff has made.
1 hope,especially,you'll consider my remarks regarding the lack of actual studies for our area. I talked to public works and found no studies directly
related to the questions of the effects of medians on traffic flow or the effects of closing Walker Street. The three studies I have found—one of which
was very.old,one of which was right turns onto High from Higuera,and one which was a study about a half mile up High Street on the change in
traffic levels between two neighborhood supply streets--could not have provided staff with the data,insights or ability to make the environmental
findings of no impact whatsoever,or the other factual findings they have made throughout the council report and the EIR.
I am writing to public works to find if I have missed any studies,but my guess is we will not come up with studies that could have given staff the
knowledge to make the findings they made(leaving them with having made up the findings they made). If this is indeed the case,then the unique
layout of the streets they wish to help is being completely mishandled.
If you could please,on one of the days you are in a car,drive down Higuera Street,imagine Walker Street is closed,imagine there is a median,and
decide you want to stop at John's Carpet. Currently you would pull into the center tum lane and be in John's lot in a matter of seconds. Under the
circumstance that staff will leave us with,actually see how you're going to get to John's Carpet Try the same for 295 Higuera. Compare that to our
current situation.
Every person making a left tum from a center median across oncoming traffic knows how extremely dangerous it is. This is the reason why the left
rum accident rate is so low. How many people knowingly,with the time to study and make their turn,drive head on in front of another car? Not
very many. Head ons usually happen due to inattention,sleepiness or alcoholic beverage consumption. In the case of the left turns across the center
median,the safety is higher than the casual person might think because people do not enter into such left turns without full attention,without careful
consideration,and while waiting for a break in the traffic. In contrast the normal right tum movement into driveways catches drivers off guard all the
time...
It's always scary when the reality of a situation is so different than what's being presented by the so-called experts. It seems like it happens so often
around us,and yet we are powerless even to be believed. At the end of the council meeting,it seemed like Ken Schwartz had come over at the last
minute to join you and Mayor Settle to help us not have a median,for at least until the lumberyard is broken up(if ever). Then,the conversation
shifted,it seemed like everyone reset,the measure was passed and it seems like we're being told we're stuck with the median. If this is the case,I do
hope that you,Mayor Settle and Ken Schwartz will endeavor to get that median deleted from the final document
Any assistance you can give us,of course,will be appreciated. It seems so strange to have given so much public input and have 100 percent of it
completely ignored by staff. To find that even on simple matters such as the use of Walker Street relative to the use of Pacific Street,no one even
cares to discuss the facts,we're just told to believe the planning experts because they intuitively know everything about the town they do not even
live in.
Any help you can give us will be appreciated,but no matter what,a room full of people were impressed with the fact that you were willing to give us
a fair shake.
ely,
Ric d W.Fe 's:property owner
Mid- t iness owner.
303 Higuera Street RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo;CA 93401
MAR 1 7 2001
SLO CITY CLERK
.Richard Schmidt V 5444247 �1+1'2Q I 08:35 A A MIA
�' TI I"► ENDA
DATE , ITEM#
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-m 'I: rschmidt@calpoly.ed i
RECEIVEDNCIL CDD DIR
March 20, 2001 10AC, E] FIN DIR
MAR 2 0 2001 ?-,40A0 0 FIRE CHIEF
I' '.53-7ORNEY ❑ PW DIR
SLO CIN COUNCIL ®'CLERK'ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
Re: Mid-Higuera Plan VIA FAX O DEPT HEA ❑ REC DIR
❑ LRIL DIR
To the City Council: o HR DIR
PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE MID-HIGUERA PLAN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THIS PLAN IS AN EXAMPLE OF THINKING TOO SMALL, FAILING TO REALIZE
THE INCREDIBLE RESOURCE YOU HAVE IN THE COMMERCIAL LAND BASE
COVERED BY THE PLAN, AND SHAMEFULLY LOCKING IN LOW INTENSITY USES
FOR SOME OF THE MOST VALUABLE AND BEST-LOCATED COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE IN OUR CITY.
IT SQUANDERS FOR GENERATIONS THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THIS LAND,
WHICH IS PRACTICALLY AT THE CENTER OF TOWN, FOR HIGH DENSITY RETAIL
WHICH CAN
• PREVENT SPRAWL,
• REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION,
• GROW TH.E CITY'S TAX BASE,
• PROVIDE EXPANDED SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES, AND
• SHOW THAT THIS CITY DESERVES ITS REPUTATION AS A PROGRESSIVE
PLACE RATHER THAN ONE THAT LACKED THE WILL OR IMAGINATION TO
PREVENT GIVING AWAY ITS SOUL TO SPRAWL.
THERE IS NO URGENCY TO APPROVING A PLAN TONIGHT OR IN THE NEAR
FUTURE. PLEASEDIRECTTHAT THE PRESENT PROPOSAL BE COMPLETELY
REDONE TO ACCOMMODATE THE VISION SPELLED OUT BELOW.
FAILURE TO RECONFIGURE THE CITY'S VISION FOR MID-HIGUERA WILL DEAL
A FATAL BLOW TO OUR EFFORTS TO KEEP THIS CITY A LIVABLE AND UNIQUE.
PLACE DISTINCT FROM ITS NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY NEIGHBORS.
Discussion. This city faces a cross-roads: Will.it continue to encourage commercial
sprawl, which decentralizes shopping and creates the need for additional open-space
destruction and increased driving and air pollution, or will it truly take steps to maintain a
"compact urban form 7'
Schmidt to Council, Mid-Higuera DON'T APPROVE IT-- Page 1
Richard Schmidt 1W544-4247 r,119 1 08:35AM p2/4
Your current course -- the low density redevelopment of mid-Higuera, considering yet.
another unneeded, decentralized shopping center at Dalidio, sprawl at Froom and
McBride -- locks us into a future of sprawl, congestion, pollution, destruction of open
space, competition with downtown, and a loss of the character and quality of life of our
city. This course leads to the destruction of everything that is wonderful and unique
about SanLuisObispo.
On the other hand, carefully conceptualized city-planned redevelopment of large
underutilized districts within the existing city could half sprawl, create the sort of future
most citizens say they want, while still providing for more than enough commercial
expansion.
Alternative Vision for Mid-Higuera. The Mid-Higuera Area (Marsh to Madonna) is the
ideal location for high density retail commercial redevelopment leading to an in-town
mall-like shopping area, similar to Santa Barbara's wildly successful Paseo Nuevo.
There's hardly a building in the area worth a damn architecturally, the existing service
commercial uses are inappropriate for such prime real estate, the area is truly a blight-
in-everyone's-face and cries out for improvement. Although some property owners
object to the city's watered-down vision -- as exemplified in the present plan proposal --
, it is clear their heirs will realize such land-intensive uses as lumber yards have no
place occupying large acreage sites practically in the center of town, and will move
towards redevelopment. Under the present regime, however, we'll get more Jiffy Lube
centers and the like, rather than the intensified uses this area needs to provide. The city
needs to guide this redevelopment, and to seize this unique opportunity, rather than to
passively let it pass.
Infrastructure Already In Place. Infrastructure is already in place, the location is
adjacent to downtown, and there is excellent freeway access to both ends of the district
(at Marsh and Madonna). This is unlike the situation for sprawl development, where new
infrastructure must be developed (at great civic and private cost). It is therefore a crime
for this area to remain a collection of cruddy, low-density commercial uses, parking lots
and lumber yards -- a level of land use the proposed plan would encourage to continue.
Looking at the area merely as a blight that needs "prettification" is thinking too small.
Look at as it an incredible land asset we are gifted to possess-- how many cities
are fortunate enough to have such a great underutilized commercial land
resource practically in the center of town, waiting for imaginative redevelopment
and integration into the urban fabric? We are; let's not lose the opportunity for a
unique redevelopment opportunity by thinking too small.
Imagine, for a moment, how this redevelopment might work. There could be
parking structures at either end, each with ready freeway access. Shoppers would be
encouraged to leave the freeway and immediately park, then negotiate the beautifully-
developed pedestrian mall's "streets" on foot as they do in Santa Barbara. (Santa
Schmidt to Counell, Mid-Higuera -- DON'T APPROVE IT-- Page 2
Richard.Schmidt �' 1Q 544-4247 IV 1/20/1 (98:36 AM 23/4 .
L�
Barbara's Paseo Nuevo, however, lacks one of the strengths of this site -- direct
freeway access. Think about how that can draw in out-of-towners to spend their$$$
here:) Instead of bringing shoppers to the periphery of the city(as would be the case
with a Dalidio or Froom mall), where they are isolated from everything but the mall, here
they would be parked practically in downtown. Stepped up trolley service linking the
Lower Higuera "mall" and downtown would be a convenient way to keep freeway-
oriented shopping traffic out of downtown, while boosting the strength of the downtown
shopping district. In fact, the parking garages could become park-and-ride centers
linked to the core by the frequent trolley service so that even persons headed for
downtown would consider parking here, and perhaps shopping on their way to or from
downtown. Unlike the Madonna Road malls, this mall would reinforce rather than
compete with downtown simply by dint of its location. Given time, the several blocks
along Higuera and Marsh between the Lower Higuera Mall and downtown would fill in
with shopper-friendly uses, and there would be a continuous "downtown shopping area"
that included the new mall, just as in Santa Barbara. (By contrast, that will never happen
with the Madonna Road locations --there's too much commercial junk in between, plus
the freeway is like a Chinese Wall.)
This location would be perfect for the sort of large anchors people here say they want --
perhaps a Macy's or Nordstrom, as in Santa Barbara, or some other upper scale retailer
would fit in just as they have done in the elegant Paseo Nuevo. But Target, which is
proud of locating in a multi-story building on "main street" in Pasadena, could also be
accommodated so long as it is adjacent to parking. This is a unique opportunity to build
a new retail district that responds to community desires rather than creates human
dissention and the physical distension of the city.
Building the Future We Say We Want. By redeveloping this area as a high-intensity
retail center, we could create the sort of in-town shopping experience all our planning
documents say we want, rather than subscribing to the expansion of speculative
SprawlMart shopping that has always been our last choice, and whose vacant
carcasses now litter Madonna Road -- and litter in even greater numbers nearly every
other California city that has pursued that sprawling route.
This sort of civicly-responsible planning requires forceful city leadership. Otherwise we
will squander a unique opportunity and lock mid-Higuera into its nothingness for another
generation. The present proposed plan will accomplish this inappropriate extension of
low intensity uses, even adding some that make absolutely no sense (like the live-work
areas).
PLEASE DON'TSOUANDER THIS OPPORTUNITY! DON'T APPROVE THE MID-
HIGUERA PLAN.
We need to revisit this plan with big thinking rather than small thinking.
Schmidt to Council, Mld-Higuera DONT APPROVE IT-- Page 3
Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 U 1190/1 C98:37AM 0414
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
PS. There are architects more than willing to provide some insight where the city might
go with the proposal above. Just this week, I spoke with another architect who
independently shares my enthusiasm for the idea of a shopping mall anchor for
downtown in mid-Higuera. Give us a green light by not moving ahead with the present
plan, and we can perhaps stimulate your thinking on the subject.
PPS. You may be wondering why you didn't hear from me at the time of your previous
hearing. Well, here's why. I have been a participant in the Mid-Higuera process all
along, but apparently critical commentary isn't welcomed by staff, so my name has
never been added to the "stakeholders" list, and I have not been notified of meetings
(this in contrast to the Dalidio issue, where even critics were kept fully informed). Your
previous meeting was poorly publicized, held at an odd-ball time when nobody would
have expected it (Monday afternoon), and the first I knew of it was reading a past-tense
story in the newspaper. The city's notification procedures for stakeholders are very
inconsistent, and need to be straightened out. I.wonder how many other interested
parties never knew about the council's Monday consideration of thisi important plan?
Schmidt.to Council, Mid-Higuera— DON'T APPROVE IT Page 4
MFUNG AGENDA
a. zD-nl ITEM #_
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Dr: Richard J. Krejsa DA
189 San Jose Court, San Luis Obi o, CA 93405 NciL CDD DIR
email: rkrejsa@calpoly.edu phone: 544-3399 ❑ FIN DIR
0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TO: Mayor Allen Seel and Council Members CLERK R G ❑ 0 CE CHI
John Ewan,Ken Schwartz,Christine Mulholland&Jan rpT HEgpS ❑ AEC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo, City Hall,990 Palm Street ❑ UTIL DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ H DIR
U SUBJECT. Agenda Item 2. Resolution Approving Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan
W N D
> O Due to long-term Tuesday night teaching commitments I am unable to attend the Mid-Higuera
W U St. Enhancement Plan Public Hearing (Agenda Item.2) and herein submit a 3-part memo which
U gives a written Background Statement, Specific Comments,and a Concluding Statement
W U Please consider my testimony below against amending the creek setback ordinance to include
g bike paths, etc.,or approving a negative declaration for this plan.I specifically ask that my
Concluding Statement be read aloud (in lieu of a 3-minute testimony)and that this entire
document be acknowledged and entered into the public record on Tuesday Evening.
RJK Background Statement
When I first start studying San Luis Obispo Creek some 32 years ago,the reach of SLO Creek
between Marsh Street and Madonna Road was the wildest, most impenetrable portion of
riparian zone within SLO City limits. It was almost completely shaded by riparian vegetation
throughout its length and it thereby cooled the stream from temperatures which had risen in the
upstream portions of the creek below the city.creek tunnel.
In addition to providing shade, the riparian cover in this reach protected native aquatic and
terrestial organisms from aerial predators. It had abundant insect resources to provide drop-in
food for native stream fishes and other aquatic species. In brief,it was an ideal rearing zone for
young trout, other fish species,amphibians,reptiles, birds and small mammals. If my memory
serves correctly, this section was identified in an early EIR as a very special trout-rearing area!
Imagine my surprise then, when I discovered in the "Public Review Draft" of the Mid-Higuera
Enhancement Plan,"Background Report& Special Studies, " dated November, 1999, the
following statements regarding `Biological Features" (Special Study: Creeks, p. VI-5):
... "The endangered California red-legged frog, as well as the sensitive species,the
southwestern pond turtle,the two-striped garter snake, and the California tiger salamander have
been known to exist in this riparian zone. However, none has been recorded recently."
... "Finally,this region of SLO Creek has been inventoried for federally-listed endangered
steelhead trout. This particular region lacks the appropriate habitat,thus,no trout have
been observed recently in this portion of the creek." How could they have said that?Only a
n$ive biologist with no local experience could formulate such a claim!
A footnote in the section on `Biological Features" attributes this summary information to data
gathered in the"Stream Corridor Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek" (Questa
Engineering Corporation, 1997).
How can a reach of SLO Creek with an almost ideal, intact riparian zone,known to be a superb
trout-rearing area a quarter centruy ago now be devoid of the endangered aquatic fish,
amphibian, and reptilian species that once thrived there?The answer is simple: City policy
over the past years has allowed and directly encouraged this change!
1
1
First,in the name of Flood Prevention, the overhanging riparian zone vegetation was trimmed
back.Then,in the name of Public Safety(to get rid of homeless persons living in the
protection of riparian cover), shrubs and whole trees were stripped from the banks so that no
homeless person might be sheltered therein or thereunder! Then, in the name of Recreation,
overhanging branches and tree crowns were removed so that pedestrians walking or jogging on
the paths might appreciate a better view of"the Creek" and the"the riparian zone."
Now,in the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, Public Hearing Draft, dated December,
1999, the authors create a "Vision For the Future" which, on p. 22, under"Open Space along
the Creek," it prophecies:
"San Luis Obispo Creek between Marsh and Madonna functions as a productive natural
habitat, rich in native plants and animals:' (emphasis mine)
And, on p.23, the planners' prophecy continues:
... "Along San Luis Obispo Creek,a.mix of retail and food service businesses has developed,
with parking off of the common driveway, and patios facing the creek.These patios are
interconnected by an adjacent walkway and a bike path Above these stores and cafes are
offices that look out onto the riparian scene below." (emphasis mine)
Members of the Council, if all this envisioned activity comes to pass, onlookers will not see"a
riparian scene below." They will see a former live stream,now a prettified and parkified
channel, with water running through it.A place where none but urbanized organisms may live.
It will not be populated by wild things that once were there but now long-since chased out and
eliminated by official city policies adopted by public officials, elected and otherwise,who do
not seem to appreciate or understand natural phenomena unless they are coralled by man-made
proscriptions. Truly, in this reach of San Luis Obispo Creek we are in the process of
destroying the Riparian Zone in order that we might save it!
RTK Specific Comments on the Various Pertinent Documents
Whatever has happened, at previous meetings, or will happen at Tuesday's meeting,to pacify
the business owners and residents along the Mid-Higuera Street corridor itself, the following
series of planning documents, in their present form,will likely leave a residue of continuing
biological deterioration in the reach of San Luis Obispo Creek between Marsh and Madonna.
1."Public Review Draft" of the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan, "Background Report&
Special Studies, " dated November, 1999;
2. Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, Public Hearing Draft, dated December, 1999;
3.ATTACHMENT 2,ER 39-98, the Environmental Determination Form;
These three documents subtlely and crypticly change land use policies that were previously
promulgated for good reasons.Among these subtle casualties is the Creek Setback ordinance
policy LUE 6.4. et seq., which was originally designed to protect and stabilize the creek banks
and the native riparian plant and wildlife habitat therein.
In the "Objectives & Policies Related to the Project" (p. 1-3, document 1. above), it is stated
that : "The LUE emphasizes preserving or enhancing habitat, balanced with minimizing
damage from flooding." But it changes policy subtlely by also asserting that: "The LUE will
distinguish between creeks in urban settings vs.creeks in natural settings.' (my emphasis)
2
It is my contention here that, as recently as 15-20 years ago, SLO Creek between Marsh St. and
Madonna Rd. was a creek"in natural settings" despite the fact that it is located in an "urban
setting." It has become urbanized, I assert, as a direct result of SLO City policy.
On p. 9(document 2. above) under the title of"Seeing the Creek as an Amenity,"it states,
.. "Until recently, San Luis Obispo Creek in the Mid-Higuera reach has been largely hidden
between the freeway and private development.The City's acquisition of parcels on the eastern
bank near Marsh Street now provides a public open space from which the riparian habitat
can be appreciated." (emphasis mine) Comment: This habitat can now become Depreciated!
... "The City also owns large parcels on the west side of the creek.The Plan envisions
expansion of this public ownership,improvement to the natural habitat value, and increased
opportunities for public access and passive recreation."Comment: Is bicycling"passive"?
... "The Plan also sees opportunities for using the creekside areas on private properties as a
stimulus for future reuse and investment." Comment: SLO Creek: an investment"Amenity."
When LUE. 6.4.4. allowed footpaths and patios within the creek setback, these were
envisioned as backyard paths and private patios(such as along San Luis Drive). However, p.
23 of the"Vision For the Future" (document 2. above) envisions patios "interconnected by an
adjacent walkway and a bike path..." On p. 27 of the same document, under"Public Policy"
No. 3.,it states that:
..."New development on lots adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek shall be oriented toward the
creek in the form of entries, windows, gardens, plazas, patios, or other similar features."
And, on p. 27 of that same document, under No.4. "Creek Setbacks,"it specifically states:
..."All new developments along San Luis Obispo Creek shall provide setbacks persuant to the
zoning regulations... The City will amend the creek setback ordinance to accommodate the
planned improvements.(emphasis mine). Comment: We must accommodate our Amenities!
RJK Concluding Statements
It is my best judgement that,if creek setbacks are amended to allow Class I bike paths,
"interconnected" patios, entryways, windows, gardens,plazas, or"other similar features,"
and other recreational parkifying improvements are forced upon it as "amenities," San Luis
Obispo Creek between Marsh and Madonna will eventually evolve into a prettified urban
.drainage and flood control channel with no real riparian zone and no or few living creatures
except urban-adapted ones and the human beings who are envisioned to enjoy this wonderful,
newly-created, "open space preserve" along what was once a viable, creek ecosystem!
I am certainly not against bike paths, especially Class I paths.But I favor them where they
complement and do not impinge on priceless, endangered ecosystems. If someone in the City
Administration or Community Development or Parks&Recreation is so enamoured of the Bob
Jones "City to Sea"Bikeway, please don't.start it at the Marsh Street mini-park("terminal" on
some figures). Let it's "ternunal" be located somewhere south of Madonna Rd., perhaps at the
new "Visitor Center" envisioned by the Enhancement Plan to be built on the"former" Cal
Trans properties. Why not allow the Marsh St. parcel to become another"Let It lie"parklet
and allow the Creek Riparian Zone to be rehabilitated without all the so-called "amenities"?
There is much more in these documents that can be challenged from a biological perspective,
especially the minimal impacts that are assumed and the negative declaration that is implied.
Since I am taking leave of city environmental matters for the next—10 months, I will not
elaborate further.Thank you for your serious consideration of these comments.
3
Retain this document for
kWIre Councd meeting
Date, 0 agerdized
Traditional Tattoo
251 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
February 26, 2001 Eikzl
DIA
. �. ,City Council ._C.City of SLO �,�_990 Palm Street DIRg DiRSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 $D1R
RE: MID HIGUERA STREET ENHANCEMENT PLAN
Dear Council Members;
I am the owner of Traditional Tattoo on mid Higuera Street. I am writing
you in concern of the proposed plan, as it is very difficult to attend the
council meetings due to my business hours. I am very worried as are a lot of
other people and business owners regarding the proposal. The following are
my main concerns....
- Street Widening and Median
This will cause serious problems for all the businesses in the area as we
survive on the traffic and mid street turning lane. A median would stop
the turning and that is unacceptable to business as well as parking. Not
all of the businesses have back entrances and a lot of my business is drive
by traffic, if they cannot turn in I will be losing customers.
- Street Appearance
I am aware that we do not have the most appealing part of Higuera Street
in SLO but that is the city's doing. We are in an industrial part of town
that is why I was forced to put my business there and not allowed down
town. If you want to make mid Higuera part of down town then all the
industrial businesses as well as the trailer parks etc would be eventually
forced to move and that is unacceptable. Any disturbance to homes and
businesses that pay this city taxes and fees to operate their business
should not be threatened by construction and be eventually pushed
further from town because it is not appealing to the city. I am also
concerned with the proposal of added trees and shrubbery as it is difficult
enough now to visually see my very expensive sign that is already being
blocked by a growing tree that the city refuses to cut down. So the
proposal wants to add more trees so that,you cannot even see the
businesses or mountain range? RECEIVED
MAR 0 3 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
I think that the initial proposal of this project was thought up from the aspect
of the city making more money by having a bigger down town area. It was
not intended to help the business owners and the residence of this area. I am
completely opposed to the project and feel that any more meeting s
regarding the proposal is absurd.
If the project is approved many people are going to suffer who pay hard
earned money to the city to be here. I myself think that parking and cleanup
and repaving would be a much more feasible and realistic plan of action as
those are the main problems with the area. My vehicle has even been
ticketed on Parker Street for blocking a sidewalk that doesn't even exist.
Why doesn't the city find less abrasive and more convenient ways of
enhancing the area without causing businesses to suffer because of the
ridiculous enhancement plan? I wish that I could attend more of the council
meetings but my business closes at 8:00. I have joined the association that is
against this plan and fully support them. If you have any questions or wish
to contact me please call (805) 541-8282 12-8 M-F.
Sincerely,
C=W�
Breezy Barendt
�J
�������iui��Iilllllll (�IIII
council mcmoi.anOum
March 8,2001 Retain this c::.::Tnent for
future Council meeting
TO: City Council
!'-ite, 4 ageadizea
FROM: Ken Hampian, CA '
SUBJECT: Request to Continue Appeal of ARC Action on the Marsh Street Garage
Expansion
Today we received a letter from Mr. Eugene Jud, one of the appellants to this matter, requesting
that the appeal scheduled for the March 20, 2001, meeting be continued(attached). According to
Mr. Jud, he will be in Switzerland on that evening, and will not be returning until March 30th.
Similar to the manner in which we handled the continuance request on March 6`h, it is my
recommendation that we proceed with the appeal hearing on-March 20'. The legal notice of the
hearing has been sent to the Tribune (although it has not yet been published), and letters have
been prepared for distribution to interested parties. In addition, the staff has adjusted its
workload to complete the agenda report by our internal "agenda close"deadline of 9 a.m. today.
While the staff could conceivably "pull" the item at this time, I wish to make the following
observations:
1. As the Council knows from our Tuesday evening review of the upcoming calendar, the next
several City Council meetings are fully scheduled. Therefore, the continuation of an item
this major will be disruptive to other meeting dates.
2. The April 3' meeting included the decision to authorize the release of the plans and
specifications for the Marsh Street garage expansion. If the appeal of the ARC permit is
delayed, this decision will also be delayed until at least May 1". If the Council authorizes
bids, the bid process will extend later into the summer months. The summer months are a
busy time for contractors, and thus Public Works staff worries that the deeper into the
summer months we go with the bid, the less favorable the bid climate.
3. There are other appellants to this matter, Mr. Leo Pinard, Mr. Brian Christensen, and Ms.
Jean Anderson, and thus there are others who can present the appeal in the absence of Mr.
Jud.
Again, while the City has a history of being as accommodating as possible, our current workload
is not very accommodating and thus the time of the Council and the staff has become a precious
commodity.. Therefore, and while the Council is certainly free to honor Mr. Jud's request, I
continue to recommend that we proceed on the 20`h.
Cc: Whisenand, Shoals, George,McCluskey,Bochum, Opalewski
Cason p�
• '�1
SAVE SLO N
y !i'R ff
o ^�
m
�y DOWNTOWN
7 March 2001 �����J•�����
San Luis Obispo, CA
To: Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council, San Luis Obispo
Re: Request to postpone - Appeal re Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion
Dear Mayor Setter and Council members,
We understand that the appeal referenced above has been scheduled for discussion by
the City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting of 20 March 2001.
We respectfully ask that this item be postponed until the following month. Eugene Jud
will be in Europe from 15-30 March 2001.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Eugene Jud
Fellow, Institute of Transportation Engineers
v✓
Jean Anderson, Secretary
e Downtown San Luis Obispo
PO BOX 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
RECEIVE®
MAR 0 8 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL