HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1989, 8 - DETERMINATION OF THE SAN LUIS CREEK SETBACK LINE FOR A NEW OFFICE BUILDING AT 444 HIGUERA STREET (S IIIN�Iy�II�InII „hlll�lll MEETING OATS:
RI II III
city San �u�s �B�Sp� June
A 1989
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT mu
FROM: —�s%�,j,�//�
David F. Romero ,_7/ Wayne A. P Gerald W. K b :Prepared P y enny'
Public Works Director City Engineer Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
Determination of the. San Luis Creek Setback Line for a New Office Building
at 444 Higuera Street (Smith-Lorance, Applicants).
RECOMMENDATION:
By Motion, uphold Staff's Determination of the required development (creek)
setback and easement at 444 Higuera Street.
BACKGROUND:
Plans have been submitted for a new office building adjacent to San Luis Creek
at 444 Higuera Street. The proposed building conflicts with the creek setback
line recently determined by the Engineering Division of the Public Works
Department. The setback line was determined in accordance with criteria
established in the City's Flood Management Policy (Pink Book) which provides
for a 50-year storm downstream from the confluence with Stenner Creek and a
40-year storm, upstream from the confluence. This site is at the confluence,
and is just upstream of 424 Higuera where the Council considered a similar
request on November 11 , 1988 and upheld staff's setback line.
The current proposed creek setback line accommodates alternate cross-sections
(a vertical wall, gabion wall and a 2 to 1 slope with landscaping within the
slope bank, as well as a pedestrian pathway). :ee exhibits 1 , 2 and 3.
The Community Development Department is asking for an "additional” 8-foot
building setback and easement beyond that required to convey only the 50-year
storm. This is for environmental and visual impacts, including public
pedestrian trail purposes per the Parks and Recreation Element of the General
Plan. This provides a distance of 20 feet from the vertical wall alternative
to 9 feet from the top of a sloped bank alternative (Exhibits 5 and 6).
Staff had recommended that the applicant revise the plans to accommodate the
required setback prior to pursuing ARC approval. The applicant asked that the
matter be referred to the Council for a determination of the setback and
easement requirements prior to modifying the plans and pursuing ARC approval.
DISCUSSION:
The project site is relatively flat except for the creek bank which slopes
steeply to the creek channel area. Currently tk.e site is improved with an
existing structure near the Higuera Street frontage (to be removed), a parking
lot along the side of the building and an undeveloped area at the rear.
city of San :UIS OBISPO
i COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
444 Higuera St. - Creek Setback
Meeting of June 6, 1989
Page Two.
Relevant City Policies
1 . Flood Management Policy pursuant to Resolution No. 5138 (1983 Series),
(Pink Book).
2. Flood Damage Prevention Regulations (M.C. Section 17.84).
3. Municipal Code Section 15.04.060 requires specific approval of plans for
buildings or grading within 20 feet from the top of bank of major creeks.
The Flood Management Policy is intended to prevent the loss of life and
property from flooding and provide for the orderly environmentally sensitive
maintenance of, and improvements to, major creeks. Relevant policies (Exhibit
4) include:
1 . All new building construction and parking lots shall be constructed outside
of adopted creek setbacks.
2. As a condition of approval of projects requiring entitlements other than a
building permit or lot line adjustment (i.e. use permit, subdivision,
parcel map, architectural review, etc.) the owner shall: l\
a. Dedicate the natural creek area lying within his/her property, and
b. Dedicate right-of-way needed for widening the creek if shown on an
adopted creek setback map.
3. The developer shall not be required to dedicate, without compensation, more
than 25 percent of his property lying outside of the natural creek.
4. Developers of property on all creeks shall be responsible for improving
creeks to City standards.
EVALUATION
Staff feels the recommendations to require the setback and easements as
proposed is consistent with the aforementioned Flood Management Policy
(commencing on page C-1 ) as follows:
Policy P . This policy clearly states all new buildings and parking lots
shall be constructed outside of adopted creek setbacks.
Policy #3. This project requires an entitlement other than a building
permit. Although the setback line has not been "formally adopted", it
meets the "criteria" which was formally adopted, is based on engineering �.
calculations and field measurements, as well as environmental
11101111 llp@N f l acy of san Luis o8ispo
=WIGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
444 Higuera Street - Creek Setback
Meeting of June 6, 1989
Page Three.
considerations felt to be a mandate for such a project. It also complements
existing creek setbacks on nearby properties and on the opposite side of
the creek to obtain the adopted creek capacity.
Policy A. The Developer is not required to dedicate more than 50 percent
of the ultimate creek widening outside the natural creek. In fact,
evidence is available indicating that the creek has been filled in overa
period of many years along this reach of San Luis Creek.
Policy #5. The Developer would be required to dedicate an estimated 24.9
percent of the land outside of the natural creek.
Policy #7.& #8. Since the improvement of the channel at this location
would be more of a hindrance than a benefit without necessary widening
downstream, these conditions are not feasible at this time. A "creek
development fee" has never been adopted by ordinance.
SUMMARY:
The City's Flood Management Policy requires dedication of necessary easements
and setbacks for developments along major creeks. Public health, safety and
welfare considerations dictate that flood protection measures be addressed in
the approval of such projects. Staff sees no reason to grant an exception to
these policies.
ALTERNATIVES:
Option 1 . Uphold staff's determination of the required development setback and
easement to provide for future creek widening, including public
pedestrian pathway purposes and find that the creek dedication (24.9
percent) is justified. RECOMMENDED ACTION
The primary advantage would be to provide for orderly creek
development when deemed appropriate and to allow development of the
property in the interim. A disadvantage would be less developable
property on behalf of the applicant. This action is consistent with
City Council action taken November 11 , 1988 on adjacent property at
424 Higuera Street.
Option 2. Uphold staff's determination of the required setback and easement to
provide for future creek widening, without additional setback for
environmental and visual purposes, but including public pedestrian
pathway purposes. Provide for an alternate site plan to provide for
lost riparian habitat when creek widening occurs.
r
���� ►►�Ihllip�pi����l city of san Wis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
444 Higuera Street - Creek Setback
Meeting of dune 6, 1989
Page Four.
The primary advantage would be environmental considerations would be
included in the development plan without the additional setback or
easement dedication. A disadvantage would be loss of a wider visual
corridor and added options in landscaping and pathway designs.
Option 3. Uphold staff's determination of the required setback as in Option 1 ,
but allowing a portion of the second story of a proposed building to
cantilever over the future charnel, subject to ARC and Council
approval of the plans.
An advantage would be that the City would have the necessary easement
for creek widening and the Developer could construct more building
area without affecting the creek easement. A disadvantage would be
possible loss of visual corridor.
Option 4. Do not require a creek setback and easement for this project.
An advantage would be that the developer could proceed with only the
20 foot setback from the ezisting top of bank (per ordinance).
The primary disadvantage would be the City would need to acquire the
necessary additional easement and clear the site at a major cost to
provide for the established channel capacity.
FISCAL IMPACT.:
If the setback and easement are not provided now, it would require major City
costs to acquire an easement and to clear the site if the City chose to do so
in the future.
CONCURRENCES:
The Community Development Director concurs with the recommended action. No
other department has significant comments regarding the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, uphold staff's determination of the required development setback and
easement to provide for future creek widening, including public pedestrian
pathway purposes.
Attachments:
1 - Vicinity Map
2 - Site plan
3 - Creek Setback Map
4 - Flood Management Policy (pgs. C-1 to C-4
5 - Easement Map
6 - Creek Sections
Project Plans are available in the Council Office for review
VICINITY MAP ARC 88 -200 i
1 s
�! y�
Cn
n
c G 44
cb 4
N ice.
r ap
W
_ 1
J.
F t
O ` v
�.�R'� Di so
PAD
W
Li
Q
F'S
3 /v
``�
'eiev Qt \�
xg b
-.'y;m'`„�'jI•y;T"''�•-✓ate a��ti,;�r- d�
AM
� 1
7y 1''X11;1�:==3-Q;;ji!",".'ani?iil;;,l!I!nl'�I�iii•T,il Iii. (^;��
-r ,'1 I x A III ti.Il II'III j III 1�1�1 III,'I 1 Il�llt III I� ��Illl�i i
_ I 11 1i1Lf I 1., •
/
.�s..Fh �i:.u:_w_L;;:;;...��:r✓.���(. _ !..,_ _ ,ul�„:i,;:��la:ilra;li.�t.
°,II' jiili:Llli II I a� ,
:i�I.i;fivL'::Ilii:il:.�(�IIIII i
� y^"!�
1 C1+1 LjH 11-r5 'r-r str` Itly)�I�II+II ,I II Iihilll jJ1111�
� .- I:�F r.._, •:!, I::V:�7 I 14 �!: Ill II(: .
I 'I��-�.'=•:1.J'f�����G'\ "�<.�:e F.:c=.:-riJ.4.•:.]:1�^liu�
/^•.�a.�_�tlI:N1Py�yI,:.�..rz:�'_—`�� .'L`:�-`��3..r.�aw Cpl:
44 TTyy � .
'r ;w
I -
Vii.
u�. �Y'1►m'�ixati
l�
Al
. s
a
n - A
s
w
~+ �iy`r"•yjµtiw�' I�.i.T.�•.�.,����Jp���t���'' J 2� � _.'`F.��yE. r -�'vi�:'-�• ��7•:+�
-vr` -:C'�Ss rf�< t_y^� S�Z }H rte'--Y�` . J�S' ��,�.�rY- G, ��� •I •
• ••• .l� fA•7•y..� . 4 fi •tel��a�' ��' t � A L •A .n.
.,. t•. -`Priv,. r _ v . ,,�i .. p�I✓'
''•.IZ Q. �V�a'nsi��� 'rM••� � Kw�.uw+� �y� `�•.)yi �+•'>;{�RF�q:j{.
• i{' r. .�`� k KV ./f-}f�..,J 3:'��.r•' -..:�•< rwla r� /� F. ''�yy.L �`�`Jr
• 'r'`�� t 4� T: n�Y4^"Y:{. i� .•L� t--a•`�L�Z Lh.-.4 j'�- +iethJ�-� •^ '-ry�
K2 s Jls.: KV6.tFj. `+.f f Yi +.qwl�^
_ `.a-•'r4 .f-'cLs-L '"=s Sites- w •+'-'1 ` � •�+'' ur
'�J7•���JC s;" w:! !r-r�w�: �4 ��%.'��� �th_ � rE�. ya �t,Sa,�..
.. - -+-.~, .. J"Yt'y :w' •� �f-�..�.- te a,., 1.�I ...'• -7?s �c
.^T
+ '�•c.♦ �-�[ 1s. '" 1'n� . ' :/ _I � ` ��~ - ' •�� Cir- �L
-_�,;'S.2��Y}3.y"rJ 'A l p'� +w•�f V= •-. L� a� `� r [ {. �^j RM `a ry ��• f
'~ � J J, •�•lY. Fr. M. Gt ��'�`>� X+�Vr�24-!fY('� r "^�-����,: .�Rl.a.y//fgd/r� �� �•
♦ .� 'C-w ��t�� /r�'L���f' fJi� r fi.. . '"'_ R '�i.iti35- -tav}/�,1�.•�•1}
.Y'j. "'S �_ .r�i/ i ♦�-'- ! rer m--� .�- .ew
[�R•���r+t��`b-���/ S i� ^r.- _- �- � +5~��'�1t Er~�L'i���^1c-�i '«tiL�!i�' ��'?�
a.✓ Y-{{^ T �1}fares-7� �••• f._-ti• iri f'[ lv't..•t4' -atr2[^ < aCY[�,,j.+
��te.X_ -.+.'^�-n'.``�`'< N ,'. � r�'.� [+ • v'�wi�S`a _ >� S<�J��};I`.' r�'�/Zi�er a'' �•.
` si I# fir^ .--+r'+vl.'S' .}�� �t�-•� •`"" a-'•"�'� -.. ®l.v f3•`-e a J •!Ys
+:;.���:L�„r ..y�✓..,..�,•�l!-�Y� +v :J F •T'_ t��� ����t..n �er. J•` ac'^e�, :-.T
c <L".,+rt -� X : i•L ♦��.na.. .y. jam+ --:µ'T'� [ e J�,"�a.1t --a..
wT'�>`r �' •w+i.a{��^,�.r�r s �ji�� '^���'�"-� �-ti�"r -1"`• �rj �fit{T e_
..lK a_lkK �,� r,+t _• _ --� a�. �jyi4���-r NO
aji�'.�ay^aMj+
F� � t i5~.+�" �Sr?i it C -:L �•.le�t"�"a..[..c'?.''t" �7iJ.J'L .",+w 4tst^+►'k'Y�'t-
,.y.•s[� y � a`•:� ��xr. vyF,,,•_rr•..0-..r �w � �.- �- �.tii+sh�M1. .ry+
a L.rlC .dmf.. -•.a.+•.�;r-,pt -I��C`•�[ �.{a"'a±2•. ♦
:.V .r-✓e yi•+.y;-S C-`rhr�i � �� 'Ci�'LJ-��a�. mota�y�-'•at �X �'a�ij1L+17a` Y+di
` L�yi S..
c
L+'•_a'• -
tps.'r: -! 1.Y.-.•i _.
i ZiS•t Y ,y y ry .$a. -^I: �+ka� .���-a-�f-J `Y,R
yf
�L� a }'�:� :l{�I Mme -•_ ��ft.�c..� aJ� tr� 4E+.'<r+a� �`aF�"Fs�'�°
�••f is l
•'f.C JL�+r -f f�Yy-.f����j� �:1 �_ -�T.-y�� ��
Rw"_
��,'Ci
' qj:rAo.+�i�� tits' T• '�"7
!Ya�a ¢Vr .�:` - •= max.
-.`.�}1 �:2v .-,R �Y' ��T•` � �M�'�r't��rL•' LL LPi� • =.
"•.'�/,"�+..-`.'i�' '•s.a'-�kT� ��1. •�.�,.r:-:.r. .1' i; �t�a� R'C� -�'t•' "1.. c. a� y. '
y�•�� � w .::� \�,�,E1Y�`'.�',,.Ly�� .` T�,ysit ,;�•• i� '"'_ r^^ ✓,� .J.Y.y�:�•.....
�, ..-*.i��'.Gr'.•G,2•,i -a..� Maw MJ� Yy;r '4J+.'„f 'l>-��'k-d`a.'��. ;t'�.G� - i ��s�-�.`S Y�<.^^�..�'�.
..M�'�rr c�cj,�^��,f+�` � � 21��'��-.1�?t�'�. �J�'."`iK"�ys.• is:C+fcM.� .'y-��.<�b �3'�'
.t l 7 G S J . �'1.{�: w•an �'M'�'`.` '• zWA�r �'+�L. r�1Sf.J
-<.'Y✓t'<,♦ .-.1-'lcra T�3- lab''-�. �J-•1"'J�i-IT'S`. \� �r^ .��M 1_L•�'�+...Y' jL:'J �'
IL
VVTY +� •1Irtt V'.1 `• +i 3'. DC7 M tJl,�y�-- 1�-4 :�►
YC'yri'iSi•r=s-iJ`�kt'!'l.
�'�`W: •„�i •h1 = f •v-;'L:�.c "��n� . rim:rt=e,
`7 _ �.a:.�� fry;,! :s`�•'Y�c Ci' ��:; �7,��r
. aZ •rT'.r__.•�' c sY.x�<�li���f ✓i���..` 1 - n' ,vs,{`= X �
J Y.:-lJ�y�--: -�•l�fi- w>+l: .JS"a":,a qT �r-.- _ �f.
_ S
CREEK DEDICATION POLICY - JUNE 1983
I,
(For Dedication of Easements and Improvement .of Natural Waterways)
1. All new building construction and parking lots shall be constructed
outside of adopted creek setbacks. Cantilevering of structures over
the setback area and creek area may be allowed by the City Engineer,
providing that the structures will not prohibit or prevent the City
from maintaining the creek waterway and constructing the improvements
required to contain the design storm.
Exhibit 1
STREET
"''••., LOT
ADOPTED CREEK
SETBACK LINE
NATURAL CREEK
BANK
. v
2. As a condition of a building permit or lot line adjustment, except for
minor building permits which are not substantial improvements of the
structure as defined in Section 9802(t) of the Municipal Code, the owner
shall dedicate the natural creek area lying within his property.
3. As a condition of approval of projects requiring entitlements other
than a building permit or lot line adjustment (i.e. , use permit, sub-
division, parcel map, etc.) the owner shall: _-
a) dedicate the natural creek area lying within his property and,
b) dedicate right-of-way necessary for widening the creek if shown
on an adopted creek setback map.
w^ � • 14 . -1
Page Two
I
4. If dedication required in #3b involves more than one-half of the total
I widening of the creek the developer shall receive a credit for the value
(based on the assessed valuation of the parcel as shown on the last
equalized tax roll) of land dedicated in excess of 50% as calculated
by the City Engineer. See Exhibit 2 for further explanation.
I• Exhibit 2
STREET
�I AREA DEDICATED FOR CREEP:
WIDENING. SINCE ALL WIDEN-
LOT ING IS ON DEVELOPER'S LOT
HE RECEIVES CREDIT FOR
VALUE OF 1/2 OF THIS AREA.
"•''••,, SETBACK LINES
AnEA "
DEDICATED ,FOR\,
I CREEK PURPOSES
i (NO CREDIT)
NATURAL CREEK BANIC
I
I
STREET
NATURAL CREEK AREA
I LOT / DEDICATED (NO CREDIT)
�SETBACK LINES
,•,,, "''''\� >._ ,• .,,•" ',�'WIDENING DEDICATED WITH
I �
" �; : ` � :,, '''•;��/' CREDIT CALCULATED BY CITY
ENGINEER IF MORE OF THE
I � ''••,,, r WIDENING OCCURS ON
NATURAL DEVELOPER'S SIDE OF C EK
CREEK DANK /
•. c-2
Page Three
5. Developer shall not be required to dedicate without compensation over
25% of the area of his property lying outside of the natural creek.
6. The areas used to allow credits calculated in X64 shall be dedicated
prior to calculating whether or not #5 is applied (Example: 100% of
widening is on developers side of creek and represents 50% of lot area
outside of the creek. Developer receives credit under #4 for 50% of
widening but no credit under #5 since he has already received compensation
under A.).
7. Developers of property on all creeks and waterways shall be responsible
for improving the creeks to city standards.
8. Developers of property along San Luis, Stenner and Old Garden creeks
shall be given the choice at time of development to:
a) Improve creek in accordance with city adopted plans to protect
his property from flooding, with city participation to the extent
of any credit allowed in. #4, or
b) Build above present flood level at 'his cost., or
c) Flood proof (if allowed) at his cost, or
d) Improve creek to a different plan (with City Council approval) that
conserves additional right-of-way, with participation by city based
on credits allowed in A.
9. A creek development fee shall be paid by developers of all- property
lying along San Luis, Stenner and Old Garden creeks requiring city
entitlements beyond a building permit (i.e. , use permit, variance,
subdivision, parcel map) except when: a) the developer chooses to
make improvements allowed under 8a or 8d or, b) the property is not
subject to flooding. The amount of the fee shall be based upon city's
current estimate to build creek improvements (based on costs at time of
final approval of entitlement; i.e., final subdivision map) within the
developers property and shall be adjusted as follows:
Estimated Cost of Creek Improvement Construction X Use X Entitlement
X Flood Protection - Credit for Excess Dedication Development Fee.
Use - Non-residential 1.0
Multi-family residential 0.8
Single-family residential 0.6
Entitlement - Major Planned Development 1.0
Subdivison (over 4 units)
Commercial Development
Minor Subdivision or 0.8
Planned Development J
(4 or less units)
Lot Line Adjustment, Variance 0.6 Lo
Use Permit .6 - 1.0
(Dependent on scale of project) C-3
Page Four
9. (Continued)
Flood Protect-ion - Creek Improvement plans will:
Provide Ultimate Protection of: a) 100 Years 1.0
b) 50 Years 0.8
c) Less than 50 Years 0.6
10. Improvements of the various creeks within the city shall be at the
city's option, expense and timing, utilizing funds deposited by developers
or owners of property.
11. Properties which either do not now flood or are not included within the
"A" zone on. the FTA - FIRM Maps will not be assessed for creek improvements
under this proposal .but will be required to dedicate land as identified
above. They may also become liable for assessment at some time in the
future should an area-wide assessment district be established.
12.. Properties that are developed adjacent to creeks after the city makes
creek improvements without property owner participation, shall be assessed
a fee as if the improvements had not already been made.
13. Easements dedicated shall state that they are for purposes of constructing,
maintaining and operating a drainage way.
C-4
CREEK CENT
'=:'cTIJly: . R: c;: c :: :: NO SCALE
CREEK WIDENING .
= CREEK EASEMENT
p
ti ti
v
UI (jI N
t0 0` o
V m C
N O
O
C
O
444 HIGUERA ST.
N 30.43'E 87.00'
12' SIDEWALK
HIGUERA ST,
CREEK EASEMENT DEDICATION
FOR 444 HIGUERA ST,
460h�
zoo puiLo%vc
e�
W E) 72)0
,
/
/
VERr/G4G 4/ALL
pvrcDrNG
/
i
� I
GAbIOA15
r
c1Nor To 5C•4�.E�
677 ,e�9�89
lEETING AGENDA O�
• x i�.:wiss ac;on I y Lead Person DATE !o-L-69 ITEM # 6
0 1 Pccperd by:
N� uncil
' Architectural Offices of
I Barry Lorenz Williams
Associates
rr�71&
May 31, 1989 (�-w- w J. RECEIVED
Mayor Dunin & Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo JUN 51989
990 Palm Street //.'3 04•a4
P.O. Box 8100 CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 yAN UA$08M, CA
Subject: Proposed office building at 444 Higuera-Street
Dear Mayor Dunin & Members of the Council:
On June 6th you and the members of the City Council will be
hearing a proposal for an office complex to be located on Higuera
Street. The specific lot for our proposal is on the northwestern
side of Higuera Street and abuts against San Luis Creek. As
there is no official plan line for this stretch of creek in
regard to widening or maintenance, the staff has informed us that
this project must be routed to the council prior to being heard
by the A.R.C. My clients and I have spent many hours studying
the long history of the creek in regard to flood control. We
feel the proposal we're presenting to you is the best use for
this site given all the conditions. I would like this letter to
serve as my personal testimony to this sentiment.
One of the greatest charms of San Luis Obispo is it's many
creeks. It follows that one of the greatest ongoing debates in
San Luis Obispo is how the potential flooding from these creeks
should be handled. Throughout the years many studies have been
done and several proposals have been brought forth regarding how
to handle the creeks and their potential for flooding. My
clients and I have spent many hours researching studies such as-
the "The Nolte Report" and the E.I.R. for the San Luis Obispo
Creek Flood Control Modifications. Our conclusion derived from
reading these reports is probably the same as yours, that there
is no perfect solution that will prevent flooding in a cost
effective manner which will also be in the best interest of the
current riparian habitat that we all value.
As a design professional I feel that the greatest asset of my
clients' site is it's orientation to San Luis Creek. Because of
my conviction I strongly disagree with staff that the building be
placed on the Higuera Street frontage with the parking placed
back by the creek. I feel the daily users of the building should
benefit from the serene atmosphere of a close proximity to the
creek rather than the bustling and noisy atmosphere of Higuera
(805)541-0997
1110 California Boulevard Suite E
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
Mayor Dunin
May 31, 1989
Page 2
Street. Our proposal respects the planning line of a twenty foot
setback from the closest corner of our structure to the top of
the creek bank and thus complies with the Flood Management
Control Policy as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Our
proposal will allow more people to enjoy the creek on a regular
basis. Our proposal will also allow for ongoing maintenance of
this creek frontage paid for by the user, not the tax payer in
general. Although the structure is set back from the creek bank,
in cases of severe flooding our engineers feel that our proposed
plan would help stabilize the bank and thus minimize further
erosion. I feel our proposal is consistent with the downtown
creek design as well as' those along many other areas along the
creek, be it up on Monterey Street or along Marsh Street.
Some of the City staff feel that a large portion of this site
should be dedicated to the City for future creek widening.
However, just upstream from this site there are several
properties with structures already on the creek that put a far
larger restriction on the creek flow than we would, even if we
U moved the structure out to the top of the creek bank.
I feel I could go on page after page debating the details of the
reports and studies, both positively and negatively. I could
focus in on specific issues and not address others and make a
foolproof case. We could all debate the flooding issue for
several more years. The proposal you're going to review,
however, meets all the criteria that has been put forth over the
years, be it written law or merely policy. The clients for this
project are proposing to do what so many people have been doing
for so many years. They are willing to take the problems of
potential flooding of their structure upon themselves in exchange
for permission to leave a situation, in this case a natural
environment, untouched.
My clients went through all the proper channels in developing
their project prior to starting the design process. I feel that
this project is not only in compliance to the letter of the law,
but also meets the desired intent of respect for our environment.
I urge you to approve this plan for the following reasons:
1. There are no existing adopted ordinances that this project
violates.
2. This project will in no way have a detrimental effect on
the creek environment.
C 3. Due to the many restrictions to the creek upstream, the
widening of the channel at this point will accomplish
nothing more than harm the existing environment of the
creek.
O
Mayor Dunin
May 31, 1989
Page 3
4. The cost of widening the creek is economically unfeasible.
The final E.I .R report is very specific that the cost-to-
benefit ratio for widening the creek is highly negative.
5. The City can't expect design professionals to react to
personal whim. We are trained to understand and meet the
intent of the various ordinances and codes of each
municipality. At the same time, these municipalities are
required by law to show the equal respect, no more and no
less, for the codes and ordinances they have adopted.
I strongly feel that what we are proposing is the best solution,
and I urge you to agree with me by approving our site plan as
designed.
As always, I will make myself available to you day or night to
answer any questions you may have.
CRespectfully submitted,.
Barry L. Williams
(home phone: 541-1972 )
BLW/lmw
duninl-csll
O
-MNG AGENDA
t}ATE I4/1� ITEM #
car
s'"°� Architectural Offices of
CA Barry Lorenz Williams
Associates
May 31. 1989 LO
s action by lead Person
by,��_ilMayor Dunin & Members of the City Council y.City of San Luis Obisporlg.990 Palm Streets1�26P. O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject: Proposed office building at 444 Higuera Street
Dear Mayor Dunin & Members of the Council:
On June 6th you and the members of the City Council will be
hearing a proposal for an office complex to be located on Higuera
Street. The specific lot for our proposal is on the northwestern
side of Higuera Street and abuts against San Luis Creek. As
there is no official plan line for this stretch of creek in
regard to widening or maintenance, the staff has informed us that
this project must be routed to the council prior to being heard
by the A. R. C. My clients and I have spent many hours studying
the long history of the creek in regard to flood control. We
feel the proposal we're presenting to you is the beat use for
this site given all the conditions. I would like this letter to
serve as my personal testimony to this sentiment.
One of the greatest charms of San Luis Obispo is it ' s many
creeks. It follows that one of the greatest ongoing debates in
San Luis Obispo is how the potential flooding from these creeks
should be handled. Throughout the years many studies have been
done and several proposals have been brought forth regarding how
to handle the creeks and their potential for flooding. My
clients and I have spent many hours researching studies such as
the "The Nolte Report" and the E. I. R. for the San Luis Obispo
Creek Flood Control Modifications. Our conclusion derived from
reading these reports is probably the same as yours, that there
Jg no perfect solution that will prevent flooding in a cost
effective manner which will Alg_n be in the best interest of the
current riparian habitat that we all value.
As a design professional I feel that the greatest asset of my
clients ' site is it 's orientation to San Luis Creek. Because of
my conviction I strongly disagree with staff that the building be
placed on the Higuera Street frontage with the parking place Cc r "l F
back by the creek. I feel the daily users of the building should G Y
benefit from the serene atmosphere of a close proximity to the )L.) ! ,�St
creek rather than the bustling and noisy atmosphere of Higuera 1 W
(BOS)541-0997 SA
CITVC4.FpK
1110 California Boulevard Suite E Gn
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
Mayor Dunin
May 31, 1989
Page 2
Street. Our proposal respects the planning line of a twenty foot
setback from the closest corner of our structure to the top of
the creek bank and thus complies with the Flood Management
Control Policy as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. Our
Proposal will allow more people to enjoy the creek on a regular
basis. Our proposal will also allow for ongoing maintenance of
this creek frontage paid for by the user, not the tax payer in
general. Although the structure is set back from the creek bank,
in cases of severe flooding our engineers feel that our proposed
plan would help stabilize the bank and thus minimize further
erosion. I feel our proposal is consistent with the downtown
creek design as well as those along many other areas along the
creek, be it up on Monterey Street or along Marsh Street.
Some of the City staff feel that a large portion of this site
should be dedicated to the City for future creek widening.
However, just upstream from this site there are several
Properties with structures already on the creek that put a far
larger restriction on the creek flow than we would, even if we
moved the structure out to the top of the creek bank.
I feel I could go on page after page debating the details of the
reports and studies, both positively and negatively. I could
focus in on specific issues and not address others and make a
foolproof case. We could all debate the flooding issue for
several more years. The proposal you 're going to review,
however, meets all the criteria. that has been put forth over the
years, be it written law or merely policy. The clients for this
project are proposing to do what so many people have been doing
for so many years. They are willing to take the problems of
potential flooding of their structure upon themselves in exchange
for permission to leave a situation, in this case a natural
environment, untouched.
My clients went through all the proper channels in developing
their project prior to starting the design process. I feel that
this project is not only in compliance to the letter of the law,
but also meets the desired intent of respect for our environment.
I urge you to approve this plan for the following reasons:
1. There are no existing adopted ordinances that this project
violates.
2. This project will in no way have a detrimental effect on
the creek environment.
3. Due to the many restrictions to the creek upstream. the
widening of the channel at this point will accomplish
nothing more than harm the existing environment of the
creek.
f YtGj $ sK.' ''` '�t
"Ar *.i ' }` y 3° "�`.*� y` a '34
4.3 T �i jY ° A!'���1 )a 1� '>f 0. 7,fi: I+.yatirCl ka }r• � "'•; 4y t A♦r. rri t `R )r v J. f'1 M
4L3ittx
7-��A yyh a.F'" 4�'i�� •1 L�S A �1# y4'ti.�ts ,w °>i� al 4l •Y l PxxWi.��^1,{ tl J. T rv '-:{.4 t t a C tJ s�T v�, a 4 7y 'n{r
m,,\ N9. Yr�'�' 4 ;S.N..�A�t ` S':44CJ 17--•1•�, x r.x 1 r -+. ? Y t� < .t Ya. t Mn
I+z1i ff4>' rj a4 S7J-]».a 414w q Yi i'. �.- trJ f'J Y>{cv ,'il+' .fi'. r-v �. `d �' �. y1,A✓. :�,
k..J'tF
n y 7`� r [ Clt x... 1 J v• i i .. y, }._ a. r x
4 t J• 1
'f fr '} 5> 1 -�` r.' ). ` `. •.(L. + i -�+. r
Mayor. Diinin.
-
Page 3
4..- The cost of .widening the creek is economically unfeasible.
The final E. I.R report . is very specific that the cost-to-
benefit ratio for widening the creek is highly negative.
5. The City can't expect design professionals to react to
personal whim. We are trained to understand and meet the
intent of the various ordinances and codes of each
municipality. At the same time. these municipalities are
required by law to show the equal respect, no more and no
less. for the codes and ordinances th@!-y have adoDted.
I strongly feel that what we are proposing i&, the best solution.
and I urge you to agree with me by approving our site plan as
designed.
As always, I will make myself available to you day or night to
answer any questions you may have.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry L. Williams
(home phone: 5111-1972)
BLW/lmw
duninl-csll