HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2002, 1 - OH, THE TIME IT TAKES. . . `FETING AGENDA=
DATE 26'00ITEM #
MEMO
March 23, 2002
To: Council Colles
From: Ken Sch
Copies: Ken Hamp' McChukey, John Mandeville,Ned Havh
Re: Oh,the time it takes. . .
Friday, Betsy asked me to dig into my"old"files for some information she needed
for a job she is doing. As I dug into my old correspondence files, I came across two
memos that I thought might interest you.
The first, dated January 11, 1970(that's 32 years ago), dealt with a proposal to
resolve stream problems;the second, dated July 29, 1973 roughly 6 months after the
disastrous 1973 flood(that's 29 years ago), dealt with'The waterways system:
flood prevention control measures." My recollection is that the City Council
endorsed both ofthese proposals.
Isn't it amazing that after three decades that the City as yet to resolve these issues?
OAttachments(2)
NCIL 0 CDD DIR
0 0 RN DIR
ORNEY FNIEF
LERK/ORI� DIR
11iPT, EAD9 C1 POLICE CHF
❑ REO CIA
0 U?IL OIA
❑ HR DIR
JG�Ga.,
C
CIT f 01F SAN IUIIS 01BIISTO
CALIFORNIA 9340
OFFICE OFTHE MAYO
POST OFFICE BOX 1328 543-3765
January 11, 1970
To: Councilmen and Staff Members
From: Mayor Schwartz
The following proposal represents my thoughts on a course of action
that the Council might take to give direction to the resolution of
the stream problems presently before us.
In order to take effective positive action to prevent further
abuse of the streams within San Luis Obispo, abuse which has
led to physical blockage causing flooding; abuse which has
led to pollution causing death of aquatic life and affecting
plant life; abuse which has made our streams litter depositories
and visual eyesores, I propose the following actions be considered
by the City Council :
1 . Re-declare that it is the City's ultimate objective as in-
dicated in the City's General Plan to make multipurpose use
of the stream systems within San Luis Obispo. Such multi-
purpose uses to include, but not be limited to:
A. Natural channels to carry stream water and storm runoff.
B. Natural habitats for aquatic animal and plant life.
C. Natural park elements to give visual relief -to man-made
urban structures.
D. Pedestrian ways to allow people to circulate along
segments of the streams where such circulation would
not be injurious to adjacent properties. _
2. Direct the preparation of a MASTER PLAN with precise elements
which would:
A. Indicate those elements of the stream-creek system within
the City as well as immediately adjacent areas, which
should be preserved in an open natural condition.
B. Indicate the minimum cross-sectional widths (keyed to
plan) needed to carry present and projected storm run
off in channels preserved essentially in their natural
condition. Access for periodic flood control work to
be considered as well .
Page 2
CMayor Schwartz: Stream Proposal
C. Indicate the controls needed and/or enforcement required
to preserve and maintain the streams as natural
fisheries free from pollutants and litter.
D. Indicate how the stream systems can be treated with
landscaping to provide integrated park-like green
ribbons serving both private and public elements of
the City as a visual relief.
E. Indicate those segments of the stream system which
lend themselves to present and/or future development
for public pedestrian uses. Minimum cross sectional
widths keyed to plan indicating priority order that
easements or fee ownership should be ideally acquired
by the City.
3. Upon receipt and review of such plan, refer to the Planning
Commission and to the Park and Recreation Commission for
review and public hearings.
4. Upon receipt of recommendations from these commissions,
hold necessary pubIic hearings to determine public
acceptance of the plan, or modifications thereof, and
C adopt the necessary resolutions and/or ordinances for
implementation.
5. Update the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM to include elements
of such plan into their proper priority position in the
City's fiscal programming for capital expenditures.
4
C
r
I -f 01F SAN IS
0 F F I C E OF THE M A Y 0
POST OFFICE BOX 1328 543 -3765
JuLY 29, 1973
I
MEMORANDUM
TOS COUNCILMEN BROWN, GRAHAM, COPIES$ R. MILLER, J• FITZPATRICK,
GURNEE AND NORRIS A. SHAW, D. ROMERO* R. YOUNG,
MEMBERS OF THE WATERWAYS
FROM$ MAYOR SCHWARTZ PLANNING BOARD
RES THE WATERWAYS SYSTEMS FLOOD PREVENTION CONTROL MEASURES
PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, THIS MEMO WILL BE LENOTHY....ITS BEEN A LONG TIME BREWING.
LIKE YOURSELVES, 1 "AYE BEEN STRUOLING TO GET A HANDLE ON SOME TYPE OF ORDERLY
PROOEOURE THAT WE COULD USE TO RESOLVE THE COMPLEX PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY THE
CONDITION OF OUR WATERWAYS. THE DISCUSSIONS ON OBSTRUCTION ABATEMENT DURING
THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 18 AND JULY 2 AGAIN POINTED UP TO ME THAT WE LACK
A PROCEDURE WHICH WILL PRODUCE A SOLUTION THAT WILL "AVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND AN INTELLIGENT REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.
WE ARE ATTACKING THE PROBLEM PIECEMEAL AND I AM FEARFUL THAT THE RESULTS OF
OUR FRACTURED APPROACH WILL PRODUCE PROBLEMS WITHIN THE CITY THAT MAY WELL
OUTWEIGH THE PROBLEMS OF FLOODING ITSELF,
WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF CONFRONTATION WITH PRIVATE CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN
ORDERED TO REMOVE 009STRUCTIONS." THOSE WHO WERE NOT ON THE COUNCIL AFTER THE
•69 FLOOD ARE NOW GETTING THEIR FIRST EXPOSURE TO THE ECONOMIC, ENGINEERING,
AESTHETIC, SOCIAL, PHILOSS/HICAL, EMOTIONAL AND, YEA, POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS
OF WHAT THESE CONTINUING CONFRONTATIONS WILL BE LIKE• CERT NLY NOT PLEASANTI
FOR ME, THE MOST UNNERVING ASPECT OCCURS WHEN A CITIZEN ASKS — AS 010 MR.
DEPPER — WHAT 00 YOU WANT ME TO 00 AFTER I REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTING WALL?"
(OR TREE OR WHATEVER) IN THE DEPPER CABS, ALTHOUGH NO VOTE WAS TAKEN, IT
SEEMED TO ME THAT THERE WAS OW1401L CONSENSUS WITH THE ABATEMENT RECOMMENDATION
OF THE WPB, BUT M ONE KNEW HOW TO ANSWER MR. DEPPERoS QUESTION.
WE MUST HAVE AN ANSWER FOR EACH CASE — PERFERABLY, ALTERNATIVE 'ANSWERS; WE
CANNOT LEAVE PEOPLE HANGING. THEIR PROPERTY CONDITIONS WILL CHANGE AND THEY
UNDOUBTEDLY WILL Be CONFRONTED WITH COSTS OVER AND ABOVE THE PURE COSTS
INVOLVED IN THE OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL• PEOPLE ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED EMOTIONALLY
FOR WE ARE TINKERING WITH' THE CONDITION OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR IMPROVEMENTS*
LET ME REVIEW THE PROBLEM AB 1 SEE IT$
1. THE 969 ANO *73 FLOODS HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS
INADEQUATE TO CARRY STORMS OF THESE INTENSITIES.
WMOI THE WATERWAYS S?dinw PAGE 2
C29 ~ONE HUNDRED YEAR STORMS~ DO NOT OCCUR BUT ONCE EVERY Oke HUI•nREO 'YEARS.
3. THE PUBLIC 18 SAYING THAT 1T WANTS 80ME PHYSICAL 801.UT10kl 110,:1cH WILL
PROVIDE A HIGHER DEGREE OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
4o THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 18 LOOKED UPON A8 THE POTQN'TIAL SAVIORS
MM UNFORTUNATELY ITS PHYSICAL SOLUTION (OR ITS PORTION THEREOF) 18 A
MINIMUM OF 8 TO 10 YEARS AWAY.
S• IF FORMED. ANY EFFECTIVE ACTION BY A COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IS
STILL A COUPLE OF YEARS OFR,
G. THE TASK FORCE IDEA 18 HOT LOOKED UPON FAVORABLY (AT LEAST BY SOME COUWY
OFFICIALS) AND IT 18 VERY DOUBTFUL THAT THE COUNTY WILL ASSUME ANY
FINANCIAL 013LIGATIONS WITHOUT A SPECIAL DISTRICT TAXING BODY,
T• FLOODING WAS CAUSED BYi
A. TOO MUCH WATER*
8. SAN LUIS OBISPO BEING BUILT IN AND OVER NATURAL WATERWAYS,
C. TOO MUCH FREE DEBRIS 1N THE WATERSHED.
D. WATERWAYS R14088 CAPACITY WERE DIMINISHED BY FILLINGS MIBCF.I'.A!IEOUo
PLANT GROWTHS TREES AND ALL SORTS OF MAN-MADE STRUCTURE-, EITHER
POORLY CONSTRUCTED OR DESIGNED TO 8TA4VARD6 LESS THAN ADEQUkTE To
CARRY THESE STORMS*
8. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WATERWAYS IN THE CITY ANO COUNTY) ARE IN
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
9. ITS DIFFICULT TO CONVINCE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE HILLSIDES THAT FLOCOING
18 THEIR PROBLEM TOO.
10. PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO• E
1. PEOPLE ESPECIALLY DO NOY LIKE TO BE TOLD 1rs!AT TO DO wkk OCtNL ITS
A. COSTS THEM MONEYS OR
Be DEPRIVES THEM OF WHAT THEY HOLD TO OF: YNCIR. Pik"CRTY Rld"'!8•
12, 00%PRONTATIONS BETWV.CN INDIVIDUAL PROYEFTY OW49nS A:;V THE Ctri C5{U140IL
WILL BE LABOROUSt TRYING9 VEXINGS RXH>UBTINGI •AAOOENINGS BIT-..R aN0
PROBABLY UNPRODUCTIOVE UNLESS WE CAN 07TE'6 A Pi AN THAT HE rAN l!NSrP.P"'.ND
AND IN WHICH HE CAN APPRECIATE "IS PART ANI1 PERHAPS EVAN SEE Srimr RENr,p..:5,
13. UNLESS WE CAN oFCEP A WORKAPLE FLANS CIT12CN-couNCIL Ct1NFPGNT/r- IONG
WILL TAKE THEIR TOLL* BOTH THE COUNrfL AND f.ITIZTkS NOT DPRFC'CLY
INVOLVED WILL GROW APATHETIC AND COR'4CTIVE PROJ£C'*'S VILL G£T • ET ASIDE,
ITS A NATURAL PROCESS AFTER ALLS W40/8 CONCERNED ABOUT FLOOD3 WHEN TME
CREEKS ARE DRY AND THE TEMPERATURE RANGES 114 THE 909e:
.. _. . . ..Yy. yr 5. Vii'; •'�" n3'af:� r'"• - Fa.g.a. aaA
MEMO; THE WATERWAYS SNefEM PAGE 3
14. NO WATERWAYS OR DRAINAGE PLAN EXISTS* •
IT APPEARS THAT THE WPR HAS DONE A CONSCIENTIOUA JOB IN SURV£YIYC THE
WATERWAYS 8YSTEM9 DESIGNATING OBSTRUCTIONS TO BE ABATED AND ESIABLISHIN3
STANDARDS FOR OONSTUROTION WITHIN WATERWAYS, THE WPB HAS ADMITTEDLY LEFT
SOME OIFFIOULT ADJUDICATION PROBLEMS FOR THE OOUNCIL. IN MY JUDGEMENTV WE
ARE ILL PREPARED TO COPE WITH THESE PROBLEMS WITHOUT A PLAN, WE NEED A PLANT
1 WOULD PREFER TO SEE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPED ENCOMPASSING THE ENTIRE
WATERWAYS SYSTEM BEFORE AN ACTION 18 TAKERS BUT 1 REDOGNIZE THAT THIS 18
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE OUT TO TIME PRESSURES AND THE W.VC TO RESOLVE AOPEALS ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER BEFORE THE NEXT RAINY BEASON. NEVERTHELESS9 A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MUST EVENTUALLY BE EVOLVED A/O I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOMO SHOWS
�. THE ENTIRE WATERWAYS-DRAINAGE BYBTEM OF THE CITY.
2� THE VOLUMES DF RUNOFF THAT EACH IDENTIFIABLE SEGMENT MUST CARRY TO MEET
THE DEMANDS IMPOSED BY THE *DESIGN STORM" ASSUMING FULL DEVELOPMENT AS
PER THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY.
3. THE ACTUAL RUNOFF CARRYING CAPACITY OF EACH IDENTIFIABLE SEGMENT AND
BTRUCTYRE.
4. THE LOCATION OF EVERY STRUCTUREV TREE OR OTHER OBJECT DEEMED BY THE
WPB TO BE AN OBSTRUCTION.
5• DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE PROMULGATED IN FUTURE IMPROdEMENTE TO ANY
SEGMENT OF THE WATERWAYS SYSTEM,
"VAT 00 WE HAVE AND WHAT DO WE LACK TO PULL- SUCH A PLAN TOGETHERT
�. WE HAVE THE WATERWAYS SYSTEM DELINEATED ON A MAP; I TRUST THAT IT 18
FULLY COMPLETE IN SHOWING EVERY WATERWAY ELEMENT*
2. WE HAVES ACCORDING TO MR, ROMEROs CALCULATIONS SHOWING THE VOLUMES OF
RUNOFF THAT MUST BE CARRIED BY EACH SEGMENT OF THE WATERWAYS SYSTEM.
3. WE DO NOT HAVE ENGINEERING DATA COMPLETED WHICH IDENTIFIES SEGMENT BY
SEGMENT THE CAPACITY OF THE WATERWAYS SYSTEM. THIS 18 BEINC COLLECTED
BY THE SURVEY CREW RECENTLY HIRED AND NOW AT WORK,
4. WE HAVE THE REPORTS OF THE WPB WHICH HAS IDENTIFIED CERTAIN OSSTRUCTIGNs,
WE SHOULD HAVE DATA IN THE ENOINEERlG OPFIOE WHICH WOULD INDICATE THOSE
PUBLIC WORKS STRUCTURES THAT MUST BE CLASSIFIED OBSTRUCTIONS BECAUSE OF
THEIR INABILITY TO DERRY SUFFICIENT FLOWS,
5• WE HAVE SOME DESIGN B'TANDAIIDS RECOMMENDED BY THE WPB; HOWEVER THE*,E ARE
NOT COpPLETE IN THE SENSE OF CROSS—SECTIONAL STAA:OAROB SUCH An THOSE
SNOW IN THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA WATERWAYS STUDY9 NOR DO WE HAVE DESIGN
STANDARDS YET ESTABLISHED FOR BUILDING SETPACKS,
TO SOLVE OUR IMMEDIATE NEEDS 1 THINK THAT WF MAY BE ABLE TO WORK BOTH ENDS
TO THE MIDDLE. i CONCEDE THAT SUCH A pRO0E0URE 18 LIKELY TO PRODUCt Bruit
ERRORS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT I BELIEVE THAT T►dESE
ERRORS WOULD LIKELY BE MINIMAL• 1 WOULD PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING COURSE OF ACTIONS
�• THOSE ENGINEERING STUDIES NEEDEO •TO COLLECT AND TO COMPILE DATA NECESSARY
-MEMO1 WATERWAYS SYst' .i _ PAGE 4
TO PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE PLA'=' BE PUSHED APZAD ►ULL APEE7. fAt"549
SECTIONAL STANDARDS INCLVOING B_'TOACK9 SHOULI BC PREP.-.RED Im-ro1ATTLY
WITHOUT REFERCHOE TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES BUT RATHER FOR 6C%TRA. IZEO
CONDITIONS WITHIN THE WATERWAYS SYSTEM*
2• IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE WPB NAB NOTED OBSTRUCTIONS ANO NO APPEAL HAS
BEEN MADE9 THE ABATEMENT OF THOSE OBSTRUCTIONS SHOULD PROCEED AS A
ROUTINE MATTERe
3, IN THOSE CASES WHERE OBSTRUCTION ABATEMENT IB CCNTEETEO9 THE LOCATION
OF ALL SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE PIN-POINYED ON A MASTER MAP OF THE
ENTIRE WATERWAYS SYSTEM* BASED ON AN ANALYSIS By TKE CITY ENOMCCR OF
THE RELATIVE SERIOUSNESS OF EACH CONTESTED OBSTRItOT10N, :"RIORITIFS
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AND THE WORK SCHEDULES OF THE SVPVEY CREW AND THE
ENGINEERING STAFF RESTRUCTURED TO ALLOW THEM TO CONCENTRATE ON TIE
COLLECTION OR ALL PERTINENT DATA WHICH COULD BE PVT BEFORE THE PROPERTY
OWNER AND THE COUNCIL ALIKE TO DESCRIBE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OBSTRUCTION@
IF ALTERNATIVE SCHEME8 ARE PLAUSABLE WHEREIN THE "OSSTRV'TION"
SAT IN THE CAGE OF A TREE - COMO BE SAVED BY COME PROTP'CTIVE DEVICE
AND/OR BY WIDENING, DEEPENING OR nIVERIING THE CHANNELV SUCH INrORMATION
SHOULD ALSO BE PRESENTED. WITH SUCH INFORMATION BEFORE ITV I BELIEVE
THAT THE COUNUIL COMO ARRIVE AT A PROPER DECISION IN ALL 0OOD CON-
BELIEVE THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE BETTER SATISFIED WHAT-
EVER WAY T:iE DE01810N WENT•
I WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO WORK TO THIS END, WHEN A FULL PACKAGE OF DATA
O 18 COLLECTEDy THEN THE CITY ENGINEER SHOULD PLACE THE OBSTRUCTION APPEAL ON
THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR HEARING•
C '