The Demolition Begins

The demolition of the old structures at The Village at Nipomo construction site has now begun. First to go are the rear houses up on the hill behind the old Hunter’s Landing and Paco’s restaurant. Below are a few photos of the demolition in progress. I’ve also captured a couple of photos of Cal Trans blocking out the left turn signal at Tefft onto Mary. I spoke with one of the demolition crew about when the two main structures might come down. His estimate was probably Wednesday, 7/25/07. It will be an interesting sight. To view these photos in their original and largest sizes you may see them here. Double click on the photos then click on the “all sizes” icon at the top to see them in their original format.

One of the houses in the back of the lot begins to come down.
















The second house comes down



Fence workers put up temporary fencing between Mid-State Bank and the construction site.


Cal Trans covers up the left hand turn signal at Tefft and Mary.




Very classy sign about Mary’s current closed status.


Blocked off signal at Tefft and Mary






Ok, NO left turns now!



3 thoughts on “The Demolition Begins

  1. As a result of this post over on the Nipomo Yahoo Group, the following email exchange occurred on the Nipomo Yahoo Group. Because not everyone is a member of that group (though it is open to the general public), I am reposting the various email exchanges on this thread as well:

    At 9:13 a.m., Susie Hermreck wrote:

    Guy and all:

    The face and tone of Nipomo is certainly changing and I wonder if the citizens who live here really realize what is happening. Yesterday, I spent half of the day working in our old construction yard on Hill Street and watched as they tore down the house that faces that street. What really hit me was thinking about the letter all the property owners of that area rec’d several days ago that stated that all of those parcels surrounding this area are being considered for up zoning from 10 or 15 units per acre to 20 units per acre. It also goes on to state that the parcel size requirements will be adapted and that on 1/2 acre parcels they will be required to have 10 units per acre, etc……………basically getting rid of the 2 acre minimum. It is sickening to think that where I was standing could become the future home of 400 units……….then of course there is the other bare acreage that surrounds us that will surely be developed, so you can do the math………..way too many units for a rural area. Of course, SLO County still feels that Hill Street should only be 2 lanes, but then, they don’t live here, so what the heck. This sure isn’t the Nipomo that was and I am not sure if the raft is so far down the river that we can’t get it back

    Susie Hermreck

    At 10:04 a.m. Marianne Buckmeyer wrote:

    Susie et al —

    Things can always be changed if the community residents want that to happen. This means not just one or two people going to the Board of Supervisors meetings.

    I’m not getting copies of the BOS agendas sent to me anymore so (as a working stiff now) I can’t be abreast of what is coming up for discussion. If I’m not getting it, folks who I used to forward those agendas to are NOT getting it. This means I’m not even writing letters to Katcho because I’m in the dark.

    Ignorance is only bliss until the bulldozer is nextdoor to you and after that, it is too late. We’ve all participated in our local councils and I can tell you the same faces are the same people over and over again….20 faces, perhaps? This tells me the majority don’t have interest or fire in the belly to keep open space open & prefer high density. This tells me they are happier with a fast food joint as a neighbor (or maybe another drug store) rather than mustard flowers and squirrels.


    At 10:20 a.m. Dan Woodson wrote:

    How about a little more fuel for the fire… CAlTrans will not approve the Hill Street on ramp. They insist on a diamond pattern interchange at Tefft/101. This plan includes northbound Frontage Road terminating in a Cul-de-sac near little Jocko’s.

    Dan Woodson

    At 10:47 a.m. Ed Eby wrote:

    So the extension of Mary to Hill will help us how?

    At 12:16 p.m. Jim Harrison wrote:

    the same way that the change in the north frontage helped us! It will move the congestion away from the freeway to Mary street!!. More on ramps to the freeway is the only way that the traffic will improve here unless you believe the traffic study done by the county a year ago, the on ramp traffic had improved because of grid lock on Mary and Tefft.

    At 12:55 p.m. Dan Woodson wrote:

    Jim, I have heard you cite the traffic improvement-because-of-gridlock several times. Please tell me where to find this statement in the recent South County Traffic Model Update. Thanks, Dan

    Ed, If CalTrans has their way with us westbound Tefft access to Frontage via Tefft to Mary to Hill to Frontage will be a shorter route than Tefft to Orchard to Grande to Frontage.

    At 4:53 p.m. Jesse Hill wrote:

    I’m a little puzzled by this. The last I heard, there was to be no eminent domain action against the “dog kennel” owner. So isn’t there still a piece missing even if Ed Shapiro and King Ventures go forward with their projects. Thanks. JH

    At 7:21 p.m. Susie Hemereck wrote:

    Hello everyone: The bottom line of this whole mess is not about the traffic flow, but rather what Marianne has stated and that is the fact that the people of Nipomo needs to wake up and see that they are getting the”fast food restaurants, etc ” as neighbors and the mustard and squirrels are being forced into the retention basins that are so beautiful in our area. As she also stated “Same old twenty faces, saying the same old things” and meanwhile the bulldozers are here. The zoning is bad enough that is already here and now they want to shove more in our area……….funny how they all live in SLO. We need to get a protest going to at least stop it from going from worse to worst.


    At 7:24 p.m. Marianne Buckmeyer wrote:

    There is no “eminent domain” with the kennel owner. We are building the street around his property and when we are all dead and the people who own that property down the road (no pun intended) want to sell out, that is when the property can be discussed.

    At 7:41 p.m. Marianne Buckmeyer wrote:

    What? Dan, this is malarky. Dave Watson stopped his project over 3 years ago to accomodate the community’s request to put a road through his shopping center with a freeway on ramp. The shopping center would already be in BUT King Vent. spent over a million dollars to redesign their center. Let alone NOW the cost of building supplies is way up, etc.

    Cal Trans people were at those meetings. It is inconceivable that that I am reading this. What steps are we taking to swing this back to what we’ve asked for and have been planning on? Can you set up the meetings for times that I can get off of work jump to the podium? I plan on doing just that.

    We were all walking to the same drum. Who put a new drummer in and why?


    At 9:32 p.m. Jim Harrison wrote:

    My understanding is that they are going to by-pass the property in question until their heirs get ready to sell.

    At 9:46 p.m. Jim Harrison wrote:

    The County Transportation department had a study done about a year and a half ago Dale Remy and the consultant were at the SCAC meeting, they had their power point program they presented with a hand out, the verbal presentation as well as the hand out, indicated the L.O.S. on the south bound on ramp has improved from a F to a C when questioned by Myself, Rick Dean and others the Consultant made the statement that the L.O.S. had improved because fewer vehicles were able to get to the on ramp because of the grid lock at Tefft and Mary! There were many questions asked by the board at this point in the meeting. The report should be in the County Transportation Department files that shows that L.O.S. change. If I had time and the inclination I could probable find it in the material I have in boxes somewhere here but am not so inclined. I am sure I am not the only member of the SCAC that remembers this ridiculous statement.


    At 10:12 p.m. Dan Woodson wrote:

    This statement does not appear in the official, stamped and signed Final Report of the South County Traffic Model Uptate, Dated March 2006. Perhaps your attention to detail forced the removal of the statement.


    At 11:19 p.m. Rick Dean wrote:

    It is much worse than fast food restaurants. Nipomo is under attack on
    multiple fronts. There is other breaking news I haven’t seen mentioned
    yet. Not only does CalTrans want to dismantle the “downtown” plan that
    has been on the drawing board for years; also, our rural Tefft Street
    will be expanded to SIX lanes!!!

    At the SCAC meeting last night, we also learned that EIGHTY PERCENT of
    *ALL* the low-income/affordable housing development in the entire County
    is being targeted for Nipomo.

    Yet another attack on Nipomo’s rural character will play out tomorrow at
    the NCSD, where our elected water gurus will consider adopting a “four
    tier” rate system. Residents who use more water (such as to keep their
    landscaping from reverting to arid fields of weeds) will be punished by
    higher rates to encourage “conservation” of our limited water supply.
    Certainly, doubling or tripling residents’ water bills will reduce water

    If our water supply is in doubt, then higher rates to force conservation
    make sense – IF the “conserved” water is is left in the ground to ensure
    that Nipomo has a reserve of water in the event of a prolonged drought.
    But that’s really not the plan here. In fact, these punitive rates will
    not conserve one drop of water — the “conserved” water will simply be
    reallocated to NEW DEVELOPMENT, such as the SCAC heard about last night.

    Punitive water rates that force residents to cut back on water usage so
    there is more water to support new development is nothing more than a de
    facto “tax” in sheep’s clothing, and probably not legally sustainable.

    In addition, the NCSD board is heading down a slippery slope that some
    board members have long argued is legally prohibited. We have been told
    over and over that “The NCSD has no planning powers and it is illegal
    for a CSD to attempt to influence local planning through water.” Yet,
    the NCSD board is doing just that — PLANNING — by adopting punitive,
    tiered rates that force customers to conserve so more water is available
    for new development and much higher densities envisioned by the County.

    Cambria does not have the problems we are facing in Nipomo — rampant
    growth, ever-worsening traffic, no money for roads, spiraling density,
    rising crime and graffiti, and no relief in sight. They have an elected,
    aggressive CSD Board that has protected its residents from these urban
    influences and preserved the charm of its community.

    Some SCAC members and others have been predicting exactly this scenario
    would consume. Some laughted and called them Conspiracy Theorists, while
    others yawned and said, “I’ll worry when the bulldozers are at my door.”
    Well, the conspiracy is now confirmed, and the bulldozers are not only
    at your door but preparing to crash through your living room.


    At 11:41 p.m. Phil Henry wrote:


    Excellent treatise on the situation!




    At 12:01 a.m. Rick Dean wrote:

    Kevin Beauchamp wrote:
    > Jim,
    > Marianne Buckmeyer was at that meeting and I’m sure she remembers that
    > statement and may have some documentation.

    I have extensive notes about the meeting in question. It was back when
    we were also debating the County’s grand design scheme for the West
    Tefft Corridor and the infamous “Street with No Name.” That dovetailed
    into a Town Hall meeting to discuss the Traffic Study. (We had something
    like four special meetings in five weeks.)

    Marianne and I were both at that meeting; I was the one who asked the
    question. The Omni-Means consultant who had prepared the traffic study
    told the Council, with a straight face, that the level of Service for
    our worst intersections in Nipomo had actually IMPROVED in recent years
    from “E” to “C”. I blurted out that this was ridiculous, and it occurred
    to me to ask: “Isn’t it true that the reason why you counted fewer cars
    going through the intersections is because everyone was gridlocked, and
    no one was able to drive through the intersection?” He replied, “Well,
    yes, that’s true.” The audience broke out laughing and had to be gaveled
    to order. That was one of those moments that you never forget!

    At the end of the Town Hall meeting, Marianne blew a gasket and told the
    consultant that “this study, and this presentation, is absolutely the
    worst I have ever seen…” and she read him the riot act for about the
    next five minutes.

    The next day, the SM Times carried a story entitled “NCAC Dissatisfied
    with SLO County Traffic Report” (Sept 28, 2005), bylined by reporter
    Stan Oklobdiza:

    “The Nipomo Community Advisory Council unanimously rejected a traffic
    and circulation report produced by San Luis Obispo County that details
    congestion levels around the intersection of South Frontage Road and
    West Tefft Street.

    “A letter will be drafted on behalf of the NCAC that expresses
    dissatisfaction with the report, which was prepared by consultant
    Omni-Means Ltd., and will be sent to each of the county supervisors, the
    County Public Works Department, and the consultant.

    “‘This traffic study is useless,’ said council member Rick Dean. ‘It’s
    wrong and it’s limited!'” (That’s not exactly what I said, but it was

    “Several members of the advisory council expressed dissatisfaction with
    the use of 2001 and 2003 traffic circulation figures and questioned the
    methods of determining traffic levels in more recent studies.

    “Last spring, the County Public Works Department reported that data from
    2003 indicated the South Frontage Road-West Tefft Street intersection
    was, at that time, operating at service Level “E,” meaning drivers were
    waiting at the stop light for at least 70 seconds. That’s a notch below
    what the county requires of its urban roads.

    “But in a test conducted by the Santa maria Times in May, cars on
    Frontage Road waited a full seven minutes to cross the intersection
    during the morning rush hour.

    “‘I think it’s pretty clear that the growth in Nipomo has outstripped
    the infrastructure,’ said SLO County Planning Commissioner Sarah
    Christie in a previous interview.”

    At 12:09 a.m. Rick Dean wrote:

    James Harrison wrote:
    > Don
    > The report
    > should be in the County Transportation Department files that shows that
    > L.O.S. change. If I had time and the inclination I could probable find
    > it in the material I have in boxes somewhere here but am not so
    > inclined. I am sure I am not the only member of the SCAC that remembers
    > this ridiculous statement.
    > Jim

    The report was entitled “South County Traffic Model Update, Draft Final
    Report,” prepared for SLO County by Omni-Means, dated September 2005. I
    do have a copy of this report if it becomes an issue. I save everything 🙂


    At 8:05 a.m. Marianne Buckmeyer wrote:

    In a message dated 7/24/2007 9:46:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sbwlff@… writes:

    The County Transportation department had a study done about a year and a half ago Dale Remy and the consultant were at the SCAC meeting, they had their power point program they presented with a hand out, the verbal presentation as well as the hand out, indicated the L.O.S. on the south bound on ramp has improved from a F to a C when questioned by Myself, Rick Dean and others the Consultant made the statement that the L.O.S. had improved because fewer vehicles were able to get to the on ramp because of the grid lock at Teft and Mary! There were many questions asked by the board at this point in the meeting. The report should be in the County Transportation Department files that shows that L.O.S. change

    You cannot trust what a consultant provides us with in terms of Level of Service. Many of you were around when all the numbers that Omni (a consultant hired to updated our entire traffic and cir. plan) provided us didn’t foot, made no sense, didn’t match from one page to the next and had never been proof-read. DO NOT just take what one presentation says. We had to tell them to go back and re-do the report and then it came back AGAIN so full of errors they had to restart AGAIN!

    Our community asked for another route to the freeway. King Ventures redid their plan and stopped their shopping center for us costing them millions. Please DO NOT settle for something we did not ask for. (Cal Trans and SLOCOG were in these meetings.)

    Example of “consultant” numbers: Rick Dean w/remember this well. Public Works said the LOS BASED ON THEIR DATA on Frontage to Teft was a C or a D. Well, we all remember that the traffic wouldn’t even move for 4 to 5 singles during rush hour. We all know that’s an F. We brought this to Dale’s attention.

    Heard nothing for months. All of a sudden about 5 developers called for an immediate meeting downtown (I went to this one) because they were told by the county that there would now be a MORITORIUM because the county had apparently determined the LOS on Frontage/Tefft to be an F. And, all building had to come to a stop if there is a LOS called an F.

    Course, the county didn’t come back at that point to tell us what we already knew….they just told it to the developers. Everybody was in a panic at the meeting. I suggested they put a BLOCKADE (read a 3-way stop sign on Frontage at Orchard or thereabout) which would force traffic along Frontage to stop first before zooming up to the signal at Tefft.

    Ta Da. This then made the LOS at the signal into a C./D again and everybody lived happily ever after.

    Moral of the story: Don’t trust consultant’s numbers – they don’t proof read and they don’t live here AND you can only put in so many stop signs along the way before we grid lock ourselves to death and no body can get around.
    Lastly, if we don’t stick to our guns, we don’t get what we asked for. We’re the ones that live here.


    At 9:12 a.m. Bonnie Eisner wrote:

    I feel like chicken little who for years has been telling everyone I see and meet in the grocery store, the gym and even walking along the beach what was coming to town in the next few years, but no one in this town, except for the 20 people involved, where listening. The chamber told the story at their meetings all last year of Newman’s project, King’s project, Ted Moore and the Mary Street project. The Adobe ran stories about all of these, but still the public went on thinking that everything would be okay. Well, the wake up call is here and now they are upset. Too late folks, but perhaps now there will be more people interested in SCAC and NCSD meetings.

    The BOS and planning will not stop the building in Nipomo even with no water and roads that cannot hold the cars we have now. The Woodlands will continue to build and Global Premiere will continue to buy property.

    I remember the meeting that Marianne is talking about and she is correct.. You have to stick to your guns and perhaps now that the buldozers are here, more people will show up and write e mails.

    Perhaps it is time for a town hall meeting of the SCAC where all the projects are presented to the community in a time line based on the planning dept schedule. Maybe now, more than 20 would be interested in knowing the true impact of what planning has in store for our town. The vision we had for Nipomo is slowly disappearing and chicken lttle doesn’t have to run around yelling anymore. The community can see it now for themselves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s