HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1994, C-5 - SAN LUIS CREEK STUDY VIIIII p�'IINN�I II�� �y1 MEEfINT M/94
�`INIII IWgIII��IIII�IIIIVI`I City of San LUIS OBI SPO ITEM NUMBER:BEFI:
_ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: hn Dunn, City Administrative Officer
By: /Paul LeSage, Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: San Luis Creek Study
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) By motion, approve the allocation of $1,800 from the Open Space Parkland
Acquisition/Parkland Fund for a design concept of a passive Park/Open Space on the
San Luis Creek from Marsh Street to Madonna Road.
2) Authorize the City Administrative Officer to enter into an agreement with Cal Poly
Landscape Architecture Department to perform the appropriate services.
DISCUSSION,
The City is currently developing an Open Space Acquisition Priority Plan. There is
general concurrence that preservation of the San Luis Creek will be a high priority
open space project. Some potential development projects on South Higuera and
citizen concerns over current creek activity have also called attention to the area.
Staff proposes that a design concept be developed in a timely and cost effective
manner. To this end the support of the Cal Poly Landscape Architecture Department
is needed. Under the supervision of faculty member Dale A. Sutliff, ASLA, several
student assistants will undertake the project (Attachment A).
After meeting with staff members the students will familiarize themselves with all
appropriate documents, maps, and requirements of a passive park/open space, plus
make several visits to the site. They will then produce a composite map to use as a
basis for the concept of the passive park/open space. The design concept will
establish a possible direction for the city to pursue in creating the passive park/open
space.
By beginning immediately the project can be completed by January 20, 1995. Staff
would propose to use the information gathered as part of the budget process and to
secure any available grants.
city of San t. OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the request is available from the Open Space Parkland
Acquisition/Parkland Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Cal Poly Landscape Architecture Department proposal
B. Map of the study area
TO'c4. �ti1o1 ATTACHMENT A
I'
CSL POLY
CAUPOUNTA rl,�YTFCNN1Lf S'rA're l;Nn'r.RKrrr 1 -A_. e
- I
1,4N. T. .-AP7 AR('.,IITYd.1'i Bk N..11AW1NILN I' �
dli5) 750.111Q i
November 14, 1994
Paul LeSage,Director
Recreation and Parks Department
City of San Luis Obispo
860 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Greenway Park Concept
In response to my discussion with John Dunn and yourself on November 3, this letter will
establish an agreement and Work Program for preparing a Design Concept for a Greenway
Park to be located along San Luis Creek, and extending from the Matsh/Higuera Streets
intersection to Madonna Road, and included within the area from South Higuera Street to
Highway 101. i
1
To support the analysis and development of the design concept, the Landscape Architecture j
Department will require $1,800.00 to cover the costs for student assistants plus one faculty
member to manage the work. This amount does not include expenses for printing and
reproduction costs, documents, or other materials needed. These would be provided by the
city,or billed separately.
It is anticipated that the work will accomplished between the period from December 1, 1994
to January 20, 1995.
Work Program:
•
Inventory and Analysiv
Familarize, document, and analyze the project area and context,plus requirements and
conditions related to and supporting preparation of the Greenway Park design concept
Identify opportunities and constraints.
Identify goal and specific objectives.
Product: Composite map and description, key information,basis for the concept,
statement of purpose and design intent
• Design Concept
The Design Concept will establish a possible direction for the city to pursue in creating a
Greenway park in conjunction with adjacent uses. '
Product: Illustrative drawing showing conceptual plan view and seetion/elevadons for
the Greenway Park and potential relationship to adjoining uses, accessibility,
and an outline program and description of proposed park/greenway uses.
C-�-3
Toid Idi0i
I look forward to the completion of this exciting and important project,and to its potential y.
implementation by the City of San Luis Obispo. 1 appreciate this opportunity to engage
some of our.=dents in work that can benefit their education while providing an important
contribution to the community.
4
Sincerely,
Pale*A.tu :PASLA
Professor
cc: Walter Bremer, Dept. Head
I
I
i
i
�S_y
.. ♦ � L.41�.yk l I``� ry i,� l (l � l t I! r � A4
+� �v'•;�u-
Q11,
Ip-
.`,�: > r '.j7-•r+�� trt + / cr' / tttk � . _I,� ':r� {� � �r,� ��r
'•T1J y 1.�'ltll l i f / K J� /��Irll „
r 3rh i. SMr jt, '
b r 41LL
v. c + vs1. tiN �. ' r _, i �'1 p i.._� `"J•y - I� �1J j,�
.!>!i
67
y
�1-t+
r { a
Al•+ :..
r k'rrJG.r A r iF ?'r.. ..1 i ... �� f }Q �: I t.L InhY�p•
_v\ 1� • . tit 4>'�I.rra� �T 1 � � i A r �1i1 �ti---i+
1;
_� � y1 YI-. .L ✓ � � �-,� r 1
,j4j":1
InRr 1y - 4
A',fir. . +C+�ih r, v, s `'e.;. .,�rr.,"R ` !•
Y.1• I f T;�r JJ�' � J ��K N. J ,its '
i S''ati r � tr _:;rl/ � .A., ♦sa ,+',�, t�� �...� n,� ^� t �L�:
.41'v771�%wAla I .�
,, t. r "7 �'i 'CI•F%~Fr�r".411` ,I 11 n.3f l/ I t t
-folk '�., •, .
-flbl,i�ayA y{t �•}� .sem' �y.1. I At/( /! /`� .� , �a,.
t t LT !' r•� I -,+ t -..Y� y}F `' I ,�^ t t�� ;.'I ' � , L.'y\ "�1 '..
Lr.
< � lj 4 ti •
1 t A !I j7J� F r{}• Ip
f
40.
10ti , � F•.. t ' .fir
� L 1
r
Ir
vrt
,^Imp—
ol
., ?_ ., a{ c ..s .. S.- � r ja, v. +Zt 7�;.:� n`,7T�•y, �, � r1(N
�Ii '•R ,t\� Ai { ���ppp �_• �.J' Irl �, ,.fir � 1 .pie
' t '£ :•, 6 ', �f �_ � .�•' r�W+IY ��"1 il ' i 'r' �4"}y�v�i-i
t_.;� `� "' -h A i }.- a. +•� I � 11Yr "�/-a4 uyl�r��,,t
a
'TING AGENDA
Dht r. "13 "9 ITEM # C -fi���
Tuesday, December 13, 1994
DELIVERY BEFORE COUNCIL MTG.
To : The Mayor and Members of the Council
City of Suit Luis Obispu
ltl:: Consent Agenda Items 5.6&7.Meeting of December 13th
1-;ROM: David H.Chipping
Member:Environmental Quality Task Force
It is important that the above retcrcnccd consent agenda items be given some debate. One
of the missions of the EQTF was to think about problcuts such as these,and tucmbers of
the Task Forex would like w comment. I would raise the following issues regarding the
three items:
1)Why are these being funded from the ONLY set-aside fund for actually buying land?
This is an act of self-immolation,as the more we spend from the fund on studies,the less
we have in the fund to implement any recommendation of the 3tudic3.
2) Why nut tine u wnbcrtsub upprtwch to mupping uul the vulucv of the fund from u strictly
ecological standpoint? This was used in the Open Space Committee,and again in the
E(j'1'F. What will probably happen in the Cal Poly study,if it is similar to pact studies,is
that tcumb Uf;uirua:ed ICVCI btutleuts will txVure tv the sutuo expettb drat would have furured
theiconi ensus committee,-and then filtered that information through the GIS process,
which may"gray-out" the original information. While the GIS process may produce pretty
maps,the details of the programs selection proeess get lost or am at least made remote to
the viewer of the end product. The maps will then be picked ap vt by the same group of
experts that could have given you valuable dam on the first pass. A starting point will be
the maps and materials that will be provided from&QTF in this regard.
I would suggest that you form a consensus committee made of(a)an ecological values
group,(2)a scenic values group and(3)....if needed,a culturtl values group. These will
define vital areas on the urban fringe. After they have finished,then blend this into a
geopolitical reality with the real estate and private property people,to see if the first group's
model of the green belt can be necepted,and at what cost. After the compromises are made
and the irr=ncilable differences defined,the city planners have something to work with.
Perhaps Cal Poly can ride long and place the succes3ivc evolutions of the pr000so in GIS.
3)In the dclinition of whut nucdti w bc:proLoutW,uxisting lunguuge dCflrloJ u lurbct in rho
rare and endangered species,but not in the more ordinary ecological communities that
define the biodiversity of the region. To this I object strongly.
4)Prioritization of acquisitions will come from the same consensus groups,and therefore
should not be a separate issue.
1CIL CDD DIR
6r�+❑ FFINDRY��� HIEF
0 CLERKMONG ❑ CE CHF RECEIVED
o fly ❑ tmi O R DEC 13 1994
O PERS DIR
CITY COUNCIL
r SM L41a OBISPO„Q6
iqd gKO GZ� �Qld ;ON 3FIOHd 7ti�IrJO-1030 EHIcdIHD WIND
R E C E 1 V e n MEE-:,.-ql AGENDA
DEC 1 411994 '
1994 -
DATE ' - -9 ITEM# C-6 C-7
CITY CLERK the most radical environmentalist in the world... •.--METROPOLIS
SAN LUIS O&SPO,GA
RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
December 12, 1994
COUNCIL If CDD DIR
The City Council MICAO ❑ FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo G'ACAO ❑fIRE CHIEF
990 Palm Street {ATTORNEY W DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Iff CLERfOORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
O MGMT TEAM eREC DIR
Re: Items C-5, C-6, C-7 12/13/94 Agenda ❑ C WO.FiLE ❑ UTIL DIR
To the City Council:
13 PERS DIR
I request that you not approve these Items as submitted.
If you see merit to these comments, I urge you to give proper direction to staff and then put these items at
the t:aginning of your next meeting's public-may-discuss agenda so that problems can be worked out.
As you know, I strongly support an open space preservation program, as do the majority of other voting
citizens. However, these items, as presented, appear to do more harm than good to the city's nascent
open space preservation program. Please consider the following points:
1. Funding of studies. All three of these proposals are for using open space acquisition funds to finance
studies rather than acquisition.That is an improper use of these funds, and will further undercut the city's
good will towards its citizens who have voted overwhelmingly for the city to protect a greenbelt around the
city's edge. If followed,the staff recommendation would reduce open space.acquisition funds by about
$30,000. This is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately,the city is already guilty of bad faith with its citizens on this matter. First, after the
overwhelming open space vote,the city set out to budget an amount each year for addition to its open
space fund. But after several years,one member of the council persuaded others to join her in pulling the
plug on Jhis annual monetary set-aside. To date, not a single square inch of greenbelt open space has
been protected with the set-aside funds, and the city now claims it is too broke to add further money to
the fund (though it is capable of putting millions of dollars into a pork barrel performing arts center that the
people have never voted to be a civic priority). The fund is thus all the open space money we have; it is
precious, and should be used exclusively for the purpose for which originally designated, acquisition, and
not frittered away on studies that could be funded in other ways.
How to finance open space studies?The General Fund is one way. Another is also evident. There is
consensus in the city and among its citizens that a healthy economy is dependent upon a healthy
environment. What could be more basic to sustaining a healthy environment than stabilizing a greenbelt
around the city?Therefore I propose to you that the CAO's generously-funded economic stabilization
account be the source for the current study budgets.Without environmental stability and quality,there can
be no economic stability.
2. Public Policy Basis for Proposals. I was surprised to see these proposals coming before the council.
Schmidt to Council, Page 1
Apparently there has been much negotiation by staff leading to these proposals. But what public policy
and public participation have driven them? I am a member of the city's Environmental Quality Task Force,
and the first I knew of these proposals was today,when another EQTF member who had seen the council
agenda called them to my attention. Now, perhaps the CAO doesn't-think the EQTF deserves to be
involved in such matters, but given that the EQTF has had extensive input into open space planning,this
seems odd. It also seems odd that even though the General Plan OSE and LUE are cited as rationales
for the proposals,there are adopted open space policies (wildlife habitat and corridors,for example)that
are completely ignored in the proposed scopes of work. In fact,the scopes revert to a radically primitivist
concept that the only species of interest in city open space planning are endangered species.These
deviations from adopted policy would make the scopes of work inconsistent with the city's General Plan. I
think,therefore, there are both public policy and public input problems with these proposals.
3. San Luis Creek Study (C-5). This proposal,for a Design Concept for a Greenway Park along the
creek between Marsh and Madonna,floors me. Who decided this area is to be a "park" and when? This
section of the creek is probably the finest in the city in terms of its habitat value. The reason it is that way
is because people are pretty much kept out of the area. So why are we creating a"park"there? Why not a
"refuge?" I can assure you that after seeing the biological damage caused to the creek by human activity
in Mission Plaza, this proposal will be strongly opposed by the environmental community. So why is it
being snuck through on the consent agenda as a city-funded student project? If the students want to
make a park proposal, let them, but don't make it official by having the city fund it and claim it as the basis
for future city action.
Secondly, I don't know who has planted the idea that acquisition of creek corridors is to be funded by the
greenbelt open space fund, but if it is,that will prevent the city's ever preserving a greenbelt; purchasing
in-city property from these scarce funds will eat them up in no time.
Thirdly, as far as public policy along the creeks goes, it has long been city policy to seek a setback from
top of bank of at least 20'whenever in-town property is redeveloped.The city, however, hasn't been
following this policy, and thus we have many recent buildings that intrude to top of bank and even beyond.
Now the city is to come back and purchase land with improvements on it? Let's get our ducks in a row!
Who needs a"plan"beyond enforcing existing setback policy? (The City already owns much of the land
between the creek and freeway.)
Finally, it is not clear what the $1,800 is being paid for. Mr. Sutliff's letter refers to paying for student
assistants. I don't believe this is necessary or proper. The work, according to the letter,will benefit the
students' education. In that case,they can get academic credit for their work, which is reward enough.
I've never heard of paying students for doing educational work.
4. Open Space Mapping. (C-6, C-7) I am strongly supportive of resource mapping provided the
information is integrated into overall planning efforts,which this, unfortunately, appears not to be. There
are a number of problems:
First:The Cal Poly project's costs are a mystery. Why the exchange of money? Why so much cost? The
Cal Poly GIS system already covers the entire watershed, and as the map indicates,that is most of the
greenbelt. Does it really merit spending $12,000 just to add the small residue of land not already
included?
Second:What are the expenditures for? Student labor? See the previous item, if so.
Third:The scope of work's mapped resources are the very easiest ones to do,;and,don't show much
imagination,nor do they include the complete list of resource variables included inthe recently-adopted
LUE.The maps produced will therefore be inconsistent with adopted city policy. What use is an
incomplete mapping system?
Schmidt to Council, Page 2
Furthermore, mapping the listed resources doesn't advance the state of our knowledge about resources
in the greenbelt. The city probably already has access to all the information being provided, although
maybe not on GIS. Has anyone checked with planning staff? Perhaps our funds would be better spend
gathering resource data not yet available.
Fourth: I find both the Cal Poly proposals extremely vague. A comparison with the Land Conservancy
proposal's detail is indicative of this.What is the city actually getting, and who's in the driver's seat, Cal
Poly or the city? I don't wish to cast aspersion on anyone's project, but I have found, both as a public
planner and as an academic, that presumptions about what a product should be and how a project should
be conducted are very different on the two sides of the academic/public agency fence. I just want to
suggest that the documentation in your packet is not sufficient to tell what you are going to get,or whether
it will be useful,wasteful, or a hindrance. Perhaps there is other documentation not made available to the
public. Or, perhaps there needs to be more documentation.
Fifth:The Land Conservancy proposal is largely duplicative of the Cal Poly GIS proposal. Items A through
E of the conservancy workscope appear to be direct duplication. Why have multiple agencies working
simultaneously on creating the same GIS system?
I hope you will take these comments into consideration in your deliberations. The city's open space
program is at a crucial point. First it was underfunded. For years, now, it has been unfunded. We lost our
promising open space planner to AIDS, his replacement wasn't given administrative support, and the
function was transferred to the parks'department where it probably doesn't belong. We have sat on our
municipal hands, taking no constructive action, as preservation or acquisition opportunity after opportunity
has been lost.After all the previous years of studies,to now start spending acquisition funds for yet more
studies is a step backwards. When is the city going to start doing something about preserving open space
instead of just using public desire for it as campaign rhetoric and propaganda? I for one would like to see
some preservation for a change.
Sirhard
r
1.L^
Rihmidt
Schmidt to Council, Page 3