Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/1989, - CIRCULATION PLANNING i C4o sAn Luis OBISPO - ,; ;yl- ,; . 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 March 31, 1989 TO: Dave Romero Wayne Peterson Barbara Lynch Jim Gardner Mike Dolder Nancy Knofler FROM: - Terry Sanville, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Circulation Planning On April 11, 1989, the City Council has scheduled a study session to again talk about circulation planning. Attached is the package of materials that is being sent to the council. Our hope is that the council will authorize Phase II of the studies. If that happens, then we will be setting up a technical committee of city staff people to help DKS Associates identify and evaluate alternative circulation proposals -- including non-road programs. If you have any questions or problems, feel free to give me a call, TS:ts Attachments ty osan tins OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 • �- March 30, 1989 TO: City Council VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer Michael Multari, Community Development Director FROM: Terry Sanville, Supervising Principal Planner SUBJECT: April 11, 1989 Council Study Session: Continued Discussion of the Circulation Study. The Situation On March 6, 1989, the City Council reviewed the results of Phase I of the Circulation Study with city staff and consultants (DKS Associates). Mike Kennedy from DKS presented the findings of the Phase I report. The staff recommended that the City Council authorize the consultant to proceed with Phase II of the report. Phase II will focus on the evaluation of alternative solutions that address both neighborhood and city-wide �1 circulation problems. I The City Council did not authorize the consultant to proceed with Phase II at that time. They felt that continued discussions would be helpful. The primary purpose of further discussions would be to talk about the general approach to long-term circulation problems. Staff also indicated that after the March 6 meeting they would work with the consultant to prepare additional materials, including: 1. A response from DKS Associates to the city staff's critique of the Phase I report (see Attachment #1). 2. A summary of council concerns raised at the March 6th meeting (see Attachment #2). 3. A history of actions taken by the city that may be at variance with current Circulation Element policies and programs (see Attachment #3). The council also asked that an executive summary of Phase I be included; the consultant is working on this and it will be added. Further, the council asked if other meetings in "- neighborhoods would be helpful. Such meetings go beyond the scope of the current contract with DKS Associates. The consultant is working on a proposal for expanding the work scope to consider management programs in neighborhoods other than Oldtown and Murray-Broad Street. We will bring this proposal back at a later date. Page 2 -- Circulation Studies Discussion Staff continues to recommend that the consultant be authorized to proceed with Phase II of the work program. As part of Phase II, we will form a technical advisory group comprised of people from affected city departments to help with the "testing" of alternative circulation strategies. If the council feels it appropriate, we can review these alternatives with the council at strategic points during Phase II. The council wanted to talk more about the community's basic philosophy toward circulation and where our emphasis should go in our goals and policies (and subsequent policies and implementation measures). Attachment #4 is an abstract of the city's circulation goals and objectives taken from the 1982 Circulation Element. This abstract might provide a beginning point for council discussion. The council might identify which areas are in need of expansion, which are obsolete and should be eliminated, and which new components should be considered. These discussions need not result in a firm decision by the council. All goals and policies will be evaluated as part of Phase II of the study. Also, the council may want more then one session to discuss goals and objectives. These discussions can run concurrently with the consultants work on Phase II of the study. There are significant technical tasks which can be worked on while discussion about goals proceeds. Recommended Action The City Council should: 1. Review the city's current circulation goals and objectives and provide direction as appropriate. 2. Authorize the staff and consultants to begin work on Phase II of the Circulation Element. Attachments car#2/ts/11-12 MEETING AGENDA 1 DATE f -!fgf ITEM # San Luis Coastal Unified School Distract V \ i 1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE• P.O. BOX 8124 SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93403 -8124 TELEPHONE- ( MOS ) 543-2010 000 *Denotes action by lead Person Respond by: April 5, 1989 Y�0oinci1 9AO _ Honorable Ron Dunin 294WL+Nb Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo 5(M,p(&M1P49 1 990 Palm Street Iry rT P.O. Box 8100 ✓ �! San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Dear Mayor Dunin and Members of the City Council: This evening the City Council will consider a mandatory water reduction program which will require schools served by the City of San Luis Obispo to reduce their water consumption by 40%. This recommendation has been forwarded to the Council without consultation with the district or an evaluation of the impact on the district's instructional program. San Luis Coastal Unified School District recognizes the plight the city faces regarding its water shortage; however, the recommendation before the Council needs to be studied for feasibility by both city and district staff before action is taken. To date, this study has not occurred; nor has the district been involved in the development of the proposed mitigation measures. The district's primary concern regarding the proposed recommendation is the health and safety of students of the district and the community. There are 3,841 district students who are served by city water. The proposed 40% reduction in water use will have a dramatic impact on the district's instructional program. School playgrounds and athletic fields are classrooms in the district's instructional program, not aesthetic open space. Physical education is a component of the district's curriculum, and that instruction occurs outdoors on these fields. Based on an initial review of the district's water usage, the only way to comply with a 40% reduction is to eliminate watering all areas as the remaining available water is required in order to maintain sanitary requirements in the schools. When the district was required to eliminate irrigation recently in the City of Morro Bay, it was our experience that the rate and severity of student injuries increased as the fields became drier and fell to disrepair. The district was able to have the Morro Bay City Council agree to resuming irrigation on a twice-weekly basis in order to provide a safe environment for children. San Luis Coastal Unified School District seeks the same consideration from the City of San Luis Obispo. Another concern is that if the proposed reduction cannot be effected by irrigation modifications alone it will impact the educational programs. Water is used in the course of the district's science, agriculture, and art program. The proposed reduction may impact the level and quality of instruction in those courses. However, this cannot be verified until the city's proposal has been researched and quantified. C:\D\CrrYSL0.H2O RECEIVED APR 519 -CITY CLERK District,Superintendent,IRV NIKOLAI. Ph.D. SANUYSOWPO.Ca 3v 10 7)L- Honorable Mayor and City Council April 5, 1989 Page 2 The district requests the Council take no action on the institutional component of the water ordinance until such time as both city and district staff have a chance to meet, research alternatives, and draft a plan that meets the needs of both organizations and the community. Sinccr RO IVINGSTON sista t Superintendent, Business RLL:mkh C:\D\CF YSLO.fi20 `cET1NG AGENDA DATE =S 8 ITEM # John I , Merriam ucnoies action by lead Perm Civil Engineer 'ice"d�' V.Counait 235 Chaplin Lane lycAo San Luis Obispo �' Civ.Atty. j;y uk-orifi. California 93401 /Za.148M.4 4 April 1989 �Vf M.NK9-rAF_� i r. r LE City Council of San Luis Obispo Dear Councilmembers : For most of my professional engineering and teaching career my work has been associated with various aspects of water and flood control . I worked for the Soil Conservation Service for seventeen years stressing soil and water conservation and have written books and papers about efficient water use. I taught hydrology at Cal Poly as part of my responsibility. I have served on the Advisory Board to the State Office of Water Con- servation and on the County Water Advisory Board . I am concerned that the Council failed to have adequately reacted one or two years ago to the water problem which 4as . its responsibility to have anticipated . Rather it has reacted after the problem was allowed to develop . I am concerned with the emphasis on using this unwarranted shortage to restrict growth of the City . Such growth controls should be accomplished by zoning and regulations , not by allowing a so called water shortage to develop, and then in a politicised way develop a water control ordinance to restrict water use and construction. Two years ago, I appeared before the Council and indicated that the lower San Luis Obispo Creek groundwater basin with a reasonable water management program was a potential water source for use or for reserve. I recommended a study be made of the potential of making ground water a regular economical part of the City ' s water supply. Such a study was started but is still not completed , though to believe the implications of the Council ' s present actions , it should have been of great importance over a year ago. R E C E IV E E) APR 51989 CIT r CERA SAN AUK nacvp.0 A �O W .-,vf For many years the City and the Southern Pacific Railroad used about 3000 acre feet each year from this basin. This was known to the. Council but it did not take adequate action and it did let the "water emergency" continue to develop with appre- ciable publicity into a building moratorium and water use restrictions with undertones of. no. growth. A few months ago I appeared at a Council meeting and stated that with the Dal.iidio ' s groundwater that there was no water shortage. This statement was apparently ignored as the publicity continued . I now wish to repeat the statement and provide numbers which I feel the Council should have used in guiding it procedures rather than waiting for it to be supplied here. In the April 1 issue of the Telegram-Tribune, a review of the County water situation was presented. The numbers should be embarrassing to the Council. Without any additional recharge to our two surface reservoirs during the next two winters, and admitting that the last of the water in a reservoir is not tasty. there is over a two year ' s supply in surface storage. Santa Margarita contains6700 acre feet and the City ' s share of Whale Rock is 11 , 300 acre feet . This totals 18 ,000 acre feet . The City' s normal use for the two years is only about 16, 500, somewhat less than the 18,000acre feet in storage . Pumping from the Dalidio ' s basin at the anticipated rate of 2000 acre feet per year makes the total available 22 , 000 nearly enough for three years without considering any recharge. The Dalidio basin could undoubtly produce 3000 acre feet or more. These are rough figures , but they do not include any rainfall runoff for two years . Such a condition is a physical improba- bility under any rainfall pattern or concept of Safe Yield . I request the Council to consider these facts. They shouldnot use a threatened water shortage as a means to restrict construc- tion or growth or unnecessarily limit water use. Sincerely yours, John L. Merriam Prof . emeritus q by Leaa Parson RECEIVE [ curuil C APR 5jp 1,1 p7rCLERK SAN LWS0600 Ca � Giar�-oriy. �AW� 421 MEETT G AGENDA DATE- - -8 ._ITEM # { ate., r, , v -- 03 V1333R A TIP, zL cam- Q , b. � � ya � t:,cETING AGENDA DATE 1-5-Irl ITEM # 1)anotes action by Lcad Person 5 Respond by: I!t�-eouncil 1377 Woodside Drive �:q�p San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Atty. March 28, 1989 pR<Ierk-prig. C9' 13.Ncf/�No B-'^IN uL TAL 0/ T"T. To the San Luis Obispo Mayor and City Council: Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the editor, which states in the minimal amout of words possible, how I feel. This weekend I met with about twenty friends who are every bit as upset over the water situation as I am. We were further incensed to find out from a County official that he went to every city council in the county in 1986 with a presentation on future water needs, and the only council that would not allow him to make his findings public was ours. They, instead, decided to allow him to answer only those questions which they posed. (It is my understanding that Mayor Dunin, who was then a Councilman, wanted to hear the presentation, but was overruled.) According to the information available in the County Water Services office, San Luis Obispo has the worst water situation in the County! The concensus of opinion at our recent meeting was that the water situation is due to the lack of a realistic growth plan, a feeling of distrust between the Water Department's example and what they tell the council and public, and the lack of positive action in obtaining new water sources. It can take up to ten years from planning to obtaining new resources. If less money had been spent on studies and more on implementation since 1977, we wouldn't be in this critical situation. When rates were doubled twelve years ago and good intentions were made, I personally think they fell by the wayside, when 1978 brought plenty of rain. Where the money was actually spent and why we haven't gotten new sources, is something the public deserves to know. My friends and I feel we are victims of politics, poor government planning and a lack of positive government action. We feel that families are carrying an unfair financial burden with your unrealistic lifeline limits and the future penalities that you might impose. , Something has to been done to make water conservation fair and one that we can all participate in with a spirit of unity and commitment. Other cities have successfully accomplished this. Why can't ours? I feel the direction and inspiration must come from the City Water Department and the Council. Sincerely, A&h-it. Sharon A. Brady R E C E IV Ell MAR 2 91989 CITYCLERn SAN LUIS nRKPO.CA To the editor: I will participate in the water conservation efforts. I wish, though, it could be with a sense of community spirit. I wonder if there are others who feel badly about the following or am I the only one? First, the lifeline rate on our bills since July 1 , 1988, was based on a 20% reduction in the average water use for a retired couple living in a mobile home. This is an absurd and unrealistic standard for families. How can this injustice be corrected when we face another mandatory reduction of 20% or more? Second, how can the City Water Department emphasize conservation to its citizens, when it allowed a leak by the Highway Patrol office to go unchecked for almost one year, and repaired it only when it became public knowledge. Third, in 1979, our water bills were doubled after several dry years. Citizens were told the additional money would be used to search for new water sources and upgrade existing water lines. I would like to see a formal accounting of how much of the revenue increase was spent in succeeding yearson these two things and how much went into other city funds. Before the City Council makes a final decision in April, I feel the citizens deserve a published evaluation on the example the Water Department sets, its policies on city water use and a detailed account of expenditures for the past twelve years. If the City would have formulated a plan in 1977, we might not be in this spot now! Sharon Brady 1377 Woodside Drive San Luis Obispo, CA