HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDcrossb3From :Brett Cross[SMTP :BRETTCROSS@YAHOO .COM ]
Sent :Sunday, August 15, 2010 8 :52 :55 P M
To :Council, SloCit y
Cc : Richard Schmid t
Subject :Laguna Lake Dredging Item B-3
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
~PrI.
ere Cirri
1:AQ, G A-cwt
B'ATTORNEY
GrCLERK/OPICI
q DEPT HEAD SP//
14 LuV
—Nl 7 -r1al
$‘,O Ctrit /t S
ErCDD DI R
CrFIN DI R
[FIRE CHIEF
L3"PW DI P
El-POLICE CH FCECDIF4
C CJTIL DI R
Fl DI R
Cow ocrc.
Gtrtr
C c ~r2~c
I would like to express my complete and utter dissatisfaction regarding the staff repor t
that has been prepared for the Laguna Lake dredging project . Not dissatisfaction with th e
fact that staff is recommending that the dredging project be postponed, most likel y
indefinitely, but the way that staff has gone about "creating" their recommendation wit h
glaring omissions, fabricated conclusions, contradictory statements, scare tactics tha t
are unwarranted, a lack of alternative funding concepts, and the list goes on and on .
It is really interesting that the staff report doesn't even mention the Laguna Lake Par k
Master Plan community workshops where participants overwhelming indicated that th e
Lake needed to be dredged . Is that honest?. The 1982 Laguna Lake Master Plan wa s
created because the lake dried out (I believe it was 1975 or '76)and the concern didn't
just somehow go away until future droughts awoken the public to the issue, not just are a
residents . Throughout the report staff continues to make it seem that only lake resident s
are concerned about the future of Laguna Lake . Staff may want you as council member s
to believe it, but that perception is absolutely untrue . It's true that the public has bee n
worn down and worn down some more from meeting after meeting regarding th e
dredging issue and have basically given up attending another "useless" meeting, If thi s
council made it clear to the public that the City is truly interested in seeing a projec t
move forward you would see the public support .
Here's the actual language from the 1980 Laguna Lake Management Plan . It would b e
well worth your effort to read it . "that Laguna Lake be restored to provide th e
recreational opportunities afforded in the past, while preserving the widlife habitat whic h
is recognized as an important aesthetic, educational, scientific and recreational resource ."
Since a couple of you don't have historical knowledge of the recreational opportunities I
think it would be easiest to describe the Lake prior to the report as a miniature version o f
Lopez Lake without the motorboats . The staff report references at 1950's Laguna Lak e
Committee reporting to the Council which states that "a very intensive use was bein g
planned for the park including boating and swimming in the lake ." I'm not too sure what
staff is trying to make you believe . I do know that the original developer, Ray Skinner ,
had envisioned water skiing and a "kiddie Marina" in the Peninsula Inlet area of the lake .
However, staff is making it appear as though there hasn't been, or there wasn't publi c
support for swimming or boating . I can tell you that as a youngster I swam in the lake al l
the time . I can also tell you that there the lake was frequently used by sailboats . Thes e
uses only stopped as the lake became more and more shallow and the water qualit y
declined significantly .
RECEIVE D
AUG 16 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE soul/roITEM #53
Staffs comment that the 1982 plan didn't propose dredging as the first plan of action i s
correct but staff omitted the Lake Management objectives ; which include "MAINTAI N
3 TO 4 FEET OF LAKE DEPTH AT SEASONAL LOW WATER LEVEL (i .e level o f
lake surface in late fall)." In order to meet that objective dredging is discussed as a
means of achieving that objective . The Lake Management plan is based on meetin g
objectives not whether a particular plan of action should be place in some sequentia l
order .
Where the report really borders on the edge of completely lying through omission begin s
with point 4- Potential for a Smaller Lake . "The most common theme of public comment
(the majority of which is from owners in the Oceanaireneighborhoods) is to "save th e
lake ." It appears to the public that the lake is getting smaller ." Go back to the 1993 Par k
Master Plan and look at the community workshop results . Not to the survey which staff
is using to show that the only residents concerned about the "appearance" that the lak e
getting smaller are Oceanaire residents . By the way the lake has silted in significantl y
where the Prefumo Arm use to began and there is now land where the Central Area of th e
lake once was . The lake is getting smaller . That's a fact .
I love it that the staff includes a comment regarding "In reviewing notes from both Park s
and Recreation Commission and Council meetings, there were no comments fro m
individuals saying they wanted to enjoy some particular activity on thelake and were
unable to do it because of the condition". Really, do really believe that . Oh, and since th e
Parks and Recreation Commission doesn't tape their meetings I guess all anyone can us e
for reference is their notes . Staff also indicates though the 1993 Park Master Plan surve y
that was conducted of park users "It would appear from this information that the lake as i t
is today, provides the habitat and the appearance that is wanted by the majority of th e
park users ." That is a completely inaccurate conclusion from that report, and you kno w
it as well as myself.
The staff also indicates that the lake is of reasonable depth to allow boating to take place .
"The most recent depth survey, shown in Attachment 3, shows that the lake ha s
reasonable depth for low draft water craft to traverse much of the lake . The City's ow n
maintenance craft goes out periodically on the lake without incident ." So the City has
taken out their new fancy pontoon boat, like twice now, and it's deep enough (once wit h
the new City Manager). That proves it right there . I don't think so . Try going out in th e
fall . I went out in my fancy new kayak last year and there were few places in the Centra l
Area of the lake and the Peninsula Inlet where I wasn't scooping up mud with my paddle .
In fact I went "a ground" on way back from the Northwest portion of the lake . I'm
guessing that they staff was smart enough to stay out of the extremely shallow areas tha t
are found throughout the lake-especially with the new City Manager aboard . If any o f
you are interested I'll be more than happy to take you out on the lake and you can see for
yourself, at this point I wouldn't trust staff with anything they are telling you . The whol e
Depth Survey information and it's accompanying conclusions are a complete fabrication .
The staff report states, "but there have also been voices in opposition, notin g
environmental impacts and other priorities in the city's parks that need to be funded . In
the past the Parks and Recreation Commission, although not opposed to dredging, ha s
expressed a concern that spending money on the lake would take away from highe r
priority recreation programs ." A long time ago there was one resident that lived in th e
Laguna Lake neighborhood who opposed the dredging concept and up until the last
meeting where Andrew Christie from the Sierra Club opposed a dredging project I don't
know of these voices . I will comment regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission
meetings regarding the dredging project . They were a complete farce, in fact I sent a n
email to the City Attorney regarding possible Brown Act violations because is appeared
as though the commission members had discussed the project with each other privately
and had already come to a conclusion prior to their vote .
Like I said the staff report is pretty much complete nonsense and if that isn't enough to
convince you that the project needs to be at least postponed the staff clearly points ou t
that they don't have the time and if the City doesn't complete Hydromodificatio n
Management Plan as part of the Stormwater Management Plan implementation in th e
next 2 years as required by regulatory authority of the Regional Water Quality Contro l
Board . This effort is a very high priority to the Regional Board, thus increasing th e
likelihood the City would be fined if it fails to comply . Plus dredging wasn't a measure Y
priority and on an on . How much many more times is staff going to beat this dead hors e
before they stop?.
Now on to a little more positive approach to how the City can save a truly uniqu e
resource that has incredible value to the City if you just had the vision to see it . Like I
said Laguna Lake was a miniature Lopez Lake with all the recreational benefits tha t
Lopez provides County residents without the power boats . Additionally Laguna Lak e
had a much more diverse waterfowl than Lopez Lake . All that's been pretty much los t
due to the lake silting up . I don't think that is up for much debate . The issue is ho w
much "real" community support there is for dredging if the residents have to pay for th e
project through a parcel tax . A parcel tax is pretty much the only way that this projec t
can be funded even with matching grant funds . I believe the Council needs to use th e
exact same method that was used to pass measure Y and direct staff to survey the publi c
on how much they would be willing to pay annually and what that total amount would b e
to get the project started . Then create a group of citizens to act as a campaign committe e
to get a ballot measure passed .
Sincerely ,
Brett Cros s
1217 Mariners Cov e
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405