HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/2009, B1 - LAGUNA LAKE DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT MEETING AGENDA
DATE u ITEM #
ITEM 131
1 . LAGUNA LAKE .DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 17, 2009). (WALTER/LYNCH — 1 HOUR
45 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: 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.
PLEASE NOTE:
ITEM 131 HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE
NOVEMBER 17, 2009, COUNCIL MEETING. THE
AGENDA REPORT MAY BE FOUND UNDER AGENDA
ITEM B2 FROM THAT MEETING.
REC"VED
DEC 01 2009
December 1, 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
Dear City Council,
As residents of San Luis Obispo since 1967 and as homeowners on Laguna Lake for 30 years,
we would like to make a brief statement regarding the lake.
No matter what the history of Laguna Lake, it is and should remain the unique treasure within an
urban setting that it is.
Recognizing the complexity of your decision, especially in our current environment,we would
hope that you would not close the door on some type of maintenance program that would allow
future generations to enjoy the treasure that so many of our residents utilize and that we are
priviledged to be amazed at every day.
Respectfully yours,
Glenn D. Carlson Bernice A. Carlson
996 Vista Collados
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Please distribute to Council Members.
.4-COUNCIL :?`CDD DIR
RED FILE i 'NT`t AVA--'?"FIN DIR
- MEETING AGENDA O� AL FIRE CHIEF
Q ATTOTTO RNEY G+PW DIR
DATE-4W1-01 ITEM #�^ D<LERK/ORIG 2 POLICE CHF
t� j O DEPT HEADS E REC DIR
P(� E UTIL DIR
New nmes CouNatL
am MCC
C t.�
i
From: mikehesser44@att.net [mailto:mikehesser44@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:10 PM
To: Lynch, Barbara; Romero, Dave
Subject: Re: Laguna Lake Dredging Council Meeting
I will be out of town on Dec.! when you meet again re: Laguna Lake. I did not wish to
make a scene at the last meeting,however am I the only one who feels the Laguna Lake
project is a second thought to the city? Why then are these subjects brought up at 4 PM? I
am sure there are plenty of folks who actually have to work and do not get off until a
little later. This project, and I repeat "the largest asset that the city has", is always put on
the back burner.
There were so many GREAT ideas that came up on Nov.17. Let's get moving and get this
challenge taken care of.
Thank you,
Michael Hesser
_fD CoPy E�lRr�
RED FILE C--COUNCIL
-:-CDD DIR
MEETING AGENDA 99 AeA&�'6A9 G ni�c`2 CT"FIN DIR
NEY AFIRE CHIEF
DATE i i o ITEM #_a B'CLERK/CRIG DPW DIR
0 DEPT Hjlp EADS ARE t CHF
C?"REC DIR
JZ
C�UTIL DIR
HR D!R
n�rvn�r� �eou+uc��
Ec,
�-- IVED
NOV 2 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
L .
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: mikehesser44@att.net[mikehesser44@att.net] Sent: Tue 12/15/2009 12:01 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Laguna lake with a Voice of reason and more....
Attachments:
Since I missed the.last four o'clock City Council Laguna Lake hearing,
I was pleased to be able to catch it on Ch.20. I realize that you are RECEIVED
all very busy so allow me to make short comments to save some time.
Mayor Romero should be commended for his usual truly caring DEC 16 2009
thoughtfulness and reason. As he did with the Bike Lane controversy
some years ago, he took the problem and gave it a NEW possibility re: SLO CITY CLERK
looking at it from another point of view.
If it is looked at from a reduced cost perspective and SOMEONE
ACTUALLY looks into "matching funds". You could also look at a
possible Corporate sponsor. This could mean hardly any cost directly ('C; 0Gcrrt OU 4
to the city.
After watching the meeting it became clear that the other council P1gA/
members were only negative because, as they repeated numerous times,
"we can't afford it." 64V 6-
Mayor
Mayor Romero made a great suggestion:
Get started by finding out how we get matching funds, get started in
speaking with adjacent property owners, get started with looking at
doing a smaller version of dredging procedure. Get started before we.
lose a valuable and very large city ASSET.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor for being a voice of reason,
Michael Hesser
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUInbox/Laguna%201ake%20with%20a%2... 12/16/2009
I I
council memoRanoum
November 25, 2009
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian
FROM: Sue Chippenda e
SUBJECT: Aerial Photograph of Laguna Lake
An aerial photograph showing surrounding watershed of Laguna Lake has been provided for the
December 1 meeting.
File path
iltD CvP`f E-/n A-lL
RED FILED-EOUNCIL 2-CDD DIR
MEETING AGENDA � 13TIN DIR
IRE CHIEF
2-ATTORNEY 0-PW DIR
DATE- ITEM # 8l [?CLERK/ORIG p POLICE CHF
13 DEPT BEADS D-IREC DIR
2 UTIL DIR
r-:!-HR Dln
Q t,-y htG�
FL w• t S,fir ikh'1�
1• � ~ ,. r t� � { is�"��' � -acn'-�-.r-`11� V n k° J! �r�.�l d - 'T.n�,•- .
•6 f&.i.w �i�y„ Ire H p y:� S! 1� .e , . .I .
W.
n t S. Y
f-. V �� r� •:��
y,
••tr�7R0 /fIlJ
' "�Yj�y 1W^�WY al' �Fl1..al�NO � �t •tyr _.�,���m
r
ticn
�
y
ityf'[�cr,:�q�T4>°"•I i�yE�)"�,f�'I�',� o. � {. m ;. '�� aY{a
t
�
}�r' ..,t •t3)(yzsBaY�' �,}. r JoP' n O 1 ._ i•/` "' "w^ r'hghp rrt}.,y r �.
L a >" 1. L O Y_ 'M/'r p Ip] ,1, n 'I •v:�, �! y a 1 air
Y M .��'Sy�' Oji
'r'.•.�}� !p'3�'a J! T r�"?A §-a r .14O " fit.'. . ..y. �•4r / aaa ItY
�n`rN�1J•tw1+s L ^'(26
hnna w- t r r `�°+,�r`4 ♦n. d "O m n
if
Zyr'�' '.Jt 'L ? f N i" •4Y�, �l1 / (�O '' .'N p l k
r r. ,� # ' Y K. $(i+�4"�^4.";",r 'r. �! p•< A ti:, , � p, e:. :A'•'sJ
f;/'
,, .ry<y-{ r n., r a7. pot•.. -m V x "t t r,
AY
IVY
"Y Na r� 1kK ^�+ 3-iS ).Ca' u ♦ '�9: .�xi:4o$ '..:�,:'.
Lay..r•, ! 3�., w e r r i]Y'+£y;;• �.�J7_ r � t r w '7
t`J wX.;
' >„
''3im�
"'cy s 1•D y ").F s `•'•' /"p v (,f r +,'}j + to - • al +'.; c a
a {rok
w
f IV
" fY Z trir 3§.• l�hY:`• L \x.33_. #"„<JG ~ Y .r,
`.r �s'r
slyy ■
^." 9
F" ]' v J ^ C. 111 N��R 1$y YI VS�r¢y � /sem, ■
�� i'' �N Oe w...•t �� {p f f" J .cwt����
`) �—••"`^'rO' ry i it ✓ .` a��'p^.EJ�rF'S�'`ci'a n r, V..A"`a` �
f 'Irll J r y" ay,.yy
r]Va'q�'�F,, � 1]� Fn r. _ . -•->'a � Q::3n r�j�•y[�b {-�.�/g9' { 4.
Ul
=47 v �4; ! a yLya�ar _
•'�� �1i� nM=�Qi:��.. :. m.i r�. .JOR�i'P■il• �. �T1\ N4�.�ftd:�] ....�.:�.�'��
i I
�IIIIIIIIIII�����IIIII= II
council mcmoizanbum
71
- Ni mP �rRs�
November 25, 2009: 1, R'COUNCIL
[�"CDD DIR
EeAo &tf'Kat Cf FIN DIR
TO: City Council Q-AGAQ C3'FIRE CHIEF
R3 ATTORNEY Cp-Pw DIR
L'`CLERK/ORIG aPOLICE CHF
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager E ❑ DEPT HEADS CfiREC DIR
FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director Ptb C3'UTIL DIR
F";;-HR Gift
SUBJECT: Laguna Lake Dredging Item for 12-1-09 Meeting r"
e max,
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 %P&WILE
1)Environmental Document MEETING AGENDA
DATE! - 1 ITEM #--kL—
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.
Staff's 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 confirm 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
I
through a citizen engagement process, or 3) the Council does not wisn 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
group of representatives. Vv iEhin 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 m, 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.
� 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.ioinclimatesmart.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
I i
$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.
Q10. 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,
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
staff's 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 Prefumo
Creek downstream frog, 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, tinder 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.
i
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 take 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)
Wwore4lteam\muncd agenda reports\public works caA2Mdp\9911011 dredging\12-1-09 cc mtg2 memo.dw
0-4
— Corr C
(IT 1°
1 - 7 -- ---- 1 -
�46- -4--
61
A
i
a;_cJ
To 6L) _e. — �.
-44
—1
� e