HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2001, LIAISON REPORT - PARKWAYS MEETING AGENDP.
DATE -1 S-o ITEM # Laiso vi
Liaison Report PP-Po rt
September 18,2001
To: Council collea ,
From: Ken Sch
Copies: Ken Ilamp- endy George,Paul LeSage, John Mandeville and Mike
McCluskey
Re: Parkways
I met with the Park and Recreation Commission on Wednesday, September 5'h to discuss
the conversion of some of our principal streets—primarily arterials—to parkways.
Commissioners Debbie Black and Gary Clay who have professional experience with
parkways also made presentations. It was a good discussion and I believe that the
Commission agreed that San Luis Obispo has a lot of potential for improving the open
spaces that our streets represent into community elements that could be much more park-
like and pleasant to traverse.
As you know,we have an item in our current budget for a median in Los Osos Valley
Road to run from our western City limits to Madonna Road. This coupled with the
landscaped medians and parkways required of Duvall North and South running easterly
from Madonna Road should make for a healthy start of a Parkway/Greenway system
My sense is that the Park and Recreation Commission felt that they have a stake in the
development of parkways—or as Gary called them, "Greenways"—and need to get
involved. They elected to sleep on the idea and I have extended a challenge to them to
carry their discussion a step further before they make a report to the City Council.
Attached for your information is a Memo I recently sent to the Commission outlining
how I thought they might further pursue the topic.
If you have comments,give me a call. If you would lice a map to set down your ideas for
Parkways/Greenways, see Sherry.
D OUNCIL EFECED DIR
M-CAO ❑ FIN DIR
MO'CCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
MIATTORNEY Q'PW DIR
2tLERIVORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEA,�JS- GEC DIR
� . ❑ UTIL DIR
i f�IbUN2i :❑`HR DIR
MEMO
September 7, 2001
To: Park and Recreation Commissioners Debbie Black, Teresa Larson, Gary Clay,
Bill Pyper,Bonnie Marzio and Chairman Tim Neville
From: Councilman Ken Schwartz
Copies: Paul LeSage, Larry Tolson,Neil Havliik
and Commissioner Peter Dunan(absent 9/5)
Re: Parkways
I have two reasons for writing this memo:
First, I want to thank you for providing the time during your regular meeting last
Wednesday evening that allowed me to discuss with you the idea of including
"Parkways"as a part of a larger responsibility of the Park and Recreation Commission. I
want to also thank Gary and Debbie for sharing their professional experiences and
observations. I found their input both stimulating and valuable to the discussion;I know
they caused me to refine my thinking on the idea.
I endorse your decision to delay a recommendation to the City Council. Your decision to
"sleep"on the idea for a while was a wise one. My sense is that the Council is not so
much seeking a speedy response to the Parkway idea as it is for a well-considered
response. My hope is that your response will be one that will get the Council excited
about the possibilities.
My second reason for writing is to ask you if you would be willing to devote a bit more
time to developing the Parkway idea.
If you are willing to assume for the moment that you`buy"the idea of a Parkway system
knitting the city together with"Greenways"(Gary Clay's term)the question then
becomes where might we develop these Parkways/Greenways? Again, if you are willing,
I would like the Commission to try to answer that question before you respond to the
Council. No,I don't see the need to hire a consuhant to tell us where these
Parkways/Greenways should go you people know the City as well as anyone and I
would like to have you make the first pass at laying out a.Parkways/Greenways plan
Again, if you are willing, I suggest that you set up a two-hour study session in the near
future and come prepared to roll up your sleeves and collectively design the
Parkway/Greenway system Staff can provide some large-scale maps of the City, some
large sheets of tracing paper and some marking pens. Whether all seven of you work on
one plan or you break up into smaller groups and involve audience members depends on
how you might best work;however, I would like to see you conclude your session with
but one recommended plan. I see such a`plan"accompanying your recommendation as
Page 2: Memo to Park and Recreation Commission
the device that will be needed to get both the Council and the public excited about the
potential of a Parkway/Greenway system—a picture is worth a thousand words.
If you are willing to add such a study session to your schedule,it would help if you came
prepared to use your time efficiently. At the risk of being presumptuous,may I suggest a
"homework assignment"? I have enclosed a map of the City. How about taking a
marking pen and color those streets that you think could/should become Parkways/
Greenways? You might want to take a ride around the City in order to really visualize
the possibilities. Bring your family/friends along and get their ideas too.
We talked Wednesday evening of arterial streets with medians. In describing the Broad
Street Corridor Plan, Debbie pointed out that medians planted with trees were important
on wide streets in order to get over-arching tree canopies. She noted that over-arching
tree canopies were not only attractive to the eye,but also had a traffic calming effect.
Such arterials might be labeled:
(Arterial Street: "A")
However, some of our"arterial"streets are not wide enough to support medians and I
would not like you to rule those arterials out of your planning. These narrower arterials
should also be considered in your Parkways/Greenways plan,they would just need to be
designed.differently—perhaps the tree canopy cannot be expected to over-arch the street.
Such arterials might be labeled:
(Arterial Street: `B")
There may be other important connecting streets that don't meet the arterial classification
but are important enough to justify some type of enhanced landscape treatment. These
streets might also be shown in your plan as:
(Major Street: "C")
What about stand alone Bikeways? I see no reason why bikeways should not be
considered as Parkways/Greenways. They could be shown as:
(Bilceways: "D")
How about our creek systems? Aren't they, or couldn't they become Greenways?
Perhaps we need to isolate certain creeks from human intrusion. If so,we could have:
(Creeks: `B")
Perhaps we have certain creeks that could have a wailing path along a bank shoulder. If
so,we could have:
(Creeks: "F)
I have identified six possible Parkways/Greenways. There could certainly be more types.
If you agree with the six I have described then you will need six different colored
marking pens to complete your homework.
Page 3: Memo to Park and Recreation Commission
I hope that you wM take the bait and we what you can come up with individually and
collectively. Gary could collect stll more viewpoints bygiving this as a short
assignment to one of his classes.
P.S. I have just learned that after I left your meeting you discussed involving the Tree
Committee. Great! Perhaps members ofthe Tree Committee should be invited to
participate in the proposed study session.
;.TING GENDA
�.i.ai SO1'1 12E 012 DATE a
P
September 13, 2001 /
/r ['COUNCIL [ CDD DIR
FIN DIR
TO: Council Colleagues � ° fACAO �_� FiRE CHIEF
G
ATTORNEY .PW DIR
FROM: John Ewan p'CL=RKrOPIG 71 POLICE CHF
❑ DPT H OS ❑ REC DIR
� k'L G (g(JTIL DIR
SUBJECT: INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTH W-Xt +UVn� ❑ HR-DIR.
Good news!
As you know, in 1989 California passed AB 939 requiring all jurisdictions to achieve a diversion
rate of at least 50% by the year 2000. The IWMA recently submitted its annual report, including
San Luis Obispo, prior_ to the September 15`deadline showing a diversion rate of 52% for the year
2000.
For comparison, 2000 diversion rates for four cities are:
Paso Robles-30%
Sacramento-39%
San Francisco-32%
Los Angeles-46%
Achieving this goal is a reflection of the commitment made by all of us—the elected officials
from the Member Jurisdictions, the staff,.the garbage, recycling and landfilling companies and
most importantly,people in all the communities participating in the various program.
/ss
RECEIVED
SEP 17 2001
SLO CITY CLERK
4 ' I
DATE: September.12,2001 ITEM: 7
�� ❑ Approve El Deny
0 Continue to
TO: Integrated Waste Management Authority
FROM: William A.Worrell, Manager
RE: Accept the 2000 Annual Report and Diversion Rate (Action Item-Voice Vote)
Consider accepting the 2000 annual report and diversion report.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the 2000 Annual Report and diversion rate and direct staff to issue a press release.
DISCUSSION
As you know in 1989 California passed AB 939 which required all jurisdictions to achieve a
diversion rate of at least 50%by the year 2000.
-� The IWMA receptlylutted its Annual Report prior to the September 1 deadline which includes
a diversion ra of 52% 'f�k the year 2000.
For comparison, the 2000 diversion rates are as follows for these four cities:
Paso Robles-30%
Sacramento-39%
San Francisco-32%
Los Angeles-46%
Achieving this goal is a reflection of the commitm7A made by all of us-the elected officials from
the Member Jurisdictions, the staffs, the garbage, recycling and landfilling companies-and most
importantly the people in all the communities who participated in the various programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENT#1: Diversion Rate Calculation and Annual Report
7-1
�i ATTACHMENT#1 Page I of 2.1 _
DIN_.Sion Rate Calculation and Annual R..rort
IM Search Site Index Contact Us Help
Diversion Rate Measurement Calculation step a 2 3- Charts 1
Step 2: Worksheet Calculation Input �J
If the user does not believe the calculated default diversion rate is accurate (to base/ear, reporting-year or adjustment
factors), one or more changes may be made. A Jurisdiction that uses alternative values must explain why the values are
more accurate in its Annual Report submitted to the Board.
Jurisdiction:.San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Reporting-Year: 2000
Authority
County: San Luis Obispo Diversion 50%
Requirement:
Base-Year Numbers
Changes to Generation Amount and Residential Generation Rate must correspond to thesame base-year used in this
diversion rate calculation.
Base-Year: 1998
Base-Year Generation Amount(tons): 416177
_.. . ..
Base-Year Residential Generation Rate (%):
46j
Reporting-Year Numbers
Changes to any reporting-year amounts must correspond to thesame reporting-year used in this diversion rate
calculation.
Reporting-Year Disposal Amounts (tons): 225930;
Reported Disaster Waste (tons): 0
Reported Medical Waste (tons)'. 0'i
Reported Regional Diversion Facility Residual Waste (tons): 0
Reported Outof-State Export (Diverted) (tons): 0
Reported Sludge Diverted Waste (tons): 0
Reported Other Disposal Amount(tons): 0!
Adjustment Factors
Changes to the adjustment factors must correspond to thesame base-year and reporting-year used in this diversion rate
calculation.
Default Base-Year Reporting-Year
Source
Population: County239000 245200:
--— ..
Taxable Sales (x1000): County 2294959 2996214'
Employment: County 104200: 1 112200'
Consumer Price Index: State 163 7 174.8'
ATTACHMENT#1 7-2
MEETIN� AGENDA , .
Liaison Report
DATE 6� ITEM #u�`
September 18, 2001 Q'COUNCIL DD DIR
Q'CAO ❑ FIN DIR
i . °L `ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
To: Council Collea C"ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
From: Ken SCh ECLERK/ORIG E] POUCE CHF
E T HEADS ❑ R;C DIR
Copies: Ken Hampian, endy George, John Moss and John Man eg Fv TIL DIR
�ft,bslt�Pj - ❑ HR DIR
Re: Paso Nobles water Basin
The North County Water Resources Forum met Thursday, September 6a', 5:00pm in
Templeton to hear a report from Fugro/Cleath,the consultants hired by the County to
assess the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. The primary purpose of this study is an in-
depth geologic evaluation that defines the lateral and vertical extent of the water-bearing
sediments that comprise the groundwater basin. Thereafter,this base data will be used to
-in layman's language—determine the storage capacity of the basin and the sub-basins
within the larger basin, and the inflows and outflows of water(flow dynamics).
In short,how much water does the basin hold? Where does the water come from and
where is it going? Is the water in the basin being withdrawn faster than it is being
replenished? These questions are yet to be fully answered,but the study is winding down
and we should have answers in the not too distant future.
Tim Cleath did provide one statistic that was completely new for me. I have been told for
over 30 years that the PR basin was 640 square miles in area. Tim pointed out that the
PR basin is actually 900 square miles in size. Why the 260 square mile difference? To
my surprise, all previous studies considered only.that portion of the basin that lays within
SLO County,hence the 640 square mile figure. In reality,the basin extends 260 square
miles into adjacent Monterey County.
Why should SLO be interested in all of this? Paso Robles and Atascadero who might
partner with SLO to build the Naci aqueduct need to know if the PR basin from which
they presently extract their water supply has the capacity to serve their long-term water
requirements. If not,they will likely want to partner with us and build the aqueduct.
Obviously,to extract water from a ground basin is the cheaper supply and ifthat supply
will serve them over the long-term then we are left with two choices: (1)Go the Naci
project by ourselves; or(2)raise the Salinas Dam to enlarge the reservoir capacity that
will give us our needed supplemental supply.
The Forton will be moving towards a more complete understanding of the basin as the
consultants make additional reports in the months ahead.
RECEIVED
SEP 1 9 200
SLO CITY CLERK