Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2013 ac schmidt b1Heather From: Manx, Jan JAN 2 2 2013 Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:23 AM To: Grimes, Maeve Cc: Goodwin, Heather AGENDA Subject: FW: Agneda Item B -1 CORRESPONDENCE Date '122-&5- Item #_fl► Pleases include this piece of agenda correspondence in the public record for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Jan Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or(805)541 -2716 From: rschmidt@rain.ore [rschmidt @rain.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:12 AM To: Marx, Jan; Carter, Andrew; dcarpenPslocitv.org; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy Subject: Agneda Item B -1 Dear Council Members, Item B -1 caught my attention because of several oddities in the rationale for its recommendation —the most costly and disruptive of the three Marsh Street bridge alternatives studied. So, three observations: 1. Flow Capacity. The report urges adopting the big engineering solution (the one the engineers therefore prefer) by stating "Placement of the abutments further apart will increase the hydraulic capacity of San Luis Obispo Creek." Uh, OK, probably none of you understand this, so let me explain: That means the preferred alternative would allow more flood water to pass under this bridge, which has never been one of the flow constraints along this section of San Luis Creek. Soundsgood? Sure, except for the fact that just 200 feet downstream from there is the entry to the sub -city tunnel, which is THE flow constraint along all of SL Creek. Water will back up from there and flood the whole of downtown during any significant storm event. So why would you want to increase the flow rate just upstream so more water can get to the tunnel entry constraint even faster, therefore backing up and flooding even more? This makes no sense, and it's hard to understand how any competent engineer could write such stuff, except as a propagandistic way to manipulate the decision makers —YOU. An intelligent flood control solution for this tunnel problem would be to SLOW the flow for a ways upstream to somewhat mitigate the backup of water against the immovable object of that tunnel. Your engineers propose the opposite of this prudent management policy. 2. Engineering Cost Indifference. It is curious, but thoroughly expected given the engineering egos involved, that the preferred alternative is the most costly of the three studied. But it's MOST COSTLY in a most obvious and clearly inappropriate way: You can pay $4,400,000 for an "improvement" with a 100 year life expectancy, or $2,800,000 for one with a 75 -year life expectancy. Uh, just those numbers are shocking enough on their face. Moreso if you think it through. Do the math: You can get the 75 -year improvement for about $37,000 per year; or you can get the 100 -year improvement for that, with each incremental additional year costing nearly double, or $64,000 per year for the final 25 years of life expectancy. Clearly, there's no benefit to spending the extra money for the 100 -year project. Does this recommendation illustrate responsible allocation of taxpayer funds? (And forget the free -money "grant" nonsense; every penny still comes from taxpayers.) 3. Gobbledygook. The report urges the most costly alternative because "the increased channel protection" alleged to be provided beneath the bridge provides "significant benefits to the City." This is nonsense. The existing abutments can be armored to provide equally "significant benefits to the City." Since the skids have been greased for months prior to the public knowing about this, there's little doubt what you'll do, but I wanted to have two cents worth at this nonetheless. Richard Schmidt PS. Of course, it is also remarkable that a National Register eligible city facility should get such short shrift. Staff wants to replace the bridge because, being reactionary, they still believe the biggest new project is the best one, so they hired an engineering firm not noted for finding feasible ways to work with historic structures. This is another aspect of how staff manipulates the process. Your directive to them should have been (and still should be) to find a firm that specializes in historic fabric as their first choice, rather than turning to a firm that comes in with the most costly alternative to totally obliterating historic fabric. Historic preservation seems to be something the city wants to shove down private owners' throats, for the benefit of its tourism business, but is unwilling to honor when it comes to spending money on its own historic features.