Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2001, 1 - THE DRAFT MID-HIGUERA STREET ENHANCEMENT PLAN, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (ER AND GPI 39-98) council MR°�°� j acenaa nepont N,.r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning M Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Plann SUBJECT: THE DRAFT MID-HIGUERA STREET ENHANCEMENT PLAN, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (ER AND GPI 39-98) CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) consider the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, 2) conceptually approve the Council Hearing Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, with or without changes, and 3) direct staff to place a draft resolution on the March 20`h Council meeting 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. REPORT-IN-BRIEF To implement General Plan policies for the Mid-Higuera Street Area, the report recommends adoption of an "area plan." The area plan includes a land use/zoning strategy, flood reduction and creek enhancement measures, Higuera Street widening, street and public area beautification, two new parks, new creek bikeway and pedestrian trail, urban design guidelines, and an incentive-driven implementation strategy to help realize the Plan's vision of a safer, more attractive, and economically invigorated Mid-Higuera district. The report describes changes made in response to citizen and advisory body comments and discusses issues of special concern: flood hazard reduction, Higuera Street access, rear access and parking for businesses along the west side of Higuera Street, and bikeway location. DISCUSSION Advisory Body Comments. The Plan has undergone extensive public review. Five city advisory bodies reviewed the draft plan, and minutes describing their actions and recommendations are attached. Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, and the Bicycle Advisory Committee recommendations on several controversial issues are summarized below. Planning Commission The Commission reviewed the Plan at its February 9th and November Ist, 2000'meetings. In November the Commission took three actions, all on 4-3 votes: 1) it recommended that the Council approve the short-term Plan, with the creek bike path and landscape median in Higuera Street be deleted, 2) it recommended rezoning of the Village Mobile Home property from R-3- PD to R-4, and 3) it forwarded individual commissioner comments to the Council (see attached minutes). The Commission was divided, with support for as well as opposition to certain key features of the Plan. These `'special issues" are discussed later in the report. The Draft Plan before Council includes the Commission's recommended rezoning from R-3-PD to R-4 for the Village Mobile Home Park property. The Plan continues to include a creek bike path and landscape median, however. As discussed under special issues, the bike path and 1-1 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 2 landscape medians are integral features of the overall plan and their deletion would conflict with the recommendations of the other four advisory bodies, and with General Plan policies. Architectural Review Commission The Commission reviewed the Plan on February 22nd., October 16th, and November 6th, 2000. At the November meeting the Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Metz stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest) to recommend Council approval of the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan. The ARC supported an 82 ft. wide right-of-way on Higuera Street, between Marsh and High Streets, a 10 ft. wide landscaped median, a 10 ft. wide public sidewalk on the west side of the street, and several text changes, mainly related to urban design and architectural guidelines. The Draft Plan continues to show an 86 foot wide right-of-way (r.o.w.) on Higuera Street in the proposed widening area, between Marsh and High Streets. The additional four feet would allow landscaping adjacent to the left tum pockets that account for about '/z the length of the street widening. An 80 or 82 foot r.o.w. would only allow a 2 foot wide "nosing" adjacent to the left tum pocket, insufficient for planting. The ARC's recommended text changes to urban design and architectural guidelines have been incorporated. Parks and Recreation Commission The Commission reviewed the Plan on March 1st, 2000. Commissioners supported the overall Plan and in three separate actions (all 7-0 votes), endorsed the landscaped median proposed in Madonna Road between Higuera Street and Highway 101, recommended redesign of the Higuera Street landscaped median to allow left turn lanes, and recommended the creek bikeway be located on the west side of San Luis Obispo Creek. The Commission's recommendations are included in the draft Plan. Cultural Heritage Committee The Committee reviewed the Plan on February 28th, 2000 and focused on historic building preservation and architectural guidelines. The CHC directed staff to provide additional information on historic resources, historic impacts and mitigation for Higuera Street widening, archaeological impacts, and to make several editorial and text changes. The Committee's comments were addressed in the Plan's revisions. Bicycle Advisory Committee The Committee reviewed the Plan on March 23rd and June 15th, 2000 meetings. At the June meeting, the BAC unanimously endorsed the idea of a recreational bike trail on the west side of the creek that could be implemented in the short-term and supported a pedestrian access/walkway along the east side of the creek in connection with private development. The draft Plan reflects this approach. Situation. In 1998, Council approved a workscope and funding for the preparation of an "enhancement plan" for the Mid-Higuera area, a 10-block corridor along Higuera Street between Marsh Street and the South Street Hills. Guided by General Plan policies, Council direction and 1-2 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 3 input from public workshops, a planning team of consultants and city staff prepared a draft plan and initial environmental study. In December 1998, Council appointed a council sub-committee to provide input into the planning process. Council members Romero and Schwartz met with the planning team in January, and August of 1999, and provided ideas on Higuera Street design, flood protection, driveway. access, C-T zoning, bikeway location and landscaped medians. Following extensive public and advisory body review of the previous two drafts, a third, "Council Hearing Draft Plan" is coming to the City Council for review and possible adoption. This latest draft includes minor editorial and graphic changes, plus two significant changes in response to specific advisory body direction: 1) the creek bikeway is now shown on the west side of the creek in the Short-Term Concept Plan; and 2) the Village Mobile Home Park property is recommended for rezoning from R-3-PD (Medium-High Density Residential, Planned Development) to R-4 (High-Density Residential). Council approval is required for adoption of the Plan, amendments to the General Plan, rezoning and conceptual approval of short- and long- term public improvements to enhance the area's safety, economic vitality, environmental quality and appearance. Plan Objectives. As with the award-winning "Railroad District Plan", the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan focuses on a wide range of issues in a relatively small but complex area. The General Plan identified the need to do a plan in the Mid-Higuera corridor. It called for a plan to address special issues or needs in "special study/optional design" areas, including the Mid- Higuera area, the Broad Street corridor, the Foothill Boulevard corridor; and the Madonna Road shopping area. According to the Land Use Element (LUE), the Plan should address "street and driveway improvements, flood protection, habitat restoration and parkway opportunities along San Luis Obispo Creek." Key General Plan goals are to 1) serve as a"conceptual redevelopment plan" to maintain and enhance the vitality of the business district, and 2) to ensure compatibility between various land uses in the district and adjacent areas. When Council approved funding for the Plan, it set these broad objectives: A. To provide space to meet future demand for certain retail and office uses near the downtown, without competing with downtown retail. B. To improve compatibility of land uses in the area. C. To encourage new development and improve the area's appearance and traffic circulation. D. To improve the creek, minimize flood hazards and provide for future creek access and/or trails. E. To enhance the area's economic potential through increased public and private investment, increase commercial activity, property values and overall fiscal benefits to the community, and F. To identify public and private improvement projects to help accomplish these objectives. The Plan must be consistent with many General Plan directives. Pages 51 — 53 of the Enhancement Plan list the applicable General Plan policies and how the Plan addresses theses policies. 1-3 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 4 Public Outreach. The policies and goals guiding the plan extend well beyond the planning area and involve a large group of stakeholders. Consequently, public outreach efforts have focused on reaching a wide audience. This effort has included meetings with Caltrans, Pacific Gas and Electric, Madonna Construction, and individual property owners, presentations to the Chamber of Commerce and civic groups, and preparing and distributing newsletters to about 500 businesses, property owners and residents. In four issues, the'newsletters explained flooding and creek issues, bikeway planning, Higuera Street widening, land use changes and urban design guidelines. The draft Plan was posted on the City website, the first time the website has been used to publicize a City plan. Since posting, the Plan has become one of the most often "hit" sites, with over 10,000 hits. Pages 15 — 17 of the Enhancement Plan describe the planning and. community input process. Key Features of the Plan. As described on page 7 of the Plan, the Mid-Higuera Plan is a vision for the jzradual, property owner-driven redevelopment of this gateway to Downtown. It also is a physical plan describing a series of policy changes and public projects to be undertaken to enhance the area's safety, visual character and fiscal health. Key features include: Policy Actions A. Amending the General Plan and rezoning some Services and Manufacturing properties to Retail-Commercial and Tourist-Commercial to allow a wider range of mixed commercial and residential uses and provide incentives for private redevelopment of properties. B. Clarifying the Creek Setback Ordinance to allow public bikeways and walkways in the creek setback area, where appropriate. C. Establishing architectural guidelines to enhance the area's appearance. Short-Term Capital Improvements (within 3-5 years of plan adoption) D. Higuera Street Widening and beautification E. Walker Street Mini-Plaza F. Bianchi Lane realignment G. South Street widening between Parker and Beebee streets H. Open space expansion along creek I. Drainage improvements at Marsh Street J. Creek bikeway and bridge Long-Term Capital Improvements (within 10 years of plan adoption) K. Marsh Street Bridge Improvement L. Creek improvements to reduce flooding M. Public parking facilities N. Pedestrian bridges O. Parker Street Improvements Public Improvements To Coincide With Private Redevelopment(indefinite timeframe) P. Creek walk along east side of San Luis Obispo Creek Q. Rear access and parking for west Higuera Street properties R. Landscaped medians between High Street and Madonna Road 1-4 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 5 S. Brook Street Extension T. Gateway Park/Bob Jones City=to-Sea bikeway staging area U. Meadow Creek drainage improvements V. Landscape medians on Madonna Road W. Higuera Street improvements for new visitor-serving uses at Madonna Road Plan Changes in Response to Comments. Since the advisory bodies' initial reviews in early 2000, staff and the consultants performed additional work to respond to advisory body and public comments, meet with area stakeholders, seek solutions, and to better inform citizens of the Plan's features. Additional studies included a model of proposed creek improvements to analyze their effects on flooding, a creek topographic survey to evaluate bikeway alternatives, a study of the potential effects of a westerly bikeway alignment on Southwestern Pond Turtle creek habitat, a Higuera Street traffic count, turning radius studies to evaluate landscape median affect on truck access, and a public transit needs evaluation. The section on design guidelines was refined, including new text and graphics, and Short- and Long-Range Concept Plans were revised to specifically address advisory body and public comments. These changes included: 1. Comment: Include flood reduction measures in the Plan. Change: The Short-term Plan now calls for the city-owned land at the west corner of Higuera and Marsh Streets to be contoured and landscaped to redirect overland flood flows back to San Luis Obispo Creek, and the Long-term Concept Plan illustration now calls out improvements to Marsh Street Bridge. 2. Comment: Incorporate existing buildings into Long-range plan. Change: The Long-term Concept Plan illustration now shows several existing buildings along the west side of Higuera Street —not shown in the previous draft — to reflect the possibility of incorporating them into new development. Note this is a concept plan. It illustrates the Plan's policies and programs and is not intended to show the precise design and layout of future development. 3. Comment: Provide more developable site area for the Tire Store. Change: Long-term Concept Plan illustration was revised to reduce the amount of paved area devoted to the rear access connection between Bianchi Lane and South Street and allow more building floor area for lots nearest Bianchi Lane (Figure 19,p. 34). Again, see note#2 above. 4. Comment: Move the bikeway to the west side of San Luis Obispo Creek to avoid impacting businesses. Change: The Short-term Concept Plan was revised to show a public bikeway along the west side of the Creek, on mostly city-owned land, with a bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek to the east side, behind Villa's Automotive and connecting to South Street. 1-5 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 6 5. Comment: The landscape median would restrict movement of large delivery trucks. Change: Phase 2 of the landscape medians, located along Higuera Street between High Street and Madonna Road, would not be installed until such time as alternative rear access were available for all of the properties along the west side of this section of Higuera Street. The City's traffic engineering and design consultant evaluated turn geometrics and the proposed landscape median design. As a result, the median between High and.South Streets was shortened to ensure an adequate turn radius for mid-block truck/trailer access (Figure 23, p. 40). Truck turning movements will be possible mid-block and at intersections. Right turns onto Higuera Street would not be affected. 6. Comment: The "mini-plaza" will restrict truck deliveries to the adjacent carpet/flooring business.. Change: The Pacific-Walker pedestrian plaza (Figure 31, p. 48) was revised to maintain truck access for adjacent businesses. 7. Comment: City should provide a neighborhood park for the Brook.Street neighborhood. Change: The Short-term Concept Plan illustration now calls out a neighborhood park ("Eto Park") at the end of Brook Street, which is slated to be improved with the assistance of community groups. Council recently approved an improvement plan for Eto Park that are expected to installed in 2001.. 8. Comment: Realignment of Bianchi Lane will remove mobile homes. Change: A partial realignment of Bianchi Lane is shown on the Short-term Concept Plan illustration to reduce effect on Matthew's Trailer Park. 9. Comment: Show how pedestrians would cross Higuera Street as part of the proposed street improvements. Change: Long-range Concept Plan illustration now shows new textured crosswalks at five locations: Parker (connecting the mini-plaza with creek and open space areas), Bianchi-High Street, South Street (both sides of intersection) and the future signalized intersection at the south Higuera Street entrance to the proposed conference center. 10. Comment: Plan should address building heights/massing to preserve views of Cerro San Luis. Change: Text and graphic added to address building height and massing relative to views (p. 62). 11. Comment/Recommendation: Change the Village Mobile Home Park zoning from R-3-PD to R-4. 1-6 Council Agenda Report`—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 7 Change: The draft plan now reflects this change. Environmental Review. The Enhancement Plan's recommended policies and programs have been evaluated under CEQA at a program level and a mitigated negative declaration was published for public review. No public comments were received. The negative declaration includes 31 mitigation measures addressingflood hazard reduction, creek habitat preservation, bridge design, bikeway and pedestrian trail design, historic preservation, mobile home park relocation assistance, park improvements and General Plan/zoning implementation. The Higuera Street widening was previously analyzed as part of the 1993 Land Use/Circulation Element Final EIR and was determined to be a significant impact deemed acceptable as an `overriding consideration" to accommodate projected traffic levels (due to a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at an acceptable level of service, and to provide a bike lane connection. Additional environmental review will be required for specific capital improvement projects, in conjunction project design and engineering. Balancing Stakeholders' Interests. In evaluating the property and business owner concerns, staff tried to balance individual interests with those of the other community stakeholders. These include all property owners in the planning area, all of the City's residents and businesses, motorists and business customers that use the Mid-Higuera corridor. The larger groups of stakeholders, although not necessarily in attendance at public hearings, are represented by the General Plan and Council direction. Where it was possible to compromise — to achieve community-wide objectives and meet the requests of individual property owners, changes were made. Where a request or concern was expressed that would compromise community-wide objectives, staff attempted to clarify the reasons for the Plan's recommendations. Nevertheless, some plan features remain controversial for some property owners. Issues of Special Concern. At previous hearings and workshops, many of the concerns heard were raised by property owners along the west side of Higuera Street between Bianchi Lane and South Street, who constitute about 10 percent of the property owners in the planning area. The most often raised issues are summarized below. The planning team will be prepared to address these issues in detail at the council hearing. Flood Hazard Reduction Comment: The Draft Enhancement Plan does not adequately address the flood problems in the Mid-Higuera area. The Plan recommends a "menu" of improvements to reduce flood hazards, including Marsh Street Bridge Improvements, raising the Bianchi Lane Bridge above the 100 yr. flood level, analysis and possible construction of a creek "bypass channel", and regrading open space at the corner of Marsh and Higuera Streets to redirect overland flood flows back to the creek. Historically, these flows overtopped the creek banks above the Marsh Street bridge and flowed down Higuera Street and flooded properties. Whether these measures are "adequate" and their ultimate designs are issues to be decided by the City Council based in part on 1-7 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 8 economic/engineering/environmental factors beyond the scope of this plan. The draft enhancement plan is consistent with General Plan policies regarding flood hazard reduction and environmental preservation; however it is primarily a land use/circulation/urban design plan and not intended as an engineering study. As part of the Phase 11 Waterways study, the engineering consultant analyzed flood hazard reduction alternatives, ranging from managing shrubby vegetation in the creek channel to floodplain improvements. Preliminary findings show that the most extensive measures anticipated — primarily relying on a large secondary or bypass creek channel -- would reduce the statistical frequency of flooding from the 6-9 year event to something closer to the 20 year event, and lower floodwater surface elevation from 7" to up to 2 feet, depending on the creek section. Attachment 4 includes a preliminary engineering analysis of the various flood reduction alternatives analysis, however studies are continuing as part of the Phase H Waterways project. A detailed evaluation of citywide flood hazard reduction options. and possible levels of flood protection are anticipated to come to Council in April or May 2001. Building Coverage in the Floodplain Issue: "New development will be restricted in the amount of lot coverage...and required to provide unobstructed flow channels." The Plan says that new development should generally not cover more of the site than existing site coverage by buildings and outdoor storage, unless hydraulic analysis showed the project would not increase flood hazards. This is consistent with adopted policies in the General Plan Land Use Element (GP Digest, Policy 6.4.3). The proposed unobstructed flow channels (policy#4b, p. 59) are simply walkways or driveways — breaks in the row of buildings along the west side of Higuera Street which will serve a dual function of allowing vehicle and pedestrian access, and floodwaters to return to the creek. Again, this is consistent with City policies and past practices regarding flood hazard reduction and new development. This would generally not affect minor additions or replacement of damaged buildings. It would apply to significant redevelopment of sites within the 100-year floodplain. Higuera Street Access Comment: "The Enhancement Plan restricts access from Higuera Street for businesses west of Higuera Street." The Enhancement Plan includes a package of circulation improvements, which taken together, will improve traffic flow and safety, and beautify Higuera Street. Higuera Street is a high- volume arterial with an average daily traffic volume of over 13,000 vehicles, expected to increase significantly with City- and countywide growth. One of the improvements planned to address existing and future traffic volumes is installation of a landscape median to limit left turns to intersections and mid-block areas. The median would be installed in the section from Marsh to High streets when Higuera Street widening occurs, and from High to Madonna Road only at such time as an alternate rear common driveway exists, linking parking for the Parsons' property and others along the west side of Higuera with South Street and Bianchi Lane. Right turns onto and from Higuera Street would continue to be allowed. The key point is simply, the City would 1-8 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 9 attempt to manage driveway access but not eliminate it. This is consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy 7.4 which says "Driveway access from development fronting arterial streets should be minimized whenever possible." Rear Accessway and Parking Comment: There is no need or justification for the rear access serving properties along the west side of Higuera Street between Bianchi Lane and South Street. Secondary access to the rear of Higuera Street properties will reduce conflicting and potentially hazardous traffic maneuvers into and out of new developments along the west side of Higuera Street. With new development and intensification of land uses, turning maneuvers along Higuera Street will also increase. Parking and secondary access at the rear of Higuera Street properties makes good sense. It will help achieve adopted city policies aimed at reducing the number of driveways on arterial streets, and at creating and maintaining a more pedestrian-oriented street character by locating buildings close to the street with parking at the rear. .The alternative — not planning for rear vehicle access and deliveries — will encourage individual parking lots fronting on Higuera Street, a scenario which is not consistent with community-wide goals. Businesses along Higuera Street could continue to use existing driveways. Property owners do not, however, have a guarantee of unlimited left turn access on an arterial street. Rather; street access is subject to traffic safety and circulation needs as well as business considerations. Community Bikeway Comment: The bikeway should start at the Gateway Park and go southward, or be located on the west side of the creek to reduce effects on private property. Also, the bikeway is an "active" use that should not be located within a creek setback. The adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan shows an off-street bikeway paralleling this reach of the Creek and connecting Downtown with the Madonna Road Area and points south to Avila. Stopping the bikeway at Gateway Park would leave an undesirable "gap" in the otherwise mostly Class 1 bike route. The bikeway is feasible along either side of San Luis Obispo Creek, and there are advantages and disadvantages to either alignment. The preferred long-term alignment in terms of ease of construction, environmental effects, safety and cost was along the east side of the creek; however this approach was not supported by property owners or city advisory bodies, due in part to possible disruption to businesses, and because this route would probably take a long time to implement. Bikeway easements would have been acquired gradually, as properties redeveloped with new uses. Instead, the Plan now recommends a west side alignment and bridge construction, with a public pedestrian trail to eventually be developed along the west side as creek side properties redevelop. A portion of the 8 ft. wide, paved bikeway would be located within the 20 ft. creek setback and separated from the creek by railing and landscaping. Bikeways are not specifically allowed or prohibited under the creek setback ordinance, and the City has approved public bikeways within the creek setback in the Edna-Islay specific plan area and at the Acacia Creek office project since adoption of the creek setback ordinance. Conclusion. The Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan reflects a long-term vision of the 1-9 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 10 district changes reasonable to expect in the next 20 years. With on-going development and annexation of the Airport Area, future service and manufacturing uses will be concentrated in the south city where land availability and access are most conducive to these types of uses. The demand for retail and office space and housing close to Downtown is increasing and the Mid- Higuera area will play a role in meeting that need, as more intensive Downtown uses expand southerly and northerly along Higuera Street. The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan, as with other specific and area plans, would guide development of a defined geographic area to help realize this vision. It implements the General Plan with respect to the issues that exist in the corridor. It .includes both near- and long-term changes, but has no specific deadline for implementing physical improvements shown in the plan. The timing of street widening, street beautification, bikeway installation, landscape medians and similar public improvements depends on Council- approved capital improvement plans and budgeting, guided by the implementation strategy in the Plan itself. So while the Plan reflects several significant land use and physical changes, the timing of planned improvements is intended to be flexible and will based; in part; on property owner decisions to redevelop. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the Plan would not result in any immediate fiscal impacts. The Plan recommends several significant capital improvements, including street widening; flood reduction measures, bikeways and trails,bikeway and pedestrian bridges, parks and open space acquisition, and street improvements which, when implemented, will require significant capital outlays. Additional design and engineering studies will be required to determine these costs. Higuera Street widening is currently budgeted at $2.9 million in the 1999-2001 Financial Plan. $1.3 million in federal and state grant funds are committed to the project, with the balance expected to come from the General Fund. Depending upon the ultimate street design and related improvements and mitigation measures approved with the Mid-Higuera Plan, the project's estimated cost may be significantly higher than $2.9 million. If needed, additional funding will be requested as part of the 2001-2003 CIP program. Council could then consider other Mid-Higuera capital projects through the normal CIP review and budgeting process. Some or all of the required funding for various capital improvements may be available from state or federal grant sources, and staff intends to explore these grant sources. Some capital improvements may be implemented through private funding as development occurs. Adoption of the Plan is expected to have several positive fiscal impacts. The Plan includes measures that are likely to stimulate reinvestment in the Mid-Higuera area. To the degree that the Plan encourages private investment in the District, the City will reap indirect fiscal benefits due to enhanced property, retail sales and transient occupancy tax revenues. ALTERNATIVE 1. Continue consideration of the Plan. The City Council may direct staff to modify the Plan as 1-10 Council Agenda Report—Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Page 11 appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Proposed General Plan Amendment Attachment 2: Initial Environmental Study(ER 39-98) Attachment 3: Advisory Body Minutes Attachment 4: Preliminary Flood Management Alternatives Analysis Transmitted previously: Council Hearing Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Council Reading File: Letters from property and business owners, citizens and the SLO Chamber of Commerce. Ih/Umhepkcreport2-26-0I.doc ' 1-11 - CHMENTA1 see* 66 Phi .•:•::� .•0000•: ea 0.0.0.0•. •.•.•.• •.. .•:•:•:� •••0000•: 0000000.0 d •0000:: •♦i_ii.• -"'----� Q`y� .. �0 :00.0.0• � 00000000. Q •••�i•0•0•• Highh Street00000• 000000 . 3 00000.00000 C7 0000 . 0000. --- 2 iiii•• --- &U 0686 ..... _ ti y 00 m m . .� T —7— • •• i ; 1�1J—LJ 0000 i.•� South S�ef •so 0 _ South Street 0 . • 00000 00 00 00••• O .00 0 0000000 000000000000 O7 m .0000.00000 N %•00 •0.0. 0• -L- y 000 • • .0 00 so a • ..0000.ii•� 000000 m .... 0060 ... m • 0••• ....000 ....00000... Q ......000.. .000000000000.•�•�• 000*00 0 0 0•. 00000.0.. Bridge 0000... g Street 0 .i�.ii• • •s o.i• o . 0.00 a? : rraa j • i Mid-Higuera District i Proposed General Plan Designations i i Open Space • i ❑ General Retail Jj ❑ Services and Manufacturing ® Tourist Commercial ® High Density Residential .. • o 1-12 ATACHMENT 2 Initial Study of Environmental Impact ER 39-98: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FORM 1. Project Title: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, (805) 781-7176, or e-mail: jhook@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us David Foote, c/o firma, (805) 781-9800 Doug Davidson, c o Cannon Associates, 544-7407 4. Project Location: Mid-Higuera Street (see Project Boundary, Exhibit A) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing, Medium-High Density Residential, Public, and Open Space. 7. Zoning: C-S, C-S-S, C/OS, PF, R-3PD, R-3 S 8.. Description of the Project: The Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan implements General Plan policies for a "Special Design Area" within the City of San Luis Obispo. The Plan has three main functions: 1) to guide land use development; 2) to serve as a design manual to enhance the appearance and compatibility of new development; and 3) to serve as a vision statement to encourage public/private redevelopment and reinvestment, and recommends specific actions to: • Reduce flood hazards by improving capacity of the Marsh Street bridge, capacity of the creek between Marsh and Madonna, and the drainage system that contributes to flooding in the cemetery and Bridge street areas. • Improve access to businesses along Higuera Street by providing a new private, common driveway between South Street and Bianchi Lanes, and from Parker Street. • Improve circulation by widening a section of Higuera Street, realigning Bianchi Lane, and improving the Pacific-Higuera-Walker Street intersection. • Improve street appearance with trees, landscaped median, sidewalks, benches, and street lights. • Establish open space along the creek with bike and pedestrian trails. • Re-use of the CalTrans property at Madonna Road and Higuera Street to create a new gateway to the City. • Improve land use compatibility between neighboring land uses by providing better access and parking and fostering property renovation. • Preserve the area's historic resources by preservation and re-use of historic buildings. • Display plaques, artwork, and signage to commemorate the history of the area. • Establish architectural design guidelines for future development projects. • Expand public parking in areas deficient in off-street parking. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12!11/00. ' 1-13 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project area is shown in Exhibit A. It is characterized by mixed uses: residential, retail-commercial, service commercial, public, and open space. The mixture of land uses includes a lumberyard, bakery, mobile home parks, retail, offices, and a small residential neighborhood on both sides of Brook Street. Special land uses include: the CalTrans offices/yards, the Old Mission cemetery, Greyhound Bus Terminal, and City-owned open space adjacent to the creek in two locations. The planning area is the Higuera' Street corridor from Marsh Street extending just beyond the CalTrans site south of Madonna Road. West to east, the area extends from Highway 101 to the commercial uses on the east side of Higuera Street and includes the residential uses east of Higuera Street from Bridge Street to South Street. 10. Other Public Agencies Who Must Review or Approve the Project: Plan implementation may require review and approval .by other public agencies (CalTrans, Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and others), depending upon the location and design of specific improvements.. 11. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. As explained below, several impacts will be mitigated to less than significant by the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Land Use/ Planning ® Hazards & Hazardous ® Hydrology/Water Population/ Housing Materials Quality ❑ Geology and Soils Noise ® Transportation /Traffic ® Public Services ® Recreation ❑ Utilities/ Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance ❑ There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. ® The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. 12. Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project applicant in the form of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 2 1-14 ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 20 has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. fXIA an ewlle, Long-Range Planning Manager Date Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 3 1-15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1,6 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on X a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic X resources,.including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Discussion: There are positive and negative features of the Mid-Higuera Street visual condor. Positive aspects include views of San Luis Obispo Creek along the west side of Higuera street near Marsh Street, mature landscaping along some portions of Higuera. Street, views of Cerro San Luis and South Street Hills, and several historic or potentially historic buildings including the Old Lumber Mill, Pacific Coast Center and the original California Department of Transportation offices on Higuera Street south of Madonna Road. Negative visual features include overhead utility lines at each end of the corridor, unattractive signs, stark building facades, lack of street trees, billboards near the mobile home park and cemetery, and the PG&E substation. The Plan establishes architectural guidelines to encourage attractive. private development and preserve views, and identifies public improvements to beautify and enhance the area through street tree planting, billboard removal, overhead utilities undergrounding, and encouraging more attractive architectural design for new buildings, signs, awnings, and remodeled building facades. Public and private development projects will be required to meet city architectural guidelines on a project-by-project basis. Implementation of the Plan and guidelines will be through the City's development review process, and the plan is likely to have an overall beneficial effect on aesthetics by enhancing the appearance of the area and removing or abating negative features. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 4 1-16 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1,2 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown .on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Impact Discussion: The Mid-Higuera Street corridor is an urbanized area. There is no land designated for agricultural use, nor any land available for or being used for agriculture in the study area. Conclusion: No significant impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant. Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1,3 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 5 1-17 d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting X a substantial number of people? Impact Discussion: As described under Section 15, Traffic, the overall changes in land use and traffic volumes are not projected to intensify substantially over the levels anticipated under the General Plan and evaluated in the Final. EIR on Land Use and Circulation Element Updates (City of San Luis Obispo, 1993). The improvements anticipated in the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan will help accommodate, but are not likely to increase, area-wide traffic growth. Therefore, the Plan will not cause significant air quality impacts not already evaluated and mitigated as part of the previous environmental document. The plan converts 385,000 s.f. of urban zoned land to open space/park, expands the range of allowed uses to accommodate mixed residential and commercial uses, and accommodates existing and planned vehicle traffic while providing specific features to facilitate walking and bicycling. According to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, the Plan will not result in air quality impacts. Aspects of the Plan, such as retention and encouragement of mixed land uses, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation options and general improvements of the pedestrian environment are likely to have an overall beneficial effect on air quality by encouraging walking, bicycling and use of public transportation, and by encouraging a compact urban form. Conclusion: No significant impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact -Would the project: 1,7,8 Impact With Impact. Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 6 1-18 Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact Discussion: Within the planning area, San Luis Obispo Creek is located between state Highway 101 and creek side urban development on its east bank, and is therefore considered to be an urbanized area. Pursuant to General Plan policy LU 6.4.1.D, it is appropriate to allow multiple uses along the creek, including both recreation and commercial uses. In these areas, the Plan includes programs to increase landscaping to enhance the area's appearance, reduce glare, and provide additional shade along the creek, along the area's streets, in parking and public use areas. Creek vegetation is characterized by California native riparian plant species, such as Willow, California Sycamore, Black Walnut, Bay Laurel, and Coast Live Oak.. Endangered animal species (Red-Legged Frog and Steelhead Trout), and sensitive animal species (Southwestern Pond Turtle, Two-Striped Garter Snake, California Tiger Salamander) are known to exist in the riparian zone in other areas of the City and are likely to exist in the project area. Except for the addition of riparian plantings in previously disturbed creek bank areas, the native vegetation within the creek is to remain undisturbed. Within upland areas outside of the creek banks and between the top of creek banks and adjacent development, however, some vegetation removal and thinning is planned to accommodate various improvements along the creek. The Enhancement Plan is consistent with the Land Use Element goals of restoring and maintaining fish and wildlife habitat, reducing flood hazard, and providing recreational opportunities that are compatible with the prior two objectives. However, the Plan includes programs and projects that could affect wildlife habitat and the creek environment. The Plan envisions various flood hazard reduction measures and new bicycle/pedestrian paths along the creek within a creek corridor open space preserve. The Southwestern Pond Turtle, a species listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as a California Species of Special Concern, is known to occur in this section of creek. To evaluate possible effects of a bicycle bridge Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 1-19 crossing on turtle habitat, the City conducted an assessment of the specific bridge crossing location (Exhibit K). The assessment concluded that operation of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge in the proposed location was not likely to adversely affect Southwestern Pond Turtle activities, provided that appropriate mitigation measures were included, as listed below. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 1. As part of the environmental review for all private and public projects along the creek, the City shall require a detailed creek bank and creek setback line delineation in the field, evaluation of existing riparian cover, determination of the type and extent of potential impacts on the creek and animal species in consultation with appropriate agencies. 2. The City shall prepare a riparian/creek bank restoration and revegetation plan that is implemented with city projects within the Mid-Higuera area creek corridor. 3. The City shall provide a low fence or rail and appropriate native landscaping between the top of creek bank and pedestrian and/or bike path to discourage human encroachment into creek. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Construction debris and litter shall be removed at least twice daily to limit its downstream movement. S. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant. Impact Would the project: 1,6 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a X unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 8 1-20 1 d) Disturb any human remains, X including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: The history of the area is unique in two ways: the presence of the Pacific Coast Railway Yards and the area's early role as the center of San Luis Obispo's Japanese-American community. The Enhancement Plan includes a building inventory for buildings of historic importance, including the Pacific Coast Center, Hayward Lumber, Caltrans' building and mature Sycamore Trees; and a residence at 296 Higuera Street and several commercial buildings along Higuera Street. The project area includes eight structures identified as having historic, architectural or cultural value. Due to their age, design or historic association, several additional buildings may also qualify for historic designation, including vernacular houses and an old church on Brook Street. The Plan includes a policy that any structures older than 50 years shall be evaluated for architectural, historic or cultural significance. Projects that would remove, relocate or otherwise adversely affect significant or potentially significant cultural resources must comply with local and state preservation standards regarding public notice, consideration of alternatives to demolition, and documentation of the property. Development along or within the creek corridor could impact Native American sites and will require archaeological surveying and mitigation, pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Planned Higuera Street widening will affect the Italianate Cottage and front yard landscaping located at 296 Higuera Street, built around 1880. The Plan identifies the house located at 296 Higuera Street as having historic, architectural or aesthetic value due to its age (built circa 1880) and its architectural style (Italianate with Eastlake details). The house is setback from the current street right-of-way line 23 feet, and a 26-foot widening is proposed. The proposed 26 ft. widening would require removing approximately three feet of the front stairs and porch, or relocating or demolishing the historic house. The City's General Plan provides that "historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety, and other means to avoid the threat are infeasible. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained." The house is listed in the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan as one of several buildings of historic, architectural or aesthetic value located along Higuera Street. The property is not listed in the City's Inventory of Cultural Resources; however historic records suggest this is one of the dwellings shown in the 1877 "Bird's Eye View of San Luis Obispo, California", and one of the last, intact houses remaining along lower Higuera Street from the late 1800s. The house, with two mature Mexican Fan Palms framing the front entry, has retained its original architectural character and materials. Although not architecturally unique in San Luis Obispo, the house's historic significance is due to its environmental setting and visual prominence as a landmark from a time when Higuera Street was the main entry to the City and lined with dwellings and commercial uses. Removal of the mature palms and 3 — 4 feet of the house's front porch would result in significant adverse impacts to this historical resource. A Craftsman Bungalow, located next door at 292 Higuera Street, would not be adversely affected by the proposed widening since it is setback from the existing right-of-way line approximately 29 feet. Conclusion: Less than significant impact with mitigation. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11100. 9 1-21 Mitigation Measures: i. A Phase 1 archaeological study is required for all work proposed within 200 feet (60 meters) of the top of creek bank. Sites identified shall be preserved and protected according to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 2.A historic survey shall be prepared to determine the architectural, historical, or cultural significance of the church which encroaches into the Brook Street right-of-way prior to any actions that would affect the Church. 3. If the church is determined to be architecturally, historically or culturally significant it shall be added to the City's Inventory of Historical Resources and if determined necessary and feasible by the City, relocated within the Brook Street neighborhood to accommodate the proposed Brook street extension. 4. If determined necessary and feasible by the City, the City shall relocate the historic house and mature Fan Palms at 296 Higuera Street on site, provide a new building foundation and connect the house to City services, as required by building codes. 5. Redevelopment of the CalTrans property south of Madonna Road shall preserve the mature Sycamore trees and incorporate the historic brick building. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: b) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. c) Strong seismic ground shaking? X d) Seismic-related ground failure, X including liquefaction? e) Landslides? X f) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? g) Be located on a geologic unit or soil X that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction Project Name:Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 10 1-22 or collapse? h) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Conclusion: Less than significant impact. According to the General Plan, areas within the Mid-Higuera district are not subject to any known geologic problems, nor will the proposed development contribute to geologic problems. On a project-by-project basis, construction along and within the creek corridor will require erosion control measures and must conform to California Department of Fish and Game requirements to minimize riparian habitat disturbance. The project is consistent with policies in the Safety Elements. Standard seismic and geotechnical reports required for land use and building permits will serve as adequate program-level mitigation measures. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No MATERIALS. Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 16 Impact With Impact 'Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12111/00. 1-23 �1 has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: As shown on Exhibit C, the project area is located outside of the airport approach and take-off zones, and does not pose airport compatibility problems. Plan implementation could result in identification of some buildings or sites that contain hazardous materials. A 1999 survey prepared for the San Luis Obispo Fire Department identified nine leaking underground storage tank sites in the Mid-Higuera street area, of which five of the cases are remediated and closed. For the remaining sites and other potentially contaminated sites, the City will require a Phase I environmental assessment in conformance with Federal, State, and local ordinances, and remediation prior to redevelopment. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: A Phase 1 environmental assessment shall be required for sites identified by the Fire Department as potentially containing hazardous materials, with remediation required prior to development or redevelopment, if determined necessary b the Citvbased on the assessment results. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No QUALITY. 1(73= Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 75) Impact With Impact 8(10) Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards X or waste discharge requirements? Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12100; revised 12/11/00. 12 1-24 b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade X water quality? g) Place housing within a 1 00-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 13 1-25 1) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow? Impact Discussion: As shown in Exhibit D, much of the project area is within the 100-year flood zone designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The City has adopted policies related to minimizing or avoiding potential flood related impacts by requiring new construction to be built at an elevation one foot above the flood level. The City is preparing a comprehensive study of flood control options for San Luis Obispo Creek and anticipates that specific flood control projects to address flooding in the Mid-Higuera District and other areas will be recommended and implemented as a result of that study. Future specific flood control projects will require further environmental review. Three main flood-related problems have been identified within the project area: 1) capacity constraints at the Marsh Street bridge; 2) capacity in the Creek between Marsh and Madonna; and 3) problems with the drainage system conveying runoff from the area above Bridge Street and Meadow Park. The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan states that the City will analyze, and if feasible and desirable implement the following improvements to address these problems: t Marsh Street Bridge. The City will increase the capacity of-the Marsh Street bridge. The grade of the bridge must align with the Higuera-Marsh intersection. This project will require further environmental review as part of design and engineering studies. 2 By-pass Channel. The City will install a by-pass/overflow channel parallel to the creek in this reach on the City-owned open space. The channel will replicate the natural riparian features to the extent possible. This project will require further environmental review. The design, timing and feasibility of these projects are uncertain. Future creek projects must undergo detailed environmental review to assess potential impacts on water quality, endangered species, and related topics. The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains policies for creek protection and flood hazard reduction. Development projects that conform to these standards are considered by city policy to be safe and acceptable. Flood hazard reduction projects must conform to General Plan policies, including Land Use Element and Open Space Element policies to carry out environmentally sensitive programs to reduce potential for flooding (LU 6.4.3) and that new developments along creeks should incorporate natural features as project amenities (LU 6.4.4). The City also has adopted a Flood Management Policy and Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. More specifically, the City completed the first phase of the Stream Corridor Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek. This report describes the physical characteristics, constraints to flood prevention, and evaluates strategies for reducing flood hazards along San Luis Obispo Creek. The second phase of this comprehensive study is expected to evaluate and recommend specific flood control measures for the Mid-Higuera area. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: The above policies of the Plan and General Plan will serve as mitigation measures at a program level, in addition to the following measures: 1. Future creek projects shall conform to General Plan policies for creek protection and flood hazard reduction, and when project-specific development plans are prepared, shall be subject toproject-level Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 14 1-26 environmental review and permitting by responsible authorities as required by state and federal law. 2. If determined feasible and necessary, the City-owned open space just below the Marsh Street Bridge will be designed and maintained to channel floodwaters back to San Luis Obispo Creek from Higuera Street (LU 6.4.3.6 and 6.4.3.E(3)). 3. New private development between Higuera Street and the creek shall be designed with unobstructed flow channels between buildings to safely convey floodwater from Higuera Street to San Luis Obispo Creek (LU 6.4.3.13 and 6.4.3.E(3)). 4. Pursuant to General Plan policy LU 6.4.3.D and 6.5.1, new development should avoid raising flood elevations to adjacent or nearby structures my minimizing or reducing lot coverage within the 100-year flood zone and shall comply with City Flood Management Policy and Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, to the approval of the City Engineer. 5. The City shall evaluate the underflow creek capacity of the Marsh Street Bridge, and if it is determined to be feasible and desirable, increase the bridge's underflow capacity. 6. The City will analyze San Luis Obispo Creek, and if determined feasible and necessary, create a by- pass channel on public property between the creek and the freeway to increase floodway capacity in the area. 7. The City will analyze San Luis Obispo Creek, and if determined feasible and necessary, create "flood terraces" adjacent to the creek lower than Higuera Street. 8. The City will analyze San Luis Obispo Creek, and if determined feasible and necessary, recontour and replant the tops of the creek banks in selected areas in the Mid-Higuera area to increase creek capacity and restore disturbed riparian habitat. 9. Pursuant to General Plan policy LUD6.4.3:E(2), if it is determined feasible and necessary, the: City shall provide for realignment of the drainage system south of Bridge Street through the Caltrans property to a new inlet in San Luis Obispo Creek south of Madonna Road, prior to or concurrent with redevelopment of the Caltrans property on the south side of Madonna Road at Higuera Street. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1,2 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land X use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Impact Discussion: The General Plan designates most of the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement area for "Services and Manufacturing", intended for business services, wholesaling and retail sales of large items, and light Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12!00; revised 12/11100. 15 1-27 Y I � manufacturing uses. The project area is diverse, where light industrial, retail, office, residential, and recreation uses meet in a relatively compact geographic area. This mix of uses is both a part of the district's attraction, as well as its greatest challenge. The mix of uses can lead to compatibility problems. For example, the transition to new mixed land uses in the Parker Street area could expand housing opportunities but also impact existing residents east of Parker Street due to potential increases in noise, glare, and parking demand. Other potential land use issues include the • Loss of affordable housing • Expanded residential use in the C-S zone/studio apartments • Provision of adequate parking for new uses • Location of C-T uses across from the bus depot, adjacent to residential and manufacturing uses. • Bikeway in the creek setback area • Transition of Caltrans offices and corporation yard to visitor serving uses. General Plan policies LU 3.1.4 and 8.5 call for the enhancement of underutilized land, and a plan for street and driveway changes, flood mitigation and a linear park along San Luis Obispo Creek. Land Use and Housing Elements call for integrating residential and commercial uses, where feasible. These policies indicate the desired types of solutions to the district's problems and present a planning challenge. Addressing these issues and objectives has lead to the Plan's recommendations for General Plan amendments proposed as part of the Plan's implementation. These amendments are listed below as mitigation measures. Plan implementation would maintain the area's mixed-use character and maintain compatibility between various land uses. Features intended to improve land use compatibility include: • Architectural guidelines to integrate the design of new development with the area's distinctive architectural character; • Parking and street improvements to accommodate a variety of transportation modes, such as automobiles, bicycles, public transit, and pedestrians; expanded system of bikeways to improve circulation and public safety. The Mid-Higu era Enhancement Plan is consistent with, and would help achieve General Plan goals, policies and programs. For example, the plan would: promote the development and use of alternative modes of transportation, such as bicycles, walking, and public transit; conserve architecturally and historically significant sites and buildings; maintain and improve scenic vistas along an important gateway to the City; and encourage of mix of compatible land uses within a neighborhood setting, including housing, retail and service-commercial uses, offices and recreation/open space. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation." The project, with incorporation of the following mitigation measures, would be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and related policies, and implements a general plan policy establishing a"Special Design Area" in the Mid-Higuera Street area. Mitigation Measures: General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments as well as project-level review will address the potential impacts and develop appropriate mitigation at the time project-specific land uses are known. The proposed amendments are: 1. The City shall amend the General Plan to change the Caltrans property on the south side of Madonna Road from Public to Tourist-Commercial use, and change properties located along the west side of Higuera between Madonna Road and Marsh Street from Services and Manufacturing to General Retail with mixed use overlay. 2. The City shall rezone the properties within the Enhancement District as shown in the Mid-Hi uera Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1112/00; revised 12/11/00. 16 1-28 � 1 Street Enhancement Plan, Exhibit J. 3. The City shall amend Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025(G)(2)(b) to confirm that combined walkways-bikeways are allowed in the creek setback, subject to certain restrictions. 4. The City shall incorporate the Mid-Higuera District Architectural Guidelines into the City's Architectural Review Guidelines by reference. 10.ENERGY AND.MINERAL Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No RESOURCES. Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1 Impact With Impact Mitigation -..Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not conflict with the Energy Element or other adopted energy conservation plans, nor would it cause wasteful use of non-renewable resources and deplete any known minerals. Conclusion: No impact. 11. NOISE. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project result in: 1, Impact With Impact 4 (p. Mitigation 4,13-19) Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent.increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic X Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 17 1-29 i A I increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: Future noise levels in the Mid-Higuera area are shown in Exhibit E. Highway 101 is the primary noise source in the area. Noise could affect three features of the Plan: the proposed expansion of Brook Street residential, creation of a gateway park along Madonna Road, and the development of new retail stores and offices along the east side of San Luis Obispo Creek. The General Plan Noise Element, Figure 5, indicates that most of the Mid-Higuera district falls within the 65 Ldn noise contour at build out, estimated to occur around 2022. Noise levels at "build out" will require that as new uses develop within the Mid-Higuera District, site-specific mitigation is built into "sensitive receptor" uses, such as new housing located near State Highway 101. Implementation of the Plan could result in residential areas being exposed to noise in excess of Noise Element standards — 45db interior and 60 db for outdoor activity areas. A portion of the proposed Brook Street extension is located within the area subject to between 65 and 70 db. In this area, exterior noise mitigation measures will be necessary, including locating/orienting buildings to reduce noise exposure, installing noise barriers, vegetation, sound absorbing materials, and possibly sound walls, to reduce exterior noise levels to acceptable levels. Interior noise mitigation measures include providing air conditioning/ventilation, low air infiltration rate frames, solid-core doors, dual window glazing, and others. The proposed "gateway" park will be subject to noise of 65 Ldn, possibly 70 Ldn. This is the maximum exposure for noise sensitive land uses such as parks. Projected noise will not exceed this level at the proposed park site. Design of the park and future housing must evaluate specific noise levels at the time of development and design site-specific mitigation such as a landscaped earth berm/noise barrier along the edge of the park. Implementation of the Noise Element standards for site-specific noise analysis and sitelbuilding design for noise attenuation will serve as adequate program-level mitigation. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: When approving new development of noise-sensitive uses or noise sources, the City will require noise mitigation in the descending order of desirability shown below. For example, when mitigating outdoor noise exposure, providing distance between source and recipient is preferred to providing berms and walls. Before using a less.desirable Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 18 1-30 approach, the applicant must show that more desirable approaches are not effective or that it is not practical to use the preferred approaches consistent with other design criteria based on the General Plan. A site- and project-specific noise study will be required to shows that maximum allowed noise levels will not be exceeded. Standards found in the City's adopted General Plan Noise Element will serve as program-level mitigation: 1. Mitigating Noise Sources (1.2.12): A) Arrange activity areas on the site of the noise-producing project so project features, such as buildings containing uses that are not noise-sensitive, shield neighboring noise-sensitive uses; B) Limit the operating times of noise-producing activities; C) Provide features, such as walls, with a primary purpose of blocking noise. 2. Mitigating Outdoor Noise Exposure (N 1.2.13): A) Provide distance between noise source and recipient; B) Provide distance plus planted earthen berms; C) Provide distance and planted earthen berms, combined with sound walls; D) Provide earthen berms combined with sound walls; E) Provide sound walls only; F) Integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier. 3. Mitigating Indoor Noise Exposure (N 1.2.14): A) Achieve indoor noise level standards assuming windows are open; or B) Achieve indoor noise level standards assuming windows must be closed (this option requires air conditioning or mechanical ventilation in buildings). 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING.. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project:. 1,5 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population X growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the ' construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of re-placement I t Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12111/00. 19 1-31 i housing elsewhere? Impact Discussion: This plan is based on the City's adopted General Plan. It includes policies and programs designed to improve the appearance, function, and economic vitality of the Mid-Higuera Street area. Future development will be "infill" and remodeling projects. It would not substantially increase population, job, or housing demand beyond the General Plan buildout projections, but would broaden the range of allowed uses in the area. The net. effect of the Plan's recommended land use changes would be to allow residential and a wider range of commercial uses, including offices, retail stores and restaurants, in areas now designated for public facilities and service-commercial uses. Except for the portion of the Plan area zoned R-3-PD and the Brook Street extension, most of the area is and will continue to be predominantly commercial with residential uses expected as accessory uses, such as second-story apartments and work- live studios. Plan adoption is not likely to result in a significant net increase in citywide population. Higuera Street widening and other Plan.actions will affect existing mobile home parks and displace some residents. Initially, Higuera Street widening will require the removal of 3 coaches plus landscaping, parking and other site improvements in the Matthew's Trailer Lodge. By their nature, trailer parks provide housing affordable for low- and moderate-income persons. The City's Housing Element discourages municipal actions that remove or adversely affect affordable housing, except where such action is necessary for public health and welfare. In such cases, the City will assist displaced residents with relocation costs and provide affordable replacement housing, pursuant to State law. The Long-Term Plan shows gradual conversion of the Matthew's Trailer Lodge to other conforming uses, with displaced residents to be accommodated, if possible, within the District in a new multifamily residential development at Beebee and Bridge Street. If it is not possible to accommodate these residents within the planning area, General Plan policies call for the City to assist residents in finding affordable housing elsewhere. New development within the District must include affordable housing as required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Program and General Plan Housing Element. Under the State Planning and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act, an application to convert a mobile home park to another use must analyze the potential impacts of conversion and mitigate impacts on displaced residents. City policies require relocation assistance for displaced residents resulting from City capital projects. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 1. The City will provide relocation assistance to mobile home park residents displaced by street widening, pursuant to City policies and state or federal law, where applicable. 2. Compliance with State law regarding mobile home park conversion will be required at such time as one or more of the mobile home parks are converted to other uses. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No - Significant; Significant Significant Impact 1,3 Impact With impact Mitigation Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12100; revised 12/11/00. 20 1-32 a) Would the project result in substantial X adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fireprotection? X Policeprotection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Impact Discussion: Implementation of the Plan, particularly the expanded housing, could result in a minor, localized increase in demand for recreation facilities. As shown in Exhibit F, there are no public parks within the project area, the nearest being Emerson Park just east of the project area. The City's General Plan Land Use Element provides that neighborhoods "shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores." The Plan includes a small "Gateway park" and facilities to improve access to San Luis Obispo Creek and to enable safe and convenient biking and walking in the Mid-Higuera Street area. There is also a small, unimproved, City-owned lot on Brook Street adjacent to St. Luke Baptist Church. Both facilities could eventually be improved to serve micro- neighborhood park uses, such as a small playground and/or picnic area. The Plan will not substantially increase the demand for other. public services to a degree that it would require new facilities that would, in turn, have adverse physical impacts on the environment. It will improve citywide circulation and provide facilities to encourage walking and bicycling, such as sidewalks, parkway landscaping, bikeways, street lighting and signage. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: 1. The City shall ensure that appropriate park and recreation facilities to serve neighborhood needs are provided in connection expanding residential uses in the Brook Street area. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11100. 21 1-33 I 14. RECREATION: Sources Potentially Less Than Uss:Than- . ' No Significant Significant Significant impact 1-(0.73) Impact: 1Nith Impact , Mitigation. Incorporated - a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: The Plan also includes an Open Space preserve along the creek and an easement/setback along the creek which could increase human access into natural areas along the creek. One purpose of the creek setback is to minimize this impact. Plan implementation will comply with Land.Use policy 6.4.4 which states that, "developments along creeks should include public access to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Open Space Element." Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: 1. Improvements within the creek setback area shall emphasize the natural environment with uses limited to walking, biking, and other passive recreation. Low barrier fencing and signage shall be installed to discourage creek intrusion. 15:TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1,3,9 Impact With Impact (p.8) Mitigation Incorporated- a) nco orated_a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12111/00. 22 1-34 standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to X a design feature (e.g., sharp cures or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? f) Result in inadequate parking X capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: Overall, the proposed land use changes in the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan are likely to reduce or have a neutral effect on traffic volumes. The Plan calls for several changes in zoning districts. The approximate net area changes in the zoning districts are as follows: Zoning District Net Change CS -912,500 s.f. (square feet) PF -540,000 s.f. C/OS +385,000 s.f. CR-MU +707,500 s.f. CT-MU +440,000 s.f. R3-S -120,000 s.f. R3-PD-MU +120.000 s.f. Total net change +80,000 s.f. C/OS zoned area The potential traffic increase related to the proposed changes to CT-MU and CR-MU uses would not be significant because the P.M. peak trip reductions in other proposed land uses (i.e., C/OS increase and reduced C-S and PF uses) would offset them, as explained below. The increase in C/OS zoning will decrease trip generation compared to both existing uses and the trip generation forecast in the Circulation Element. The change from CS to CR-MU is estimated to generate about 10% more P.M. peak hour trips than under existing zoning based on an average of trip generation rates for typical land uses in each zoning district, as follows: Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12111/00. 23 1-35 �i CS P.M. Peak Trips/1,000 s.f. CR,MU P.M. Peak Trips/1,000 s.f. Lumber 4.04 Specialty retail 4.93 Discount Store 3.80 General retail 3.74 Hardware 4.42 Clothing retail 3.83 Nursery 3.80 Auto Lube 4.60 Auto Repair 3.38 Tire Store 3.26 Average 3.90 Average 4.17 The change of the Caltrans PF zone north of Madonna Road to C/OS and CR-MU would decrease trip generation since most of the area would be converted to park with a small residential expansion. The change in the Caltrans PF zone south of Madonna Road to CT-MU would decrease P.M. peak hour trips (government office P.M. peak is 11/1,000 s.f., and hotel/conference is .07/room or 14 peak hour trips for a 200 unit hotel) because hotels generally have trips spread evenly through the day and have little P.M. peak hour impact. The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan promotes General Plan policies encouraging improved circulation patterns and alternative transportation. Street Classifications in the project area are shown in Exhibit G. The Plan is intended to accommodate existing traffic and future traffic volumes and will not create hazards or obstructions. Specific street improvements include: 1. Higuera Street Widening. The City has long planned to widen'Higuera Street to four lanes plus a two- . way center turn lane between Marsh Street and Madonna Road. A setback ordinance was adopted in 1965 showing the 80 ft. right-of-way to be acquired, and the section of Higuera Street from The Tire Store (252 Higuera Street) to Madonna Road has been widened, consistent with the adopted plan line. The 1993 Land Use/Circulation Element FEIR addressed this widening. The Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan proposes completing the widening between Marsh Street and The Tire Store, which is currently a 60 ft. right-of=way, plus acquiring an additional six feet of street.right-of-way. The widening will change the visual character of the street by providing a wider paved section with a continuous landscaped median in 'Higuera Street, resulting in a stronger visual link with San Luis Obispo Creek and a partial overhead canopy from the foliage of high-branching median and street trees. The Plan proposes an 86 ft. right-of-way in the north section of Higuera Street, six feet wider than the adopted setback line. The 26 ft. wide right-of=way would allow a 14 ft. wide landscape median and 10 ft. wide left turn pockets to limit driveway access and cross-traffic along Higuera Street, safely accommodate left turns for standard vehicles and trucks, and to beautify Higuera Street. The widened north portion would transition to the 80 ft. right-of-way between the historic Old Mill building (236 Higuera Street) and the house located at 296 Higuera Street. Included in the 86 ft. right-of-way are two 11-ft. travel lanes, two 12-ft. travel lanes (adjacent to the median) a 14 ft. wide landscaped median, two 5-ft. bikeways and two-8 ft. sidewalks. The Plan proposes a narrower landscaped median in the existing 80 ft. wide section of Higuera Street at such time as alternate rear access is available for properties in the section of Higuera Street between High and South Streets. At the intersection of Marsh and Higuera Streets, two dedicated left turn lanes and two dedicated right turn lanes will be provided for northbound Higuera Street traffic. The proposed widening is to be taken on the west (freeway) side of the street. The widening will require the relocation or demolition of certain structures and improvements, as shown in Exhibit I. Properties affected are: Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 24 1-36 Address/Use Possible Action -396 Higuera Street, dressmaker Demolish or relocate -390 Higuera Street, realty Demolish or relocate -306 Higuera Street, car repair Demolish or relocate -304 Higuera Street, car repair Demolish or relocate -300 Higuera Street, pet hospital Demolish or relocate -292 Higuera Street, house Relocate -296 Higuera Street, house Remove landscaping -286 Higuera Street, auto lube and tune-up (landscape only affected) Remove landscaping -280 Higuera Street, drum store and billboard Demolish or relocate -274 Higuera Street, trailer park Remove or relocate coaches Higuera Street widening will affect a historic resource (house at 296 Higuera Street) and remove two or three mobile homes at the Matthew's Trailer Lodge. These potential impacts are addressed under Cultural Resources and Population and Housing, Sections 5 and 12, respectively. 2. Bianchi Lane Re-alignment. Bianchi Lane will be re-aligned to the south in order to match with High Street at its intersection with Higuera Street. The realigned Bianchi Lane will connect with South Street via interconnecting parking lots and private driveway to provide an alternate access to properties fronting on Higuera Street. Realignment will done in the short-term (3-5 yrs.), with Higuera Street widening. Depending on the street design, realignment would require the removal and/or relocation of up to ten mobile home coaches, plus parking spaces and sheds. Prior to realignment, the City will need to mitigate potential impacts by complying with State law and city policies regarding relocation of mobile home tenants and property acquisition. 3. Walker Street Improvement. Walker Street will end in a cul-de-sac at Pacific Street. The street closure was endorsed by the Council as part of the Downtown Physical Plan. The current angled intersection is non-standard and results in traffic hazards for motorists and pedestrians. Closing Walker Street at Pacific and Higuera Street will provide safer traffic conditions and will not cause a significant adverse affect to area street circulation, according to background traffic studies done for the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. 4. Streetscape Improvements. Higuera Street and Madonna Road will have various street improvements installed, including curbs with ramps, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, landscaped median, bus turnouts and street furniture. 5. Bicycle Transportation. The plan provides for bikeways as designated in Exhibit H, consistent with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan and Circulation Element policy 3.6. 6. Parking. New development will provide its own required parking. A parcel-by-parcel analysis revealed that there is ample existing parking in the plan area overall, but some properties are underparked. Implementation of the Plan could result in a parking deficiency in the area. The Mid-Higuera area could benefit from the mixed-use and shared parking reductions allowed by Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.060 by sharing parking facilities for more efficient site utilization, as shown in the Long Term Concept Plan. In addition; the Plan recommends a strategy for providing additional public parking to allow existing underparked properties to be preserved and, where appropriate, remodeled for new uses. The Plan recommends the formation of a parking committee to evaluate future parking needs and options for meeting that need, possible lease/purchase options to acquire public parking lots located near blocks deficient in parking,.and evaluation, improvement, and possible expansion of existing joint use parking arrangements. No specific site has been identified. Site selection and parking improvements will be subject to further environmental review, and mitigation as required. 7. General. The street improvements may also require tree removal. These would be replaced pursuant Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 25 1-37 to the City's Tree Ordinance — no further mitigation required. Median and left turn pocket improvements would be reviewed by City engineering staff or a traffic consultant to ensure that the alignment and profile do not adversely affect roadway or intersection operations. The Plan's Design Guidelines include policies to encourage landscaped and attractive, safe parking areas. Temporary impacts associated with construction of street improvements include dust and noise. Compliance with standard .City conditions imposed for all projects related to construction noise and dust control will mitigate these impacts. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: All projects and street improvement plans will be accompanied by traffic reports and specific environmental study for review and approval by the Community Development Director. All traffic plans shall comply with Land Use and Circulation Element policies, and no further mitigation is necessary at the pro ram level. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No SYSTEMS. Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: 1 Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction X of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction X of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 26 1-38 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: The Plan will not substantially increase use of or demand for public utilities or service systems, nor will it significantly alter those systems. Some utility relocation may be required for the various planned programs or activities, however such changes will be done in accordance with state law and will not change existing services. Conclusion: No impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? None. It is intended to preserve cultural resources and avoid significant adverse effects to wildlife habitat or endangered species. b) Does the project have impacts that X are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider-able" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? None. Short and long-term goals are the same. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12!00; revised 12111/00. 27 1-39 \Yj t c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? None. The project will accommodate existing traffic and encourage alternative transportation. Specific street improvements along Higuera Street are anticipated to improve circulation and enhance traffic safety. Widening of Higuera Street is the subject of a separate, project-specific environmental evaluation (ER/EA 167-00). d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? None. There are no known environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on human beings. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: Earlier analysis used. a) See Source References. b) Impacts adequately addressed. : The environmental effects of population growth and related land use and traffic impacts were addressed in the 1993 Land Use/Circulation Element Updates EIR, and mitigation measures incorporated, where feasible. c) Mitigation measures. (For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project.) 1) Traffic Noise Levels— City will reduce traffic speeds through limits or physical features, and require developments to attenuate noise through setbacks, berms or walls. 2) Biological Resources — City will implement a "biological resource protection program" for proposed development sites, riparian and wetland mitigation, sensitive flora and fauna protection, revised landscape guidelines to include native plants and exclude invasive non- native plants. 3) Water Quality and Flooding — Measures to reduce surface storm runoff nd to prevent erosion and sedimentation. 4) Air Quality — City and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) will require developments to control dust and combustion emissions. d) Overriding Considerations. 1) Street Widening Land Use Impact: Higuera Street, High Street to Marsh. Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at acceptable level of service, and providing a bike lane connection. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 28 1-40 i 21093, 321094, 21151; Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff V. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. r5.1. Ci of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element, Jul 1996 2. Ci of San Luis Obispo ZoningRegulations, February21, 1997 3. Ci of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November 1994 4. Ci of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996 Housing Element, September 1994 6. Architectural/Historic Survey of Higuera Street from Marsh Street to Madonna Road (Gerhard, Weiss 7. Conservation Element 8. Stream Corridor Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, 1997 9. Bicycle Transportation Plan, October 1993 10. Flood Insurance Rate Ma FEMA 11. Flood Management Policy Resolution 5738), 1983 12. Flood Damage Prevention Regulations Ord. #1259 1994 13. Survey Report for Flood Control and Related Purposes, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986 14. Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, Nolte, 1977 15. Flood Plain Information San Luis Obispo Creek, U.S. Army Cors of Engineers, 1974 16. Darren Drake, City of San Luis Obispo Fire Marshal, phone conversation Au ust 17, 1999 17. Environmental Impact Report, 1992 Land Use and Circulation Updates, 1993. 20. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM. 1. . As part of the environmental review for all private and public projects along the creek within the Mid- Higuera Area, the City shall require a detailed creek bank and creek setback line delineation in the field, evaluation of existing riparian cover, determination of the type and extent of potential impacts on the creek and animal species in consultation with appropriate agencies. Monitoring: The Community Development Director shall implement and monitor this measure with assistance from the Natural Resources Manager or his designee. 2. The City shall prepare a riparian/creek bank restoration and revegetation plan that is implemented concurrent with city projects within the Mid-Higuera area creek corridor. Monitoring: The Natural Resources Manager or his designee shall implement and monitor this measure. 3. The City shall provide a low fence or rail and appropriate native landscaping between the top of creek bank and pedestrian and/or bike path to discourage human encroachment into creek. Monitoring: The Public Works Director or his designee shall implement and monitor this measure. 4. 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. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #3. 5. 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. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #3. 6. Lighting on the pedestrian and bicycle paths 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. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #3. 7. Construction work shall be accomplished from the areas above top of creek bank. No construction Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 29 1-41 access to the creek should be allowed. Construction personnel should be informed of the overall sensitivity of the creek environment and should avoid any activity with the creek and its banks. In particular, workers shall not bring dogs to the construction site or let dogs enter the creek corridor. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #3. 8. Construction debris and litter shall be removed at least twice daily to limit its downstream movement. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #3. 9. A Phase 1 archaeological study is required for all work proposed within 200 feet (60 meters) of the top of creek bank at the time of project-specific development. Monitoring: The Public Works Director shall implement this measure with the assistance of the Community Development Director. 10. A historic inventory shall be prepared to determine the historical significance of the church which encroaches into the Brook Street right-of-way prior to any actions which would affect the Church. Monitoring: The Public Works Director shall implement this measure with monitoring assistance from the Community Development Director. 11. If the church is determined to be architecturally, historically or culturally significant it shall be added to the City's Inventory of Historical Resources, and if determined necessary and feasible by the City, relocated within the Brook Street neighborhood to accommodate the proposed Brook street extension. Monitoring: Same as under measure # 10. 12. If determined necessary and feasible by the City, the City shall relocate the historic house and mature Fan Palms at 296 Higuera Street on site, provide a new building foundation and connect the house to City services, as required by building codes. Monitoring: The Public Works Director or his designee shall conduct project-level investigation and prepare and implement relocation plans, as determined necessary. 13. Redevelopment of the CalTrans property south of Madonna Road shall preserve the mature Sycamore trees and incorporate the historic brick building. Monitoring: The Community Development Director will conduct project-level environmental studies and check development plans for conformance with this mitigation measure. 14. A Phase 1 environmental assessment shall be required for sites.identified by the Fire Department as potentially containing hazardous materials, with remediation required prior to development or redevelopment, if determined necessary by the City based on the assessment results. Monitoring: City Fire Marshall shall check development plans for conformance. 15. Future creek projects shall conform to General Plan policies for creek protection and flood hazard reduction and at the time of project-specific development plans are prepared, shall be subject to project-level environmental review and permitting by responsible authorities as required by state and federal law. . Monitoring: The City will prepare engineering plans and conduct project-level environmental studies, to be implemented and monitored by the Public Works Director or his designee. 16. If determined feasible and necessary, the- City-owned open space just below the Marsh Street Bridge will be designed and maintained to channel floodwaters back to San Luis Obispo Creek from Higuera Street (LU 6.4.3.13 and 6.4.3.E(3)). Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #15. 17. New private development between Higuera Street and the creek shall be designed with unobstructed flow channels between buildings to safely convey floodwater from Higuera Street to San Luis Obispo Creek (LU 6.4.3.13 and 6.4.3.E(3)). Monitoring: Community Development Director shall check development plans for conformance with this measure. 18. Pursuant to General Plan policy LU 6.4.3.D and 6.5.1, new development should avoid raising flood elevations to adjacent or nearby structures by minimizing or reducing lot coverage within the 100- Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 30 1-42 year flood zone and shall comply with City Flood Management Policy and Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, to the approval of the City. Monitoring: City Engineer or his designee will check development plans for conformance. 19. The City shall evaluate the underflow creek capacity of the Marsh Street Bridge, and if it is determined to be feasible and desirable, the City shall increase the bridge's underflow capacity. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #15. 20. The City will analyze San Luis Obispo Creek, and if determined feasible and necessary, create a by- pass channel on public property between the creek and the freeway to increase floodway capacity in the area. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #15. 21. The City will analyze San Luis Obispo Creek, and if determined desirable and feasible, recontour and replant the tops of the creek banks at selected areas within the Mid-Higuera area to increase creek capacity and to restore disturbed riparian habitat. Monitoring: The Public Works Director will prepare engineering plans and conduct project-level environmental studies; the Natural Resources Manager will designate enhancement areas and monitor compliance. 22. If it is determined feasible and necessary, the City shall provide for realignment of the drainage system south of Bridge Street through the Caltrans property to a new inlet in San Luis Obispo creek south of Madonna Road, prior to or concurrent with redevelopment of the CalTrans property on the south side of Madonna Road at Higuera Street. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure#15 23. The City shall amend the General Plan to change the Cal Trans property on the south side of Madonna Road from Public to Tourist-Commercial use, and change properties located along the west side of Higuera between Madonna Road and Marsh Street from Services and Manufacturing to General Retail with mixed use overlay. Monitoring: Community Development Director shall initiate the action and monitor for compliance. 24. The City shall rezone the properties within the Enhancement District as shown in the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, Exhibit J. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #23 25. The City shall amend Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.025 (G) (2) (b) to confirm that combined walkways-bikeways are allowed in the creek setback, subject to certain restrictions. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #23 26. The City shall incorporate the Mid-Higuera District Architectural Guidelines into the City's Architectural Review Guidelines by reference. Monitoring: Same as mitigation measure #23 27. New development shall conform to standards found in the City's adopted General Plan Noise Element. Monitoring: Community Development Director shall conduct project-level environmental review and check development plans for conformance. 28. The City will provide relocation assistance to mobile home park residents displaced by street widening, pursuant to City policies and state or federal law, where applicable. Monitoring: Public Works Director shall ensure compliance. 29. Compliance with State law regarding mobile home park conversion will be required at such time as one or more of the mobile home parks are converted to other uses. Monitoring: Community Development Director, with assistance from the City Attorney, shall ensure compliance with State law. 30. Improvements within the creek setback area shall emphasize the natural environment with uses limited to walking, biking, and other passive recreation. Low barrier fencing and signage shall be installed to discourage creek intrusion.. Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 31 1-43 Monitoring: Public Works Director shall ensure compliance as part of City bike and pedestrian trail development. 31. The City shall ensure that appropriate park and recreation facilities to serve neighborhood needs are provided in connection with expanding residential uses in the Brook Street area. Monitoring: The Parks and Recreation Director shall implement and monitor this measure. The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. As applicant for the City of San Luis Obispo, I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above. Kefi Ha pian, Ci"dmitfistrative Officer Da Attachments: -Exhibit A: Project Boundary -Exhibit B: Scenic Highway Routes -Exhibit C: Airport Land Use Compatibility -Exhibit D: Hydrology -Exhibit E: Noise Levels at City Buildout -Exhibit F: Parks -Exhibit G: Street Classification -Exhibit H: Bike Routes -Exhibit I: Mid-Higuera Street Setback Map -Exhibit J: Proposed Zoning -Exhibit K: Southwestern Pond Turtle Assessment Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan (September 2000) jh/L:mhepA nitialstudyER39-98 Project Name: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Initial Environmental Study, ER 39-98 Date: 1/12/00; revised 12/11/00. 32 1-44 if ;%' �� �. EXHIBIT A J2oh ;L � 4 . High Street C9 /+u ! — j-_]�Da ce Studio,etc. CIO o i y a i m i 7� Gr and Station % A SOUS Street afer /g rl Som Street D . J C7.1 ! </ brans WD M O Bri ge Street I - _ Cemetery C�7rc, nsLf t ' ® ® ® � Project Boundary vo a m no No lV (IN FEET) Y 1/99 1 m.-1xo n. I Exhibit A, 2XH txhibimt B l� scenic Routes 1X\ \ � sourH 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Mlles 1 City Limit N Scenic Routes High / Moderate W E Outside city Limit V/ Streets S 1-46 Exh 'ib'lt C EXHIB11 C Air p p ort Com atibiti ty i I Project Area -412 2 0 2 4 Miles City Limit N Streets Airport Runways Airport Land Use Compatibility 1 Airport Bldg. Area 0 2 Other Airpt Prop. W E 0 3 Under ApprJClimb Ext 4 Adj. to Airpt Betw. Runway Ext. 5 Other Land Betw. Run. Ext 0 6 Land in Planning Area S 1-47 .xh i-h i t t LXX SIT IY Hydrology f , . i O �•; G\�`G O OSP Q San Luis Obispo Creek HIGH \ Ij Ar, w \ f. � f n SO •r \ 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Miles City Limit N City Streams Streets Creek Setback Classes W E 20 /V35 S FEMA Flood Zones 100 year 500 year 1-48 • AIL ON �•.CI�1]i� LI\ r ►• �.. .. OUR min moan-' +�- == sloll!!!®!lllf�!l�rlill!!II 1111Atlll INEMEN nIL 1UI11/////�i' y�ili�ini'.I ulyf-. 1,1110 w 81 - _ � IIII., 111111 m fame 11111113 NOW � 1 • - `XHIB IT F Exhibit F Parks Jack House Emerson Park Project Area N4V 7�1 \ f Meadow Park Laguna Lake Park --8�-- , 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Parks Mini ® Neighborhood N - Community Laguna Lake w E City Limit Streets S 1-50 I _ hXHIBIT6 Exh i bit Street Classification , 101 Project Area V 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Miles �A i City Limit Street Classification N Freeway N Highway/Regional Route N Arterial Parkway Arterial Residential Arterial Commercial Collector w E V Residential Collector IV Railroad Tracks Streets Airport Runways S 1-51 Exhibit H EXHIBIT H Bike Routes I Q �p0 \ I o F \ P , 7 Project Area •- ��, e ° 0 8 CH \ I .p - J mom" op, I ® CO y \ \ m a- I _SANDEROOCK \ f a m v \ \I Y BRANCH \ 1 m Z \ V I BRIDGE✓ CORRIDA ' WOODBRIDGE X49 r — — — — — — \ 1 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Mites City Limit Bicycle Transportation N Routes Lanes w E Paths Streets S 1-52 • 1 q� ilk 1 11 1-7 -thack ;p 396 Higuera: 0 ft. setback • 1 • 1 ft. setbaCK / 71 (yiJ pp�� ...f N v>♦ V' ,._ �5 X40' �, ffr{. 'lld�� t .'G 4{�' Pi .i. ' a . 'f4 • P '' r �~ti • • • ".•• • • _ • ,fir '�- 1 '`V-9`�rC,��' t 1)0*1 1611 Lox- Higuera: 0 ft. setback Rr f �♦ 3y ,. e r .�c 286 Higuera: 50 ft. setback- �1 r •�( 3Jr..' •1.r��_ �. _~s rv•.V_��ll^ J�� •Ryr�.� r �`, y�(,1{"'JJJ :. .yam'.► • _ `� ♦ jy. �-E'T i!" ' - �5.rr f! i r/M�" e t Y„C�?t _ ♦ �Y•- t,, ' ���Cr>�"�W:aE�s'Yxcsa wu f�����. b'��♦ ,a r �r,,.�, � � 9 ' r� �. _ M11`#.15n}�"•4 ° �P �a � "h t J � � -=H s.. .tel h i r e �M ..pry,.`p �'tl+� os la 31x � fte .i�..+;e yM� -. er!P ».y r '+•r I_�yr f;: : r� � uaaA MA.Mr.6 ^"•"� ,a'.:,y� � �•< G'k '- (((((t t..N.* 11 1 J ,t�y�^it�Sl `?� '^'r t�jA E�•[.�, � l e t �� _ S f� '•11 t �l i 1 I v '/V' ' `' - J SSS �y.rN`` � k }j rf. .w.:w AZ. - loi Existing right-of-way line 4 + tie'y • _ of public AS ftlt 'j • = Y. "�Ylr, •, T'`'�Sr.7y'u G'�/Y�iS'r•Y' � �~' r �`"'��4'� ���• � eCa 1@ �'Y t +/' •�`p,��V'11 �•►.� r y ,�,C r ---JQ�! qy'✓_± i w` 'ri � t err e , ,y ,�f '.. �.r 1 - •'. fr/# � ay�1:' " ,.4.. �jZ u.� •..'bsv' �., ..a+'r�` ;! t+,•„�.•. y/r v �+ a�W ` y � ^ r y f !.'k^k aFyr � '• .� �p• ,t'F�s+ }(#+� � .Y �� r, '' +�.. .a+' ^f. .,Y � v��"� S �� � G :'_. ',;• iii k C. t• `�' .rV n :l(t '� +` �r +:.� .'�'Jc»N S' ,,.,. � V.+e.i... ,h • J..Jt�# �'.s- !: 1�'� l�ah•1; { t y r I� / ��}. � , P '. a l J�:t • v� +•� 4 �� F"^c•..Y M. 2Yir/}r iwl t M 11NIii`' t \. ,• ��r ��� �. '�.. f• IC •.�—=-- y t�� y. ..- ... a tq' � _ R �f•po j ,..o F`��ri � t` Y �+ ii11 ,r � I YY + w u ecu. p'�s Y Y. Y k :K � tll �` �`^,r •i SXF iv • ~.,.�.,. 1 +�;AA -t�''�, ��(le• .� •• � •��� '�AJ t' l^a fly J,d '+e.1Y ' Y 1 1••yt It� .•,i7 y�_ ` k- r xJ _7[i.'�`�.f c,'•n.Yx,...... '� l�ia:L}�`l 'A m 'Y�d+ 1xN �1'`��y�' , 1 J ' . - T; - •- • a� � t -`a `.n,,.»_'�r .3'N , I a aro mile �.' �#' S�a yti, -'�_� .q,."r rY a , Y� �'�w� v�(�� i [•�.a-y, � �,.. a�..�.?7': I r`'. t •..ry .�.FSi7'�r_�� ��ts'f ��"N«.} i •� fi S�1{ ¢ 1 t ` Y+y� t y � - � •.�F. .J+ ... ..� M•",- �"ii '�•S i.. �.".4 4 _ t M i' "_Y�+ ..:. �,' .:tCAMMYYQi JL4•3.r ` / � Exhibit �. XHIBIT �! i ' ••i••• •••••1 Hi9 Street ti Au as* / O .•.•• p m ' I 7.•s % m �•�'�• sow, soeet •••••• m •szascs s � � e• gee i•• ••••r••• •••••rI I Rl— ca •ee••••••e• Q 1 0:9-0-0-6-07a0 1 • too* .;. , i 0 C/OS C-R-MU �wq s' I CT-MO rF G G �L ii N �, JI ilius ,•.,m• f Proposed Zoning 26 1-55 . _ exhibit k EXHIBIT � BOWLAND &ASSOCIATES Biological&Environmental Consulting Services PMB-205, 2674 East Main Street, Suite D Ventura, CA 93003-2830 805-652-577 fax: 652-0576 Re Ge iv e d September 25, 2000 Neil Havlik City of San Luis Obispo SEP 2 8 2000 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of S.L;O. Administration RE: Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan—Southwestern Pond Turtle Assessment Dear Neil: This letter report provides the findings of my brief field reconnaissance of the proposed bridge crossing of San Luis Creek. The approximate location is illustrated on Figure 1, attached. I understand that the project involves construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the creek as part of the Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan. The bridge abutments would be located above(topographically)the top ofbank, and therefore there would be no disturbance within the creek or on the banks. The bridge would be approximately 12-15 feet above the creek, and about 10 feet wide. Itwould be designed as a traffic corridor to move pedestrians and bicyclists across the creek without pausing;ti here would not be wider portions or other opportunities for users of the bridge to stop over the creek The bridge would be fenced for both safety and to prevent the inadvertent or intentional deposition of litter or other debris into the creek. The fence would be solid up to"hand rail;" height of approximately 42 inches. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed crossing location is comprised of an open to nearly closed canopy of native red willow (Salix laevigata), western sycamore(Platanus racemosa), California black walnut(Juglans californica) and alder(Alnus sp.). The understory on the west bank is a dense undergrowth of two invasive, non-native groundcovers: Himalayan blackberry(Rebus discolor) and Cape ivy [German ivy] (Senecio mikcmioides (=Delairea odorata)), with scattered/sparse garden nasturtium(Tropaeolum majus)and various annual grasses. Portions of the east bank have been recently revegetated. Common groundcover species include Himalayan blackberry and non-native species. The creek is shallow at the proposed bridge crossing,with a substrate comprised of small cobbles with occasional larger rocks and small boulders. The adjacent vegetation provides a good variation of dappled sunlight, full sun, and full shade along the creek and the banks. There are areas with overhanging vegetation along the water's edge, and rocks forming ledges with quiet water beneath them. Neil Havr IBIT 441 September 25, 2000 Page 2 of 3 The southwestern pond turtle(SWPT)(Clemmys mar»rorata pallida) is listed as a California Special Concern Species by the California Department of Fish& Game. SWPT have been seen in this portion of San Luis Creek, upstream of the proposed bridge location(pers. comm., Havlik, July, 2000). Overall habitat quality for SWPT is moderate at the proposed bridge crossing location. There is moderate quality foraging and sunning("basking") habitat. Higher habitat quality is found both upstream and downstream of the crossing site, where riffle zones alternate with deep water pools. The deeper pools offer refuge sites for the turtles during summer drought and high temperatures, and during the colder periods of winter. The pools also provide safe havens from predators, such as raccoons and herons, and from curious domestic dogs and people. There are unrestricted movement opportunities up and downstream for turtles. No upland nesting sites were noted in the vicinity of the proposed project, limiting the overall habitat quality for SWPT. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS The following specific items could cause SWPT to alter their behavior and/or cause them to avoid use of the creek or its banks in the bridge area. Harassment: People stopping along the bridge would disrupt the activities of turtles within eye sight of the bridge. Of particular concern would be people fishing, throwing items into the creek, or allowing dogs to enter the creek Movement: The turtles may disrupted by the movement of people and bikes along the bridge. Noise: Depending on the type of construction material used as flooring on the bridge, bikes in particular could be quite noisy crossing the creek. Ni t.Lighting: Night lighting on the bridge could reduce habitat quality, potentially aiding nocturnal turtle predators. Construction Impacts: Short-term,temporary impacts would occur during the construction period. These impacts could include noise, dust, high levels of human activity on the banks of the creek, and removal and/or reduction of tree canopy. Some minor trimming of the existing trees may be required during construction of the bridge. This could result in an increase in the amount of surf reaching the creek and/or banks,'thus reducing the amount of shade and protective cover. This impact would be short term and less than significant, since vegetation would quickly regroup where trimmed. Minor tree removal, resulting in longer term changes to the amount of sun reaching the creek could result in beneficial impacts by.providing additional basking h6bitat in an otherwise shady environment. Although SWPT may avoid the creek during the construction period, they would most likely resume normal activity levels after construction is complete. "California Special Concern Species. It is the goal and responsibility of the Department of Fish and Game to maintain viable populations of all native species. To this end, the Department has designated certain vertebrate species as "Species of Special Concern" because declining population levels, limited ranges; and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. The goal of designating species as "Species of Special Concern" is to halt or reverse their decline by calling attention to their plight and addressing the issues of concern early enough to secure their long term viability. Not all "Species of Special Concem" have declined equally; some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a"Threatened" or "Endangered" species under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts." California Department of Fish&Game(January,2000), "Special Animals." State of California,The Resources Agency,Department.of Fish&Game wildlife and.Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Natural Diversity Data Base.. 1-57 Neil Havlik September 25, 2000 Page 3of3 EXHIBITI< MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Incorporation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to SWPT to less than significant levels. Harassment: The bridge should be fenced to prevent people from fishing,throwing items into the creek, or allowing dogs to enter the creek. The corridor should be sized.to prevent opportunities for stopping along the bridge. Informational signs should be provided indicating the sensitive nature of all creek habitats and the need to respect wildlife within these areas. Movement: A low, solid wall should be constructed along the margins of the bridge. This should limit the ability of turtles to see pedestrians and/or bicycles moving along the bridge. Such a wall would also limit the amount of litter entering the creek. Noise: Bridge flooring should be composed of a solid material, such as concrete. Steel may be used, provided sheets are large enough to prevent noise being generating at the seams when bicycles are crossing the bridge, and must be solid, not open construction..The careful selection of construction materials will both reduce the noise emanating from the bridge deck, and prevent materials from entering the creek. Night Lighting: Night lighting on the bridge should be,kept to a minimum for safety, and should be shielded to avoid direct lighting of the creek's surface or banks. Construction Impacts: All construction work should be accomplished from the areas above the top of bank; no access to the creek should be allowed. Construction personnel should be informed of the overall sensitivity of the creek environment, and should avoid any activity within the creek and its banks. In particular, workers shall not be allowed to bring dogs to the construction site, or to let dogs enter the creek corridor. All construction debris and litter shall be collected at least twice daily to limit its downstream movement. CONCLUSION It is unlikely that the operation of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge in the proposed location would adversely impact SWPT activities at this site. These turtles are more likely to utilize areas both up-and downstream of the bridge crossing, where higher habitat quality exists. Given incorporation of the preceding mitigation measures, impacts to SWPT are expected to be less than significant. Please feel free to contact me to discuss the contents of this report. Sincerely yours, Jacqueline Bowland Worden Consulting Biologist 1-58 IT � Bianchi Land Proposed a �plu#off Bridge Location a m I I \ f r I II South sheet f► �� �r p U I / aoa ao�aaap ID Ga I ❑ �� � �� a saoet I e � aoo -� !. l Mid-Higuera Enhancement District 1-59 DRAFT AT ,ACHMENT 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2000 - - CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 2000, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Jim Aiken, Orval Osborne, Mary Whittlesey, Alice Loh, Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, and Chairman Paul Ready Absent: None Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Long Range Planning Manager John Mandeville, Associate Planner Jeff Hook, Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Economic Development Manager Shelly Stanwick, City Engineer Wayne Peterson, and Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of June 28, 2000, were accepted as corrected on page 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, spoke about the need for creek/wildlife habitat protection and the need to abide by the creek setback ordinance. He questioned if the current ordinance is effective because so many creek setback exceptions are being granted. After discussion the Commission requested staff to include a discussion item on the December 6th agenda of creekside properties that have requested or been granted creek setback exceptions. Richard Ferris, 365 Branch Street, felt the General Plan speaks of Higuera Street as an arterial way and that some people think it's a commercial district; this seems to be a core issue that needs addressing. 1-60 Draft Planning Commission 1. ,ting November 1, 2000 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Mid-Higuera Street: AHI, GPA, and ER 39-98; Review of the Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan (optional use and special design area); City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Jeff Hook and Long Range Planning Manager John Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended taking public comment, reviewing the draft initial environmental study and draft plan, and recommending to the City Council approval, with or without changes. Commr. Loh complimented staff on their work and asked if there would be a future increase in building height or a gain in retail or office space. Mr. Hook stated the height limits in the C-S and C-R zones are 35 feet and 45 feet. The plan recommends that the height of the buildings.along the streetscape be kept at a lower level and that the building massing be designed to preserve views. Commr. Loh felt the proposed widening of Higuera Street with the required setbacks and rear accesses would compress the building areas. Mr. Hook noted that if the zoning was not changed to C-R and the street was widened, there would be significant setbacks required. He noted that building heights and setbacks allowed more floor area with the plan as proposed. Commr. Loh felt tree planted medians would block views. Commr. Peterson questioned staff on the fate of the existing mobile home parks in the area. Mr. Hook stated that both of themobile home parks were non-conforming uses that would become legal conforming uses under the proposed plan; however, the long-term vision is that they would be recycled into different uses. Three to five of the mobile homes would be removed; three along the Higuera Street frontage and possibly two would be affected by the realignment of Bianchi Lane. Commr. Peterson cited Housing Element Policy 2.3.10 regarding removal or conversion of affordable housing and asked if approving this plan would cause the City or the landowner to be responsible for providing the affordable housing. Mr. Hook explained that the plan has three built-in provisions to try to increase affordable housing and described them. Commr. Whittlesey asked staff to comment. on Cuesta Engineering's final recommendation on flooding, the proposed 86-foot right-of-way, and the rear access parking. Commr. Loh had staff comment on the proposed bike lanes on both sides of the street. 1-61 Draft Planning Commission'''t. _,sting November 1, 2000 Page 3 Commr. Cooper stated the plan references Land Use Element 2.1.4, 2.2.1, 2.2.2; all which refer to the conservation and development of residential neighborhoods. He noted that this portion of lower Higuera Street is Service-Commercial. He questioned where the General Plan designates this area for an overlay of mixed uses with residential development. Land Use Element 3.1.4 states the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan should enhance underutilized commercial land. His feeling was that the Land Use. Element does not mention an overlay of mixed uses, residential, or C-R zoning for this area. Mr. Hook reviewed the enhancement plan development process, including the previously held workshops and added that workshop attendees wanted intensification of commercial use while preserving and allowing residential to continue. He noted that the proposed C-R zone allows for this. Workshop comments were included on page 16 of the Enhancement Plan. Mr. Mandeville noted that Land Use Element Policies 2.2.7 and 3.7 and Housing Element Policy 5.2.2 encourages mixed-use residential and commercial projects citywide. Commr. Loh asked if the General Plan addresses median strips. Mr. Hook explained that policies in the Circulation Element encourage median strips at crossroads to provide for pedestrian refuges and encourages that driveways onto arterial streets be minimized wherever possible. Commr. Cooper noted that previous public testimony questioned why a pedestrian feel should be established when this area is Service-Commercial. Commr. Aiken asked staff to provide the timing and phasing of the plan, which staff did. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session.was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gerard L. Parsons, 848 Venable Street, felt staff had misrepresented the previous testimony of merchants and property owners. He felt this enhancement concept is detrimental for all in the area. He noted Higuera Street widening had previously forced him to grant 20 x 352 feet of frontage to the City at a value of$105,000, then he was forced to give 20 x 405 feet at the rear of his property for a creek easement at a value of $121,000. In addition, a Higuera Street bike lane eliminated 12 parking spaces for his customers and employees. A median strip would prohibit left-hand turns into businesses. He opposed the proposed bike lane at the rear of his property, noting his feeling that it could be located on the other side of the creek on City-owned property. He did not support the proposed road from Bianchi Lane through the middle of private property. 1-62 Draft Planning Commission i. _.ting November 1, 2000 Page 4 Raymond Hanson, 150 Pismo Street, felt that the General Plan does not provide for pedestrianization of this area. He did not support a mid-street safety island ora median strip. He felt that a median strip could have a negative impact on flooding. He reiterated that this is a Service-Commercial area, not a residential area. Mike Gilligan, 178 Brook Street, supported widening Higuera Street and fixing flooding impacts associated with the Marsh Street Bridge. He felt the plan tries to accomplish too much at once. Jim Morabito, Paul's Dry Cleaners owner, 214 Higuera Street, supported widening Higuera Street and other improvements such as trees, benches, and architectural enhancements. He felt flooding issues should be addressed, and did not support the Brook Street-Bianchi Lane extension or a Higuera Street median strip. Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, concurred with Dr. Krejsa's February 9, 2000, comments. He felt that bicycle paths should not be located in creek setback areas and that bird populations could be threatened by this action. This setback is supposed to protect wildlife. He strongly advocated widening the bicycle paths along Higuera Street. He felt staff was not listening to the public. Patricia Willmore, registered municipal advocate representing the Chamber of Commerce, distributed a letter sent to the Planning Department on September 26, 2000, noting that many business owners in this area are interested in how this plan may affect their businesses. She felt there might be a lack of understanding on how this plan would be phased and may truly affect the merchants. She offered the opportunity for the Chamber to meet with its members and for planning staff to discuss how this plan might affect business in the long run and to the entire community as well. Mike Spangler, 664 Marsh Street, felt some property owners feared this plan might box them in. For the project to be successful it must be flexible. He felt residential development should be encouraged in this area, but felt requirements should be clarified. He asked staff to research the American Wheelmen's Association's solution to bike lanes in relation to bicycle traffic in urban areas; they do not favor on-street bike lanes. Dave Beem, owner of Ben Franklin Sandwich Shop, 313 Higuera Street, stated that Brook Street residents heavily attended the first workshops and expressed a need for residential areas in the plan. He explained that many residences were non-conforming and there was concern about the ability to rebuild. He supports the Walker Street closing because it's a very dangerous corner. He did not feel a median strip would be a barrier to his business. John Hough, 962 Mill Street, Village Mobile Home Park owner, commented on the affordability of the park and flooding concerns. He felt Higuera Street widening and flood control are necessities. Jean Seay, 544 Pacific Street, #210, cyclist, spoke in support of safe bike lanes on Higuera Street. She felt the current lanes are too narrow and poorly maintained. 1-63 Draft Planning Commission l ,sting November 1, 2000 Page 5 Bill Wilson, 274 Higuera Street, commented on area flooding and suggested lowering and widening Higuera Street so that water could be carried away on Higuera Street. Richard Ferris, 303, 295, and 283 Higuera Street, distributed drawings and supported the proposed street widening and zoning upgrade, but spoke against a median strip. He did not support any future division of the San Luis Lumber property, feeling this large parcel may be a future asset. He also suggested that traffic and tum-volume studies are necessary for the proposed median strip and tum pockets. He felt the proposed street widening could accommodate on-street parking. Flood control should be placed before the proposed bicycle bridge. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh asked staff to comment on bicycle path/lane requirements. The current Bicycle Plan identifies Higuera Street as a route that should have Class 2 bike lanes meeting Caltrans standards on both sides of the street. She had staff review existing and proposed development and expressed concern about property/land narrowing, rear-lot shared parking, and the creation of less developable areas Mr. Hook explained that the plan and adopted City policies say that generally, development within a flood plain should not increase the amount of water displaced to other properties. Building upwards would accommodate building/floor area increases without displacing additional flood waters. Commr. Aiken asked staff to review the different rights-of-way and setback table exhibits and questioned if property owners would be compensated for any loss of property. Mr. Hook replied that any properties that would be involved in a taking would be appraised and the City would be required to pay fair market value. Commr. Whittlesey referred to the Initial Study, Section 7, Impact Discussion, page 12, and asked if the 1999 Fire Department Soil Contamination Survey focused on the entire area or if it concentrated on one portion of Mid-Higuera Street. Mr. Hook said he did not know, but said he would report back. Commr. Whittlesey asked staff to review current traffic calculations and volumes and proposed intersection improvements. She asked if delivery truck turning radii could be accommodated in turn pockets. Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum stated it was verified that semi-truck/trailers would be able to turn into access drives along Higuera Street. Commr. Cooper had staff address the Pismo/High/Higuera .intersection. Mr. Bochum noted the Pismo/High Street intersection would be pursued as a future separate study item. 1-64 Draft Planning Commission i,-_-Aing November 1, 2000 Page 6 Commr. Whittlesey questioned staff on the ability of property owners to rebuild if flood damage were to occur if there were a zone change. Mr. Hook noted that C-R zoning would be more flexible in that it would make some of the non-conforming buildings conforming, and that rebuilding after flooding would be possible. Commr. Loh asked if flood control would be addressed in phase two of the proposal. Mr. Hook stated some steps need to be taken for flood protection, but exactly what those steps are has not been determined. The plan anticipates that there will be improvements and it describes a range or"menu" of improvements that the Council may choose from to provide some level of flood protection. He noted that it is intentionally vague because there are many cost and hydraulic factors that are yet to be determined. Commr. Osborne asked if staff recommends and 80- or 86-foot right-of-way. Mr. Hook stated the plan recommends that the right-of-way be 86 feet between Marsh and High Street. From High Street south, the right-of-way is already at 80 feet and no change is recommended. Commr. Osborne asked for staff comment on median placement. Mr. Hook stated the median's landscaping placement is conceptual, but it has been shown that it can work in terms of turn radii and location. Commr. Osborne asked how many west-side Higuera Street businesses north of High Street would be affected by medians. Mr. Hook responded that three to four properties would not have left-turn access but these would continue to have right-tum access, as shown in the plan. Commr. Osborne questioned who is supporting the bike path in addition to the bike lanes. Mr. Hook responded that the adopted Bike Plan shows this bike path as a recreational linkage between the downtown and the southern part of town and said the Bicycle Advisory Committee supported the path. Chairman Ready supported the suggestion of possibly utilizing the street itself. as a flood control channel. Commr. Cooper moved to recommend that the City Council approve the draft initial environmental study and the short-term concept plan with the following changes to the short-term concept plan:. (1) deletion of the bike path along the creek, (2) retention of a bike lane on one side of Higuera Street, resulting in 81-foot width cross section, (3) and elimination of the median strip. Commr. Loh seconded the motion. 1-65 Draft Planning Commission K_;.ing November 1, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Hook. and Deputy Director Bochum explained that bike lanes and a 10-foot wide painted median could be accommodated in an 80-foot street width. They cautioned that Class 2 bike lanes on one side of Higuera Street would be unsafe. Commr. Osbome could not support the elimination of a bike lane on one side of Higuera Street. Commr. Aiken recommended the motion be amended to reflect the 80-foot street width as shown on Figure 23 with bike lanes on both sides of Higuera Street because of the safety issues. Commrs. Cooper and Loh accepted the amendment to the motion. Commr. Peterson did not support the motion. He felt the bike path is an important component of the plan and will be a fantastic amenity. Placing it on the west side of the creek eliminates many of the environmental concerns and will promote the goal of alternative transportation. He felt the median strip is important to the plan for beautification purposes, pedestrian safety purposes, and urban design streetscape reasons. Commr. Osborne stated many of the business owners oppose the median strip; however very few would be affected by it. He felt a median strip would enhance the appearance of the area, thereby benefiting the entire city. Commr. Loh questioned if there are other ways to address the aesthetics besides installing a median strip and felt the elimination of left-hand turns could impact businesses. She felt the whole purpose of the plan is to enhance the vitality of the business district. Commr. Peterson noted while the concerns of the business owners are important, the concerns of the broader public must be considered as well. Commr. Whittlesey felt the median strip is an integral part of this plan and she is comfortable knowing that it will only be implemented at the time when it is feasible. The median strip would have an aesthetic component was well as a traffic calming measure. She could not support the motion. Commr. Cooper felt the General Plan does not call for this area to be rezoned. There has not been any indication that this area should have intensified residential development; residential is not compatible with C-S. The City does not have the luxury to pedestrianize the C-S zone if it jeopardizes the economic vitality of the C-S zone. He felt property owners have been ignored. He felt the General Plan does not recommend development of a convention center in this area, or creek-related projects along the creek bank. AYES: Commrs. Cooper; Loh, Aiken, and Ready NOES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Peterson, and Osborne REFRAIN: None 1-66 Draft Planning Commission k_ .ting November 1, 2000 Page 8 The motion carried 4-3. Commr. Aiken moved that the long-term concept plan be adopted as a concept plan that would benefit the public and the property owners, with the recommendations (1) that the rear access parking be eliminated, allowing the primary access for businesses on the west side of Hiquera Street be maintained, (2)the elimination of the median strip, and (3) that flood control be addressed in the short term. Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion. Commr. Whittlesey commented on the possible need of further traffic studies. Commr. Whittlesey withdrew her second to the motion and the motion failed for the lack of a second. Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the initial study and consideration of the entire package, including the Jong-term study/concepts. Commr. Peterson seconded the motion.. Commr. Cooper could not support expansion of residential in a flood plain, a bicycle path that would compromise the riparian habitat, pedestrian ization of a C-S zone, or a zone change from C-S to C-R zoning based upon General Plan land use guidelines. Chairman Ready could not support the motion because he felt it did not provide clear direction. AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Peterson, and Osborne NOES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Loh, and Ready REFRAIN: None The motion failed 3-4. Commr. Peterson moved to recommend.to the City Council that the R-3 zoned property on the corner of Beebee and South Streets be up-zoned to R-4 as part of this plan. Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. Commr. Peterson urged support of the motion and commented on the potential of displacing some affordable housing units through implementation of the plan. Commr. Whittlesey expressed concern about this area being located in a flood zone. Commr. Peterson felt this site is appropriate for R-4 zoning because it has excellent access to public transit and the adjacent uses are compatible with a higher density project. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Osborne, Aiken, and Whittlesey, NOES: Commrs. Cooper, Loh, and Ready REFRAIN: None 1-67 Draft Planning Commission N.__fng O November 1, 2000 Page 9 The motion carried 4-3. Commr. Aiken moved to recommend that the long-term concept plan be approved by the City Council, with the concerns of individual Commissioners to be forwarded to the City Council and be taken into account. Commr. Loh seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, Cooper, and Ready NOES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Peterson, and Osborne REFRAIN: None The motion carried 4-3. Commr. Osborne expressed concern about the bicycle path and its intrusion on wildlife habitat. He was supportive of the median strip along Higuera and noted that staff indicated that it would only be installed when rear property access could be provided. Commr. Loh noted that Higuera Street is a major artery and a commercial strip that provides vital services. The bicycle path should not be on the street, but placed along the creek because of the recreational benefits it could provide. She felt the sensitivity of the ecosystem in the creek area is affected by the frequency of flooding_. Flood control should be aggressively addressed. Commr. Peterson felt the plan submitted was strong and did a good job of addressing the concerns of the business owners and maintaining access to businesses through the mid-block left-turn lanes. He felt the plan addressed what is happening in this area and is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages infill development, mixed uses, residential above commercial and a shift from automobiles to alternative modes of transportation; all of these components are prevalent in the plan. He supports the bike path as long as it is located carefully as to avoid sensitive environmental resources to the greatest extent possible. He supports the median strip and the mixed- use components of the project. He felt the property owners' concerns have been addressed. Commr. Whittlesey felt the plan was well done from start to finish and felt misconceptions have caused confusion over the positive impacts of the plan. This area needs attention well beyond just widening the street. She strongly urged Council's implementation of the plan. Commr. Cooper did not support an active recreational bicycle path that encroaches on the creek setback. He is supportive of in-town residential development, but does not feel this is the appropriate place for it because of flooding concerns. He did not support covert pedestrianization of an area that is currently working successfully as a C-S zone. He expressed support of Higuera Street widening, flood control, closure of Walker Street, and design guidelines. Commr. Aiken supported the plan as a conceptual document, but in terms of implementation, he could not support the creek-side bicycle path, the raised Higuera Street median strip, or the rear property access/parking on the west side of Higuera 1-68 Draft Planning Commission ll --.mg November 1, 2000 Page 10 Street. Chairman Ready could not support the bicycle path along the creek and felt strongly that creek flooding should be addressed before any long-term concept plan is embraced. He is uncomfortable supporting a median strip at this time until more study is concluded. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: Agenda Forecast: November 14 — Rod Strong Broad Street.Corridor Study Session. 4. Commission: There were no comments made. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:26 a.m. . to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 14, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary 1-69 ARC Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 7 Commr. Stevenson asked about parking in the width of the flag driveway. Jim Flagg said that security and convenienceare issues, and that the site design as proposed accentuates the lobby. Commr. Rawson suggested exploring the idea of a meandering driveway, rather than the proposed straight-on approach, and Commr. Lopes suggested considering the possibility of creating more parking near the building entryway. Commr. Schultz asked about parking for meeting rooms and was told there is no parking for meeting rooms or the restaurant. Commr. Lopes suggested making this project more reflective of San Luis Obispo's history and future by looking at different designs that are less urban. Commr. Rawson was in agreement and said that this project looks .like every other Marriott. Commr. Stevenson felt that some Craftsman architectural elements or a more rural vernacular would be more appropriate. He felt the width of the building when viewed from the street was very commanding. There was a discussion of the color scheme. Commr. Stevenson felt that the green roof was too bright and would like to see a more natural color, perhaps a slate-looking material. It was felt that landscaping should enhance the natural materials in the creek corridor and some larger trees in the parking lot could be selected to provide some shade. It was suggested that Baccharis and privets be added to the plant palette, and that appropriate tree species include California Pepper, Monterey Cypress, Cork Oak, Live Oak, Sycamore and Silver Dollar Eucalyptus. There was no action taken on this item. These minutes and the meeting follow-up letter are intended to provide direction to the applicant and staff. 6. Mid-Hiquera Street. ARC 39-98; Review of Urban Design and Architectural Design guidelines for the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Jeff Hook Commr. Metz refrained from participation in the discussion of this item due to a potential conflict of interest since her firm prepared the Plan. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, summarized the Plan's key objectives and described the City's outreach efforts to encourage public participation and the significant Plan changes made in response to advisory body and .public comments. Using a PowerPoint slide presentation, staff summarized the Plan's main features, explained. 1-70 ARC Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 8 policy-based, technical and practical reasons behind the Plan's recommendations and described its benefits to area businesses, property owners and residents. Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing. Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, and Richard Krejsa,189 San Jose Court, spoke against the proposed bike path along San Luis Obispo Creek and voiced concerns about the biological impacts of constructing a bike path within required creek setbacks. They felt the bike path was active recreation and should not be allowed within the creek setback which was originally intended for habitat preservation. Seeing no other speakers, Chairperson Stevenson closed the public hearing. Commissioners then asked questions of staff, focusing on landscape median design, bike lanes and alternative street cross-sectional designs, view preservation (along Higuera Street) and alternative ways to expedite some of the Plan's public and private improvements, such as rear access to businesses along the west side.of Higuera,.the phase 2 landscape median in Higuera Street, and the public bike path along the east side of San Luis Obispo Creek. On a motion by Commissioner Lopes and seconded by Commissioner Schultz, the Commission voted to recommend to Council that the Plan's implementation be revised to speed up property acquisition to expedite development of the Bike/Pedestrian Path on the east side of the Creek, the rear access way to commercial properties and the phase 2 landscape median in Higuera Street. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Schultz and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Rawson and Boudreau ABSENT: Commr. Chandler REFRAIN: Commr. Metz The Commissioners then took several "straw" motions on the Plan: A. Commissioners discussed and unanimously agreed the Public and Private Design Guidelines were acceptable, with the recommended text changes and additions as noted during the meeting and in Commissioner Lopes' marked-up draft. B. Commissioners unanimously recommended that the Higuera Street right-of-way between Marsh and High Streets be 82 feet wide, with a 10-foot landscape median and 10-foot wide sidewalk on the west side. C. Commissioners unanimously recommended that the Plan's Objectives include a provision encouraging "mixed-uses," and that a policy encouraging "live-work" uses on Brook Street be added to the Public Policy section, page 35. 1-71 ARC Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 9 On a motion by Commissioner Lopes, seconded by Commissioner Schultz, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan to the Council, with the changes recommended by the ARC. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Schultz, Boudreau, Rawson and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Chandler REFRAIN: Commr. Metz The meeting adjourned at 11.:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for Monday, November 20, 2000, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street.. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretaries 1-72 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY,MARCH 1,2000 CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chair Neville called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Neville, Commissioners Black, Marzio, Larson, Dunan, Clay, Regan STAFF: Paul LeSage, Larry Tolson, Robin Perrin, Kim Walker, Wendy Munshaur and Alyssa LaBrado PUBLIC COMMENT There was no Public Comment. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES The minutes were not reviewed for consideration. Item# 1: Volunteer of the Month Emily Waldron was recognized as volunteer of the month. Item#2: Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan Jeff Hook of the Community Development Department presented an update on the Mid- Higuera Enhancement Plan. Several members of the public attended the meeting to express concerns regarding the plan. The following representatives from businesses located on Higuera near South St. attended: Jim Morabito from Paul Dry Cleaners, Roy Parsons Hayward Lumber property owner, Bruce Jenson; Hayward Lumber Manager, and Dave Hite, The Tire Store. Jim Braebeck also attended to give an update on the Eto Property, and notify the Commission that an architect has been tired. M/S Dunan/Regan.to endorse the Madonna Road portion of the plan; motion passed unanimously M/S Dunan/Regan to recommend the redesign of Higuera Street medians to allow for appropriate left hand turn lanes; motion passed unaiumously M/S Dunan/Regan to consider an alternate,bike route that would cross to the west side of San Luis Creek south of the Bianchi Street Bridge and re=cross the creek to the east side; on the city easement near south Street, motion passed unanimously Item#3: Community Center Study Charlie Knox from Crawford Multari Clark &Mohr presented the Community Preference Study and a cover letter to be sent out to 3,200 San Luis Obispo residents on March 8. 1-73 Commissioners made changes to the letter and shortened the length, making it more eye- catching to the reader. Item#4: Director's Report • City Council approved the addition of a City Biologist to staff; • The Mardi Gras Parade and Festival will take place March 4. Staff has purchased steel barricades to assist with crowd control; • Fish in Laguna Lake-a study is being done to determine if specific fish are in Laguna Lake. Experts have said that if a specific fish is seen in Laguna Lake, that habitat does exist. Item#5• Staff Reports Robin Perrin, Aquatics Supervisor, presented information regarding the SLO Swim Center and Aquatics programs. Larry Tolson informed the Commission that parks and volleyball pits were pumped after significant rain. Larry also discussed the greater demand on all the fields in the City, and the impact the rain has made on the fields. Item#6: Committee Reports Commissioner Marzio-Attended Jack House Committee Meeting Commissioner Dunan=Did not attend the Mayor's Youth Task Force Commissioner Regan-Attended the Tree Committee Meeting Commissioner Black-Did not attend the Joint Use Committee Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. to Wednesday, April 5, 2000, 7:00 p.m. in the City-County Library Conference Room. 1-74 1 i MINUTES -- SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday, February 28, 2000 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. In the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Steve McMasters, Paula Juelke Carr, Margot McDonald, Bob Pavlik, Bob Schrage, Tom Wheeler and Matt Whittlesey. Absent: None. Staff: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS: Eugene Judd explained his concerns regarding possible adverse impacts of the planned Marsh Street Parking Structure and Pedestrian Bridge on Downtown historic resources, including the U.S. Post Office and Masonic Lodge buildings. He read a passage from the Marsh Street Garage Supplemental EIR that described potential historic impacts and questioned why the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) had not had an opportunity to review the EIR for historic resource issues. He felt there had been a deliberate effort by garage proponents to bypass the CHC. Ira Winn agreed with Mr. Judd and raised a question whether federal Section 106 environmental standards (historic consultation) applied to the project due to the U.S. Post Office involvement. 'He added that the size and design of the proposed parking garage addition is too high and out of scale with the Downtown's historic character, as shown by the fact that zoning exceptions were needed to allow the garage. He stated the garage would adversely affect nearby historic buildings and block views of the Morros. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On a motion by Committee member McDonald, seconded by Committee member Whittlesey, the minutes of the regular meeting of January 24, 2000 were approved as amended on a 7-0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Other 39-98: Review historic resources section of the Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan. Jeff Hook introduced the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan and responded to questions. Chairman McMasters opened the public hearing. Roy Parsons, owner of Hayward Lumber Property at 236 Higuera Street, spoke on behalf of 1-75 u ,J several property owners on the west side of Higuera Street, between Marsh Street and Madonna Road. He said flooding was their number one concern and felt the City of San Luis Obispo has been negligent by. not resolving the flooding problem in this area. He said the owners oppose the landscaped median in Higuera Street, proposed as part of the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan. He felt delivery trucks would have difficulty negotiating turns into the properties if the median were installed. They also felt the proposed recreational bikeway should be located on city-owned land on the west side of San Luis Obispo Creek, adjacent to Highway 101. They oppose the common rear-access driveway shown in the Plan until all property owners can agree. This should be just a "concept" and not a mandatory part of the Plan. The architectural and urban design ideas were good and supported by the property owners. They would like to see low cost loans to help property owners comply with the Plan's beautification ideas. Bruce Jensen, 236 Higuera Street, manager of Hayward Lumber, was concerned that the Plan might limit their ability to change and adapt to changing business needs. Preservation of the Old Mill, a historic building, is tied to the current lumberyard and sales use. They need to be able to expand their building "footprint" and the Plan's limitation on building expansion within the floodplain might preclude their expansion. Seeing no further public comment, Chairman McMasters closed the public hearing. Committee member Pavlik felt that moving the old Italianate-style house on Higuera Street, as proposed in the initial study, might require further environmental study. Even if it were moved to avoid street widening impacts, there might be an adverse environmental effect due to a change in environmental setting (i.e. the building would be closer to the street). He noted that CalTrans offices might remain at their existing location for a long time and was concerned that the landscape median may limit viability of mixed uses. Committee member McDonald questioned whether the public sidewalk.and on-street bike lanes could be narrowed to reduce the amount of street widening required. Mr. Hook noted the proposed sidewalk and bike lane widths were already less than the preferred widths for commercial areas to reduce the amount of right-of-way needed. Committee member Carr felt the Plan should help preserve the original commercial uses developed during the 1800s in response to the Pacific Coast Railroad, like the lumberyard, ice company, and blacksmith shop. She also noted the plan doesn't address the historical importance of the auto-camps, motels and trailer courts along Old El Camino Real (Higuera Street). Chairperson McMasters was concerned that the proposed Higuera Street Widening might affect the Craftsman Bungalow house by taking a portion of the house or by changing its setting. Committee member Wheeler felt that there might be a conflict on P. 8 of the initial environmental study regarding archaeological impacts, and questioned how there could be "no 1-76 impact" due to the Plan. He questioned why Bianchi Bridge was proposed for removal and felt the bridge may be historic. He suggested checking the State Historic Bridge listing and calling Tony Machado (543-0607) on the bridge's history. He felt there may also be historic structures on the Madonna Property across the creek that were not addressed in the Plan. Committee member Whittlesey felt the Plan needed to prioritize objectives on Page 5, and to provide a definitive list of historic resources and inventory. He suggested making preservation policy more emphatic under 11, page 28. He suggested that the Plan preserve the area's industrial character and avoid limiting left turns. He would like to see a map showing city- owned land and what would be needed to be acquired for public improvements. Also, he had problems with aspects of the architectural guidelines; specifically, the Art-deco style makeover of a simple commercial building. Committee member Schrage agrees with Roy Parsons regarding the landscape median. If it were reduced or eliminated it could help minimize physical effects on historic resources. Chairperson McMasters suggested the Brook Street Park include a memorial to both Japanese and Black American residents of that neighborhood. He felt the best way to preserve the Old Mill was to preserve the lumberyard use. He felt the Old Catholic Cemetery and Mausoleum should be mentioned in the historic inventory and asked that Page 28 be revised to emphasize preservation over removal and relocation. The CHC should review public art in the area On a motion by Committee member Carr, seconded by Committee member Schrage, Committee members voted unanimously to continue consideration of the plan with a request that staff provide additional information on potential historic resources, historic impacts and mitigation of Higuera Street widening and the landscape median, historical significance, resolve apparent conflicting language in initial environmental study on archaeological resources, and suggested several editorial and text changes. Most Committee members felt the Plan needed to more clearly identify historic resources in the Mid-Higuera Street Area and how it would preserve them. 1-77 ® SAN LUIS OBISPO OBICYCLE ADVISORY COM IITTEE MEETING MINUTES �g5 JUNE 159 2000 CALL TO ORDER: The San Luis Obispo Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. on Thursday, June 15,2000, in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California ROLL CALL: Present: Richard Lee,Jeanne Smith,Ed Jaster,Bruce Collier,Mary Lou Johnson, and Chairman Tim Valentine Absent: Wes Conner Staff: Principle Transportation Planner Terry Sanville,Associate Planner Jeff Hook, and Stenographer LeahaMagee NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments made. APPROVAL OF THE NIINUTES: Mr. Collier moved to approve the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 23, 2000, as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson and unanimously approved. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr. Collier nominated Chairman Valentine to serve another term as chair. The nomination was accepted by Chairman Valentine, seconded by Mr. Lee and unanimously approve. Mr.Jaster nominated Mr. Lee to serve as vice chair. The nomination was accepted by Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms.Johnson, and unanimously approved. 2. 2000 BICYCLE RODEO LOCATION: Mr.Johnson recommended the October 7 bicycle rodeo be held at the.Madonna Plaza this year. After reviewing different sites, it was determined this center could provide a larger area for children and exhibitors and higher visibility for the program. Mr. Jaster moved to approve the recommended Madonna Plaza location for the 2000 Bicycle 1-78 would wipe out 7-9 trailers in the park. Relocation would necessary and low-income housing is not available in the city. Some of the existing trailers are too old to be moved. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. CONINIITTEE COMMENTS: Mr. Hook commented on state laws relating to relocation of mobile home tenants and on the city's Housing Ordinance. He stated the plan to locate the path on the east side would occur gradually as properties turn over. Mr. Collier felt this is one of the least desirable areas for a bikewaybecause of freeway and flooding problems and creek access concerns. This bikeway is not included on the Committee's priority list and doesn't seem practical. Chairman Valentine concurred. Mr. Sanville commented on cost and environmental constraints and stated the city is looking for a community that provides for connectivity that's integral to its land use system. Chairman Valentine commented a developed creek corridor would be good for the community, but he doesn't support locating the gateway to the Bob Jones City to Sea bikeway at this location. Mr. Lee concurred. A major city recreational trail should not be located on a ten foot.right of way with unwilling property owners in a piecemeal fashion without funding. Ms.Johnson could support pedestrian access adjacent to properties whose owners have expressed willingness to have part of the property enhanced and a west side bike path on city- owned property. Mr. Jaster expressed concern over what effects this project would have on funding of the Jennifer St. upper corridor extension. Chairman Valentine had staff review the Mid-Higuera.Enhancement Plan. Improvements. Mr..Jaster asked if the plan could accommodate a separate bike path on Higuera St. Mr. Sanville replied yes, with exceptional front setbacks along Higuera St. Mr. Jaster felt more information is necessary before a decision can be reached: He noted this proposal is affecting many people,both personally and financially. Mr. Lee stated cost estimation and information requested at the last meeting has not been provided. A westerly alignment could be more costly, but an easterly alignment could affect 15 property owners. This is the beginning of the city's entrance to the Bob Jones trail and it needs to be done right; a piecemeal approach isn't appropriate. 1-79 ATTACHMENT Draft Mid Higuera Flood Management Plan Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Prepared For San Luis Obispo County Zone 9 Flood Control District and The City of San Luis Obispo 955 Moro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project#98202 Prepared By Questa Engineering Corporation 1220 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 206 Point Richmond, California 94807 (510) 236-6114 October 20, 2000 1-80 Background The reach of San Luis Obispo creek that flows through the Mid-Higuera planning area has experienced at least 6 significant flooding events over the past 35 years, with the last major flood event occurring on March 10 and 11, 1995. Historically, this reach of SLO Creek has had some of the most frequent and significant flooding problems of any creek reach in the community. There are several reasons for the recurrent flooding problems. First, the channel within this reach has a smaller cross-sectional area and thus lower flood conveyance capacity than the channel immediately downstream of the reach. Second, the natural floodplain has been significantly encroached upon.by commercial and residential buildings that front Higuera Street. Historically, fill has been placed on the floodplain outward to the channel edge to the extent that in many areas the land surface now slopes towards Higuera Street. Third, the Marsh Street bridge, which is located at the upper end of the reach, historically becomes partially blocked by sediment and debris during high creek flow events. This blockage is often blamed for flow spilling out of the channel just upstream of the bridge, where it flows down Higuera Street, the low point in this area, and returns to the channel through developed business lots. Finally, during very large storm events, (exceeding the estimated 25 year flood return period) flow in San Luis Obispo Creek can exceed the capacity of the Under-City Culvert located about 1 kilometer upstream of the Mid-Higuera planning area. Flood water overflow from the break-out point at the Under-City Culvert travels down Pacific, Marsh, and Higuera Streets, flooding businesses along the way, before re-entering the channel at or below the Mid-Higuera business district. Previous studies completed in the late 1970's for this reach of stream have identified several flood mitigation alternatives, including a major stream channel enlargement project and the possible selective use of floodwalls. Although at the time these approaches may have been technically feasible, they are not currently environmentally acceptable and very likely not economically justifiable. In 1977, Nolte and Associates developed a design for a trapezoidal channel that if constructed would have resulted in an approximately 50-year channel flow capacity through the Mid-Higuera reach of San Luis Obispo Creek. It would have removed an extensive amount of vegetation along the creek channel and significantly altered the biological character of the creek. This proposed channel modification was deemed unacceptable to the general public and to the permitting and regulatory agencies because of environmental reasons and its unfavorable cost-benefit ratio. Any design that attempts to increase flood flow capacity through this reach will be limited by several site-specific constraints. Such design imposed constraints, more than a design based on achieving a specific flow rate, (i.e. 30 year flow) will determine what the final feasible flood management plan for this reach will look like. This report attempts to define the project constraints, derive a set of flood control alternatives from them, and test these alternatives for their effectiveness at reducing flood water surface elevations. Project Design Constraints The constraints that will drive the design for the planning area include: 1)the desire to minimize the disruption and removal of existing businesses, residences, and landowners from their property, 2) environmental sensitivities and consequent strenuous permitting requirements that will likely preclude certain work and structures within and near the creek channel, and 3) design, construction, and mitigation costs. The specific constraints and assumptions we worked under were: • Buildings on the preliminary Mid-Higuera Plan were in their final locations. All buildings and. commercial properties shown on the city's preliminary Mid-Higuera plan (although conceptual) were assumed to be in their final location and would not be substantially modified. This was of importance primarily in the middle of the project reach, near the existing Hayward lumber site, where we assumed that little or no excavation to enlarge the active floodplain could occur on the east bank of the creek where existing commercial properties encroach on the floodplain. • Maintain natural channel bed and banks. Any design would need to maintain a natural channel bed and 1-81 LIDAR coverage was most dense. Since bridges can obscure the channel bed from the LIDAR instrumentation, we augmented the LIDAR survey with physical surveys taken in the field at all bridges in the study reach. Channel roughness was estimated in the field by comparing published roughness values for various photographed channels with the condition of the local channel. The primary stream channel was divided into a relatively low- roughness 8-meter wide low-flow channel at the bottom of the creek, and a much rougher set of banks on either side of the low flow channel. One of the alternatives that we considered was managing the creek bank vegetation so that trees eventually would replace the low-growing willows that currently cover the banks, resulting in a lower roughness value on the stream banks and in higher flood flow conveyance. Splitting the channel into bank and channel-bed regions facilitated this analysis. Roughness in the floodplain outside the stream banks was estimated using digital orthophotography for the site. Where buildings provide significant obstruction to flood flow, especially on the east side of Higuera Street, very high roughness values were used to represent the composite effect of bed roughness across streets and lawns and the obstructing effects of the buildings. Since overbank flow traveling down Higuera Street itself faces few obstructions, and since Higuera Street travels parallel to the creek for the entire length of the project area, an approximately 10-m wide zone of low roughness was coded in to the model to represent this quasi-channel feature. Bridge geometry was measured in the field at each bridge in the study reach. Although the Bianchi lane bridge may be replaced by several smaller pedestrian bridges, as shown in the preliminary Mid-Higuera plan, it was retained in its current configuration in each of the project alternatives because geometry for the new bridges was not available and because the losses associated with these smaller bridges will likely approximate that caused by the existing Bianchi Lane bridge.Aside from the potential it has for collecting debris during a large storm, it does not appear that the Bianchi Lane bridge has a major effect on flooding in this reach. Flow rates used to test the alternatives were taken from thel977 Nolte report. These flow rates were ultimately adopted by FEMA for their Flood Insurace Study of San Luis Obispo Creek. Preliminary hydrology modeling done by Questa indicates that the Nolte estimates of flow are likely somewhat low for a given recurrence interval. In any case, since the flood management plan design is controlled by site constraints, knowing the correct flood frequency distribution for San Luis Obispo Creek may not be of much increased value for the purposes of this report. In essence, the purpose of this report is to test the available alternatives against each other, to determine their relative value for any given flow rate. This report can be updated when finalized Hydrology numbers become available,but the new numbers are not likely to change the designs we are analyzing here. One way to place a more understandable estimate upon the value of the alternatives analyzed in this report is to see what would have occurred during the March 1995 event if those alternatives have been in place at that time. High water mark data for that storm was recorded at the MacNamera building, just downstream of the Marsh Street Bridge. When run through the existing-conditions hydraulic model, the Nolte 10-year flow produces a water surface elevation within 2 cm of the 1995 high water mark. Thus, it appears that the March 1995 storm can be represented by the Nolte/FEMA 10-year event. The model extended significantly downstream of the project site (all the way to the creek mouth, at Avila Beach)so that an.accurate downstream water surface would be generated. Near the downstream end of the project site, flow at very high rainfall events has been observed to split out of the channel and across Highway 101. This was not accounted for directly in the model but could be included at a later date. Alternatives Analyzed Three project flood management alternative, plus existing conditions, were hydraulicaly analyzed in this study. We consider each of the alternatives to be potentially feasible, given our understanding of the current regulatory conditions and requirements. Nevertheless, they will have environmental impacts that will require more detailed analysis,public review,and most likely some form of mitigation. Each of the alternatives could include periodically excavating the existing sediment from the left and right barrels of the Marsh street bridge down to the bed elevation of the center barrel as a permitted activity as part of routine channel maintenance program. This condition differs for the existing conditions model, which shows the outside 4 1-82 G barrels of the bridge partially clogged. While it is possible to model this maintenance activity in the HEC-RAS model we are using, it should be noted that HEC-RAS is a 1-dimensional hydraulic model, meaning that it essentially averages energy losses across an entire section of stream channel. RAS is not the ideal model for testing the complex flow patterns like the ones that occur around the Marsh Street Bridge, where energy losses can vary greatly from one barrel opening to the next. Various alternatives for managing sediment under the bridge to reduce the amount of sediment accumulation and the frequency of de-silting (such as widening the upstream section, or placing flow deflectors in the channel) were instead examined in a separate two-dimensional (2-d) hydraulic model. The results of this model run show marginal benefits from several channel improvement activities, including widening the constricted section downstream from the bridge to reduce back-water effects, and slightly enlarging the east bank of the channel immediately upstream of the bridge. The results of the separate 2-d model runs indicate that removing sediment from the clogged bridge barrels could result in 3-4 cm (1.2-1.5 in) of water surface elevation reduction upstream of the Marsh Street Bridge. Alternative One-Channel Management Program Alternative 1 is the simplest alternative and constitutes measured, environmentally sensitive channel maintenance. It involves reducing the channel roughness of the creek banks from the relatively high values caused by the existing brushy overhanging willows and other shrubs. This would be accomplished by thinning and limbing up the willows and by inter-planting taller growing, single trunked native trees on the creek banks. Sycamores and cottonwoods are favored for this purpose because they would eventually shade out the shorter willows. In the short term, the lower branches on existing willows would be thinned during an annual maintenance visit, and any large gaps in the canopy would be inter-planted with tall, straight , tree forming species. This would promote the development of larger,taller trees that would create lower friction losses within the channel. This alternative would be completed in phases and could take 5-7 years to become fully effective; however, some important net reduction in channel flow resistance would be achieved each year. Annual channel maintenance would be accomplished within the conditions of the overall Creek Maintenance Plan currently being prepared as part of the Phase II studies. Under this planning approach, a General Section 404 Permit for the identified stream maintenance would be written by the Corps that allows annual maintenance according to a set of identified guidelines and conditions, per the Maintenance Plan. The General Permit would cover a five year period and would be subject to renewal and updating of conditions. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would be consulted for endangered species issues. Each year the Maintenance Plan would be updated in the form of an Annual Maintenance Plan report. A Memorandum of Understanding with the CA Department of Fish and Game for a streamlined, long-term Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement would also be sought. The extent of this reduced roughness zone was modeled from the Madonna Bridge upstream to the first bridge above Marsh Street. This alternative tests the benefits of a program of channel maintenance in this reach. Although tested separately to determine its individual importance, this alternative was also incorporated into each of the other alternatives. Alternative Two-Extensive Floodplain Restoration Alternative 2 is probably best termed a floodplain restoration alternative. The idea is that the historic floodplain of the creek has been partially filled by encroachment of buildings and other uses, and the excavation associated with this alternative would return the creek corridor to a more natural configuration. Typically, in most natural settings, streams have approximately a 2-year flow capacity before spilling onto their floodplain. This alternative is designed to emulate the geomorphically appropriate flow capacity for the creek by restructuring the overbank areas around the creek to be at around the elevation of the two-year water surface. Some of the previous hydrologic and geomorphic effects on the creek of floodplain encroachment would rectified, and equilibrium potentially re- established. This alternative would reduce shear stresses near existing eroding banks, reducing the threat of further erosion, while at the same time increasing flow velocities through the Marsh Street Bridge and helping abate the existing sedimentation problem there. 5 1-83 O This alternative would combine the channel maintenance and bank vegetation management described in Alternative 1 with excavation of an extensive secondary overflow flood pathway (a large, shallow bypass channel) on the floodplain primarily to the west of the channel. In most places the excavation of the flood pathway would be isolated from the active channel by a thin berm of higher ground adjacent to the channel that supports native trees and shrubs and would not be touched by the project. This zone varies in width from 20 to 100 feet or more. In a few areas, including on the east bank at the CalTrans Maintenance yard and on the west bank through much of Madonna Construction Company's yard, floodplain excavation would need to be contiguous to the creek. The new flood pathway would be constructed to just above the elevation of the water surface of the 2-year flow event(calculated using FEMA flow rates), as determined using the existing conditions hydraulic model. Excavation would begin above the 2-year flow line (above ordinary high water or Corps jurisdiction), about 2 meters (6.6 feet) above the channel bed. In most areas the floodplain would be lowered by 2-2.5 meters (6.6-8.2 feet). All material would need to be hauled off-site and out of the 100 year floodplain. Itis assumed that the flood pathway will be planted with native trees and.shrubs in an open configuration and will be managed to remove low branches and otherwise minimize roughness elements. All low shrubby growth will be periodically removed, with the goal of keeping the flood pathway vegetation less dense than that on the creek banks. This reconfigured flood pathway would extend from the Marsh Street bridge all the way downstream to the Madonna Bridge,primarily on the west side of the channel. At the downstream end of the project the floodplain excavation would be across a meander bend located upstream of the Caltrans maintenance yard,immediately upstream of Madonna Road. At the upstream end, the existing buildings and parking lot located on the southeast bank just downstream of the Marsh Street Bridge (on the MacNamera property) would be removed, and a short (90 meter) flood pathway would be excavated on the southeast bank in their place. This flood pathway is intended to reduce the backwater through the Marsh Street bridge. One constraint reflected in this alternative is the existing riparian forest at the top of the northwest bank just downstream of Bianchi Lane. We assumed that this grove of trees would need to be left essentially intact, although some excavation under the dripline of a few trees may be required. To avoid damaging the trees in this area, the flood pathway was constricted into a relatively narrow 10-meter wide (bottom width) overflow channel where the riparian forest abuts a rocky hill adjacent to the Highway 101. This constriction is located at approximately the same position in the stream corridor as the Hayward Lumber yard, but on the opposite bank. It was assumed that some excavation of the hill just west of the trees would be required but that the aesthetic and monetary costs of removing most of the hill entirely would be prohibitive. However, more aggressive excavation into the hillside could lead to greater flood management benefits. The creek corridor reaches its narrowest point just downstream of the hill, where the.Highway 101 embankment forms the west bank of the stream. This location represents the most constricted point along the entire project. At this point, the creek enters a meander bend that is constrained by a revetment that protects highway 101. Existing buildings on the inside of this meander bend are shown to remain on the city's preliminary Mid-Higuera plan. To increase channel capacity through this section without demolishing any existing buildings, we assumed that the southeast creek bank would need to be excavated and that a vegetated crib-wall would be installed in its place. This section represents the only location were any work would be done in the active stream channel. The above project would be extensive and costly, impacting over 1000 meters(3300 feet)of channel and resulting in the excavation and off-haul of almost 50,000 cubic yards of material. Right-of-way would need to be acquired, and impacts mitigated.Design,environmental review,permitting,financing,and construction would require 3-5 years. Alternative Three-MacNamera Property Flood pathway Terrace. One less costly and more immediate alternative to consider may be to phase the project and/or to complete just the portion(s)of the alternative that may accomplish the most in flood reduction,at the least cosi Excavation of a flood pathway terrace on the MacNamera property downstream of the Marsh Street Bridge appears to meet this definition and was therefor tested in the hydraulic model to determine the results of such a limited project. The flood pathway terrace would be constructed contiguous to the channel and would consist of an approximately 25-meter (80-foot) wide in-channel bench constructed about 2.5 meters(8 feet) above the channel bed (above ordinary high water). In 6 1-84 C. addition, some improvements to the channel upstream of Marsh Street Bridge could be included to reduce the effects of sediment and debris blockage of the bridge barrels. This limited project was selected for testing as the channel constriction here has a major impact on the performance of the Marsh Street Bridge. In addition to creating a flood pathway terrace on the east side of the channel, the Marsh Street-Higuera Street intersection would be re-configured to more efficiently route overbank flood waters back to the channel near or through the City's restoration area immediately below the existing MacNamera building. Results and Discussion The results of the hydraulic analysis are shown in Table 1. This table displays the model predicted water surface elevation at four key channel locations for the 10 and 25 year(Nolte/FEMA)flood flows, for the existing conditions and the three alternatives examined. The table also shows the bank top elevation for the east bank and west bank at these locations. Overbank flooding will occur where the predicted water surface elevation exceeds bank top elevations. The drop in water surface elevation that would result from implementation of the alternative, as compared to existing conditions,is also summarized in the table. As can be seen in the table, Alternative 1 (a program of active channel vegetation maintenance) will have some modest benefits in this stream reach, reducing flood water surface elevations for the 10 year flood event by between 0.02 and 0.28 meters (0.07 and 0.91 feet), depending on location, and for the 25 year event by between 0.02 and 0.50 meters (0.07 and 1.6 feet), again depending on location. The smallest effect occurs at the most constrained section of the floodplain, near the Hayward Lumber yard. (The other alternatives also have the least impact at this location). Sediment management under the Marsh Street bridge will likely lower flood flows by about another 0.06 meters 0.20 (feet), based on the separate 2-D model of that bridge. The benefit from bridge-opening excavation would occur only for a few meters upstream of the bridge but would slightly reduce the risk of flood break-out upstream of the bridge. Alternative 2, (extensive floodplain restoration), would reduce water surface elevations by about 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) upstream of the Marsh Street Bridge under our approximation of the 1.995 flood event (same as the Nolte/FEMA 10-year event). At the most constrained location through the project, near the Hayward Lumber yard, alternative two would reduce the existing water surface by only 0.14 in (0.46 ft) for the 1995 event. The water surface elevation at this point would still be 0.5-1 meter or more above the both the Hayward Lumber yard and Higuera Street, so over bank flooding would still likely occur here relatively frequently. Construction of a 3-4 foot high floodwall might be considered here, but the project would need to include provisions for allowance for flood water return flows moving down Higuera street(.i.e. with a pump and/or one way flap gate culvert system). For the FEMA 25-year event, the changes in water surface elevations from the existing condition are similar to those reported for the 1995 flow, though the absolute water surface elevation typically increases by 0.2-0.4 in (0.7-1.3 ft) or more above the 1995 event. Downstream of the constriction at the Hayward Lumber Site, Alternative 2 has the greatest impact,with reductions in water surface elevations ranging from 0.37 in(1.2 ft)to 0.73 in(2.4 ft)depending on the location and flow rate. Alternative 3, construction of a flood pathway terrace at the MacNamera property, results in a predicted drop in water surface elevations of 0.28 meters just upstream of the Marsh Street Bridge for the March 1995/FEMA 10-year event. Downstream of the MacNamera site,this alternative is identical to Alternative 1. This alternative essentially reduces water surface elevations at the Marsh Street Bridge by some 10-15 cm(3-6 in)beyond what is possible with Alternative 1 alone, by reducing backwater effects and sedimentation. This is likely the most cost-effective alternative and could potentially be constructed within 2-3 years. The City may be able to receive partial grant funding for this project under State Proposition 13,the Water Bond. The results described here were obtained using the HEC-RAS model currently being developed for the San Luis Obispo County Zone 9 Flood Control District's San Luis Obispo Creek Waterways Management Plan. While we are confident in the results published here, it is possible that some minor changes could occur as we further refine the Zone 9 hydraulic model. 7 1-85 Table 1. Alternatives Comparison Location, Just Upstrearts of MacNarnera ng, Hayward Larnber Upstreato end of . Marsh Street Bridgel, Just Beim Marsh Site(Most Caltram Yard, Station 16786 Street2,Station 16712 Constrained Section), Station 16011 Station 16345 Estinnated Top of Bank Elevation,East Bankm m m m FAtimated Top ornank 0evation, est m m m m Her SuWuur a� nmr a Hoge mm nge enge (m) � Fiirling(ml (m). FSYrivt(m) (m) — FJivllllg im) (m) �a rSiWng(m) ilia-Calculatedow (same as FEMA 10-year event) xmmg Conditiom AluxnanveManage PloodpSEW Onsatcl-Bani,RoUghn= - . - - ("n")only Afternottvc vine Ovefflow Hoodplun from Marsb Street to Madonna including at M=Namera Property,Manage"n" AIIcfoIUve3:E=aVsIC amen Property Only.FEW . Year event _. toctuing Condatom. rmtive gc oodplain an oug ('N)only p_. _ LemalavC xeavale w Do Imm Mm=l to Madonna including at MacNamara Propeny.Manage'N' temanve cavate MuNatnets Property Only, anage __ _ _ __ __ 48.74 _ I The alternatives analyzed here do not specifically account for excavation of sediment that currently partly blocks two of the openings under the Marsh Street Bridge. The HEC-RAS model used for the analysis would not give reliable enough results to test such an alternative. However,a.2-Dimensional hydraulic model generated to test the effectiveness of various local channel modifications at preventing sedimentation showed a 3-4 cm reduction in water surface elevations above the bridge,after the sediment had been removed,fora 5-year flow(taken from FEMA data). We would expect a similarly sized benefit to occur in addition to any of the water surface elevation reductions shown here,if the sediment in the bridge openings is removed. Also,for reference,the elevation of the Marsh Street Bridge deck is approximately 52.8 m. 2 Observed High Water Mark for 1995 event at MacNamera Building was approximately 52.7 m. 8 1-86 U QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION MEMORANDUM Sept.26,2000 To:Mr..jeff Hook City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept. Mr.Wayne Peterson City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Dept. From:Jeff Peters Questa Engr.Corp. Subiect:Flood Management Alternatives;Mid-Higuera.Street Enhancement Plan Jeff and Wayne,as you know we have initiated work on reviewing flood management alternatives for the subject area as part of our Phase H SLO Creek Waterway Management Plan.As part of our planning efforts we have developed a hydraulic computer model that we-are using to describe existing flood hazards and to numerically evaluate flood management alternatives. Based on our meeting two weeks ago,and out review our the draft Mid- Higuera Plan,we developed a number of conceptual alternatives to reduce the frequency and depth of flooding.We then tested them for effectiveness in the hydraulic model.Please note that these results are somewhat preliminary as the model has not been fully calibrated.However I believe the results provide a realistic portrayal of what can be accomplished for this area in flood management,consistent with your draft plan. Here is a brief summary of our present findings,along with some thoughts we have on this area. 1)The so-called Nolte 50 year channel improvement alternative is very likely not permitable by the Corps,and probably is not economically feasible.Unless we hear different from the City we will not evaluate it further. 2)The existing channel capacity through this reach appears to be between the 6-9 year flood recurrence interval.The Marsh Street Bridge appears to have a similar capacity.Particularly constrained sections occur across from Hayward Limber and at the bend immediately upstream of the CalTrans maintenance yard. 3)The 1995 flood event was about a 10 year recurrence interval,using previous FEMA discharge estimates for that recurrence interval. 4)We looked at 9 different alternatives for reducing flooding in this area.Alternatives included managing shruby willow and replacing with tree forming sycamores and cottonwoods,local channel modifications,bridge improvements,and floodplain improvements. The most aggressive alternative was floodplain restoration by lowering the floodplain some 6 feet or so on the west side of SLO Creek,and at the McNamara building on the east side,and by making some improvements upstream of the Marsh Street Bridge.This in effect creates a large secondary or by-.pass channel that would only have flow in it above the 2 year event,and would not effect low flow or pool formation.In addition most of the work could be completed outside of the Corps jurisdiction. Floodplain restoration work would be designed so that it would not effect the thread of the creek,and all biologically important areas would be preserved.Work will start about Vi way up the bank in roughly 1/3 of the area, the remainder of the creek banks will be preserved.The floodplain can be planted to native trees and shrubs and the public access trail can be located on this area,if desirable. 5)Just completing the bypass channel at the lower end of the project,and improvements to redirect flow and 1-87 sediment upstream of the Marsh Street bridge only have minor benefits,and should not be considered as stand-alone projects. 6)Although the final analysis has not been completed,we believe the above most aggressive alternative(floodplain restoration)will reduce the statistical frequency of flooding from the 6-9 year event to something closer to the 20 year event,at best.Depending on location in the reach,the flood water surface elevation will be reduced by as much as 2 feet downstream of Marsh Street,to about 7 or 8" at Hayward Lumber.Reducing the water surface downstream of Marsh Street will also help keep the bride barrels open and flee of sediment. 7).The above most aggressive project will have environmental impacts and will have a moderate degree of permit difficulty,although we think it is pertnittable. It will require some land acquisition by the City,and will likely cost in the$2-5 million dollar range, without considering land costs or improvements such as bridges.This is our best guess at present,without doing detailed cost estimates. 8)It appears that the most expedient and cost effective alternative would be to lower the floodplain at the McNamera building area,and complete some grading in Higuera street just above Bianchi Lane to re-direct any flood waters that escape the channel upstream-through the City's restoration site to SLO Creek.Flood water surface elevations would be reduced about 7-8" at this location,but only about.an inch or so at Hayward Lumber. However flooding moving down Higuera from upstream creek breakout would be reduced when flow is re-directed to the channel. Ref: 98202 Mid-Higuera 1-88 Table 1. Alternatives Comparison Location: Just MacNamera Hayward Upstream Upstream of Building,Just Lumber Site end of Marsh Street Below Marsh (Most Caltrans Bridge(Deck Street' Constrained Yard -52.8 m) Section)' Water Change Water Change Water Change Water Change Surface from Surface from Surface from Surface from (m) Existing (m) Existing (m) Existing (m) Existing (m) (m) (in) (m) Back-Calculated 1995 Flow (Same as FEMA 10-year event) Existing Conditions 52.88 0.00 52.72 0.00 50.75 0.00 48.64 0.00 Alternative 1:Manage Floodplain and 52.73 -0.15 52.45 -0.27 50.73 -0.02 48.36 -0.28 Channel-Bank Roughness("n")Only Alternative 2: Excavate Sediment from 52.98 0.10 52.72 0.00 50.75 0.00 48.64 0.00 Marsh Street Bridge Openings Only Alternative 3: Excavate Overflow Floodplain 52.72 -0.16 52.45 -0.27 50.73 -0.02 48.16 '-0.48 at Bar Across from Upper end of Caltrans yard only,Manage"n" Alternative 4: Excavate MacNamera 52.60 -0.28 52.37 -0.35 50.73 -0.02 48.36 0.28 Property Only,Manage"n" Alternative 5:Excavate Overflow Floodplain 52.38 -0.50 51.90 -0.82 50.61 -0.14 47.91 -0.73 = from Marsh Street to Madonna but not at MacNamera Property,Manage"n" Alternative 6: Excavate Overflow Floodplain 52.20 -0.68 51.84 -0.88 50.61 -0.14 47.91 -0.73 from Marsh Street to Madonna including at MacNamera Property,Manage"n" FEMA.25-year event Existing Conditions 53.54 0.00 53.06 0.00 51.02 1 0.00 48.91 0.00 Alternative I: Manage Floodplain and 53.04 -0.50 52.84 -0.22 51.00 0.02 48.74 -0.17 Channel-Bank Roughness("n")Only Alternative 2:Excavate Sediment from 53.34 -0.20 53.06 0.00 51.02 0.00 48.91 0.00 Marsh Street Bridge Openings Only Alternative 3: Excavate Overflow Floodplain 53.04 -0.50 52.84 -0.22 51.00 -0.02 48.54 -0.37 at Bar Across from Upper end of Caltrans yard only,Manage"n" Alternative 4: Excavate MacNamera 52.94 -0.60 52.76 -030 51.00 -0.02 48.74 -0.17 Property Only, Manage"n" Alternative 5:Excavate Overflow Floodplain 52.90 -0.64 52.32 -0.74 50.89 -0.13 48.24 -0.67 from Marsh Street to Madonna but not at - MacNamera Property,Manage"n" Alternative 6: Excavate Overflow Floodplain 52.95 -0.59 52.24 -0.82 50.89 0.13 48.24 0.67 from Marsh Street to Madonna including at MacNamera Property,Manage"n" t Observed High Water Mark for 1995 event at MacNamera Building was approximately 52.7 m. 1-89 Most of Hayward Lumber site and adjacent floodplain is at.between 49.5 and 50.0 meters in elevation. Feb-26-01 03: 50P SLOC'l 805�I8,1 -5703 AGENDA P.ol ID TE �i ITEM# Mayor Allen Settle and Councilmembers bruary 26, 2001 San Luis Obispo City Council 0 a ❑W.DIP 990 Palm Street 0 FIN D' �/ fCdisa a ❑FIR r / San Luis Obispo, CA 93401G o Fw D,R t/ FnIu1101RY IG 0 MlL n CHF Re: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan 0 hie ae p tmL D R O PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers: I have reviewed the Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan and strongly support conceptual approval of the plan. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting tonight. On March 2e I will recommend that your Council APPROVE the plan. am a resident and property owner at 237 High Street. I am very supportive of the improvements proposed in the plan over the next several years. I strongly support the following elements of the plan: • The creation of the Walker Street Mini Plaza. (#1 priority) This would provide the additional benefit of reducing cut-through traffic that use Parker Street, to access High Street and reach the Broad Street corridor. • The provision of landscaped medians along South Higuera with controlled intersection channelization. (#2 priority) I believe the opposition by business owners is short-sighted. The overall benefits of an improved pedestrian environment will benefit local businesses. Unfortunately, the compromise offer by staff for Phase 11 construction of the medians until rear access is available will delay implementation for the High Street to South Street segment for 20 years.. • Maintain bikelanes on South Higuera Street. This is a no-brainer. It's part of the nationally recognized Bicentennial Bike Route established in 1977! I disagree with the change in the location of the bike path from the east side to the west side of the creek. I support: • A bikelane on the east side of the creek as the start of the Bob Jones City to Sea bikepath. Again, creating an attractive environment will invite customers and improve business opportunities. The opposition by current business owners is understandable, since they are predominately auto-oriented businesses. But 1 contend the proposed improvements enhance their business opportunity by intensifying mixed land uses and encouraging trip linkage. (1 believe people would prefer to sit by the creek with a of coffee when their car is being tubed and oiled- instead of a sitting in plastic chair on the asphalt). There are other great ideas in the plan not listed above, including; Parker Street enhancements, a park at Brook Street, flood protection and new open spaces. In conclusion, I support the staff recommendation and encourage you not to compromise any of the pedestrian and/or landscaping improvements proposed in the Plan. RECEIVED Sincerely FEB 2 6 2001 Peter Rodgers SLO CITY COUNCIL. Resident and property o er at 237 High Street MLLIiI RUMUA DI` a ITEM Stt�� P.O. BOX 13909 Area Code 805: 543-0298 SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93406 805: 438-3137 February 16 , 2001 To: Mayor Allen Settle Councilperson John Ewan Councilperson Jan Howell Marx Councilperson Christine Mulholland Councilperson Kenneth Schwartz C4 CIL 0CDD DIR A 0 FIN Di4 0 FIR: 7-';ET From: Roy and Gerard Parsons NEY O PYJ D,R LeRKMRIG 0 POLIW=CHF Subject : Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan OmIT 1L 0REG DIR 0� 0 UTIL 061 O PEAS DIII Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council , My brother and I want to jointly express our concern to the Enhancement Plan through this follow-up letter to you, which addresses some of the issues of particular concern to the Hayward property alone. We believe the proposed street widening from the Tire Store to Marsh Street is a city necessity and is a welcome completion to that project . Our foremost concern is the issue of FLOOD CONTROL. WE believe that no enhancement plan, or even a convention center, should be considered until our area is afforded a level of protection from flooding equal to that afforded other portions of the City. Although difficult, we believe this can be done. We believe that in all our grandeur for beauty our government often neglects some of the most. common needs of the long-established residents and businesses . To emphasize our concern with how long this flooding problem has been "discussed" yet never resolved, research shows it goes back prior to the floods of 1969 and 1973 ! We like the idea of a convention center. However, the Cal-Trans/Convention Center property suffers the same serious flooding problems as the Hayward property does . It seems quite obvious that flood control matters must first be resolved to lower the flooding risks to ourselves as well as visitors . On the historical sides of the issue, let us emphasize that this business district is deeply rooted in the shaping of our City. We and our neighbors are not in need of being picked up from the brink of failure. It appears that none of us wish to E EIVED2 0 2001Y COUNCIL re-locate, and it seems to us that the City should embrace its long-time businesses and work towards improvements that are more mutually acceptable. However, the long-term concept of the Enhancement Plan shows our existing tenant gone from the scene, and suggests a completely different use of our property. This is not what we want as landlords, nor does the Hayward family as tenants . We are both at this time committed to their long-term use of our property. Regarding the center median, we believe it would be a serious detriment to existing businesses and to the Hayward operation in particular, and are against it. However, we would favor encouragement of large trees at the sidewalk and landscape areas which will eventually evolve into a canopy over the street that would pattern after the Higuera area downtown, but with more sunlight in the center, which we believe would make a nice open gateway.-boulevard. Regarding the so-called "common driveway" proposed in the Plan, please know that over the years we have had our property bruised several times already: We dedicated .a 20 ' x 350 ' frontage strip to commence the widening to four lanes. This caused the loss of ten streetside parking spaces there, given for a bike path, the parking spaces having to be replaced on our own property later. Then we voluntarily dedicated to the City a 20 foot creek easement at the rear of the property for flood control purposes, and the City recently used this easement to widen the capacity of the creek. We appreciate the work the City and Zone 9 did there, but now we find that since the creek bank has been reconstructed 20 feet further into our property, we are now expected to dedicate another new 20 foot setback because the bank of the creek is now in a new location than before ! After all this , the Plan now proposes a "common driveway" which would cut our property in half , and a path and bike-way at creekside, in addition to what we already have given! We are strongly against this "common drive- way" which is legally a .street. The value of all this lost property is several hundred thousand dollars. We will strongly resist this manipulation of our property. We believe the Mid-Higuera business community should be allowed to voluntarily evolve in the direction of the City ' s goals with non-government proposals and with encouragement from the City through the routine zoning process . We do not want the government telling us how we must micro-manage our property. As we look back to the period since World War II , we have seen most businesses in Mid-Higuera already make rewarding strides towards these goals . ncerel Ro Parsons Pre ident F 0 CD^DIR eL)-✓Iartdut -t� CtAS)w ❑FIND° M 'IING AGEaNDA 0 FIR: ^_ :;[F D �. _UI l EM✓I7 O FW D.iG 0 FOLIJ_ CHFd 0 REO DIR � 0 UTIL DIR zmi0 PERS DIR ao 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". RECEIVED FE8 2 2 2001 s CITY COUNCIL. �lRetain this dccinnent`or ASSOCIATION OF M orRIba future Cou-pcit rnee,ing MERCHANTS AND PROPERTY 0 ` ��a ea P. O. BOX 13909 • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93406-3909 January 23,.2001 To: San Luis Obispo City Council SUBJECT: MID RIGUERA PROPOSALS • We support the completion of the widening of Mid-Higuera. • We believe in landscaping the area and upgrading the structures. This will adequately enhance the city's entrance. WE OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING A. THE LENGTHENING OF BROOK STREET FROM CAL-TRANS TO BIANCHI LANE. This proposal takes private property (without compensation), which will create the following problems: 1. Harm the St. Luke's Missionary Baptist Church 2. Disrupt private housing on Brook Street. 3. Force construction of a new street through the center of Hayward Lumber,the Tire Store,the Matthews Park, and the Machado property. 4. All four of these merchants will be forced out of business. 5. Trailer Park(low cost housing) will be devastated. 6. Will "wipe out"the Machado property at Bianchi lane. B. CONSTRUCTING A MEDIAN IN THE CENTER OF HIGUERA STREET. Now or in the future! A median will be a restraint of trade! Many customers will be unable to make left turns to enter businesses. Likewise, buyers returning to Higuera will not turn left. We oppose the closing of Walker Street until concise and accurate traffic studies are finalized, regarding businesses affected are documented and addressed. C. THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF BIKE LANES AND WALKWAYS. Bike lanes and creekside walkways should not be located on private property, ESPECIALLY since the City owns property between San Luis Creek and the freeway! D. PLEASE VISIT THE AREA! • LET'S JUST WIDEN HIGUERA STREET—PERIOD! RECEIVED G d L. Parsons, Secretary / THANKS FOR CARING! FE 8 1 4 2001 Fiii-.L COi_is,ICit. s-.^, SLa CITY COUNCIL, RECEIVED THIS DccuI,,iE,�T i 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 934015402 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 934015403 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 93401-5403 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 130 HIGH 6 HIGUERA# D PO Box 4258 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5011 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015422 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE.NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11 HIGUERA# C 25 HIGUERA 31 HIGUERA SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5414 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015414 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5414 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 43 HIGUERA 50 HIGUERA 75 HIGUERA#110 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015414 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5415 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#115 75 HIGUERA#120 75 HIGUERA#130 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#150 75 HIGUERA#155 75 HIGUERA#160 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#165 75 HIGUERA#180 75 HIGUERA#200 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5424 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 81 HIGUERA#100 81 HIGUERA#200 110 HIGUERA SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5427 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5427 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5419 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 157 HIGUERA 158 HIGUERA# A 158 HIGUERA# B SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5404 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5400 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5400 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUM BER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 158 HIGUERA# C 158 HIGUERA# D 158 HIGUERA# E 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 195 HIGUERA 200 HIGUERA 205 HIGUERA SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5404 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 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 93401-5015 FILE NUMBER:3958 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 93401-5014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 J 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 93401-5014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 FILE NUMBER:39-98 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 934015015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 264 HIGUERA 274 HIGUERA# 1 274 HIGUERA# 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5015 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 FILE NUMBER:39-98FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 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:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER;39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 6 274 HIGUERA# 7 274 HIGUERA# 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 9 274 HIGUERA# 10 274 HIGUERA# 11 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 12 274 HIGUERA# 14 274 HIGUERA# 15 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5029 FILE NUMBER:39-98 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:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:3958 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 19 274 HIGUERA# 20 274 HIGUERA# 21 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# 22 Z74 HIGUERA# 23 274 HIGUERA# 25 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015001 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 934015001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5001 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015001 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 505 HIGUERA#110 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3834 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 299 MARSH 272 PACIFIC 2010 PARKER SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3857 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4202 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2030 PARKER 2040 PARKER 2050 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 2060 PARKER 2074 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 2078 PARKER Teresa Dummit 2078 PARKER.#110 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 2415 Cima Court SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2078 PARKER#200 2103 PARKER 2146 PARKER# Al SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5017 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015042 FILE NUMBER:39.96 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# A2 2146 PARKER# A6 2146 PARKER# A7 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015042 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2146 PARKER# D1 2146 PARKER# 02 2146 PARKER# D3 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5042 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015042 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2149 PARKER 27 SOUTH 34 SOUTH# B SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5018 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5022 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015023 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 109 SOUTH 111 SOUTH 140 SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5024 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015024 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5025 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39.98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH 145 SOUTH# 1 145 SOUTH# 4 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# 11 145 SOUTH# 14 145SOUTH# 22 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# 24 145 SOUTH# Al 145 SOUTH# A3 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# A5 145 SOUTH# A7 145 SOUTH# A8 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# A9 145 SOUTH# 81 145 SOUTH# B3 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# B5 145 SOUTH# B8 145 SOUTH# Cl SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:3958 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH 4 C2 145 SOUTH# C3 145 SOUTH# C4 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 J FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C5 145 SOUTH# C6 145 SOUTH# C8 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# C9 145 SOUTH#A10 145 SOUTH#A11 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#Al2 145 SOUTH#A15 145 SOUTH#A17 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#A19 145 SOUTH#A21 145 SOUTH#A24 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#A25 145 SOUTH#A26 145 SOUTH#A27 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#A28 145 SOUTH#A29 145 SOUTH#A33 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#A35 145 SOUTH#A37 145 SOUTH#A38 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A39 145 SOUTH#A40 145 SOUTH#A41 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#A42 145 SOUTH#A43 145 SOUTH#A44 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#A45 145 SOUTH#A46 145 SOUTH#A47 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#A48 145 SOUTH#A49 145 SOUTH#A50 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#A51 145 SOUTH#A52 145 SOUTH#A53 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#A54 145 SOUTH#A55 145 SOUTH#A56 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#A57 145 SOUTH#A58 145 SOUTH#A59 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#A60 145 SOUTH#A61 145 SOUTH#A62 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#A63 145 SOUTH#A65 145 SOUTH#A66 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#A67 145 SOUTH#A69 145 SOUTH#B10 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#B12 145 SOUTH#B14 145 SOUTH#B15 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#B16 145 SOUTH#B17 145 SOUTH#818 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5030 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015030 FILE NUMBER:39-98 FILE NUMBER:39-98 003-711-026/FILE#:39.98 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 252 HIGUERA LLC 1335 WALKER 1337 WALKER 252 HIGUERA ST SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934014205 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4205 SCO CA 934015015 002506-002/FILE#:39-98 002-506-004/FILE#:39-98 004511-015/FILE#:39-98 BARRETT SUSAN P TRE BEEM DAVID C&SHERYL A BETTENCOURT FAMILY LLC 330 ENCINA RD STE B3 313 HIGUERA ST 1942 FIXLINI ST GOLETA CA 93117- SLO CA 934014214 SLO CA 93401-3031 002501-005/FILE#:39-98 004741-006/FILE#39-98 002-502-001/FILE#:39-98 CHEDA RUTH G TRE ETL CROTSER EDWARD F TRE ETAL DANA DOROTHY M 2451 AUGUSTA 266 CRAIG WAY 895 PATTY KAY CT SLO CA 93405- SLO CA 93405-1240 NIPOMO CA 934449315 003-721-051/FILE#:39-98 003-721-027/FILE#:39-98 004742-006/FILE#:39-98 DILL INVESTMENTS LLC DUMMIT JAMES B&THERESA ERWIN WINEFRED L TRE PO BOX 13755 3100 JOHNSON AVE 171 BROOK ST SLO CA 93406-3755 SLO CA 93401-6007 SLO CA 93401-5402 002501-004/FILE#:39-98 003-721-033/FILE#:39-98 004742_-004/FILE.#:39-98 EVON JOHN&JEANINE FERRINI JEAN E TRE FINCH GARY L&CHRISTINE E 309 HIGUERA ST %JEAN E TERKILDSEN 5405 SAN BENITO RD SLO CA 934014209 5177 FRESHWATER RD ATASCADERO CA 93422-1959 WILLIAMS CA 95987- 004741-007/FILE#:39-98 003-711-024/FILE#:39-98 003-721-037/FILE#:39-98 GILLIGAN MICHAEL GLEN-DEL POSADAS CORP GOLDENSON MARK L 1023 MILL ST APT B 3825 VALLEY BLVD 1255 CALLENS RD SUITE D SLO CA 93401-2762 WALNUT CA 91789- VENTURA CA 930035675 004-802-019/FILE#:39-98 003-721-053/FILE#:39-98 002-482-024/FILE#:39-98 HOUGH JOHN C JOHNSON PATRICIA D TRE ETAL JONES JAMES P JR ETAL 962 MILL ST %SMART&FINAL#377 %JAMES P JONES SLO CA 93401-2704 PO BOX 512377 3820 SEQUOIA DR LOS ANGELES CA 90051-0377 SLO CA 93401-8314 002-506-005/FILE#:39-98 004-802-014/FILE#:39-98 .004741-008/FILE#:39-08 JR JOHANSON INC A CA CORP KARIMAGHAYI JAHANSHAH KUPPER KURT P 1237 ARCHER ST 157 HIGUERA ST 8888 TORO CREEK RD SLO CA 93401-3806 SLO CA 934015404 ATASCADERO CA 93422-1035 004742-OODFILE#:39-98 003-721-047/FILE#:39-98 002482-013/FILE#:39-98 LAUGHLIN LAURIE LAWCO FOODS INC MACHADO T PO BOX 1089 PO BOX 5759 172 HIGH ST ARROYO GRANDE CA 93421-1089 SANTA MARIA CA 93456-5759 S L O CA 934015011 002-482-017/FILE#:39-98 004-802-015/FILE#:39-98 003-711-023/FILE#:39-98 MADONNA A MATHEWS LLOYD&BJ TRES MODEL LANDS INC PO BOX 3910 1885 ALRITA ST PO BOX 3609 S L O CA 93403-3910 SLO CA 93401-4605 S L 0 CA 93403-3609 002-482-021/FILE#:39-98 003-721-042/FILE#:39-98 003-711-043/FILE#:39-98 MONGE EILEEN M ETAL MORABITO ANGELO P&JOAN E ETAL MORABITO ANGELO P TRE ETAL %F E MCNAMARA 600 WOODLAND DR 214 Higuera Street PO BOX 636 LOS OSOS CA 93402-3818 San Luis Obispo CA 93401-7906 SLO CA 93406-0636 004741-001/FILE#:39-98 002-482-023/FILE#:39-98 002-482-015/FILE#:39-98 MURPHY CHARLES J OCONNER BJ OCONNOR B 6727 AVILA VALLEY DR PO BOX 1288 DVM 300 HIGUERA SLO CA 93405-8019 SLO CA 93406-1288 SLO CA 93401- 004-742-011/FILE 3401004-742-011/FILE#:39-98 004-801-021/FILE#:39-98 003-721-034/FILE#:39-98 PIERRO RALPH&MICHELLE D PRATHER PAUL J&JACQUELINE RATLIFF FRED P JR ETAL 25098 AVE.212 1 %RATLIFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LINDSEY CA 93247- 4379 FOXBURROW CT 1269 DRAKE CIR SANTA MARIA CA 93454- SLO CA 93405-4907 002501-003/FILE#:39-98 004-881-006/FILE#:39-98 004-742-ODS/FILE#:39-98 ROBERT E JOHNSON FAMILY LTD PTP ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP ROSS-BROWN SABRINA 1301 PANORAMA DR PO BOX 2048 858 LEFF ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305-1113 MONTEREY CA 93940- SLO CA 93401-4426 003-711-041/FILE#:39-98 004802-018/FILE#:39-98 002506-001/FILE#:39-08 SAN LUIS M&L CO A CA CORP SLOPCC LP A CA LTD PTP SNYDER CHARLES PO BOX 13909 %ROSS]ENT %SAN LUIS FLORAL&GIFTS SLO CA 93406-3909 750 PISMO ST 299 MARSH ST SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-3950 SLO CA 93401-3846 053-021-024/FILE#:39-98 003-721-050/FILE#:39-98 004742-007/FILE#:39-98 SPANGLER KATHERINE L ETAL SPENCER ROBERT&GAY-YVETTE ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH OF SLO 664 MARSH ST 140 SOUTH ST 160 BROOK ST SLO CA 93401-3931 SLO CA 934015025 SLO CA 93401-5402 004-742-0121FILE#:39-98 004511-020/FILE#:39-98 002501-002/FILE#:39-98 ST LUKE BAPTIST CHURCH SLO STATE OF CALIFORNIA (935) SUB.CORPORATION LTD A CA CORP 160 BROOKS ST Department of General Services and PO BOX 1002 SLO CA 93401-5403 Residential Real Estate Planning&Mgmt. SLO CA 93406.1002 1102 Q Street#4000 Sacramento CA 958146550 003-721-039/FILE#39-98 002482-007/FILE#39-98 002482-027/FILE#:39-98 TAYLOR MICHAEL THOMPSON SANFORD J TODD RONALD D TRE ETAL 207 HIGUERA ST PO BOX 284 P.O.Box 2567 SLO CA 93401-5014 AVILA BEACH CA 93424-0284 Paso Robles CA 93447-2567 004-741-009/FILE#39-98 003-7214)44/FILE#39-98 003-711-0441FILE#:39-98 WATERS SYLVIA HEIRS OF ETAL WESTERMAN JACK&SYBIL TRES WESTSIDE AUTO PARTS INC %ANDREA BOWERS PO BOX 1467 56 PRADO RD 381 HIGHLAND DR SLO CA 93406-1467 SLO CA 93401-7398 SANTA MARIA CA 93455-5517 003-721-049/FILE#:39-98 003-721-0321FILE#:39-98 WILSON FAMILY PROPERTIES A CA LTD PTP WINKAL HOLDINGS LLC 2530 BEECHWOOD 66 FIELD.POINT RD 4TH FLOOR SLO CA 93401-3875 GREENWICH CT 06830- : l 02/15/01 12:43:55 Sstendah Label List Page 1 Occupants 100 meters File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005'002-506-004'002-506-003`002505-0 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 160 BROOK# 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 6HIGUERA# D OCCUPANT Gerry Obrikat P.O.Box 13426(for 9 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 9 HIGUERA# non-mail OCCUPANT 10 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT 11 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT PO Box 4258 (for 11 HIGUERA) OCCUPANT 664 Marsh Street(Attn.April) (for 11 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 OCCUPANT 75 HIGUERA#155 02/15/01 12:43:55 Sstendah Label List �' Page 2 Occupants 100 meters File Number. ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional.Source Addresses: 002-506-001.002-506-002`002-506-005'002506-004'002506-003`002-505-0 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#86-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 OCCUPANT 205 Higuera Street (for 205 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 205 HIGUERA# B non-mail OCCUPANT 205HIGUERA# 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 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 1 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 2 02/15/01 12:43:55 Sstendah Label List O Page 3 Occupants 100 meters File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID=HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005'002-506-004'002-506-003`002-505-0 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 3 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 4 OCCUPANT .274 HIGUERA# 5 . OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 6 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 7 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 8 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 9 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 10 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 11 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 12 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 14 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 15 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 16 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 17 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 18 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 19 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 20 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA 21 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 22 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 23 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 25 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 26 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA# 27 OCCUPANT 274HIGUERA# 28 OCCUPANT 274 HIGUERA 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# " rion-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 BOX 1288 (for 300 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 300HIGUERA# B OCCUPANT 300 HIGUERA# 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# B 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 OCCUPANT P.O.Box 5003 (for 325 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 340 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT 2351 Willow Road (for 341 HIGUERA) duplicate 02/15/01 12:43:55 Sstendah Label 'List Page 4 Occupants 100 meters File Number. ARC 39-98 Source Address: . 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005'002-506-004.002-506-003'002-505-0 OCCUPANT 344 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT 346 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT 350 HIGUERA non-mail. OCCUPANT 385 HIGUERA# A OCCUPANT 385HIGUERA# B OCCUPANT 390 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT 390HIGUERA#. A OCCUPANT 360HIGUERA# B non-mail OCCUPANT 390HIGUERA# C non-mail OCCUPANT 3-90HIGUERA# D OCCUPANT 3190HIGUERA# E OCCUPANT 395 HIGUERA OCCUPANT 505 HIGUERA#110 OCCUPANT 299 MARSH OCCUPANT P.O.Box 8592 (for 251 PACIFIC) duplicate OCCUPANT 272 PACIFIC OCCUPANT 2610 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 OCCUPANT 2074 PARKER#100 OCCUPANT 2074 PARKER#110 non-mail OCCUPANT 2078 PARKER, 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 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# 02 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 27SOUTH OCCUPANT POST OFFICE BOX 3609 (for 34 SOUTH) duplicate OCCUPANT 34SOUTH# B OCCUPANT 67 SOUTH non-mail OCCUPANT 105 SOUTH non-mail OCCUPANT 109SOUTH 02115/01 12:43:55 Sstendah _. Label List ' Page 5 Occupants 100 meters File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002506-002'002-506-005'002506-004'002-506-003'002505-0 OCCUPANT 111SOUTH OCCUPANT 136 SOUTH non-mail OCCUPANT 138 SOUTH non-mail OCCUPANT 140SOUTH 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 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 36 non-mail OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# 37 non-mail OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# Al OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A3 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A5 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A7 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A8 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# A9 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# B1 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# B3 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# B5 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# C8 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH# C9 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#Al OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#All OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#Al OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#Al OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#Al 02115101 12:43:56 Sstendah �t Label List Page 6 Occupants 100 meters File Number. ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001'002506-002'002506-005`002-506-004'002-506-003'002-505-0 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#At 9 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#A67 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 146 SOUTH#B15 OCCUPANT 145_SOUTH#B16 OCCUPANT 145 SOUTH#1317 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 02/15/01 12:43:56 Sstendah �' Label List J Page 7 Occupants 100 meters File Number: ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002506-001'002-506-002'002-506-005'002-506-004'002-506-003'002-505-0 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 (for6 HIGUERA) duplicate BETTENCOURT FAMILY LLC 1942 FIXLINI ST(for 10 HIGUERA) 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 Prado 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 ETRE %JEAN E TERKILDSEN 5177 FRESHWATER RD(for 239 HIGUERA) FINCH GARY L&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 SUITED(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 3100 JOHNSON(for 2104 PARKER) duplicate KUPPER KURT P• 8888 TORO CREEK RD(for 180 BROOK) LAUGHLIN LAURIE PO BOX 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 2060 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 METAL %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 UNK(for 251 PACIFIC) non-mail PIERRO RALPH&MICHELLE D 25098 AVE 212(for 183 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 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 NIERS OF ETAL %JAMES L ROBERTS PO BOX 658(for 0.REMNANT) duplicate ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP PO BOX 2048(for 9 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) 02115/01 12:43:56 Sstendah C Label List ,J Page 8 Occupants 100 meters File Number. ARC 39-98 Source Address: 1 HIGUERA MID-HIGUERA STREET WIDENING Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 002-506-001`002-506-002'002-506-005'002-506-004'002-506-003`002-505-0 SAN LUIS M&L CO A CA CORP PO BOX 13909(for 236 HIGUERA) duplicate SLOPCC LP A CA LTD PTP %ROSSI ENT 750 PISMO ST SNYDER CHARLES C %SAN LUIS FLORAL&GIFTS 299 MARSH ST SPANGLER KATHERINE L ETAL 664 MARSH ST(fort 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 2530 BEECHWOOD(for 205 HIGUERA) WINKAL HOLDINGS LLC 66 FIELD POINT RD 4TH FLOOR(for 219 HIGUERA) 280 labels printed on 02115101 at 12:43:56 by Sstendah I HIGUERA 053-021-024 A=tz- .............. ..... ...... III LW moo. 0 .... ..... ....... Solid = Owner and Occupant Diagonal Lines= Occupant Only Cross Hatch = Owner Only CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GEODATA SERVICES 955 MORRO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 (805)781-7167 02/15/01 12:43 C MEETI t_ AGENDA DATE '''"D� ITEM # � February 21, 2001 COUNCIL READING FILE MID-HIGUERA STREET ENHANCEMENT PLAN Contents: Citizen and agency correspondence tIC'r'`ARD A. SCHMIDT, Architect 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu November 1, 2000 RFC��V�D Re: Mid-Higuera Plan — Nov. 1 Agenda c�rY NOV 0 To the Planning Commission: CoM�UN;ry, s e��� `42 10 Please do NOT approve this plan, and return to the drawing board and do it right this time. The proposed plan is the WRONG plan for THIS LOCATION. The proposed plan wastes some of the most valuable-commercial-real estate in our rea�vperpetuating a pattern of radicaLun-detuse, and with the addition of housing in an area inherently not suitable for good quality living, introduces an inherent incompatibility between more intensecommercial use and sane survival. of residents. The proposed plan squanders San Luis Obispo's opportunity rtunity to grow sensibly by concentrating high intensity retailing withi n the ity's core rather than sprawling over surrounding farm land. This is no small loss, for sprawl not only wastes land and open space but perpetuates auto-oriented transportation with its inherent waste of resources, pollution, and diminution of quality of life through congestion, traffic, noise and disease. While I generally frown upon "grand plans," if ever there was a part of our city needing one, the mid-Higuera area is it. Consider the following: • This already-developed commercial real estate sits adjacent to the freeway between two off-ramps. • Today, the area consists entirely of low-density, low-intensity uses with low-value buildings (meaning none have architectural or historical merit), extensive parking and other pavement, and uses which can all be accommodated elsewhere as well as or better than here. • With infrastructure already in place, the cost of redeveloping this area for intense commercial use would be a fraction of developing in the hinterlands with their required extension of infrastructure largely at public cost. • Imagine the potential here if the city were to act with vision instead of timidity and ill- conceived accommodation: This is THE location for our eguival_ent_of-SaritaBarber-a's Paseo Nuevo -- a major regional shopping center,.in-town rather than on the outskirts. I can see a parking structure at the Marsh Street freeway exit, another at Madonna, and Mid-Higuera. Page 1 1"11,.IIW V.]U,I,V1 � .i�����• amu..... _ ... . a loAly pedestrian mall between the two. Once regional shoppers are out of their cars, they will travel by foot or free shuttle to the downtown core for access to stores there. Over time, downtown and our new mid-Higuera regional shopping center will grow together, and we will have an enhanced, centralized retail core with little additional traffic congestion. (The alternative -- the path the city is currently pursuing -- forces driving to Madonna shopping centers, then driving to Froom, then driving to downtown -- a holy mess of traffic congestion and adverse environmental impacts.) - The mid-Higuera area is not only THE NATURAL LOCATION for this regional shopping center, intensifying this area's use it is the ONLY SENSIBLE ALTERNATAIVE TO SPRAWL. It is through this lens that I see how inappropriate the current proposal is. It has the following negataives: - It locks in underutilization of choice commercial real estate and inefficient land use based on sentimental attachments to the past (the lumber yard dates from narrow gauge railroad days but is an in-town anachronism today) and sentimental ideas out of neo-traditional planning texts (the live-work spaces which would be better located elsewhere -- like out betwen South Broad and the railroad between Santa Barbara and Orcutt). Sentimentality has its place, but it is not necessarily an adequate compass for forward-looking planning. - It precludes for another development cycle (50 years perhaps?) concentrating more of our economic vitality in the city's expanded commercial core, and encourages sprawl. • It piecemeals redevelopment of a district badly in need of property consolidation and the city's most forward-looking planning guidance. - It contains provisions, again based upon sentimentality, that are ecological disasters. The bike path and "parkification" of San Luis Creek, for example, opens up the best habitat in our city to public use. THIS IS A MISTAKE. IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG. THIS HABITAT IS A TREASURE THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED THROUGH GOOD PLANNING, NOT DESTROYED IN THE NAME OF "PLANNING." One reason this stretch of creek has remained such fine habitat--for birds, amphibians, fish, and mammals, including several endangered species — is because it has suffered benign neglect and the present owners have cut off public access. We must learn from our past environmental successes, not emulate our present ecological disasters(like Mission Plaza, a pleasant park for people, but a desert for former native inhabitants). I therefore urge that youul�e plug upon this round ofla�n.g for the mid-Higuera area, The proposed plan is so wrongly-aimed that adopting it would be worse than doing nothing at all. Aimed in the wrong direction, it will take us to an undesirable future. Once the dust has settled, I'd urge you to proceed with a plan based upon long-range vision rather than timidity and accommodation in the moment. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Mid-Higuera, Page 2 SMIRSSQ' -UARE DEAL RECORDINGS & SUPPLIES P.O. Box 1002 303 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-3636 January 26,2000 Charles Senn City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan Dear Mr. Senn, I am in receipt of your December 201h letter from Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director, regarding the mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. As a person who has attended all the public meetings and public input prior to this,I was surprised to see that a major part of the plan still calls for the putting of a median down the middle of Higuera Street. After waiting over 20 years for the city to widen the street to provide the necessary traffic flow for all of us to use, it comes as an extreme slap in the face to find that most of this effort is now going to be wasted on a landscaped median and left-tum pockets. Nowhere during the fust two meetings was the median discussed or mentioned. At the end of the second meeting when I brought it up to the planner I asked him why he hadn't been mentioning it,he said,"Well, it's been there on the drawings,"as a response,as if this substituted for discussion on the very significant medians. What's the point of taking community input if you don't listen to it? The community's input was to put most of the work into flood prevention,and none of the effort into the medians. First finish expanding the to so we can all enjoy the use. Twenty or 30 years down the road when the lumber yard and CalTrans is gone and the area is possibly different,then the medians might be appropriate to be put in. If you need a petition signed by the businesses on Higuera Street to respect their commercial needs,please respond in writing so we can get the petition together in time to stop this elitist boondoggle. Please don't allow planning and bureaucratic busybodies to steal the practical usefulness of lower Higuera Street. This is a commercial district,we need the center turn lane the full length of the street! Sincerely. Ric Ferris,President SDRS 303 Higuera St., SLO RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2000 CIl Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO October 5,2000 ( 00 Planning Commissioner Allan Cooper 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVEN LOPME RE: Planning Commission meeting on September 27"i,2000 Dear Mr. Cooper, I was in attendance on the Planning Commission meeting regarding Lower Higuera Street. I could not tell you from the audience how much your words acknowledging our concerns meant to me. I have been to so many dog-and-pony shows in this town where the people up at the forum seem to ignore the actual wishes of the majority of the constituents in favor of the special interest groups or in favor of the staffs own fetishes on the subject. It was indeed a rare moment for me to see you bring up so many excellent points to staff regarding their refusal to even fully acknowledge the points of the community. Thank you very much again for your excellent observations and for your willingness to confront staff with the realities of the situation. Sincerely, Ric .Ferris 303 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO October 20,2000 Q San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 990 Palm St. COMMUNITY DEK10PMEw San Luis Obispo,CA 93401- Dear Planning Commission, Item 1.) Staff lack of response to inquiries: Enclosed are letters written to city staff regarding the mid-Higuera Street enhancement area. I have received no answer from either Terry Sandville or Wayne Peterson. It is disturbing that these well-paid city staff members did not respond to my questions! Item 2.): Jim Henson,city traffic engineer,did promptly return my call of October ►0`h. He told me there had been no surveying of either Walker turns from Higuera,or High Street turns from Higuera. Without an idea of these turn volumes it is not possible to make correct and informed decisions on the traffic circulation of this area. it is not even possible to determine the turn pocket lengths needed on Higuera Street without this data. Please consider researching the traffic patterns at peak use to see the impact of the current planned action to close Walker Street completely. Walker Street open from Higuera but closed to Higuera would help traffic flow into the neighborhoods behind us(Branch, Sandercock,High)and assist the businesses at the end of the awkward street junctions. Item 3.): The 16-foot medians being proposed by staff severely harm the utility and visual access of our area. My property at 303,295 and 283 Higuera Street would have all access from downtown San Luis Obispo destroyed by staffs plan. This taking of all access severely harms the ability of any tenant to be successful in our spaces. The medians do severe harm to nearly all the businesses in our area. We need the visibility and access. The medians seem to be part of a grand scheme staff and their hired consultants has concocted against the interests of virtually all the property owners and tenants,and also against the general well-being of the community. The medians are the fault of minds that either do not grasp the function of this part of San Luis Obispo or do not care to grasp. This portion of San Luis Obispo is a commercial district. ALL business need both visual access(which a tree median would block)and physical access and egress for their customers. Competent planning for the area would realize we need to slow down traffic to allow for the many exits and entrances to Higuera Street that all of us need to survive. Putting in the median acts to make an expressway out of mid-Higuera Street. This is the opposite of what is needed. Please widen the street but if there is extra lane width available put back parking on the odd-numbered side of Higuera.._ We lost our street parking because the community needed two lanes of traffic. Later,one lane was sacrificed by staff for bicycles. If the city is able to give us back the parking that was taken,then this should be done. Parking on the street also slows traffic,protects the pedestrians and gets the bike lane out of the"gutter" where it is very tough to use. It is hard for us business and property owners to understand staffs elitist fetish to gentrify our area instead of functionally improve it. There are real things that can be done to improve the function and parking if only staff cared to do what the people in our part of town want. After a 20-year wait to see this project finished it seems selfish,self-centered staff members are determined to steal the project and to harm us at any cost. Thank you for your attention to these details and any help you can be in getting this project to reflect the needs and concerns of our area rather than just the desires of staff. Si ely, Ricl rd W erris,property owner Mid-Higuera area of SLO February 29,2000 Wayne Peterson,City Engineer 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Wayne Peterson, I very much enjoyed your presentation at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the mid-Higuera Street enhancement project. It's a shame you weren't allowed to speak prior to the meeting so we could have heard what you had already planned to do for flood control. This would have made all of our comments more targeted to the issues still remaining. I find great merit in your proposal to use the open space and soon to be open space near the Marsh Street bridge as a means of recovering the water that leaves the creek and getting it back into the creek channel. If the curb is properly lowered,the street crowning adjusted and the blank lot properly lowered. I think that this diversion project may well recover 60 to 80 percent of the water prior to the balance of it going down Higuera Street. I think it's a great idea,a realistic idea and one that can be easily implemented. It won't solve all flooding but it could mitigate a very significant portion. Regarding the medians at the upper end of lower Higuera Street. If we are going to use the beginning of Higucra Street as a part of flood control then the medians in this part of Higuera Street near the Marsh and Higuera intersection would tend to take water at once on the far side of the median and keep it there. A median in this location would interfere with the flood mitigation concept that you have proposed. I hope that you will goon record against medians in the norther end of Higuera(near Marsh Street). t ask this not only because medians will ruin access to the businesses in this location and destroy the flexibility of the street,but also from the point of view that it interferes with the flood control and will make your efforts less effective. I still have questions as to why we don't pursue cleaning the channel up starting at the final curve and going to the Marsh Street bridge. Perhaps putting a masonry wall on the outside of this curve and at the same time streamlining the bottom of the creek by removing obstacles; and from the creek back,almost to the bridge,(to the promontory),firming up the both edges of the creek bank and the bottom,would help to increase the velocity of the water going under the bridge. This could also help remove the"eddies"that contribute to debris accumulation. Once the water clears the bridge, there could be ample space for it to widen out and lose the velocity. By streamlining the curve and streamlining the bottom,the water will gain some velocity. This velocity not only will move more water under the bridge per unit time and help reduce eddies, it also will help push through trees or other obstacles that could clog the space under the bridge. Please consider at least this concept: it has very little impact on the ecology as the outer curve of the creek and the bottom of the creek at this point aren't particularly rife with habitat. These measures also can't stop all flooding but could further mitigate or eliminate many of the-50 year'floods we get every six to eight years. Thank you for any information you can provide me with why increasing the velocity of the water under the bridge would not also be effective in helping to mitigate the flood problems in addition to your excellent idea of recovering the water once it has left the creek bed. Sincerely, f R Ferris,property owner 303 Higucra St. SLO cc:Planning Commission members CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OCT 2 4 2WO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1"S QUARE DEAL RECORDINGS & SUPPLIES P.O. Box 1002 303 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-3636 March 15,2000 Terry SandvilFe_ I fq 6 ! Chief of Transportation D'�) 3J�[ City of San Luis Obispo S� LJ1 Dear Terry, I write this letter regarding information on the mid-Higuera enhancement district. In evaluating whether or not Walker Street should be closed I need some information that you no doubt have at your disposal. I need to know the following: 1. Traffic count on Walker Street. Traffic count from Higuera onto Walker Traffic count from Walker onto Higuera 2. Traffic count onto High Street that comes from left turns from Higuera Street. Although working and living in this areahood I get one impression of the traffic flow that would seem that your evaluation comes up with significantly different conclusions. I am hoping the difference between my opinion—based on living,working and being extremely familiar with the area—and your opinion is that you have done the traffic counts I have requested. If so,I am expecting that your traffic counts will change my mind or at least modify my impression. My concern is that unless you have looked hard and long at the traffic patterns in this neighborhood,that you may have miscalculated the impact of closing off Walker Street. It is my impression that a significant amount of left-turn traffic off Higuera goes on to Walker Street in order to get to High Street and local neighborhoods. It is my impression that more traffic that goes into the neighborhoods goes up Walker Street than currently waits to turn left onto High. The current situation for left turns at High Street is that there is no signal and when traffic is heavy only one or two cars can make aleft turn at a time. What are the plans for dealing with this if we close Walker Street and the heavy left-turn traffic is now forced onto High Street where there is no left-tum signal and no ability for more than two cars per light change to turn left during busy times. I look forward to seeing your response and additional information so as better to evaluate the proposal. S' ly, J Ric W Ferris,property own lcz:�e- `'U)<C'l Mid-Htguera Enhancement Project district CITY OF SAPS LUIS OEISPO P BLIC WORKS DERART!�4FI'T Mr.Hook 3 June 1,2000 If you have questions, please call Sandra Turshman at(805)542-4640 or Gerhardt Hubner at(805)542- 4647. Sincerely, , Zer W.Brigg Executive Officer SLT:S/Southem/Staff/Sandra/Cega/Mid-Mguera Enhancement Plan comment letter Task: 121-01 California Environmental Protection Agency Reryckd Paper X189 San Jose Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)5443399 9 February 2000 Honorable Members of the SLO City Planning Commission. My name is Richard J. Krejsa.I am a 31 year resident of the city. Central Coast creeks once were cool streams shaded from the sun by large sycamores, smaller willows and cottonwoods. Native fish fed on insects falling from those and other riparian (streamside)plants upstream which also dropped sugar-rich leaves into the creek.The fallen leaves formed the energy base for the aquatic food chain on which bottom insects,frogs,and fishes depend. Naturally-eroded creek banks, undercut by the current, provided natural hiding places from predators. Seasonal rains,or lack thereof,regulated the volume of flow. This stream ecology snapshot once described SLO Creek downtown until about 100 years ago when,in November, 1892,the local newspaper described the completion of placing 4.5 blocks of the creek within a granite-and-mortar straightjacket in order to confine"our riotous nuisance of a creek."This likely was the first major change to SLO creek's natural ecology. Around 1910, steel and concrete decks were placed over the granite walls thus"sealing the waters... away from public sight and consciousness" (NT,20 Jan 2000).This action deprived light and thereby prevented photosynthesis in the undercity stream.Buildings were soon constructed over the entombed creek. During my 31 years as a city resident and stream biologist with special interest in SLO Creek,the City has tried various ways to"tame" our creek,most often in the name of flood control. In ignorance of the b s'c principles of stream biology,the City has s� eliminated vegetation on the Som ide of the creek,i.e.,closest to city housing.This so eliminat the natu s a e and cooling value of the creek vegetation. After the 1973 flood,the city began to clear debris from the channels and began to eliminate all low-lying branches which might catch debris floating downstream during a storm. For one period of time, in this gradual process which Phil Ashley and I call "parkification," city staff began to remove all riparian vegetation, whole trees,yes even those with 10-12"dia. trunks way up on the banks,willows and others bushes and shrubs that once dropped juicy insects and sugar-rich leaves into the creek. More recently, on the theme of keeping the creek clean for public health reasons,they cut down and cleared all vegetation, everything within 8-10 feet of the ground,which, co-incidentally (?)made certain that no-down-and-out human being could use the riparian zone for shelter. Most recently,we've had the dedication of the new "Creek Walk" extension of Mission Plaza.To the non-critical eye, it may appear open and"pretty" but that project has removed all riparian vegetation,especially trees(with their cooling shade, insect fall, leaf drop,and and protective shelter)from that region of the creek for at least 10 years. And this was to be a steelhead enhancement project! The 90-foot Santa Rosa Street Bridge replacement project, now almost completed,was actually a continuous pollution mill with 30 silt/sediment pollution events in 88 days of "environmental monitoring."And next summer's 450 foot Higuera St. Bridge replacement project, to be done mostly at night for the convenience of downtown businesses, will likey produce much more pollution and abuse to SLO Creek. �In tonight's latest(per)version of the multi-use flood control concept, more trees will be cut down in order to"make room" (in the name of recreation)for walkers, runners, bicyclists! Of course,if you've got people walking, running, or bicycling along the creek, then you're justified clearing an even wider path for them which,co-incidentally, will also allow flood waters to flow more readily thru the now almost non-existent riparian zone downtown! In tomorrow's New Times(Thursday), I have written a feature article giving an alternate,"biological perspective" on the history of SLO Creek"improvements." I urge that members of the Plannig Commission read this article before subjecting SLO Creek to even more city-approved and city-sponsored abuse on yet another stretch of San Luis Obispo Creek now, apparently destined for yet more"parkification." In fact,I would request that you include that article as additional professional testimony to your honorable commission. Thank you for your consideration of my input. Ih. Richard J. jsa SLA Creek tector Professor Emeritus Fisheries and Biological Sciences Cal Poly State University. �o n 1*X �C CA- TOM &DAVE'S TIRE STORE INC. ;T jd ; vice-President. 252 HIGUM,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.93401 (805)541-8473 �-- e�rf- To: Planning Commission Members&City Counsel Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Fr6m: Dave Hite RE: Mid Higuera.Street.Enhancement Plan Date: February 4, 2000 My partner Tom Beckwith and I own 252 Higuera and The Tire Store,the business at that location. We moved to the Central Coast in 1989. We purchased an existing tire store in the mid Higuera Street area. At the time a city planner at the counter told us that a tire store would be allowed only in certain areas such as Tank Farm Road or Broad Street out by the airport. In 1989, a tire store in those areas would not have survived. We asked if we could be in an area closer to downtown, he said we would need to purchase an existing location, so we did just that. We bought McCracken Tire in 1989. We bought the property from the Parson's, in 1996, with hope for a long future at an already "landmark location". We believe there are several key items vital to our existence in San Luis Obispo. The Mid I iguera Plan greatly hinders this from happening. 1. A median down Higuera Street thus eliminating the public access to the front of our property will cause people to look elsewhere. Which is not good for business. 2. Rezoning without considering of existing business to stay"legal conforming" is not fair to tax paying business people who have put roots into the community. If zoning is changed and by no fault of our own a fire, flood, or earthquake damaged our building, we would not be allowed to rebuild our business, due to our type of business not conforming to the plan. 3. The proposed common driveway between Bianchi Lane and South Street. This may cause some legal concerns! Who would maintain liability? Who would have legal responsibility for the public using this driveway? This is E�ECEIV 00 privately owned property, and would divide it rendering its use v FEB R EIVED �= 2000 Crry of SA F E B 0 4 2000 C^n+��rynim N LUIS OBISPn SLO CITY COUNCIL and it is not publicly owned. There are three property owners involved. Why should we give up a 24' to 40' or more of driveway and adorning landscape to accommodate public traffic access? Can you force property owners to build a road calling it a private driveway? 4. Flood control is a very important and complex issue. Political and government regulations hinder any real progress in this area. We would like to see progress in a positive way before adopting any other plan. When we look at a flood the truth of the matter is we can recover from a flood with minimal losses. In 1995, we closed early that evening, and were open the next morning. There was a lot of clean up yet to do, but we were still open! A flood will probably not put me out of business when in time this plan will. You as planners and council members can preserve the rights of business that have deep roots by allowing us to continue to grow where we are. Please review this plan very carefully and take into consideration the property owners involved. Thank you, 4'��Sjl Dave Hite Tom Beckwith Jim Morabito October 10,2000 Pauls Dry Cleaners CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 214 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo Off 16 California, 93401 SLO Planning Commission COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The property owners and the people who operate the retail sales stores on Lower Higuera, in the area of the proposed enhancement program, again come before your to protest the city staffs visions of the future of that area. To date there have been no changes made that we requested. The proposal of a convention center in the Cal Trans area in the future. The Higuera Street landscape medians which would greatly effect our retail sales ability, doing away with left turns. To make the Higuera area the gateway to SLO, Marsh Street is the entrance to SLO. The proposed channels from Higuera back over to the creek for flood control. How is water going to flow back over the shrubs and trees and other landscaping in the proposed median. The city ownes the property on the west side of the creek, that is where the proposed Bob Jones Trail belongs. It is the bridge that the city does not want to deal with. Why not leave the creek in that area natural and start the bicycle path at the proposed park where the Cal Trans Maintenance Yard is now located. The proposed extension of Brook Street to Bianci Lane, to change access to Higuera Street retailers, and to bring customer traffic to the back of the businesses. This would cause irreparable damage to the customer flow and effectively discourage customers from frequenting our places of businesses. hat we„h�ve orks. im Movr�/ate/b�'i�to C February 4,2000 San Luis Obispo Planning Commission I am Jim Morabito property owner and operator of Pauls' Dry Cleaners, 214 Higuera Street. The Higuera Street Enhancement plan is not good for our business or our neighbors with retail sales. We have a very viable business that was founded by my father in 1952. My brother Angelo and I have successfully operated this business since our take over in the early 1960's. The proposed center median landscaping, doing away with left turns, would discourage our customers because of not being able to enter our parking lot while traveling north on Higuera Street. I also cannot see blocking off driveway entrances on Higuera Street and bringing traffic around the back and through the proposed Brook Street extension being beneficial to our business. What we have now works well. Trader Joe's located across the street from our location, where Higuera Street narrows down to two lanes, has caused traffic tie ups that has effected our customer flow. My brother and I, within the next few years are considering retirement and hopefully to sell our business and lease or sell the property. It would be very difficult to negotiate a sale if the present zoning or land use may change or be altered in any way to a new owner. Flood control is most important.to the business and residence community of the Lower Higuera Street area. I have been there over 40 years and 100 year floods are quite frightening and financially devastating. Before anything else is settled the flood issue needs to be addressed in a manner that will protect all of us in the future. Respectfully Jim Morabito RECEIVE® FEB 0 12000 Rv�° SAN Luis oaispo ,,.._ _ 'r Chairman Paul Ready November 1, 2000 San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 990 Palm Street RECEIyED San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Nov 012000 Clfy OF UN LUIS Dear Chairman Ready and Commissioners: COMMUIWryDEvFLO PO I have reviewed the Mid Hiquera Enhancement Plan and recommend the Planning Commission APPROVE the plan as submitted. I am a resident and property owner at 237 High Street. I am very supportive of the improvements proposed in the plan over the next several years. However, because I have a family with young children, I will probably not be able to attend your meeting tonight (read: it's bath and book reading time). I strongly support the following elements of the plan: • The closure of Walker Street @ Pacific and development of a mini-Plaza. (#1 priority) This would provide the additional benefit of reducing cut-through traffic on High Street to Broad Street. • The provision of landscaped medians along South Higuera with controlled intersection channelization. (#2 priority) 1 believe the opposition by business owners is short-sighted. The overall benefits of an improved pedestrian environment will benefit local businesses. • A bikelane on the east side of the creek as the start of the Bob Jones City to Sea bikepath. Again, creating an attractive environment will invite customers and improve business opportunities. The opposition by current business owners is understandable, since they are predominately auto-oriented businesses. But l contend the proposed improvements enhance their business opportunity by intensifying mixed land uses and encouraging trip linkage. (Don't you think people would prefer to sit by the creek with a latte when their car is being Tubed and oiled-instead of a plastic chair on the asphalt?) • Maintain bikelanes on South Higuera Street. This is a no-brainer. It's part of the nationally recognized Bicentennial Bike Route established in 1977! There are other great ideas in the plan not listed above, including; Parker Street enhancements, a park at Brook Street and new open spaces. I encourage you to forward a recommendation of"approve without changes" to the City Council. Sincerely, Pe er Rodgers Resident and property owner at 237 High Street City Planning Commission San Luis Obispo 9 February, 2000 Honored Commissioners; Please do not approve the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan as presented by City staff in its present form. I take issue today with one specific part of that plan—the proposed location of a bike/pedestrian path along or adjacent to the bank of San Luis Creek, specifically as an extension of the Bob Jones City—to—Sea Bike Trail. Enjoyment of a public trail should not have to come at the expense of creek wildlife, such as it is within the city. The creeks serve as arterials for the traffic of creatures, and their viability as such will not withstand the intrusion of human traffic, wheeled or heeled. The city needs to respect it's own setback ordinance in previously built-up areas—twenty feet from edge of bank-minimum—and not amend it for their own ends(as proposed). For unbuilt areas, the ordinance should specify much greater separations, a hundred feet or more. To accommodate the mixed human traffic, this path will likely manifest as no less than an eight foot wide swath of asphalt with (to conform with city standards) a massive guardrail, signage, and other so-called amenities. This is not appropriate for a creekside environs—not within the city, nor elsewhere. The recent city monstrosity which effectively sterilized the creek habitat between Nipomo and Broad streets should not be repeated elsewhere. This was an old project done with no appreciation for the existing habitat. And it was over-done with the heavy hand that we have come to associate with city projects characterized by the euphemistic term: °enhancement°. If, as this plan asserts, the "productive natural habitat" (staff's term) receives it's recommended `improvements"we should just be honest about it and-kiss this disparate fragment of wildness within our city goodbye, and be done with it. The best thing the city could do with this beautiful creekside area, the`highest and best use", would be to do nothing, ever. Do the best thing tonight, and send this plan back to planning staff for removal of the bike path from the immediate creek habitat, elimination of setback exemptions, and planning for increased setbacks in unbuilt areas. Thank you, Russell Hodin 1570 Hansen lane San Luis Obispo October 21, 2000 00 t '64 o S Z490OyFFPF4NT San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission I am Ed Page, owner of the 34th Street property, I am also a native of San Luis Obispo. My father Burch Page,founded and successfully operated Model Linen Supply in 1938.untill the business was sold in 1992. Flood control in the Mid Higuera area has not been resolved in any way that will be effective. More time developing the beautification plan than to what is most important to the Higuera businesses and residences. The proposed bike path belongs on the west side of the creek where the city owns:-the property. Why do property owners have to give up easements for bicycles or_soedestrians. I object to city staffer, "Jeff Hooks" meeting with my-tenant, John Villa and nod including me, the property owner, as to what his vision is with my property, concerning the placement of the bicycle bridge.. Making Brook Street through to Bianchi, I feel along with my tenant Villa's Automotive , will hinder their ability to operate smoothly due to additional traffic flow in this area. Villa's Automotive has invested very heavily when they located at my property. They have an option to purchase the property and any zone changes or conditions imposed on a new ownership would be extremely difficult for both of us to bare. Please consider all of these concerns of mine to the outcome of the proposed beautification plan. This is most important to myself and my family. Yours truly Ed Page ltl/L4/"Ltltltl 1':LL `Jtl75=ZQb W1LSM YLil7t UZ W. G.Wilson, 274 Higuera Street 0 C T 2 2a Sen Luis Obispo CA 93401 C'TU1 COMMUNITY D€VE�dpMENfi October 24, 2000 Mr. Jeff Hook, Planning Department San Luis Obispo CA 93401 RE: Mid-Higuers Enhancement Dear Mr. Hook: This Mid-Higuera Enhancement plan is very ingenious. This plan, if approved, will eventually lower the risk of flooding to much of San Luis Obispo. The City, by making this law, requires the property owners on the creek side of Higuera make their property THE FLOOD CHANNEL in order to protect other properties. As a properly owner, I know that not having a driveway off Higuere devalues my property. As a property owner, I know that the building footprint and location limitations devalue my property. As a property owner. I know that the center median without a left tum lane for me devalues my property. As a property owner 1 know that a common driveway through my property devalues my property. As a property owner, I know that the use of my property, i.e., creek setback by any person or persons, other than my choice devalues my property. When the creek set back ordinance was put into taw, I was told that all e)dsting use was to be allowed to continue until the property owner, by choice,warned to change the land use. Is this true or false? Being the owner of property that stands in the way of the 100—500 year flood, I always knew that my property was at a risk. NOW THE FLOOD IS NOT THE THING TO FEAR THE CITY IS. This plan to devalue my property is more injurious than the projected 100—500 year flood. At a future time the City could take my properly under eminent domaip. My just compensation then would approAmatey be only one-half the current Wie. As a property owner I oppose this plan. 1FJ/24/2ddd 15:22 9895953246 WILSM fJAUL d3 Delores Wilson, 274 Higuere Street, RECEIVED San Luis Obispo CA 93401 October 24. 2= Crry OCT 2000 Mr. Jeff Hook, Planning Department COMMU�OF�DEEL00 SPO City of San Luis Obispo, 980 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 RE: Mid-Higuere Enhancement Dear Mr. Hook: Many hours, days, months and years have been spent on solutions to solve the SLO Creek flood plans. I commend the city for its diligent effort on this very important issue. Unfortunately, these proposed solutions are, at this point in time, future concepts. WE HAVE A PROBLEM NOWII If we are faced with a flood from the creek this winter,the riparian zone in the creak will be lost and, as well, the possibility of loss of personal property and life. Anything done now to help prevent damage and danger to life and property if the creek were to flood this winter is merely a Band-Aid approach but perhaps one that should be given serious consideration. A suggestion would be to dean the unwanted debris from the Creek at its most vulnerable locations. This would possibly increase the velocity of the flour of water from the city to the sea. Second and last subject: bicycle lanes. From Marsh to South Street, two 5'4r transportation bicycle lanes are proposed, one on the east and one on the west Of Higuare. A bicycle lane is also proposed on the east side of the creek in the area of Marsh Street to Madonna Road.A portion of this bicycle lane is also located alongside the access way or driveway which will serve as the back and only entrance to businesses located frmn Bianchi Lane to South Street It will carry a lot of traffk: cars, small trucks, large trucks, trailsrs,etc. I am in fawn of moving the bicycle lane from Marsh Street to Madonna Road to the west side of the creek. This location would be completely away from traffic and provide the element of safety where ardent bike riders, as well as, fmnilies with children would be able to weave through natural corridors of the City. Its maintenance, preservation and security, since it would be an City lands ight-d- way, would be provided by the City and would reduce conflicts with private land holdings. ANGIE KING Attorney at Law PO Boa 12909 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 voice: (805)544-4321 fax: (805)544-4331 email: aking@slonet.org RECEIVED February 22, 2000 Clok FEB 2 4 2000 Mr. Jeff ublbpo City of an�Luis Obispo CoAft�T1DE�SL pap Planning Department 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 RE: mid-Higuera enhancement Dear Mr. Hook: In reading about the city's plans to improve the Higuera street corridor south from Marsh St., a number of concerns come to mind. The first, of course,is flood control, as this area is not developed fora good reason: the creek floods the area during big storms. However, others are working on that problem. In addition, however, in moving out the older mobile home parks to make way for higher priced condos, please bear in mind that the residents of these parks live in them because they have to, not because they want to. If the parks are demolished,where will these people move to? There are no available spaces in the city to move a mobile home into. Most of the coaches are too old to meet the requirements of any new location. I hope the city will plan where these people will move to BEFORE you destroy their homes. Since the city appears to be relying on market forces to provide incentives to"enhance" this area, I hope the city provides some incentive to those market forces to help create new spaces for mobile home parks. The residents will not just disappear. They may well become homeless, and even more dependent on city and county social services for survival. Very truly yours, Angie King f .. February 28,2000 , , Wayne Peterson,City Engineer '' �'(` 'r ✓ `� 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Wayne Peterson, I very much enjoyed your presentation at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the mid-Higuera Street enhancement project. It's a shame you weren't allowed to speak prior to the meeting so we could have heard what you had already planned to do for flood control. This would have made all of our comments more targeted to the issues still remaining. I find great merit in your proposal to use the open space and soon to be open space near the Marsh Street bridge as a means of recovering the water that leaves the creek and getting it back into the creek channel. If the curb is properly lowered,the street crowning adjusted and the blank lot properly lowered,I think that this diversion project may well recover 60 to 80 percent of the water prior to the balance of it going down Higuera Street. I think it's a great idea,a realistic idea and one that can be easily implemented. It won't solve all flooding but it could mitigate a very significant portion. Regarding the medians at the upper end of lower Higuera Street. If we are going to use the beginning of Higuera Street as a part of flood control then the medians in this part of Higuera Street near the Marsh and Higuera intersection would tend to take water at once on the far side of the median and keep it there. A median in this location would interfere with the flood mitigation concept that you have proposed. I hope that you will go on record against medians in the northern end of Higuera(near Marsh Street). I ask this not only because medians will ruin access to the businesses in this location and destroy the flexibility of the street,but also from the point of view that it interferes with the flood control and will make your efforts less effective. I still have questions as to why we don't pursue cleaning the channel up starting at the final curve and going to the Marsh Street bridge. Perhaps putting a masonry wall on the outside of this curve and at the same time streamlining the bottom of the creek by removing obstacles;and frorn the creek back,almost to the bridge,(to the promontory),firming up the both edges of the.creek bank and the bottom,would help to increase the velocity of the water going under the bridge. This could also help remove the"eddies"that contribute to debris accumulation. Once the water clears the bridge,there could be ample space for it to widen out and lose the velocity. By streamlining the curve and streamlining the bottom,the water will gain some velocity. This velocity not only will move more water under the bridge per unit time and help reduce eddies,it also will help push through trees or other obstacles that could clog the space under the bridge. Please consider at least this concept;it has very little impact on the ecology as the outer curve of the creek and the bottom of the creek at this point aren't particularly rife with habitat. These measures also can't stop all flooding but could further mitigate or eliminate many of the"50 year"floods we get every six to eight years. Thank you for any information you can provide me with why increasing the velocity of the water under the bridge would not.also be effective in helping to mitigate the flood problems in addition to your excellent idea of recovering the water once it has left the creek bed. Sincerely, Ric W.Ferris,property owner 303 Higuera St. Mq o 1 SLO SAtv 20 cc:Planning Commission members J-Dat(e, RQf ere, SLo 00 cwpcu I COUM kry 41J/ S OB PO OPMiAT August 2, 1998 RECEIVED Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Community Development Department AUG 3 1996 City of San Luis Obispo CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street COMMUM Y EVELOPMENT San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Mr. Hook: I was unable to attend the Mid-Higuera District planning two weeks ago, but I have some comments that I would like considered. I,as well as others in the neighborhood,would like to see portions of this district become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. The first area that I would like to see addressed is Bridge Street. Ideally,the bike path that ends near Exposition Street should be continued down Bridge Street to Higuera. But if a bike path is not feasible,then sidewalk should be installed in the short section of Bridge Street where there is none and a bike lane should be delineated in the roadway from where the bike path ends near Exposition Street to Higuera Street. The second area that I would like addressed is Madonna Road from Higuera to the Madonna Plaza. Pedestrians are all but prohibited from walking to the Madonna Plaza from Higuera due to the tortuous route required. Please try this walk yourself once to see what I mean. Ideally, a bike path should be installed away from the roadway but I realize installation of a pedestrian bridge over the freeway and the creek would be very expensive. So to be pragmatic, I recommend moving the sidewalk on the bridge over San Luis Creek to the southeast side of the bridge so that it is in line with the sidewalk on the southeast side of the freeway overpass. The benefits of this change would be two-fold. First,pedestrians would have a shorter and faster route because they stay on one side of Madonna road. They wouldn't have to wait for signals or walk back and forth across Madonna Road needlessly. And second, it would improve the flow of traffic on Madonna Road because there would be one less pedestrian crossing. In other words,one less red light for vehicular traffic. The last area that I would like addressed is the installation of a bike path connecting SLO with Avila Beach. The city already owns property near Elks Lane so it would make sense for the bike path to run down Higuera Street or along the creek to Elks Lane, then down Elks Lane and continue south parallel to the freeway through the city property. The Mid-Higuera district currently is a drive-to or maybe more appropriately a drive-through district. I believe that the area would be enhanced if people were encouraged to walk/bike here by a network of routes designed for their use. If you would like to discuss any of my suggestions, please contact me at 549-9695. Sincerely, Helene Finger � 1 p C WE MOM- ' etitr- 9 199OF 8 ;� BISPO August 19, 1998 PUITY B C WQAN RKS DEPUISARTM NT San Luis Obispo City Engineering Department ATTN: Mid-Higuera Project Consultant Team 955 Morro Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mid-Higuera Project Consultant Team: I will be unable to attend the meeting tonight but would like to share some thoughts with the team and thank all responsible for giving us an opportunity to voice our concerns. My comments will be directed at the area below Madonna Road to the south end of the project. The area of most concern is flooding from runoff onto the street and from the drainage,through Meadow Park crossing under Higuera Street. Currently the street is being used as a drainage channel and while it works quite well for displacing water it creates a safety hazard for those using the street and a financial burden to business owners because of frequent business interruptions. Addressing the flooding issue would also save business and property owners a considerable amount of money due to mandatory flood insurance. My guess is that most of the study area is in the flood plain where flood insurance cost could easily be in excess of$100,000 per year. For example, the cost of flood insurance for 15 and 37 Higuera is about $3,000 per year. That cost is necessary even though no flood water has ever seen the floor of either building except for 1,200 sq. ft. of 15 Higuera. Since the flood insurance will not cover contents, carpet, etceteras the insurance would be of little value. Widening the street to accommodate existing traffic while allowing for street parking and bike lanes would also have a positive effect on business by slowing traffic and creating a shopping area rather than a freeway. Since the freeway does parallel Higuera Street those needing to cross town in a hung would be encouraged to use the highway. Please don't consider other types of traffic calming,or reducing travel lanes to discourage the use of the dreadful automobile. Thanks again for this opportunity to participate in the study. Best Regards Mike S Cler 654 N1,4RSH STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 • 805.5---1740 JAMES T. FICKES A .I .A . � 3 ARCHITECT PLANNER 934 VISTA DEL C01 .ILAG05 SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 805-X5.2000 9890% 7 s gid- C,t ty Ajo 5o 44( ve�� 16 ty a(t o te t s . - 9m Lots abOW Ccs. LOT 2ave Xn reffavd -W Manrnng Z*td stMi- wit o Lo k caeca I- '�e. B��to '�t- ireram �d protect '� Pz-°Ia° Alda anon fib saes a►n. �' �e - s -Faca B i V '. -a e, been a/v%J is e nv . ty ?S w a a5 be f' CY C Qd f ov' �.1..®. ue�ea -fes pacdf= R�itcY Fri` . Cwt was arrd rebc�st�-, -ter 9'r` t --,*saU-6k0VJW W OXa d �r "otd Ah Lauis hrlCKfWnd.0tlbn; a vv , er4L , T+ wou (d be fina i il 4fu (aT.jr&7SQ t� q0jjcJnrcyW be supplied -to ernh . ihts plau . v,ery truly (9� C1opc°5 ny" Y HC F(ann°rA � r(; A ° n a „' drew016nner LPVWTTECTI?RE _ Hayward Lumber Co 236 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 RECEIVED 805-543-0825 FEB 0 Q 2000 CI i Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Planning Commission Members City of San Luis Obispo Date: February 4 h, 2000 Hand Delivered Subject: Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan From: Bruce Jensen— Branch Manager, Hayward Lumber Currently Hayward Lumber Company has a long term lease with Roy and Gerrard Parsons, the landowners of the property on which we are operating. This 30-year lease was negotiated in the spring of 1998 with an option given of first chance to buy the property if the owners decide to sell. In 1998 we decided firmly that we wanted to keep Hayward Lumber in its current location long term. We have since done approximately $300,000 in property improvements including, surface drainage, paving, and signage. We are also currently working up a plan to propose the building of a design center next to our mill to facilitate the selling of door, windows, cabinets, and architecual molding. As you can see, we are serious about our commitment to our location, which in turn creates the needed revenue to maintain and progress as a business. Hayward has recently purchased a 10-acre parcel in Santa Maria to increase the size of our current truss plant. This past year we sold $400,000 manufacturing trusses which were assembled in Santa Maria, delivered directly to the job site, but sold through our facility as a direct shipment. This means more revenue without the complications of traffic, parking, larger footprint, etc. We are currently starting a program to sell installed products, which also does not create the complications listed above but increases revenue. These types of ventures help both the business and the city. To make the Mid Higuera Enhancement Plan work for both the city and the landowners/ businesses, an understanding of the logistics of the particular businesses effected is necessary. We have 70' truck with trailers coming into our Higuera entrance by the mill and exiting on South Street so as not to create traffic problems on our shared streets or in our yard interior. Without consideration of these trucks, we could not run our business. We have approximately 12-15 trucks per day come into our yard, so planning without the proposed median is critical. The proposed bike lane in the back of our property would take an additional 20' of our useable land. We have already lost 20' or so off the front for the widening of Higuera and another 20' off the back in 1999 when the creek bank was modified. This bike lane would make a total of 60' of prime real estate that we have lost. We are using our land to its potential now and can not afford to lose any more of this valuable operational space. In our workshops, flooding was brought up several times, as you are aware of. Flooding and any other natural disaster, is a concern in regard to the flexibility needed to rebuild damaged property and or buildings. In this unforeseen situation, we might need an exception on just keeping our business open, such as storage of materials and or a temporary change in entrance and exit. In all our joint efforts, I feel we can come up with a plan that is good for all involved if we keep a good line of communication. In my mind this means more then a workshop or hearing. It means one on one on site with the business and landowners to truly understand the logistics and ramifications of this plan or any proposed future plan. There has been a lumber and milling business on this property since 1883. Hayward has been at this location since 1988 and as a company been in business since 1919. We feel we are a part of what the local and neighboring communities have been built on. We have a branch in Pacific Grove that is a lumber and retail store with two design centers across the street as part of their operation. Pacific Grove branch is sitting on land worth as much or more then what ours is and yet they are our most profitable branches. In the last three years our sales have grown 50% and we now employ 50 local people. Bill Hayward, the fourth generation of our family owned business, took over 6 years ago with a fresh look at our current business style. We will be aggressive in our future marketing strategy, yet, always sensitive to our"traditional lumberyard" concept that we are proud of. I would invite anyone that would like to meet with me personally to walk our facility, gain understanding of how we operate, and discuss solutions that are good both for the future of the city, the landowners, and our business. i I will try to convey as much information as I can at any workshop or public hearing, however, because of time constraints on our meetings and the number of parties with individual issues, it may not be possible in the allotted format. Thank you for taking the time to read and understand our thinking. Please call me for anytime for a tour of our operation. Bruce Jensen 805-543-0756 fax 805-543-0825 bus. A V�_ low P.O. BOX 13909 Area Code 805: 543-0298 SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93406 805: 438-3137 October 23 , 2000 Q OF SAN LUIS OBISPO To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Re: Mid-Higuera St . Enhancement Plan LOW z 4 A Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT You may recall my brother and I are the owners of the Hayward Lumber property at 236 Higuera St. , which we operated as San Luis Mill & Lumber Co. from our teen years until our retirement and sale to the Hayward family. Our business was founded in 1883 , and my brother and I can remember when lumber was brought from Port Harford to San Luis Obispo by the narrow gauge Pacific Coast Railway. I spoke before you at your September 27th meeting, and therefore relinquished my opportunity to speak at the upcoming November 1st meeting, so I wish to now address you by this letter . My brother and I are in FAVOR of: 1 . Complete the widening of Higuera St. up to Marsh St . 2 . Underground all utilities with the widening for beautification. 3 . Zoning changes for our block. 4. Visual storefront improvements where needed . 5. Acquire convention center property at Cal-Trans when available. 6. Walker St . closure and plaza . 7. Sidewalk trees and amenities . We are very much AGAINST the following: 1 . Median strips . They are bad for business in general , and particularly for our types of business . 2 . The bike path on the East side of San Luis Creek. The creek easement we granted to the City several years ago was for flood control purposes, access to it , and future bank widening only, and we resent the fact that this plan now envisions putting that land to a completely un-related ,4. J use. Our area is still in danger of repeated flooding, and if a bike path is so necessary for public enjoyment, then it must be placed on tax-free land on the West side. 3 . The concept of drastic re-development of our block is grossly premature and it is offensive to all of us property owners and businesses alike . The idea of slicing the Machado property, the trailer park, the Tire Store, and the Hayward parcels in half by a so-called "common driveway" surely tells us our businesses are no longer welcome or desired. How can the City hire such crass and anti-business planners? Where are the sensible heads and considerate thinkers?? Must San Luis Obispo be run by elitist dreamers? This plan calls for restricted access to and from our business properties from Higuera St. , it asks any future customers to find us by our "back alley" , and it would only work harmoneously if there were just one common owner of the entire block. However , we are seven long-time property owners who have deep historical ties to the community, and all of whom wish to remain as individual properties and do business without a government mandate that restricts this freedom! If we were a historic residential neighborhood I am sure the City would wish to retain the historical significance of the area and protect it from any re-development. What then is the justification to throw out an equally historical neighborhood of old-time businesses?? My vision would be that long-time and established businesses who have provided steady jobs , paid very significant taxes , and provided necessary services to the citizens should be welcome and allowed to remain in place as a historic neighborhood also. If the coming of a convention center at the Cal-Trans property is the cause of all this turmoil , then the City should find another location for the center and just leave our business community alone. We do not want this part of the Mid- Higuera enhancement made a part of the City ' s General Plan. It is not acceptable to us . cerely, Roy Parsons Pres dent i t3 � i ILIA -r1 h-167 V cam( C. Flo ' Ci!All 2" )0 A� +�h � ►-rte �-t�-� �� ��5 0� - � • II , I1 , CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO .-OCT 2.5 W. - - - -- COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT. I I, l5 AC57 SIMV +c kS -j-qtS% ( kz!, cS U Gtr e-u tc-,' � A. c Orly S -- �a��►,u T- , c� 4`�, l� acs 5P7 �e�st a =,mac I-F E c oar fP- - io n ,-( K - 1 Vc 714--= rr C,L la A-L a �Se�1 KEiTi+ ©,/ �T-%K I 71 orll IrTeT41e�� 44 k-;z7 Y o ss 3 c i7-u 7-v Ake ST ®rt &CAP, PAYS' 67 , 4,�77j = i Cho Q r -r M � At,\ Esq M 14 GP,,\ jA-( &rT` C4k/%-\ f-Aec.X, oJ pis Tn;) .(�,►�Yea b-� -�� ��-�� � ���. A A o moo N�— e-- ic-.F(-F� T444 574e 1 �� r ' San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 September 26, 2000 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO Jeff Hook, Project Planner Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Dear Jeff: As part of our Chamber's study and discussion of the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan, we conducted a survey of our members in that district;the results are enclosed. It is clear that a majority of members surveyed have seribus concerns about elements of the plan; however, they do agree that some type of visual improvements to the area would be desirable. Most. of the business owners and/or managers took time for a face to face interview and in these discussions several common concerns were voiced. The three most consistent of these are: interruption of the flow of customer and delivery traffic due to medians, loss of essential parking areas, and reduction of usable land at their current site.A typical comment was: "Business is good, let's not do anything that would critically disrupt it." At the same time, these businesses want to work with the city. They would like to enter into discussion in order to produce a mutually beneficial solution. Toward this end, our Chamber is willing to come to the table to assist as facilitators in the process. We would.like to help blend the needs of our members in the Mid-Higuera Area with the City's goal of enhancing this part of town. We appreciate the work that has gone into the plan as well as the information and updates that you have shared with us to this point. We look forward to working together in the future on this issue. Sincerely, Patricia Wilmore Director of Governmental Affairs cc:John Mandeville Shelly Stanwyck e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com s D San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan Member Survey Member businesses in District (check indicates that survey was returned; 11 out of 14 returned (79%), 1 additional gave verbal comments) ✓ Ben Franklin's Sandwich Company ✓ Circle K Store#5009 ✓ Econo Lube n'Tune & Brakes Grainger (needed more time to complete, wanted more info) of Hayward Commercial & Industrial ✓ Jiffy Lube Martin's Auto Service, Inc. (verbal comments only) ✓ Minuteman Press ✓ Paul's Dry.Cleaners & Laundry ✓ Smart & Final Thai-rrific Restaurant ✓ The Drum Circuit ✓ The Tire Store ✓ Trader Joe's Company Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan Surve Results >. Agree: ;Unsure; Disagree. 1.,.There is a need-for change in._this'parte 6 3 2 of town - 2 Land use changes proposed,by the 2 2 7 plan will be good-for my,business. 3. Proposed parking changes will help 2 3 6 my-business. 4. City staff have listened to my `;. 1 5 3 concerns about the effects'of the plan -. on,my business 5.:-I need more information about;'. 7 1 3 possible limpacts to my business. 6 Implementation,of the.plan will:: 4 5 2 promote the economic health:of the.area: 7,.The Chamber should go on record in. :, 2 2 7 support of-this concept. .: i Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan Member Survey Comments • It would be impossible for our trucks to get in and out with a median and trees. Aren't there other ways to enhance the appearance of the area. I ._ _ • City staff is pushing hard for this plan. I have been to many meetings along with other west Higuera St. property owners and we all are not happy with the Mid-Higuera Plan as proposed. • The bike path must go on the west side of the creek. • We need to see a definite time table and order of each step. I don't want to get in a situation in which I move my business and nothing changes for 3 years. If and when I do move, will the city provide any economic help? • The city should do something about all of the homeless people who congregate in front of our business. This problem has and will discourage future and existing customers. • Chamber should help work on a plan that would enhance current business. • If we "drag our feet'and keep disagreeing then nothing will get done down here. Widen the street, buy the needed property, and worry about the other minor stuff down the road. It is positive for the area. • Our business cannot survive with a median and change in driveway location. • Strongly disagree with parking changes-disaster to our business. • The plan as proposed is unacceptable with land use changes and median. Just widen the street for now. • Currently, our land usage is at full capacity. If we were to give up any real estate, our business could not survive here and would not perform to its current level if we had to move. • City staff is listening but not hearing what the merchants in this area ate saying. It seems to go in one ear and out the other. They need to go from "dreamville"to reality. If enhancements (dreams) adversely effect other businesses and people, wake up! • City planners have met with us and listened to our concerns and have made no changes to the plan. I believe the short term part of the plan is necessary for this area, but the long term is not in almost all parts. • This part of town doesn't need a "downtown"ambiance. It's uses are different and there are many successful businesses. What about the sales tax revenue that we bring in. Doesn't the city want to maintain that? STATE OF CALIFORNIAMBUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAMS,Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .. .. 50 Higuera Street SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-5415 DECEIVED TELEPHONE: (805)549-3111 TDD(805)549-3259 JUN 0 5 2000 OI I r Ur SAN LUIS ObISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Jeff Hook, Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 1, 2000 Dear Mr. Hook: Per the City of San Luis Obispo' s request, this letter summarizes Caltrans' thoughts regarding the city' s proposed pedestrian/bike path adjacent to Route 101 from post mile 27 . 5 (Madonna Rd. ) to 28 . 1 (Marsh St. ) . This segment of Route 101 is a 4-lane, full control freeway with an auxiliary lane in the northbound direction. The twenty-year horizon, route concept calls for expanding this section to a 6-lane freeway and increasing the existing 10 . 97 meter median and 0. 61 meter inside shoulders to current highway design standards, which are 13 . 8 meters and 3 meters respectively. The current northbound auxiliary lane will need to be preserved after the expansion to support the weaving traffic between the Madonna Road on-ramp and the Marsh Street off-ramp, provided the ramps remain a part of the infrastructure after the expansion takes place. At this time, no determination has been made as to which side of Route 101 future widening would occur. To the west of Route 101 lies private nrp-ertU which is Zoned tourist and interim open space use. On the east side of Route 101, San Luis Obispo Creek runs parallel to the highway. The bank of the creek is offset just 2 feet from the state highway right-of-way in two locations; the first location is at postmile 27 . 8 and the second location is just north of the northbound on-ramp gore point. Due to the creek' s close proximity to Route 101, expanding the highway toward the east would likely require rechanneling the creek and removing some of the riparian vegetation. Due to environmentally sensitive habitats, hazardous sites, and the future possibility of section 4 (f) land to the east of Route 101, Caltrans would likely attempt to expand west of 1 Route 101. There is always a possibility that this will not be feasible, and encroachment towards the east may be necessary. To minimize any impacts the highway expansion may have on the proposed bike path, the path should be constructed as far east of the state highway right-of-way as possible. Sincerely, Richard L. K�lru ►►umholz, Chief Advanced System Planning i Pack Gas and Electric Company.- " Los Padres Division 4325 South Higuera Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 April 20, 2000 RECEfM Mr. Jeffrey Hook APR 4 4 ZON City of San Luis Obispo CITY OF SAN Luta UBI.W. COMMUNITY CEVELOPUM 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249 Re: Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan Dear Mr. Hook: Thank you for providing PG&E with an overview of the Mid Higuera Street Enhancement project. We have completed our preliminary review and the following items may be helpful in your planning: 1. The existing PG&E substation property status will need to be determined by our Land Department. Please feel free to call Claire Mastin at 546-3888 for additional direction. 2. The existing overhead lines no longer serve the substation, however they are a main source of supply into the future underground district. Our initial proposal was to replace the overhead lines on Walker Street, adjacent to the substation, with underground facilities. However, the rearrangement of Walker Street may conflict with this proposal. 3. The construction of Bianchi Lane will necessitate the relocation or undergrounding of the existing overhead line serving the Econo-Lube and Drum Circuit. This may best be accomplished by phasing a portion of the project. In addition to PG&E facilities, Pac Bell and Charter will most likely have some thoughts of how to make their own transitions to the underground district. 4. The proposed Bianchi footbridge will pose a problem for PG&E line truck access to the PG&E lines across the San Luis Obispo creek. The power line serving the Madonna Construction offices and the proposed underground district, come from our Foothill Substation via an aerial crossing of Hwy. #I 0, near the Madonna offices. Therefore, some means to support a gross weight of 60,000 pounds will need to be considered in the future bridge design. There maybe an alternative to the vehicle bridge if the PG&E facilities can be relocatated to the Higuera Street side of the creek. 5. The widening of the West side of Higuera Street will not pose any significant construction problems for PG&E. Your office may want to coordinate with the cities' Underground Utility Committee and all wire utilities, to establish underground district boundaries and construction phasing. 6. City street lighting is owned and maintained by the City. Once a street light plan has been developed, PG&E will be able to propose several connection locations. 7. Existing underground PG&E facilities at the end of Brook Street, on CalTrans property, may need to be relocated if Brook Street is extended. Please call me at (805) 546-5229 if you have any additional comments or questions. Sincerely, Jerryo (A4ssoDi ution Engineer To: Jeff Hook From: Jim Hanson CC: Tim Bochum Date: 6/27/00 Re: MID-HIGUERA ENHANCEMENT PLAN:TRAFFIC COMMENTS The following are responses from the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division in response to comments made regarding circulation issues associated with the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. • What is the ADT for Higuera Street within the planning area? o Vehicle volumes were taken on February 2 to February 3, 2000, 13,200 vpd, with 5.6%of the total being trucks or buses. • What is the ADT for Walker Street? o 1,250 estimated vpd. • Why is Walker Street being recommended for closure? o The closure will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety by decreasing the crossing distance and eliminating conflicts with vehicles turning onto and off of Walker Street. o Motorist safety will be improved by eliminating tuning movement conflicts between traffic on Walker and traffic on Pacific. o Access to adjacent businesses along Walker will be maintained from Pismo and High Streets. o Pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained to facilitate mobility for these users of the City's transportation network. o C b , June 27, 2000 • What improvements need to be made at the Bianchi/High/Higuera/Pismo intersection? o As part of the realignment of Bianchi Lane,transportation staff will evaluate the need for left turn signal phasing on Higuera Street at this intersection. If it is determined that left turn phasing should be implemented at this intersection, it will be done with the installation of the new traffic signal equipment.. o As part of the realignment of Bianchi Lane, the geometric configuration of the roadway will change to permit striping modifications that will improve both northbound and southbound left turns off of Higuera Street. o The combination left tum phasing and the re-alignment of Bianchi will substantially improve operations of the intersection and reduce vehicle conflicts. o As part of the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan study process, a number of alternate intersection alignments were reviewed for possible improvement to the operation and safety of the intersection. However,these alternatives would likely require acquiring the property that the historic ice house is on and relocating the building. Thus, there is no simple solution for this intersection. Transportation staff will continue to monitor this location and will review it at a later date to determine if additional improvements should/could be made to this intersection. 2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (a Winston EL Hickox Gray Davis Secrewy for Internet Address: http://wwwswrcb.cagov/—rwgcb3 Governor Envirom"eru d 81 Iliguera Street,Suite 200,San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93401-5411 Protection Phone(805)549-3147•FAX(805)543-0397 June 1,2000 Mr.Jeff Hook,Project Planner RECEIVED Community Development Department JUN 0 2 990 Pahn Street X11 r ` 2000 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 ���LUIS OBiSprj QUI MITYDEVELOpMEM Dear Mr.Hook: COMMENTS ON MID-HIGUERA ENHANCEMENT PLAN Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Public Hearing Draft of the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan. Unfortunately, our limited staff resources do not allow adequate time to thoroughly review the document, therefore we offer the following information regarding our authority, plans and programs. GENERAL COMMENTS The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or RWQCB) is charged with the protection of the Waters of the State of California in the Central Coast Region. Waters of the State include ocean waters, surface waters, ground waters,and wetlands. The Regional Board is responsible for administering regulations established by the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Water Code. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) explains the Regional Board's strategy for regulating water quality.The Basin Plan also describes the range of responses available to the Regional Board with regard to actions and proposed actions that may degrade the beneficial uses of the Waters of the State of California. Proposed projects must conform to our Basin Plan's relevant programs and policies. Any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste,that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into an already regulated community sewer system, must file. a report of waste discharge (ROWD Form 200)with this office. NPDES PROGRAM Discharges to surface water are regulated by the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (established by the Clean Water Act), which controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from both point and nonpoint discharges. In California the NPDES program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Regional Board has authority to issue NPDES permits for point source discharges to water bodies in the Central Coast area. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Peer O Mr.Hook 2 June 1,2000 The NPDES Program has been very successful in reducing pollutants caused by point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial discharges. However,significant pollution is still being carried into surface waters from nonpoint sources. Stone water is the major source of fresh water to creeks and waterways. Storm water quality is affected by a variety of land uses and the pollutants generated by these activities. Development and construction activities cause both site-specific and cumulative water quality impacts. Water quality degradation may occur during construction due to discharges of sediment, chemicals and wastes to nearby storm drains or creeks. Water quality degradation also may occur due to discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil, grease and metals from vehicles; pesticides and fertilizers from landscaping; and bacteria from pets and people. Runoff may be concentrated and storm water flow increased by impervious surfaces, which will mobilize and transport pollutants to storm drains and creeks.Cumulatively,these discharges will increase pollutant loads in creeks, wetlands, and the Pacific Ocean. Some of these nonpoint source discharges are regulated through the NPDES Storm Water Program, which includes municipal permits and statewide general permits for construction and industrial activities. Projects disturbing more than five acres of land (one acre after November 2002) during construction are regulated under the Statewide NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. This can be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board. The project sponsor must propose and implement control measures that are consistent with the General Construction Permit, and with recommendations and policies of local agencies and the RWQCB. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION The Regional Board must certify that any permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water complies with state water quality standards, or waive such certification. Section 401 Water Quality Certification is necessary for all Section 404 permits, including reporting and non-reporting Nationwide permits. Any project requiring a 404 permit from the ACOE should apply for Section 401 Water Quality Certification by submitting a Form 200 Report of Waste Discharge Application. Applications may be obtained from this office. Any project which involves disturbance of a streambank or riparian area must also obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from California Department of Fish and Game. Wetlands enhance water quality through such natural functions as flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of contaminants. Wetlands also provide critical habitats for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other wildlife, offer open space, and provide many recreational opportunities. Water quality impacts occur in wetlands from construction of structures in waterways, and from activities such as dredging, filling, and altering drainage to wetlands. The State of California's Wetlands Conservation Policy requires no overall net loss of wetlands in the short term and a long-term net gain of wetlands. All projects must be evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 0--10 r� a sMcsts� P.O. BOX 13909 Area Code 805: 543-0298 SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93406 805: 438-3137 February 4, 2000 To: Planning Commission Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Hand Delivered Re: Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan From: Roy and Gerard Parsons My brother and I are the property owners of the Hayward Lumber location at 236 Higuera St. We were the long-time operators of those premises when it was known as San Luis Mill and Lumber Co., which we inherited from our father and grandfather. We are part of a group of businessmen and property owners who have banded together on the west side of the Higuera St. to jointly express our concerns to the enhancement plan through the letter to you from Randy Poltl, which you should already have. However, this letter will address some of the issues of particular concern to the Hayward property alone. We believe the proposed street widening from The Tire Store to Marsh St. is a city necessity and will complete the project. We also think the closure of Walker St. at Pacific St. is a good idea for traffic safety. Our foremost concern for our property is the issue of FLOOD CONTROL. We believe that no enhancement plan, or even a nice convention center, should be considered until our area is afforded a level of protection from flooding equal to that afforded the downtown portion of the city. Although difficult, we know this can be achieved. We believe that in all our grandeur for beauty and natural habitat our government entities have neglected some of the common needs of the long-established residents and businesses. To emphasis our concern with how long this flooding problem as been "discussed" yet never resolved, enclosed find a copy of an article from the Telegram Tribune dated January 30, 1973 for your review. We like the suggested idea Page 2 of a convention center, as proposed in the Mid-Higuera Plan, however, as this newspaper article and pictures show, this Cal-Trans/Convention Center property and buildings suffer the same serious flooding problems as our properties do. It seems obvious the flood control matters must first be solved to eliminate flooding of all of our properties as step#I'of the Mid-Higuera Plan. On the historical sides of the issue mentioned in the plan, let us emphasize that this business district helped shape this city into what it is today, and it appears that none of us wish to move! However, the long-term concept plan shows our existing tenant gone from the scene and suggests a completely different use of this property. This is not what we want as landlords, nor does the Hayward family as tenants. We are both committed to their long-term use of our property. Regarding the center median in Higuera St., we believe it would be a serious detriment to existing businesses and are against it for that reason. However, we would favor encouragement of more large trees at the sidewalk and landscape areas which will eventually evolve into a canopy that would pattern after the Higuera area downtown, but with more sunlight in the center. If a center median has to happen someplace, then it should be made a part of the new area to be widened, as shown in the short-term plan. Over the years, my brother and I have already had this valuable piece of property "bruised" several times: (1) We dedicated a 20' x 350' frontage strip on Higuera St. for widening for four lanes with no monetary value offered. (2) We then lost ten street parking spaces, which we had to replace on our property. (3) We voluntarily dedicated a creek easement at the rear of the property for flood control purposes, and now have lost the use of that 20' x 390' strip. Now, this plan proposes a "common driveway" which would cut our property in half, and a path and bike way at creekside, in addition to the flood control easement we already gave. The value of all this lost property is several hundred thousand dollars. We believe the path and bike way should be on the west side of the creek, where the city is already the property owner! We strongly resist further dedication of our property for this use. We plan to speak at your hearing on February 9th and will address other concerns and answer any questions you may have, but in summary let me say that we want the City to Page 3 somehow honor the present use of our property to be a conforming use. We believe the Higuera business community should be allowed to voluntarily evolve in the direction of the City's goals, with private improvements, and with encouragement from the City through the routine planning process. As we look back to the period since World War II, we have seen most businesses there already make strides towards these goals. And lastly, my brother and I believe all ten suggestions, plus the one question, in the Randy Pold letter are reasonable requests and represent our views.very strongly. cerely, Roy . Parsons. Presi ent ® 'ISTRICT - 5 No. 73-3 January 24 , 1973 5atvaged on Wednesdays by Community Senv.ieee HIGH TIDE ON HIGUER.A STREETIM r rt About 10 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 18, 1973. Looking up San Luis Creek under Coming down in buckets on the back lot. Madonna Road. It' s rising fast and aimed right at the D.O. _ � ems. ..,...,n _ �• - •- , - Sy"- •i . . r iC.. F~• 1 �1K rl u. 4R 10:20 and really sluicing. Troops The creek starts over its bank into still at work in the D.O. but not the back lot. Fence was later for long. flattened by 3- to 4-ft, waters. c F i 77 • O Betty Strampe's 172 Fury feels the Ed Bush's Corvair is not yet afloat. fury of the flood around 11 o'clock. Note top of fire plug by rear door. N-tS IS (GU�dZA �T PT (f P L. --rPPaJS r - - CP Bull Saunder's State car begins to Betty's, Ed's and Bull 's all in a move downstream making room for whirl. No, that light car in mid- Betty Strampe's. (See top picture) dle background is not moving up- stream; it is abanFoned and later ran aground 100 yards down Higuera Street. -2- _ J W f: i A.- f� r. +* Z As the waters kept rising around the Right of Way Building (below, left) , it was deemed prudent to remove what was left of the Steno Pool. Whether to get them to_ higher ground or to protect 'em from the R/W Agents is not known. Several brave lads, noticing some of Loomis ' feed troughs bobbing down Higuera St. , managed to snake one out of the torrent and bring it to the rear of the R/W building. Above we see Edna Schopp, Ruth Pitzer and Marilyn Silva being ferried in a feed trough along the breezeway from Right of Way to the main building. (Hal Just learned the names of the stalwarts pushing the feed- trough ferryboat. They were Lou Isola, Ed Sheean, Tito Racho and Dick Doyle.) Tiny (4 '-11") Molly Isenberg spotted her Vega station wagon starting to move down Higuera Street and waded out waist-deep to rescue it. She couldn't open the doors because of water pressure so rolled down the rear window, climbed in over the seats, fired it up and made it upstream for two blocks and into a gas station. "Damned if that dude was gonna go clear to Pismo Beach," said Molly next. day. Floododdity: she and Lou and several others contracted poison oak from the Rhus juice floating on the debris-laden waters. r 1° Ri ht of Waybuildin batter Friday dawned clear and muddy. of around69 Water had been 30" deep in the well tho' water was muc warehouse. Many supplies lost. r this time. F=^rfX Q 1 A o - , Vr s Next morn. Anyone for water skiing? Doubt if you can read it but this great pile of debris between the buildings is surmounted by a Bike Route sign. Up the ecology! "'ice d�G U L 9 Ery Jenness was out of town when the Chris Callahan's State sedan was deluge inundated his car. Note high swirled about 100 yards downstream water mark on the "boathouse." from the small maintenance building. Well, Gang, we're awfully happy to report no loss of life though property dam- age was high, •(23 privately-owned cars and 16 State vehicles at last count, not to mention files, records, supplies and miscellaneous water damage. ; DON SANDERS of the Tree Crew working with DUANE BYWATER's Bridge Crew, ' bought the ranch just before the flood crested. He fell into San Luis eQ above the Marsh Street bridge, bobbed along under the bridge with az -e clearance kicking off his boots, grabbed some willows downstream/ 'til they threw him a rope and pulled him out! Lucky guy. Los Q4Q� .BOB CRABTREE of Traffic has some excellent color pictures and will order prints at. cost if you want any. Must use ty�c credit DICK FOGE with our spiffy new masthead. Like it2 ' � f R. As the waters kept rising around the Right of Way Building (below, left) , it was deemed prudent to remove what was left of the Steno Pool. Whether to get them to.higher ground or to protect 'em from the R/W Agents is not known. Several brave lads, noticing some of Loomis ' feed troughs bobbing down Higuera St. , managed to snake one out of the torrent and bring it to the rear of the R/W building. Above we see Edna Schopp, Ruth Pitzer and Marilyn Silva being ferried in a feed trough along the breezeway from Right of Way to the main building. (Hal Just learned the names of the stalwarts pushing the feed- trough ferryboat. They were Lou Isola, Ed Sheean, Tito Racho and Dick Doyle.) Tiny (4 '-11") Molly Isenberg spotted her Vega station wagon starting to move down Higuera Street and waded out waist-deep to rescue it. She couldn't open the doors because of water pressure so rolled down the rear window, climbed in over the seats, fired it up and made it upstream for two blocks and into a gas station. "Damned if that dude was gonna go clear to Pismo Beach," said Molly next- day. Floododdity: she and Lou and several others contracted poison oak from the Rhus juice floating on the debris-laden waters. r � l � J i The Right of_ Way buildin 'batter Friday dawned clear and muddy. `the tune of aroun 100.000 in 1969, Water had been 30" deep in the far-eT pretty well tho' water was much warehouse. Many supplies lost. deeper and swifter this time. Iy -3- � rG� FaRRTF/21A 3 Sy Next morn. Anyone for water skiing? Doubt if you can read it but this great pile of debris between the buildings is surmounted by a Bike Route sign. Up the ecology! ` _ _ G Ery Jenness was out of town when the Chris Callahan's State sedan was deluge inundated his car. Note high swirled about 100 yards downstream water mark on the "boathouse." from the small maintenance building. Well, Gang, we're awfully happy to report no loss of life though property dam- age was high, .(23 privately-owned cars and 16 State vehicles at last count) not to mention files, records, supplies and miscellaneous water damage. But DON SANDERS of the Tree Crew working with DUANE BYWATER's Bridge- Crew, nearly bought the ranch just before the flood crested. He fell into San Luis Creek above the Marsh Street bridge, bobbed along under the bridge with a foot of clearance kicking off his boots, grabbed some willows downstream and hung on 'til they threw him a rope and pulled him out! Lucky guy. Lost only his boots. ,BOB CRABTREE of Traffic has some excellent color pictures (some used herein) and will order prints atcost if you want any. Must use these last lines to credit DICK FOGE with our spiffy new masthead. Like it? So do wel L 1 � f rine San Luis Obispo County n listst # o POWs WASHINGTON (UPI) — The {; Defense Department said today Hanoi's list of surviving Ameri 104th YEAR. NO. 151 14 PAGES TODAY PRICE TEN CENTS Tuesday, January 34, 1973 can prisoners of war included one Marine previously believed killed in action and another Marine thought to have been a deserter. 4-y S North Vietnam's list oflu W I% eue% s Americans who died in captivi- ks , Arm ty contained 16 others who had been carried by the Pentagon as killed in action and one i other who had been considered a deserter, a spokesman said. cru. The rt names were not aid k estr� rU-L immediately disclosed. The man previously listed as Detailed coverage of last night's flood hearing on page 4.. killed was Marcie Pic.. Ronald x.. L. Ridgeway, Houston, Tex. By Mark Gladstone Creek between San Luis Drive Remains thought to be his were Mayor Kenneth Schwartz listens. Councilman Myron Graham is Staff Writer and California Boulevard and brought back to the Unitedin back round. San Luis Obispo's city council Highway 101, according to Paul :s States in 1968 and buried at 9 early today requested the Landell of the city engineer's .:.. � . Jefferson Barracks Cemetery in x. office. x assistance of the U. S. Army St. Laois, Mo. : x,"' r� 4 � Trees; C o r p s of Engineers in The council decided to stop The Pentagon also said that {� ��,�. �� emergency creek restoration. all tree cutting pending the Marine Pvt. Frederick Lewis The action depends on the Presentation of a legal opinion Elbert was reported b Hanoi " city's being declared a national by Cit Attorney Arthur Shaw. Y p° y .� Y g - on whether the city has the • disaster "area b President as alive in a `prison camp. a: . y right to cut trees on private Elbert, whose hams town was - Nixon. _ ro it <S The council also asked Cit A y not given immediately, had y Romero's office was directed been listed by the Defense Engineer David Romero to to continue picking a debris . . resent at a neon Friday P g P { Department. as a deserter. � :, f P y remaining in streets and creeks. There was no,explanation whymeeting a preliminary Trees. statement on his office's abilityAfter the tree discussion, Elbert was believed to have y k es o Angry citizens denounced tdi d Councilman Keith Gurnee deserted. ° � >. I �,(li+ design a study of flood them as a major cause of the problems and how they can be suggested the Army Corps of 14iaj. Gen: Daniel James, the �y,f recent flooding. But San Luis ._ averted. Romero-was-also asked -Engineers be asked to come to Defense Department's chief u. Obispo's city council Monday to work with county officials on the city, under the guidance of spokesman on prisoner of wary night halted any further tree the possibility of establishing a city officials, to help rebuild matters, gave this comparison removal from San Luis Crcek flood control zone. flood-damaged c r e e k beds. of the North Vietnam prisoner pending a legal opinion from Gurnee's motion passed These decisions came at the list with Pentagon records: _ Cit Attorney Arthur Shaw. unanimously. y y end of a four 3iour public y hearing on problems caused by He seemed to strike the mood --Of the 555 listed as alive by ` f- Mayer Kenneth Schwartz said P W rt the Jan. l8 flooding. of the council when he sry d, Hanoi, the Pentagon had, he hopes to have such an previously considered 508 to'be yin orinion available for con- The counc'_l meeting bezan at "We have to make a dee Eic^ on balance between beau; and prisoners, 45 to be missing in .; s'deration at the council's noon 7:30 p.m. with Mayor Kenneth action, one to be killed in action " :"$ meetin on Fr da . Schwartz saying the council safety." g i and one to be a deserter.. y would listen to citizen cont- The.Corps undertook a similar City officials indicated that plaints and suggestions but take operation after major flooding —Of the 55 Hanoi said died in the city owns only small por- no action, in 1969, but City Administrator S_r captivity, the United States had '' tions of the creek and a The flood hearing ended at Richard Miller said this was previously listed 27 as prison- Dr. Ernest Werbel determination is needed on the approximately 11:30 p.m. and, probably possible because most Homer 0d6m waves army Corps' study of 1969 flood in glare of'felevision ers, 11 as missing in action, 16 city's right to tear down the as most of the overflow crowd of the state had been declared as killed in action and one as a trees most of which are on Itghts. � invite roe of 225 were leaving the council a national disaster area by the deserter. P property.rty chambers, Romero asked the President. made, according to,Miller, even d �,laration m President The United States is pressur- In question are 64 trees, in- council's guidance on whether Miller said before such a though Reag1•an has d d Nixon,ing Hanoi through diplomatic . eluding sycamores and ows, to continue cutting down trees federal declaration can be San Luis Obispo a s ate disaster Su a declaration makes low- r here cheannels and by public state- ' along a stretch of San Luis in San Luis Creek. made, Governor Reaarea interest federally guaranteed ments to make public a list of Creek from San Luis Drive.and Approximately eight trees, make a rf.. n'' $ a said he was unsure if the loans available to owners'`of American POWs held in Laos :: .. California Boulevard to High- - including six sycamores, were Wte House. Such recom- Corps would come to San Luis flood-damaged businesses and } ��s�[TAI and, to account for 56 other way 10L City officials said.21 cut down last week.:in San Luis mend has not yet been Ob po without disaster homes, to s i.>,1.� 1'l r n w: Americans described by the of the 64 trees were slatgd ` Pentagon as known POWs who be cut down by city employes. were not on, the, official Appro ' ately eight trees, � �, 7 �� damage Communist roster. including sycamores, were iG cutdown last week. The city council learned of Irs flood i► Both. sides the cutting on Friday and Representatives of the Army i toured the area that afternoon, Corps of Engineers were in San Y� � determining which trees should Luis Obispo Tuesday gathering ,t� ss��s�1r�t Qr, . flood damage information. +elziipact ;z�;r`�, ��s$ ��� be cut and which should �.� � � remain. Dianicio Gonzales a civil ¢ � '� �, ' �: ` For many ixi.San Luis Obispo the Jan;iary 18 flood was A family which lost possessions to the.flood may write , ]flavor Kenneth Schwartz, a personal tragedy; for some it wase,financial disaster. to the Telegram-Tribune and list the articles it needs. engineer with the Corps, said • Y however, said over the weekend p hes visit here was strict] for violationscouncilmen were polled about Some lost their Homes..They are staying temporarily The family's telephone.number and address should be data gathering and that no with friends or relatives. included. the advisability of cutting any specific proposal would be more trees and they decided to Many are back in their homes today,but they have lost e Telegram-Tribune will publish the list the tele- B• United Press International r ws i b P made. He said a similar fact- :. 3 ;. ``; order City Engineer David furniture, appliances, rugs or carpets, utensils and cloth- phone number and the-address. The family's name need finding tour was taken after the Hanoi Radio said today the ±. Romero to temporarily halt all ing. Some of these people simply cannot afford to replace not be published, but should be included with the letter, 1969 flood North Vietnamese Foreign Min tree cutting. their lasses. stry has protested "U.S. and Others in the community lost nothing.In their garages, People wishing to make donations to these flood victims Gonzales said the data will Saigon government" violations Romero said last week the may read the listings, decide if they want to help and con- of the two-day-old cease-fire in° cutting was necessary to basements or attics they might be storing articles which tact the unfortunate familyif the desire. be filed for inspection by other y .• prevent potential creek. flow, those people hit by the flood could use. Y agencies, including Congress. South Vietnam. The broadcast followed Problems and weakened trees The Telegram-Tribune is offering itself as a clearing Letters should be sent to Flood Aid,Telegram-Tribune, He said he knows of no action Washington claims of from falling dove, house to assist flood victims. P.O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401 yet for the declaration of a strict U.S. adherence to the disaster area by the President. treaty. Throughout the flood hearing Y ' � � Only then, and at the direc- much of the citizen comment "Immediately after the cease- :� .,r.. . " population . "r, eflan of the .federal Office of was punctuated. with allusionsSLO Cen Emer y p ,fire went into effect (at 4 p.m. to the trees in San Luis Creek, w in gat the Co nc Pre aredness could rps suggest solutions to PST Saturda the Sal an ry r W ' the floodin roblem Gonzales Y)' g The inose vocal o onent of , government still launched mill- i tary, operations, into areas the tree removal was Dr. Er- San Luis Obispo's population Miller said the December the calculations cost $360, and of the 1960x, the was in said. g P " nest W. Werbel, a resident of 32,150 figure compares with will result in about a $27,000 the two to three per cent range. controlled by liberation forces, rose to -an estimated 32,150 P g • , 1872 San Luis Drive for 25 years. increase in state aid to the city. Hanoi Radio said: during December, according to 30 350 last February, for a net Last September, while the He said some. trees perhaps rye P T doctors calculations made by the state �increase of 1,800 persons Burin p €?' city was embroiled in modifying ,ej The broadcast, monitored in : needed removal but claimed P g The seven per .cent growth = u Department of Finance. Saigon, did not sayto whom the that large bulldozers su osedl P a 10 month period. Since April, rate is up from last.years six rest deliveredMonday, was o Parsons removing the trees were ac- City Administrative Officer 1970,the city has grown by 4,114 per cent rate. Only during the its general plan, which restricts R y g , future growth compared to addressed. It said North Viet- tually creating p Richard Miller said the state's persons, or 15 per cent. Since revious plans,, Councilman deeid.ed not ilea of debris P A 1962-63 year has the city's nam and the Viet Cong in their wake. He said the census update showed the city April, 1960, it has grown by growth rate been higher, ac- P growing at an annual rate of 17,222 persons, or 57 per cent. .- girding to city records. Then Keung Gurnee pointed out that "eategaricalIy carry out seri- �• ,: � " ' heavy equipment was crushing Burin the previous 15 months } the rock creek bed. seven per cent from February,—, ,,., . it was eight per cent, P to operate croaky the treaty" and said the y Hanoi Foreign Ministry Weibel said the tree removal 1972, when the last papulation The state. census calculations the. city had approved new t� calculation. was made. A seven were made at the city's request, During the 1960s, the growth developments that would. boost strongly denounces and may cause a quicker flow of per cent annual growth rate is and are used to determine; rate was slower. In both 1969 the city's population by 19 per, SAN ANTONIO, Tex. (UPI) severely condemns these . ac- water. The water, however, will P — Four doctors who treated 4 only 1 be blocked further the second highest in the city's distribution of state funds to and 1970, the growth rate was cent over an estimated two year former, President Lyndon B. tions by the U.S. and Saigon a y recent history. local governments. Miller said about three per cent. For most period: Johnsen for heart ailments said governments."' downstream by man-made today they decided against Press Secretary Ronald L. x*} � �° objects, he said.. He was challenged b RO 9 t N i III IlBifllllllIIIlIIINIIIIIIItiiIPI03iAliI1111iIIlI(lllit110fillli(!(Ilfliiilitmllliliilll{Ifi1.111gIIRlfiI0lCgIII(IIIIIlIPIpI? performing coronary bypass _1II111I1IIIh1,I(IIIIIIIP{.III!I! t Ziegler told reporters Monday y = msurgery on Johnson because of A .{: Parsons of San Luis & at the Florida White House that •i. = extensive heart damage and a the United States is strictly { . Lumber Co., 236 Higuera St. - - Blue- s ky adhering to the Vietnam cease- $ Parsons said he had walked lie Weather = seriously diseased colon. fire other through the,disputed section of T _ The doctors, in a statement and expects the ath the Creek and "saw verylittle od " ttillllliil1111(Nf1iIllllfillllllNlUiiili111i11I1i11IlIAU{1111ilNINtll1IlI1IIl41111IiAlIIIpIIIiIIIiIIIUlIIIIIpIIIt1iIIIIIIIIIIlIIIiIIIIIIIiIIIiiCIIII1fliII1NIl(8111 t signatories—South and North issued at Brooke General Vietnam and the Viet Cong—to evidence of abuses. He com- TEMPERATURES Hew - Hospital, said an autopsy of the do the same. Plimented Romero for his 5`co - (24-hour period.ending at 7 a.m.) former president's body eon- r: mendable work." H. L Rn. Clearing skies were promised again and See Canyon residents firmed their diagnosis that the The Saigon command today And he said, the trees the --------- 57 40 .99 the area b the weatherman were concerned that the creeks colon was extensively sickened . Arroyo Grande_ _.__ _.__ .__. y y reported continued fighting in tree lovers want are still Atascadero. ------- ----- ----------- 68 40 .70 today after a storm dumped up would overflow once more until with diverticulitis. the country,- accusing the there." Baywood Park __--------------------- _ 57 46 .72 to nearly two inches of rain in the rain subsided Monday of- Communists of more than 700 Cambria - 63 48 1,80 the county: ternoon. His ' heart had suffered ground attacks and shellings 9 50 44 71 damage in his April, 1972 since the cease-fire took effect. w Grover City -- _ --.--_ ,..< ," Mine Workers leader Morro Bay ------------------------------------------------ 58 43 .32 Cambria recorded the yule Rock Reservoir near attack.. A command spokesman said �: Oceano ------------------------------------------_ --__----- 57 44 .80 heaviest measurement 1.8 Cayucos was up to 86 per cent "Numerous difficult decisions eight battles in the latest ° �. takes pension slash11 inches. San Luis Obispo had an` full with $4 9?6 acre-feet, Santa were face in the medical gk >. . .... Paso Robles---._ repotting period 'claimed 185 . -._ 53 40 . . . . ' . WASHINGTON (UPI) — W. Pismo Beach ---- '_ _-__. _ 62 51 .41 inch. Elsewhere less than an Margarita Lake.behind.Salinas management of President John- men Idlled on both sides . A. "Tony" Hoyle, the deposed San Luis Obispo -----__._ _ ------- 55 43 1.00 inch fell." Dam is now 71 per cent of son,". said a one-page, state- A. of the United Mine Santa Margarita --------------------------------- ------- 53 41 .95 Authorities said the had no capacity with 18,379 acre-feet. went. "He endured itis $ombin- over Laos �; Workers Union, has had. his FORECAST reports of damage from the Each gained about 100 acre-feet difficulties with courage and pension slashed from $50,000 to San- Luis Obispo coastal area: Rain this forenoon, latest rainfall. There were no from the latest storm. resolved to enjoy life as much HONOLULU UPI The $16.000 a year. clearing this afternoon. Fair tonight and Wednesday • as conditions permitted. His (UPI) , g g y reports of serious flooding and commander in chief of U.S. The union's executive board except for patches of morning fog. Little temperature no mads were blocked. San Luis Obispo City family and physicians would lo-ces in the Pacific said ,., took the action Monday. It also change. Highs today and Wednesday, 52 to 59. Low" Engineer David Romero said like to reaffirm his passionate cut ther' to 15 miles per hour. Laguna Lake in southwest San street crews were out patrolling commitment to more research ,• `tli<r :iiiici•iLan aircraft, salaries les of eight top tonight.; 36 to 42. Variable winds, ANIMPW IBM 1bu Mir includhify D52s. flew bombing —Photos by Wayne' Nicholls staff people by about 40 per Paso Robles: High today, 56. Low,tonight, 35. High Luis Obispo, hardest hit by the but he had no reports of any in combating our major health luicsious over Laos today. David Romero cent. tomorrow, 55. storm two weeks ago, rose new damage from the rain. enerrnes." ti • 1