Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2005, STUDY SESSION 4 - LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING STUDY SESSION councit MR�D� 2�1�05 j ACenaa nEpoat �N , CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter,Director of Public Works � pp Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Supervising Civil EngineerD� SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING STUDY SESSION CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the results of the Consultant studies for the Laguna Lake Dredging Project. 2. Receive the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the dredging project. 3. Provide direction to staff on issues to be further discussed and any additional information desired when this item returns to the Council in several months. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Laguna Lake dredging has been discussed for many years. The main purpose of the dredging is to increase the depth of the lake to improve recreational opportunities and general health of the lake. The consultants hired several years ago to study the lake and dredging options have prepared three studies for the City Council to consider when making their decision regarding the dredging. The following will need to be considered if the City desires to move forward with the dredging: how much of the lake will be dredged, how the material will be removed and dried, where the material will be disposed of and the impacts,costs and duration of work resulting from the project. The estimated cost to complete some type of dredging project is between $4 and $9 million. The Parks and Recreation Commission has heard this item at three of their meetings, received public input and discussed the issues. The Commission has expressed some mixed feelings about the dredging, mainly due to cost considerations and impacts to the park, although neighborhood support has generally been positive. Attachment 1 provides additional information regarding the background of dredging. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the three technical reports prepared by the Consultant. (The complete technical reports are in the Council Reading File.) Attachment 3 includes the minutes from the three Parks and Recreation Commission meetings where the dredging was discussed. This report sets forth several options developed by the consultant, along with added options developed by staff. For a variety of reasons discussed in the report, none of these options are easy. Laguna Lake Dredging Page 2 DISCUSSION Introductory Comments From the CAO The good news is that the format for this agenda item is a study session, and thus the Council is not being asked to make any final decisions on this very complex matter. The bad news is, this is an enormously complex matter and there are no easy answers. Thus, we are attempting to break our decision-making process into more "digestible" parts, and this first session is really intended to bring everyone up-to-date on the latest information and the nature of our options. Since 2000, added studies regarding the lake and dredging options have been completed and the results of these studies will be reviewed for the Council and public during the study session. The Parks and Recreation Commission dicussion over the course of three meetings will also be shared, and the Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, Pete Dunan, will be present to better describe the Commission's conversation and "straw polls" on various lake and dredging considerations. Staff will also summarize added options and considerations. The truth is that Laguna Lake is a body of water that is slowly filling in to become more of a marsh/meadow. It is estimated that this process will take in the neighborhood of 100 years. Options for "intervening" in this process to preserve the lake are varied, each with their own set of complications and challenges - environmental, fiscal, noise and disruption, and so on. Staff and the consultant will summarize these options and issues during the study session. Among the many challenges associated with dredging, perhaps the most daunting is cost. Given the way local government is funded today (or, perhaps more accurately, not funded), a jurisdiction today would be unlikely to accept responsibility for a feature like Laguna Lake without a special funding mechanism to support its maintenance. A likely mechanism would be a benefit assessment district. Such a district might be structured to assess all residents for some portion of lake maintenance responsibility (since the lake does provide overall community benefits) in combination with "extra" assessments on properties in proximity to the lake, because of the "extra"benefit these properties gain from the lake. However, the City (in other words, the community as a whole) accepted lake responsibility many years ago, prior to Proposition 13 and several other "assaults" on the General Fund, like State raids and various revenue restraining ballot measures. As a result of these assaults, the General Fund has been stretched and strained for years, and is presently under great stress. To be blunt, the General Fund is presently in absolutely no condition to take on virtually any of the major dredging options. This is unfortunate, but as Steve Covey says in his book, The Seven Habits..., good decision-making requires that we "discuss the undiscussables". And there is at least one more... .... which is the option of allowing the lake to fill in and become more of a marsh or meadow area. This is a most difficult consideration for obvious reasons, but it is an option that should at least be discussed in the coming months (but it certainly does not need to be decided at this stage in the process). �- a � 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Page 3 Another matter that could come up during the study session —but is not a study session topic —is the problem of mosquitoes. Staff would like to point out that a Mid-Year budget request will be coming forth later in February to support the County's short term abatement efforts at the lake. The longer term solution, as Council has previously agreed, is the formation of a countywide vector control district. By the time the Council holds this study session, the Board of Supervisors may have already taken action to place district formation on a ballot for voter consideration. With this introduction completed, the report will now shift more toward the study results and major alternatives. Again, while decisions are not requested at this stage, we are hopeful that a direction as to our next steps will evolve from this study session and our conversation. History It appears to staff, after reviewing historical records, that Laguna Lake is a natural formation. Aerial photos taken in the 1950's show the lake in the same basic layout as exists today, in a natural low spot between the Irish Hills and Cerro San Luis. However, the lake collects sediment from the surrounding watershed and that of Prefumo Creek and is now engaged in the natural evolution of lakes. Through the years, they begin to fill with silt and eventually become marshes and then meadows. When the area adjacent to the lake, the Oceanaire neighborhood, developed in the 1960's the lake was turned over to the City for public use. Prefumo Creek was also routed through the lake near this time. Since the construction of the Oceanaire neighborhood, concerns have been expressed by neighbors and the community at large about issues such as insect control and the need to dredge the lake to retain its recreational benefits. Dredging of the lake was considered in the original Laguna Lake Management Plan adopted in 1982. Dredging was not specifically part of the initial recommended management strategy, but rather something for the City to consider in the future to increase the depth of the lake. In 1991, the City Council gave direction to proceed with environmental studies for a large scale dredging project. In 1993 the City adopted the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan, which effectively eliminated using the area identified for dredge spoils by the 1982 Plan. The park master plan identified the proposed disposal area as a nature preserve. The findings of the biological and vegetation studies confirmed that designation because of the plant and animal life in the area. In March of 1999, the City Council held a study session to answer the question, "Should the City pursue some form of dredging project or let the lake become a marsh/meadow over time?" The consensus was to pursue some form of dredging project to maintain the lake as a recreational facility. In December of 1999, the City Council authorized the advertising for a consultant to complete additional studies of the lake and to prepare the environmental document and bid documents for dredging. That work began in late 2000. Given the lack of funding available for a dredging project, these studies were not on the "front burner", and have taken several years to bring forward to Council. A detailed summary of the history of the lake is included as Attachment 1. 4- 3 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Page 4 What are the goals for the lake? This question drives much of the discussion that surrounds the lake. In the Laguna Lake Park Management Plan the goals are listed as Wildlife Preservation, Recreation Enhancement, Shoreline Home Protection and Agricultural Preservation. Comments from the public vary and include concerns about mosquitoes, smell, flooding, recreation uses and, particularly when the lake dries out during droughts, the subject of dredging the lake comes up. Consultant Work Complete The consultant has now completed three,reports to assist the City in evaluating the dredging project. The three reports cover the ecological resources, the characteristics of the sediment and water of the lake and an analysis of dredging and disposal alternatives. These reports are available in their entirety in the Council Office and a summary is included in this report as Attachment 2. What dredging will do The dredging will maintain the lake as a recreational facility for the community. Parks and Recreation is even considering the possibility of stocking the lake for fishing. The lake will also be more conducive to wind surfing and boating. The completion of the dredging will result in deeper open water habitat, less subject to roiling by the wind, which should reduce the turbidity that currently exists at the lake. The deeper, cooler water may also discourage the growth of certain weeds, which need sunlight to grow, and possibly the algae. Finally, increasing the depth of the lake by dredging will increase the likelihood that there will be water in the lake during drought years. What dredging will not do Dredging Laguna Lake is not a storm water management activity. Water remains in the lake during the summer months. This is because the lake bottom is lower than the outlets. Because that water level is relatively constant, the lake can not take in significant amounts of storm water in the winter from the adjacent residential area. Once the lake is full, water begins to back up in the system and flooding occurs. The lake would have to be emptied prior to winter rains to provide any significant flood protection. Dredging the lake will not take care of the reeds and associated mosquito problem along the shore line. Recommendations for dredging are clear that dredging should not start closer than 50 feet from the shore line. The reason for this is to prevent destabilizing the shore. Dredging too close to the shore could result in excessive shore line erosion or collapse. Dredging Components An understanding of the various methods for removal, the options for disposal and the final outcome is necessary to sift through the options and agree upon an alternative that maximizes the things the City wants to achieve for the lake, while minimizing the negative impacts to the community, both human and otherwise. 4, 4 I Laguna Lake Dredging Page 5 There are seven basic components to the dredging project: 1. How much of the lake is dredged (quantity) 2. Material removal technique 3. Material drying technique 4. Material disposal /placement 5. Environmental Impacts 6. Cost 7. Duration. 1. Ouantity How much of the lake we dredge will clearly have an impact on cost. Alternatives 5 and 6 have proposed a reduced dredging area. In general, this approach looks at dredging the lake from above the inlet at Prefumo Creek; to Madonna Road. The other alternatives take the dredging clear out to the northern end of the lake. The delta which has formed at the mouth of the Prefumo Arm has grown to such a size that it now serves as a wildlife habitat.and consulting biologists have recommended that it be left in place. There has been interest expressed in removing it to allow deeper dredging in the Prefumo Arm and reestablishing open water in that area. Based on biological studies, it may be difficult to get approval to do so from regulatory agencies. The City should continue its practice of routine dredging in the arm to remove the collection of material. This helps to control what reaches the lake. 2. Material Removal Technique The material will either be scooped or pumped out. Once the material is manageable, it can be placed at the park or hauled away. The scooping methods reduce the amount of water that is taken with the material. This shortens the drying time. Pumping is accomplished by mixing water with the material at the lake bottom and pumping it to shore. The water content can be as high as 90 percent. 3. Material Drying Technique There are two basic drying techniques. The first method is to use nature to do the work. The material is set out and allowed to drain and dry. The second is a mechanical means. Specialized equipment processes the material through something equating to the spin cycle on a washing machine. The effectiveness can be heightened with additives to absorb water. This equipment is proprietary and can add cost, but the trade off is avoiding the need to find areas large enough to construct drying beds without impacting sensitive species. 4. Material Disposal /Placement Disposal of dredge materials is a significant portion of the cost to complete the dredging. If a location can be found for disposal on the lake property, it would reduce the cost. The Nature Preserve portion of the park is home to various protected plants and wildlife. Portions of the front of the park are dedicated to the memorial grove, with the rest of the park considered the "active" park. There are areas within the active park were spoils could be placed, changing the 4 "<- ' f Laguna Lake Dredging Page 6 contours of the park. This might not be enough to handle all of the spoils but would still reduce the cost of the project. Off-site disposal is an unknown cost. It could be very costly or relatively inexpensive. It relies on available uses at the time the material is removed. In the past, on small dredging projects, the City has left disposal to the contractor-. If we complete the dredging in a short period of time, finding a single location in need of that much material could be difficult. If a site adjacent to the lake could be found and the material used to re-contour the ground, it would be relatively inexpensive. Sometimes use can be made of this type of material at landfills for cover. Probably the worst situation is that the City will have to pay to place it.at the landfill as waste. While it seems extremely odd to put the material back in the lake, that is an option. Alternative 4 proposes that the material would be used to create islands or fill in the edges of the lake to create a different type of habitat from that of open water. The areas would be bermed with rock structures below the water to prevent the material from drifting. Metals in the sediment are not found in extreme amounts and are most likely of natural origins. This finding is based on a review of surrounding rock formations and their makeup. However, if for any reason, the sediment was determined to be "regulated," and require special handling and disposal, the project costs would increase dramatically. Based on the information collected to date and as explained in the Consultant's report, this problem is not anticipated. 5. Environmental Impacts In the short term, the project has the potential for noise, both from the dredging equipment and the hauling of material. This noise could be constant at times. There is the potential for odors and unsightliness if the material is dried at the site. Disruption to plants and wildlife is to be expected primarily as a result of a decreased water surface elevation as water gets removed with sediment. Also placement of the spoils at the park and / or hauling activities can disrupt plant and wildlife as well as park activities. 6. Cost Costs to complete the project have been estimated in the $4,000,000 to $9,000,000 range. 7. Duration The alternatives described in the report vary from 1 to 3 summers, working with aggressive schedules. Less aggressive approaches could easily extend the duration for many years. Dredging.and Disposal Alternatives The.alternatives presented by the consultant in the Engineering Analysis are a mix of quantity, technique, drying and disposal, giving resulting impacts, cost and duration. The alternatives are presented in the Engineering Analysis as a way of looking at the project, but are by no means the only permutations available. 4,- LV i Laguna Lake Dredging _ Page 7 Alternative 1--Full scale dredging with near shore placement and habitat restoration This alternative uses a closed clamshell to scoop the material from the bottom. The closed clamshell minimizes fall back of material into the lake in comparison to an open loader such as those we might use in the street. The material is placed on barges and taken to shore. At the shore, the material is dried and left in place on a large area of the park. The area proposed is a 25 acre site in the Nature Preserve which, while dominated by non-native grasses, is also home to several sensitive botanical species. Significant impact can be expected. The alternative would then include the importation of topsoil for plant reestablishment. Estimated duration - 12 months. Restoration would take several years. Estimated cost $6.9 Million Alternative 2—Dredging_with off-site commercial or agricultural beneficial reuse A special hydraulic dredging and dewatering device is used for this alternative. This is the "-spin cycle" method described previously. The electric remote ability allows 24 hour dredging. The material processed by this method is dry enough to be trucked from the site without separate drying beds. The number of trucks to remove the material is estimated at 30 trucks a day. There is a high probability for concerns resulting from the noise and disruption of the trucking activities. The City will need to locate a receiving site where the material could be used. If the City were able to acquire rights to dispose of the material on one of the agricultural sites that already abuts the lake, the material could be removed directly to the agricultural area and trucking from the park would not be required. Estimated duration - 4 months to perform the dredging with continued hauling for 8 months to dispose of the material. Estimated cost- $6.2 Million plus any costs for reuse site Alternative 3 —Dredging with off-site landfill disposal The material would be removed as in Alternative 2. The difference is in how the material is disposed of. In this alternative, the material is taken to the land fill to be used as cover or paid for as waste. Estimated duration - 4 months to perform the dredging with continued hauling for 8 months to dispose of the material. Estimated cost- $7.5 Million Alternative 4—Dredging with combined on-site island and wetland creation The material is removed as in Alternative 1 with the closed clam shell. The material is dried on a 4 to 10 acre area of the park. Special berms are constructed in the lake and the material reintroduced to the lake to form an island. A portion of the material can be directly deposited back in the lake without drying to create wetlands. Some existing wetlands will be lost if `-t'' A Laguna Lake Dredging Page 8 expansion of the existing peninsula is done, but new wetlands would be created in the upper area of the lake. Estimated duration - 12 months Estimated cost $8.6 Million plus any costs to acquire rights to deposit material in privately owned portions of the lake Alternative 5 —Limited dredging with near-shore placement and habitat restoration This alternative is a reduced version of alternative 1 or 2. It requires an on shore area of 10 to 15 acres combined drying and fill area. Estimated duration— 8 months Estimated cost - $3.9 Million plus land cost if placement occurs off park property Alternative 6—Limited dredging with expanded wetland creation Alternative 6 is a reduced Alternative 4 with wetland creation, but no island creation. This eliminates the need to dry the material if it is to be used for wetlands. Estimated duration—6 months Estimated cost - $6.3 Million Timing Dredging of the lake will require permits from regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers. While permitting is rarely easy, we do not foresee that it will impossible as dredging is routinely done in harbors under Corps jurisdiction. The degree of difficulty to obtain permits will depend on the alternative the City chooses. The project will be more heavily scrutinized and possibly rejected if we negatively impact sensitive species. The greater the impact, the more mitigation will be required, which in turn will increase the costs. If the City Council provides direction to proceed with a specific project this spring, it will probably take at least a year to prepare the environmental document and the bid documents and obtain permits. That moves the project to summer 2006, which is in the second year of the 2005- 07 Financial Plan. Obviously, for the reasons stated by the CAO in his introductory comments, such timing would be extraordinarily difficult from a fiscal standpoint. Parks and Recreation Commission Review Staff presented the project to the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 2°d, October 6`h and November 3rd of last year. The minutes of those meetings are included as Attachment 3. The Commission took testimony during the first meeting, but did not discuss it. For the second and third meetings, staff presented the following six questions to help focus the discussion of this complex issue and gage the Commissions feelings about the project. The `' -q Laguna_Lake Dredging Page 9 Commission created a seventh question themselves. The results of the straw polls at these two meetings are shown after each question. 1. Does the Commission agree dredging of Laguna Lake is an important Parks and Recreation goal? October 4 Yes,3 No/November 3 Yes, 4 No 2. Does the Commission agree dredging of the lake is more important than other improvements in City parks such as upgrades and expansions if limited funds are available? October 0 Yes, 7 No/November 0 Yes,7 No 3. Does the Commission support dredging a portion of the lake, in lieu of the entire lake, as a reasonable alternative to reduce project costs? October 4 Yes, 3 No / November 0 Yes, 7 No 4. Does the Commission support use of portions of the park for deposition of dredged material, and if so, where? October 6 Yes, I No/November 4 Yes, 3 No (The Commission was clear that disposal was in the Active Park area not the Nature Preserve. It would be reasonable to assume before the park was used to accommodate dredging spoils, they would want to see a specific plan of the disposal proposal.) 5. Does the Commission support creation of islands or wetlands in the lake using the dredged material? October 1 Yes,5 No, 1 Undecided/November 0 Yes, 7 No 6. Does the Commission support a long term (over 10 years) project if necessary as a reasonable alternative to reduce project costs. October 2 Yes, 4 No, 1 Undecided / November 0 Yes,7 No 7. Does the Commission support buying adjacent land for deposition of dredged material disposal? October 6 Yes, 1 No/November 3 Yes,4 No The change in the results of the two polls could be attributed to additional time for the commissioners to consider the questions or it could have resulted from the testimony of the public at the second meeting. The Commission expressed mixed feelings about dredging. They are concerned about the cost and understand that the cost will just continue to rise if the project gets put off. However, they are also very concerned about the impact of dredging on the surrounding community and activities at the lake. One clear message from the Commissioners was the unanimous agreement that dredging should not come before other Parks and Recreation needs when funding is limited. Public Input At the goal setting session on January 12, 2005, the Council heard similar input to what staff has received to date. Of the few citizens that have attended meetings to date, the majority speak in favor of dredging. There appears to still be some misconceptions that dredging will take care of mosquito problems or flooding, which it will not. The preference of citizens speaking out appears to be to dredge the entire lake in a relatively short period of time, removing the spoils from the park. This would correspond to Alternative 2 or 3. The creation of islands or wetlands has not been well received because it reduces the amount of open water, and concern that it would increase the breeding grounds for mosquitoes. 4 Laguna Lake Dredging Page 10 It should also be noted that the majority of citizens who have expressed their opinions in favor of dredging are residents that live on or very near the lake. Staff Discussions and Alternatives The City's Natural Resource staff has been helpful in working with Public Works on the project and has not identified any fatal flaws in a dredging project including possible placement of material in the lake. Because of the high cost of any of the dredging alternatives, staff has engaged in considerable internal discussion of the project. While only a full scale dredging project appears to respond to public input, the costs are considerable and can not be ignored. From a public satisfaction standpoint, Altemative 2 is the best project. The lake is fully dredged and the material removed to another site at a cost of about $6 million. Because cost issues are very real, staff has discussed options that would reduce the impact to the budget. These are not alternatives that will likely have much appeal to those members of the public interested in a large dredging project. A. Staff's original proposal years ago was for a small scale, long term, 20 year, project that would be paid for incrementally. This approach can make headway against the sedimentation because of the slow rate of sedimentation. The environmental work and agency clearances would still be required. Staff anticipates the permit process would have to be gone through more than once, as conditions and regulations change. The regulatory agencies would want the environmental work updated periodically. The original proposal made in the mid 1980's was to purchase dredging equipment and hire a temporary staff person to operate it during the summer months. That proposal also proposed using the park for all the material. We could still operate the dredge, but only some of the material could be disposed of at the park and arrangements would have to be made with a disposal site for the rest. A long term project will still impact the park, depending on the quantity of material dredged each year and how it is handled and disposed of. Staff previously estimated the cost at about $200,000 per year with an additional upfront cost of $150,000 for the purchase of a dredge. The annual dollars spent would dictate the amount of material removed each year and so the length of the project. Staff has not developed any detailed budget for this project, but could do so if the Council directed staff spend time to do so. B. Another option for dredging would be to complete work the next time the lake dries out adequately due to drought. This approach would still be expensive and some funding mechanism would have to be in place in advance of proceeding. All environmental work and design would have to be completed in advance and be waiting for the occasion that the lake dried up. If a drought did not occur in the next few years, the environmental work now completed would have to be updated.. This is estimated to cost $150,000 based on the existing contract. If a drought did not occur for many years, the cost is unknown as regulations both on material removal and disposal, could change. c 0 Laguna Lake Dredging Page 11 C. The City's current financial situation may speak to simply postponing consideration of a dredging project at this time. The consultant's reports would be accepted and the completion of the environmental document and dredging,specifications would be put off until such time as a funding for dredging is available. Based on the current expenditures, approximately $30,000 of already budgeted consultant costs would be saved. D. Council could decide that the City will never be able to afford a large-scale dredging project and allow the lake to eventually become a meadow. FISCAL IlUACT The consultants have developed a range of estimates between $4,000,000 to $9,000,000 to dredge the lake and dispose of the material. The current Financial Plan does not allocate any funds for dredging: During the preparation of the last budget, it was decided that the project description was still too tenuous, and the costs too high, to dedicate scarce funding to it. Even the 1982 Management Plan recognized the need for other sources of revenue to finance dredging. Assuming we could qualify for some kind of grant, a review of available grants found that the typical match is 50% agency funds. Another option would be to place a measure on the ballot for approval of a funding mechanism, other than use of the General Fund, for the dredging. However, a single purpose measure would require a 2/3 vote and the project would have to be perceived as the City's most pressing community priority. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Project History Summary Attachment 2 - Project Report Summaries Attachment 3 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes for June 2, 2004, October 6, 2004 and November 3, 2004. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Technical Reports prepared by LFR Levine-Fricke: Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations at Laguna Lake Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake glcunem pmjectstpaft4andscapin0\99110la0una lake dmdgeldocuments%1-staff reports\2-1-05 drape study session.da Shomut on Idriw Laguna Lake Dredging '_. _ Attachment 1 Page 1 PROJECT HISTORY In the late 1970's, due to drought, Laguna Lake dried up almost completely. This focused public attention on the lake and the fact that it had been slowly filling with sediment. In 1979 the City established a study committee which produced a proposed Laguna-Lake Management Program. In 1982 the City Council adopted the puna Lake Management Program. Council direction at that time was to complete mechanical weed harvesting, remove sediment from Prefumo Arm and delta and install a log barrier at Madonna road to adjust the lake level. In 1991, staff returned to the City Council regarding management of the lake. At that time, Council directed staff to pursue the removal of the delta at the mouth of Prefumo Arm and begin the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for dredging 5 feet of material from the entire water area of the lake. The City's adopted management program identified four goals for the lake: • Wildlife Preservation • Recreation Enhancement • Shoreline Protection • Agricultural Preservation The management program identified four activities to achieve these goals: 1. Reduce or eliminated existing aquatic weeds and provide ongoing weed control. This . improves the open water wildlife habitat and reduces nuisance odors. Actions taken: a) Public Works completed weed harvesting for some years. Antiquated equipment made the continuation of this work impossible. b) The lake is now treated with something to kill the algae bloom on an as needed basis. 2. Prevent sediment from reaching the lake. This slows the rate at which the lake fills by providing a place for the majority of sediment to drop out before reaching the lake. Actions taken: a) The Prefumo Arm was dredged in 1983, 1990, 1995 & 2002. b) In 1998,Public Works obtained a 10 year permit to dredge the arm once every 3 years. 3. Preserve lake characteristics important to wildlife,recreation and flood protection. Actions taken: a) Council adopted the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan in 1993 and revisions in 2005. 4. Maintain 3 to 4 feet of lake depth at seasonal low water level. This increases the recreational value of the lake and reduces the weed growth. Actions taken: a) City Council directed staff to move forward with an EIR for dredging the lake. b) Community Development contracted for geotechnical, biological and botanical studies needed to prepare an environmental document on the dredging project. c) Public Works contracted to update and expand the studies and review alternatives for dredging. Three reports were prepared and are summarized in Attachment.B. L( Laguna Lake Dredging _ _ Attachment 2 Page 1 PROJECT REPORT SUMMARIES • Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations at Laguna Lake • Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake • Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredsin¢Operations at.Laauna Lake The study investigated the presence and location of sensitive species and habitat in and around the lake, the potential affect of dredging on habitats and species existing at the lake and related permitting issues. 1. Botanical Species: Sixteen rare plant species, subspecies or varieties of plants have been documented in or immediately adjacent to the park. Of these, none are a strictly aquatic species. a. Most likely impacts of the dredging operation will come from a drop in water level during dredging or if material is deposited on or near plants. Decreased water levels could leave seasonal wetlands dry for too long a period and allow aggressive upland species to overtop rare plants.. 2. Wildlife: Twenty-seven sensitive wildlife species have been identified in or noted as potentially occurring in the park area. a. Most likely impacts of the dredging operation would come from a drop in water level and the associated changes in wetland areas and vegetation. Extreme changes would also affect fish,concentrating them in deeper areas,possibly exposing them to increased predation by birds. Increased turbidity could also affect fish buy clogging gills, reducing submergent vegetation and the ability to forage. Deposition of sediment over land burrows or other habitat areas would displace ground dwelling wildlife. The dredging operations,noise and movement, may disturb wildlife as well. 3. Deposition of Sediment:. Sediment will either have to be placed somewhere in the park property or removed to another site. a. Placement of sediment on the nature preserve portion of the park is expected to increase the non-native weed species as the sediment will serve as a good substrate for germination of seeds from the surrounding grassland. Preventing this will take.a substantial effort of native seeding and weed abatement. Placement would have to be carefully done to avoid the various rare plants and wildlife habitat and if done properly, could create new habitats. If sediment is placed in the developed portion of the park for wind breaks or other landscape features, it can be easily covered with lawn. Island creation will involve planting of native species. It is less likely to suffer from invasion of non-native species because of the distance from the shore. q-( 3 Laguna Lake Dredging ' _ Attachment 2 Page 2 Deposition of sediment in the lake would reduce the area of shallow open water but increase the wetland habitat.. 4. Restoration: Restoration can be accomplished if sediment is placed at the lake; however, it should be expected that it will take several years before the areas are fully restored or used by wildlife. a. Plants: Planting of native species at the site is likely to be costly. Seed collecting should occur in advance. Most likely plants would have to be raised.in a nursery setting,to insure a reasonable success rate, and transplanted. Weed control will have to be done. b. Wildlife: Burrows can be constructed in other areas of the park if impacted by soil deposition. 5. Permits: Dredging will likely require permitting from regulatory agencies. Work will probably be restricted to avoid breeding and nesting seasons. Permits will take a minimum of 8 months to obtain. Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake 1. Chemical Analysis: Lake sediment and water were tested for organic compounds (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC), Chlorinated.Pesticides (CP), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)) as Well as various metals,minerals and water content. a. Sediment Results: No organic compounds of potential concern were detected in any of the sediment samples. Various metals were found in the sediment. Chromium and nickel were particularly high along with magnesium and manganese. The most likely source of metal is the natural bedrock in the hills to the northeast and southwest of the lake. b. Water Results: Toluene, a VOC, and the metal Barium were detected in the water samples, but at a concentration below applicable drinking water standards. Iron and manganese exceeded applicable secondary contaminant levels for drinking water,but these are primarily "taste and odor" standards which are commonly exceeded in untreated natural water. 2. Geotechnical Analysis: The lake sediment is predominately of fine grained material with characteristics representative of clay or clay with sand. The area-southeast of Prefumo Arm has a higher Laguna Lake Dredging _ _, Attachment 2 Page 3 amount of sand, up to 18%. In comparison, the Prefutno Arm is approximately 58% sand. a. Because of the prevalence of clay in the sediment, it has limited value as fill. It can be used as landfill cover or in landscaped areas with amendments. Sediment would need to be reasonably dry to allow landscape use. 3. Agricultural Analysis: Sediment samples were high in water, low in nitrate-nitrogen and high in magnesium and manganese. a. Sediment may or may not be suitable for agricultural use depending upon the types of crops to be planted and the amendments to be added. Sediment would need to be reasonably dry to allow agricultural use. 4. Waste Analysis: Metal concentrations were compared to applicable limits for hazardous waste including leaching and solubility. a. Additional sampling was performed for chromium and nickel because of the high levels; however both were determined to be non-hazardous under accepted State and Federal criteria for waste. EnOneering.Analvsis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake A variety of methods are discussed and grouped into alternatives. New alternatives can be generated by regrouping methods or objectives to achieve the desired project. 1. Methods: a. Mechanical Methods: Equipment that uses a mechanical force to remove the material in a chunk. Material is barged to shore. A closed clamshell is the preferred equipment. i Pros -Minimal water is removed ii Cons - Production is low compared to hydraulic methods iii Change in surface elevation—Estimated at 100 mm b. Hydraulic Methods: Vacuums water/sediment mix through a suction pipe.. Material is typically piped to shore. A Cutterhead Dredge is the preferred equipment. i Pros -Material can be pumped to shore ii Cons -Dewatering time is high iii Change in surface elevation—Estimated at 280mm, until water could be decanted and returned, then 110 mm c. Specialty Methods: i Digger dredge can be used if the lake is dry. ♦ Pros - Virtually no excess water SFr f� Laguna Lake Dredging _. Attachment 2 Page 4 ♦ Cons = Lake needs to be very dry to support equipment ii Dredge and dewatering system uses a hydraulic dredging mechanism with a mechanical dewatering system ♦ Pros—Water is more quickly removed than could be done with a land based drying system. The water is returned to the lake to minimize the drop in water surface elevations. Requires less space on shore. ♦ Cons—Proprietary system ♦ Change in surface elevation—Estimated at 210 mm,until water could be decanted and returned, then 5 mm 2. Sediment Disposal Options: a. Off site Commercial Disposal—Best option is landfill cover b. Off site Beneficial Reuse—Best options appear to be agricultural land or possibly development project fill. c. On-site Beneficial Reuse—The three options have different pluses and minuses and are wetland creation, island creation and near shore placement with restoration 3. Dredging Alternatives—Considerations for selection are: end use; need for dewatering, volume of sediment dredged,production rates, costs, ecological and public impacts. a. Alternative 1 —Full scale dredging with near shore placement and habitat restoration i Mechanical removal by closed clamshell/barges ii Requires on shore drying/deposition area— 10 hectare (25 acre) iii Area is currently dominated by non-native grasses iv Area supports several sensitive botanical species—significant impact expected v Includes importation of topsoil for plant reestablishment vi Dredging for 12 months/Restoration for"several' years vii Cost estimated at $6.9 Million viii Potentially eligible for grants b. Alternative 2—Dredging with off-site commercial or agricultural beneficial reuse i Special hydraulic dredging/dewatering ii Electric remote ability allows 24 hour dredging iii Material will be trucked off site—Estimated at 30 trucks a day iv High probability of noise concerns from trucking v Dredge for 4 months/Haul for 12 months vi Site needed for reuse vii Cost estimated at$6.2 Million plus any costs for reuse site viii Less likely than Alternative 1 to receive grant funds c. Alternative 3—Dredging with off-site landfill disposal i Same as Alternative 2 - i thru A ii Cost estimated at$7.5 Million iii Less likely than Alternative I to receive grant funds �- ccs Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 2 Page S d. Alternative 4—Dredging with combined on-site island and wetland creation i Mechanical removal by closed clamshell)barges (or special hydraulic dredge/dewatering equipment if noise is an issue) ii In lake placement iii Does not require drying for wetland creation use iv Does require drying for island creation use—2 to 4 hectare(4 to 10 acres) v Some existing wetlands will be lost during island expansion vi New wetlands will be constructed vu Cost estimated at$8.6 Million viii More likely than Alternative 1 to receive grant funds e. Alternative 5 —Limited dredging with near-shore placement and habitat restoration i This is a reduced size Alternative 1 (or 2) ii Requires on shore drying area—4 to 6 hectare combination drying and fill area iii Cost estimated at $3.9 Million (+land cost if placement occurs off park property) f:. Alternative 6—Limited dredging with expanded wetland creation i This is a reduced size Alternative 4 with wetland creation only ii Does not require drying iii Cost estimated at$6.3 Million. Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 1 Parks and Recreation Commission MINUTES City-County Library Conference Room Wednesday,June 2, 2004 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Peter Dunan called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Pete Dunan, Commissioners: Gary Clay, Don Dollar, Ty Griffin, John Knight,Jill Lemieux, and Bill Pyper. ABSENT: None STAFF: Director Paul LeSage,Todd Beights, and Cindy McDonald. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 5, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Gary Nichols—San Luis Obispo—would like to see the Laguna Lake Park closed earlier. 1. Volunteer of the Month Postponed to next month. 2. Directors Report LeSage briefed the Commission on the dates of the Department's Staff Meeting and Park Tour. 3. Staff Reports Todd Beights,Parks Maintenance, updated the Commission with various park projects. 4. Committee Reports Commissioners gave reports on Committees they attended. ■ Tree Committee—Staff reported status ® Joint Use Committee • Mayors Youth Task Force—Dunan ■ Jack House Committee—Pyper ■ Open Space—Dollar ■ . Golf—Lemieux ■ Therapy Pool—Staff reported status ■ Landscape Parkways—Clay 5. Communications None. 6. Laguna Lake Park Master Plan LeSage presented the staff report. Chair Dunan opened the item to Public Comment. 1. Shirley Walker — San Luis Resident — would like the park to stay passive. (gave a written statement). t Laguna Lake Dredging _ i Attachment 3 Page 2 2. James Fickes — San Luis Obispo Resident — daily user; uses all aspects of the park. Is not a proponent for baseball, softball, or tennis courts — feels sound will travel quickly across the lake. Would like plantings for birds and wildlife but also liked the elimination of pond. He would like a natural amphitheatre and would like the park to stay a passive park and keep the current character. 3. Marian Nelson—San Luis Obispo Resident—spoke in favor for more facilities for exercises,would like the tennis courts, it would improve the property values, and she enjoys the dog park. 4. Luzette Graves—San Luis Obispo Resident—daily user of park and open space, and is a dog owner who uses the park daily. Feels it is a wonderful gift for having a place for dogs. Would like to see it a permanent element in the park. 5. Justin Zeikler — San Luis Obispo Resident —would like the continued dog park access continue bicycle access. 6. Theadore Jones—San Luis Obispo Resident—is in opposition to tennis courts. 7. Kent Tayler— San Luis Obispo Resident- is happy with the way it is. Would like to see changes acquiring the Duvall property, a floating bridge access, Cerro San Luis Obispo Mountain added to the park, and acquire more land. He feels it is too windy for the recreation uses. 8. Kathy Kimball—San Luis Obispo Resident—regular user for 6 years with a dog. Would like to see the Plan state there is a permanent dog off leash area. Would also like better traffic flow and signage in the park. 9, Victoria Mederith— San Luis Obispo Resident- in favor of off leash dog park as there is only one dog park in the City. El Chorro is not an alternative—not a city dog park—summer fee. Feels that seniors use the park a lot. 10. Kim Witters—San Luis Obispo Resident—dog owner, who used the dog park, recommends speed bumps and keeping the area open. 1.1. Joanne Williams—San Luis Obispo Resident—dog owner,.happy that the dog park will stay in the Plan. 12. Brett Cross — San Luis Obispo Resident —park is extremely utilized, only area to have a passive area. This is tremendous asset to the community. 13. Jim Foley—San Luis Obispo Resident—agrees with everything—not in favor of tennis or softball fields,Would like the road continued around the boat area, boater to use the lake, gazebo wrap the road around, restroom between the gazebo and lake, bike loop and wheelchair accessible. Regarding dredging: likes the idea of berms and wind breaks. 14. Marie Foley—San Luis Obispo Resident— opposed to a sport facility because of the impact to the park. Does not like any building on the Plan, considers it a habitat. Likes the low impact use-has some ideas: signage, move the road, dredging, dog park permanent, memorial grove, no sports facility. (gave written statement) 15. Susan Trion —San Luis Obispo Resident—dog park user three times a week would like to make the off-lease dog park part of the permanent Plan — would be okay with tennis courts if the dog park stayed. Speed bumps should be put in. Stated the more people use the park the more the park will be supervised. 16. Paul Boniour—San Luis Obispo Resident—adamantly opposed to any sports facility—wants Fish and Game involved. Feels a sports complex would change the character. Feels there is a preconceived notion or plans for the park. Would rather see changes in the Garcia property 'o(r'on Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 3 the golf course. 17. Jan Simek—San Luis Obispo Resident—Does not want tennis courts, wants a nature park. 18. David Bradie — San Luis Obispo Resident — daily user, agrees with passive nature open space, no planned activities.. 19. Katie Peters — San Luis Obispo Resident — (President for SLO Girls Softball) — would like more fields, thanks to the Joint Use Committee for the money to play at Cal Poly. Would like more support in the City for fields. 20. Steve McMaster—San Luis Obispo Resident—daily user of the off leash dog park and a proponent of the dog park—maybe some symbolic fencing. Feels there needs to be more signage for the off— leash area,would like to keep the park in a passive use. 21. Nick Marinkovich - San Luis Obispo Resident — loves the dog park, keep it as is but would like speed bumps installed. 22. Rich Kriet— San Luis Obispo Resident- (Joint Use Committee member) speaks in favor of more tennis court for the community. Supports sports fields. 23. Ron Regie r—San Luis Obispo Resident—(Youth Sports Association)—respects the opinions of the people, however, feels there is a demonstrated need for the softball/youth sports facility. Would like to think about a complex for the young people. (gave a written statement from Cal Ripkin). 24. Karen Roth —Los Osos Resident— (tennis instructor) Feels there is a need for more tennis courts. Supports the dog park. 25. Craig Williams— San Luis Obispo Resident — feels it would be a mistake if the park were turned into a sports complex. 26. Timothy Ohm—Grover Beach Resident—daily user of the park in all aspects, loves the it way it is, oppose to ball courts, diamonds, dredging is okay, is a dog park user,would like a spot.for the dogs in the water. Invited the commission out there 3-5 pm any day. 27. Dick.Brav—San Luis Obispo Resident—(active tennis player) lives across the lake, wants the park passive. Does not support tennis courts in Laguna Lake Park. 28. Janet Kourakis — San Luis Obispo Resident — tennis player — feels there is not enough tennis courts, spoke about conflict with the courts. 29. Scott Cleere— San Luis Obispo Resident—tennis enthusiast feels the need for more tennis courts. (gave written statement). 30. Susanne Kosaka—San Luis Obispo Resident?—likes the park area and is avid dog park user. 31. Marina Cardin —San Luis Obispo Resident—loves the lake, likes the bird life, however, does not like the dog chasing the geese, not opposed to the tennis courts. 32. Glenn Carlson — San Luis Obispo Resident — should be retained as a passive park—knows about the need for ball fields, and has reservations about the traffic that would it add. Feels that ball fields will change the character of the lake,is in opposition of any changes. Obispo Chair Dunan closed the item to Public Comment. Written statements addressed to the Commission to be added to the minutes 06.03.04—Chair Pete Dunan Laguna Lake Dredging _ Attachment 3 Page 4 06.02.04—Sarah McCandliss—supports the off-leash dog park. 06.02.04—Ann Calhoun—supports the off-leash dog park 06.02.04—Eva Vigil—supports a passive use park 06.02.04—Anne Schwab—supports a passive use park 06.02.04—Saeed and Shohreh Niku—supports a passive use park 06.02.04—Leslie Sands—supports a passive use park 06.02.04—Marianne Danner—supports a passive use park 06.02.04—Steve Davis—supports an active use park 06.02.04—Mbuchman—supports an active use park 06.02.04- Dodie Williams—supports a passive use park 06.03.04—Nancy Harper—supports a passive use park 06.04.04—Emily Hoyt—supports the off-leash dog park 06.07.04 0 Lucinda Cyr(sp?)—supports the off-leash dog park 06.15.04—Nancy Williams—supports a passive use park 06.21.04—Elaine Schmidt—supports a passive use park No date—Ron Tindall—supports a passive use park 06.02.04—Pricilla(no last name given)—supports apassive use park Recommendation: No action nor discussion from the Commission. Matter continued to the August meeting. 7. Laguna Lake Park Dredging LeSage introduced Barbara Lynch, Supervising Civil Engineer who presented the staff report. Commission discussed the item. Dunan opened the item to public comment 1. Brett Cross—San Luis Obispo Resident- concerned about the silt, showed pictures, worried about the arm of the lake. 2. Keith Kidwell—San Luis Obispo Resident—Does not like the idea of a marsh, asked to remove the reeds out of the lake because of the West Nile Virus. 3. Marie Foley—wants to the dredge the lake, for the long term health, does not want the cove areas filled, and is okay with the dredging but not stretching over 15 years. 4. Robert Johnson — San Luis Obispo Resident —Think it is important that the lake be dredged, was on the Master Plan implementation.in 1998. Agrees that mosquitoes are a problem right now. 5. Glenn Carlson—Commented on the plan. Dunan closed the item to public comment Recommended Action will be continued to the September meeting: Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page S Commission discussed item and gave staff direction to come back in August and bring it for discussion. Provide direction to staff on options to dredge Laguna Lake and dispose of the dredged material. 8. Adjourned The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm to the July 14,2004 Park Tour meeting. Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 6 Parks and Recreation Commission MINUTES Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street Wednesday, October 6, 2004 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Peter Dunan called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Pete Dunan, Commissioners: Gary Clay; Bill Pyper, Don Dollar, Ty Griffin,John Knight, and Jill Lemieux. ABSENT: None STAFF: Director Paul LeSage,Nicole Adler,Ashley Blake and Cindy McDonald. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the September 1,2004 meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Mane Foley - commented on staff needing to post the agendas on the website prior to the meeting dates. Commission directed staff to honor the request. 1. Volunteer of the Month Chair Dunan presented Bob Nanninga as the Volunteer of the Month. 2. Special presentation by Alyssa Miller,Teen Idol winner 3. Trout About Downtown Project LeSage introduced Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst and the Fish Commish, who presented the staff report. Commission discussed the item. Recommendation: Support the use of Mission Plaza as a site for the temporary display of Trout About Downtown "fish art". (GriffinAxmieux: unanimous). 4. Laguna Lake Park Dredging Lesage introduced Barbara Lynch, Supervising Civil Engineer,who presented the staff report. Public Comment. Jim Foley — San Luis Obispo resident spoke in favor of dredging the lake .and encouraged the Commission to consider the complete project. Commission discussed item. r Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 7 Reopened Public Comment: Jim Foley — San Luis Obispo resident, added that he is opposed to anything that will reduce the surface area of the lake unless it is the only option. Marie Foley— San Luis Obispo resident, commented that she encouraged people to not come to this meeting since her and her husband represented the group. Also, she expressed the concern that the community living next to the lake is being discounted since they live near the park. The petition presented at the September meeting has.more than half of the signatures of people not living at or near the lake. Commission voted on the seven questions presented in the staff report. 1. Does the Commission agree dredging of Laguna Lake is an important Parks and Recreation goal? (4—yes; 3—no). 2. Does the Commission agree dredging of the lake is more important than other improvements in City parks such as upgrades and expansions if limited funds are available? (no—all) 3. Does the Commission support dredging a portion of the lake, in lieu of the entire lake, as a reasonable alternative to reduce project costs? (4—yes; 3—no). 4. Does the Commission support use of portions of the park for deposition of dredged material? (6 —yes; 1 —no). Where? (all opposed the natural preserve; 6-1 agreed on the active park). 5. Does the Commission support creation of islands or wetlands in the lake using the dredged material? (1 —yes; 5—no; 1 —undecided). 6. Does the Commission support a long term (over 10 years) project if necessary as a reasonable alternative to reduce project cost? (2—yes;4—no; 1 —undecided). 7. Does the Commission support buying adjacent land for deposition of dredged materials? (6 —yes; 1 -no) Recommended Action: Provided direction to staff on the dredging of Laguna Lake. 5. Laguna Lake Park Master Plan LeSage presented to the Commission this item. Committee discussed the item. Recommended Action: Recommended to the City Council that the Laguna Lake Master Plan be amended as follows: 1. Remove the Adventure Playground and Pond elements from the plan. (Dollar/Pyper; unanimous). 2. Make the Off Leash Dog Area a permanent feature in the park. (Knight/Pyper; unanimous). 3. Add a Disc Golf Course to the park. (Griffin/Pyper unanimous). Public Comment. Jim Foley— San Luis Obispo resident, wanted to make sure that nothing new was added to the Master Plan besides the points specified clearly by staff. 4- �, Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 8 Eva Hill — San Luis Obispo resident, concerned about the random tree species planted in the Commemorative Grove. Scott.Martin—County resident, supports the efforts made for putting a disc golf course in the park. 6. Directors Report LeSage briefed the Commission on the following projects: ■ Major City Goals ■ Landscape Parkways Taskforce o Upcoming Commission Agendas ® Volunteer Awards Dinner ■ The Senior Brochure ® Damon Garcia Maintenance 7. Staff Reports Nicole Adler,Recreation Supervisor,presented the staff report on the 2004 Teen Idol Program. 8. Committee Reports Commissioners gave reports. ■ Tree Committee—Dollar ■ Joint Use Committee— ■ Mayors Youth Task Force—Dunan ■ Jack House Committee-Pyper ■ Open Space—Dollar ■ Golf-Lemieux ■ Therapy Pool— ® Landscape Parkways- Clay & Griffin 9. Communications None. 10. Adjourned The meeting adjourned at 10:03 pm to the November 3, 2004 meeting. l ' � Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 9 Parks and Recreation Commission MINUTES City/County Library Conference Room, 990 Palm Street Wednesday, November P.2004 7_00 p.m, CALL TO ORDER: Chair Peter Dunan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Pete Dunan, Commissioners: Gary Clay, Bill Pyper, Don Dollar, Ty Griffin,John Knight, and Jill Lemieux. ABSENT: None STAFF: Director Paul LeSage, Linda Fitzgerald, Christine Wallace, and Ashley Blake. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the October 6,2004 meeting were amended and approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Marie Foley—commented on the correction of minutes. Jim Foley — stated the Library conference room should have signs for citizens to find with more ease and the website should have more of a direct path for agendas to be found. 1. Volunteer of the Month Chair Dunan presented John Pastori as the Volunteer of the Month. 2. Banner and Flag Policy LeSage introduced Linda Fitzgerald, Recreation Manager,who presented this staff report. Commission discussed the item. Recommendation: Approve revisions to the City's Banner and Flag Policy and Procedures. (Griffm/Pyper: unanimous). 3. Laguna Lake Dredging Project LeSage presented this staff report. Public Comment: SLO resident—stressed importance of dredging to keep the lake health. SLO resident—encouraged Commissioners to go through with the dredging. SLO resident—supported dredging. Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 10 SLO resident — encouraged Commission to dredge the lake to prevent another federal disaster when rain begins. SLO resident—urged for the lake to be dredged to converse the beauty it gives to San Luis Obispo. SLO resident=wants the lake dredged to preserve the park and park activities. SLO resident—asked for Commission to save the lake. SLO resident—questioned what dredging actually means and the hazards that could occur if dredging is not done. SLO resident—requested Commission to listen to the input of the people. SLO resident—stated dredging needs to occur because the lake is continuously getting smaller. Commission discussed the item and answered the questions. 1. Does the Commission agree dredging of Laguna Lake is an important Parks and Recreation goal? (3 -yes;4-no). 2. Does the Commission agree dredging of the lake is more important than other improvements in City parks such as upgrades and expansions if limited funds are available? (no-all). 3. Does the Commission support dredging a portion of the lake, in lieu of-the entire lake, as a reasonable alternative to reduce project costs? (no- all). 4. Does the Commission support use of portions of the park for deposition of dredged material? (4—yes; 3—no). Where? (all opposed the natural preserve). 5. Does the Commission support creation of islands or wetlands in the lake using the dredged material? (all—no). 6. Does the Commission support a long-term (over 10 years) project if necessary as a reasonable alternative to reduce project cost? (all—no). 7. Does the Commission support buying adjacent land for deposition of dredged materials? (3 —yes;4—no). Recommendation: Provide further direction to staff related to the Laguna Lake Dredging by providing the Council with the votes on the seven questions involved in dredging the lake. 4. Major City Goals LeSage presented this staff report. Rich Kriet, JUC member, presented Commission with the JUC's Major City Goals. Public Comment: SLO resident — commented on the implementation of an all-weather field/track at San Luis High School. SLO resident — presented findings on a public survey where parents felt more sports facilitiesare needed in our community. SLO resident—recommended that the Laguna Lake dredging project be made a city goal. SLO resident—asked for the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan to be considered as a major city goal. t' Laguna Lake Dredging Attachment 3 Page 11 SLO resident—encouraged dredging as a major city goal to decrease the population of mosquitoes and increase the activities in the park. Commission brainstormed and discussed item. A vote was taken where each Commissioner had four votes towards eleven suggested goals. The following six were chosen by three votes or more: 1. Implementation of the Laguna Lake Master Plan 2. Maintenance and enhancement of existing parks and fields 3. Increase programming for youth,teens, and seniors 4. Appropriately equip and staff Damon Garcia 5. Add new tennis courts to single courts 6. Holt Field joint use project Recommended Action: Make a recommendation/s to the City Council for Major City Goals. 5. Directors Report LeSage briefed the Commission on the following projects: ■ Upcoming Bishop Peak Maintenance Project ■ Opening of Damon-Garcia Sports Field ■ Status of Prado`-`Spruce Up"design ■ Next month's Commission Agenda 6. Staff Reports Christine Wallace,Recreation Supervisor,presented the staff report on the Tractor Rally. 7. Committee Reports Commissioners gave reports on Committees they attended. ■ Tree Committee—Dollar o Joint Use Committee—Knight ■ Mayors Youth Task Force—Dunan ■ Jack House Committee—Pyper • Open Space—Dollar ■ Golf-Lemieux ■ Therapy Pool— ■ Landscape Parkways- Clay/Griffin 8. Communications None. 9. Adjourned The meeting adjourned at 9:51 pm to the December 1,2004 meeting. 4, Db