HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2009-04-20 (02) tAKE°sty
to.3 Planning and Building Services
TEW) MEMORANDUM
oREGos
To: Elizabeth Papadopoulos,Maintenance Director,
Stephanie Wagner,NRAB
Bill Gaar,NRAB
Grant Watkinson, SAB
Craig Diamond, SAB
CC: Tim Kraft, OTAK
From: Jonna Papaefthimiou,Natural Resource Planner
Date: April 14, 2009
Subject: Clean Streams Work Group Meeting Summary
The notes below summarize discussion at the April 2, 2009,joint NRAB-SAB work group
discussion of the draft Clean Streams Plan
OVERALL REMARKS
The Clean Streams plan is intended to establish a vision, an approach, and move us in the
right direction. Because of the time it takes to develop a plan and the time it is in place,it cannot
encompass the newest technologies or approaches. It can make room for those by setting the
broader vision
There has been a lack of leadership in the Clean Streams process overall. Individual citizens
generally engaged the planning process only to advocate for one specific issue (drainage problem on
their street) or professional interest (stream restoration). Council attention has been sporadic. At
the same time,NRAB and possibly other interested parties were not clearly invited to weigh in.
Utility plans are by their nature conservative;utility systems are huge and long-lived, and
changes are incremental.
The current Plan is strongly oriented towards Capital Improvement Projects.
There are limited resources to implement the entire plan.
KEY IDEAS FOR PLAN REVISION
The Plan could benefit from re-organization of existing elements:
• Sustainability should come early on,not in the last chapter
• Definition of terms should come early on,not at the end.
• The Executive Summary should begin with the vision and goals.
Outreach should be a higher priority.
• Public education should be added as a goal (or sub-goal to avoid re-organizing the Sounding
Board).
• Funds dedicated to public education / outreach will likely achieve more water quality
improvements than the same amount spent on a specific construction projects—especially at
the outset,moving from zero outreach to some outreach.
• There is a willingness to drop specific constriction projects to provide funding for public
education / outreach. However, dedicated utility funding may not be transferable to
education programs.
• There may be possibility to add outreach without much additional budget cost (without
needing to touch capital projects).
The CIP prioritization in the Plan should be more clearly and explicitly linked to Plan goals.
Plan should clearly emphasize importance of LIDA approaches and building code revisions
and note that City should be moving in this direction—but don't need details. May reference
existing manuals of best practices / model codes.
Plan should identify consequences for inaction (e.g. falling behind other cities,possible legal
action,increasing costs to achieve same outcomes).
PROGRAM IDEAS - FOR CONSIDERATION
Retrofits / programs to encourage changes to existing structures are key because the City is
mostly built-out:
• Home audits could help people get started / identify most effective interventions.
• Small grants would incentivize improvements.
• Existing/ planned programs water conservation and nature-scaping audits could be tied
to clean streams audits.
• Existing Neighborhood Improvement Grants could be tied to Clean Streams small
grants.
An Oswego Lake Watershed Council could catalyze projects and leverage City money with
grants from other sources.
BIG PICTURE ISSUES
Plan points to need for vision / guiding principals to be embodied in Clean Streams and in
other programs, such as:
• Other utility system plans (transportation, sewer,parks)
• LOIS project
• Community Forestry program
• Natural Area Parks Planning
• Sensitive Lands Program changes
• Infill Rules changes
• CIP Planning