Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2010, B3 - LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING counck 8/17;10 j acEnba Repom amN CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING RECOMMENDATION Suspend work on the Laguna Lake dredging project until such time as there is broad public and Council support for prioritizing funding for dredging in the city-wide goal setting and financial planning effort as evidenced by allocating City funding resources and/or grants that cover project costs. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The dredging of Laguna Lake has been reviewed several times by the Council over the last few years culminating in the approval of an environmental document in December of 2009. At Council's request staff did some additional research on the project to provide Council with information to make a final determination on whether or not to move forward with the project, and if the decision is to move forward, what activities would be undertaken.. The information requested includes information on the practicality of the proposed dredging method, discussions with adjacent property owners as to their willingness to accept dredge material, grant funding opportunities, if a smaller lake is an alternative, and what ongoing maintenance would be needed once the dredging was done. Staff is recommending that no further work occur on this project at this time so that available resources can be applied to Measure Y priority projects, and projects associated with Council Goals, and Other Important Objectives. DISCUSSION Background Laguna Lake first appears on the City's "radar" in the mid 1950's with the Laguna Lake Committee reporting to Council on proposals for land acquisition, and lake and park development. Residential development was occurring in the area and, through the first park master plan, a very intensive use was being planned for the park including boating and swimming in the lake. Circa 1980, the community saw the lake go nearly dry during drought years and was concerned. The first management plan for the lake was developed in 1982 and while discussing dredging as a potential action, did not go so far as to propose it as a first plan of action. Instead, the management plan recommended that the Prefumo Arm be dredged regularly, weeds harvested, and additional water impounded at the end of the rainy season. G C� Laguna Lake Dredging Page 2 Circa 1990 the lake experiences another drought, drying the lake and generating renewed concern from area residents. A new effort was started at the City to explore the possibility of dredging, only to become a victim of budget cuts after which the project was dormant for several years. Neighbors approached the City again during a budget goal setting activity in the mid 1990's and put the lake dredging back on the radar. The Council allocated funding to provide consultant studies and potential methods for completing the dredging. The Council reviewed those options and requested a number of additional investigations on options and related issues over the last several years. Ultimately, Council agreed to have staff work toward finalizing the environmental document based on a broad project description that could encompass a variety of issues for study and mitigation determinations. That document was prepared, reviewed, and provided to Council in November of 2009. Recent Action On December 1, 2009, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Laguna Lake Dredging project outlined in the environmental document. Council also gave direction for staff to return with the following information. 1. Review alternatives for dredging with someone experienced in dredging projects to verify that the approach defined by the consultants and recommended by staff was grounded in practicality. 2. Discuss with the property owners of larger parcels in the immediate vicinity of the lake their interest or willingness to accept dredge spoils as a way to minimize transportation and disposal costs. 3. Determine if grant funding is really a possibility by exploring the potential grants available. 4. Review the potential to have a smaller lake. 5. Review future maintenance costs. Staff has included the report from the November 17, 2009 Council meeting, continued to December 1, 2009, (Attachment 1) as the report and attachments provide considerable history on the discussions surrounding the dredging. Staff was also requested to provide the technical studies prepared as part of the dredging project in the Council reading file. Below are discussions of the follow-up items requested by the Council. 1. Method for Partial Dredging The City was fortunate in that the dredging of the Morro Bay harbor was occurring at the time staff received direction from Council. The owner of the dredging company agreed to meet with City staff at Laguna Lake to discuss the potential project. The discussion confirmed that the City's plan of dredging using a hydraulic dredge and looking for close disposal sites is practical. The representative from the dredging company indicated that hydraulic dredging is significantly cheaper than mechanical dredging. Hydraulic dredging combines the sediment with water and pumps it to the shore which is different than mechanical dredging where the material is scooped out with large equipment and hauled it to shore on a barge. Hydraulic dredging also has the advantage of being quieter and less polluting because of the electrical equipment it uses. He indicated the City could expect unhappy neighbors in the event it chooses mechanical dredging operations. He felt it would not be feasible to work in the lake bed after pumping the water out, because equipment would become mired in the lake bottom. He confirmed local disposal is the C J Laguna Lake Dredging Page 3 key to keeping costs down. He also noted that we should expect that the park roadways would have to be reconstructed. Staff also had a discussion regarding material removal if the lake dried out during drought conditions. He felt it may be possible to take equipment out on crane mats, but the contractor would have to figure out how to work in the mud once the initial dried surface was removed. There are special trucks that can go out on the dry lake bed, but they are not suitable for distance travel so the material would have to be transferred to regular trucks for any hauling out of the park. Each transfer of material takes time and manpower,which translates to cost. 2. Disposal Potential on Properties Close to the Lake Staff contacted all the large property owners near the lake. One property owner was not interested in the material and another was not responsive to staff contacts. The remaining two properties, owned by Dan Devaul and the Twisselmans, offer the largest potential as disposal sites for the dredge material. Both property owners are generally accepting of the idea of receiving the dredge material on their property and neither have any plans to date that would create issues with the City's timeframe for completing this work. Both property owners expressed the desire for their properties to be annexed to the City and expected the City to be responsible to obtain all necessary permits for placement of the material on the properties. Staff did not discuss the details of an agreement between the City and the property owner and made no commitments on what the City might agree to. The City could expect to have to pay for disposal based on quantity, if annexation as compensation is not a viable option. The timeline and processes needed for annexation do not appear to align with the timeline for dredging in the near future. If dredge material is place on these properties, it will likely be placed and remain on these properties permanently. If the City is able to come to a final agreement with either of these property owners for depositing dredged material on their property, the material should be deposited outside of the 100-year flood plain (Attachment 2) to prevent increased flooding risk to the Oceanaire area. If the City is able to deposit the material outside the 100-year flood plain, the same volume of flood water can be stored in the area without the risk of additional flooding of others during a 100-year storm event. These areas are generally steeper and will present a greater challenge for disposal than the lower lying areas in the flood plain. This dredge material will need to be placed, compacted and vegetated in such a manner that reduces the likelihood of being redeposited into the lake by rain events. If it is necessary to deposit this dredge material inside the 100-year flood plain, a detailed hydraulic evaluation of the area would need to be completed to more accurately delineate the 100-year flood plain and consider modifications that could be completed downstream to mitigate this deposit of dredge material. Any changes to the 100-year flood plain will require the City to complete the process for a Flood Insurance Rate Map revision through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Whether the City or the County was the regulating authority for this activity would be determined by the location of the disposal site. The City is, of course, also a large property owner near the lake and could be a potential disposal site. City property adjacent to Laguna Lake is classified as either Nature Preserve or Active Parkland. During development of the technical studies, the Parks and Recreation Commission Sag Laguna Lake Dredging Page 4 did not support placement of material on the Nature Preserve portion of the park, although there was a majority willing to allow for some active park placement. The active park placement was discussed as two mounds of dredge material permanently placed. Council authorized the use of five acres of the Nature Preserve for temporary use as drying dredged material, but did not support the proposal outlined in the 1982 plan to permanently place all the material on 25 acres of what is now the Nature Preserve. If the Council now supports that, there will be restoration required. This option was discussed in the Engineering Analysis as Alternative 1 and 5, and has an estimated cost of $4 to $7 million depending upon how much of the lake is dredged. The Nature Preserve is largely outside the 100 year flood plain. 3. Potential Grant Opportunities Staff contacted a company that provides grant identification and grant writing services to supply some expertise on what grants may have potential for the dredging project. The grants identified at this time fall into two broad categories, environmental and recreation. Staff had researched grants in prior years and determined that those available for this type of work generally require a 50% match. The grants researched most recently also require a significant match. The grant that appears to align most closely with the project is one offered through an Army Corps of Engineers program. The Army Corps grant objective is to use dredged material to produce high value environmental outputs in a cost effective manner. Benefits of the project must exceed the cost of construction, including project maintenance. High project disposal costs (over 25% of the total cost) are considered an indicator that the project is not cost effective. Currently the estimated disposal costs for the City's project are around 50% of the total project costs assuming disposal of dredge material in a landfill, indicating the project would be viewed by the Army Corps as having low cost effectiveness. This disposal cost may be reduced by utilizing neighboring properties as disposal sites for dredge material. Additional project study and environmental work would be required to comply with the grant conditions. The City must. agree to maintain the project after completion and pay 100% of the maintenance associated with the project. The grant provides a 75% match but only for any incremental costs over those that would be normally incurred for the work. The creation of wetlands is the portion of the project that would be eligible for the grant. The City would be eligible for approximately $970,000; however, because of the high cost of the wetland creation, even with the 75% grant funding, disposal costs would be about $240,000 higher than the cost to take the material to a landfill. Given the high disposal costs for the project in general and the small portion of the spoils that would go toward wetland creation, it does not appear the City's application would be highly competitive even if the City wanted to fund the higher cost disposal option. The other grant which appeared to have potential is one geared toward recreation enhancements in areas identified in the State's recreation plan. One of the top activities listed in the State plan is swimming. This grant is a 50% match. The dredging project would have to be geared to providing swimming which would mean shoreline improvements with depths adequate to reduce suspended sediment levels. At this point the City does not have adequate data to determine if swimming could be reasonably allowed over the long tern. This data gathering and analysis is likely to be expensive and will take time to gather. Moreover there are operational issues that should be considered (is this a recreational amenity of the highest priority and therefore funded Laguna Lake Dredging Page 5 at a time of limited operational funding availability) before pursuing this type of grant. There is also a possibility that this grant would be shifted to the National Park System program, federalizing the project and dictating the need for a Federal environmental document, in addition to the added review needed to provide shoreline improvements. The heaviest points for grant prioritization are allotted for meeting state, regional and local recreation needs. Assuming the City's project rises to the top of any grant, and a grant is received, General Fund money would need to be appropriated for the project. The amount would be unknown until the grant award amount was determined. A grant may require a 50% match, but that does not mean that the grant will provide 50% of the total cost of the project. If less funding was received, the City may be able to limit dredging to match the funding received, as long as the promised project goals could be met. The project would likely have to be completed as a short term dredging project rather than the longer term project currently envisioned by the Council and environmental documents. 4. Potential for a Smaller Lake Council expressed an interest in exploring the idea that there would be a smaller lake that could be maintained with dredging. The deepened part of the lake would probably be the area close to the active park near Madonna-Road. The dredging project is flexible and could be of any size the Council wanted to pursue. As this project has evolved in different directions over the years, it has been a project of varying sizes. The most recent discussions have been along the lines of dredging to develop a nine to ten foot depth for the lake, going as far north as the tip of the peninsula. Dredging can occur in any quantity that meets the goal of the Council for the lake, but based upon the dredging limits and proposed depth, it is estimated that the removal of 150,000 to 160,000 of material is required. The last set of clearly defined goals adopted by the Council were done as part of the lake management plan in 1982. The four main goals were: Wildlife Preservation, Recreation (boating, fishing, wildlife education) Enhancement, Shoreline Home Protection, Agricultural Preservation. It is unclear if a small lake would address the primary concerns expressed by the public. The most common theme of public comment (the majority of which is from owners in the Oceanaire neighborhoods) is to "save the lake." It appears to the public that the lake is getting smaller. This may be because the edges are shallow and are developing more reedy type growth so the areas of open water are smaller. This could be aggravated by the fact that the City no longer impounds water above the outfall elevation. Dredging a small lake would still leave the remainder of the lake to fill in. Only those properties in the vicinity of the dredged area would see a change. There are occasional comments, from the public regarding mosquitoes and the potential for flooding. Mosquitoes will not be addressed with dredging, regardless of whether the City dredges the whole lake or a small portion, because of the need to stay away from the shoreline to prevent destabilization. Removal of shoreline vegetation will also not be addressed by the project as currently defined. Once the lake fills each year, it no longer provides storm water storage capacity. In reviewing notes from both Parks and Recreation Commission and Council meetings, there were no comments from individuals saying they wanted to enjoy some particular activity on the lake and were unable to do it because of the condition. The 1993 Park Master Plan survey that 46u3.1 Laguna Lake Dredging Page6 was conducted of park users showed the largest number of users said they wanted the park to be used for natural wildlife. Enhanced water activities was near the bottom of the survey priorities. The majority of those surveyed were at the park to "stroll." Water related activity use was also near the bottom. It would appear from this information that the lake as it is today, provides the habitat and the appearance that is wanted by the majority of the park users. The most recent depth survey, shown in Attachment 3, shows that the lake has reasonable depth for low draft water craft to traverse much of the lake. The City's own maintenance craft goes out periodically on the lake without incident. Only the most northern areas and along the Oceanaire neighborhood shore line, show a lake level below the 4' mark relative to the level at which it spills. At the end of the summer, the deep area is reduced, but there is still a significant area that can be used for shallow draft crafts. This depth information would indicate that a small deeper lake is not needed for the types of watercraft using the lake. Using information from the 1957, 1977, 1992, and 2001 elevation surveys, the central part of the lake near the delta at the entrance of Prefumo Creek, is filling with sediment at an average rate of 0.14' per year. The northern parts of the lake are filling with sediment at a rate of about 0.04' per year, and the area of the lake near the boat launch at a rate of about 0.08' per year. The composite of these sediment fill rates provides the projection of the lake being filled up by 2100. Certain areas will fill in sooner than others. Some areas may never fill if they are cut off from the sediment stream. However, in a drought the lake largely dries out. Based on historical patterns of citizen concerns, it may be that this drying out, rather than a desire for depth for recreation, is the driving force behind much of the desire of the community to dredge. Access to the lake water in a drought would be limited because the shorelines would not be dredged so the water would be some distance out from the shore. As stated above, to complete the small lake dredging project would likely require the removal of .150,000 to 160,000 cubic yards of material from Laguna Lake, but Council could craft an even smaller single year project for further evaluation. The project work could be tailored to the funding level Council allocates. Assuming that it would likely cost around $50,000 for a dredging contractor to mobilize to Laguna Lake and estimating that it could cost around $45 per cubic yard of material dredge out of the lake; a limited project could be scoped at: Funding Amount Dred ed in cubicyards) $100,000 1,111 $300,000 5,555 $500,000 10,000 5. Ongoing Maintenance Once the initial dredging is complete, the City could expect to have to perform maintenance dredging once every five years based on historical fill rates, at a cost of approximately $250,000, assuming the City has acquired the equipment. The alternative is to leave it to a future generation to deal with the maintenance dredging issue when the lake filled to an unacceptable level. Recommendation �d Laguna Lake Dredging Page 7 What was not concluded at the last Council meeting was a clear statement regarding Council support for this endeavor. Staffs sense is that the Council is deeply concerned about the cost and so has spent a considerable effort trying to find the cheapest, most efficient, and most palatable way to dredge the lake. The possibilities have ranged over the years from a long term dredging project operated by the City with disposal at the park, to a short term project with a contractor and water extraction to allow quick removal to another site. Even a project which dredges only part of the lake and allows disposal on site, is likely to cost $4 million. Unless a high reimbursement grant becomes available, there will still be significant General Fund costs associated with this work. Another issue that Council should consider is the overall City benefit gained by dredging the lake and maintaining it in that condition. There are obvious high costs to completing this complicated project, but does the community believe that it is a high priority? There have been consistent voices supporting the project over the years, but there have also been voices in opposition, noting 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, has expressed a concern that spending money on the lake would take away from higher priority recreation programs. Staff has recommended discontinuing work on this project at this time to allow limited resources to be applied to higher priority work in support of Measure Y, Major City Goals, and Other Important Objectives. The project can be restarted in the future at Council direction, perhaps when a clear funding source is available, or when there is evidence of broad community support for lake dredging and the corresponding activities that will be realized with a deeper lake. Any option that continues work on the project will require staff time. Staffs highest priority is to deliver Measure Y projects and projects with grant funding deadlines. Public Works has an additional responsibility to develop a Hydromodification Management Plan as part of the Stormwater Management Plan implementation in the next 2 years as required by regulatory authority of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This effort is a very high priority to the Regional Board, thus increasing the likelihood the City would be fined if it fails to comply. To support Measure Y and meet compliance requirements in the stormwater program, staff recommends that staff resources be allocated for projects that have strong Council and community support. The Measure Y survey did not show the lake dredging as a high priority. The needed Council decision at this point is not about how a dredging project should or can be done, but if resources should be allocated to pursue this work at this time given community priorities and all the factors regarding the work that have been reviewed:and discussed to date. FISCAL IMPACT There are no immediate costs associated with the recommended action. The alternative actions have direct staff impacts and small to significant cost impacts. The project has a current balance of approximately $30,000 available to support consultant services for further action, or to be placed in completed projects to support another, higher priority project. Laguna Lake Dredging Page 8 As outlined in the attachments to the November 17, 2009 report, the cost for the project ranges from about $4 million to $9 million depending upon how much of the lake is dredged, if some disposal is included at the park, and where the remaining material is disposed of. If maintenance of the lake is to be done, additional costs would be incurred at regular intervals. Once available space at the park had been used for disposal, all future material would have to be disposed of elsewhere. ALTERNATIVE Continue work on the project. There are a variety of options to continue work on the project, several of which were outlined in the November 17, 2009 Council Report (Attachment 1 — Page 7) and include pursuing establishment of an assessment district, pursuing grant funding, launching a citizen engagement process, pursuing adjacent property disposal, and preparing a Capital Improvement Plan project request as part of the 2011-13 Financial Plan. The first four options will require consultant service assistance given current staff work loads. The funding available in the project budget should be adequate to provide the necessary assistance for all but the property disposal which will likely involve hydraulic analysis and mitigation work. The last option, preparation of Financial Plan documents, is a staff commitment. Only if the project is approved through the budget process would there be a direct dollar cost associated with it, either as a fully or partially(grant assisted) funded project. ATTACHMENTS 1. November 17, 2009 Agenda Report & Attachments &November 25, 2009 Follow-up Memo 2. 100 Year Flood Plain 3. Lake Depths (2001 Survey) AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Laguna Lake Management Plan (1982) Technical Reports prepared by LFR Levine-Fricke: 1. Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations at Laguna Lake 2. Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake 3. Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake kkounal agenda reportMpuWic works carN20101ap\9911011 dredgeW11011 dredge rpt.v2.doo Attachment 1 council Mn"u Nt N November 17,2009 j ACEnoA Pwpout 1�Numb.. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 31-06) for the Laguna Lake Dredging project, Specification No. 99110. 2. Provide direction to staff on next steps. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Over several years, staff has provided a discussion of dredging and related issuea for several Council study sessions, Parks and Recreation Commission meetings; as well as collected input from the community, generated technical reports through consultants, and developed alternatives to complete the dredging of Laguna Lake. (Attachment 1) Staff has provided a summary of many of the items discussed over this period (Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5), including general information about dredging and dredging alternatives, other related issues, and public input. At the September 6, 2005 study session, the Council authorized staff to proceed with development of the environmental study for the project. The Council endorsed a general project description presented by staff for purposes of completing the study shown in Attachment 6. Staff was clear at the time that the project may change in the future, and the environmental study might need to be updated; however, the project description would include the most likely project elements to maximize the benefit of completing the document. Most recently the document was updated to meet the requirements of the California Global Warming Solution Act, targeting green house gas emissions. Project Description Summary As outlined in greater detail in Attachment 6, the proposed project is to continuously dredge the lake for twenty-two weeks annually for the next ten years. This should result in the removal of 150,400 cubic yards of silt and other material at the end of this ten-year period, which will lower the average depth of the central lake by about 1.5 feet, for a resulting average depth of about 9 feet. Dredged materials would be disposed of via a combination of the construction of berms in the active park, wetland creation (filling in low areas of the lake near the peninsula,) and offsite disposal. At the end of the ten-year cycle, it is likely that the City would need to begin maintenance dredging to keep the lake at the new depth. In summary, with this approach, maintaining the lake is likely to be an ongoing operation indefinitely. Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 2 Based on this ten-year approach, the "mid-range" average annual cost estimate is $460,000, summarized as follows in 2009 dollars: MAnnual Cost Estimate id-Range lease-purchase payment for equipment* 40,000 Staffing 135,000 Silt disposal 240,000 Other costs 45,000 Total $460,000 *Based on purchase cost of$300,000, 5%interest rate and ten-year term As discussed in Attachment 5, the cost could be different, depending on how much of the lake is dredged, how quickly, and how the material is disposed of. Feasibility Assessment The Initial Study provides the information that the project, as described, is feasible as long as reasonable care is taken to protect the environment. It does not address the feasibility from a funding perspective. The Initial Study resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. Mitigation measures are incorporated in the Resolution to approve the environmental document incorporated in this report as Attachment 7. This report, the attachments, and the Initial Study provide historical context and technical information. It must be noted that the project is subject to regulation and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. It is anticipated that further detailing of the manner of dredging, configuration of the temporary basins, and ultimate disposal of dredge spoils will be done to provide further reduction of environmental impacts of the project as part of the permitting process. The heart-of-the-matter is really about our vision for this body of water as a park amenity over the long term, and whether or not the vision is achievable and sustainable. It is not just the initial dredging that is required, but ongoing dredging to maintain the lake depth. In order to answer this core question it may be necessary to engage a broad cross-section of the public(and not only lake area residents) to study the issue, the options and the level of community support for the various options. An alternative is provided in the staff report that would make a citizen engagement process the next step. Prior to considering the options, it is important to outline the early history of the park, including how the lake came about. Staff has also included information to refresh Council members on dredging methods and related issues, including dredging alternatives and rough estimated costs, in the attachments. The Initial Study and companion documents also provide significant amounts of technical information. This report is organized to provide this information as follows: Staff Report: Historical context, status and"next step" alternatives ga3�o Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 3 Attachments: Project description and negative declaration resolution, summaries regarding dredging and related issues; 2004 Parks and Recreation Commission and public input; dredging and disposal alternatives detailed. Council Reading File: Historical park plans and environmental technical studies DISCUSSION Background and Historical Context History bears out that this has been one of the City's more challenging projects to bring to completion, and so staff has been looking deeper into the history of the park and lake to better understand its beginnings, the original intent, and the City's obligations. The history of the lake not only gives the Council a frame of reference for how the City got into this position, but helps understand the community interests and how they have changed over time. 1. The first Laguna Lake Committee and Laguna Lake Master Plan - 1955-1964 Council records indicate that in 1956 the Laguna Lake Committee reported to the Council its recommendation to proceed with lake development and property acquisition. At that time, the City owned a portion of the property, but not all. Adjacent property owners were not interested in developing a lake for a recreational area then. The Council supported the Committee's recommendation for the park, including pursuing condemnation of properties if necessary. The original vision of the lake appears to have come about through the Laguna Lake Committee and the development of the first Master Plan for the park. More commonly known as the Hector Plan, named after its author, the Master Plan outlined a very developed park estimated to have 10,000 visitors a day, 500 of which were sightseers only. The park was envisioned to include_ conversion of the marsh to a lake and included the following vision: A take "...filled frequently to capacity with ... boats," with sheltered coves, fishing, boat launching and docking, a 1000 foot long swimming beach sheltered by vegetation and fencing and accommodating 1000 people at a time, a golf course, a peninsula for fisherman, picnickers, and "strolling visitors," a club house with a social room, restaurant, snack bar and park office, a tot lot, a dancing and skating facility, ping pong tables, junior museum, senior citizens building and facilities, playfields for football, softball, volley ball, and lawn bowling, along with horseshoe pits, handball and shuffleboard areas, a nine hole golf course and driving range, a fire circle, outdoor amphitheater, camp-out areas, archery range, hiking, and picnic facilities for 300 families and a group picnic area for 600. In 1964, the Council adopted the Hector Plan for a balanced recreational use of the property. When looking out across the park today, it is possible to see how that vision started to take shape: 1. The lake was partially dredged out to assist adjacent property development 2. Additional properties were acquired 3. Roads and restrooms were installed /3a5 �� Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 4 4. A play ground and some picnic tables were installed 5. A boat launching area was built 6. Trees were planted to begin the landscaping that would provide shelter from the wind 7. The outflow from the lake was controlled to store more water 2. The Laguna Lake Management Plan— 1979-1982 In 1982; a separate Laguna Lake Management Plan was completed for the lake only, separate from the prior park master plans which address the park as a whole. In that plan, community desires for the lake were condensed into four essential goals, wildlife preservation, recreation enhancement, shoreline home protection and agricultural preservation. The plan identified a variety of potential uses of the lake including: 1. Shore Fishing 2. Boating 3. Swimming 4. Open-Water Wildlife Habitat 5. Bird Watching 6. Riparian Wildlife Habitat 7. Sediment Retention The management program adopted by the City Council at that time included only two measures to be undertaken by the City, maintenance of the Prefumo Creek sediment basin and control of aquatic weeds by mechanical harvester. Some of the programs for lake management discussed in the study included dredging; however, the Council did not adopt any of those programs at the time. The management plan identified the following objectives, which dredging could assist in achieving: 1. Increase the depth so that in dry weather water would remain in the lake 2. Reduce aquatic weeds 3. Prevent sediment from reaching the lake 4. Preserve the characteristics of the lake that are important to wildlife, flood protection and recreational opportunities The City has pursued the adopted management program For many years after Prefumo Creek was diverted to flow through the lake, silt transported down from the Irish Hills accumulated in the Prefumo Arm, gradually filling that area and effectively. reducing the surface area of the original lake. Regular projects to remove silt from the area near Los Osos Valley Road have prevented more sediment from reaching the lake. While the delta that has formed at the mouth of the creek, where it reaches the lake, is not popular with some local residents, it probably serves to slow water in the Prefumo Arm and allow it additional time to release sediment. Fine silts, suspended in the water, still reach the lake, which is the source of much of the turbidity (cloudiness) when the prevailing winds blow. Aquatic weeds were harvested for several years. They are now not the problem they were at the time the management plan was developed. Actual harvesting of weeds has not been done inmany years. Reeds along the lake edge continue to grow and will until such time as the City invests in a removal operation. The reeds grow in 39-1.;2- r-. I .Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 5 shallow water close to the shore, an area not suitable for dredging because of potential for shore destabilization and erosion. Dredging, although not identified in the originally adopted program, will certainly deepen the lake and reduce the likelihood of it going dry. This original plan envisioned a long-term project whereby material would be dredged from the lake each year, dried and disposed of on site. That. plan acknowledged that: "Due to cost, it is not considered feasible to transport the material away from the disposal site." Discussions continue today on how to accomplish this. The proximity of the lake to the surrounding open space in and near Cerro San Luis contributes to the ongoing presence of wildlife at the lake. Whether we have a lake or a marsh, wildlife will continue to be a part of the park(and lake) environment. 3. The Laguna Lake Master Plan In 1993, when the next Laguna Lake Park Master Plan was completed, an on-site and telephone survey ranked expanded use for natural wildlife as the number one priority. Clearly the vision had changed from a very developed and heavily used active park represented in the original Hector Plan, to one that was passive in nature. Even the name of the park was recommended to be changed to Laguna Lake Nature Park. That plan also established the Nature Preserve area of the park. The lake itself has remained at the heart of discussion over the years most likely because whether the park is a highly developed park with thousands of people, or a park supporting wildlife, the lake is a part of the vision. At least for some members of the public, there is a fear that the lake will gradually fill in because of sediment deposited by Prefumo Creek, and there is still a desire that the lake be available for recreation. The drying-out of the lake during droughts also draws concerns from those advocates of the lake as a recreational resource. For those whose vision is solely for a nature preserve/passive setting, the loss of the take seems to matter less. 4. Previous Council Direction After the completion of the Laguna Lake Management Plan and at the urging of members of the community, the Council authorized an environmental study with the assistance of outside expertise. Cutbacks in funding resulted in that effort going uncompleted for several years. Council action in 1999 confirmed their intent to maintain the lake as a recreational facility and resurrected the effort to explore the possibility of a dredging project. The Council allocated approximately $200,000 in funding over a two year period and staff obtained the services of a firm to complete various technical studies and produce the environmental document. During the preparation of the most recent technical studies, Council direction was to look at a short term dredging project to see how that might be accomplished. After reviewing technical studies and costs, the Council directed staff to return to the slower, long term dredging concept for purposes of the environmental document. This concept is described in more detail in the project description, but in summary it details a seasonal removal of material with an electric dredge, stretching over 10 years, costing approximately $2 million over that period to operate the dredging and drying program, with additional costs for disposal. The dredging would have to A tfa.chment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 6 eventually become a maintenance dredging program if the money invested was to be meaningful. Just like streets,the condition will deteriorate if maintenance is not ongoing and the money spent initially to complete the dredging would have been wasted. The other major, and very significant change in terms of cost since dredging was originally proposed in the Laguna Lake Management Plan, was the designation of the nature preserve area in the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan, which severely limited the area (25 acres) originally identified in the for large scale disposal of dredged material. The Council did ultimately authorize the use of 5 acres for drying operations, but this would be suitable only for the longer term/low volume dredging operation, with the area used for drying beds. Environmental Document The environmental document is a Mitigated Negative Declaration of an Initial Study. It was made available for public comment as required and is now ready for Council approval. Staff recommends approval of the document, even though there is no dedicated funding for any project because the document is the culmination of several years of work on technical documents, Council Study Sessions, and revisions. Although the City did not have funding allocated for dredging at the time the direction to move forward with the document was made, staff recommended the development of a project description and completion of the document for two reasons: 1. The completed environmental document would provide information on whether it was possible to reasonably mitigate the work. 2. Possession of a completed document could assist the City in obtaining grant funding if a suitable grant source was located. Several mitigation measures have been identified, which are specified in the Council Resolution for approval, Attachment 7. In general, the mitigation measures cover a series of requirements to be used in guiding the work to ensure the impact of the project is minimized to the largest degree possible: 1. The measures are standard practices seen in grading projects and projects near water bodies. 2. The project will include monitoring for biological and archeological resources and for noise levels. 3. In addition to the monitoring for biological resources, pre-construction surveys will be carried out, as well as training and work area delineation. 4. Dust control will include normal measures for wetting and reseeding along with a mandatory slow speed limit for hauling vehicles. 5. Other air quality measures include using modem, lower emission equipment and an electric dredge. The document specifies carbon neutrality through offsets. X33 /y • Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 7 6. Dredging will not encroach too close to the shore line to prevent destabilization. (This means that reeds will remain along the shore unless a separate reed removal operation is undertaken.) Next Steps With the completion of the environmental document, staff would normally be ready to proceed with preparation of construction documents for public bidding. Given the lack of budget for the construction and an alternative to complete the work as a staff maintenance operation, direction is needed from the Council as to how they wish to proceed. Staff has outlined some options for the Council's consideration below. 1. Pursue Citizen Outreach and Engagement The completion of the environmental document has shown that there are no fatal technical flaws for the project, as described. However, while feasible, it is anticipated to be about $5,000,000 to complete the dredging as described and dispose of the material. Funding, therefore, is the major stumbling block for moving forward. One option to address this is to have staff create a citizen engagement program to help determine if there is enough community support for dredging and how much time and money the community is willing to spend on dredging versus other important priorities. Grants are available for citizen engagement, a process intended to address problems faced by agencies for which there are no preconceived outcomes, where an agency truly does not have firm direction on what to do. The remaining project funding of might also be used to achieve this. The information from such an effort would give the Council a better understanding of how high a priority this is for the community at large (not just for the neighborhood), and whether the City should move forward or not. Over the years, the City has involved the community to varying degrees. There was a committee in 1955 that discussed what should be done with the lake and it supported dredging. The Laguna Lake Study Committee was set up in 1979 to assist the consultants with the development of the Laguna Lake Management Program. The outcome of that was the Lake Management Plan which, with Council approval, recommended a program of sediment removal in Prefumo Arm and weed harvesting. Dredging was identified as the last option due to the cost. In 2004 the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the dredging on three occasions and received public comment. That input is summarized in Attachment 4. At the Council's request, the survey in the spring of 2005 to gage support for a revenue measure included a question that dealt with Laguna Lake Dredging. The survey indicated about 44% of the citizens may be supportive of spending some new revenue on a dredging project. However, in comparison to all the possible service issues presented to survey respondents, such as public safety, senior services, traffic congestion, street paving and flood protection, Laguna Lake dredging rated at or near the bottom of interest. The downside of proceeding with an engagement program is that it may appear the City is going to study dredging again and that the City has been doing that for 50 years. Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 8 2. Discontinue or postpone project work The City's current financial situation may speak to simply postponing consideration of a dredging project at this time, or the Council may decide the City will never be able to afford (without significant grant assistance) a large-scale dredging project. The consultant's reports have been accepted and the environmental document can be approved.. Specifications for the dredging project could be put off until such time as a funding mechanism for dredging is developed. The other downside to continued pursuit of the dredging is that it takes staff time away from priority infrastructure maintenance projects that are funded, on top of staff reductions. If the lake is allowed to gradually fill in, a channel of some type would remain, conveying Prefumo Creek through the area to the outlet. The lake would increasingly take on marsh qualities and remain a wildlife refuge. While this would be a difficult decision, it has the advantage of discontinuing the frustration for dredging proponents of City studies and discussions about dredging with no actual dredging completed. Instead, it would let the community know that other services have been determined to be more important. 3. Investigate an Assessment District A survey of the neighborhood regarding assessment district support has not been undertaken to star's knowledge and may be worthy of further consideration. The City, as a lake front property owner, should consider its own response to such a question. The City would conceivably be responsible for half the cost as a lake front property owner. 4. Complete Financial Plan Submittals If the Council would like to continue to work on this project, staff can be directed to prepare Financial Plan submittals for continued work. Those submittals could take a variety of forms including, a request for funding to pursue disposal easements on adjacent property, staff and equip an in-house dredging program, contract with grant acquisition firms to research and apply for grants to dredge the lake or allocate a portion of the general fund for a contract dredging operation. Summary—The Heart of the Matter Although a great deal of technical, environmental and financial information is outlined in this report, the attached materials, and within the environmental document, the "elephant-at-the- table" is that we do not have funding to move this project forward in a timely and sustained way, unless the Council is willing to reallocate funding from other priorities. In the meantime, the lake continues to silt up. Therefore, we need to eventually get to the heart of the matter, which is: How much are we willing to invest as a community to drastically alter the present "evolution" of the lake in order to assure its long term future as a man-made lake suitable for boating and other activities? Or, do we allow it to evolve into something different? X33 i� Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 9 As the elected representatives of the community, the Council may choose to directly answer this question. Or, the Council may wish to initiate a more extensive citizen engagement process before making a final decision. If the "citizen engagement" option is chosen, staff will need to develop an engagement concept and submit a grant application for support funds. An entity exists within California(Common Sense California) to promote such engagements through small grant awards(for example, Morro Bay received a grant to engage a discussion about a future fire station). Staff would pursue this grant source first. A requirement of this program is that the grantee does not have a preconceived outcome in mind when initiating the engagement. If we truly are not sure what to do and how much to invest in restoring Laguna Lake, then this issue may be a good candidate for such a grant. While the cost will depend on the engagement concept, it is estimated to cost $15,000. If the grant application is not successful, and the remaining project balance is not adequate, the staff could return to the Council for consideration of other funding options. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department has reviewed the Initial Study and concurs with the outlined findings and mitigation measures. Planning Commission review is not required for this environmental Study. Earlier Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the project alternatives during a series of meetings and their input has been provided as Attachment 4. They will also be part of the final project plan design at such time as the project moves forward. Natural Resources staff has been involved during the development of the technical reports and environmental study, and will continue to be involved as the project is developed. Regulatory permits will need to be acquired if the City moves forward with implementation, and additional requirements and mitigation are anticipated from those agencies. FISCAL IMPACT The approval of the environmental document has no fiscal impact. Additional action on the project may have significant costs, depending upon what Council directs. The project has a current unencumbered balance of just under$14,000. The alternatives for the initial dredging range in cost from about $4 to $9 million dollars depending upon how much of the lake is dredged, if some disposal is included at the park, and where the remaining material is disposed of. These costs would need to be periodically paid out to sustain the lake depth. Most likely, only during the initial dredging operation would the material be able to be placed at the park, after the available area had been used, future material from maintenance dredging would have to be disposed of off site. More detail of the alternatives can be found in Attachment 5, or in the Tables section of the Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives. ALTERNATIVE Stop work altogether on the dredging project with no further staff resources spent. This alternative, while definitively conveying the message to staff that there would not be continuing work on the project, would not answer the question about the community's desires for the lake /6o1 7/�2 *Attachment 1 Laguna Lake Dredging Environmental Document Page 10 and park. It would also fall short knowing whether dredging work is a priority worth spending limited City resources on, if there was community support for any dredging option. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Map 2. About Dredging 3. Related Issues 4. 2004 Parks and Recreation Commission Input 5. Dredging and Disposal Alternatives 6. Project Description 7. Resolution for approval of the Environmental Document AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Laguna Lake Master Plan(1961 —The Hector Plan) Laguna Lake Master Plan(1993) Laguna Lake Management Plan(1982) Environmental Document Technical Reports prepared by LFR Levine-Fricke: 1. Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations at Laguna Lake 2. Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake 3. Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake Ncwncil agenda reports\public works=2009rcip\99110 II dredging\11-17-09 laguna lake dredging rar.doc ATTACHMENT 1 ttac ent 1 a } &O� � a a 1. d � � 1 a � r v PROJECT LOCATION �0 $ woo +ao o A a s'' d 0 B r P O � m / e 9 sP AWW p m f LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING LOCATION MAP *Attachment 1 ABOUT DREDGING ATTACHMENT 2 What are the goals for 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. 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. The 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 T Duration I. Quantity How much of the lake we dredge will clearly have an impact on cost. The project description used for the Initial Study is for a reduced dredging area. In general, this approach looks at CC Attachment 1 ABOUT DREDGING ATTACHMENT 2 dredging the lake, from above the inlet at Prefumo Creek, to Madonna Road. The alternative is to dredge 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 one consulting biologist 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 Drving 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 contours of the park. This will 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 the City completes 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. The project description used for the Initial Study proposes that the material would be used to fill in an area of the lake to create a different type of habitat from that of open water, and to enlarge the peninsula. • Attachment 1 ABOUT DREDGING ATTACHMENT 2 Additional islands could be created by berming the soil 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,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 technical report vary from I to 3 summers, working with aggressive schedules. Less aggressive approaches could easily extend the duration for many years. tlmuncil agenda reportslpublic works w V00Mdp\99110 II dmdgingWa Wut dredging.doc 13,5 Attachment 1 RELATED ISSUES ATTACHMENT 3 Below are summaries of other items the Council has requested for discussion at various points during the project, related to the dredging: Related Issues 1. Aeration 2. Lake Depth versus Turbidity 3. Lake infill rate review and historical depth 4. North Oceanaire Area Drainage Improvements 5. Upstream Sediment Control 6. Water Pollution 1. Aeration Aeration is a process by which air is introduced to the lake to increase the level of dissolved oxygen in the water. A secondary result can be mixing of the water which reduces temperature differences in the water, ie warm at the top, cool at the bottom. The value in introducing oxygen is to assist with the breakdown of organic material. If the volume of organic material is great enough, it will tend to use up the available oxygen and then the process slows or stops. The result is turbidity and lack of oxygen for fish. Oxygen in the bottom water of the lake also reduces the release of elements such as iron and manganese from the sediments. The City does not have data on the volume of organic sediments in the lake. However, studies were completed in previous years to determine the levels of dissolved oxygen. Due to the wind that whips the lake, typically most afternoons, the lake generally has oxygen throughout its depth. There may be a few of the deepest areas that do not. The wind also blends the lake temperature and so there is little differential in take temperatures. There can be low levels of oxygen in the morning, both because plants do not generate oxygen at night and because the water is calm. This is relieved by both the wind and rainy weather which increase the oxygen in the lake. Aquatic weeds, noted as a problem in the 1980's studies have not been a problem in recent years and the City has taken no action in that area since halting the weed harvesting program and does not receive complaints regarding weeds. The primary issue at the lake, besides mosquitoes, for which the City staff takes complaints, is the algae bloom which occurs in mid to late summer during some years. Algae are a part of a normal lake environment and provide food and energy for other animals. When algae grow rapidly it is referred to as an algae "bloom" Blooms are typically a result of high levels of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients can come from a variety of sources. The most likely sources for this lake are the birds and storm water runoff carrying detergents, fertilizers and organic debris. An active public information program as part of the City's efforts to reduce pollutants in the storm water is probably one of the best actions to take against this particular problem. The City should also discourage feeding of birds by the public. Other options include chemical treatment which causes the precipitation of the phosphorus in the water. 0 Attachment 1 RELATED ISSUES ATTACHMENT 3 The estimated cost for solar aeration units is $150,000. The current condition of the lake does not appear to warrant the expense of aeration, primarily because of the wind action which provides this activity free of charge most afternoons. If the lake is dredged, it is possible aeration may be need if the wind action does not allow the lower depths to be stirred up. 2. Lake Depth versus Turbidity To date, none of the studies have covered the relationship between the lake depth and the turbidity. The amount of material removed from the Prefumo Arm indicates this area serves to remove the larger material, such as sands and gravels. The fine clay remains suspended in the water and moves out into the lake. Some of it remains suspended as long as the lake is turbulent. There has been testimony from the public indicating that in the early days of the lake (1960's,) the water was clearer. Using the historical information on the lake, and the above testimony, a bottom depth of about 9 feet should reduce the muddy appearance. The area of the lake nearest Madonna Road is the closest to that, ranging from 8 to 9 feet depth when the lake is full, with the central portion of the lake ranging from 6 to 8 feet deep. It should be noted that the lake near Madonna Road is currently at about 5 feet deep. 3. Lake infill rate review and historical depth Using 1957, 1977, 1992 and 2001 lake bottom surveys, staff reviewed historical data to take another look at the rate of sedimentation accumulation in the lake. The rates are.higher near the delta at Prefumo Creek and lower in the northern reaches. Using average rates of fill since 1957, and assuming no filling occurred until 1964 when Pref imo Creek was rerouted into the lake, it would take between 40 and 180 years to fill the lake depending upon the location in the lake. Taking the highest rate of sedimentation between the various surveys, again depending upon the location in the lake, it would take between 20 and 100 years to fill. 4. North Oceanaire Area Drainage Improvements The north Oceanaire area is subject to flooding due to its low elevation in relation to the lake. The storm drain system for this area is very simple. It accepts street water and pipes it directly to the lake. Once the lake is full, that system backs up and no longer drains the streets. The subdivision was designed with the street system as the backup to the pipe system, allowing the water to inundate the streets but not the homes. Staff was asked to look at the possibility of collecting the water from the north Oceanaire neighborhood and carrying it, via pipe, to below the outlet of the lake on the southerly side of Madonna Road. Assuming a design for a 10-year storm capacity, a 42" pipeline would have to be installed the length of Oceanaire Drive. Due to the distance to reach the outlet of the lake culverts on the southerly side of Oceanaire Drive, the resulting depth is such that a lift station would be required to bring it above the creek waters. After including needed manholes in the system and upgrading the inlets for increased capture ability, this project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. The area would still flood in heavier storms. 5. Upstream Sediment Control The watershed for Prefumo Creek includes the Irish Hills area in addition to some residential tracts. This area is steep and sparsely vegetated. Water can be observed running down cuts in z3c�l ;Z S� 0 Attachment 1 RELATED ISSUES ATTACHMENT 3 the slopes along Pref imo Canyon Road. In a nutshell, the potential for sediment is very high. There is not one particular spot that is responsible for the debris found in the Prefumo Arm of the lake. This makes control in the watershed difficult. One option for sediment control was discussed in the 1982 Laguna Lake Management Plan and that is to dredge the arm much deeper. The creek would then encounter an area of open water in the Arm prior to entering the lake. The slower open water area would be more likely to cause the creek to give up its fine sediments at this point in addition to the heavy material it now yields. Dredging the arm deeply is no small task. It is a restricted area with considerable vegetation and residences nearby. To date, the regulatory agencies have been anxious that we keep the upper vegetation. At least some of this would have to go in order to establish stable banks as we went deeper. We could no longer dredge with earth moving equipment as we do now because we would be working in a wet environment. Sediment removal would have to be done regularly with a dredge or we would return to the situation we have now. This returns us to the issue of the need for dredging equipment and dealing with dewatering dredging slurry.. Another option is establishing sedimentation basins upstream. The only property controlled by the City upstream is the Laguna Lake Golf Course. Such basins would impact the course and are probably not desirable. The Master Plan for flood control and drainage in the watershed that was completed in the late 1970's discussed the use of a debris dam on Prefumo Creek. The dam was proposed to be 20 feet high and sized to hold 100,000 cubic yards of material. The estimated cost of construction at that time was about $0.5 million. This study was completed for the purpose of proposing flood protection improvements. The dam was not recommended for flood protection because of the low cost-benefit ratio. Building the dam at this time would be very difficult due to development that has occurred near the recommended area for the dam, environmental issues associated with dams and a high cost. 6. Water Pollution The lake is home to a number of birds that feed along the shore and likely is contaminate with waste from them. The lake also does not have fresh water flowing through it in the summer months providing water exchange. There are naturally occurring metals in the surrounding hills which may be present in the water. The water appears turbid due to the suspended silts in the water. The City does not do routine testing of the water and is not aware of testing by any other agency. The lake was posted for no swimming some years ago. Shoreline banks are eroded and so not suitable for swimming entry. t%=mdl agwda reporlstpublic works m0200ft0\99110 0 dm#n&-3 elated issues.dm n Attachment I PUBLIC INPUT ATTACHMENT 4 Parks and Recreation Commission Review Staff presented the project to the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 2"d, October 60' and November 3`d of 2004. The Commission took testimony during the fust 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 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, 1 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. • Attacbnent 1 PUBLIC INPUT ATTACHMENT 4 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. Citizen Input At the goal setting sessions a few citizens have attended meetings to date and 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. The creation of islands or wetlands has not been well received because it reduces the amount of open water, and raises concerns that it would increase the breeding grounds for mosquitoes. At the two Council Study Sessions 16 different citizens spoke in favor of dredging, three lived outside the Oceanaire neighborhood, two spoke regarding concerns about mosquitoes, and three about flooding. ttounul agenda repodslpublic works ca0200Map1.9911011 dredgin&4puhlic inpuldoc 4J t> ® Attachment 1 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT 5 Dredging 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. Below is a summary of the information provided in detail in the Engineering Analysis Alternative I -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. The electric remote ability of the unit 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. 23.? .c-D Attachment DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT 5 Estimated duration - 4 months to perform the dredging with continued hauling for S 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 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 Incremental Dredging—Not covered in Consultant's Engineering Analysis Report The City would purchase a small electric suction dredge and operate it remotely using a cable system. The slurry would be pumped to the shore where a system of drying ponds would be set up. The slurry would be retained long enough in the pond system to allow the solids to drop out and the water to flow off. The water would have to be sampled and tested prior to returning it to the lake. With a City staffed operation, activity would occur every year until the work was completed. Based on use of 5 acres of the Nature Preserve for drying beds, drying time and seasonal constraints, it would take approximately 10 years to remove the sediment that has accumulated in the laketo date. Given the duration of the initial dredging, the lake would accumulate additional sediment during that time and the dredging operation would have to be undertaken regularly to maintain the lake depth. .13 s-2 • Attacbment DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT 5 Staffmg for this operation would require at least a two people, with significant oversight, given the complexity and regulatory issues involved. One person would take on the entire responsibility for the dredging equipment and operation, including construction and maintenance of the drying beds, purchase of equipment, locating and arranging for disposal of the solids and the hiring of temporary help as needed to assist them with the operation of the dredge and drying facility. Costs- The initial cost to construct the drying beds; drains and purchase equipment is estimated at $550,000. An additional $150,000 would be needed on an annual basis to fund the new dredging staff position, provide temporary help, fund operation costs and fund equipment maintenance and replacement costs. A dredge that would be able to work independently (off a cable) would cost an additional $150,000 to $300,000*. It would also be a larger and more powerful dredge to accelerate the operation and could do reed removal. The public has expressed a strong desire to have the reeds removed because of the potential for mosquito breeding. *(These cost estimates do not include disposal costs which are covered in more detail below.) Incremental Dredging - "Spin Dry" method using a Contractor The material is dredged with an electric dredge. The slurry is pumped back to a mechanical device on shore which removes the water and leaves the sediment. The "Spin Dry" equipment is proprietary in nature, thus not available for purchase and use by the City. No drying beds are needed, however some area is needed for stockpiling. Contracted dredging would occur on a periodic rather than annual basis, as funds were available and to reduce mobilization costs. Incremental Dredging Alternatives - 10 Year cost summary for full lake dredging: Method Frequency Annual Cost Total Cost City Staffed Annual project Dredge, w/Piping &Cabling: $200,000 $ 550,000 for 10 years Loader&Pickup: $ 100,000(1) Pond Construction Costs: $ 250,000 Annual Staffing &Operation: $ 150,000 $ 1,500,000 $2,050,000121 Contract 2 projects- Annual set aside amount: $620,000 $ 692009000 1 every 5 years First year only costs (2)Does not include disposal costs— see below In summary, on an annual basis, assuming a worst case for disposal costs as outlined in the next section, dredging the lake could cost up to an estimated $705,000 to $1,120,000 per year over a ten year period. (Total Cost above plus $5,000,000 disposal discussed below, divided by 10 years.) 133-Z.3 0 Attachment 1 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT 5 Initial Study Project Description Incremental Dredging—Partial Lake Dredging Worked would be accomplished as described above for the City operated electric dredge. Only the central portion of the lake and some areas of the southern part of the lake, would be dredged. Assuming material would first be disposed of in the active park, then through wetland creation, and lastly by offsite landfill disposal, the costs over the 10 year operation would be as follows: Year 1 Costs: Dredge, cabling&Piping $200,000 Pickup& Loader $100,000 Pond Construction $250,000 Staff $135,000 Disposal at on active park $42,000 Operations &hydroseeding $20,000 Total: $747,000 Year 2 Costs: Staff $135,000 Disposal at on active park $42,000 Operations & hydroseeding $20,000 Total: $197,000 Year 3 Costs: Staff $135,000 Wetland Preparation Construction $1,200,000 Wetland Disposal $170,000 Operations &planting $20,000 Total: $1;525,000 Year 4- 7 Annual Costs: Staff $135,000 Wetland Disposal $170,000 Operations&planting $20,000 Annual Total: $325,000 Year 8-10 Annual Costs: Staff $135,000 Landfill Disposal $81,000 Operations $15,000 Annual Total: $231,000 10 Year Total: $4,462,000 Disposal Alternatives The consultant discussed several options in their report for the disposal of the material. To recap, these are; 1) send the material to the landfill 2) barge the material out into the ocean '53 -:51 J Attachment 1 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT 5 dispose of it there, 3) deposit it on land, either a parcel leased or owned by the City, including the park property or 4)deposit it back into the lake to create wetlands and islands. Disposal costs are a significant part of the overall costs and it could be cost effective to purchase property for the disposal and sell it after the work is complete. This would not address future dredge disposal needs. The other option relating to land disposal is to have a dredging contractor be responsible to locate a disposal site and haul it. The availability of property for the contractor's disposal would make the cost of dredging difficult to predict. Costs would range up to $5,000,000 for disposal of the current accumulation in the lake in addition to the other costs outlined to complete dredging. This cost assumes disposal at the landfill. The active park can accept approximately 10-20% of the total amount estimated to be dredged. These would appear as two mounds of approximately 12 feet in height relative to the surrounding area and would be located adjacent to the memorial grove and to the playground. Drainage facilities may have to be included in at least one of these areas as there are numerous drainage ways in the park. The mounds would need to be amended to some degree and planted to prevent erosion and blend them better into the park. t\muncil agenda reportslpuNlc"rke w6200 6p%99110 0 dredginglaSdredging alta.d= ' Attachment i ATTACHMENT 6 Excerpt from Laguna Lake Dredging Initial Study (ER 31-06) Description of the Project: Laguna Lake is a shallow urban lake located in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. It is currently surrounded by residential development to the southwest, ranch land to the northwest,the municipal Laguna Lake Park to the northeast,and Madonna Road to the southeast(Figure 1 and Figure 2). The major open-water portions of the lake,known as the Central Lake and the Southeast Arm, cover a total area of approximately 23 hectares (57 acres.) In addition,there are approximately 10 hectares(25 acres)of open water and 27 hectares (67 acres)of wetland habitat in adjoining areas,including the Prefiuno Inlet, the Northwest Inlets, and the Peninsula Inlet(Figure 2). The main body of Laguna Lake has not previously been dredged,although the Prefumo Creek inlet has been periodically dredged in the past by the City,County and local contractors to remove deposited gravel material coming in from Prefumo Creek. The area now occupied by Laguna Lake was historically a low-lying area that collected storm water drainage from the surrounding fields and hillsides. In 1963,nearby Prefumo Creek was rerouted to drain into the lake area. Continued siltation from the creek began to gradually fill the lake, and so a small dam was subsequently built at the southeastern end of the lake, near Madonna Road, to raise the lake's water level. In spite of these measures,the lake has gone nearly dry twice during the last 20 years. In order to maintain the lake's suitability for recreational purposes and wildlife habitat, the City is proposing dredging as described herein as part of the broader management plan for the park. Dredging of the lake has been studied extensively over the last 25-30 years. The following documents have been prepared and the findings are incorporated into the proposed project description and associated studies. • Archeological Subsurface Testing at the Laguna Lake Project(Heritage Discoveries(2007) • Archeological Surface Survey for the Laguna Lake Project; (Heritage Discoveries(2006) • Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations at Laguna Lake; LFR Inc. (2003) • Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake; LFR Inc. (200 1) • Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake; LFR Inc. (2001) • Rare Plants, Vegetation, and Flora of Laguna Lake Park; Keil(1996) • Laguna Lake Park Master Plan; City of San Luis Obispo(1993) • Geotechnical Report Laguna Lake Dredging Project; Earth Systems Consultants (1992) • Wildlife of Laguna Lake Park Relationship to Proposed Dredging; Michael T. Hanson(1992) • Laguna Lake Management Program; City of San Luis Obispo(198 1) • Final EIR—Laguna Lake Management Program; City of San Luis Obispo(198 1) Through the most recent studies, conducted between 2000 and 2007,the City has evaluated a number of dredging alternatives including the use of different types of dredging equipment, different methods to dry the dredged material, and different end uses for the dredged materials.The proposed project is a hybrid of previously studied approaches to meet the project objective of maintaining suitable lake depth while limiting costs. The proposed approach utilizes techniques to avoid and minimize potential impacts through all phases of the dredging operations. As part of the impact avoidance and minimization approach,the total volume of dredging has been reduced from approximately 230,000 cubic meters(300,800 cubic yards)to approximately 115,000 cubic meters(150,400 cubic yards.) 1.33 X33 ATTaAc A H EN The proposed project would entail the use of an electric suction(hydraulic)dredge to remove sediment from the bottom of the lake. Most areas of the lake would be dredged including the main body and Prefutno arm,though setbacks have been established that prohibit dredging activities near the lake banks to prevent potential bank destabilization. The dredge would operate during approximately 22 weeks per year as necessary during the dry season from June through October. As much as 15,300 cubic meters(20,000 cubic yards) would be dredged from the lake each year over a period of ten years to achieve a total removal of approximately 115,000 cubic meters of material. The overall rate of dredging is restricted primarily by the drying time of the fine grained dredged material.The dredged material would be pumped via temporary piping from the dredge to an approximately two hectare(5 acre)upland drying facility to be constructed in the undeveloped portion of the park(Figure 2). The drying facility would be comprised of bermed areas created with earthen berms up to two meters (6 feet) in height.Dredged material would be pumped into the drying areas in approximately 60 centimeter(2 foot) lifts with approximately six weeks of drying time estimated to meet sufficient dryness for hauling or rehandling for subsequent use. The final configuration and lift size within the anticipated drying area is subject to input from the dredge contractor though it would not affect the analysis of impacts. The percent water,particle size, and weather conditions (particularly wind and temperature)will affect the drying time significantly. It is anticipated that the particle size of most of the dredged material will be primarily clay and silt size(requiring a long settlement period)but that the area is subject to a high percentage of days through the summer with strong winds and warm temperatures. As the material dries, a crust is anticipated to form due to the clay nature of the sediments from the main body of the lake(the Prefiuno inlet area has historically been the only area with larger sediment size). To maximize drying efficiency, it is anticipated that heavy equipment(e.g., bull-dozer or equivalent) will be used to turn over and wind-row the dredged material as it dries. Decanted water from the drying facility would pass through a filter at the outlet of the drying facility prior to re-entering the lake.The City has also considered the use of a mechanical dewatering system that would eliminate the need for the large upland drying area and the associated impacts from its construction and that would substantially reduce the drying time. However the system is more expensive than the traditional approach proposed. Mechanical dewatering uses a self contained centrifuge system that rapidly dries dredged material and immediately returns the water fraction back to the lake. While the mechanical dewatering is feasible and will likely be evaluated from a cost perspective by the City for implementation, this Initial Study addressed the upland drying facility to be certain that all potential impacts of the project were evaluated from the most conservative("worst case")perspective. When dry, a portion of the dredged material would be placed within the park in several locations as described below and in the supporting documents for the project(referenced in Section 19 below), however this analysis assumes that approximately 30,000 cubic meters of the material would be trucked off-site for beneficial re-use(when suitable locations are available)or to a landfill where it would be used for clean cover. In developing this project description, the City has studied alternatives and options for each of the principal components of the project(dredging methods,drying and rehandling options,disposal/reuse options). The studied alternatives included the following: Dredging Methods • Hydraulic dredging(hopper dredge, cutterhead dredge) 83 -3y Attachment 1. ATTACHMENT 6 • Mechanical dredging(dipper dredge,bucket dredge) • Specialty options(digger dredge for dry lakebeds) Dr n}_WAehandlin¢Options • Dewatering basins and mechanical handling(using heavy equipment) • Centrifuge decanting(specialty equipment) Disposal Options • On-site beneficial reuse(park amendments,wetland creation, island creation,habitat restoration) • Off-site beneficial reuse(agricultural fill, commercial fill) • Off=site commercial disposal(class III landfill, ocean disposal) After assessment of the potential options, five dredging alternatives were studied in greater detail: • Full-scale dredging with near shore placement and habitat restoration • Dredging with off-site commercial or agricultural beneficial reuse • Dredging with off-site landfill disposal • Dredging with combined on-site island and marshland creation • Limited dredging with near shore placement Based on input from the City Council, City Staff,and the consultants preparing the engineering studies, soil and water studies, and the ecological assessment,this project description was prepared combining ' aspects of several of the studied alternatives to result in a limited dredging project with combined on- site and off-site use of dredged material. On-site re-use of materials would include creation of wetland habitat(by filling an area of shallow open water)and through the creation of hills and berms within the developed portion of the park that would be subsequently planted with lawn or landscaped for recreational use. It is anticipated that the wetland creation component would utilize approximately 60,000 cubic meters (78,500 cubic yards)of dredged material. The material would be placed in the peninsula inlet area and potentially in one of the small inlets of the Northwest Inlet area(Figure 2). Technical details for this and all of the studied approaches are provided in the Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake(LFR Inc.,2001). This document is on file at the Public Works Department. The final volume of material to be placed within the developed portion of the park and planted with lawn would be determined in cooperation with the City's Parks and Recreation Department but it is feasible that at least 25,000 cubic meters (32,700 cubic yards)of the fill could be utilized in this manner: For example.a round hill with a maximum height of six meters (20 feet) and a diameter of 125 meters(410 feet, resulting in a 10:1 slope) would utilize approximately 25,000 cubic meters of soil without compaction. However, because the proposed annual dredging is limited to 15,000 cubic meters (20,000 cubic yards)per year this approach would require that the first year of material for this purpose be stockpiled until the second year of material is available, or that the material is placed and temporarily stabilized(for erosion control)until the second year's material is dry and ready for placement on top. As such, several smaller features,each using less than 15,000 cubic meters may simplify implementation and eliminate the delay in completion for the construction for landscaping. The impact analysis herein assumes that 25,000 cubic meters of material will be placed within the already developed portion of the park. The remaining dredged material would be taken off-site for beneficial re-use if suitable sites are available such as agricultural fill or commercial fill. If no such beneficial reuse sites are available,the z3..3 z3S C Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 6 material would be taken to a commercial landfill. Material taken off-site would be hauled from the dewatering/rehandling facility through the park to Los Osos Valley Road and east to highway 101 (Figure 2). Off-site hauling of 30,000 cubic meters (40,000 cubic yards)of material would require approximately 750 truck loads. It is anticipated that the hauling could be completed in one month with approximately ten truck trips per day. The number of trucks employed and the total round trip haul time will affect the potential number of trucks per day and it is expected that the number of days of hauling could be reduced significantly if desired by increasing the trucks per day,though that would not affect the total number of trips.The impact analysis herein assumed up to 30 truck trips per day. Through the inclusion of the proposed minimization and mitigation measures, the project will be "carbon neutral"with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Project Description 1. An archeologist will review the final plans for the dredging project to confirm that the final plans do not conflict with the findings of this Initial Study and that there are no project activities in the vicinity of site CA-SLO-605 2. An electric suction dredge would be used to remove sediment from the lake bottom. The discharge would include a significant percentage of water(80%to 90%)that would flow passively back to the lake from drying areas. Use of an electric'system would minimize noise and air emissions. 3. The dredge would operate on cables and may or may not have an operator on the dredge itself. 4. Most of lake would be dredged(including the Prefiuno Arm and removal of the delta at the mouth of the Prefumo Arm) 5. The project would be conducted seasonally over approximately ten years. Periodic or low volume dredging would occur as follow up to maintain the lake depth. 6. Approximately 15,000 cubic meters of material would be removed per year. 7. The operation would occur for approximately 22 weeks per year through the summer season with most of the time required for drying. The actual dredging component would likely be completed within four weeks per year. 8. State and federal regulatory agency permits would be obtained as required. 9. Approximately two hectares (5 acres)of the upland area adjacent to the lake would be used for settling, drying, and rehandling operations. 10. Once dried for rehandling, a portion of the sediment would be kept in the developed park area to form berms or hills which would be vegetated to blend into the park landscaping. 11. A portion of the dredged material would be placed on the peninsula area to raise its level and/or in the adjacent open water area to decrease the depth and create vegetated wetlands. 12. The dredged material that is not re-used on-site,would be trucked off-site following drying to an alternative disposal area(either a landfill for clean cover or potentially a construction site or other beneficial reuse site as available and appropriate). 13. Haul routes will be marked with signs notifying park visitors of truck hauling activities and park speed limits enforced. 14. Berms for drying beds would be created in the upland area using primarily onsite materials potentially with some import. The berms would be approximately two meters high. 15. Noise level monitoring of equipment will occur to ensure it is below required levels. 16. Construction and handling activities will only occur during normal working hours on weekdays. /3.3-� C" 0 AftI;p6t 1 17. Filters would be installed at the water outlets of the drying beds to ensure that water returning to lake does not contain excessive suspended sediment. 18. Water samples will be collected and tested to ensure compliance with local, state and federal standards pertaining to Total Dissolved Solids limits. Adjustments will be made to the dewatering operation if needed to maintain standards. 133 ,37 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City is pursuing the dredging of Laguna Lake; and WHEREAS, an environmental review was prepared and made available for public comment at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed below into the project: Mitigation Measures: 1. Air Ouality Mitigation a. AIR-0I Restrict Footprint: Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. b. AIR-02-Prevent Airbome Dust: A dust control plan shall be submitted to Air Pollution Control District at least 30-days prior to construction and should consider employ measures such as water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. All PMio mitigation measures required in the plan should be shown on any construction plans and monitored in the field to prevent transport of dust offsite. c. AIR-03-Stockpile Management: If stockpiled soil remains on-site beyond the appropriate drying period for reuse or disposal, spraying to prevent dust shall be required or the material shall be adequately covered and secured. d. AIR-04-Dust Control Implementation: Permanent dust control should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. AIR705-Extended. Soil Stabilization: Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. R 0L X38' A tachment 1 ATTACHMENT Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 f. AIR-06-Vehicle Speed: Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on any unpaved surface at the construction site. g. AIR-07-Haul Truck Dust.Control: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. h. AIR-08 -Roadway Dust Control: If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads, install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site, and sweep streets at the end of each day. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Standard NOx Control Measures for Construction Equipment: i. AIR-09-Equipment Maintenance: Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. j. AIR-10-Fuel: Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with Air Resources Board certified motor vehicle diesel fuel(non-taxed version suitable for use off-road.) k. AIR-11-Diesel Equipment: Maximize, to the extent practical and feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting Air Resources Board's Tier III equipment. 1. AIR-12-Equi ment Certification: Maximize to the extent practical and feasible, the use of on-road heavy-duty equipment and trucks that meet the Air Resources Board's Tier III certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. in. AIR-13-Idling of Diesel Equipment: All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than 3 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 3 minute idling limit. n. AIR-14 Queuing of Haul Trucks: Queuing of haul trucks should be in location to minimize impact to park visitors or neighboring residents. o. AIR-15 Dredge: Electrification of dredging and pumping equipment is recommended as feasible. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: p. AIR-16- Carbon Neutrality: Greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized through the use of an electric dredge rather than a diesel dredge. The off-site greenhouse gas emissions associated with the power production by the energy company (PG&E) will be offset through participation in PG&E's Climate Smart Green House Gas offset program 133-3 9 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 3 2. Biological Resources Mitigation a. BIO-01 Project scheduline: Dredging activity in or within 23 meters of nesting areas will be scheduled to avoid the bird breeding season (March 1 —August 31.) The initial upland disturbance (creation of the drying facility) will be scheduled outside the bird breeding season unless a nesting survey of the disturbance area is completed immediately prior to disturbance and finds no nesting activity. Dredging is proposed to occur during the summer to avoid the winter/spring breeding season of amphibians and to minimize the likelihood of turtles in the bottom material within the dredging areas. b. BIO-02 Field Design Placement: The City Biologist and the Biological Monitor(discussed below) will walk the construction areas as drawn in the final design specifications for the drying/rehandling facility to confirm that the location is the most appropriate and maximizes resource avoidance. Minor adjustments to the disturbance area may be made at that time to further reduce impacts. The City Biologist and the Biological Monitor will work with the dredge contractor to determine the onshore landing of-the temporary pipeline to connect the dredge to the drying facility. The portion that extends through the wetlands should be flagged in advance and should ideally remain in place throughout the entire project to avoid temporary impacts associated with installation and removal. c. BIO-03 Biological awareness training: All contractors will participate in meetings be designed to inform construction personnel of issues related to sensitive biological resources potentially encountered during the project. These meetings will cover the basic biology and identification of sensitive species occurring at the project site and cover on- site protection measures of these species. State and federal laws protecting sensitive species and penalties for non-compliance will also be discussed. Other topics such as spill prevention and cleanup procedures and the location of areas off limits to construction personnel will be addressed. d. BIO-04 Work area delineation: All work areas will be delineated using silt fence, caution tape, cones or other appropriate material to indicate where work is permitted to occur and what areas are to be avoided. All work areas and avoidance areas will be discussed with construction personnel during daily"tailgate"meetings. e. BIO-05 Pre-construction wildlife surveys: These surveys are designed to detect sensitive species occurring in the work area just prior to the start of dredging. Pre-construction surveys allow for sensitive species occurring in the work area to be re-located as appropriate, avoided, or protected by other means so that no take occurs as a result of project activities. Pre-construction wildlife surveys will occur no sooner than two weeks prior to the start of the project. If a federally or state listed threatened or endangered species is observed in the work area, the proposed activities in the area will be re- evaluated by the contractor, the City and the Biological Monitor to ensure that no take will occur. No disturbance activities are allowable in an area supporting a state or federally listed species if the activity could result in take of the listed species. attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 4 f. BIO-06 Biological monitoring: The purpose of an on-site Biological Monitor is to ensure that all sensitive species avoidance and protection measures agreed upon for the project are properly implemented and maintained and to ensure that .all work procedures are conducted in a manner that maximizes resource avoidance and impact minimization. The Biological Monitor will also help to make on-site decisions regarding any sensitive species identified during dredging operations. Monitoring is not required daily, but will be required during all initial clearing and then periodically (at least weekly) through the dredging or at the discretion of the Biological Monitor in coordination with the City. If at any time a state or federally listed threatened or endangered species is observed in the work are, all work activities will stop in the area. The Biological Monitor will be responsible for a determination of what activities may proceed that do not pose the risk of take of the listed species. g. BIO-07 Exclusion fencing: Exclusion fencing (silt fence) will be installed to reduce the likelihood of species such as southwestern pond turtles from entering the work areas (particularly the settling ponds or along_hauling roads). It is very important that silt fence be installed properly and checked regularly by the Biological Monitor for issues requiring repair or re-installation due to wind or mechanical impacts. h. BIO-08 Avoidance areas: Areas of important biological significance to potentially occurring sensitive species will be flagged or marked in some way to signify that no project related activities are to occur within these areas. Avoidance areas will be displayed in a figure and shown to the construction personnel during the tailgate meetings. i. BIO-09 Habitat replacement: Any impacts to sensitive native habitats will be mitigated. On-site restoration of impacted plant communities will occur within the areas disturbed by the project and/or within the park. Restoration activities including weed abatement of otherwise high quality habitat and installation of propagules in areas where native emergence is needed are appropriate and will be implemented under a habitat restoration plan that identifies specific areas of impact and restoration. The restoration plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Biologist. Temporary impacts of native habitat will be mitigated on a minimum 1:1 basis. Permanent impacts to native habitat will be mitigated on a 3:1 basis. Because the dredge will remain outside marsh habitat (minimum 23-meters from the bank) and because the drying and rehandling facility will be constructed in an area of non-native annual grassland, impacts to sensitive native plant communities are expected to be minimal and temporary. j. BIO-10 Biological monitoring_ An on-site Biological Monitor will review the final design plans and will survey the disturbance area for the drying and rehandling facility with the City Biologist when it is flagged in the field. The Biological Monitor will be on-site during project activities to ensure that all sensitive species avoidance and protection measures agreed upon for the project are properly implemented and maintained and to ensure that all work procedures are conducted in a manner that maximizes resource avoidance and impact minimization. The Biological Monitor will also help to make implementation 63-%/ Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 5 decisions throughout the project regarding any potential ecological issues or to address sensitive species identified during the project operations. Monitoring is not required daily, but will be required during all initial clearing and then periodically (at least weekly) through the dredging or at the discretion of the Biological Monitor in coordination with the City. The Biological Monitor will have stop-work authority and will do so should a listed species be identified in the work area. Work will not recommence in the area until the Biological Monitor determines what activities may proceed that do not pose the risk of take of the listed species. The Biological Monitor will prepare regular monitoring reports during all phases of the work for review by the City Biologist. Monitoring reports will briefly describe the work activities conducted during the monitoring period, the status and/or condition of resource protection measures, and any occurrences of sensitive species or events requiring the involvement of the Biological Monitor. 3. Cultural Resources Mitigation The project does not require mitigation for cultural resources impacts; however, the following monitoring is required as a measure of caution. a. CULT-01 Cultural resource monitoring: Prior to project implementation, an archaeologist will review the final project plans for the Laguna Lake dredging project to confirm that the final plans to not conflict with the findings or recommendations from the current studies. 4. Geology & Soils Mitigation a. GEO-1 Use appropriate shoreline setbacks and dredging depths: ESC (1992) recommended that no dredging be conducted within 15 meters(50 feet) of the shoreline as mapped at maximum lake elevation. ESC (1992) further concluded that dredging shall be conducted to depths of 0.76 meters (2.5 feet) at distances of 15 to 23 meters (50 to 75 feet) from the shoreline, and to depths of 1.5 meters (5 feet) at distances of more than 23 in (75 ft) ft from the shoreline. The current proposal incorporates a complete setback of 23 meters to avoid potential impacts. b. GEO-2 Conduct pre-dredging reconnaissance of shoreline structures: ESC (1992) indicated that it would be prudent to document the existing structures, fences; retaining walls, and other improvements along the shoreline just prior to initiation of dredging. This could facilitate recognition of any adverse effects related to dredging, and would document pre-existing conditions. c. GEO-03 Monitoring Program: An appropriately licensed engineer or geologist will certify the final dredging design specifications and confirm that the proposed 23-meter setbacks from the banks of the lake avoids the potential for significant impacts. 5. Hydrology and Water Ouality Mitigation R3-yam Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 6 The project does not require mitigation for water quality impacts; however, the following monitoring is required as a measure of caution. a. HYDRO-01 - Monitoring Program: Testing return water for Total Dissolved Solids content: Samples of return water from the dredge operation shall be collected and tested regularly or as needed to insure compliance with local, state, or federal standards pertaining to allowable Total Dissolved Solids limits. If test results show unacceptable amounts of Total Dissolved Solids in the return water, then the release of return water will be stopped to allow for changes to the system that will result in returning the Total Dissolved Solids to acceptable levels upon start-up of operations. 6. Noise Mitigation The project does not require mitigation for noise issues; however, the following monitoring is required. a. NOISE-01 Monitoring Program: Periodic noise level monitoring: The noise levels produced by equipment working on the project shall be monitored routinely throughout the project. Equipment or activities found to be exceeding noise standards established in the noise ordinance are to be prevented from conducting further work on the project site until such time as it can be demonstrated that they can operate below such standards. 7. Recreation Mitigation The project does not require mitigation for recreation impacts; however, the following monitoring is required as a measure of caution. a. REC-01 Monitoring Program: The allowable work periods (regular business hours on weekdays with no weekend or holiday work) shall be a part of the contract for the project and compliance shall be monitored by City Staff as part of standard monitoring for construction projects. 8. Transportation Mitigation The project does not require mitigation for transportation issues; however, the following monitoring is required as a measure of caution. a. TRANS-01 Monitoring Program: Installation of appropriate signage identifying haul routes and notifying park visitors of truck hauling activity, and the required speed limit shall be a part of the project contract and shall be monitored by City Staff as part of standard monitoring of construction projects. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: 133 -y.? ffachment 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Ela ina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney 133-W Attachment 1 somm������►ii�� ,►iiia council meMORAnbum November 25, 2009: TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Laguna Lake Dredging Item for 12-1-09 Meeting Based on the discussion regarding the dredging of Laguna Lake at the November 17, 2009 Council meeting, staff has put together some additional information in this memorandum to assist the Council in reaching an outcome. There are basically two issues before the Council in this matter, 1) approval of the environmental document and 2) direction to staff on follow-up actions. If progress is to be made on this item, it will be important for the Council to remain focused on these higher level decisions and leave the more detailed and technical strategy decisions for another day (or, if appropriate, as follow-up for staff). We strongly recommend organizing the Council discussion in this fashion. 1) Environmental Document The Council should consider if the document is adequate for the project description, if more study needs to be completed, or if a full Environmental Impact Report should be completed. Staffs position is that the existing document adequately addresses the project proposed by the Council under previous action. The document covers placement of dredge spoils on the active park, placement of spoils elsewhere in the lake, use of a portion of the preserve area for drying and temporary storage of spoils, and removal to a permanent off site disposal location. The consultant agrees that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) sufficiently covers the option of nearby property reuse. If the project should move forward differently than currently outlined, a determination would be needed as to whether the project was a version of the original with lower impacts or a different project needing a revised environmental document. In other words, approving the environmental document now does not preclude the City from undertaking the project another way. However, the approval of the environmental document improves the City's chance of obtaining grant assistance, and allows staff to move forward with additional work items if dredging is pursued. 2) Direction to Staff In our view, there are three basic options for the Council to consider. From these, staff actions will flow. Staff needs the Council to confum that either, 1) there is still interest on the part of the Council to continue to pursue ways to accomplish dredging the lake, 2) the Council is unsure of whether this is an important goal for the community and wishes to gauge the level of interest if Attachment 1 through a citizen engagement process, or 3) the Council does not wish to allocate any additional funding or staff resources to this effort at this time. If the Council wishes to have staff continue working toward dredging, staff needs only broad direction to do so. For this option, staff recommends Council direct staff to proceed with exploring the off-site use of the material, including possible sale of the material as fill to assist in addressing the disposal issue (this would include staff contact with neighboring property owners). Also recommended is completing a survey of lake front properties to gauge.support for an assessment district, short of an actual assessment vote, and preparing a proposal for future Council consideration to obtain the services of a professional grant writer. If the Council remains unsure of the importance of maintaining the lake for the recreational opportunities it has offered in the past, then staff recommends entering a citizen engagement activity. Council direction to staff should include pursuit of a grant to complete a citizen engagement process, and commencement of the engagement effort. It should be noted that an engagement process could also be used to consider dredging methods and funding approaches, if the Council chooses to pursue dredging. In consultation with Don Maruska, staff has drafted a summary of how an engagement might be structured (at whatever point used). This summary is provided below. If the Council determines that dredging is not a high enough priority at this time to expend any additional funding or staff resources, when compared with other initiatives identified through the goal setting process, staff needs only this general direction. The Council can then reactivate the project at some future date. Citizen Engagement Option The Council could choose to utilize a citizen engagement process at this time, or later as further information is developed and subsequent decisions are made. An earlier use of engagement would have the advantage of bringing a broader cross-section of the community into the issue prior to making the fundamental decisions (e.g. to pursue dredging further or not). It would also have the advantage of"bringing people along" as-the issue further evolves and develops. On the other hand, the Council may wish to provide further guidance on the fundamental issues, and then engage citizens to review and discuss options and costs related to implementation. At whatever stage an engagement process is used, in discussions with consultant Don Maruska, it is recommended that a"large group" model be employed. Using this model, a"working group" would be formed from a.larger group and then serve on behalf of the larger group, as the issue is studied and recommendations developed. To paint the picture a bit further, a large community workshop could be held with invitations to assure broad community representation. Following this meeting, the Council would appoint a "working group" from those expressing interest in such service at the community workshop. While this group would be composed of persons representing diverse interests, participants should also be committed to objectivity and a willingness to serve the hopes and address the concerns of the larger group (as identified at the initial workshop). Therefore, persons who are staunch advocates for only one course of action would participate at the large group level, but not as a working group member. Over the course of the citizen engagement process, Mr. Maruska suggests an "accordion-like" flow whereby the.process would move back and forth between all participants and the smaller Attachment 1 group of representatives. Within Council parameters (and resources), the smaller group could even request added study of the issue, if warranted by the process. The focus established by Council would be depend upon the point at which the engagement process is initiated (e.g. if utilized now, the focus might be on the cost-benefit of dredging vs. allowing the lake to evolve to a marsh; but if utilized after a decision to dredge is made, the focus might be on options for paying for dredging). There should be a system of "checking back in" with the full Council periodically, to assure consistency with the general task assigned by Council. And, of course, after receipt of the recommendations developed through the engagement process, the City Council would still be responsible for the final decision(s). In any case, the above approach offers a model for how a "best practice" citizen engagement might work, based on Mr. Maruska's experience with similar issues. It should also be noted that Mr. Maruska has some insight as to the scope and complexity of the Laguna Lake issue by virtue of his experience with it during several goal setting processes, and his suggestion has been made based on that insight. Additional Information During the Council meeting and in emails to staff, additional information was requested. That information is summarized below in the form of Questions and Answers (Q&A.) Q1. The 115,000 c.m. of dredge spoils — Why was this figure cut from 230,000 c.m., as had been originally proposed?What would the resulting depth of the lake be? A: The Council made a decision to reduce the area of the lake in which dredging would occur rather than the depth. The resulting depth is still to be around the 9' mark. Q2. Am I correct in thinking that we propose to utilize this volume as follows: 60,000 c.m.: Wetland creation on-site, in the peninsula inlet and the Northwest Inlets; 25,000 c.m.: On- site landscaped/planted hill(s) with overall dimensions of about 6 in x 125 in, sloping @ 1:10 (may be broken into two or more smaller hills, each utilizing <15K c.m.); 30,000 c.m.: Trucked off-site, destination not known at this time... possibly for agricultural use, but"worst case" in a nearby landfill. A: Generally that is correct, with the exception that we would probably not do wetland creation in the NW inlets unless we obtained permission from the property owners. The size of the mounds may vary depending upon the final locations. Q3. The first part (60K c.m.) used for wetland creation — why would this need to be dried before it could be dumped back into the shallower inlets? A: The material may not need to be as dry as for hauling, but it will be coming out of the dredge as largely water and decanting will need to occur to allow placement. Q4. The second part (25K c.m.)—have we had any experience trying to get these lake-bottom sediments planted? Given all the fines and clays, wouldn't it need to be mixed with native soils in order to support native grasses or shrubs? A: The bottom materials are expected to need amendment. /33 -�� Attachment 1. Q5. The third part (30K c.m.) — This volume is noted to require up to 750 truck trips, and the MND states that the material would be stockpiled and the trip trips then"stacked" so that it would be done within a 30-day period, and up to 30 truck trips per day. Would it not be less impact to stretch that removal program over more days, thus reducing the congestion of so many trucks? A: The hauling operation could be modified, and might be as the project developed. The MND was intended to address more of a worse case operation, short of an operation that would trigger an EIR. Q6. Another question: How much grading is required to create berms up to 2 meters high surrounding the drying beds? These berms would be created, I assume, from excavating native soils nearby — would the soils be extracted by scraping up the bottoms of the proposed beds? Would it really be necessary to set aside as much as five acres of this drying and handling area if we did not propose to stockpile the dredged material that is being removed? A: The beds would be created with local materials when possible. The acreage is largely for use as decanting and drying areas, not stockpile areas. Q7. The MND notes that GHG emissions, primarily from the electrical power required to run the dredge and the pumps, will be offset by participation in the PG&E Climate Smart program. I'd like more specifics about the Climate Smart program, and any added cost for that energy source associated with participating in it. A: ClimateSmartTm, is intended to offset GHG emissions from electrical power generation. According to PG&E(at http://www.joinclimatesmart.com/): "When you join the ClimateSmart program, your monthly energy bill shows the cost of reducing or absorbing the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) associated with your business' actual energy use. Through 2009, the monthly cost for ClimateSmart participation is $0.00254 per kilowatt-hour (for electricity) and $0.06528 per therm (for natural gas)." "100% of your payment is tax-deductible and supports projects that reduce or absorb GHG emissions by conserving and restoring native redwood forests or capturing methane gas from dairy farms and landfills." "The ClimateSmart program is being funded by PG&E customers in accordance with the California Public Utilities Commission. To make participating customers carbon neutral, PG&E may enter into greenhouse gas emission reduction contracts where the reductions occur over time into the future" The projected total cost of enrollment in the ClimateSmart program could be readily calculated if an estimate of total Project electrical consumption was available, but is likely to be on the order of$10,000 to $50,000 over the 10-year Project life. The cost of enrollment could also be evaluated as a percentage surcharge over PG&E's regular electrical rates. For example, if PG&E normally charges $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, then enrollment in the ClimateSmart program would increase the cost for power to 83-�8' Ci Attachment 1 $0.10254, an increase of 2.54%. If the rate for power is more expensive, then the surcharge would be lower as a percentage. For example, if the normal cost is$0.15 per kilowatt-hour, then enrollment in the ClimateSmart program would increase the cost for power to $0.15254, an increase of 1.69%. The percentage power cost increase for enrollment in the ClimateSmart program could be readily calculated if the anticipated power costs for the Project, per kilowatt-hour, were available. Q8. The MND notes on p. 30 that Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) will be monitored for all return water from the dredge operation, and "if test results show unacceptable amounts of TDS in the return water, then the release of return water will be stopped to allow for changes in the system that will result in returning the TDS to acceptable levels..." What is the acceptable level of TDS in the return water? What's the likelihood that return water from a dredge— which would, I assume, be coming right off the dredge materials — be within such "acceptable" limits? A: Allowable TDS will be dictated by regulatory agencies. The project is still subject to their review and requirements. Q9. The MND states on p. 21 that the dredge generates "very little noise." What is the estimated noise level for the dredge we expect to use? Is it high-frequency noise? Is the noise generated at the dredge site, and if not where is the maximum noise expected to originate? A: Staff has not specified the dredge to be used, however, the dredge staff visited in the Oxnard area was virtually inaudible. More noise could be expected from the drying site where equipment will be moving material and trucks moving. Q 10. How often do we excavate the Prefumo Creek arm, generally, and what amount is typically drawn from that source? When was the last time we had that done? Is this done by City crews or under contract? Finally, how do we make use of the sand and gravel that we excavate from there? Or is it given away (or sold?) to road builders, private contractors, 9 A: Computerized records show the Arm was excavated in 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 — roughly every 3 to 4 years. We have been removing between 3,000 and 5,000 cubic yards each time. The work is done by a contractor who is responsible for proper disposal of the removed material. Presumably, if the material has, or does not have resale value, that is reflected in the bid from the contractor. Q11. Do we continue to place timbers in the outlet structure to maintain the lake level at some point in the summer? I know this was a proposal in the 1982 Laguna Lake Management Plan, but I'm wondering if it's still implemented. If not, could we resume doing that? A: We do not place timbers at the outlet structure any more. To the best of long-term staffs recollection, it stopped when the long-term Public Works Director retired and some maintenance mid-managers and lead staff lost their jobs or were reassigned. The Director normally triggered the installation. It consisted of 2 — 4"x12' boards placed at each outlet. It did not stop the water but slowed it considerably. This activity could be resumed, which would increase the lake level during the summer. Q12. Is there any active proposal by the City to excavate/"clean out" the stretch of Prefutno U n Attachment 1 Creek downstream from Madonna Road? This project is in the second year of the 2009-11 Financial Plan and is currently scheduled for summer of 2011. Q13. How much fill was required for the Market Place project proposed by Ernie Dalidio in - what was it, 2001? As I recall, he had to elevate the developed portion of this project a considerable amount to get it above the 100-year floodplain. Additional fill material would be required in order to construct an overpass at Prado Road. I'm asking because it seems to me that the Dalidio property is a logical potential site for depositing some of the dredge spoils, if suitable for construction fill OR for agricultural purposes. We might even consider taking it for the 90-acre agricultural preserve, if it would be a good amendment for the native soils there. The dredging process could even potentially use a suction slurry in the lake outlet, under Madonna Road, to minimize the disturbance of trucking the dried dredge spoils-thus having no direct impact on the active park OR the natural reserve. A: The project required 100,000 cubic yards of material. The information on the lake material to date does not indicate it is a quality material. It would need to be blended to be used. The material would not be expected to add to the existing high quality of the native soils at the agricultural preserve and.should not be used there. Q14. What is happening with fill rates? A: Fill rates averaged 0.08 ft/yr over the whole lake from the time depth information is available. This represents a range of averages from 0.03 ft/yr in the NW Inlet area to 0.14 ft/year in the central lake near the delta. This makes sense if Prefumo Creek is indeed the main purveyor of sediment into the lake. The following is more detail on the rates during various time periods and in the various lake sections between bottom surveys. As can be seen by the table, the area near the delta is what drives the sedimentation rate. Years Rate in feet/ ear Central Lake near Delta 1694-1977 0.08 1977-1992 0.06 1992-2001 0.29 Southeast Arm 1964-1977 0.03 1977-2001 0.09 NW Lake 1957-1977 0.00 1977-2001 0.09 NW Inlet 1957-1977 0.00 1977-2001 0.06 These surveys suggest that it would take about 90 years from now for the lake to fill completely; however, once a certain depth (about four feet)is achieved, establishment of emergent vegetation such as cattails speeds up and may speed up the sedimentation rate. Attachment Q15. At the November 17, 2009 Council meeting during the item on Laguna Lake Dredging, Brett Cross made the statement during the public comment period that dredging was the number one item listed in the 1993 revision of the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan. A. The Laguna Lake Park Master Plan addresses several elements: 1. Overall Park Experience and Motif 2. Passive Recreation Opportunities 3. Water related Recreation Opportunities 4. Nature Preserve 5. Maintenance and Safety Dredging the lake is not specifically addressed in the master plan. There is reference to using the dredge spoils to create 6 foot high berms throughout the park that are planted with California native windbreak trees. In reviewing the public input for the two workshops leading up to the creation of the master plan, there is one exercise where the question was "what would you like see changed at Laguna Lake Park? Dredging was listed as the item that all the breakout groups commonly listed to see changed at the park. A second exercise that addressed future park features indicated support for dredging the lake from each breakout group. In the Constraint Analysis, a reference is made to the 1982 Laguna Lake Management Plan, where lake sedimentation is addressed; the consultant chose not to repeat that analysis in creating the master plan. This issue was addressed a second time when the amendment to the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan came to Council in June 2005, which reiterated that the master plan does not include a recommendation for dredging. (Information from Parks and Recreation Department) lYhsWm4lteamNcwnci1 agenda mpodslpubi c works car12009\dp\99110 It dredging\72-1-09 cc mtg2 memadoc X3.3 -as/ cu Zcu cn cm cuw4 _ l.. lY'f'•�. Ly;f�pl y '..w • ~ @ F ♦ x, k.'. u P 6 ) fir Ah 1 .✓A L� •� .�a���t♦ �� !+L C"P^�0{�p�(A x�i +^�fC3•-1.. ` i � •,J)+� �) sx'. /J. $""� � r C4�.K�f� �l �' i r i µ I`�1.�7.C'F�^�P"l. 4+ N Y Yin .LO �'Y� sly ..5 aice« �" ��^ wti�.� �.• i � s i 4W 04; > � t m o `•. as � �.; c 1 •,. 'ICY y 9 y.., lF/"i. - .- C 0 ` a- - M'1S�1 •tl�{ 1^ _'�y.�b�e.is '� WV/ a N # o• 1'�lYY*{x s:y. !V~ _ _'�•L.T :'lc.><� gJ J ,° } '4 C� rr .r. �� .�R M`. •'v h . Q O v' `fir •Lys• i��� � t 4 1 - ...�<Y + Attachment 3 LU tw o� a a R. akin dd PH F-!d ddi d N E ¢ M < � 10 2 xftcb om p X11 fill III I �W E E E E E y 2 T'y e q ♦ n. E o a u © ® ED �\ \\\ „11 z \\ N ♦>�+ L Vy Z W CL \ \ V n;V IV IV ;Vw o IV V \ + )V W A IV 3 ONO w+ \ lw< w IV 14 a >v >tVIV +>< aw<>) s< \ V ww> w 2 \vr $ �A �1 Z �� $ W Y d WLL �W e = J' W J 83- 3 4 ` From: Don Green [mailto:dgreen@floorconnection.com] RECEIVE Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:58 PM AUG 17 2010 To: Lynch, Barbara Subject: RE: Laguna Lake SLO CITY CLERK Thanks Barbara. I read your report and, as usual, found it to be very informative. The information from the dredging company was very interesting, though it is like the old saw about asking a surgeon for medical advice. The information on sedimentation rates, while I could follow how you made your calculations, is based on so few correlative points of measurement(which you carefully alluded to) as to be only suggestive of how much. material is being captured by the Lake on a yearly basis. That's one area, along with flow rates, that needs to be monitored more methodically to make any plans for lake maintenance. Is any of that,particularly the flow rate meters, part of your work for the report to the regional water board? I will speak at the meeting tomorrow and ask the council to follow some of your advice from the previous meeting in December and for City sponsorship in creating a Laguna Lake Commission of volunteers. The group would take your ideas, and others that may be around, and,rather than just study the issues, formulate and carry out a plan for generating public interest and participation, identify grants and write proposals, and create a focused plan of action. Then it would be up to that group to promote the plan with city residents prior to presenting it to the City Council. Part of my request to the Council will be for some portion of the $30,000 you mention in your report to be spent for city staff liaison time and clerical supplies. It wasn't clear if that was some of what you had in.mind for it. I've done this before with Human Relations projects. It's a royal pain,but sometimes it works out; like the SLO Americorps program.. I'm like most folks, I'd like to be part of the group;but not lead the group. Regards E COUNCIL pTCDDDIR RED FILE `; GAO'c,^1 SIN DIR Don �AGA9�'1 S-PIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA a'p�,17ORNEY a-PW DIR i7 /o ITEM # 83 CLERK/CRIQ C�'POLICE CHF Don Green DAT El DEPT HEADS IT-AEC DIR PL�� Sales Manager j O LITIL DIR 2-HR DIR Floor Connection, Inc. Nov n 11 &KLe`__ P. 805.781.0767 F. 805.781.0783 i stz crry AWS G,Ty 4tGli: Floor Connection, Inca P. 805.781.0767 F. 805.781.0783 i , C 1 From: Kalbus, Kurt[SMTP:KURT.KALBUS@COBHAM.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:15:50 PM To: Council, SloCity Subject: Laguna Lake dredging Auto forwarded by a Rule I know that the expense of dumping the material is a problem. Why don't you just dump in along the shoreline? I don't think anyone would object to increasing the size of their lot a little. Half my lot has been eroded into the lake anyway, I wouldn't mind getting it back. I don't think that it would decrease the size of the lake significantly and"anyway a slightly smaller nice lake is better than a bigger crappy one. Thanks, Kurt Kalbus 1314 Oceanaire 4IIiIIIIIIII�j�IIIIIII��II�I� City Clerk Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo z z77 August 17, 2010 TO: Mayor Romero & Members of the City Council RECEIVED AUG 17 2010 FROM: Elaina Cano, City Clerk �G SLO CITY CLERK VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: Laguna Lake Dredging Mayor Romero has requested that the attached Red File be distributed in anticipation for a presentation he will give regarding Item B3 - Laguna Lake Dredging. 25-COUNCIL ErCDD DIR a ['Ia'a a Cita [T-FIN DIR RED FILE aAeAe Ac"t 2-FIRE CHIEF C'ATrORNEY 3-PW DIR MEETING AGENDA Z`CLERK/ORIG aPOLICE CHF 111 DEPT EADS R3 AEC DIR DA 11 I ITEM # Pt C1"UTIL DIR �1721a1411E. Q'HR DIR / NEW -non6S CBu c / Stv Qr7 N&03 dtrq M62 Cto2-<- ��uau��� 9�����►coup r cel m C :sat alUl§'OBIS nC "Coumm� _rL�r L,„ ,0'ACAO .(a'FIRE CHIEF ZATIFORNEY JZPW DIR RECEIVED 1 DATE: ' February 1, 2005 Z DCLER HFO�R S $POLICE CHF' , ; a�.REC DIR . FEB 2 LITIL DIR TO: City Council A' __ .P HR DIR SLO CITY CLERK . FROM: David F. Romero RED FILE SUBJECT: Study Session Item 4-Laguna Lake Dredging MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM #S Following are my thoughts regarding Laguna Lake dredging. I'm planning on presenting them at the beginning of the Council discussion period. A. 100 years from now, do we want a lake or a marsh? Answer: A lake is a much better choice. B. To preserve the lake, it must be dredged. What should be the borders/boundaries of the maintained lake? Answer: The lake should be dredged within City ownership, with portions near houses and formal park finished to an urban standard. Remote areas can be left more natural. C. How deep should the dredging be? Answer: Combine information from various studies so as to minimize mixing of bottom sediment due to wind action, minimize plant growth from the lake bottom and maximize lake surface uses such as sailing. Depth should be determined from the flow line of the box culvert under Madonna Road, which represents the "beginning of summer" water level. D. What method should be used for dredging? Answer: The least expensive and most practical method would be with use of a suction dredge. E. Where and how would dredging spoils be disposed of? Answer: By far the cheapest and easiest location for disposal is placement on the Madonna grazing land and the back acreage of Laguna Lake Park. After the material has dried, it can be tilled in as a soil amendment to the existing sparse native material. The contour of the land would not be visibly changed and the soil would be more fertile. F. What would the cost be? Answer: The City could lease or lease/purchase a floating diesel-powered dredge and several thousand feet of flexible pipe. There would be dozer cost in creating receiving cells, and with setting up the dredge and laying out pipe. Dredging operations could be carred out by a small crew of part-time temporary City employees. Costs would be a G:\Council Support&Corresp\City Council Correspondence\Romero\Communication Items\Laguna Lake Dredging.doc i Laguna Lake Dredging February 1, 2005 Page 2 fraction of those listed in the report. Work could be conducted seasonally, weather or budget permitted. G. Would there be flood protection benefits? Answer: The dredging program would not provide additional flood protection. However, flood protection could be provided relatively inexpensively by placing a flapper gate on the lake side of drains leading from Oceanaire into Laguna Lake, and connecting the catch basins on Oceanaire to a drainage pipe which would discharge to the Laguna Lake outlet on the easterly side of Madonna.Road. H. What are the obstacles to the dredging program? Answer: The biggest obstacle is "political will'. The City has been unable to move ahead on this issue for over 35 years as the lake has continued to deteriorate. I believe regulatory and funding obligations could be resolved if there were firm Council direction to move ahead. From: mikehesser44@att.net [SMTP:MIKEHESSER44@ATT.NET] RECEIVED Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:35:13 AM AUG 12 2010 To: Council, SloCity Subject: Laguna Lake Treatment SLO CITY CLERK Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear City Council, Here we go again. Laguna Lake being treated shabbily and with disdain. Hearings going back to 2005 on dredging, meetings at 4 PM instead of regular meeting times and now a card telling us of a meeting to "Suspend work on dredging project. . . " and a time is not even posted on the card. The mayor made excellent suggestions for defraying the costs and no one listened and now it is being dismissed. Shame on you for the neglect of the city's "largest" asset. Michael Hesser RED FILE atOUNCIL L-'CDD DIR 2'FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA �"�^�n 2TIRE CHIEF DA �� �° ITEM # 1� [3'ATTORNEY C'PW DIR [3'CLERK/ORIG Q POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS ©-REC DIR LTA—IA;e UTIL DIR AJ fl MGA COU NCc� E CYRo GP C—nlFYi� Pj-�17�NC�L r CDD DIR LJ eA5 G01 Cl-FIN DIR From: Brett Cross[SMTP:BRETTCROSS@YAHOO.COM] ff�AGA9 AIYFIRE CHIEF Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:52:55 PM D�ATTORN Ci'PW DIR To: Council, SloCity 13'tLERK4RId T POLIOE CHF Cc: Richard Schmidt 13 DEPT HEADS DREG DIR Subject: Laguna Lake Dredging Item B-3 r UtIL DIR T7Zt6 O HR DIR Auto forwarded by a Rule - - NKJ 1I M65 ' 6AC COV A4'" Ci 7t,Air. Dear Mayor and Council Members, I would like to express my complete and utter dissatisfaction regarding the staff report that has been prepared for the Laguna Lake dredging project. Not dissatisfaction with the fact that staff is recommending that the dredging project be postponed,most likely indefinitely,but the way that staff has gone about "creating" their recommendation with glaring omissions, fabricated conclusions, contradictory statements, scare tactics that 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 Park Master Plan community workshops where participants overwhelming indicated that the Lake needed to be dredged. Is that honest?. The 1982 Laguna Lake Master Plan was 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 area residents. Throughout the report staff continues to make it seem that only lake residents are concerned about the future of Laguna Lake. Staff may want you as council members to believe it,but that perception is absolutely untrue. It's true that the public has been worn down and worn down some more from meeting after meeting regarding the dredging issue and have basically given up attending another"useless" meeting, If this council made it clear to the public that the City is truly interested in seeing a project move forward you would see the public support. Here's the actual language from the 1980 Laguna Lake Management Plan. It would be well worth your effort to read it. "that.Laguna Lake be restored to provide the recreational opportunities afforded in the past, while preserving the widlife habitat which 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 of Lopez Lake without the motorboats. The staff report references at 1950's Laguna Lake Committee reporting to the Council which states that "a very intensive use was being 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 public support for swimming or boating. I can tell you that as a youngster I swam in the lake all the time. I can also tell you that there the lake was frequently used by sailboats. These uses only stopped as the lake became more and more shallow and the water quality declined significantly. RECEIVED RED FILE AUG 16 2010 -- MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK DA S r 9 Le rw# 3 C, � Staffs comment that the 1982 plan didn't propose dredging as the first plan of action is correct but staff omitted the Lake Management objectives; which include "MAINTAIN 3 TO 4 FEET OF LAKE DEPTH AT SEASONAL LOW WATER LEVEL (i.e level of 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 meeting objectives not whether a particular plan of action should be place in some sequential order. Where the report really borders on the edge of completely lying through omission begins 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 the lake." It appears to the public that the lake is getting smaller ." Go back to the 1993 Park MasterPlan 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 lake getting smaller are Oceanaire residents. By the way the lake has silted in significantly where the Prefumo Ann use to began and there is now land where the Central Area of the 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 Parks and Recreation Commission and Council meetings, there were no comments from 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 the Parks and Recreation Commission doesn't tape their meetings I guess all anyone can use for reference is their notes. Staff also indicates though the 1993 Park MasterPlan survey that was conducted of park users "It would appear from this information that the lake as it is today,provides the habitat and the appearance that is wanted by the majority of the park users ." That is a completely inaccurate conclusion from that report, and you know 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 has reasonable depth for low draft water craft to traverse much of the lake. The City's own 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 with the new City Manager). That proves it right there. I don't think so. Try going out in the fall. I went out in my fancy new kayak last year and there were few places in the Central 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 that are found throughout the lake-especially with the new City Manager aboard. If any of 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 whole Depth Survey information and it's accompanying conclusions are a complete fabrication. The staff report states, "but there have also been voices in opposition, noting 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, has expressed a concern that spending money on the lake would take away from higher priority recreation programs ." A long time ago there was one resident that lived in the 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 an 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 out that they don't have the time and if the City doesn't complete Hydromodification Management Plan as part of the Stormwater Management Plan implementation in the next 2 years as required by regulatory authority of the Regional Water Quality Control Board . This effort is a very high priority to the Regional Board, thus increasing the 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 horse before they stop?. Now on to a little more positive approach to how the City can save a truly unique 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 that Lopez provides County residents without the power boats. Additionally Laguna Lake had a much more diverse waterfowl than Lopez Lake. All that's been pretty much lost due to the lake silting up. I don't think that is up for much debate. The issue is how much "real" community support there is for dredging if the residents have to pay for the project through a parcel tax. A parcel tax is pretty much the only way that this project can be funded even with matching grant funds. I believe the Council needs to use the exact same method that was used to pass measure Y and direct staff to survey the public on how much they would be willing to pay annually and what that total amount would be to get the project started. Then create a group of citizens to act as a campaign committee to get a ballot measure passed. Sincerely, Brett Cross 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 tip car elnx- �; r!COUNCIL --CDD DIR ' C3 EAD CM ET FIN DIR ETAGA&AaM 019RECHIEF ErA70RNEY 2-PW DIR From: Robert Collins[SMTP:MARLEY2RLC@GMAIL.COM] 1211CLERK/CRIG Q'POLICE CHF Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:17:13 AM ❑ DEPT HEADS 2'REC DIR ?lC5 CYUTIL DIR To: Council, SloCity O'HR DIR Subject: Laguna Lake V&w 17w6,s tow�JccL Auto forwarded by a Rule 5LO CK4 #J(,,Ws e- AG2 . cc.c�ruc We have been home owners in the Laguna Lake area for the past 20 years. Our first house was on Oceannaire and since 1996 we have owned a"lake side"home on Vista Del Lago. About a year ago we moved to the Vista Del Lago home permanently after retiring. For the these past 20 years as Laguna Lake home owners, the question of whether to dredge or not has come up several times and always with the same result, no action. Meanwhile we have talked to people who grew up in this area and listened to the stories of how much the lake has deteriorated. A major part of this deterioration apparently happened when a development up Perfumo creek, allowed a major amount of dirt and debris to be washed into the lake many years ago. What was done about that? Was there ever an effort by the city council to correct this? Did the city council do anything to the developers who allowed this to happen? I realize money is a huge factor in dredging the lake,but over the years of watching the city councils address improving the lake it seems there is a lot of apathy. Money always seems to be the easy way out, "sorry, no money,postponed indefinitely, next item on the agenda". Is that because none of the city council members live in the Laguna Lake area, so they don't see the improvement of the lake that important to them? I don't mean make the lack of action in dealing with the dredging issue entirely the fault of the city council (past and present). But, where else can we go for help? I support the mayor's compromise, if we can't afford the full dredging, at least do some dredging to start helping to restore the lake. Thank you for reading this. From: Linda Collins[SMTP:ONESPARKLESISTER@GMAIL.COM] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:25:47 AM RED FILE To: Council, SloCity Subject: The Lake MEETING AGENDA Auto forwarded by a Rule DA 2 /a ITEM # 8 3 Please consider doing something to help stop Laguna Lake from becoming something that use to be! The wealth of wildlife that use the lake for food and water would be gone forever if the lake fills in. Even a small step like a partial dredge from the mouth of Perfumo Creek where the silt comes in would be a large help in preventing the lake from becoming but a memory. Myself and all of the neighbors I've talked to would be willing to pay a sum yearly to help keep Laguna Lake a lake. RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 SLO CITY CLERK f From: Kerry and Kent Taylor[SMTP:KKPT3@SBCGLOBAL.NET] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:28:17 AM To: Council, SloCity Cc: kkpt3@sbcglobal.net Subject: Laguna Lake Dredging Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, We urge you to not abandon the dredging of Laguna Lake. A healthy lake assists with flood protection, helps control mosquitoes, and serves as valuable community recreation asset and amenity. If the General Fund needs to supplementary revenue to finance a dredging program, we would support the establishment of some sort of taxing district or improvement zone in the Laguna Lake area to help finance a dredging effort. We do not live next to the lake but we consider it a wonderful benefit to the neighborhood and the community. Thank you for considering our views. From: Linda Collins[SMTP:MARLEY2LINDA@GMAIL.COM] Sent: Monday,August 16, 2010 9:33:55 AM To: Council, SloCity Subject: A Plea to Keep the Lake Auto forwarded by a Rule Such a gem for the city. Unusual and unique to have a city lake. Are we being as creative as we can be in finding funds to dredge? Seems like developers,be it for Cosco or Target, usually pay something for street improvements as part of their "package" to be allowed to build. Why not attach some part of a dredge fee to the next developer who wants to build in our city? Or perhaps some other not yet thought of way to find some funds. Thank you for listening all these years to this particular issue, and please consider at least a partial dredge to save the lake. O .J From: Lori Lawson[SMTP:LORILAWSON357@YAHOO.COM] RECEIVE Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 5:00:42 PM AU6 17 2010 To: letters@thetribunenew.com Cc: Council, S1oCity SLO CITY CLERK Subject:LAGUNA LAKE Auto forwarded by a Rule Please see the attached letter from my 92 year old father, Gerard L. Parsons, regarding the situation at Laguna Lake. He is very passionate about this and hopes that you will read his letter at the city council meeting and print the information in the letters to the editor in the Tribune. Thank.you for your support. - Lori Lawson (daughter to Gerard), San Luis Obispo 848 Venable Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 J805) 543-9202 ugust 16, 2010 Editor RED FILE The Tribune MEETING AGENDA San Luis Obispo, CA DAT 1-7 o ITEM # B3 Editor Sir: SUBJECT: Laguna Lake Let's pass a bond issue to restore this recreational area. We now have an area to dispose of the spoils. If we restore our local facility, it will become a wonderful recreation area for the citizens of our community. Kindest personal regards, gAnz CeR7 Gerard L. Parsons �COUNCIL 17CDD DIA Sixth Generation Californian ffrE�r „A CTFIN DIR aA NNEY7 C�"Pw D RHIEF GLP:III 2-CLERK/ORIG L3-POLICE CHF ❑ D PT HEADS Q'REC DIR Copy to: San Luis Obispo City Council Members uNE allTIL DIR a HR DIR 'Le cer{ s c.ry M�2 From: Leslie McKinley[SMTP:MOM@BENJAMINCOMMUNICATIONS.COM] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:24:53 PM To: Council, SloCity Subject: Dredging of Laguna Lake Auto forwarded by a Rule Good evening - we have attended several council meetings regarding the dredging of Laguna Lake, and heard many times that we would be contacted for follow-up regarding this issue. Unfortunately, although we have offered to be involved with community involvement, etc. , we have never been contacted, and now we have learned from the newspaper that the deciding vote will occur tomorrow evening. We will definitely be at the council meeting to once again voice our concern about the lake and its condition. We hate to see this resource for our community be allowed to fall into such disrepair. We encourage you to utilize whatever resources are at your disposal - by they community support, city support, grant support, whatever - to help the city maintain what should become something that all of its citizens point to with pride. Thank you for your time and consideration of this vote that will have consequences for generations to come on our city. Gary Enoch and Leslie McKinley 1174 Vista Del Lago San Luis Obispo 36-year residents of San Luis Obispo 10-year residents of Laguna Lake From: Lizclarke621 @aol.com[SMTP:LIZCLARKE621 @,AOL.COM] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 6:30:45 PM To: Council, SloCity Subject: Dredging Laguna Lake Auto forwarded by a Rule I'm writing on behalf of many people to beg you to find a way to do some sort of remedial work to keep Laguna Lake a viable and beautiful body of water for the residents of San Luis Obispo to enjoy. I know that city finances are in very tough shape now, but perhaps some ingenuity and creative thinking can bring about a solution. Thank you for all you do for our city. Elizabeth Clarke From: Dave Dawson[SMTP:DAVE@DBMKT.COM] ( duel Cl C. Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:08:42 PM J�Iq,�, To: Council, SloCity C/r'7 !"'i:6/L Cc: Leslie McKinley; mikehesser44@att.net; Sloroberta@aol.com; ��qq //� demills@charter.net; Elarlk@aol.com;fdavidson@charter.net; A5ST aTlf 6/t— ggranneman@att.net;jgranneman@att.net; ladygodiva@charter.net; rl_ lalamo@calpoly.edu; Madey2linda@gmail.com; Marley2rlc@gmaii.com; 4rry MarnaSLP@aol.com; morslo99@sbcglobal.net; nursemarymott@yahoo.com; .5~ft4 444C6l samlarkin@aol.com; Molly Dawson; kevinokimoto@gmail.com RECEIVED Subject: Laguna Lake Auto forwarded by a Rule AUG 17 2010 Council members, SLO CITY CLERK My wife Molly and I live at 1192 Vista Del Lago, which backs up to the creek feeding Laguna Lake.The home was built in 1977 and I am told by neighbors that originally the home was lake- front. We have owned the home since 1995. During this time,we have experienced three significant flooding events, with water backing up onto our and other surrounding property. In a previous Council Meeting discussing the lake, I provided pictures of the flooding. Here are my concerns, which I believe are shared by many in the area. 1. San Luis Obispo has no long term plan for Laguna Lake.Accordingly, it is impossible to budget for any type of improvement. 2. San Luis Obispo is not prepared for a major flood event spreading from a silt-filled Laguna Lake or the eventual Laguna Meadow. 3. San Luis Obispo has not fully discussed the issue with the US Army Corps of Engineers. 4. San Luis Obispo will lose an asset that, if properly managed, is an asset for all citizens. Searching for a Master Plan, the only thing I can find is one dated June 1993 <http://www.ci.san- luis-obisoo.ca.us/parksandrecreation/download/documents/laaunalkmp.pdf> If a newer one is available, it should be published for local citizens. In this era of significant budget constraint, it is all too easy to dismiss Laguna Lake improvements as unaffordable. But this position attempts to shed the responsibility the City inherently accepted back when the Lake was developed and gifted to San Luis Obispo. It's as if a homeowner was given a pool, used it for awhile, but then ignored it because they really didn't accept the commitment to maintain it. When the lake was created,with homes and shopping built around it, the City inherently accepted operating responsibility. But unlike the homeowner analogy, the City risks property and economic damage from flooding and undirected water flow. Besides homeowners, two major shopping centers and three major roadways, including Highway 101, would be adversely affected by Laguna Lake area flooding. San Luis Obispo has never fully capitalized on Laguna Lake as an asset. This also contributes to the City's ambivalence towards the lake, since it is viewed more as a liability. As proof, the very first sentence on Laguna Lake Park on the City's web site reads: Check San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department for West Nile Virus information. I urge the Council to recognize both the City's responsibility to maintain the Lake, as well as develop a long term plan that makes this an asset for all San Luis Obispo citizens. � 1 i ' Dave Dawson Data Based Marketing 354 Pack Street, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-5460 x12 (805)545-5465 fax dave(&dbmkt.com www.dbmkt.com www.thecreditunionmarketer.com i 4Z.D csP -COUNCIL Ci CDD DIR LTeAO CA( 0"FIN DIR aAGAe nc&1 C�-FIRE CHIEF 2-ATTORNEY 2-PW DIR From: Brett Cross[SMTP:BRETTCROSS@YAHOO.COM] ITICLERK/ORIG 13-POLICE CHF Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:01:37 PM ❑ DEPT HEADS0-REC DIR To: Council, SloCity I p�3 CfiUTIL DIR Cc: Richard Schmidt; gkucer@topproducer.com % _ Kms_ 2-HR DIR Subject: Laguna Lake-That vision thing I keep talking aboutnrx�f ,� Auto forwarded by a Rule 54nccry "ws u 7,9 iu o or— a.c�slxsc I'm not suggesting that Laguna Lake become as intensively built out as the follow examples from other communities, however a scaled down version of what is available at Fremont's Lake Elizabeth, Berkeley, and Mountain View's Shoreline recreation area are the kind of possibilities that could be available at Laguna Lake. Here are the links to both plus Berkeley's community sailing program. I sent these links along time ago to Parks and Recreation hoping that they would be forwarded to commission members but I doubt anything ever happened because I never heard back from anyone. htta://www.fremont.;;ov/index.aMx?NID=317 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA http://www.shorelinelake.com/ DAf 7 (OITEM # 83 httv://www.cal-sailiniz.orp-/ I hope this helps in understanding what this community is missing out on . Sincerely, Brett Cross yes I'm a lake resident Thank you for the postcard informing me of tonight's meeting concerning the dredging of Laguna Lake. Since I am unable to attend the meeting, I wanted to give my support for dredging Laguna Lake for these reasons: 1. Recreational use. In the past, sail boats, row boats, wind surfing and other water sports were enjoyed daily on the lake. 2. Dredging the lake would help flood control, allowing Prefumo Creek to flow properly, preventing homes from the surrounding areas from being flooded. I have lived on the lake for over 40 years and I strongly support any efforts to improve Laguna Lake Park and the activities it provides for the city. Sincerely, Donna LaFreniere RECEIVED AUG 16 2019 SLO CITY CLERK