Loading...
R 4030RESOLUTION NO. 4030 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WITH RESPECT TO THE NEWSOM SPRINGS REGIONAL DRAINAGE PLAN PROJECT: 1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; 2) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS; AND (3) ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006 the City formulated a Project Description for the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan ("Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et sec.), the City is lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for discretionary approvals related to the Project; and WHEREAS, the City acting as lead agency, prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of Project implementation; and WHEREAS, all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City for the FEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been evaluated properly, focusing on broad policy alternatives and area wide mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the FEIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these potential effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: (1) changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the FEIR; or (2) such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or (3) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other RVPUB\TEF~63I994 RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 2 considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the City spent approximately six months prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR determining relevant issues and feasible alternatives for consideration in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City consulted with State and local agencies during this period as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on January 11, 2007 noticed to surrounding property owners, agencies and the general public to assist the City in determining the scope of study for the EIR; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was published on or about January 29, 2007 inviting additional comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and WHEREAS, two written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, upon publication of the Draft EIR the City initiated a forty five (45) day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on or about April 23, 2007; and WHEREAS, during this period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092, the City also provided a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Availability on or about April 23, 2007 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to approximately twelve public agencies and two that responded to the Notice of Preparation. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in the local Public Library and made copies available for review at the City Hall offices in Arroyo Grande, California; and WHEREAS, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received approximately 13 written comments, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR; and RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 3 WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR on May 22, 2007; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the FEIR, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR, on or about July 13, 2007 and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution in Exhibit "A" are based upon all of the oral and written evidence presented to it and taken as a whole, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the FEIR which the City Council finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit "B" hereof; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as potentially significant but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significance through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and set forth herein are described in Exhibit "C" hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Exhibit "D" hereof; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record for the Project, including the FEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public meeting or public hearing conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the growth-inducing impacts of the Project considered in the EIR as described below and the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to address the ways a project could be growth-inducing. A project would induce growth if it fosters economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. However, under the State CEQA Guidelines, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial or of significance to the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project is determined to not have the potential to be growth inducing. The storm drainage improvements will reduce flooding to urban areas downstream in the City. The project would result in the removal of existing flooding conditions, but would not directly result in these areas being substantially further developed or subdivided because the areas are generally fully urbanized already. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 4 Whatever further development might arise due to removal of a flood impediment would be under the planned land uses in the General Plan and would not be considered a substantial area of unplanned or premature growth; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the FEIR and described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR need only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most of the project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason" The lead agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby: 1. Certify that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the findings set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Find that the potential environmental impacts of the Project as described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein, are less than significant and, therefore, do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. 3. Find that mitigation measures have been identified in the FEIR which will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, as described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to a level of less than significance. 4. Determine that, to the extent that alternatives were not approved or accepted by the City Council, such alternatives are determined to be infeasible based on specific economic, environmental, social, technological, legal or other authorized considerations as described in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 5. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan are fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 5 6. The Recitals and findings above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. On motion of Council Member Guthrie, seconded by Council Member Arnold, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Guthrie, Amold, Costello, Fellows, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 24"' day of July 2007. RESOLUTION NO. `'ro3~ PAGE 6 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEV ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~~ ~ ~- TIM HY J. C EL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 7 EXHIBIT "A" FEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Findings. The City Council certifies the FEIR based on the following findings: 1. The following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and, therefore, do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: a. Flooding (Impact B5) b. Biological Resources (Impact C1 and C2) c. Cultural Resources (Impact D2) d. Aesthetics e. Air Quality f. Geology and Soils g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials h. Land Use and Planning i. Mineral Resources j. Noise k. Population and Housing I. Public Services m. Recreation n. Transportation and Traffic o. Utilities and Service Systems 2. Mitigation measures have been identified in the FEIR and have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significance: a. Agricultural Resources (Impacts/ Mitigation Measures A1, A2, A3 and A4) b. Flooding (Impacts/ Mitigation Measure B1, B2, B3, B4 and B6) c. Biological Resources (Impact/Mitigation Measures C3, C4, C5 and C6) d. Cultural Resource (Impact /Mitigation D1) 3. The City Council has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the FEIR (FEIR, Section V) and Section IV of this Resolution. 4. The City Council has considered and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Plan provided in Section VI attachment as Exhibit A of this Resolution, and the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan are fully enforceable as conditions of project approval. RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 8 5. The FEIR was presented to the City Council, and the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to its approval of the Project. 6. The City Council has determined that the FEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 7. The City Council has determined that the FEIR reflects the Council's independent judgment and analysis. 8. No "significant new information," as defined by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, has been added to the FEIR after circulation and review of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation; and 9. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Arroyo Grande Development Department 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande California, 93420. The custodian for these records is the Director of Community Development. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. 10. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have been identified in the FEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 9 EXHIBIT "B" POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND DO NOT NEED MITIGATION A. Flooding and Water Quality. Impact B5: The discharge of Newsom Springs watershed runoff at the proposed ouffall point on Arroyo Grande Creek has been determined by hydrologic modeling to be in advance of the watershed peak flow in Arroyo Grande Creek at the critical downstream location, and therefore would have a less than significant effect on cumulative flood conditions B. Biological Resources Impact C1: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the temporary and permanent loss of small areas of cropland habitat. This is considered to be a less than significant impact. Impact C2: Implementation of the proposed project and project alternatives would result in the diversion of flows from the base of Newsom Canyon or the Branch Mill Road stone culvert to an Arroyo Grande Creek ouffall location. This is considered to be a less than significant impact. C. Cultural Resources. Impact D2: A number of potentially significant historic resources were encountered within the project boundaries. If the final NSRDP plans encroach on these the City shall conduct further archival and physical investigation of these resources to determine their significance and integrity. These resources are at varying levels of risk of being negatively impacted by the proposed project, however based on the current project description it appears the Project's effects on these will be less than significant. D. Other Effects found to be less than significant. Water Resources- The proposed drainage plan does not involve the use of local water supply. Therefore, no impact on water supply would result, and mitigation is not required. The proposed project would not alter the flow of surface waters in a manner that would substantially affect groundwater recharge that occurs now. Storm waters would be directed to Arroyo Grande creek at a point about one mile upstream of the point the waters currently enter the creek, however, these periodic flood stage volumes do not comprise a significant source of groundwater recharge. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 10 Public Services- As proposed, the project would not result in the necessity for public services such that new or physically altered governmental facilities would be required. Therefore, the project's impacts on public facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Housing- The project would not involve the loss of existing affordable dwelling or the displacement of residences. No impacts on housing are identified. Recreation- The proposed project does not involve the construction of new homes or businesses nor does the project propose to extend existing roads or water and sewer infrastructure. The project would not cause significant numbers of people to visit local recreational facilities. The impact to existing City parks would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Energy- The scale of the project is not large enough to significantly affect energy demand or require the development of new energy sources. Fire Protection-The site is not designated by the Fire Department as a High Fire Hazard area. The project does not involve the construction of habitable structures; therefore, the project would not result in the endangerment of human lives in the event of a fire emergency. In addition, most structures entailed are subsurface and would not be threatened in the event of a wildland fire. The project has no impact on fire protection and no mitigation is required. Hazards- Due to the type of uses contemplated and the scope of the project, the project does not have potential to significantly affect land, water, air or public safety due to a release of hazardous substances. Noise- Future development of the single-family residences and access road could create some temporary noise conditions within 800 feet of construction equipment that may exceed State Model Noise Ordinance noise thresholds for construction noise. There are no noise generating components proposed in the project design. The operational uses of the drainage improvements would not generate substantial noise increases since the project would not attract people or traffic. During the construction phase of the proposed project, significant noise increases may occur. The proposed project would adhere to Municipal Code 9.16.030 E, which states, "Noise sources associated with construction (would be exempt if) such activities do not take place before seven (7) a.m. or after ten (10) p.m. or any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before eight a.m. or after five p.m. on Saturday or Sunday." All projects in the city are subject to this ordinance and adherence would result in a less than significant impact on noise. Air Quality- The proposed project will not have any operational effects on air quality due to vehicle or equipment emissions. Neither will the project produce odors or contribute to any air quality standard violation. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 11 Construction of the proposed drainage improvements will involve ground disturbance that will create the potential for dust (PM' ). The City has a standard requirement for all grading plans to implement dust control measures adopted by the City and derived from San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District guidelines. Implementing this requirement would ensure project related PM10 emissions would not exceed CEQA thresholds. The project would have a less than significant impact on Air Quality and no mitigation would be necessary. Visual Resources- The proposed drainage improvements are generally subsurface or consist of low profile inlet structures and ditches, which taken together, would not significantly alter the visual character of the area. In addition, no lighting is proposed as part of the project. Project impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation would be necessary. Traffic-The proposed drainage improvements are generally subsurface or consist of low profile inlet structures and ditches, which as proposed, would not significantly alter existing streets and roadways, and therefore, would not interfere with emergency access, parking capacity or adopted policies or plans involving alternative transportation. The project does not involve any traffic producing activity capable of impacting level of service ratios or air traffic patterns. During construction the movement of heavy equipment and materials would be on public streets and would not create a safety of traffic congestion problem. The movement of these on farmlands would be subject to negotiations and easement terms with the affected farm operators and landowners. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on traffic and no mitigation is required. Geology and Soils-The effects on soils are discussed in sections IV-A Agricultural Resources and IV-B Flooding Hydrology and Sedimentation. The project is located in an area that could be subject to liquefaction and soil subsidence, however, the nature of the drainage improvements would not place these at risk and standard engineering practices can assure the improvements would remain intact in a seismic event. There are no geologic formations that could pose a hazard or constraint within the project area. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 12 EXHIBIT "C" A. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED Agricultural Resources. Potential Significant Imoacts. Impact A1: Construction activities to place stormdrain pipes could result in the displacement of prime topsoil with subsoils of lesser productivity on the surface. This would be a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources. Impact A2: Construction of subsurface storm drain pipes could permanently disrupt and adversely affect farming operations if the pipe is less than 36 inches deep and/or the pipe placement disrupts existing subsurface drains in the fields that are needed to lower the water table. This would be a significant adverse impact on agricultural resources. Impact A3: Construction of a new drainage channel along Branch Mill Road to carry a 100 year storm water volume would require conversion of 1.34 acres of prime farmland. This effect is considered a significant impact on agricultural resources under City policy Ag1-4.1 because the magnitude of the loss of farmland exceeds the intent of the policy exception for drainage improvements on prime farmland. Impact A4: The conversion of up to 2.2 acres of prime agricultural land for use as a detention/sedimentation basin is a significant impact on agricultural resources under City policy Ag1-4.1 because the magnitude of the loss of farmland exceeds the intent of the policy exception for drainage improvements on prime farmland. 2. Findings. Impact A1, A2, A3 and A4 will be reduced to a level of less than significant with the imposition of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure A1: To mitigate adverse effects on prime soils, the construction of storm drain pipes shall be required to excavate and stockpile the topsoil layer approximately 18 to 24 inches deep and replace the soil at the correct bulk density on the surface after pipe placement. The depth of excavation and stockpile for each mapped soil type shall be determined in the field prior to construction by test pits exposing the soil profile. A qualified soil scientist, agronomist or agricultural expert shall confirm the depth of topsoil prior to commencing with construction. All disturbed farm roads shall also be restored to originally condition. Supporting Explanation A1: The topsoil layer on the affected agricultural lands will be set aside in stockpiles and replaced at the correct bulk density on the surface after pipe placement. A qualified soil scientist, agronomist or agricultural expert shall confirm the depth of topsoil prior to construction, so RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 13 the prime topsoil would be separated from subsoils of lesser productivity within the soil profile. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that prime topsoil would not be displaced with subsoils of lesser productivity on the surface. Mitigation Measure A2: To mitigate potential adverse effects on existing and future farming operations, storm drain pipes in prime farmland shall have a minimum of 36 inches of soil cover to allow deep ripping. Any existing subsurface drain pipes in the farmed areas shall be located prior to storm drain design and construction and reconfigured as necessary to maintain the function of lowering the water table seasonally. Supporting Explanation A2: This is standard mitigation to maintain the ability to deeply rip soil. By maintaining a minimum of 36 inches of soil cover, storm drainpipes would be deep enough to allow deep ripping of topsoil. Mitigation Measure A3: To mitigate significant impacts due to loss of prime farmland, capacity enlargements to convey storm water from the Branch Mill culvert to the new inlet structure on Branch Mill (at the stone culvert) shall either be a subsurface storm drain pipe or an alternative alignment of this storm drain pipe (as described in Sections I and V of the EIR), subject to Mitigation measures Al and A2, designed so that no net loss of existing farmed land occurs. Supporting Explanation A3: By requiring the inlet structure be placed 36 inches beneath the surface (see Mitigation Measure A2), future farming operations on this areas would be maintained and no net loss of existing farmed land would occur. Mitigation Measure A4: To mitigate the loss of up to 2.2 acres of prime farmland resulting from storm water basin construction, locate the basin higher in the watershed in areas of non-prime land soils, or if infeasible due to conflicts with Agricultural Preserve contracts on upstream properties, size the NSRDP storm water conveyances to avoid the need for a basin. Supporting Explanation A4: The mitigation measure requires that the conversion of 2.2 acres prime farmland be avoided. B. Flooding, Hydrology & Water Quality. 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Impact 61: The following project components have potential to result in an increase in sediment load discharging to the creek by causing incidental, operational erosion, a potentially significant impact: • Expansion of the Branch Mill Road ditch instead of a storm drain pipe could result in more potential erosion from the ditch • Pipe inlets and outlets could cause local scouring. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 14 • Outlet from bioswale at Cherry Creek development could cause scouring in Arroyo Grande Creek. Impact B2: Construction phase operations will expose soils and have the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation, a potentially significant impact. Impact B3: The proposed stormwater basins may not function adequately due to high groundwater levels. The southerly basin conflicts with the State Water Project pipeline. These are significant adverse effects. Impact B4: Based on hydraulic modeling, storm drain outtall locations further upstream from the existing gaging station have the potential to increase flood stage creek levels significantly. Impact B6: Incorporation of a stormwater detention /sedimentation basin into the Project could have a beneficial effect by reducing sediment reaching the creek, but could also have potentially sidgnificant cumulative impact on flooding downstream at the Highway 1 / 22" Street bridge creek reach if the basins are not designed to address the appropriate range of design storms, timing and storm duration. 2. Findings. Impact 61, 62, B3, 64 and B6 will be reduced to a level of less than significant with the imposition of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation 61: To reduce potential operational effect in drainage conveyance that could increase sedimentation to Arroyo Grande Creek, the design of each project component shall incorporate long term measures to minimize erosion and outtall scour and implement the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required in Mitigation Measure 62. Supporting Explanation B1: This is standard mitigation to ensure sedimentation is controlled over time. The mitigation measure requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which would include long term erosion control measures. Mitigation Measure 62: To reduce potential construction stage sedimentation impacts, the City shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit. This shall include preparation and submittal to the RWQCB of aCity-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan that specifies the implementation of Best Management Practices to avoid and minimize water quality impacts as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Supporting Explanation 62: Obtainment of a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit would ensure erosion and sedimentation would be minimized to a less than significant level. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 15 Mitigation Measure B3: To avoid impacts to the State Water Project pipeline and ensure adequate basin functions, the final site selection and design of a detention basin shall avoid the State Water Project pipeline easement. Final design shall include soil investigation to determine seasonal ground water levels, and if necessary, include design of an above ground impoundment, (i.e. the basin is surrounded by an embankment). Supporting Explanation B3: The mitigation measure requires avoidance of the State Water Project pipeline, therefore the project would result in no impact on the State Water Project pipeline. Final design of the project would ensure the proposed stormwater basins would not be impacted by seasonal ground water levels. Mitigation Measure 64: To avoid potential significant increases in the creek flood level, the outlet from the NSRDP facilities shall be located as shown on DEIR map 3, downstream of the existing Arroyo Grande Creek gaging station or upstream a distance that provides a uniform distribution of ouffall water across the channel. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring shall be per the Tract 2653 CEQA approvals. Supporting Explanation 64: Locating the NSRDP outlet structure downstream of the stream gage or upstream a distance that provides a uniform distribution of outfall water across the channel would ensure the creek flood level would not be significantly increased and would allow the County to continue to accurately gage stream levels and flow. Mitigation Measure Bfi: To mitigate potential adverse cumulative effects of the discharge of stormwater from the Newsom Springs watershed upon downstream creek reaches, the design of the proposed stormwater detention /sedimentation basin shall include detailed hydrologic modeling and hydrologic calculations to determine the precise design parameters of the basin and basin discharge system to ensure that the appropriate range of design storm events, timings and storm duration factors are considered. The design must demonstrate that the basin would not adversely effect flood levels in Arroyo Grande Creek at critical downstream reaches and shall document San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department concurrence with proposed design features and hydraulic calculations that ensure there are no significant impacts to downstream creek levels. Supporting Explanation B6: The measure requires detailed hydrologic modeling and hydrologic calculations to ensure the stormwater detention / sedimentation basin would be designed to avoid flooding downstream at the Highway 1 / 22nd Street bridge creek reach. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 16 C. Biological Resources. 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Impact C3: Construction of an ouffall structure in Arroyo Grande Creek and bank repair activities may result in direct impacts on the southwestern pond turtle and coast range newt in the riparian corridor including injury or mortality from construction equipment, and from temporary loss of habitat from construction of the stormwater culverts and outfall structure. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact. Impact C4: Construction of an ouffall structure in Arroyo Grande Creek and bank repair activities may result in direct impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory birds including raptors as a result of tree removal and ground disturbing activities that may cause loss of nest sites, reduced nest site success, and/or potential nest abandonment. The CDFG Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 prohibit the possession and destruction of birds, nests, and/or their eggs. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact. Impact C5: Diversion of stormwater flows from the Newsom Springs drainage at the base of Newsom Canyon or the stone culvert and construction of the stormwater ouffall structure on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek within the riparian habitat may result in the fill of waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction of the Corps and/or result in the substantial alteration of the bed, bank or channel of the creek under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Placement of a diversion structure at the stone culvert and removal of riparian vegetation and work on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek would fall under CDFG jurisdiction. Final design of the stone culvert diversion structure and Arroyo Grand Creek ouffall structure would determine if Corps jurisdiction would be impacted (fill below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) requiring a permit or authorization from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Impact C6: Construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure, and/or bank repair activities on the banks within the riparian habitat of Arroyo Grande Creek and/or within the channel may result in the take of the federally listed threatened CRLF and/or steelhead from direct mortality, harm (habitat modification), or harassment (alteration of behavior affecting reproduction and survival). Take of a federally listed species would require a permit or authorization under the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. 2. Finding. Impact C3, C4, C5 and C6 will be reduced to a level of less than significant with the imposition of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure C3: Potentially significant impacts on the southwestern pond turtle and coast range newt would be mitigated to a RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 17 less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). A qualified biologist shall perform one pre-construction survey for southwestem pond turtles and coast range newt immediately prior to initiation of culvert/outfall structure construction and/or bank repair activities. Supporting Explanation C3: The pre-construction survey is typical mitigation for identifying habitat for southwestern pond turtle and coast range newt. Implementing the survey immediately prior to initiation of culvert/outfall structure construction and/or bank repair activities would ensure that these species are avoided to the greatest extent feasible during construction. Mitigation Measure C4: Potentially significant impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory bird species would be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). All tree removal shall be limited to the time period of September 15`" to March1s`, which is considered to be outside the typical breeding season for birds. If it is not feasible to avoid the bird-nesting season and trees will be removed between March 1S` and September 1S`, apre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be pertormed by a qualified biologist. If active birds nests are located during pre-construction surveys within the project area subject to tree removal or ground disturbance, the nest site shall be avoided until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. If determined necessary by a qualified biologist, anon-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around each nest for the duration of the breeding season until such time as the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by the qualified biologist. Supporting Explanation C4: Limiting construction to the time period outside the typical breeding season is standard mitigation to avoid impacts on nesting birds. Preconstruction surveys and avoidance of nests is also standard mitigation if construction during the nesting season cannot be avoided. Mitigation Measure C5: Potentially significant impacts on the Newsom Springs drainage and Arroyo Grande Creek from fill or alteration within Corps and/or CDFG jurisdiction would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). The City or its designee, shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage and placement of the culverts and an outfall RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 18 structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. If southwestern pond turtles are observed within an area to be disturbed they shall be relocated out of harms way to the extent feasible by a qualified biologist to an appropriate area immediately upstream or downstream of the project area within Arroyo Grande Creek. Should a permit be required, the City or designee shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage and placement of the culverts and an outtall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. Should an agreement be required, the City or designee shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFG. The CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on riparian habitat and the stream In addition, CDFG requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than- significant level. The City or designee shall plan and implement a Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) to offset impacts on riparian habitat resulting from placement of the outtall structure. The Restoration Plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and/or restoration biologist experienced in native habitat restoration. The Restoration Plan shall be implemented to restore areas disturbed from outtall construction and placement and within any areas within the dedicated open space 25- foot creek setback area measured from top of bank or the outside edge of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater on the Cherry Creek Project site. The Restoration Plan shall include at a minimum a detailed planting plan for the areas to be restored and enhanced for all disturbed areas from culvert/outtall construction. The Restoration Plan shall also include at a minimum the number and location of other native trees impacted and location of replacement plantings, specific plant species palette, anon-native species removal plan, success criteria, afve-year monitoring program, and contingency measures to ensure meeting the success criteria. The Restoration Plan shall also include an erosion control plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas within RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 19 the 25-foot creek setback and exposed banks. The erosion control seed mix for the riparian set-back area shall be composed exclusively of native species. Supporting Explanation C5: Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineers and California Fish and Game permits would ensure potential impacts to the Corps jurisdiction are adequately mitigated. Mitigation Measure C-6: Potentially significant impacts on CRLF and/or steelhead would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). The City or designee shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the CRLF in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the CRLF or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the steelhead in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the steelhead or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by NMFS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City or designee shall implement all the terms and conditions of the NMFS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the NMFS. The NMFS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the NMFS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on the steelhead to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande Creek HCP being prepared by San Luis RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 20 Obispo County which are based on flow regime and in-stream enhancement opportunities for steelhead and CRLF. At a minimum, construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure, and/or bank repair activities shall be designed and constructed in a manner that would provide for in-stream habitat enhancement, and not adversely affect the flow regime of Arroyo Grande Creek or create a barrier to fish passage, and maintain the County's ability to accurately gage stream flows. Supporting Explanation C6: Compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, National Marine Fisheries Service and associate permits, and the San Luis Obispo County Arroyo Grande HCP would ensure that potential impacts to California red legged frogs and steelhead are adequately mitigated. D. Cultural Resources. 1. Potential Significant Imaacts. Impact D1: Three potentially historic resources have been identified within the areas of proposed drainage improvements of this project. All three are stone masonry culverts that may have been built during the 1930s, probably by the WPA or the CCC. At the program level, these structures are assumed to be potentially significant under CEQA. Removal or substantial modifications could result in a significant impact on historic resources. 2. Finding. Impact D1 will be reduced to a level of less than significant with the imposition of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure D1: Avoidance is the preferred method when dealing with cultural resources; where this is determined to not be feasible, further research and investigation is required to mitigate impacts. If the final NSRDP drainage improvement plans would result in a removal or substantial modification to any of the three stone culverts more extensive archival research shall be conducted on the culverts to determine more precisely their historic signiflicance and establish appropriate mitigation for impacts identified. Supporting Explanation D1: The mitigation measure requires avoidance or more extensive research to establish appropriate mitigation. At the program level this is standard adequate mitigation. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 21 EXHIBIT "D" ALTERNATIVES The EIR identified the objectives for the Project as: • Remedy flooding in areas identified in the SWDMP • Improve runoff water quality as it enters Arroyo Grande Creek • Remedy existing creek bank erosion sites dependent on the selected storm drain ouffall point • Maintain or improve the ongoing viability of existing agricultural operations and protect prime agricultural soils from certain flood events A. Alternative 1 -'No Proiect' Alternative. Description. No project means that the Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan would not be adopted to guide City efforts to remedy existing flooding and sedimentation problems. The following project objectives would not be met: • Remedy flooding in areas identified in the SWDMP • Improve runoff water quality as it enters Arroyo Grande Creek • Remedy existing creek bank erosion sites dependent on the selected stormdrain ouffall point The drainage improvements associated with Tract 2653 (Cherry Creek) have separate approvals and adopted CEQA findings, therefore, these improvements could be constructed without the NSRDP being adopted. The City's Storm Drainage Master Plan would continue to guide capital project development to improve identified drainage problems. With No Project, the upstream drainage improvements would not be part of a regional plan for drainage and flooding. All the associated adverse, but mitigable, environmental effects on agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources and flooding and water quality identified in EIR section IV would be avoided. All the beneficial effects of implementation of the proposed project components would be deferred, such as reduced sedimentation, reduced flooding of farm fields, alleviation of flooding in downstream urban locations, etc. 2. Findin .The City Council finds that the No Project alternative, is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. 3. Supporting Explanation. Under the 'No Project' Altemative, the Project would not be adopted nor implemented. The 'No Project' alternative would RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 22 defer remediation of flooding in areas identified in the SWDMP and other project objectives and beneficial effects. B. Alternative 2 -Alternative Storm Drain Alignments Description. Alternative 2 examines the possibility of finding an alternative storm drain alignment for the proposed Project. The alternative storm drain pipe alignments are shown on Map 3 in section I of the EIR as components #10 and #11. These three alignments were selected by the City for evaluation as alternatives to the Proposed Project component #7 (upgrade capacity of the existing ditch along Branch Mill Road). These alignments would entail a storm drain pipe to convey the storm water. The alignments cross existing farm land. Alignment #10 has two potential upstream starting points at Branch Mill Road. Both of these alignments proceed northwest across the fields owned by Hilo Fuchiwaki. The westerly route crosses a corner of the Dixson Ranch and then runs across farmland owned by Dennis Miller. The easterly alignment runs directly northwest, avoiding the Dixson Ranch, and crossing the Miller property. Both alignments have a single general ouffall point at the Creek. Alignment #11 is a generalized concept that runs at a diagonal northwest across Dixson Ranch to a collection area along East Cherry Avenue (component #4). The exact angle of alignment could vary depending on the design of the collection facility at East Cherry (refer to discussion in EIR sections IV-A and IV-B). 2. Findina. The City Council finds Alternative 2, alternative Storm drain alignments #10, is not environmentally superior to the proposed project due to slope constraints to the ouffall point at the creek and effect on flood levels in the creek, which may result in greater environmental impacts on flooding and biological resources than the proposed project. 3. Supporting Explanation. Based on the data and design specificity available, the proposed ouffall location appears environmentally superior to the alternative storm drain alignments. The alternative alignments may require a larger pipe due to the flat gradient imposed by topography. This in turn limits pipe cover to enable an exit point high enough on the creek bank to avoid scour and backwater effects during flooding. 4. Findina. The City council finds Alternative 2 alignment #11 shown on map 3 of the EIR as functionally and environmentally equivalent to the proposed project storm drain route #7 and may be considered an alternative route in the NSRDP. 5. Supporting Explanation purpose as alignment utilizes the proposed environmentally. . Alternative alignment #11 acheives the same #7 with similar levels of mitigable impacts and ouffall location shown to the be superior RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 23 C. Alternative 3 -Alternative storm drain outtall creek ouffall location 1. Descriotion. Alternative 3 is the combined alternative alignment (Alternative 2) and alternative outtall point location shown on alignment 10 as location #12 on Map 3 in section I of the EIR. 2. Finding. The City Council finds that combined alternative alignment and ouffall point are considered infeasible alternatives under CEQA because they result in effects that do not meet the project objectives such as loss of agricultural productivity, scouring, impaired flood stage function, and increased impacts on biological resources. 3. Suoaorting Explanation. The alternative ouffall location would require alternative storm drain alignments that would run along a flatter gradient than the proposed alignment. The alternative alignments may require a larger pipe due to the flat gradient imposed by topography. This in turn limits pipe cover to enable an exit point high enough on the creek bank to avoid scour and backwater effects during flooding. The ouffall point would remove more riparian vegetation resulting in potentially greater impacts on sensitive species, than the proposed project ouffall location. RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 24 Exhibit "E" NEWSOM SPRINGS REGIONAL DRAINAGE PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Mitigation Measure A1: To mitigate adverse effects on prime soils, the construction of storm drain pipes shall be required to excavate and stockpile the topsoil layer approximately 18 to 24 inches deep and replace the soil at the correct bulk density on the surface after pipe placement. The depth of excavation and stockpile for each mapped soil type shall be determined in the field prior to construction by test pits exposing the soil profile. A qualified soil scientist, agronomist or agricultural expert shall confirm the depth of topsoil prior to commencing with construction. All disturbed farm roads shall also be restored to originally condition. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Topsoil layer shall be stockpiled and replaced to correct depth for each soil type. 2) Contingency Measure: To be determined by monitoring agronomist, soil scientist or agricultural expert. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City shall require construction contractor to perform test pits, monitoring and stockpile. 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to and during construction. 5) Monitoring Method: Qualified monitor in the field. Mitigation Measure A2: To mitigate potential adverse effects on existing and future farming operations, storm drain pipes in prime farmland shall have a minimum of 36 inches of soil cover to allow deep ripping. Any existing subsurface drain pipes in the farmed areas shall be located prior to storm drain design and construction and reconfigured as necessary to maintain the function of lowering the water table seasonally. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Storm drain placement shall allow for continued deep ripping and functioning subdrain system. 2) Contingency Measure: To be determined by design Engineer in consultation with farmers. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City shall require construction final plans to reflect measures. 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to and during construction. 5) Monitoring Method: Qualified monitor in the field. Mitigation Measure A3: To mitigate significant impacts due to loss of prime farmland, capacity enlargements to convey storm water from the Branch Mill culvert to the new inlet structure on Branch Mill (at the stone culvert) shall either RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 25 be a subsurface storm drain pipe or an alternative alignment of this storm drain pipe (as described in Sections I and V of the EIR), subject to Mitigation measures Al and A2, designed so that no net less of existing farmed land occurs. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Storm drain design shall allow of no net loss of existing farmed land. 2) Contingency Measure: To be determined by design Engineer in consultation with farmers. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City shall require construction final plans to reflect measures. 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to and during construction. 5) Monitoring Method: Qualified monitor in the field. Mitigation Measure A4: To mitigate the loss of up to 2.2 acres of prime farmland resulting from storm water basin construction, locate the basin higher in the watershed in areas of non-prime land soils, or if infeasible due to conflicts with Agricultural Preserve contracts on upstream properties, size the NSRDP storm water conveyances to avoid the need for a basin. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Construct basin on suitable upstream location. 2) Contingency Measure: Size NSRPD conveyances to avoid need for basin. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City shall require construction final plans to reflect measures. 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to and during construction. 5) Monitoring Method: Qualified monitor in the field during construction Mitigation B1: To reduce potential operational effect in drainage conveyance that could increase sedimentation to Arroyo Grande Creek, the design of each project component shall incorporate long term measures to minimize erosion and outtall scour and implement the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required in Mitigation Measure B2. Mitigation Measure 62: To reduce potential construction stage sedimentation impacts, the City shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit. This shall include preparation and submittal to the RWQCB of aCity-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan that specifies the implementation of Best Management Practices to avoid RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 26 and minimize water quality impacts as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring ~~ Implementation Responsibility: Applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent to Planning Department. z~ Contingency Measure: None s) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande a~ Implementation Schedule: A copy of the SWPPP must be maintained on the project site during grading and construction activities. Prior to approval of Land Use Permits the applicant shall submit proof of exemption or a copy of the Notice of Intent and the required SWPPP to Planning and Development Department. 5) Monitoring Method: The City Engineer shall review the documentation prior to approval of Land Use Permits. The City Engineer shall inspect site during construction for compliance with the SWPPP. Mitigation Measure 63: To avoid impacts to the State Water Project pipeline and ensure adequate basin functions, the final site selection and design of a detention basin shall avoid the State Water Project pipeline easement. Final design shall include soil investigation to determine seasonal ground water levels, and if necessary, include design of an above ground impoundment, (i.e. the basin is surrounded by an embankment). Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Design specifics to be addressed in project Preliminary Design Report. 2) Contingency Measure: None 3) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande 4) Implementation Schedule: At the time of development of the Preliminary Design Report for this component 5) Monitoring Method: City verify during approval process. Mitigation Measure B4: To avoid potential significant increases in the creek flood level, the outlet from the NSRDP facilities shall be located as shown on DEIR map 3, downstream of the existing Arroyo Grande Creek gaging station or upstream a distance that provides a uniform distribution of outfall water across the channel. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring shall be per the Tract 2653 CEQA approvals. RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 27 Mitigation Measure Bti: To mitigate potential adverse cumulative effects of the discharge of stormwater from the Newsom Springs watershed upon downstream creek reaches, the design of the proposed stormwater detention /sedimentation basin shall include detailed hydrologic modeling and hydrologic calculations to determine the precise design parameters of the basin and basin discharge system to ensure that the appropriate range of design storm events, timings and storm duration factors are considered. The design must demonstrate that the basin would not adversely effect flood levels in Arroyo Grande Creek at critical downstream reaches and shall document San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department concurrence with proposed design features and hydraulic calculations that ensure there are no significant impacts to downstream creek levels. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Document design features to and hydrologic calculations that ensure no significant impact on downstream creek levels. Document San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department concurrence with proposed design features and hydraulic calculations that ensure there are no significant impacts to downstream creek levels. 2) Contingency Measure: As determined by City Engineer. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to plan approval. 5) Monitoring Method: Subsequent CEQA review for consistency with the NSRDP FEIR. Mitigation Measure C3: Potentially significant impacts on the southwestern pond turtle and coast rang newt would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). A qualified biologist shall .perform one pre-construction survey for southwestern pond turtles and coast range newt immediately prior to initiation of culvert/outfall structure construction and/or bank repair activities. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: A qualified biologist shall perform one pre-construction survey for southwestem pond turtles 2) Contingency Measure: None 3) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to and during start of construction. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 28 5) Monitoring Method: Qualified biologist report to City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department Mitigation Measure C4: Potentially significant impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory bird species would be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). All tree removal shall be limited to the time period of September 15~'to March1s` which is considered to be outside the typical breeding season for birds. If it is not feasible to avoid the bird-nesting season and trees will be removed between March 1S` and September 1S`, apre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If active birds nests are located during pre- construction surveys within the project area subject to tree removal or ground disturbance, the nest site shall be avoided until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. If determined necessary by a qualified biologist, anon-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around each nest for the duration of the breeding season until such time as the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by the qualified biologist. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: All tree removal shall be limited to the time period of September 1S`to March1s` 2) Contingency Measure: Pre-construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist if tree removal is planned for March 1St through September 1S` to ensure no direct impacts on nesting birds. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to and during start of construction. 5) Monitoring Method: Environmental Monitor Report to City Mitigation Measure C5: Potentially significant impacts on the Newsom Springs drainage and Arroyo Grande Creek from fill or alteration within Corps and/or CDFG jurisdiction would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). The City or its designee, shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage and placement of the culverts and an ouffall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. If southwestern pond turtles are observed within an area to be disturbed they shall be relocated out of harms way to the extent feasible by a qualified biologist to an appropriate area immediately upstream or downstream of the project area within Arroyo Grande Creek. RESOLUTION NO. 4030 PAGE 29 Should a permit be required, the City or designee shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage and placement of the culverts and an outtall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. Should an agreement be required, the City or designee shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFG. The CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on riparian habitat and the stream zone. In addition, CDFG requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall plan and implement a Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) to offset impacts on riparian habitat resulting from placement of the outtall structure. The Restoration Plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and/or restoration biologist experienced in native habitat restoration. The Restoration Plan shall be implemented to restore areas disturbed from outtall construction and placement and within any areas within the dedicated open space 25-foot creek setback area measured from top of bank or the outside edge of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater on the Cherry Creek Project site. The Restoration Plan shall include at a minimum a detailed planting plan for the areas to be restored and enhanced for all disturbed areas from culverUouttall construction. The Restoration Plan shall also include at a minimum the number and location of other native trees impacted and location of replacement plantings, specific plant species palette, anon-native species removal plan, success criteria, afive-year monitoring program, and contingency measures to ensure meeting the success criteria. The Restoration Plan shall also include an erosion control plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas within the 25-foot creek setback and exposed banks. The erosion control seed mix for the riparian set- back area shall be composed exclusively of native species. RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 30 Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: The City or designee shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Army Corps. The City shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements). The City shall prepare a Restoration Plan for all disturbed areas. 2) Contingency Measure: None 3) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5) Monitoring Method: City review Permits/Authorizations Mitigation Measure C-6: Potentially significant impacts on CRLF and/or steelhead would be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). The City or designee shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the CRLF in the form of a take permiUauthorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the CRLF or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the steelhead in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the steelhead or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by NMFS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City or designee shall implement all the terms and conditions of the NMFS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the NMFS. The NMFS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. RESOLUTION N0.4030 PAGE 31 Additionally, the NMFS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on the steelhead to aless-than-significant level. The City or designee shall ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande Creek HCP being prepared by San Luis Obispo County which are based on flow regime and in-stream enhancement opportunities for steelhead and CRLF. At a minimum, construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure, and/or bank repair activities shall be designed and constructed in a manner that would provide for in-stream habitat enhancement, and not adversely affect the flow regime of Arroyo Grande Creek or create a barrier to fish passage, and maintain the County's ability to accurately gage stream flows. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for CRLF and steelhead. Consistent with the goals and objectives of the HCP if and when adopted. 2) Contingency Measure: None 3) Implementation Responsibility: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5) Monitoring Method: City note compliance Mitigation Measure D1: Avoidance is the preferred method when dealing with cultural resources; where this is determined to not be feasible, further research and investigation is required to mitigate impacts. If the final NSRDP drainage improvement plans would result in a removal or substantial modification to any of the three stone culverts more extensive archival research shall be conducted on the culverts to determine more precisely their historic significance and establish appropriate mitigation for impacts identified. Mitigation Implementation /Monitoring 1) Performance Standard: Perform historic evaluation and establish CEQA significance based on the actual level of impact resulting from final NSRDP plans. 2) Contingency Measure: To be identified by subsequent analysis. 3) Implementation Responsibility: City Community Development Department. 4) Implementation Schedule: Prior to construction. 5) Monitoring Method: As defined in subsequent environmental determination OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of pery'ury, that the attached Resolution No. 4030 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 24"' day of Juty 2007. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 27'" day of July 2007. /„- KELLY WETM E, CITY CLERK