HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2016 Item 8, Cross1
To:Gallagher, Carrie
Subject:RE: Laguna Lake Dredging Business Item 8
From: "Brett Cross" <
Date: Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:55 PM -0700
Subject: Laguna Lake Dredging Business Item 8
To: "E-mail Council Website" <emailcouncil@slocity.org>, "Hill, Robert" <rhill@slocity.org>, "Friends of
Laguna Lake" <
Cc: "Davidson Rob" < , "Don Green" < , "John Smigelski"
< , "Marie Foley" <
Unfortunately I have a Morro Bay Yacht Club Board meeting I need attend starting a 6:00 PM so I don't know if I will
be able to make it to the meeting. I have a couple of concerns and ideas I would like you to consider.
I'm guessing here, although based on what comments were made at the neighborhood/community forum I think
you're going to hear from residents that they are not convinced that trucking the material to Cold Canyon Landfill is
the best solution. There will be some mention about the usability of the soil for placement on not only the City's
preserve site, but nearer agricultural properties. The methodology for removing the silt will be brought up as well,
plus the project parameters itself . And you're going to hear a lot about who and how the project could or should be
funded.
I mention these issues in particular, not only because they were brought up at the meeting, but because if staff had
involved those of us who have working tirelessly over many, many years to bring a project to fruition those issues
that staff is recommending in the preferred project alternative would not be nearly as contentious as your going to
find them to be.
It was my belief that the City was going to form a working group, such had been done with the Laguna Lake
Management Plan, to work with the consultants and discuss all these issues thoroughly which would have then in
effect had "buy in" from community members who were on the committee and created trust from the greater
community that the recommendations being made were the best alternatives. That wasn't done and now there is a
lot of doubt about the recommendations. Those doubts will make it difficult to gain support not only from those folks
who are supportive of dredging the Lake but even more so for the general community. That support will be needed
in the future if, actually when, the City places a Benefit Assessment District or a Community Facilities District is put
to a vote of property owners.
I'm not too sure what the best alternative is, however as much as it pains me to suggest this, is for the City to take a
step back and truly involve the community in the project and form a working group to at least go over in detail the
why's and why nots of the consultants and staff's recommendations. I believe if you don't do that now the project will
not gain financial support through either a Benefit Assessment District or a Community Facilities District.
Let me address a couple of project related issues.
1. Is the actual dredging project itself, especially the area, methodology, and desired depth. Obviously the dredging
project is dependent on the amount money that the City will have to work with. It's bit of a Chicken and egg problem-
which came first the project or the financing. As Richard Dawkins points out in his discussion about the chicken and
egg problem it may be a moot point. You can recommend any project but it won't matter if the City cannot finance it
and likewise if you can finance a larger project you should do it. That being said the area of the proposed project
alternative that is being recommended should include reestablishing the Prefumo Arm of the Lake to function as a
siltation basin. That portion of the Lake unintendedly became a siltation basin and if it would have been properly
maintained silt would not have deposited into the main body to the degree it has. I don't want to get into an
argument about the City's maintenance the facts speak for themselves. That area needs to be reestablished
Council Meeting: 09-20-2016
Item: 8
2
regardless because it will do no good if that material is scoured out into a newly dredged main lake. The narrow
channel that now exists has allowed the transfer of even more silt as well as heavier deposits into the main lake as
water velocity is no longer reduced. I'm also seriously concerned about the potential for flooding as larger volumes
of water are stopped by all the trees that have now grown in that area. That water is going to find the path of least
resistance and the path will be through the homes along the 1200 block of Oceanaire drive. This concept needs a
thorough vetting which it hasn't had, along with mitigation projects that might be required. Staff is recommending
new siltation areas and work in the creek corridor along the golf course and other erosion control projects. Honestly I
don't think they understand the volume and velocity of water that the Prefumo Creek watershed can create.
Dredging Depth. Honestly I'm not clear as to the depth that will be found during Summer months after typical
evaporation has taken place with project that is being proposed. The depth needs to be sufficient so that turbidity is
no longer an issue. I don't know if this project accomplishes that. That was one of the criteria in the Laguna Lake
Management Plan.
Area. This issue involves financing as well as the methodology. I would suggest that you consider removing
material from the shoreline along the park side and from the Peninsula area as well with either a long reach backhoe
or drag line. You may also be able to gain access behind the homes along Vista del Lago to remove material in the
Lake from the shore. The lake was excavated using these methods. Susan Pratt Soto sent me a message regarding
the original work done by her father and the exact backhoe that was used. Her father is still alive so he could
probably give you more details, but obviously it can be done. Basically the City should be striving to remove as
much material as possible from as many locations as possible. The staff report estimates that 11,900 cubic feet of
material is entering the Lake annually. Let's assume up until around 1978, which is approximately when the Prefumo
Arm completely silted up, and maintenance was insufficient to remove very little of additional materials all of that
material went somewhere. Obviously some of the fine material flowed out and material built up higher in the
Prefumo Arm- level in some places with the adjoining homes, but regardless there is way more silt that has gone
somewhere in the Lake than the 50,000 cubic yards that is being recommended as the project.
I realize that there are quite a few issues that you as Council members will need to seriously spend time on Tuesday
night going over in detail with staff. Laguna Lake is really a treasure even though it's going to take a lot of money to
restore. By the 80's the community and City realized that something needed to be done and put together the Laguna
Lake Management Plan but unfortunately for a lot of reasons we're at where we're at. It's a lot of money that is
being proposed to be spent. I'm even apprehensive looking at some of the costs estimates. Can it be done
cheaper, is this right project that staff is proposing?. I don't really know because unfortunately the input that would
given me confidence never happened. I was extremely lucky to have grown up along the lake. It's unfortunate that
the Lake is in the state it is in. I really wish you folks could have seen the Laguna Lake in the 60's, 70's, and even
into the mid 80's. The lake was really something special. Not just from a recreation standpoint but a habit for
migratory birds, fish, and wildlife. I guess in the end will be up to the community to decide if Laguna Lake is worth
restoring.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo