HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2016 Public Comment, Ashbaugh (2)COUNCIL MEETING. CJ 7.�7 ?.�I�•
ITEM NO.:
From: Ashbaugh, John <iashbaugh@sioJty.o>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: Recommendations for Council direction on Laguna Lake (item 8 on tonight's agenda)
To: Gallagher, Carrie <c alla her slocit .or >
I plan to speak to this message to staff this evening. I'd meant to have it printed out prior to the
meeting but failed to get that done. Could we either:
1. Get 6 printed copies done before Council deliberations? Or
2. Display it on the screen?
Thanks!
JA
Get Outlook for iOS
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ashbaugh, John" cjashbaugh(@slocity.org>
Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:54 PM -0700
Subject: Recommendations for Council direction on Laguna Lake (item 8 on tonight's agenda)
To: "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtlg@slocity.orY>, "Hill, Robert"<rh ll gslocity.org>, "Johnson,
Derek"cdjohnson(a@slocity. org>
After considering the vast array of materials that we were given last week on this project, and
the substantial public comment on the staff recommendation, I'm going to recommend that my
colleagues on the Council consider the following additional direction for staff in the next steps
for this project:
1. Consider the use of recycledwaterirom the City's WRRF to stabilize the lake level.
Rationale: The exposed lakebed apparently presents a risk to park users and to
neighbors of airborne particles of chromium and/or nickel from the naturally -occurring
sediments in the lake watershed. This risk is reduced when the lake is full.
A series of questions will need to be addressed here, of course, including (but not limited
to) the following:
a) Would the use of recycled wastewater have any significant impact on existing
beneficial uses of the lake, including water contact sports like swimming and boating?
On shore fishing? And,
b) Would these impacts — if any — still occur with the improved water quality when we
have completed the WRRF upgrade?
2. Consider the use of artificial islands within the lake for deposition of dredged sediments.
Rationale: Islands would appear to be the least environmentally -harmful solution to
disposition of dredge spoils, if they are properly designed and constructed. The islands
would provide an enhanced habitat for many species of birds. A permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers/US Fish and Wildlife Service could be pursued; if denied, at least we
would have tried. Similar nearby projects such as Meadow Creek in Grover Beach have
proven their success. The use of islands would eliminate the need for hauling to Cold
Canyon landfill, which generates GHG emissions from the hauling trucks. There are
concerns about the use of these sediments to fill artificial islands within the lake, from
windborne dust on a dry surface with no vegetation that might expose park users and
neighbors to adverse levels of chromium and/or nickel — however, it would appear that
those concerns would apply equally to the exposed surfaces of the Cold Canyon landfill.
The real concern is the possibility of the City acquiring additional liability from its
construction of these islands; however, are we merely transferring this liability to the
operators of Cold Canyon? Should we make this important decision merely because a
licensed landfill operator is willing to assume that liability (and because the landfill
neighbors are not residents of the City) ?
Finally, an engineering question: Why would the dredged lakebed sediments need to be
dewatered before being deposited on the islands? According to the 2009 staff report
prepared by Principal Engineer Barbara Lynch, "A portion of the material can be directly
deposited back in the lake without drying to create wetlands." If that "portion" is big
enough, wouldn't we save money on the dewatering process?
3. With respect to financing, staff should pursue a citywide assessment district with bond
proceeds to be paid off from an ad valorem tax on all properties in the City (rather than a
parcel tax).
Rationale: Such a tax would appear to be the most equitable, in that it would do the best
job of capturing the additional benefits from an improved lake for nearby lakeshore
residential properties. Moreover, all City property owners would share in the costs,
inasmuch as all residents and many businesses would benefit from the enhanced lake.
Thanks,
John Ashbaugh
Council Member
= ' CITYOF
S,+ n Luis OBisFo
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ashbau h slocit .or
T 805.781.7122
C 805.550.7713
slocity.org